MAILBAG - Sept. 11, 2006

City needs to spend to find shooters

I was amazed that Costa Mesa City Councilwoman Katrina Foley was the only dissenting vote on the authorization to award $10,000 to anyone providing information that would lead to the prosecution and conviction of the shooters in either of our recent drive-by shootings (“$10,000 reward offered in shootings hunt,” Thursday).

She bobbed and weaved, twisted and turned in a supreme effort to not offer the extra incentive to help apprehend the criminals responsible for these serious crimes on our city.

What was she thinking? The police have been working on these two shooting crimes for about a month now and any information that this award will generate should be welcomed by the police and everyone in our city.

Foley said she was trying to compromise by giving the police chief the authority to do what he already could do. Our city codes already authorize the chief to provide a $10,000 reward at his discretion. What kind of compromise was that? Then in a final attempt to have her way, she asked that the council add to the motion that only the chief could call for a news conference.

She said she was upset that Mayor Allan Mansoor had taken the initiative and called for a news conference announcing the consideration by the council for offering the reward after the second shooting. She obviously didn’t want that to happen again.

Interestingly, she continued to say it wasn’t political, but her words suggested otherwise. Her requests were not supported by anyone on the council and the 4 to 1 vote left many in our city wondering why she couldn’t make the vote unanimous. If $10,000 isn’t effective, then boost it to $25,000, as these criminals need to be caught and the message that Costa Mesa won’t tolerate these crimes needs to be made loud and clear.

PAUL BUNNEY

Costa Mesa

No need for another Greenlight

We elect officials for a reason. They are there as our voice, making decisions that we have trusted them with when we elected them. Let’s let our council do their job. We do not need another Greenlight initiative; we didn’t need the first one.

CATHY AUTHER

Newport Coast

Paper’s headline did not mislead public

The Realtor who wrote in to the Pilot on Thursday is offended by the paper’s headline proclaiming, “defaults jump 118%.”

I disagree with his statement that this headline does a disservice to Realtors. As our local paper, I felt your article provided information that will be helpful to buyers and sellers.

I do understand his concern that the defaults mentioned in Newport Beach represent a very small number of homes; however, the number of defaults has increased throughout Southern California.

Our own Realtor groups have made public statements regarding the softening market. The California Assn. of Realtors no longer uses the term “soft landing,” and in the Sept. 8 Los Angeles Times, the National Assn. of Realtors said, “Sales will be considerably weaker this year than earlier forecast.”

They also stated, “We changed our forecast because the psychology of the market has shifted, with sellers now willing to negotiate on price and some potential buyers waiting for a more opportune time to make a purchase.”

Also, most home builders have been very public regarding their expected drop in profits, high cancellation rate of purchase contracts and lowered sales forecast.

The market changes, and although your headline may have been designed to grab attention and sell papers, it was an accurate statement.

SCOT CURRY

Newport Beach

Smith’s litmus tests would eliminate many

Steve Smith’s “On the Town” column of Sept. 6 is a prime example of the current idolatry of business and businessmen.

Smith’s test of fitness for public office — that a candidate must have started, owned and managed a business — would have excluded many of the Founding Fathers, such as George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison.

Likewise, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt would have been excluded, along with many other presidents.

Smith’s test for wisdom — parenthood — would have excluded George Washington on those grounds, as well, and would exclude from the ranks of the wise all celibate clergy, to say nothing of Jesus of Nazareth and all the apostles.

It appears that Smith has a prejudice against professionals, military officers, academics and leaders among ordinary citizens, instead of considering each candidate on his or her own merits.

ELEANOR EGAN

Costa Mesa