MAILBAG - Aug. 10, 2006

‘Martini Flag’ sends the wrong signalIn your article about the restaurant at the Crystal Cove Historic District, I was insulted by the raising and saluting of the Martini Flag. We are supposed to be getting people to come down there to camp and have fun, and that is not part of it.

LEO DEMPSEY

Newport Beach

More to encroachment than meets eyeBefore the Daily Pilot starts giving the impression to its readers that West Newport homeowners are money-grubbing land-grabbers, it should do a little background investigating, either in its own archives or through city records.

We are, as far as we can determine, the second owners of our property, which was purchased by my grandparents in 1939. Previous to this, at the time the land was originally parceled, the developer had planned a street in front of the existing Seashore Drive lots (to be named Ocean) with another row of lots beyond that. The owners along Seashore were given a front easement that granted them the “underlying” land with the city as owners of the “surface.”

When the oceanfront encroachment topic first came up many years ago, predicated by a complaint from a bay-front owner on the peninsula, the issue was so muddled by time and change even the California Coastal Commission declined to become involved. In fairness to the property owners, the city devised a solution in which they would keep the easements in place with the property owners paying an annual fee that could, and does, increase each year. They implemented stringent restrictions on what that easement could be used for; thus, the comment of what the square footage is monetarily worth is moot.

It was also decided, by the city, that the income from those easement fees would be used for the maintenance of the street ends along Seashore and Oceanfront, allowing easier and greater access to the public and for emergency vehicles, should the need arise; thus, the comment blaming the homeowners for what was termed “inadequate facilities” is also a moot point.

If our family was assessed close to a four-figure amount for just this year alone, imagine what is flowing into the city treasury now and in the future when you total all fees collected from those property owners. This is the definition of quid pro quo. How the city decides to distribute those funds is under its control, not the homeowners’.

True, there may be those who have “developed” beyond what was granted, and they are being dealt with through city oversight channels. But to publish such a generalized “news” article covering such a complex, and previously resolved issue, is unwarranted, uninformed and unfair.

JODIE KESSLER

Newport Beach

Good to see former mayor back, but …I was pleased to see an article about former mayor Joe Erickson in the paper, “Former mayor seeks a return to reason,” Behind the Headlines, July 31). In my opinion he was one of the best mayors this city has ever seen. His patience and concern for the city were second to none, and I thank him for that.

I do take exception with his stance on illegal immigration. He says it is not a city issue and the problem is too big to solve anyway. This might be true if this were Newport Beach or Irvine, but Costa Mesa has a huge illegal-immigrant population that is having a big effect on city services and schools. I also note the Costa Mesa Police gang unit was formed during the explosion of illegal immigration in this city. Our local schools are loaded with illegal immigrants that bring down test scores, affect the image of our schools and therefore affect property values. So, while there may be a positive effect of illegal immigration through hardworking people, there is a negative effect as well.

Why don’t we return to reason and measure the effect of illegal immigration on this city. And if it is negative, take steps, as Mayor Allan Mansoor has, to correct it.

MARK GRIFFIN

Costa Mesa

College district trustees need to sell to DaystarElected officials and KOCE-TV leadership must follow the law and respect judicial opinions. KOCE President Mel Rogers’ recent letter to the editor on July 20 was self-serving — a quest for job security. Consider this:

Twice, the appellate court ruled that Coast Community College District trustees broke the law (the California Education Code) in manipulating a bid awarding the station to the KOCE Foundation. Now a trustee majority has extended the agony by appealing to a state court. Good luck!

Trustees voting for the bid award are being sued in federal court by the apparent high bidder, Daystar.

Millions of dollars have been squandered in the past few years by trustees’ ill-advised efforts to divest the district of KOCE. The (borrowed) down payment received from the foundation has largely been spent and now must be paid back! Huge legal fees and commissions have been paid with more to come.

Rogers claimed “dramatic audience growth and donor support” since the foundation became involved in operations. We doubt it. Why doesn’t the KOCE Foundation “sunshine” its income and expenditure statements for the past several years — better yet, all the way back — some 30 years. Let the public know what district insiders have always known — KOCE has never been self-supporting.

PBS (federal) grants and viewer donations cover only a portion of annual operating costs. With the proliferation of television delivery systems, Congress continues to tighten allocations to the Corp. for Public Broadcasting. The KOCE shortfall currently admitted to be $1.8 million annually — but probably higher — has been made up by the general fund of the college district — money dedicated to the educational offerings of the district. This explains, in part, why district personnel have been lately unsupportive of KOCE. It also helps explain why trustees decided to sell the station in the first place.

The public has a right to know exactly how the foundation can survive financially without the general fund subsidy of the district and in light of the huge debt-service for the money borrowed to make this unwise deal.

Daystar has provided a reality check — a settlement proposal shared during the district meeting June 13. The major components are:

This proposal deserves serious consideration. If the board majority doesn’t start taking their “trustee” title seriously, then perhaps it’s time for the electorate to consider individual recall actions. We’ve had enough.

JANET GUASTICCI

Newport Beach