City Council needs to review priorities

The nearly 20-year-old Costa Mesa Human Relations Committee ended its

frequently controversial run last week in, not surprisingly,

controversial fashion. A divided City Council, on a 3 to 2 vote --

with the conservative men, Mayor Allan Mansoor and Councilmen Eric

Bever and Gary Monahan, on one side, and the liberal women,

Councilwomen Linda Dixon and Katrina Foley, on the other -- decided

to disband the group, which was created to “encourage the education

about and communication between the various cultures residing in

Costa Mesa.” A month earlier, the council had decided to strip the

committee of its $3,700-per-year stipend.

No one at the council meeting spoke out in favor of abolishing the

committee, and group members asked the council to keep the committee

going.

Speaking for the others, Dennis Short told the council, “We can

make a difference if you’ll let us continue our work, and we would be

glad to continue even if we are not funded.”

So why did the council vote to disband the committee?

Mansoor’s explanation was simple, in keeping with the political

philosophy he has espoused since running for office and much the same

as when the council decided in the spring to shut down the Costa Mesa

Job Center: “I simply don’t believe this is a function of government.

I believe it is best handled through private organizations, working

through private means.”

It is a coincidence, perhaps, that Mansoor’s first taste of city

government came as a member of the committee, as did his first public

lambasting, back in 2002, by fellow members who accused him of

writing a website posting with comments that were offensive to

immigrants, Latinos and gays.

Coincidence or not, abolishing this committee seems unwise in a

community as diverse as Costa Mesa. Some 30% of the population is

Latino, and as has been clear during debate about the Job Center and

when questions arose about the administration’s treatment of Latino

students at TeWinkle Middle School, miscommunication can be a

problem.

Why not maintain a place to work out such issues, especially at

little or no cost?

Mansoor’s statement, which regularly has been echoed in deed if

not word by Bever and Monahan, is the answer, and it represents the

new driving force of Costa Mesa city government. Gone are the days

when the City Council was willing, if not happy, to fund art

projects, community gardens, possibly even skate parks. Its focus is

narrow now, too narrow.

Local government should strive to make the community a better

place to live -- in myriad, not limited, ways. It should encourage

artists, should provide opportunities for people to engage in

discussions about the city’s problems and future, should build parks

and protect open spaces. It should help run senior centers and offer

recreation for youth and adults, alike. It should do more than just

fill potholes, regulate building codes and provide police and fire

services, although those tasks are important, as well. But its

mandate should be bigger.

The Costa Mesa council has had a wider view in the past. It

sponsored the city’s 50th anniversary celebration (much as Newport

Beach leaders are doing with their upcoming centennial celebration).

It has spent money on veterans memorials and historic preservation.

It has supported the development of the Performing Arts Center by

offering million-dollar waivers.

Such decisions seem far in the past.

That the council has dramatically shifted priorities is most clear

from the fact the human relations committee members were willing to

continue meeting even without their yearly stipend. Certainly,

trimming $72 a week from the city’s budget -- far less than what

council members make -- can’t be seen as a cost-cutting move. Beyond

opening a City Hall room, the city would have had little commitment

to and responsibility for the committee. But even that is too much

for the council.

Sadly, it is far too little for the community.