IN THE NEWSROOM:Park ruling is baseless

Last Saturday, Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor penned an op-ed piece taking us to task for our editorial on the council’s decision to decree Paularino Park as “passive.”

I welcome the mayor’s opinion, I kid you not, and I’m actually happy to see him use the Daily Pilot as a forum to express his views.

But I just wanted to take a minute and explain our editorial position and also how editorials come to be in the first place.

The editorials for the paper, as some readers have noticed and complained about, are unsigned. That’s because they are not the opinion of one person, but the collective opinion of the newspaper.

Top-ranking members of the newspaper, and I’m one of them, meet once a week to discuss and debate the issues. There is not always a consensus and usually if the majority can’t agree on one point, we decline to take an official position on the topic.

So back to the Paularino Park editorial.

Let me clarify some of the issues that seem to be lost on Mansoor and others.

The main point the editorial began with is the growing trend we see where children and adults who use local parks are more and more treated like pariahs, rather than welcomed with open arms by the local neighborhood.

The complaints all seem to be the same. The players are too loud. The lights are too bright and on too long. They urinate in the park. They leave trash. They park their cars on the neighboring streets.

Basically, the neighbors near the parks or the schools don’t want any activity there.

These problems are not new. But it seems past generations found better ways to address them instead of banning certain activities or groups.

And past generations seemed to welcome parks and those who use them as part of the entire community.

That shift in public sentiment, we believe, is a sad commentary on today’s modern society.

Also, we noted, putting new city rules in effect to clamp down on park users is a slap in the face to the basic liberties of all citizens.

Mayor Mansoor and Councilman Eric Bever, who both support this new government action, often cite their “conservative” credentials.

But the conservative movement we are familiar with doesn’t look to government to enact new laws or ordinances, unless there is an overriding reason to do so.

Conservatives prefer to use the laws and ordinances already on the books. No need to gum up the process with new red tape.

For example, if people are indeed urinating in public parks, there are laws to stop that.

If soccer players are using the park for organized sports, there are laws to stop that, too.

We, as in the collective voice of the newspaper, agree with that conservative ideal.

Part of the council’s rationale for taking action, according to our news story, was that it was a public safety issue.

We found that one the hardest to fathom.

In fact, I’ll go out on a limb here and say we believe there is no “public safety” concern with kids or adults playing soccer in Paularino Park or any other park for that matter. Zero, zilch, nada.

It’s a made-up problem.

Mansoor, in his op-ed piece, also scoffed at the idea that throwing Frisbees or playing catch with a baseball is in jeopardy at Paularino Park, saying that was not the “intent” of the council’s action. But the city attorney ruled, at the council meeting, that indeed the new rules do affect those activities.

If Mansoor is saying only one aspect of the rule will be enforced, such as banning soccer but not Frisbee throwing, then that’s a surprising statement coming from someone who works in law enforcement. Is he saying the city will be selectively enforcing the rules?

Finally, it should also be noted that despite all the controversy surrounding Paularino Park, city officials who investigated the complaints over the years never found any credible problems to report. No safety issues, no injuries, no toddlers being battered by soccer balls, no evidence of urination or defecation on playground equipment, as some of the more hysterical and apparently imaginative critics have alleged.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of no problems to report, the “conservative” faction of the City Council saw a reason for government to act.

Why?

That’s a question only those on the council can truly answer. And so far, the answers we’ve heard from them sound as hollow, and disturbingly similar, as the complaints that started this mess in the first place.