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