Act V is solution: Just do the...

Act V is solution:

Just do the math

Everyone complains about parking but is unwilling to support

actions that contribute to at least one solution in a very complex

situation. If you do the math, moving the city maintenance yard to

the Act V site is one solution that makes total sense.

First, stop thinking about parking spaces and think about parking

days. That is really critical because use of parking in any part of

the canyon is naturally restricted to two months. Only nonresidents

use canyon parking as a last ditch after they have clogged our

Downtown streets looking for that single parking space that allows

them to walk 10 paces to the beach, restaurant, shop or artistic

venue they want to visit.

So let’s begin our math with the reasonable assumption that

parking anywhere in the canyon, including Act V, is only 65 days a

year. For later use in our calculation, we will assume any parking in

the Downtown area is available 365 days a year.

As permitted by the Coastal Commission, there are 170 parking

spaces at Act V. That is 11,050 parking days. As an un-permitted

operation (current use), that number kicks up to 400 spaces or 26,000

parking days.

The plan to move the city yard would mean 190 parking spaces at

Act V for a total of 12,350 parking days. A 12% increase over the

current permit but still short of un-permitted use.

The College of Art and Design parking (150 spaces or 9,750 parking

days) is available in the summer, and there is an agreement to use

that facility with access supported by those fine, free trams. With

that addition, now we are up to 22,100 parking days. That is nearly

the un-permitted condition mentioned earlier. Remember, this is only

two-month use of parking that is miles from Downtown and the beach

and must be supported by the taxpayers who pay for those free trams.

By moving the city yard, the vacated space can be paved and

striped, thus adding 190 Downtown parking spaces. We now have spaces

within walking distance of Downtown, available for residents,

visitors, and yes, even Downtown employees, 365 days a year. If your

calculator isn’t handy, that is 69,550 parking days without any

canyon parking. That is more than six times current permitted parking

at the Act V and 2.5 times the un-permitted parking days.

Finally, if you add the new Downtown parking and the

two-month-a-year parking at the new Act V lot and the college, you go

over 90,000 parking days. That is parking progress in anybody’s

language.

Not moving the city maintenance yard to the Act V lot: an insult

to all taxpayers, merchants and residents. Canyon parking for only

two months a year for nonresidents: a good thing for very few

taxpayers. Almost 70,000 parking days within walking distance of our

Downtown merchants, restaurants, art galleries, playhouse, pageant,

festival and canyon art venues: priceless!

DENNIS MYERS

Laguna Beach

Property rights often misunderstood

A misperception becomes reality when repeated often enough. The

most common in the ongoing spat regarding the Design Review Board,

Planning Commission, Heritage status and development or redevelopment

of any parcel is the idea of “inalienable rights of private

property.”

Knowledgeable students of historical trends in law, as well as

attorneys practicing in British, law-modeled countries, understand

the ramifications of this in a different light: It is in fact an

urban myth, without legal support.

William Blackstone (1723-1780), the British jurist who had a

significant voice in the furthering of land trust doctrines and

nuisance laws, wrote “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is

still considered by many to be the most definitive and comprehensive

singular treatment of property rights and other natural resource

matters. It is the inalienable rights of the public, not the

individual, who should prevail in disputes similar to those locals

are feuding over. This is not “anti-property” but pro-public good at

stake.

Blackstone quotes Roman law regarding nuisances, annoyances or

harm: “Sic utere ut alienum non laedas” translated as “Use your own

property but not as to injure or diminish another.” Therefore,

entrepreneurial endeavors whether of a single or multiple locations

must be viewed in the larger context. This is reflected in the

Preamble to our Constitution’s “Promote the general welfare”

metaphor.

The compression of urbanization and assertive capitalism has led

to the repetition of the inverse: “Hey, I’m the master here. This is

my property, and I’ll do as I please whether anybody likes it or

not.” The kings of England eventually capitulated to firm, precise

common sense and so should those complaining now. Isn’t it logical

that the rights of the many should prevail over the rights of one? In

a small community, who wants neighbors only selfishly interested in

themselves and their personal “revenue models” to the detriment of

many others, especially adjacent residents?

Laguna Beach is similar to a lifeboat -- our quality of life is

similar to our natural resources. Why are our public officials and

staff, their hand-picked committees and boards so willing to allow

others aboard our overcrowded and sinking raft or letting present

occupants gobble or drink more of our staples? Why are newcomers’

rights prevailing over the existent inhabitants of the boat?

Follow the money. Follow the power. More development/housing means

our planning and building departments, their support systems plus

their attendant boards and commissions have guaranteed job security

and something to deliberate. The city gets more revenue via fees. And

we start losing the very reasons we moved here. Thanks, City Hall ...

thanks a lot.

ROGER VON BUTOW

Laguna Beach

Grab a broom and make an impact

This morning I took a walk up my street -- on the way up I noticed

that there was a heavy runoff of water going into the storm drain. It

appeared as if it had been going on for a while. I found the source

of the water -- someone was hosing off their decks, patio and

driveway.

I continued my walk, and about 20 minutes later, the hosing-down

was still in progress. I, in a friendly voice, said, “I noticed the

buildup of water at the storm drain further down the street.” The

recipient of my comment said, “What do you want me to do about it?”

Duh, I thought, but said instead, “How about sweeping?” I think I

must have said it in a different language than what he normally

spoke, as it did not seem to make an impact.

I have a suggestion for these people who insist on hosing down

driveways and who are not only creating a mess on our streets and

other people’s property but wasting precious water (remember we still

are in a drought zone) and polluting the ocean (I think the level of

the ocean must have gone up by an inch by now).

Why not hand out brooms just like the city handed out low water

tank toilets. I bet some of these people don’t even know they still

make brooms or even how to use one. I think this would be a cheap

investment, a new form of exercise and certainly continuing a

cultural heritage that some of us probably have seen but forgotten

the fun and feeling of accomplishment that follows a good sweeping

event. I am sure even the whole family could participate.

Also, I hope the city does adopt an ordinance about keeping trash

bins out of public sight. My neighbor feels that it enhances his

driveway and considers it a work of art -- he is the only one who

does this. It is hard to believe that people with million-dollar

homes still think trash cans are an enhancement.

GANKA BROWN

Laguna Beach

* The Coastline Pilot is eager to run your letters. If you would

like to submit a letter, write to us at P.O. Box 248, Laguna Beach,

CA 92652; fax us at (949) 494-8979; or send e-mail to

coastlinepilot@latimes.com. Please give your name and include your

hometown and phone number, for verification purposes only.