Mailbag - June 20, 2002

“Surfhenge” -- what a waste of city money to try and please some

tourists. Our city should be spending money on schools, parks, fixing

rundown neighborhoods (and making them more friendly) and those who have

chosen to live here rather than wasting the people’s money on junk “art”

by a non-Huntington Beach (let alone Californian) artist. “Surfhenge,”as

the media (not the residents) call it, is an eyesore and an insult to the

city; it is nothing close to being one of Huntington’s new

“improvements.” This is Surf City, not Slab Art City.

SHAUNA COSTA

Huntington Beach

Danette Goulet’s Editor’s Notebook (“Surfhenge’ an unsightly waste of

money,” June 6) hits the nail squarely on the head. At least one person,

(Danette), with visibility in this city thinks with a clear head. I had

driven past “Surfhenge” several times and thought it was a pile of ruble

from the adjacent construction sites and was beginning to get upset that

that developers hadn’t disposed of it. To find out it is permanent and

cost in excess of $45,000 disgusts me.

The situation reminds me of the Nero and a burning Rome story. The

infrastructure is falling down around us and the City Council people idle

their time away by spending our money on ugly atrocities. And they spent

the money in another state to boot. They have more pressing things to

accomplish. The council might consider working on increasing revenue to

the city instead of squandering it. A suggestion would be to get the

vacant Huntington Center Mall up and generating sales tax revenue.

Oh, and another observation, perhaps some of the relevant art work

from the former Seacliff shopping center would have been a more

appropriate decoration for the Beach Boulevard/Pacfic Coast Highway

location, but then the costs wouldn’t have been as high. What are our

council members thinking?

RONALD VON FREYMANN

Huntington Beach

Hearthside Homes should work with Land Trust

Over the years, developer names at Bolsa Chica have changed. But the

intent is still the same -- to build as many houses as possible. That

doesn’t work anymore. Times have changed since Signal Bolsa purchased the

land at Bolsa Chica. Now, we have polluted waters, crowded streets,

leaking sewer pipes and little open space for our children. Now is the

time for this developer to realize that this community needs a nationally

recognized natural wetlands system that supports wildlife and a place to

enjoy it. Not more houses.

The Surfrider Foundation supports the Bolsa Chica Land Trust. The

Bolsa Chica Land Trust wants to work with the developer to help them get

their return on investment. The model of land trusts and developers

working together to find win/win solutions has worked well all over the

state. This developer and Land Trust cooperation will benefit all of

Huntington Beach.

BILL GREGORY

Huntington Beach

I disagree with those who say Hearthside Homes should be permitted to

develop the Bolsa Chica mesa (Mailbag, June 6).

Initially, the developer has stated that it hopes to build out the

entire mesa if it can overturn the November 2000 Coastal Commission

ruling, which excludes building on the lower mesa. In other words, the

current plan for the upper mesa may be only part of the picture.

Further, the developer refuses to exclude archeological site ORA-83

from its current building plan for the upper mesa. The Smithsonian has

stated that it believes this site is one of national significance.

United States Fish and Wildlife and other experts who have studied the

Bolsa Chica have concluded that the wetlands and the mesa are one

ecological unit. As such, paving over the mesa would negatively affect

the animal and plant life at the wetlands. We should do all we can to

ensure that the entire Bolsa Chica mesa is acquired from the owner at a

fair price and preserved for future generations.

PAUL HORGAN

Huntington Beach

Budget shortfall is due to past mistakes

I think if our city fathers and Planning Commission had played hard

ball with the owners and occupants of Huntington Center four years ago

they wouldn’t be looking at a shortfall of dollars. Having been a store

manager through the down time, and receiving many comments about what

could/should be built and questions about when we would be back (good

thing we didn’t make any promises,) it seems a shame that all those tax

dollars go to Westminster, Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley. Why?

ELEANOR GRAMS

Huntington Beach

Cross and cohort would ruin the city

Cindy Cross’ completely inflammatory article in the June 6 Independent

on the “fraud” of Councilman Ralph Bauer’s proposal is in itself a fraud

and an affront to all the residents of Huntington Beach. Wake up my

fellow residents. If Cindy Cross and her cohorts get their way on

citywide districting, this wonderful city will be plunged back into the

dark ages of “the good ol’ boys” running the place with no at-large

representation or access. Now we get seven council members, who we can

visit to air our views. If we district according to the plan being

espoused in the current circulating petition, we will get only one

council member. Does that sound democratic to you?

JUANA R. MUELLER

Huntington Beach

Five representatives not representative enough

If reducing the Huntington Beach City Council members to five will

make it more efficient, why not make it even better and reduce it to

three. Better yet, elect a mayor only. Think of the time and money saved

by developers and big business if they had only one person to influence.

Those who think five member districts are the answer for good

government should take a good look at the Orange County “Bored” of

Supervisors. If they represent a five-person good government, forget it.

TED DOWDING

Huntington Beach

Districting measure is what’s fair

The people of Huntington Beach and the proponents of the district

measure owe Mayor Debbie Cook and Councilwoman Connie Boardman a vote of

thanks. Cook, Boardman and Councilman Ralph Bauer, as a committee of

three to represent the best interest of southeast Huntington Beach, were

to evaluate the desires of those in the southeast area and finalize the

approval on how to best bring the blighted areas up to city standards.

The choice was between redevelopment or letting the situation exist as it

has for the last 40 years. During the council meeting, which included

this item on the agenda, residents from the southeast area addressed the

council to emphasize the need for action and redevelopment. The council

vote was 5 to 2. Cook and Boardman even went so far as trying to justify

their no votes. Yes, two members of the committee that were depended on

by residents of the southeast area to vote in their best interests were

the two dissenting votes. Surprised? You should not be. These two council

members were voted into office by the city at large but mainly by the

Bolsa Chica groups that are more interested in an area outside our city

limits than the causes within our city. Why should they care if they

incur the wrath of the residents in the southeast area? The Bolsa Chica

groups, with their political clout, will put them back in office. After

these two council members have demonstrated what happens when all council

members are voted into office at large, are you still undecided on the

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Scott Baugh-backed district measure,

Fair Apportionment and Individual Representation? I am not, to put it

simply; what’s fair is FAIR.

BOB POLKOW

Huntington Beach

Inlet would destroy the coastline

The June 6 Independent was very interesting. The letters written by

Charlene Bauer and Nancy Donaven explaining why council districts would

be bad for our city and our residents were excellent, as were the many

letters against any development of the Bolsa Chica Mesa. I also liked

Steve Bolton’s cartoon lampooning the ridiculous and expensive so-called

sculpture at Beach and Pacific Coast Highway.

The article that really caught my attention, though, was Danette

Goulet’s column questioning the wisdom of destroying a beautiful beach by

cutting a channel through to the wetlands. I see it as another assault

on our lovely coastline, in the same category as the hundreds of palm

trees planted on the beach and the bridge crossing the highway from the

new hotel, or the huge complex of apartments marring the beach between

6th and 9th streets. How can we reconcile ruining one of nature’s

loveliest features, possibly, to help another? Surely there is a less

invasive solution that would allow the wetlands to function in a

reasonable fashion without cutting a channel through the beach, and I

would urge the Coastal Commission to reconsider their approval.

I often go out of my way just to experience the almost ethereal

feeling I get from driving the stretch of Pacific Coast Highway between

Goldenwest Street and Warner Avenue, reveling in the openness with the

Bolsa Chica Mesa and wetlands on one side and the unbroken line of the

Pacific Ocean on the other. I hope we can keep it that way.

LOIS VACKAR

Huntington Beach

Goulet is wrong, the inlet is a good solution

I could not agree more with Danette Goulet’s position that we should

right the wrongs that humans have inflicted upon our environment, but

Goulet lacks perspective when it comes to the ocean inlet proposed for

the restoration of the Bolsa Chica wetlands. She disagrees with the

inlet’s planned location at the south end of Bolsa Chica State Beach, but

then doesn’t mind placing it at the north end. At least Goulet appears to

agree on the need for an ocean inlet; restoration is not feasible without

one.

Many years of analysis went into determining both the size and the

location of the inlet. The size is exactly what is needed to deliver the

volume of life-giving sea water needed to sustain the restored wetlands,

water that has been cut off for more than 100 years. Several potential

locations for the inlet were studied, including the historical one at

Warner Avenue. Contrary to Goulet’s assertion, the inlet will not destroy

the view nor the beach. Her hyperbole may make interesting reporting, but

does nothing to help readers understand the issues.

In a truly strange comparison, Goulet equates the restoration of the

Bolsa Chica wetlands with past destruction of the state’s wetlands. The

Southland has lost over 75% of its coastal wetlands to development, an

enormous environmental loss by anyone’s calculations, and with little if

any environmental benefits in return. In contrast, we will get back

nearly 1,000 acres of productive wetlands in the Bolsa Chica once

restoration is completed, representing one of the largest wetland gains

in California history. To me that is a reason to celebrate.

DAVID M. CARLBERG

Huntington Beach