Troubled bridge doesn’t even reach the water...

Troubled bridge doesn’t even reach the water

Why does the Daily Pilot repeatedly publish letters and

commentaries from Robert Graham on the same old topic of why he wants

a 19th Street bridge?

As a reader of you paper for many years, it seems that at least

once a month for the last few years, you publish letters/commentaries

from Graham pushing his own personal desire a 19th Street bridge.

Please give your readers a break and stop publishing the letters from

Graham about the bridge issue. They are old, tiresome and a waste of

space.

Thank goodness the City Council has the wisdom to see through

Graham’s own personal desires and listen to a majority of the people

who live near 19th Street and do not want a bridge.

In his letters, Graham talks about extending 19th Street to the

beach. The 19th Street bridge will end at Brookhurst Avenue, and the

last time I checked, a beach does not exist there. Graham doesn’t

seem to have any regard or concern for those that live on the

Westside. He seems to think that the increased traffic and the

displacement of people from their homes and businesses along 19th

Street is perfectly all right, just so he can get to the beach more

quickly.

The shortcut to the beach he is talking about already exists and

it is called Victoria Avenue. Victoria Avenue is situated pretty darn

close to 19th Street, crosses Brookhurst Avenue and even has an exit

off the Costa Mesa Freeway. A sign should be put up on that offramp

directing Huntington Beach traffic to use Victoria Avenue. This would

surely reduce the traffic on Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway.

Also, people cutting through the residential neighborhoods of east

19th Street are not going to Huntington Beach, they are going to

Newport Beach.

A bridge will result in all of 19th Street (the Eastside and the

Westside) suffering from an unnecessary increase in traffic as people

from the surrounding areas use it as a shortcut. His talk about all

of the economic benefits that will result because of the bridge is

nothing but a bunch of baloney. The major market and drugstore that

he talks about would already be here if there were the customer base

to support them. It’s not like the 19th Street area is sparsely

populated. Quite a few people living around 19th Street already.

Commuters driving on 19th Street would not generate the business

needed to support a market or drug store. People living in a

neighborhood do that.

An extension of 19th Street will not solve the problems on the

Westside, it will only make them worse. Please, no more letters from

Graham on this matter.

JEANNE ERICKSON

Costa Mesa

Bark Park users refuse to roll over for skate park

It is amazing to me that the editors at the Daily Pilot were able

to weed through the complicated issues involved in the decision to

build a skateboard park at the corner of Arlington and Junipero

drives so quickly and definitively.

Nevermind the traffic increases, the parking chaos, the overuse,

the loss of dozens of beautiful trees, the fact that there exists a

better suited location in TeWinkle for the park or the dangers of

placing skateboards and dogs in close proximity. What it all really

boils down to, according to the Pilot, is whether we want to “side

with our children” or with Costa Mesa’s dogs.

No matter how many times we hear this rhetoric -- and anyone

involved with opening or administering a dog park hears it all the

time -- it never gets any less annoying or any less ignorant.

As much as I would love my dog to tiptoe out of the house each

morning at 7:30 a.m. and drive the family Ford over to the dog park

to exercise himself and socialize with his friends, it is never going

to happen. Saying the Bark Park is just a park for dogs is as

ridiculous as saying the skateboard park is a park for skateboards.

Bark Park is a facility where humans gather to exercise their dogs

and socialize with other dog owners. It is the recreational choice of

these people, and it is every bit as legitimate a choice as baseball,

soccer, tennis and even skateboarding.

The Bark Park Foundation estimates that about 1,000 people use the

dog park every week. On the weekend and after school hours, children

also accompany their parents. This little piece of land gets more

foot traffic on a daily basis than any other recreational facility or

park in Costa Mesa. The dog park is completely handicap accessible,

and we have disabled, elderly and mobility-impaired patrons who,

without Bark Park, might not be able to share their lives with pets

or service dogs. Having a dog park in the city cuts down the number

of leash-less dogs in residential neighborhoods and other parks. The

tons of dog waste we pick up is disposed of properly instead on

landing on your front lawn. Dog parks socialize dogs and educate dog

owners, which results in fewer biting and aggression incidents

everywhere.

The Bark Park has been in existence for almost nine years and has

always supported itself with donations and fund-raisers. The park has

become more popular than anyone ever imagined and has been successful

in every way. It deserves to be recognized by the city, the citizens

and the Daily Pilot as the important asset and worthy facility that

it is.

Bark Park is overused and desperately needs to expand. We had an

expansion park on the Fairview Park Master Plan for six years, which

was recently unceremoniously taken away. At that time, we were

promised that another site would be found, and now that site is in

jeopardy of -- once again -- being given to someone else. We can

relate to the frustration of the skateboarders over broken promises.

The TeWinkle Master Plan includes an expansion for the tennis court

facility, and the Bark Park is equally deserving and much more

desperate.

PATRICIA BELL

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Patricia Bell was actively involved with the Bark

Park Foundation from its inception in l994 to 2001. She continues to

write its quarterly newsletter, “The Free Pooch Press.”

Proposition 13 controls loose purse strings

Joe Bell, in his blind devotional to the Democratic Party and Sen.

Barbara Boxer, suggests a need to revisit Proposition 13. He must

have forgotten the reasons that California taxpayers supported the

initiative in the first place: Our elected leaders continue to fail

to live within the limitations of revenue and will spend whatever

they can get.

Besides, homeowners selling their dramatically inflated properties

in parts of California increase revenue through reassessments anyway.

It is not the quantity of tax dollars creating the problem; it is the

quality of the spending programs approved by our lawmakers.

Just look at our neighbors in Huntington Beach, who are in deep

financial distress because of an approved retirement plan for safety

employees. It provides lifetime retirement at 90% of current salary

at age 55. The German Socialist Republic has such a plan, and they

are going broke as well.

THOMAS E. KOLANSKI

Costa Mesa