The right resort in the wrong place...
The right resort in the wrong place
Honey, let’s get away for a luxurious, $400-per-night stay at a
nearby five-star resort this weekend. Where shall we go?
How about the fabulous Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Niguel --
overlooking the sparkling Pacific -- with its panoramic view of
sunsets, three on-site award-winning restaurants and access to
adjacent golf courses at Monarch Bay and Pelican Hill?
Or maybe the Montage in Laguna Beach with its private cabanas, and
proximity to art galleries, shops, theaters and restaurants?
Oh, I’ve got it. Let’s go to the Marinapark Resort down on the
Newport Peninsula, right in the middle of “a declining neighborhood
with crummy bars, tattoo parlors, body piercing shops and a drug
rehabilitation house,” to quote Fred Anderson in a letter titled
“Building Marinapark trumps opening another tattoo parlor,” that ran
in Daily Pilot’s mailbag on Feb. 15.
No Anderson, you don’t have “bars, tattoo parlors and drug rehab
houses” on one hand and a “five-star resort” on the other. You would
have an all-of-the-above mix in “one five-block area surrounding the
Newport Pier.” This is no neighborhood in which to build a five-star
resort, as any reputable, unbiased marketing study would find
obvious.
Has the City Council -- while salivating over this highly
speculative adventure -- stopped to consider who would pick up the
tab for a multimillion-dollar boutique hotel in bankruptcy? The
developers will have gone home with their pockets stuffed full of
cash and the city will be stuck with a white elephant. But wait,
maybe not. Maybe the farsighted council will then convert it to a
five-star City Hall, with private bay front offices, a marina and
sandy beach out front; supported by the generous and deep-pocketed
taxpayers of Newport Beach.
BETTY J. BERKSHIRE
Newport Beach
1901 provides much needed housing
Your Feb. 24 article “1901 density debate lingers” was a fine
examination of the issues surrounding the 1901 Newport Boulevard
development, but I couldn’t help but notice the ignorant comments of
former Costa Mesa Mayor Sandra Genis. Genis was quoted as saying
Costa Mesa should limit itself to “moderate” housing density and
implied that higher-density projects like the one planned for 1901
will eliminate the pleasant and family-friendly feel of Costa Mesa.
Perhaps Genis should think a little more carefully before making
remarks like these. When one considers the full range of housing
densities in the world, such as Paris or Chicago -- both with areas
in excess of 200 units per acre -- 1901 Newport Boulevard’s 40 units
per acre is actually well within the moderate range Genis claims to
prefer.
In addition, Genis’ equating increased housing density with the
decline of family oriented communities and the loss of open space is
ridiculous. To refute this statement, one needs only to look a few
miles up the freeway to Pasadena, a suburban community widely known
for both its idyllic family atmosphere and vibrant downtown. The
heart of Pasadena boasts pleasant parks and lushly landscaped streets
while maintaining housing densities that often exceed what is
proposed for 1901 Newport Boulevard.
Considering all these facts, it’s hard to see what the big deal
is. The only open space to be lost as a result of the project’s
construction is a parking lot and a paltry strip of grass. It will
place residents right at the doorstep of Triangle Square, which
sorely needs business. All of this, while providing housing at a time
when the region is desperate for it.
Sounds to me like Genis should reexamine her comments.
NIALL HUFFMAN
Costa Mesa
Slackening of the city’s purse strings
Monday evening I watched as the men of the Costa Mesa City Council
wrestled with the issue of how to trim expenses and find new revenue
sources in our city -- an attempt to reconcile the tight fiscal
condition of our city because of the state’s financial distress. I
listened to them discuss items on a list provided by the city staff
that should be included for scrutiny and possible reduction or
elimination.
For the most part, it seemed as if everything was on the table
except wages and benefits for city employees, whose contracts are
apparently up for negotiation soon. In two weeks, at a time when
grieving Councilwoman Libby Cowan is expected to return, the staff
will present the council with details on those items called out for
consideration -- many of which are social and recreation programs,
including the recently approved skate park at TeWinkle Park.
Then, on Tuesday, I read Planning Commissioner -- and probable
City Council candidate -- Katrina Foley’s commentary that ripped on
the council for mismanaging legal and development agreement funds to
the tune of a few million dollars. As usual, her argument was clearly
thought out and strongly presented. It is difficult to find fault
with her position. I did, however, find myself wondering how our
council will justify haggling over pennies when they have given away
the farm.
While we’re on the subject, what ever happened to the $200,000
earmarked for the ill-fated Huscroft House?
The council only has a couple of months in which to resolve those
funding issues that require placement on the ballot in November. What
a perfect opportunity, once again, to see what they are made of.
Undoubtedly, it will also give us a chance to see other potential
council candidates in action as they sign in on this issue.
To paraphrase actor Robert Duval in “Apocalypse Now,” I love the
smell of politics in the spring.
GEOFF WEST
Costa Mesa
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.