Community Commentary -- Betty Berkshire

This is regarding “Marinapark leases won’t be more than a year” (Feb.

16) and “Q&A; with Stephen Sutherland -- Putting a future on hold” (Feb.

24).

It appears that the Daily Pilot has mounted an ad campaign favoring a

private developer over the great majority of the homeowners on the

peninsula. In the process, you have spread a great deal of distorted

information concerning the current and proposed uses of Marinapark.

Please grant equal opportunity to counter some of those

misrepresentations.

Traffic: Sutherland’s contention that the proposed hotel would cause

no increase in traffic or might possibly decrease traffic on the

peninsula is so laughable that it hardly requires rebuttal. The traffic

impact generated by his estimated guest arrival and departure times is

pure speculation and can just as readily be refuted by counter

projections.

It must be pointed out however, that mention of traffic generated by

hotel employees, delivery and trash collection trucks, etc., was

conveniently omitted. The employee-to-guest ratio currently quoted by the

Ritz Carlton Hotel in South County is over three to one. The requirement

for a five-star hotel is greater. Sutherland proposes a 147-room hotel --

you do the math.

If, as once suggested, these employees would be bussed in from

elsewhere, one might ask “But where would they park their cars?” Would

Sutherland, in order to overcome this objection, promise to build a

parking garage for his employees somewhere outside the city -- perhaps in

Costa Mesa or Santa Ana?

* Hyperbole: Contrary to his assertion that his “opposition can say

anything,” it is in fact Sutherland himself who is promising the moon in

order to gain public approval for his project. He contends that he is

willing to lower the number of guest rooms, lower traffic, lower the size

of his ballroom, the size of the entire project if necessary, open it to

the public, improve the American Legion property, build a bigger and

better Girl Scout House. All of this and a promised $3 million annual

income to the city and still make a profit? Under any and all economic

conditions? Do we really want another bankrupted project right on the

middle of the peninsula? What does the city get then?

* Marinapark lease: Another gross misrepresentation had to do with the

value of the ground lease charged by the city. At the time the 15-year

lease was negotiated, it was calculated at “market rate” for other like

properties at that time. It is patently ridiculous to claim that the

disparity between the current “market rate” and what residents are

actually paying came about because the city “cut rents in half” 15 years

ago.

In fact, when my husband and I purchased our home in Marinapark in

September 1987, we did so only after comparing the space rental at

Marinapark with Bayside mobile home park in the Back Bay. We found them

to be comparable. The truth is, no one -- including the city officials --

anticipated the spectacular rise in property values that has taken place

around the bay in the past 15 years, and which has caused a subsequent

meteoric rise in rental values.

* Comparable values: The value of a year-to-date lease at Marinapark

cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared with the $2,500

figure, which the Pilot quotes as the going rate for waterfront mobile

home spaces. Mobile homeowners who pay that kind of rent enjoy long-term

leases on their property -- a far more valuable commodity than the

current annual “eviction notice” we have at Marinapark.

* Residency: Much has been said about the point that only about

one-third of the residents at Marinapark are full-time. As a matter of

fact, this is about the same percentage as compared to the rest of the

peninsula. In a recent private survey conducted within the park, the

majority stated they would favor becoming full-time residents if they had

a long-term lease. Who would ever sell a permanent residence elsewhere

and move full-time to a location where they have an annual eviction

notice hanging over their heads?

* Public park vs. hotel: the Pilot article claims that in their

original lease, residents agreed to vacate upon expiration to “make way

for other land uses the city was considering.” In fact, the original

lease (1985) stated that tenants would remove their coaches at the

expiration of the lease should the city decide to convert the property to

a public park. This wording was changed by the city to read “public use”

when the interim two-year lease was drawn in 2000, in anticipation of a

hotel being built on the property. Tenants were forced to sign this new

lease under duress, facing either the loss of their homes or an

approximate 50% rental increase on a month-to-month tenancy if they chose

not to.

* Public Use: A hotel is supposedly considered by the city to be

public use. A hotel of the caliber being proposed would be accessible

only to an elite fraction of the actual public, what with its

$400-a-night and up rooms, its “premier restaurant,” its private marina

-- which would effectively eliminate any adjacent swimming or

recreational activity in the bay.

Would its five-star guests be willing to share the public tennis

courts, contend with youthful day-campers tossing Frisbees and sand

around their private cabanas on the public beach?

Does anyone really believe that John Q. Public, his wife and three

kids would be welcome to parade through the five-star lobby in their

bathing suits, toting one-star beach chairs, umbrellas and an ice chest

to gain access to the bay?

A public park would provide the only true public use of this land. The

main objection is that it would generate no income for the city and

create potential policing problems.

The current usage -- a mobile home park -- is the only practical one

that: 1. does not increase traffic on the peninsula; 2. maintains the

beach and tennis courts for the public to enjoy; 3. does not disturb the

existing migratory and residential bird habitat; and 4. still provides a

substantial and reliable income without added expense to the city.

The residents of Marinapark invite and would welcome the long-term

lease that would justify increasing our rents to current market value.

Furthermore, a long-term lease would grant us the security to invest in

modifications to the exterior of our coaches to better reflect the

upscale image that many desire for Newport Beach.

We firmly believe this to be the “highest and best use” of the land.

* BETTY J. BERKSHIRE is a Marinapark resident in Newport Beach.