A better way to send love on...

A better way to send love on Valentine’s Day

This Valentine’s Day, forget the candy and flowers. Give your

family an important gift that can save them future agony and anxiety.

Fill them in on your values and wishes, should they be making

decisions about how you live and die.

You may have filled out those legal papers stating whether you

want to be resuscitated after you’ve coded or what to do with your

remains. That’s not enough. Provide your family with a guideline as

to the priority you place on quality versus quantity of life.

You’ve gone through this balancing act with your children. Let’s

face it. If parents wanted to do what was best for their children to

give them a long life, they would serve them more veggies and less

pizza. Kids would be exercising and reading instead of watching TV.

Parents would know where their children were every second, and have

them in activities where they would remain free from injury. Yeah,

right!

Well, if you think the teenage years are hard ones to live through

as a parent, just wait until your parents turn 85. Your father or

mother have always been the parent to you, no matter how old and

renowned you may be now. Your parents have been independent and made

their own decisions, unlike the teen that is wheedling for more.

So, if your parent’s mind starts to turn to mush, when do you, as

the child, pull the plug on their independence? When is it more

important that they eat three squares a day and have someone watch

over them constantly than it is to let them live their life in their

own home? If your father forgets to eat lunch at noon, is that

grounds for his loss of freedom? Let’s face it: prisoners are fed

regularly and are under constant surveillance, but how many of us put

that at that top of our vacation destinations list?

My mother has Alzheimer’s disease. There is a good chance someone

in your family will have it, too. But, this Valentine’s plea isn’t

limited to those who face dementia. An accident could happen to any

of us at anytime to cause our families to have to choose how we live

and die. Would you rather live for 30 days in your own home doing

what you want when you want to, or 90 days in someone else’s very

nice house, where they would feed and take care of you all of the

time? Would you rather have surgery at 75 if it means you would be

alive, but never able to leave your bed, or at that time, would you

rather face death straight on?

Eskimo families didn’t have to make these choices. When the

elderly couldn’t keep up with the migration of the family, they had

to be left. Each person knew that rule of family survival since

childhood. I used to think that was so cruel. As I ponder my old age

and possible loss of independence, I wonder which is crueler?

GAY GEISER SANDOVAL

Costa Mesa

Polls show that public is against hotel proposal

RE: The Marinapark hotel proposal.

On Jan. 13, Sutherland-Talla submitted to the Newport Beach Asst.

City Manager Sharon Wood yet another plan, the fourth, for a hotel to

be located at Marinapark. This latest version has been submitted to

the city after a long history of changes, starting initially with a

council study session in October 1999 when the situation evaluated a

Sutherland-Talla proposal that does not match remotely the latest

plan.

Now, almost four years later, we are faced with a completely

different plan when compared to the original proposal. During these

many years, there have been numerous community meetings and opinion

polls sponsored by both the city as well as the two peninsula

community associations. Public opinion regarding the hotel has been

consistently negative, regardless of the number of room or exact

location within the park. The history of public opinion polls is:

On July 9, 2001, there was a meeting for residents in the council

chambers chaired by Wood. Before a standing-room only crowd, Stephen

Sutherland presented a 2 1/2-hour presentation that elicited hostile

reactions.

On March 19, 2002, a general plan update neighborhood workshop for

peninsula residents was held, part of the beginning of the visioning

process. A vote was taken on the proposed hotel: 56, or 70%, were

opposed; 15, or 19%, were in favor; and nine, or 11%, were undecided.

At the Sept. 26, 2002, Central Newport Beach Community Assn.

annual meeting, a signed ballot vote was taken. There were three

choices on the ballot: A resort hotel is not the best use; a resort

hotel is the best use; or need more information.

Fifty-nine signed their names saying a resort hotel was not the

best use.

Four signed their names saying a resort hotel was the best use.

One needed more information.

The Central Newport Beach Community Assn., located on the Balboa

Peninsula, has officials said no to the hotel proposal.

On Nov. 4, 2002, as part of the citywide visioning process, a

resident telephone survey was conducted by Godbe Research and deemed

to be statistically accurate. We understand that some 999 respondents

located throughout the city provided opinions on the following

question: Would you support or oppose locating a new hotel at

Marinapark?

Results: 65.9% opposed. 27.9% favored.

On a 4-3 City Council vote in 2002, Stephen Sutherland, who

proposed this development, was barely given a go-ahead to continue

the next stage of his development, provided he could persuade

residents that the hotel was desirable. Based on every opinion poll

before and since the 4-3 council decision, it is obvious that a solid

majority of the public, throughout the city, remains solidly against

this hotel.

How many times must a solid majority of the public cry out against

the Sutherland hotel plan? A truly representative City Council should

listen to its constituents and stop the hotel. Numerous other

alternatives are available for Marinapark, many of which would be

welcomed by the residents.

ADELE AND MEL MANN

Newport Beach