‘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