Time for El Morro debate -- and...

Time for El Morro debate -- and leases -- to end

They have got to be kidding! When is enough enough already?

Those El Morro Trailer Park people are at it again with their

scare tactics, their grandiose plans and now the full page ads

sprouting up every where (several in the Daily Pilot in March).

Don’t they get it? They have squatted on public property for more

than 25 years and now it’s time to let go. We Californians want

public access to our state park, a park we purchased decades ago.

Their tactics have focused on:

First, it was the horrors of having lowly RV owners overnight in a

state camp ground next to a school. Of course there never has been

problems in other nearby state camp grounds faced with similar

circumstances, but heaven forbid, not at El Morro.

Then there was the approach that the trailer people would gladly

pay extra so that money would be given to the restoration of the

Crystal Cove Cottages -- in exchange for another 20- or 30-year lease

extension.

That idea is interesting, but no one seems to note the fact that

funds collected from leases at El Morro, or any other site, are

funneled into a general fund and used wherever the state deems

necessary. There is no direct way to route funds from El Morro to the

Crystal Cove Cottages.

Also, it has been well established that only a very few trailer

owners actually reside on the property year-round. Obviously then, a

vast majority of the owners would find any lease extension to be a

very lucrative business deal since most of those units are

$1,000-a-week rentals 10 or more months out of the year.

Finally, all the hype of how beneficial their plan would be for

Laguna Beach is a mystery since El Morro is right next door to

Newport Beach’s Newport Coast. That being the case, one would think

that Newport Beach would be the city that had the vested interest in

what happens in the El Morro Trailer Park, not Laguna Beach.

Come on and let go! It’s time. The public has a right to have

access to the property they purchased dozens of years ago.

BERENICE MALTBY

Corona del Mar

Port future looks bright,

but oversight needed

The Port Theatre owner has finally come out of the shadows.

Congratulations to the City Council for putting pressure on the owner

and not granting landmark status without ascertaining what he intends

to do with the property. The article on March 7 implies that

substantial renovation and repairs in addition to a parking plan will

be required before a partial restaurant use can be implemented (“Port

Theatre sold, upgrades planned”). Corona Del Mar will benefit from a

revitalization of this property, but the City Council should impose a

deadline for this to be accomplished. The granting of landmark status

should be conditional and subject to revocation in the event the

renovation and parking plan are not completed in a timely manner.

By holding the owner accountable, the council can help avoid

another prolonged period of a vacant eyesore in the community.

RUSSELL HOWELL

Corona del Mar

Newport campaigns laws

need a few clear changes

Regarding changes to Newport Beach campaign laws:

1) All past, present and planned business dealings between elected

official and proposed recipients of city grant money should be

publicly disclosed at least 30 days prior to placing the proposed

grant on the City Council agenda.

If an elected official has had past, present or planned business

dealings with the proposed recipient of the city grant that elected

official should recuse himself from voting on this agenda item.

This would avoid actual, or perceived appearance of a “payback”

from the elected official to the recipient of the grant money.

2) Change the way voting is carried out in the city of Newport

Beach.

Currently, voters can choose candidates outside their own

district. This is supposed to be representative government. The

voters in their own district want candidates to represent them on

issues that come before the City Council. When you allow voters to

elect representatives outside their own district you do harm to

residents in that district because the outside voters can help elect

candidates that may not have the majority interests of the district

in mind.

The entire problem will not be eliminated because you cannot stop

campaign contributions being received by candidates from outside the

district, but with campaign financial disclosure rules voters can see

who is contributing to a particular candidate and question the

motivation behind it. Any last minute campaign contributions will be

disclosed after the election (that should be changed) but by and

large most campaign contributions would be transparent to the voters

prior to the election.

This would help eliminate electing candidates that do not

represent the majority of voters in the district.

ANN WATT

Newport Beach

Renovation of Kona Lanes

does not mean destruction

Bowling is a national pastime. Unfortunately, at this point in

history, it is not a profitable one. For this simple reason, Kona

Lanes is doomed. But why does Costa Mesa have such a short-term

vision? Surely, as Tim Cromwell suggested in a March 6 letter to the

editor, there are other uses for the current structures on this

property (“Smarter ways to save Kona Lanes”).

The aesthetic of Costa Mesa is constantly torn down and rebuilt.

Why can’t we take what little of Costa Mesa’s history remains and

preserve it? Historic buildings like Kona Lanes could be used for so

many other uses, such as a restaurant.

Orange County has cities like Orange and Fullerton that are proud

of their older buildings and go to great lengths to maintain and

restore them. It’s a real shame that Costa Mesa is slowly

transforming into a city of strip malls not unlike our neighbors in

South County. Refurbishment doesn’t need to mean demolition.

MATTHEW FLETCHER

Costa Mesa

New lofts far too lofty over harbor

Regarding the Cannery Lofts article in the Pilot on Monday, I

found the photograph of the buildings looming over the Rhine Channel

disconcerting (“Branding a new Can”).

One aspect of Newport’s bay and beachfront that I have always

enjoyed has been the gentle “Cape Codish” skyline of the buildings.

In many other beach towns most of the waterfront homes are tall,

square-shouldered brutes with flat roofs. Somehow Newport was able to

avoid that for the most part.

So I was saddened to see chronicled in your paper the arrival of

those big Cannery boxes. Why, one must ask, did the normally

circumspect Planning Commission approve the seven-foot additional

height allowance that made these, dare I say, awful, looming giants

possible?

PAUL S. PEDERSEN

Newport Beach