Readers respond

Quinn should not complain about coverage

This letter is in response to Tim Quinn’s letter (“Community

Commentary: It should be no surprise that Newport Dunes is on public

land,” Apr. 1) (even though Mr. Quinn was speaking on behalf of Evans

Hotels and not the community).

Mr. Quinn’s response and objections to the Daily Pilot article on

public land were both inappropriate and predictable.

They were predictable in that they sought to focus attention on the

revenue-producing aspect of this project, which is always the mantra of

Evans Hotels.

They were inappropriate because, like it or not, the vast majority of

the public who will be affected by this project gain what knowledge they

have about it through public comments of elected officials and the media.

Only a small fraction of the affected public have attended the

presentations or the Planning Commission meetings.

Elected officials have offered virtually no comment on the public land

aspect of this project. The only branch of the media devoting any

attention to this very significant issue is the Daily Pilot.

The Daily Pilot has an obligation to cover all aspects of this issue

regardless of whether some would prefer they focus only on certain

issues.

The use of public lands is certainly every bit as deserving of front

page coverage as was the hoisting of balloons over the proposed site or

the architectural renderings of the proposed hotel (all of which have

also received front page coverage).

Lastly, Mr. Quinn’s histrionic response is just inappropriate. There

is nothing “sudden,” “sensational,” “specious,” or “irresponsible” about

the publishing of the article or the quotes or information contained it

it. No one is attacking Mr. Quinn, his family, employees or friends in

the community. This is merely legitimate opposition to an inappropriate

project pursued by Evans Hotels for its financial gain. The public has a

right to be informed and to voice its views.

STEVEN E. BRIGGS

Newport Beach

Property rights not properly presented

I have not saved all my past issues, but I am guessing that previous

letters to the Pilot supported the Dunes Hotel project on the basis of

private property rights. I am guessing that Mr. Quinn did not beat down

your door demanding a correction. Now that you have appropriately brought

this fact (that it is public property) to the attention of your readers,

Mr. Quinn is outraged. Give me a break.

CRAIG WRIGHT

Newport Beach

Land could be used for other than Dunes project

Thank you Daily Pilot for clarifying a issue of the location of the

proposed Dunes resort on public tidelands. My experience is that it was

not widely understood in the community.

The Dunes area is unique along the coast. It is a place for families

to enjoy the day at the beach, for campers to access the bay and a place

for retired people to visit Newport in their RVs. The land designated for

the proposed resort was entitled to the Girl Scouts to enjoy nature and

camp on the beach.

The proposed resort is out of control and incompatible with the

designated use of the public tidelands. The revised bulging project

displaces RV locations and puts a road with 24-hour service and employee

traffic through the remaining campsites. The marina is being overrun with

time shares and the parking lot set aside for families becomes overflow

parking for the convention center. There are plenty of hotels in the area

already and more are being built. Why trade this precious treasure for

generic hotel use?

The location of the Dunes is in a bowl surrounded by residences. The

direct line of sight and the water provide no attenuation of sound. The

examples that Mr. Quinn cited in his letter are quiet uses of land remote

from residences. Marina Del Rey is an interesting comparison, do we want

to trade our water views and gorgeous hillsides for the endless stucco of

Marina Del Ray?

The bottom line seems always to return to money. The relative revenue

from the project calculates to 4 cents per person in Newport each day. Is

this worth sitting in traffic, trading the bay serenity for noisy

parties, and screening our Back Bay views with sprawling stucco? Let’s

use this land wisely for the generations to come.

BERT OHLIG

Newport Beach

It was public land all along

It seems the only people who didn’t realize the planned Dunes project

was on leased land was Susan Caustin and the Daily Pilot.

Since the Evans obtained the property they have enhanced the beauty of

the available beach area greatly. The Evans family evidently negotiated a

lease with the county for the remainder of the property, which may or may

not be a bargain; there is always economic risk in any land deal. The

land they negotiated for was and is a pile of dredged sand. Not a

particularly pretty site.

For some reason, the Pilot has chosen to give great credence to the

Caustins’ “stop everything in Newport Beach development” position. The

fact is, if the facility is not built, the city will lose many

opportunities for revenue, which by the way, finances the necessary needs

of the citizens, and may waste an economic enhancement that cannot be

replaced. The no-growth position which confronts the community is an

impossible position to maintain.

Growth is inevitable. Restrictions by the community to limit that

growth is cannot be justified. The community is impacted by growth around

it. Traffic is not from residents or their demands; it is from people

trying to get from Irvine to Huntington Beach or from Costa Mesa to

Laguna Beach, and of course, beach traffic.

We cannot reinvent 1955. Many of the no-growth proponents have arrived

since that time. Some of the no-growth proponents made their mark through

the development of the very real estate they are presently attempting to

limit. The remaining descendants of flower children have never really

added anything to community development except colorful banners and the

wasteful burning of community assets. Why are we in this current

position? The Dunes project is only part of the greater issue.

I personally am in favor of a larger venue than proposed by the

planning commission; it has a great many advantages for the community and

the planning commission has not explained the exact facts as to its

current limitations. There is a economic reality that sets in; at some

point we can have a beautiful resort on the bay which generates off peek

traffic and good revenues or a Motel 6.

The Planning Commission is an advisory panel to the City Council. The

real reason we are in our current position is the city’s lack of

direction. The council, on a semimonthly basis listens to passionate

positions from poorly-informed citizens about everything the city is

planning to do. The Newport Beach City Council must listen

compassionately without a unified response because they have no vision of

where the city is going. All they do is put out fires and are vulnerable

to every whim that comes along.

The answer is to request our elected officials to create a vision for

this city. They are elected to be informed. We need a point on the

horizon to steer to. If we don’t, then every whim will blow us on another

course and opportunities such as the Dunes resort will be missed and the

city will languish. A society that fails to continuously rebuild itself

will soon fall into disrepair and become old and useless.

ROGER A. ALFORD

Newport Beach