Mailbag: Argument against smart growth presents ‘false dichotomy’

Chris Bunyan’s commentary (“Costa Mesa First’s initiative will cause city to stagnate,” Jan. 27) contains a number of exaggerations and misrepresentations about the Smart Growth Initiative.

Bunyan alleges that the initiative is “no growth” and “lethal for Costa Mesa residents’ future.” Other cities prospered during the recovery from the Great Recession, as did Costa Mesa, by building new homes and opening new businesses.

Bunyan cherry-picked a sentence from an article about the slowing of growth in Redondo Beach, which, as a built-out city, “has reached a point of maturity, wherein growth is generally small and steady,” according to its city community development director.

Yet Costa Mesa is not entirely built-out, and there are still plans to grow the city. Labeling the Smart Growth Initiative as “no growth” is simply begging the question. The allegation that the city would become stagnant and lose revenue is a false dichotomy.

The initiative will not prevent any project from being built that complies with the current General Plan. Developers can build commercial projects, housing, live/work projects, etc., because most properties already have the necessary zoning.

The Smart Growth Initiative will only apply to larger projects that seek a zoning change or General Plan amendment and exceed thresholds. Even then, if voters decide the project would benefit Costa Mesa, the project will be built — hence, no hands are inherently tied. The examples Bunyan provided, for instance, the arts and other projects that “wouldn’t exist,” is fallacious and steeped in fear tactics.

Further, Malibu’s Measure R makes for a poor comparison because it was an improperly constructed initiative aimed only at big box chain stores. Unlike Measure R, the Smart Growth Initiative is legally sound and modeled after viable initiatives that have survived the test of time.

It is easy to say that lawsuits will be filed because we live in a litigious society. However, what will be the reason for filing the lawsuit?

By now the city should be giving notice to any developer of a large project that it may be subject to a vote of the people. That developer could proceed at its own risk, or perhaps it will bring a project that will be beneficial to Costa Mesa and more likely to be approved by the voters.

If a developer decides to bring the project to the voters during a special election, it pays the costs. If it sues the city and loses, it pays both its legal fees and costs and those of the city.

Is the cost of a lawsuit high? Yes, but what is the cost of a poorly planned project that for 50 years or more impacts Costa Mesa with traffic, noise, pollution and less open space to the detriment of the quality of life of its residents?

The Smart Growth Initiative is a vision that will lead Costa Mesa into a new age — one where the residents control their future, rather than a three-person City Council majority that allows developer money to dictate city planning. It is time to untie the hands of the residents, not developers.

For more information, visit costamesa1st.com.

Cynthia McDonald

Assistant treasurer, Costa Mesa First

Costa Mesa

*

Dixon critic misses the point

Newport Beach Mayor Diane Dixon has been trying to make our city a better place. Her latest effort to enforce already-in-place ordinances at the river jetties has met the wrath of an activist named Michael Glenn. If the city gained jurisdiction over this small area, then it might be opened to dogs, like the rest of our beaches.

Glenn makes a fuss over residents’ tax dollars being wasted to patrol this area. I wonder how many of his “petition” signers are resident taxpayers? I wonder how much extra it costs to enforce an area already patrolled?

Animal control already patrols this area as its a small strip of sand adjacent to our patrolled beach. Glenn should figure out what the cost difference is should a county animal control officer have to drive cross-county to respond to a call at this beach as opposed to a local animal control officer. I think that answer would be clear to the taxpayer.

If someone on the county sand needed a lifeguard, fireman, EMT or police, would they be comfortable waiting for county services to arrive? No. Our taxpayer-funded services would be there. All Dixon is trying to do is add animal control to the list of services our city provides that area.

Glenn and his followers have offered up no alternatives to opening up this beach. They have gathered online signatures to tell officials they would rather have the county write tickets than the city. Instead of being productive they are hypercritical of city officials. Maybe they should gather signatures and form a non-profit to make an agreement with the county for a real dog beach.

Brett Sutton

Newport Beach