Commission needs serious revision In response to...

Commission needs

serious revision

In response to last week’s question: Sure, it would be nice if

Orange County continued to have a rep on the California Coastal

Commission; the devil knows we have enough problems. However, the

real problem is not where the commissioners are from, but who they

are. These commissioners should be representative of all the

residents and should not be selected because they are

environmentalists, zealots of the coast, nor slaves or prisoners of

the various environmental extremist groups.

Councilwoman Toni Iseman’s response to your paper’s questions last

week clearly showed how these special interest groups demand and get

their way with the commissioners, commissioners who are supposed to

represent all of us. One of the letters from a special interest group

(Rick Wilson of Surfrider Foundation) last week criticizing Iseman

clearly demonstrated the narrowness of their thinking: “No, we don’t

expect a 100% correct voting record....” The word “correct” applies

only to their heavily biased thinking and view points. Many other

people may think just the opposite.

I have no problem with Wilson’s group, but he does not represent

me or the vast majority of the state’s residents. I can appreciate

the group’s efforts and input, but I do not want to be subject to its

demands, and I don’t want my representatives to be controlled by them

or any such group. We need representatives on every state and city

commission who represent all of the people and who are not already

biased one way or the other nor beholden to special interest groups

for obtaining or holding onto their positions of trust.

DAVE CONNELL

Laguna Beach

Commission needs

an O.C. member

Is it true that Orange County does not have a representative on

the California Coastal Commission?

That is ridiculous. Orange County has one of the most crowded,

overpopulated and highly desirable coastlines in California.

I didn’t have to tell you that.

As a resident of Laguna Beach and a daily visitor to the beach, I

feel strongly about this.

The California Coastal Commission is involved in some of the most

important decisions regarding public access and use of our near shore

ocean. We most certainly need a representative here in Orange County.

JOHN GROENHOF

Laguna Beach

Increase taxes to

fix Bluebird Canyon

Yes, taxes should be raised to restore Bluebird Canyon.

I was born and raised at the top of Flamingo Road. I’ve seen a lot

of changes to that canyon, and it is one of the most beautiful

canyons in the world. It must be restored.

I would give my heart and soul to help if I could. Remember, this

helps all those who have lost everything; it gives them a chance to

rebuild what they lost. Don’t deny them that.

LIZA INTERLANDI STEWART

Laguna Beach

Use bonds to fund

any canyon repairs

This is in response to the question, “Should taxes be raised in

Laguna to fund restoration of Bluebird Canyon?”

My position is that as we bought the acres in Laguna Canyon for

open space for the community, we Laguna Beach property owners need to

carry the financial burden of the land restoration of Bluebird Canyon

by way of a bond, supported by a property-tax increase equally

distributed among the residential and business property owners of

Laguna. With this bond financing and repayment of this debt, all the

residents of Laguna Beach will be carrying the same financial burden.

I think it would not be fair or appropriate to shift the financial

burden to people visiting Laguna with a bed or sales tax.

SAMUEL GOLDSTEIN

Laguna Beach

Privately fund

Bluebird restoration

In response to your request for comments relative to the

desirability of public funding for the reconstruction of the Bluebird

Canyon area, my observations and comments are as follows:

* The loss experienced by a number of the residents in Bluebird

Canyon due to the recent geologic failures is tragic and unfortunate.

* However, living in slide-prone areas is one of several risks we

assume when we purchase in our idyllic community, and there have

never been any guarantees of assistance from either public or private

sources to protect us from the decision we make in choosing to live

here. (Other risks include flooding, wildfires and earthquakes,

though it is granted that these three risks can be mitigated to some

extent by insurance coverage.)

* Other than to repair those facilities absolutely required to

preserve the health, safety and general welfare of the remaining

habitable structures in the Bluebird Canyon area, no governmental

funds should be expended in any form, especially city money.

* I am unalterably opposed to the use of public funds for any such

private purposes without a clear demonstration that the benefits from

those expenditures significantly benefit the community at large. In

this instance, it appears impossible to demonstrate any such benefit.

* I am completely in favor of asking every household in the city

to voluntarily make a donation of $1,000 for rehabilitation of the

Bluebird slide area and for the reconstruction of damaged and lost

residences. If my calculations are accurate, this fund-raising should

exceed that estimated by the city as being required to perform all

repairs and replacements of public and private improvements in this

area. This approach seems equitable and reasonable and allows us all

to see how committed we are to our neighbors and the preservation of

the lifestyle we cherish so much in our town.

JIM BARISIC

Laguna Beach

Owners should repay city for Bluebird lots

Taxes should not be raised to correct private property and replace

flat building sites for residents who unfortunately lost their land

in the slide. In addition, no city money should be used to pay for

anything other than what is required for secondary access to Bluebird

Canyon.

I would support, however, city-sponsored assistance to those

homeowners who have suffered this hardship.

Here is a suggestion: The city would obtain a bond for the cost of

the portion of work above reestablishing the infrastructure and

provide each homeowner with a usable lot. These additional costs

would then be assessed to each homeowner based on the work required

on their respective lot. The city would place a lien for the assessed

amount on each homeowner, which would not have to be paid back to the

city until the owner(s) died or property title was transferred. Any

claims paid by insurance companies would be kept by the homeowners.

The costs per homeowner would work out to be far less than the value

of the lot in today’s market and certainly in the future.

Homeowners could then build on their lots, which in essence cost

them nothing (up-front) and then live in or sell the properties as

they desire. The city would be paid back from the proceeds of the

home.

ED TODESCHINI

Laguna Beach

Watching progress

of the Great Park

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the Millennium Plan and

resulting Orange County Great Park. However I learned a number of

negative things at the stakeholders meeting on June 18. Some of this is just facing up to reality, and I am still quite enthusiastic. This

is particularly so when I remember it is replacing a large

international airport at El Toro.

The Navy is “in escrow,” selling the former El Toro Marine Corps

Air Station to Lennar Communities, which will be able to develop

approximately 16% of the property. In return, Lennar must pay $200

million in development fees and an additional $200 million in

property assessments to be used for the development of the Great

Park.

I have been telling people that:

* Out of the 4,700 acres, only 1,000 acres would be privately

developed, leaving about a 3,700-acre urban park that would be larger

than New York’s Central Park, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park and

San Diego’s Balboa Park combined.

* The former Marine Corps air station has more than 1,000 acres of

natural open space, which would remain as permanent open space.

* This open space is next to the Cleveland National Forest and

would be connected to the Laguna Wilderness Park/Crystal Cove State

Park.

A big surprise to me is that privately owned homes would be along

privately owned golf courses, however the golf courses to be open to

the public.

The design finalists reception will be 3 p.m. Tuesday at the

Irvine Civic Center.

The Orange County Great Park should be something of which we all

will be very proud. I encourage all to get involved and join the

Orange County Great Park Conservancy. Go to https://www.

orangecountygreatpark.org.

GENE FELDER

Laguna Beach