Reader should rethink redevelopment

In this week’s Community Commentary regarding redevelopment, Ila

Johnson makes a most remarkable statement toward the end of her

opinion piece. She states: “I am a property rights advocate, but

property rights are not absolute and really cease when they begin to

interfere with the rights of others’ enjoyment of their property ...

“What? Can you say convoluted? If she isn’t enjoying someone else’s

property enough, then that property owner’s rights should cease?

Johnson, you’ve got to get a grip.

Earlier in her commentary, she tries to make the point that

Westside industrial use is a holdover from the past, when it was

justified. But today, she calls it inappropriate because we need new

housing “in these highly desirable locations.” The next sentence

gives you all the insight you need into her thinking: “Costa Mesa

should not be held hostage today by decisions of the past”. What are

you advocating, the equivalent of a City Council mulligan? An

official “do-over?”

Let’s see now. There are all these commercial and light industrial

businesses infecting the Westside. Many have been in the city longer

than Johnson, of course, but that shouldn’t matter. The vast majority

operate entirely within the laws and the codes, but I guess that

shouldn’t matter either. They employ thousands of workers and produce

tens, maybe hundreds of millions in sales and huge amounts of taxes.

But, because the breezes blow on the bluffs and Johnson thinks we

need some more houses, we should seize their property scrape the

ground flat and build a few hundred condos. Fairness shouldn’t enter

into this, I guess. These Westside property owners who have their

entire lives in their businesses should just quietly fold their

tents.

Where, I ask, do these businesses go? Where do the jobs go? Where

do the thousands of newly unemployed find work? Does Johnson care?

If Mayor Gary Monahan is right and there’s no money to pay for an

eminent domain seizure of these properties, count me among the very

pleased. And, as a small Westside business and property owner, I hope

it stays that way.

Let me add in closing, I don’t give a damn whether Johnson ever

enjoys my property or not. It’s my property, and I intend to enjoy it

enough for the both of us.

CHUCK CASSITY

Costa Mesa

Sadly, I read the all-too-visible column written by Ila Johnson --

a clear expose of the heartlessness, anti-business and socialistic

thinking patterns of the uninformed liberal.

“The industrial use [of the Westside] needs to go,” she sings

loudly. Johnson talks the line as if there were no economic benefit

to the presence of legitimate business that pay substantial taxes and

whose owners have invested in the future of their business and the

reliability of their city. They’ve done so trusting that property can

be purchased with a long term payoff in mind -- the only way in which

its purchase can be justified.

How dare Johnson take the whip to businesses allegedly releasing

toxic pollutants, that she claims are “potentially capable of causing

cancer and a whole host of other ailments,” without documenting her

ill-informed and politically liberal sources. Reasonable thinkers are

sick of this McCarthyistic belching, so typical to those who think

businesses have no right to operate in California, yet encourage hand

outs comprised of businesses’ taxes for the beneficiaries of our

unending entitlement programs. Watch out for the South Coast Air

Quality Management District, which puts small companies away at

alarming rates these days in its effort to “clean up” the air.

They’ve become experts at convincing people such as Johnson that the

worst pollution in the basin comes from businesses. Not true. The

district’s own statistics confirm that vehicles produce the majority

of pollutants.

Shut business out and you have a problem. There will be no money

in the coffers to give away. You’ll injure far more families --

taxpaying ones -- than you realize. And where will the locals who

work for such companies find jobs? What about the pollution they will

contribute by driving much farther to a new place of employment?

I own property just outside the section of the suggested

redevelopment area on the Westside and I’ve been paying for it for

half my working life. It’s more than frightening to know that

whimsical thinkers like Johnson may be at the root of someday

displacing my business and, at the moment, feel free to attack those

like me whose are inside the dotted lines.

What a sad commentary. Johnson thinks “simply rezoning the area”

will easily facilitate the changes she advocates.

I encourage her to become better educated on the great value of

small businesses -- companies synonymous with the spirit of community

-- of which there are so many in that section of Costa Mesa. I also

encourage her to listen without bias to the arguments of business

owners, who she condescendingly calls “industrialists.” Maintaining

an open mind, she might learn something and then be able to make an

educated decision to run out legitimate business from a long-time,

properly zoned industrial area.

DOUGLAS E. TEMPLIN

Newport Beach

Probably the single most disingenuous statement I have ever seen

printed in the Daily Pilot was Ila Johnson’s claim that she is a

property rights advocate. I guess she thinks that throwing a sentence

into her anti-property rights diatribe somehow ameliorates her

preceding statements.

I admire any member of the community who publicly expresses their

opinions and who participate in vital dialogue about the future of

Costa Mesa. I cannot, however, stand by while someone advocates

completely stripping away the property rights of every property owner

in a large section of Costa Mesa and then claims to be a property

rights advocate.

Several of Johnson’s statements demand close examination and

rebuttal. First, she characterizes Westside Costa Mesa business

owners as “industrialists” who live in Newport and cavalierly poison

Costa Mesans, while “exploiting a permanent underclass” of

undocumented immigrants who must then depend on charities for

services.

What sort of nonsense is this? It smacks of socialism, and is

entirely inappropriate in the context of Westside redevelopment. Most

jobs created by redevelopment would be most likely be service

oriented at the new shops and restaurants that would supposedly

spring up to serve the new homes. Let’s use the new Harbor Center as

an example -- Albertson’s, Rite Aid, McDonald’s, and TJ Maxx are good

examples of the types of businesses that would populate any new

shopping center in the redeveloped area. I can almost guarantee that

the many current jobs generated by the “industrialists” pay

considerably more than any of these retailers.

Next, Johnson states the current land use in Westside Costa Mesa

is entirely inappropriate because the city is almost entirely

built-out. This also defies logic. How would tearing down all the

businesses -- which provide jobs and tax revenue -- and replacing

them with another shopping center and more homes solve any of the

numerous woes that Johnson says afflict Westside Costa Mesa? Who

would buy these homes? People working at the new shopping center?

Eliminating jobs while creating more traffic and congestion makes

absolutely no sense.

Finally, Johnson characterizes the Westside as a toxic dump, with

air unfit for humans that has been “contaminated” by the

“industrialists who care little for the health and well being of the

citizens of Costa Mesa.” These are incredible statements that fly in

the face of reality.

California has rigorous environmental standards, and the

regulatory environment is notoriously strict. The South Coast Air

Quality Management District, along with the Regional Water Quality

Control Board, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Division of Occupational Safety

and Health, as well as the city and county (among others I am surely

leaving out) all regulate the activities of each and every business

that handle toxic substances.

Any redevelopment or revitalization of Westside Costa Mesa will

dramatically and adversely affect the very property rights Johnson

claims to advocate. They will lose their businesses and homes so that

other more “appropriate” businesses and homes can be built. I cannot

imagine a more onerous scheme.

Redevelopment is controversial and is often used as a weapon

against urban blight. The Westside does not fit into this

categoryCosta Mesa is a unique place, tolerant and beneficial to both

light industry and family residences. We must protect this diversity

and keep Costa Mesa from turning into just another cookie-cutter

bedroom community.

The City Council has a duty to protect the rights of each and

every property owner and resident of Costa Mesa, and that includes

those on the Westside.

ROBERT DICKSON

Costa Mesa