Local handball courts should be preserved I...

Local handball courts

should be preserved

I am sorry that I missed the first three installments of your

series examining youth sports in the Newport-Mesa neighborhoods. I

did read Bryce Alderton’s report today on the scarcity of youth

sports facilities and certainly can understand that land prices and

sports fields pose a dilemma for team sports such as baseball,

basketball and soccer.

What concerns me is that communities and schools place so much

emphasis on team sports but very little on lifetime activities and

sports such as handball. Handball, like other individual sports, does

not need a lot of equipment, is inexpensive and does not require a

great deal of space. Any wall and any ball will do just fine.

Presently the United States Handball Association is trying to

prevent the Santa Ana Unified School District from tearing down 13

handball courts. The City of Costa Mesa already has torn down courts

at Lions Park, and Orange Coast College is looking to tear down most

of the courts on its campus. Instead of being torn down, these

facilities should be used.

Communities are fortunate to have many people volunteer their time

and skills to work with kids on team sports, but individual

activities such as golf, tennis and handball are left for

professional instruction. This does not need to be the case, as there

exist many capable people in those disciplines willing to donate

their time. All that is needed is the opportunity.

When I was growing up, I played baseball, but by my senior year in

high school baseball had became a spectator sport, just as it will be

for most of kids today. I was fortunate that schools offered me

opportunities to be exposed to a wide range of activities and that my

father exposed me to the game of handball, which became a part of my

daily life.

My time involved with team sports taught me a great deal, and I am

grateful for that opportunity. But my association with handball has

enabled me to continue that growth and provided me with a lifetime of

fitness.

Gary Cruz

USHA Youth

Development Coordinator

Church contributes to the community

The St. Andrew’s debate/battle is over for the moment. We can now

look ahead to see if any of the community benefits promised by the

church come to pass.

My bet: They will. Churches, temples and mosques tend to be good

for the communities they serve. Using my limited contact with the

church as an indicator, I think St. Andrew’s will continue to come

through.

I believe it is unarguable that St. Andrew’s adds value to the

community. In all the published commentary, including the studied

cynicism of your own columnist, Steve Smith, no one has stated

otherwise. It becomes, therefore, a matter of relative worth --

benefits vs. drawbacks.

I am not a member of the St. Andrew’s congregation, but both my

children attend church there and participate in a number of youth

classes and activities. Without fail, they enjoy a carefully

organized and warm environment, energetically supervised by very

nice, if underpaid, teachers and assistants.

I draw a contrast between this environment and the experiences of

several Newport Beach parents whom I have heard describe their

contact with public services. The phrase that continues to echo in my

head: “Well, our kids survived Ensign.”

Some residents object to a church the size of St. Andrew’s in a

residential area. I like the idea of kids being able to bicycle to

their church or after-school center, but I see that this might be

selfish.

Certainly, St. Andrew’s does pose a contradiction within Newport.

Southern California is a mountain range of calculated

self-indulgence, and Newport is life among its peaks. For the most

part this is harmless -- the natural product of human nature and a

healthy local economy. But imagine the consequences if the St.

Andrew’s buildings were razed and replaced by single-family

development. Would the combined community contribution of the new

residents approach the values now added by the church?

I don’t think it would come close.

And I don’t think anyone will argue with that. I think we should

thank our lucky stars that sufficient residents and supporters exist

to make the church a reality.

We would do better to add more such institutions, not snipe at the

ones we already have.

Michael Church

Costa Mesa

Backroom deals are

not a good idea

The Daily Pilot needs a lesson in governance if it intends to

write editorials that encourage backroom deals at the expense of a

process that was established by our forefathers. Specifically, the

editorial published on Sunday (“Failure to reach a compromise is a

leadership failure”) suggested that the two sides of the St Andrew’s

Church debate should have been locked in a room and forced to accept

a compromise.

Where are the checks and balances of this approached for spirited

and meaningful debate? You state there was a leadership void.

However, during my year as mayor in 2004, there was a meeting of the

Newport-Mesa Unified School District, Cliff Haven and Newport Heights

leadership, Don Webb, Steve Rosansky and myself. Ultimately the

planning commission carved out a compromise in both private and

public meetings that was rejected by the residential community at the

hearing process in front of the school board. That was their

prerogative.

Any attempt by an elected official to force consensus by either a

school board member or a member of the City Council would be a

violation of the Brown Act. The process is best served in public

debate. Leadership was shown by all sides during the City Council

meeting. Mayor Heffernan maintained a strong hand over the

proceedings, allowing a rational and calm deliberation. The Cliff

Haven and Newport Heights contingent continued with their passionate

presentation with conviction. The church clearly had a vision that

was unwavering.

The council responded with dialogue and debate that showed good

leadership. The process was served in public, without coercion or

forced in negotiations. The Daily Pilot, by not recognizing the

process in its editorial, advocated deal-making by a single

individual that did not serve the best interests of the community.

While I respect anyone who disagreed with the council’s final

decision in the St. Andrew’s debate, I take exception to the Pilot’s

editorial about the open process by which that decision was reached.

Tod Ridgeway

Newport Beach

City Councilman

KOCE should remain

a public TV station

I think we still live in a country where the voice of the people

is, or at least should be, respected. The majority of voices in

Orange County -- including mine -- are saying loud and clear that the

public broadcasting station KOCE-TV should remain a public

broadcasting entity under the present foundation.

The majority of the public does not want KOCE -- our own excellent

media outlet that serves the public very well -- taken over by

Daystar, a Christian television network from Texas whose motives and

intent are not completely clear. If the intent is primarily for

Christian programming, There are already in existence a variety of

religious programs from which the general viewing public may choose.

I am a Christian and encourage religious programs, but also

acknowledge that not all of the general public is Christian. There is

a need for diversity and balance in programming for public

consumption -- programming that is impartial, wholesome,

informational, educational and not specifically faith-based. KOCE

meets this criterion at a very high standard.

Hopefully, in the tug-of-war over KOCE the genuine good of the

general public does remain the focus and does not become overshadowed

by legal and political antics. The desires and best interests of

Orange county residents must prevail.

L. Ruth Lahti

Newport Coast