Thanks for the welcome, but don’t horse...

Thanks for the welcome, but don’t horse around

Thank you for your article on July 17, the “New neighbors”

regarding the annexed part of Santa Ana Heights. You featured a photo

of my daughter, Olivia, on her white pony with some other local kids

riding behind her on the Cypress Street bridle trail. It is for the

benefit of all the children from this neighborhood that I am writing

this letter. The majority of the horses that exist in our area are

the beloved pets of young people.

Urbanization has closed in around this Newport-Mesa neighborhood.

This puts our children and their pets in a constant contact with the

elements of urbanization. These elements are considered “obstacles”

in the horse’s environment. Due to the horse’s instinctive nature,

totally acclimating the horse to these fearsome obstacles is often

not possible. OK, so they’re not the smartest animals.

To give some insight to our human neighbors and ease our

interactions, it is with the utmost respect that I make some requests

with regard to safe trail and road etiquette when in the presence of

a horsy neighbor. First, please understand that one horse on your

car’s windshield will ruin your whole month. You know how hard it is

to get splattered bugs off the front of your car. Just add a thousand

pounds of solid horse to that, and well, you get my drift. While it

may look to you from your vehicle like that horse is calmly walking

along, that can change in the flick of a tail. You might not see the

growling loose dog bounding forward or hear the unobservant gardener

with a leaf blower coming at the horse from the other side. Please,

heads up, slow down, and give the horse a wide berth. Recognize that

you are sharing the same path, for one moment, with another vehicle

not made of steel but of flesh, and with another human that is not

wrapped in a metal cage for protection.

Next, remember that saying about “not walking behind a horse?”

Please don’t run, bike or push your baby stroller up right behind or

at the head of a horse. This is seen as a personal threat to the

horse and equestrians (horseman) see it to be downright dangerous

(not to mention rude). Again, a wide berth is recommended, as kids

riding on anything and horses are both unpredictable creatures. More

so the kids in this case. Also, not all horses will love your dog.

Dogs are meat eaters. Horses are meat, get it?

Lastly, since 1985, a riding arena has been in the specific plan

for this area. The site is designated, the design is complete, the

monies are earmarked, and still we wait. Born and raised here, the

girl on the white horse in the photo will leave for college next

year. Every year of her life, “officials” gave her and her horse the

promise of that riding arena being built. Other younger riders still

have need for that arena. They need it now.

It is with this letter that I encourage the new powers that be to

pick up the reins, mount up and spur this arena project to

completion. The Back Bay Equestrian Group is available to aid any way

we can. Heck, we’ll even give you a blue ribbon and a silver cup if

you can get it done.

Note: Don’t panic -- it’s organic! Nothing new ever sprouted out

of a road apple; it dries up and dissolves too fast. However, the

equestrian group, in a community-funded effort, has hired someone to

pick up droppings along the trail.

LISA CLEMENT

Santa Ana Heights

Costa Mesa not in touch with quality of life

I agree with Eric Bever and his article regarding his

interpretation of what we pretend regarding quality of life in Costa

Mesa (“Quality of life the issue with Santa Ana River bridges,”

Tuesday). The term quality has been selectively used with our city

planners. It is like making a planning conclusion first, then later

getting the data to fit the conclusion. This type of pre-selective

planning is quite evident through out the city and resembles the

thinking process of the city staff and planning department.

Quality of life as a term, I admit, is hard to define and measure.

Is it the increase in traffic? Is it the air we breathe? Is it the

noise that we hear? Or is it what the city staff think must be good

for the citizens?

Most of the quality of life issues and findings as defined by the

city staff folks are subjectively measured, and it is up to the

planner to decide the effects. Currently, all the planner has to do

is to mark one column versus another column in his finding report.

This finding hardly requires factual data, and even if data is

required, they use assumption versus hard facts.

Lets evaluate Harbor Boulevard, for example. Three years ago, the

planners claimed there was no potential increase in traffic due to

the Target Center development, no change whatsoever from the old

Fedco. And for that, they did not add traffic impact dollar fees to

the developer or reduce the size of the development. Now thereafter,

the project is done, the city claimed otherwise and now the past

claim has been changed.

Why? Because now they are asking for Measure M money to fix Harbor

and Gisler Avenue and the added associated traffic.

So the story goes: You have to follow the money, not the quality

of life.

It would be interesting to compare notes before and after

regarding the Target Center. What did the city planners originally

recommend, and what was their data of assumption? The study should

address the total cumulative effect. All past and present data is a

matter of public records. Let’s compare the environmental report as

was it was provided three years ago versus and against the true

actual as it is now. It would be interesting to compare the

assumptions that were made versus actual as related to the quality of

life issues. Then let the citizens at large be the judge. The final

truth should come out.

Ironically, the quality of life issues is like having a fox in

charge of the chicken. The fox is the money (sales tax revenue) and

the chicken is the quality of life. The question is: do we get few

million dollars in revenue versus few property tax dollars from

residents. What are the choices?

It appears that the residents keep blaming our elected City

Council members for the bad deed in the city. This was evident by the

latest election and the change of the guards. What we need is to

realize the symptoms versus the real problem. We need to start to

measure and hold the city staff accountable as well our elected City

Council. We need to measure city staff performance for their

recommendation and their actions. We need to compare pre-assumptions

and recommendation to current actual. The Triangle Square development

is a case in point. The city used public domain to acquire the

property. What went wrong with this development? Most of the city

staffers who were part of the Triangle Square development, including

our city manager, are still employed with the city.

Quality of life, what we want. We all want the best for us,

including the best for our future generation and the best for our

children. Look around you. Do you think that the city of Costa Mesa

can become better place? I believe there is a lot of room for

improvements. We need to question our local government officials

about their actions and review their performance. America is the land

of the free and the home of the brave.

AL MORELLI

Costa Mesa

A fine straightening of the record

Thanks to our outstanding city manager, Homer Bludau, for setting

the facts straight in his July 19 “Community Commentary” concerning a

recent letter from Greenlight spokesman Phil Arst on city budget

issues. Arst and Greenlight seem like Don Quixote thrusting at

imaginary issues with the motto: “Having lost sight of our

objectives, we re-doubled our efforts.”

Too bad, but thanks to the Daily Pilot for helping folks know the

real facts.

ALAN W. SILCOCK

President, West Newport Beach Assn.

Newport Beach