Mailbag - Oct. 28, 2001

West Lido Channel should be part of boat parade

We who live on either side of the West Lido Channel were all extremely

disappointed in the chamber’s decision to cut us out of the Christmas

Boat Parade (“Changes afloat for boat parade,” Sept. 1). It not only

deprives us of an activity that we look forward to each year, but

probably will also have a deleterious effect on our property values.

Cutting the number of days that the parade runs made sense because it

is easy to see why people would not want to gear up for that activity for

seven days in a row. But cutting us out of the parade makes no sense

because once the boats have geared up and have their parties on board,

the extra 12 minutes it takes to go around our channel makes no

difference at all to the parade participants. I’ve been on a lot of boats

in the parade and know this to be true, without question. On the other

hand, cutting us out hurts all the single and multiple tenancies in that

area by a huge factor. Why have you done this?

And, very weirdly, you left in the extremely narrow channel on the

north side of Balboa Island (where Councilman Steve Bromberg lives),

which has just a fraction of the residences that we have viewing the

parade. Why in heaven would you do that? And in addition to having a

great deal less residences, that way is just as long if not longer than

ours, but has such a tiny width that larger boats cannot turn around

without some difficult maneuvering.

Something is exceptionally wrong here.

TED ROBINSON

Newport Beach

Annexation will improve emergency response time

Newport Coast annexation is about more than money (“Residents look for

dollars and sense,” Oct. 16). While the Daily Pilot has emphasized the

financial issues involved in the annexation, there is more to it.

The public safety of residents of Newport Coast, if the residents

approve annexation, will be considerably improved with far more rapid

response times from fire, police and emergency medical teams. This issue

should be uppermost in the minds of those considering annexation who have

not experienced the enormous benefit of a highly responsive, professional

city government. A Corona del Mar neighbor’s child was revived by

paramedics recently, arriving in two to three minutes to provide

lifesaving assistance. Would an analogous situation today in Newport

Coast with county paramedics have resulted in saving this life?

I appreciate the many, many years of hard work that went into the

annexation agreement, which still has to go through the Orange County

Local Area Formation Commission approval process scheduled for its Nov.

16 meeting. City staff has done a tremendous job in working with those

citizens from Newport Coast who stepped up to the plate, donating

hundreds of hours of their personal time to develop an agreement that is

complicated simply by the requirements of the process and the various

parties involved.

But, if public safety is the highest priority, annexation approval is

in the best interests of our neighbors in Newport Coast.

LAURA BEKEART DIETZ

Corona del Mar

Group homes should be limited within specific areas

I applaud the city of Costa Mesa on its recent victory to limit six

residents at each Coastal Recovery Living group home at 1976 and 1978

Orange Ave. (“Judge orders limits on group home residents,” Oct. 13) I

agree with the city that a group home does not fit in a residential

neighborhood near a church and preschool.

As a homeowner on a Costa Mesa cul-de-sac with 20 children of various

ages playing about, I endorse Costa Mesa and its desire to strengthen

family-oriented neighborhoods, thus ensuring quality of life. I feel

local governments need to be involved in the permit process and

regulation of group homes in residential neighborhoods. I also encourage

local governments to implement distancing criteria for group homes, thus

decreasing saturation. I feel these businesses do not belong in the

middle of single-family zoned neighborhoods.

KIM NEWETT

Costa Mesa

Flight school valid in taking precautions

As always, thank you for our wonderful community newspaper.

My gratitude and appreciation goes to Gary Sequeira, owner of Orange

County Flight Center, on the wisdom of his responsible remarks that he

intends to be more vigilant while admitting foreign nationals into his

school (“FBI subpoenas records from JWA flight schools,” Sept. 21). I’m

sure many share my respect for his care and prudence in accepting

business. Scrutinizing backgrounds cannot hurt the innocent. When our

security is at stake, common sense and wary preparedness should not be

confused with unjust discrimination.

SUNNY STARBUCK

Newport Beach

Job Center needs a star for a job well done

It’s amazing how people can live in the same world and see it so

differently (Between the Lines -- “It’s time to ‘pink slip’ the Costa

Mesa Job Center,” Sept. 26). Like columnist Byron de Arakal, we too shop

at Vons.

As a matter of fact, having raised seven children in Mesa Verde over

the past 40 years, we’ve been constant customers of all the markets that

have been housed at Harbor Boulevard and Baker Street, and now Harbor and

Adams Avenue. In all that time, we’ve never seen a dayworker “camped

out.” Maybe we don’t get there early enough to be among the few shoppers

who might be disturbed.

We also travel Placentia Avenue quite often and are always amazed that

so many would come to the Job Center each day with the hope they might

find a day’s work. Where Arakal sees a “small gaggle,” we see a large

group.

It’s true, we have seen some men congregated outside the U-Haul on

Newport Boulevard. As a matter of fact, we knew some of them. They are

legal residents and were there not to avoid immigration, but because they

wanted better odds to get a job -- the Job Center was too crowded.

The conclusion that day laborers steer clear of the Job Center because

they see the requirement for proof of legal residency as a “guaranteed

deportation ticket” is shaky to say the least. The INS rarely makes raids

these days far from the border. Perhaps the Employment Development

Department could come from its office on Scenic Avenue to the Job Center

and explain its programs to the men in English and Spanish and see if

they can really help them with their employment needs.

Much has been made of the $130,000 spent by the city on the Job

Center. Ask the police if they think it’s money well spent. Their job

would be much harder if they had to respond to the numerous complaints

they would receive if our streets really were inundated with men looking

for work. By all measures, it’s an expenditure we can all be thankful

for. The Job Center doesn’t need a “pink slip”; it needs a pat on the

back for a job well done.

FRANK and JEAN FORBATH

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Jean Forbath founded the Costa Mesa charity Share Our

Selves.

Reader tries to help columnist understand Home Ranch

In his Sept. 8 column, Steve Smith makes two illogical arguments for

the proposed Home Ranch project (“Segerstrom’s trying to be a good, wise

neighbor”):

1. “The Segerstroms . . . know that Home Ranch will have an effect on

the surrounding community. . . . But in an attempt to reduce the effect,

they offered cash, $2 million to be exact, to local schools.”

2. “We should not begrudge the Segerstroms their ability to make a

profit as long as they play by the rules.”

My questions are:

1. How does $2 million given to schools reduce the effects of a

project twice as noxious as allowed in the general plan in terms of

traffic and smog generation? (If we believe their estimates, and I think

we are being severely low-balled.)

2. How are the Segerstroms playing by the rules when they want to

change the rules (i.e. the general plan and zoning) to allow a project

that is twice as intense as what is currently allowed?

This mega Ikea -- twice the size of the one in Tustin -- would require

rezoning an area zoned for a low-traffic industrial park to a

high-traffic, heavy-retail use. That is in addition to rezoning most of

the rest of the property to a higher-density, higher-traffic office and

deleting half of the planned residential [units]. We don’t need to

replace our current general plan with this accelerated land-use plan.

Perhaps we should think more clearly and carefully before we succumb

to the seductive allure of a $2-million offer.

WAYNE LEFFLER

Costa Mesa