Mailbag - April 14, 2002

Piers’ renovation should have been done differently

I am writing regarding construction that occurred on the Balboa and

Newport piers. I think that redoing the piers was a good idea, but there

is one major flaw in the process. Nobody could visit them. The workers

could have easily put one side of the pier off limits while keeping the

other side open to the public.

This could have made progress slower, but people visiting us here in

Newport Beach could have missed out on one of Newport’s main attractions

and could still have eaten Ruby’s during construction.

PATRICK REYNOLDS

Balboa Island

Temple height does not belong in Newport

Unlike many of the out-of-area writers who favor a tall steeple at the

new Mormon temple site, I am a longtime resident of Newport Beach and

therefore understand the impacts of a tall steeple on our community. I am

writing this letter to express my concerns and strong objection to the

proposed Mormon steeple. Specifically, it is too tall at 124 feet -- the

equivalent of a 12-story building. Additionally, the lighting of the

steeple is proposed until 11 p.m. every night. This is inappropriate in a

residential area.

I reside on the north side of Spyglass Hill with panoramic views of

the San Gabriel Mountains, the city of Irvine and up the coast. It is one

of several residential areas within the city limits of Newport Beach that

enjoys a spectacular vista -- this is one of the many reasons that our

city is special. The proposed Mormon steeple will destroy this view by

sharply cutting it in half, thus causing destruction of property values

and in the process ruining a part of the charm and beauty that defines

our city.

In neighborhood meetings, a Mormon Church representative indicated

that the height of the steeple is important as a religious symbol. This

argument is ineffective when you consider, for example, that the Mormon

temple in Mesa, Ariz., has no steeple at all. This is true of several

Mormon temples across the country. I have visited the Mesa temple, and it

is a beautiful religious facility. Why not a “Mesa-like” temple right

here in Newport Beach?

There are many reasons against building a tall steeple too numerous to

mention in this letter, but the most important reason against the Mormon

Church building a tall steeple is that it would alienate the neighbors

and harm the community it claims to embrace.

I strongly urge residents of Newport Beach to join a steadily growing

number of people in our community to contact the decision makers of our

city.

The message is simple: Deny the conditional-use permit application for

the proposed steeple height. It is not in keeping with the other places

of worship along Bonita Canyon Drive, nor is it in keeping with the

overall general plan that is intended to promote and enhance the

well-being of residents and property owners within Newport Beach.

RANDY HUNTER

Newport Beach

Lower Bay, too, needs dredging

In reference to the April 6 article “$3.8 million for dredging offered

to city,” why is there no mention of the Lower Bay? The article indicates

that the funds are specifically for future dredging in the Upper Bay and

explains that sediment flowing into the Upper Bay harms the ecosystem and

that proper maintenance is “crucial.”

That is all fine, but what about the Lower Bay? Why does there seem to

be such little concern about dredging for the Lower Bay?

Is proper maintenance of the Lower Bay not crucial? A significant

amount of the sediment that flows into the Upper Bay flows directly

through to the Lower Bay. This material is deposited throughout the bay,

causing hazards to navigation and nuisances to slip owners as the depth

of water underneath the slips and boats silently vanishes.

Maintenance of these areas by dredging is not allowed without specific

approvals since the deposited sediments may provide a new habitat to

some animal or plant form. In these circumstances, slip owners are

forced to watch their slips fill in with no apparent solution.

Is this any different from a windblown seed or insect being deposited

on your lawn and taking root? Are we approaching a point where one will

need to secure a mowing permit in order to maintain a lawn to its

preexisting condition? What’s the difference?

I do not own a slip, but I do enjoy the bay on a regular basis and I

think the situation is out of control. It is evidently hard to rally

support for this cause because few area residents are directly affected

by it, and since the sediment is deposited at the bottom no one actually

sees it.

Councilman Dennis O’Neil was quoted as saying, “the Upper Bay is a

valuable asset for Newport Beach.” This is true, but isn’t the Lower Bay

equally as important?

DAVID H. CLARK

Newport Beach

Newport Beach should finish two priorities

Here are two of the most important matters that the city of Newport

Beach should focus on to maintain and improve the quality of life in our

fair city: Make sure that all new buildings, including the proposed

Mormon temple, comply with existing height and code restrictions.

For God’s sake, finish the baseball fields and parklands along Bonita

Canyon Road. This is threatening to become the most drawn-out and

needlessly delayed public works project in California history.

CONLEY SMITH

Newport Beach

Police needed to police Newport police

A few years ago, my wife and I graduated from the Newport Beach Police

Department citizens academy and were impressed with the professionalism

and standards of our police. However, some changes are now apparent in

the department’s reputation.

It has been disquieting to read in the Pilot consecutive stories of

the large increase in all categories of crimes here -- and then to

further read about the huge award to a prisoner whom our police

incarcerated with a violent man who then assaulted this prisoner, causing

very serious permanent injuries (“Court orders Newport Beach to pay

inmate,” March 28). It’s not as serious but harken back to some 10 years

ago when the department was embroiled in harassment and sex scandals.

I’m aware that police jurisdictions are reluctant to submit to

citizens oversight commissions but would like to suggest that the City

Council appoint one at this time. It would serve two purposes, supporting

both the police and the public in reviewing new and current police

practices and in deflecting and ameliorating future criticism.

KEN KVAMMEN

Newport Beach

Don’t be too hasty on Marinapark decision

My friend Drew Lawler’s Community Commentary (“Council out of step

with Marinapark,” March 10) can’t go unanswered. Lawler stated council

members should not vote what they believe is best for the city, rather

what the majority of residents apparently want.

Hold on, haven’t we had enough of government by polls? Don’t we want

leaders with integrity and principle? My point: When a complex issue is

decided by thousands of voters, it’s not much more than a glorified straw

poll. Want a hotel or less traffic? That’s a no-brainer: Less traffic

wins in a heartbeat. Walk into a booth, punch “no” and walk out. It’s

that easy. It’s called “ballot-box planning” and it’s been a calamity

throughout California.

The tone of Lawler’s letter suggests Newport’s Greenlight

no-growth/slow-growth movement has gone over the top. Surely, he knows

council members spend more than their Tuesday nights on these complex

matters. Property rights have to be considered; so do long-term revenue

streams, cost-benefit ratios, the latest planning policies, neighborhood

issues and, yes, traffic impacts. To ensure proper land-use decisions are

made, the city has zoning laws, specific area plans, environmental-impact

reports, the traffic-phasing ordinance, a skilled planning staff, a

citizen-based planning commission and a freely elected city council. In

comparison, many times all the voter has is a colorful mailer.

As I see it, Newport Beach has been -- and is now -- in well-qualified

hands. Its planning procedures have produced an extremely well-balanced

city and there’s no reason to expect anything different in the future.

That is unless Greenlight proves to be a red light to new ideas,

intriguing concepts and quality projects.

Let’s at least listen to the developer of Marinapark before locking in

our positions.

JIM WOOD

Newport Beach

Mayor’s words serve only to divide

The headline on the Pilot’s editorial, “Newport Beach’s future belongs

to all residents” (Feb. 10), is a puzzle.

Whom does the Pilot and Mayor Tod Ridgeway consider residents? Are

they the people Ridgeway describes as younger households seeking to live

and work in Newport Beach but are “forced out by economics”? How can you

be a resident of a community if you don’t live in it? And how can you be

“forced out” of it if you never lived in it?

Personally, I’ve always fancied living in an upper Manhattan townhouse

but realized I could never swing it. So, can I really say I was forced

out of it? No, that would be so farfetched as to be dishonest. I have

fancied belonging to the Balboa Bay Club but knew I couldn’t swing that

either. But can I say I was forced out of it when I never belonged to it?

That too would be dishonest. Unfortunately, that’s the power of

semantics, particularly in politics.

More importantly, how can Ridgeway represent the desires of conjured

people who don’t even reside here, but oppose those who live here and

have elected and trusted him to represent their views as they decisively

expressed them in the Greenlight Initiative?

Are we to conclude that the rest of the council members have actually

ordained Ridgeway to express their own viewpoints from his bully pulpit?

That they, too, regard most of their constituents in Newport Beach as

elderly, useless and selfish people living off the “stock market and

inherited wealth”?

If so, my dear neighbors, I believe we had better be a little more

discerning when we cast our next ballots. Such ideas and language are

meant to pit one generation against another and deserve no ones support.

REBA WILLIAMS

Newport Beach

Here are simple answers to everyone’s problems

With all this talk about upgrading and improving Costa Mesa, I have a

solution that will silence all the critics and make most everybody happy.

Have Newport Beach annex the east side, Santa Ana annex the west side,

and Huntington Beach annex Mesa Verde. Let the county have South Coast

and the Orange County Performing Arts Center for the benefit of all

county residents. That way, those who live in those neighborhoods will

feel more at home by being in the community of their choice.

If anybody is not happy with that, they can move to Irvine. Costa

Mesa-not-by-the-sea will cease to exist. The best part is that we will be

rid of the inept and myopic city government that we now have.

As to the airport issue, JWA should impose user fees of $100 per

ticket. If those South County NIMBYs and BANANAs want the convenience of

a nearby airport, but not in their backyard, they can pay the $100. If

not, they can drive to LAX or Ontario. Residents of the cities in the JWA

flight path would qualify for full reimbursement or waiver of the fee

upon proof of residency.

ROBERT JOHNSON

Costa Mesa