Bridging the divide

TONY DODERO

In December of 1999, former Daily Pilot reporter Elise Gee compiled a

report on the county’s proposed Santa Ana River Crossings Study

titled, “A bridge too far?”

Gee began the story with these lines:

“On an aerial map at Costa Mesa City Hall, the proposed 19th

Street bridge is a mere line, less than an inch long. But it’s a line

that has the potential to divide, not link, communities. For more

than a decade, the debate of whether to build a 19th Street bridge

has aroused people’s passions and inflamed their anger.”

Fast forward to 2003.

Just last month, the Newport Beach City Council voted to approve a

resolution requesting that the county keep the plans for a 19th

Street bridge on the county’s master plan.

The response has been much of the same aroused passion and

inflamed anger by many Costa Mesa residents, and the Daily Pilot

responded with a fairly strong worded editorial in which we scolded

Newport Mesa officials and even suggested that it was actions like

that in the bridge situation that had helped create the “bully” image

South County officials used against them so successfully in the El

Toro airport debate.

That didn’t sit well with Newport Beach folks who took offense to

us calling them bullies (which we really didn’t) and who believe that

we have just needlessly stoked the flames of discontent even further

between the two cities.

Our friends in Newport Beach may be right, but that was not the

intent of the editorial. In an attempt to explain our reasoning, let

me start with some background.

The idea of a 19th Street bridge over the Santa Ana River has been

a sore spot for Costa Mesa residents for more than 15 years.

The plans originally called for widening 19th Street, throughout

the Westside and Eastside, putting the fright into many who believed

that commuters driving to and from Huntington Beach or parts north

would skip the drive through Mariner’s Mile in Newport Beach and use

19th Street and Dover Drive to connect with Coast Highway.

The residential areas of the Eastside and Westside would be

destroyed, many believed and continue to believe.

It came to an emotional peak in 1993 when it looked like Costa

Mesa residents and city officials had successfully lobbied the county

supervisors to remove the bridges.

But despite months of heated meetings in which hundreds of Costa

Mesa residents crowded meetings at the city and county level, the

bridge issue was never really resolved as county officials ordered

the cities of Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley and

Newport Beach to seek a consensus along with the Orange County

Transportation Authority and find other solutions to the traffic

congestion the bridge was supposed to alleviate.

And throughout it all, the Daily Pilot has been firmly opposed to

a bridge, largely because the bridge would be built in and mainly

affect the city of Costa Mesa.

We’ve written numerous editorials saying as much. And so in this

latest clash between Newport Beach and Costa Mesa, we didn’t write

last week’s editorial because we felt the need to take one side over

the other and demonize Newport Beach, but because we needed to

maintain a consistent voice on this issue.

I think the readers expect our voice in these cases.

I agree that the editorial used some strong terms in making the

point, but in reviewing the editorial over and over again, I really

don’t believe we lost our civility, though I respect the opinion of

those readers who think we did.

Further, I firmly believe, as do most editors that I know of, that

the newspaper’s opinion, expressed in our editorials, should not

change on a whim.

For example, we wrote a very unpopular editorial in 2000, opposing

the Greenlight initiative in Newport Beach, which essentially takes

city planning out of the hands of city government and places it in

the ballot box.

When it comes to traffic and quality of life issues, we don’t

necessarily disagree with the sentiments of the Greenlight supporters

and believe they are doing what they think is right for their city.

We merely thought then that Greenlight wasn’t the answer, was bad

for the city and city government, and we maintain that stance today.

And even though it passed by a landslide, we have never changed our

position.

It’s not a personal decision, it’s a business decision made by the

newspaper.

Sometimes it’s unpopular to take a stand. But it is my hope that

our readers will ultimately respect us in the long run for doing so.

*

While we are talking about opinions, a few words about letters to

the editors or community commentaries.

We encourage letters to the editor and other forms of commentaries

on our Forum pages to help spark community debate and raise issues

and questions of importance.

But sometimes, letter writers insert statements that they claim as

fact that are either untrue or unverifiable.

For example, this week we had a letter writer make certain

allegations about the Muslim religion that was plain and simply

false.

Since we reserve the right to edit letters for clarity, grammar,

factual information and good taste, those statements often are left

on the cutting room floor and never make it into print.

The letters and commentaries that do get published need to follow

certain guidelines.

For statements of fact, readers should cite the source of the

information; don’t resort to name-calling or sarcasm; don’t use

racially-offensive terms; don’t refer to articles in other

publications; write in a clear and succinct manner; and make it clear

that the words you write are your opinion.

If those rules are followed, for the most part every letter has a

good chance of making it into the paper. I look forward to reading

them.