MAILBAG - Jan. 21, 2007

Wasting time is wasting money at high school

Four years. Four years is how long Robins Hall has been sitting empty at Newport Harbor High School. This building held not only the wonderful theater, but more than a dozen classrooms, a courtyard and school offices. To make up for the closed classrooms, rows of portable buildings are filled with students on the far side of campus.

My oldest son was lucky enough to attend Newport Harbor as the beautiful school it was. His youngest brother following him four years later spent his entire high school career — as thousands now have — attending classes in what amounts to a trailer park.

The students and the exceptional faculty at Newport Harbor deserve better than promises that demolition and reconstruction will start “next summer” (something that’s been said for several summers now).

What I want to know is this: Is anyone on our school board adding up the money lost that was earned renting out the theater, or the thousands of dollars spent on portable classrooms for four years now? Steve Smith (“An educated guess about school logic,” Jan. 10), if you find those numbers, I think you’ll know just how minor $53,000 in stolen lighting equipment really is.

KARE (HODGE) GRAMS

Costa Mesa

One-issue council majority botches vote

The Costa Mesa City Council missed a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to provide immeasurable benefits to our community (“City approves plans for five high-rises,” Wednesday). The entrenched three-vote majority showed that ideology reigns supreme in their governance.

Their refusal to “place an added burden on developers” by imposing fees for libraries, public art and affordable housing shows an utter, maybe deliberate, misunderstanding of the concept of community benefits.

Their insistence that government should have no say in the business transactions of developers fails to acknowledge the role government plays in allowing developers to achieve huge profits.

By rezoning commercial land to residential and increasing density to 125 units per acre from 20, the assessed valuation of the project, which is $34.54 million, rises to $1.46 billion when built out. That’s an increase of $1.43 billion that could not be achieved without government’s help.

In other more enlightened cities, some substantial return to benefit the larger community is expected and demanded before approval of a project. Costa Mesa asked for no return from the five developers whose projects the council approved Tuesday night. Costa Mesa will never again be presented with such a massive and transforming project. One more vote would have made a tremendous difference for our community.

Some of the comments made and actions taken Tuesday night (for example, disbanding the youth-in-government program) showed a rigid ideology and an embarrassing lack of knowledge on many important issues.

Unfortunately, our last election was mainly decided on one issue. Too bad we couldn’t have seen that wisdom and reasoned judgment are needed on a range of issues. Thanks are owed to Councilwomen Linda Dixon and Katrina Foley for their valiant, but probably hopeless, efforts to do what’s best for Costa Mesa.

JEAN FORBATH

Costa Mesa

Forbath is the Costa Mesa Housing Coalition chairwoman.

One key point was omitted in Wednesday’s article describing the City Council’s vote onthe five North Costa Mesa high-rise residential project proposals. The developers represented that they were comfortable paying any fees — affordable housing, public art or libraries — if the fees were part of a citywide policy, and not just subject to the project area. That’s a fair and reasonable position. From the developers’ standpoint, they expect to pay these fees almost anywhere. Costa Mesa, surprisingly, is the only city among our coastal neighbors without an affordable-housing fee program. Instituting these types of fees is not an attempt to “squeeze” developers and exact concessions, but is sound policy responding to the real effects of development (especially the kind that needs discretionary approvals).

It is a shame that the three-member majority of the council feels that exploring and instituting such policies would unduly burden the developers and intrude on the “market.” The market, to be sure, is defined in part by regulations and public policies. The entire Costa Mesa community would have been better served if the council allowed the developers to meet even their minimum expectations.

JEFFREY HARLAN

Costa Mesa

Sailor should pay costs incurred on ‘ego trip’

Peggy Calhoun is spot on in her letter, “Sailor should reimburse heroes who rescued him.” She contends that Ken Barnes Jr. should immediately repay financial losses incurred by the tenacious fishermen who saved him from almost certain death.

People who deliberately put themselves in harm’s way for whatever reason (Barnes’ “being the best he can be” must number among the more vapid and self-serving of excuses) should be ready, willing and able to repay the costs of their rescue, whether it be to individuals or public entities. Why should anyone be responsible for the cost of someone’s ego trip?

JANE LOWRY

Newport Beach

Developers expected to pay fees for buildings