FEEDBACK

Readers dispute Dunes benefits

This is in response to the letter by Dunes proponent Roger A. Alford

(“Mailbag,” April 6.) I’d laugh watching Alford shoot himself in the foot

in his attempt to recruit proponents for more development in Newport

Beach. And the Dunes project in particular.

First, he says, the land is “not a particularly pretty sight.” As if a

gigantic hotel and convention center would be the best way to beautify

it. Then he bashes [Bob and Susan] Caustin by saying they want to, “stop

everything in Newport Beach development.” Now, that is what I call

uninformed. He then states, that “restrictions by the community to limit

growth cannot be justified.” His ranting continues with “the remaining

descendants of flower children have never really added anything to

community development except colorful banners and a wasteful burning of

community assets.” This would be funny if it weren’t so sad and bitter.

He next accuses the City Council of compassionately listening to the

citizens whose lives would be severely impacted by certain huge,

improperly located developments. As if this were a bad thing. I would

like to recommend that while Alford is at the hospital getting that foot

checked out, he pay a visit to Susan Caustin. I hear she is an excellent

neurologist.

STEVE LEACH

Newport Beach

I am responding about the Dunes project that was discussed in today’s

Daily Pilot “Planning Commission delays vote on Dunes,” April 7. And

Commissioner Mike Kranzley is quoted as saying, “We got the project down

to a chip shot within what the settlement agreement allowed.”

And the question is, whose chip shot? Mine, which might travel 15

yards? Or one of Tiger Woods’ that would be longer than a football field?

CLAUDIA OWEN

NEWPORT BEACH

City should be concerned about Panther Palace

I am calling in regards to the article about the Panther Palace in

yesterday’s paper (“The ‘Palace’ guard,” April 6). I am just appalled

that you guys would be putting on the front page of a paper this smiling

guy who is running such a business or club. And the other thing is, how

can the city be allowing this to go on in a residential R-1 zone, where

he has admitted that he charges a donation fee and that he does consider

this a business?

There are families on that street. I go walking on that street. There

are lots of families. And these people are coming in and taking parking

spaces and throwing trash down, becoming intoxicated and then walking out

on the street where there are these children and families that can be

taking walks or riding bicycles.

How can this be occurring? This is just not an appropriate business or

activity to be going on in a residential community.

The city shouldn’t be worrying about people’s fences being too close

to the street. They should instead be worrying more about things of this

nature.

DAWN BOWE

Costa Mesa