MAILBAG:

Daily Pilot columnist Alicia Lopez sings the praises of the DREAM Act (“Dreams of children of immigrants,” Oct. 21).

Lopez calls it a “gem,” but far from a “gem” or a dream, it not only amounts to back-door amnesty, it is genuinely a nightmare.

The very name of the DREAM Act is itself deceptive and misleading.

The fact is that it is not just for minors, but for illegal immigrants of any age, as long as they entered the country before the age of 16.

One of the most egregious aspects of the bill, and there are many, is that it amounts to preferential treatment for illegal aliens, allowing them a path to citizenship and other benefits, that are denied to legal immigrants.

What a preposterous proposal! Where is the justice? Quite obviously, there is none. I could go on, but why bother. Isn’t that enough?

Fortunately, the U.S. Senate in a vote of 52-44 wisely rejected the DREAM Act recently.

Expect it to come up again. Sen.Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has been championing and has lobbied for this legislation for five years.

With the failure of the passage of comprehensive immigration reform earlier this year, supporters of the DREAM Act hoped to push it through piecemeal.

ILA JOHNSON

Costa Mesa

Proposed condo project deemed an eyesore

I am writing in regard to the write-up about Brion Jeannette in the DP 103 (“Brion Jeannette,” Oct. 19).

It is incorrect that the Aerie condominium project must go before the City Council and the California Coastal Commission.

The fact is that the Aerie project already went before the City Council and was denied at the Aug. 14 meeting, as the majority of council members were concerned with the scale and massive size (larger than the proposed new city hall at approximately 74,000 square feet and seven stories visible from Newport Harbor), the visual impact from the harbor, the precedent it would set, the use of car elevators and the destruction of the bluff, as the project does not conform to existing coastal land-use policies.

It was sent back to the Planning Commission with definite guidelines given by the council “if the applicant decides to proceed,” as stated by Mayor Rosansky.

The project has not been resubmitted to the Planning Commission at this time, but has resulted in an amendment of the Coastal Land Use Plan to clarify the specific language of policies that were being purposely undermined and misinterpreted to get it passed.

This amendment has taken much time and effort by many people at the city, and it should be noted — along with the fact that the project was not embraced by the council (see tape of meeting at city website), as well as many neighbors and others who don’t want to see this type of “excessive” development on a coastal bluff — that it will visually impact the neighborhood and everyone who uses the harbor.

If resubmitted and approved by the Planning Commission, the project would then have to go back to the City Council for approval, and then to the California Coastal Commission for approval, and it appears the property is in escrow contingent on these approvals.

Your last statement was correct. “It could be awhile before anyone nests at the Aerie,” if ever.

LISA VALLEJO

Newport Beach

HOW TO GET PUBLISHED

Mail to the Daily Pilot, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Send a fax to (714) 966-4667 or e-mail us at dailypilot@latimes.com. All correspondence must include full name, hometown and phone number (for verification purposes). The Pilot reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity and length.