One correction to Costa Mesa history article...

One correction to Costa Mesa history article

I enjoyed the Daily Pilot’s special section to commemorate the

50th anniversary of Costa Mesa’s incorporation in 1953. The scope and

diversity of commentary highlighted the city’s history.

However, I need to correct an error I made in my article on the

unification of the Costa Mesa Elementary, Newport Beach Elementary

and Newport Harbor Unified High school districts. I have, since

publication, found out that Bob Weed succeeded Walt Burroughs as

publisher before unification took place. Weed, not Burroughs,

provided the milieu in which the Daily Pilot operated at the time.

HANK PANIAN

Costa Mesa

Support of Bayview project is not in doubt

Stop Polluting Our Newport supports the proposed affordable

housing and view park projects at Bayview Landing. Some misleading

recent articles and letters in the Daily Pilot have implied the

opposite.

The group’s steering committee expressed its support in a letter

to the city last Jan. 21. Representatives of the city have asked for

further support, so on May 30 the steering committee approved a

memorandum of understanding, in which Stop Polluting Our Newport

agreed to testify before the California Coastal Commission in support

of the projects.

The sticking point right now is the Coastal Commission staff, who

insist that the law grants “protected wetlands” status to trivial mud

puddles. Technically, they are correct. It is impossible to write a

law that covers all the cases exactly right. We must depend on the

people who enforce the laws to use good judgment and common sense. It

is to be hoped that the Coastal Commission will override its staff

and enforce the intent, not the letter, of the law.

The opinions above are my own; so don’t blame Stop Polluting Our

Newport for them. The steering committee actions above are matters of

written record.

ALLAN BEEK

Newport Beach

Of O.J., Saddam and one Newport councilman

I continue to find the Nichols incident fascinating. Here are some

of my observations, for what they are worth.

1. Newport Beach has gone completely into is O.J. Simpson Defense

mode. Ignore the problem, blame Dick Nichols for raising it.

2. Why does Newport Beach, which represents only Newport Beach

residents, have control over the State Park, which belongs to all

Californians?

3. Does the incompetent Steve Smith actually get paid for writing

his nonsense? By who? The Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce? His

columns hit the nail right on his thumb. Nichols is a public servant

who expressed his opinions and Smith writes: “He expressed them, and

to me and to the six clear-thinking members of the Newport Beach City

Council, that’s all that matters.”

Gee, who else would take such umbrage over the free expression of

ideas? Offhand, I can think of Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and

Saddam. I wonder if the City Council appreciates being placed in the

same category by Smith.

4. A reader suggest “rounding up” all who disagree with the

crucifixion of Nichols and shipping them to Montana. I lived in

Montana. It is a lot like Newport Beach in some ways. Give us your

tourist dollars and don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

5. Do Mexicans (or Latinos) really monopolize the grass, thus

preventing others from using it? Some readers have said so, citing

unpleasant experiences. But we can ignore them. They are “indecent

people” according to Steve Smith. I suspect Newport Beach doesn’t

want to know and is much too busy picking over the carcass of Nichols

to care.

6. Why hasn’t Nichols been blamed for having the old Charlie Chan

films removed from their schedule by the Fox Movie Channel? “Asian

activists” are taking the credit, but I’m sure Steve Smith will find

a way to blame Nichols.

HENRY OSTERMILLER

Costa Mesa