Mailbag: Local businesses good for city revenue

It is very hard to understand the city of Newport Beach. Do they not enjoy the revenue brought in by local businesses? If they are going to get rid of businesses in residential areas, does that mean they will no longer enjoy the revenue from all the home-based businesses that also pay for business licenses (“Public support holds sway,” Oct. 20)?

Does this mean that they are going to tear down Marine Avenue and Agate Avenue on Balboa Island? They are both in residential areas. However, they are zoned for mixed use. I cannot imagine the businesses on PCH were not in at least a mixed-use zone. Businesses need to be approved by the city to open for operation.

If the businesses disappear, who is going to want to live on that stretch of PCH? There are already numerous walls protecting the homes from the road noise — on both sides of PCH between Superior and the Santa Ana River bed. Do we, the taxpayers, not pay for these walls? On a similar stretch of PCH near downtown Huntington Beach there are condos where businesses used to be. They are always for sale. The noise from PCH is deafening. No one wants to live on a highway.

What seems to be needed is a little common sense in these beach cities that suddenly want to become Beverly Hills and lose the character that brought every one to them in the first place. The powers that be need to pay attention when they write changes to the City Charter and be more specific about the type of business they are keeping out. People that come to the beach to shop are looking for unique stores that aren’t at the mall. Let’s keep it that way.

Carolyn L. Carr

Balboa Island

Councilman gets a taste of scorn

Councilman Eric Bever now knows what it is like to be Latino in Costa Mesa (“Bever alleges ‘stink eye,’” Oct. 17). How does it feel, Mr. Bever?

Lizabeth McNabb

Costa Mesa

Columnist not accurate about welfare

I am amazed that Judge Gray should write as he did about people on welfare (“It’s a Gray Area: The trick of the current welfare system,” Oct. 17). Does he not know that there is a five-year lifetime limit for being on welfare? That rule started during the Clinton administration with welfare reform in 1996. And he says that the welfare system “deprives them of both their motivation and their pride”; how does he know this? And then he proposes a system of “dormitory living ... group-style meals, medical care at government-sponsored clinics (don’t think there are any in Orange County)” etc. That would give people back the pride they have been deprived of by the welfare system? And it sure would help the kids a lot! Would they benefit from “the logical and necessary stigma of being placed to live in the public facilities”?

I volunteer at a charity in Orange County and have had women with children crying at my desk because she lost her cashier’s job when the store closed, the gas has been turned off, they have an eviction notice and the abusive father of the kids is no use at all. Her pride is hurting all right, but not by being on welfare; it is hurting because she never thought she’d have to ask for help like this, but she has to do something or sleep in the car with the kids.

Believe me, this is the reality out there. Not the world Judge Gray paints.

Tricia Harrigan

Corona del Mar

Park could be named after local judge

The article about the Newport mayor wishing to name a park after President Reagan (“Curry proposes changing park name,” Oct. 15). Why not honor a local figure instead of Reagan, who already has so much named after him? Let’s name the park after Judge Robert Gardner? He would surely have a good witticism about such an occasion. Better yet, include a couple of his best quips on the plaque naming the park after him.

Roger Kempler

Laguna Beach