Keith Curry:Mayor’s letter diminishes City Council

When I was first appointed to the City Council, I wondered why, despite this being one of the greatest cities in the nation, about one-third of our citizens felt a deep anger and distrust of city government. After reading Steve Rosansky’s rant on Aug. 6, I have a better understanding of the frustrations of our citizens.

Where to begin. First, my words are in print for all to see; they clearly show that I did not “vilify� Bill Ficker.

I respect Ficker and his supporters, many of whom are friends of mine, but we disagree on this issue. We should be focused on the issues, not personal attacks.

As is now widely known, the issue of cost comes down to the price of substitute land for the taking of 3.7 acres of park land. We know where we will relocate the OCTA, and we know that they and the Irvine Co. are ready to negotiate. Rosansky and his allies need to tell us where they will find 3.7 acres in Newport Center for a new park? Will they use eminent domain? Or will they, as some columnists suggest, simply choose to ignore the requirements of the general plan?

Rosansky cites the DMJM numbers in terms of cost but forgets that he himself voted to send them back for better analysis of the drainage and geologic problems, which still need to be addressed and costed. In fact, the DMJM report contradicts none of my conclusions. Rosansky trips over his own rhetoric when he claims a 10-acre park is “world class� while previously claiming a 12-acre park on the same site will be unused and useless.

Initiative advocates seem eager to break the open space promise of the CIOSA agreement, to violate the open space policies in the recently approved General Plan, to take $12 million in park fees from Newport Center residents but provide no park, to ignore the stated position of the homeowners associations and district council member, and to ignore the requirements of Greenlight.

No wonder we have a trust issue in the city. For a mayor not to follow the policy direction of the City Council is unprecedented.

Reasonable people can disagree on the location of city hall, but the tone of Rosansky’s letter diminishes the council and demonstrates a failure of leadership and consensus building. The residents deserve better. They deserve a government they can trust to keep its word.