EDITOR’S NOTE: The following are letters written...

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following are letters written by elected officials

in response to readers’ comments that appeared in the Daily Pilot’s

forum pages.

Reagan’s quotes used with full permission

My friend Clarence “Bus” Turner’s Feb. 17 letter to the editor,

“Cox’s outrage seems a little hypocritical,” illustrates exactly why

I am so unhappy to see candidate Cristi Cristich’s mail piece

claiming my endorsement: After writing a neutrality letter to the

leading 70th Assembly District candidates at the request of the

Cristich campaign, I’m now being dragged into a controversy I didn’t

want.

Turner and I have long had a good working relations, especially

when he was the mayor of Newport Beach. Now, however, he’s moved to

wonder -- in print -- about the Cristich campaign comparison of their

acknowledged improper use of my letter, and my own quotation from

President Reagan’s letters to me in my first primary election.

Particularly because he backed one of my opponents, Turner knows

that no one, even in 1988, contested the accuracy of those Reagan

quotations. The two letters were both highly laudatory, in the Reagan

style: one thanking me for my service as a White House counsel, and

the other specifically thanking me for advice to the president as he

prepared for the 1988 Moscow summit with Mikhail Gorbachev.

The quotations from these letters were completely faithful.

Nothing was taken out of context, or changed to mean the opposite of

what was intended. The use of the letters in the campaign was

approved, in advance, by the White House. Although the president did

not endorse in any Republican congressional primaries, I was invited

to use the letters in my campaign literature.

Hope that answers your question, Turner.

CHRISTOPHER COX

Newport Beach

* CHRISTOPHER COX represents the 47th Congressional District,

which includes much of Newport Beach, in the U.S. House of

Representatives.

City of the Arts must also know its place

In her Feb. 7 letter to the editor titled “City of the Arts should

live up to its name,” Gay Geiser-Sandoval got it wrong regarding the

development agreement in the theater and arts district.

The first thing that Geiser-Sandoval questions is whether certain

members of the City Council represent the children or the developers.

I don’t think there has to be a choice between the two. We need a

balanced approach. The children, and everyone for that matter, will

have world-class venues to attend.

And for the record, I vocally opposed the Home Ranch development

the way it was proposed before I was on the council. I also voted

against the development at 1901 Newport Boulevard, as it is too dense

as proposed. So I don’t think you have to be either/or, but rather

look at each situation on it’s own merits.

That is what I did with the theater-arts district plan.

First of all, let me start by saying that the plan brought forward

by Planning Commissioner Katrina Foley had good intent. We all want

good things for the children in our city. The problem I had with the

proposal was that most development agreements have to do with

infrastructure upgrades and trip fees normally go toward street

improvements.

As was mentioned by another council member, what is next? Theater

and arts fees, cultural arts fees, school foundation fees? Where do

we draw the line? When funding runs out will it be funded with new

development agreements? At some point everything would be funded by

taxes and fees. I question if this is the proper role of government.

Not knowing how much the infrastructure upgrades would cost, we

asked for and collected a high amount of $2.2 million but could only

identify $630,000 in upgrades to public infrastructure. The rest was

to go at least in part to undefined ways they should conduct their

business and advertise. This should not be the role of government.

The portion of the Home Ranch development agreement that called

for money to go to local schools is a good example of the red tape

that is caused when government is charged with overseeing how $2

million is spent compared to private individuals freely donating

money to private organizations.

I do not believe it was proper for us to just use it for anything

else we desire, so it went back to it’s original owners to use for

their own designated upgrades. I know that giving it back is a

concept some find difficult to comprehend, but look how much

Sacramento and Washington, D.C., have taken and how they have fumbled

it away. I suggest that if it had stayed in the hands of its rightful

owners it would have been put to more efficient use.

Another thing the plan originally called for was mandating that

they have a website. Have we really gone that far in telling private

businesses how to operate?

It was interesting that Geiser-Sandoval said the city “extracted”

this money from the developers. Yes, that is what we did. It might

not even be necessary for the city to “extract” funds from developers

for basic infrastructure if the state of California were not so

proficient in “extracting” tax dollars from city government to fund

the state’s obligations to public education. The primary focus of

your local government, or any government for that matter, should be

on infrastructure and public safety. Unfortunately, there are those

who believe we should be “extracting” money for anything and

everything. That is the climate in Sacramento. I don’t want that to

be the climate in Costa Mesa.

ALLAN MANSOOR

Costa Mesa

* ALLAN MANSOOR is a Costa Mesa City Councilman.

Sensible mobile home ordinance would get support

With regard to Dick Matherly’s comments that ran Feb. 14 in the

Readers Respond section, “Mobile home ordinance might drive some

away,” about the Mobile Home Park Closure Ordinance, I would like to

clarify my position.

I wholeheartedly agree that the issue of senior housing in Costa

Mesa is an important one, and I have long maintained that the city

has not done enough to provide quality senior housing opportunities.

I may be new on the commission, but I have followed the park

closure issue from the onset, listened to all involved parties and

diligently studied the ordinance, which supports California state

code.

The emotion revolving around the El Nido and Snug Harbor mobile

home park closures is totally understandable, and no offense was

meant to those who are being required to move.

It is my firm belief that the ordinance that we were asked to

forward was bad for both park residents, and park owners because,

among other things, it is rooted in this very emotional situation. We

should not allow the tension of this unfortunate situation to set the

stage for all future unit owner and park owner relations.

Given the fact that the ordinance is not going to affect the

current closures, it makes sense to step back and let the closure

process run its course. After the current closures have been

resolved, we will have a rich source of reference to consider, should

we desire to craft a new ordinance.

The motivation behind the effort should be a desire to create a

framework for fulfilling our responsibility as defined by state law.

The state of California is clear in its code, wherein it requires the

local body to review the park closure report, and provides that the

local authority may compel the park owner to provide unit owners

“fair compensation -- not to exceed the cost of relocation” upon

closure of a mobile home park.

The responsibility the state put before us is not to protect

homeowners, nor to punish park owners; it is to exact fairness to

both parties when a mobile home park is closed.

The ordinance before the Planning Commission last Monday went well

beyond what the state requires, and contains elements which are

punitive toward park owners.

The ordinance, if it is finally adopted, will have negative

impacts on park owners, which they will most certainly pass on to

their residents.

In closing, we need to bear in mind that many times an evil is

made worse by the remedies used. A reasonable ordinance will serve

all parties well, and if such ordinance is unveiled, it will have my

full support.

ERIC BEVER

Costa Mesa

* ERIC BEVER is a Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner.