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
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.