Mailbag - April 11, 2000

In your article, “Residents oppose plan to pave park,” April 8), Bill

Morris, Costa Mesa’s director of Public Services says that paved pathways

shouldn’t be a surprise to the city’s residents.

Guess what? At the January 2000 meeting of the city’s Fairview Park

Committee, it was obvious that very few of your appointed members even

knew about the paved roads. It’s probably because the printed site plan

of the Fairview Park Master Plan never shows any reference to the use of

concrete and refers to these 15-foot wide asphalt concrete roads

“multi-purpose trails.”

Who sees “trails” and think they would ever be made of concrete? Also,

since 1997 your chairman of the Fairview Park Committee continually has

been assuring me that Fairview Park would basically be a continuation of

the county’s Talbert Preserve. Their trails are decomposed granite so why

should ours be concrete?

Finally, whether or not the citizens of Costa Mesa didn’t catch this

in time isn’t important. What is important is that note one person I have

spoken to, and that number is in the hundreds, wants to see the trails

turned into concrete. The City Council members, who were elected by these

residents, should take notice and amend the master plan by keeping the

trail system natural.

TIM CROMWELL

Costa Mesa

Panther Palace story in bad taste

I find your article on the Panther Palace extremely objectionable

material for your local newspaper (“The ‘palace’ guard,” April 6). It has

no saving merit in my opinion, and only panders to the immoral element of

our society, which is becoming ever more widespread.

Such material should never be placed in a local newspaper whose main

function should be to inform the local residents of noteworthy events and

information. I note that you have four editors in place to assure your

articles have value. It seems to me that all four have failed today, in

allowing such rubbish to be printed -- on the front page, even. These

editors, Tony Dodero, Jenifer Ragland, Jasmine Lee and Nancy Cheever,

should be reprimanded for such garbage cast into print.

This article is enough to move a rational person to cancel his

subscription, but for the need for real local news. I will consider this

incident a gross anomaly, and will expect that you will use more

discretion in choice of topics to report on in the future.

WALLACE PAULSON

Corona del Mar

How about decreasing spending in Newport?

Driven by a perceived need to increase revenue, the Newport Beach City

Council is heavily biased in favor of any development which adds to the

city coffers (hotels, retail stores, higher-priced housing).

Residents, however, continue to oppose any development that

significantly adds to traffic levels which are barely tolerable. An

example of this growing conflict is the proposed Dunes hotel, a huge

project that includes a conference center as big as our entire Main

Library.

The impact of such projects on traffic and quality of life appears to

be of far less concern to the City Council than to the residents who fear

that such projects will create intolerable traffic. Residents are further

disturbed because many infrastructure needs (such as Balboa Boulevard) go

begging because city money is not made available.

The council recently voted unanimously to provide $7.5 million to

cover major enhancements in the Balboa Village area, for the sole purpose

of attracting more visitors and more businesses to the peninsula.

Initially, $500,000 will be spent this fiscal year, while the dire

condition of the Balboa Boulevard roadbed waits for still another two to

three years.

In light of the drive to increase revenue, one might ask how the city

of Newport Beach compares with other Orange County cities with regard to

revenue generation. According to the State of California Controllers

Office, Newport revenue generation per capita is superior to 90% of all

Orange County cities.

Revenue is only one-half the budget equation. What about city

expenditures? Why are there no significant studies aimed at creating

increased city operating efficiency and thereby reducing city operating

costs?

All cities in Orange County except Newport take advantage of the

competitive nature of private industry by “privatizing” many of their

functions. Street maintenance and refuse collection are privatized by

almost every city in Orange County, Newport being one of the rare

exceptions.

Expenditures for public safety (fire and police) by the city of

Newport Beach are by far the city’s largest single cost center.

Approximately $40 million is budgeted for public safety in fiscal

1999-2000, representing more than 50% of what will be available in

Newport’s general fund. The State Controller’s Office reports that

Newport’s Public Safety Departments have the highest expenditure per

capita in all of Orange County. These comparatively high costs most

likely reflect salary structures that are out of line with nearby cities.

(Recently, more than 500 applications were submitted for one fire

department position.)

The city of Newport Beach should consider implementation of the

following programs, which if successful, would reduce the need to

generate incremental revenue:

1) Make a serious attempt to reduce operating costs by critical

evaluation of privatization possibilities. A 2% reduction in city

operation costs last year would have yielded more than $1.5 million.

2) If public safety salaries are indeed the highest in Orange County,

work toward gradually establishing salary structures more in line with

area rates. One way to accomplish this without creating hardship on

current personnel is to establish a dual pay scale structure and take on

new hires at a more representative salary.

MEL MANN

NEWPORT BEACH