Even journalists fire before asking questions

Last week in this space, I took a shot at the city of Costa Mesa’s

Community Redevelopment Action Committee and its members for what I

deemed was their proposal of a waste of timebuilding a bridge on 19th

Street to cross the Santa Ana River and connect with Huntington

Beach.

“The fact that the only thing it could muster after an entire year

was to propose that silly idea as a way to fix the Westside just

proves the committee, made up at one time of some 80 members, is way

too big and cumbersome to effect any change,” I wrote from atop my

know-it-all high horse.

We do that around here sometimes. Find an easy target and blam,

blam, blam, double barrel blasts from our computer terminals,

stopping only after the victim quits moving. Sometimes, though, we

need to hold our fire until we get a better view.

In my defense, I wasn’t alone in thinking that bridge was a bad

idea to rehash.

City Council members roundly criticized and rejected the notion

Monday, putting the issue to rest yet another time.

But I got a call Monday that surprised me. It was from Eric Bever,

a longtime Westside improvement activist and a member of the

aforementioned committee.

He told me I had gotten plenty wrong in that one paragraph and

that I and the paper were giving the committee a bad rap to boot.

Bever told me that many members of the committee also believe the

bridge to be a bad idea, and that was precisely the point of their

recommendation.

“We’re charged with planning a future for this area,” he told me.

“As evidenced by Fountain Valley’s reopening of the Gisler bridge

issue, there is a distinct possibility this could be reopened in the

future, also. We want to make sure we don’t plan something that could

be torpedoed if Huntington Beach or Newport Beach want to shove this

bridge through. We want to know what the ramifications are.”

So that was it. They didn’t really ask for a bridge, just a study

to see what the possibility of that bridge being built is, since it

has not been taken off the county’s master plan just yet.

If the Westside is going to someday become a picturesque and

vibrant center of town with pedestrian thoroughfares and quaint

shops, it certainly wouldn’t be a good idea to build that little

mecca and then allow the county to make 19th Street the northern

version of Coast Highway.

So yes, not only is the committee not arguing for a bridge, it may

one day be arguing to pull the bridge off the master plan, Bever

confirmed.

That wasn’t all that Bever had a problem with. He pointed out that

the committee had not been meeting an entire year as I intimated, but

only about six months, and that the 19th Street Bridge issue wasn’t

the only thing it had done since its inception, another assumption I

had made.

The committee has also recommended that the council study the idea

of rezoning the bluffs on the Westside, which are largely inhabited

by industrial buildings and auto repair shops.

Many Westsiders believe that by rezoning this area from industrial

and commercial use to residential, the city can create an affluent

community of bluff top homes in that prime piece of real estate.

As for the committee being “too big and cumbersome to effect

change,” Bever took me to task on that as well, though I reminded him

that was just my opinion.

“The only way we can solve this thing is if all the viewpoints are

aired,” he said. “Finding a consensus is not all that difficult if

you are presenting a reasonable idea. The bridge was a perfect

example. Still, we were able to get a 70% consensus. What you will

find is the fringe will lose on certain issues and join the majority

on others. But if it was a foolish endeavor, I wouldn’t be going to

the meetings.”

I told him I still thought it would be much better if the

committee were pared down to say, seven people, but I respect his

opinion otherwise.

Regardless of that, Bever’s point is well taken. The committee

deserves a chance to do its job and not have to worry about the local

newspaper questioning its every move, or even its very existence.

At least for a while.

“What I would like to see is the members of the committee

formulate a viable and reasonable plan for improving that part of

town,” Bever concluded. “There are special interests on the committee

who want to make sure nothing happens, business owners who like the

status quo. But we are all just people who want to see something

improve. All the uses can coexist, but there may need to be some

reshuffling. With any luck, we will reverse the downward spiral and

figure out how we can bring this place up to the level of the rest of

the city.”

* TONY DODERO is the editor. He can be reached via e-mail at

tony.dodero@latimes.com or by phone at (949) 574-4258 or leave a

message for him on our Readers Hotline at 949-642-6086.