One Marinapark question remains What questions do...

One Marinapark question remains

What questions do you want answered about the proposed Marinapark

project? How about why?

Why would the city build a resort in a place that is not a

destination spot, just a nice place to live? Who would want to drive

through all the traffic down Newport Boulevard, through Costa Mesa,

West Newport and the peninsula?

Why would they choose this resort, when they can easily get to the

Hyatt and Hilton resorts in Huntington Beach, which are across the

street from the ocean. Then there’s the easily accessible Balboa Bay

Club resort. The Montage and Ritz Carlton in Laguna Beach are

destination spots on the ocean.

Why would the city want to further congest the peninsula with

additional traffic? Why would the city want to reduce the quality of

living on the peninsula? For $1 million in projected tax revenue,

$700,000 in projected revenue from meeting halls and restaurant and a

yet-to-be-determined dollar amount for the rent of the city’s land

use?

Why does the city staff continue to bring projects to the council

that require a general plan amendment, when we have yet to finish our

“vision?” Why? It makes no sense, maybe that’s why.

BARBARA JOHNSON

Newport Coast

Marinapark resort in troubled waters

If you intend to build a “five-star” resort, how will you address

and promote the water quality in that area of the bay and the

adjacent Rhine Channel area?

You’re building a resort next to the most toxic sediment “hot

spot” in Southern California, listed on the state “impaired water

body list” of 1998.

RANDY SETON

Newport Beach

1901 supporters make interesting allies

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw Sunday’s

Daily Pilot Forum. Imagine Bill Turpit and Martin Millard having

side-by-side letters and both agreeing on the 1901 Newport Blvd.

project.

I would like to comment on a remark made by Turpit. He stated that

decisions should not be made by “mob rule or popularity contest.”

Since he and Millard were about the only two people who spoke in

favor of the project during public comments, while the majority of

others spoke against it, I can see why he may feel that way. Were he

on the same side as the majority of the public, would he still feel

the same way? California has historically been a “populist” state.

This is evidenced by many propositions, referendums and even the

recall of a governor. We have a right to challenge the decisions of

our elected representatives.

Turpit hinted that maybe the public was not as informed about the

project as the decision makers. I daresay that there were several

individuals speaking who knew much more about the project than

Turpit. Everyone wants to see positive change, new housing and

revitalization, but not everyone agrees that we need to build a

project that is almost double the density allowed under the general

plan and then reward the developer for designing it.

JUDITH BERRY

Costa Mesa