Skate park now in hands of council...

Skate park now in hands of council

I appreciate Deirdre Newman’s hard work and thorough reporting of

news and events in Costa Mesa. That aside, I would like to sharpen

the edges a bit on one nugget of information in her Thursday report

(“Skate park stays on TeWinkle plan”). The Parks and Recreation

Commission’s action to recommend to City Council retaining the corner

of Junipero and Arlington as an alternate site for a skateboard park

does not need the approval of the Planning Commission.

Our recommendation goes directly to the City Council and, indeed,

supercedes whatever recommendation the Planning Commission hatches on

this matter. Further, the Parks and Recreation Commission also

requested that the City Council grant it the sole authority to review

and recommend approval of individual projects within the TeWinkle

Park Master Plan.

The City Council, of course, retains the sole authority to accept

our recommendation, toss it out, or do something else entirely.

BYRON DE ARAKAL

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Byron de Arakal is a Costa Mesa Parks and

Recreation Commissioner and a former columnist for the Pilot.

Numbers don’t support building a bridge

A commentary by Robert Graham supporting the construction of a

bridge between Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach at 19th Street was

published recently (“If bridge is built, improvement will come,” Aug.

12). I respectfully disagree with his opinions.

The available numbers do not support this bridge. Graham cites a

study that estimates traffic growth on Victoria Street at 11,000

trips a day if the bridge isn’t built. This is a very small number,

about the capacity of a two-lane residential street. In order to

handle even this small volume, the same study indicates building the

bridge would necessitate widening 19th Street for four to six lanes

and reconstructing the intersections at Harbor Boulevard and Newport

Boulevard/the Costa Mesa Freeway. The construction of the bridge and

the upgrading of 19th Street could easily be in the $100-million

range.

If the bridge is not built, the study shows the additional traffic

can be handled on Victoria Street with only relatively minor

modifications. The cost of the modifications to Victoria Street in

lieu of a bridge have been estimated at about $10 million. Ninety

million dollars is a lot of money, even in today’s world.

Graham went to great lengths dreaming of the massive economic boon

that this small amount of additional traffic would mean to 19th

Street businesses. He provides no support for his position. If this

kind of growth were possible, wouldn’t this much larger volume of

traffic that has been using Victoria Street have generated a similar

economic stimulus there?

In actuality, the bridge could lead to a reduction in commercial

activity on 19th Street. Two factors would influence this situation:

the number, size and type of buildings that replace those that were

demolished to widen 19th Street and the amount of sales that would

migrate from the Westside to the now easily accessible Brookhurst

commercial corridor in Huntington Beach.

I have a suggestion for Graham. If he really believes what he

writes, he should create an organization of those who would benefit

and build a private bridge. He would then be in a position to reap

the great rewards he has predicted and could stop pestering all those

taxpayers who want no part of this bridge.

Barring such a commitment, let’s stop flogging this dead horse and

get on with the important work of revitalizing the Westside.

VERNON K. TAYLOR

Costa Mesa

Too bad recall deadline passed already

Three cheers for Tom Williams (“Recall election isn’t a right-wing

conspiracy,” Mailbag, Aug. 17).

A 100-plus candidates on the ballot? No problem! Bring ‘em on, as

our president would say.

Too bad Williams isn’t one of them. He could give Gary Coleman a

real run for his money.

ALEX BOTTS

Newport Beach

A voice of moderation from the rancor

Hark, what’s that I hear? Could it be that there is finally a

voice of moderation being heard in the long-playing, rancorous debate

about the future of the Westside?

Eric Bever’s letter to the editor published Wednesday may have

finally scratched out some common ground where both sides of the

issue can meet to begin looking for a solution to the whole “bluffs

re-zoning” issue, instead of standing back at 50 paces and firing

salvos at each other (“A familiar feel to the Westside debate”).

Let’s hope his suggestion turns out to be the foothold for calm,

reasoned discussions on this issue -- it’s about time.

GEOFF WEST

Costa Mesa

Label of business owners does not fit

Let me get this straight. Ila Johnson advocates by government

decree the destruction of hundreds, if not thousands, of livelihoods

so a yet-to-be disclosed developer can build and market homes that

the average American worker could never afford in his or her wildest

dreams (Community Commentary, “Costa Mesa must remove industrial past

from Westside,” Aug. 21).

What possibly could have motivated her to invoke the negative

images of big business and “robber barons” by describing these people

as “industrialists?” Many of these shops consist of a single

individual.

I seriously doubt that the founding fathers of this country

intended that the power of government be used to take away an

individuals right to make a living because somebody missed an

opportunity to make a buck.

TIM TEMPLE

Costa Mesa