MAILBAG - Jan. 25, 2007

Consider land near library for new, central city hall

This is a new year, and we have a new City Council, with four newly elected members. The top priority of the new City Council is finding a central location and constructing a new city hall. The City Council is also charged with the prudent conservation and allocation of our fiscal resources.

With the Balboa Bay Club Racquet Club property now out of the picture as a city hall site, and even though the council may be considering other locations, it seems appropriate to consider revisiting the possibility of a combination of a city hall and a park on the land north of the central library.

This site is a marvelous resource already owned by the city, and using it efficiently with both a park and a city hall could save the taxpayers of this town about $40 million required to buy another site.

Before closing the door on the potential inclusion of a city hall with a park on this property, the City Council should consider postponing the decision on funding construction of the park. Replacement of our city hall has been discussed since the ‘90s, is now a top priority, and until its new central location is resolved, it would seem inappropriate to proceed with this passive park.

Preliminary studies indicate that a city hall could be built on the land north of the Central Library complying with the Site Plane Ordinance and with virtually no effect on views from the homes above MacArthur Boulevard. A good deal of the motivation for promoting a passive park on the land at Avocado Avenue and MacArthur has been the concern of the Harbor View residents because of effects on their views. Certainly these concerns should be and can be accommodated with a creative, sensitively designed city hall in the park. It could be a win-win situation, saving Newport Beach taxpayers millions of dollars.

RON HENDRICKSON

Newport Beach

Funds are available for tsunami-warning sirens

I applaud the Pilot for airing a very important issue and suggest that there is a source of funding available. A tsunami-warning system of sirens meets the intent of the agreement that created the funds and would not draw on other city resources.

I have outlined a proposal to pay for a tsunami-warning system from “beach encroachment funds” and met with the city manager, the fire chief and his tsunami coordinator. I was pleased to find out that some preliminary planning was already underway. A control center could be set up at the lifeguard headquarters at Newport Pier, and warning sirens could be installed at various lifeguard stands. Firm cost estimates were not available; however, it was estimated that the system for clearing the beach rapidly could be installed for under $1 million.

The story of how these funds are available is long and complicated but briefly summarized.

I believe we would all support using these funds for a tsunami-warning system and then having the City Council terminate the annual increase. The council has the authority to “adjust” annual fees once a year. The current assessments provide more than $200,000 of annual income, more than enough to maintain and improve the West Newport street ends and a new tsunami-warning system.

JERRY COBB

Newport Beach

Award from mayor is an affront to Constitution

Mayor Allan Mansoor is rewarding students for defending the Pledge of Allegiance (“Allegiance to pledge gets award,” Jan. 15). Just exactly what is he rewarding? Is it defense of the flag? Is it defense of the Constitution? No, it’s the phrase “under God,” inserted in 1954, that has stirred the controversy. This is a reward for defending conforming, mind-numbing, theocratic nationalism that is popular with those who want to make believe this is a “Christian nation.”

This movement twists the straight words of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and the clear opinions of its framers to deny the rest of us the freedom of religion and separation of religion and state that are clearly set forth as our rights.

The only controversy over the pledge is the threat to our constitutional rights by religious zealots. This is undemocratic and un-American.

I would like to remind Mansoor and student Christine Zoldos that those veterans who fought and died did so not for God, but for those freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

JAMES E. YOUNG

Newport Beach