‘Dear Ron’ letters
Ron Davis’ column claiming that the recent decision by the California
Coastal Commission to protect the lower bench of the Bolsa Chica is a
“taking” is ludicrous (“Does more electricity mean more bacteria?” Jan.
18).
Using Davis’ argument, the city should pay me because it has “taken,”
through zoning, my right to open a dog kennel in my backyard.
After all, I am being denied the right to use my property to its
fullest economic value. Never mind that I moved into my house knowing
that it was in an area zoned for housing and not kennels.
When Hearthside Homes acquired the property on the Bolsa Chica mesa,
it was zoned agricultural. The company had every right to pursue
entitlements to build but certainly never any guarantees that these
entitlements would be granted.
The Coastal Commission does not have an obligation to reward land
speculation. Hearthside acquired the property knowing it is in the
state’s coastal zone and that it had environmentally sensitive habitat
areas that receive special protection under the Coastal Act.
In fact, the company actively worked to have some of the wetland areas
on the mesa reclassified into non-existence so they would not have to be
protected.
Hearthside understood the risks of trying to develop on a piece of
land protected by the Coastal Act.
The Coastal Commission has not taken anything from this company.
Hearthside can still build housing on about 70 acres. I am confident the
commission’s decision will be upheld in court.
DICK LeGRUE
Amigos de Bolsa Chica
Huntington Beach
* EDITOR’S NOTE: Dick LeGrue is the husband of Huntington Beach City
Councilwoman Connie Boardman.
I’d like to give Ron Davis a tour of the Bolsa Chica. If his article
is what he believes about “taking,” he should see firsthand what the
Coastal Commission’s unanimous decision really does.
It is no “taking.” Hearthside Homes, formerly Koll Real Estate Group,
should not even consider suing. It should take a fair price for its
$20-million investment.
The original owner, Signal Landmark, knew when it bought the Bolsa
Chica property that it had archeological sites, wetlands, vernal pools,
an earthquake fault and was the indigenous people’s burial grounds.
EILEEN MURPHY
Huntington Beach
* EDITOR’S NOTE: Eileen Murphy is a member of the Bolsa Chica Land
Trust.
Thievery? I think not. Because of the environmental concerns about the
Bolsa Chica, the Bolsa Chica Land Trust has been asking the owners of the
mesa to become willing sellers for the time of its existence.
The answer has been a consistent “no.”
But let’s look at who the real thieves are here. How about the people
who want to build and therefore steal away the viability of the wetlands?
Besides, no one ever was guaranteed the right to build just because they
own the land.
NANCY DONAVEN
Huntington Beach
I completely agree with Ron Davis’ column. I am 21 and have been
calling Huntington Beach my home for 20 years.
I’ve seen many things in this city that are comical for a lack of a
better word. But the recent decision regarding the Bolsa Chica plan and
now a lack of compensation for Hearthside Homes is appalling to me.
Just for argument’s sake, let’s say the opposition was in the shoes of
Hearthside Homes. I don’t doubt they would fight tooth and nail to
receive just compensation.
I find it amusing that most people who oppose Hearthside Homes really
don’t have the slightest idea what they’re about. It isn’t just building
homes. (Maybe people should spend more time getting educated than
slinging false facts.)
The bottom line is this: Yes, there will be homes. But what about the
restoration and public amenities that the developer will be footing a
hefty bill for?
It seems to me that the citizens of Huntington Beach are losing more
now than the developer ever could.
CASEY ESTRADA
Huntington Beach
Orange County has a power crisis, overloaded sewers, urban runoff,
polluted beaches, overcrowded freeways, water shortages and too many
people everywhere.
It is laughable that some entertain the possibility that developers
have a “right” to continue on their greedy way, building and paving over
every possible square inch of land without responsibility for the damage
they are doing.
For the last half-century, developers have had free reign on building.
Developers have made such enormous profits that they are among the
richest people in the county. They are speculators who take
free-enterprise risks that their projects will make a profit. They should
not expect to be bailed out when it turns out they have made a bad
investment.
In 1950, Huntington Beach had a population of 5,258; today it is
200,000. It is time to pause and take stock of the situation. We need to
solve the problems.
It is pure, unadulterated hypocrisy to speak of property rights as if
they are sacred, when those rights are based on a history of taking land
from Native Americans, who lived at the Bolsa Chica for thousands of
years. And it is time to ask about their rights.
MARINKA HORACK
Huntington Beach
Cheers to Ron Davis for having the courage to speak the truth,
especially in the Independent.
With the attention the Independent pays to these so-called
environmentalists and the obvious spin you have given each story
concerning Hearthside Homes, I was quite frankly surprised that the
editors printed his column at all.
If Hearthside wants to sell the mesa for a conservation area, and if
there is a buyer who can cough up the cash, then so be it.
SHYLA KIRBY
Huntington Beach
Ron Davis’ column proclaiming the actions of the California Coastal
Commission in allowing Hearthside Homes to build 1,235 homes on 65 acres
of the Bolsa Chica mesa to be a “taking” indicates his ignorance of the
facts and the applicable law.
Land speculators are never guaranteed an absolute right to windfall
profits. The Bolsa Chica mesa and the rest of the 2,000 acres of what is
known as the Bolsa Chica was purchased by Signal Landmark (which
continues to hold title to the 200 acres on the mesa) in the 1960s for
$20 million.
The property was zoned agriculture/open space, not residential. There
was no absolute right to rezoning or windfall profits attached with that
purchase, just as no such right would attach to a land purchase that any
of us might enter into. In the 1970s, Signal was allowed to develop 400
acres of property for a substantial profit.
In 1997, 880 additional acres were sold to the state (with funds from
the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles) for $25 million. The original
purchase price was, therefore, more than recouped.
Now, Hearthside Homes, as the developer for Signal, has been given
permission to build, which will cause the least possible impact to the
Bolsa Chica wetlands.
This hardly creates a “taking.” Amigos de Bolsa Chica believes that
the lawsuit filed recently by Signal and Hearthside against the Coastal
Commission is entirely unfounded.
The Coastal Commission’s action is well-supported by California
statutory and case law. Furthermore, it is the only plan possible that
will allow some economic return to the owners while maintaining the
essential but fragile wetland ecosystem.
If the owner and developer do not wish to develop the property as
specified by the Coastal Commission, we encourage Signal Landmark to
become a “willing seller” and commence good-faith negotiations for the
sale of its remaining property for public use.
The best of all worlds would see the preservation of all of the Bolsa
Chica property and compensation to the owner for a fair price.
LINDA SAPIRO MOON
President
Amigos de Bolsa Chica
Huntington Beach
The rhetoric from the pro-development interests on the Coastal
Commission’s vote to restrict development of the Bolsa Chica mesa is
frankly nothing more than rhetoric, despite how histrionic or reasoned it
may sound in print.
Ron Davis’ opinion may sound reasonable to some (and for now let’s put
aside the basic philosophical issues surrounding the rights of
individuals versus the rights of society in general), but in the case of
Bolsa Chica, it’s basic premise is faulty, rendering his argument
invalid.
The process of entitlement is about providing rights to do something
with the land, rights that the developer has never had. As such, the
Coastal Commission can’t have “taken” what the owner didn’t have in the
first place. Remember, the mesa is designated for agriculture, not
residential as proposed.
Whether argued legally or philosophically, the fair way to look at
this issue is to recognize the citizens of California should not have
their valuable coastal resources “taken” from them, nor should they have
to compensate a developer for poor and highly speculative real estate
investments.
I also would argue that Davis’ Robin Hood story is misapplied. In this
case, the developer is more analogous to the corrupt nobility that kept
all the common resources of Sherwood Forest for its own profit.
As for compensation for the developers, if they decide to sell (and we
hope they do), they should be compensated fairly for a value of the
property that is based on the conditions approved by the Coastal
Commission, not on the basis of their historically inflated
misrepresentations of value.
EVAN HENRY
President
Bolsa Chica Land Trust
Huntington Beach
Score one for Ron Davis. His column on the Coastal Commission’s unfair
ruling on the Bolsa Chica mesa project was totally correct.
To paraphrase the saying, “A crime by any other name is still a
crime,” no matter how the commission tried to justify its ruling and
camouflage it as legal, it still amounts to an attempt to take private
property without reasonable compensation.
It is to prevent just such situations as this that the law requires
the government to fairly compensate a land owner if it deprives the owner
of the intended use of the property.
Those who applaud the commission’s actions are allowing their emotions
to override their logic, and some are the same people who were horrified
at the thought of using eminent domain to obtain properties at the
Huntington Center, even though all agreed it would result in a vastly
improved mall.
Now that Hearthside is suing the commission for its actions in this
matter, I hope that justice will prevail; the ruling will be overturned,
and the commission will be reprimanded for its abuse of its charter.
Davis is correct in saying, “The end does not justify the means.” He
might have added, “Might does not make right.”
GEORGE CROSS
Huntington Beach
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.