Letter to the Editor -- Rolly Pulaski

As a full-time, senior citizen resident of El Morro Village, I am, of

course, biased about Assemblyman John Campbell’s proposal (Editorial

--”Crystal Ball does not need El Morro,” Jan. 27). However, the Daily

Pilot editorial was grossly one-sided. We wish the writer had extended

her or his research to consider views and concepts supporting the

proposal.

Seventy-five-year-old communities are resources too, and we have a

voice. El Morro Village existed long before the state made its deal with

the Irvine Co. Preservation can be about communities too, especially when

there are feasible alternatives.

A few things to consider:

1. For the record, El Morro Village represents about 1% of the Crystal

Cove park area. We are not a “private enclave for the privileged,” as was

recently labeled in another newspaper. The village is and always was open

to the public. If fact, last summer, to encourage public awareness of our

access and to dispel this myth, we installed a “Public Welcome” sign at

our entry. It was up for a week before the parks department made us take

it down.

For those who think we are private, come on down and visit.

2. Assemblyman Campbell’s proposal is a fiscally responsible and

creative way to solve the restoration of Crystal Cove and to do it now.

His proposal is a breath of fresh air in a time of alarming fiscal

apocalypse. At all times and most particularly in times of crisis, we

would expect our governor and legislators to look for balanced approaches

to stop the bleeding.

3. California State Parks and, more importantly, all taxpayers of

California benefit from the positive cash flow income from the village --

more than $1 million annually. It may not sound like much, considering

the state’s awesome financial dilemma, but by at least leaving the

village in place does not add to the problem. Should this income be gone,

it will be gone forever, replaced with a park operational deficit, also

forever.

4. On the other 99% of Crystal Cove State Park, there are much better

locations for an RV and campground facility -- safer access off the

highway where four-way signals already exist and it would be

substantially cheaper to build.

5. The county of Orange -- which has jurisdiction over El Morro -- and

the cities of Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and Irvine, which surround us,

do not meet the state’s mandate for affordable housing. The village, in

part, helps satisfy this need. Doesn’t nearby housing for teachers,

police, fire and other essential employees of these jurisdictions make

more sense than transient recreational vehicle visitors from God knows

where? Some of these types of employees are already in the village along

with many senior citizens like me.

6. What kind of wisdom is it to build a transient RV facility next to

an elementary school? The Laguna Beach PTA unanimously oppose locating

the RV park next to the school. It is a poor land-use policy, and you can

bet no private developer would ever be allowed to proceed with such a

flawed scheme. Refer back to Item 4.

There have been many creative ideas we at the village have presented

to State Parks over the past years, but they always fell on deaf ears.

The State Parks mantra was and remains “only following the general plan.”

Sometimes 20-year-old plans become outdated, even obsolete. At the very

least, the state should conduct a study to update the general plan.

In the meantime, I hope that Campbell’s proposal will get the

attention of other fiscally responsible legislators and my fellow

taxpayers.

ROLLY PULASKI

El Morro

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Rolly Pulaski is the president of the El Morro

Community Assn.