Mailbag: Newport decision on inclusion excludes free speech

Newport decision on inclusion excludes free speech

Re: “Newport council says it’s for diversity as residents bash councilman over comments,” (July 15 ): It is reassuring to know that a town has been declared a “safe-room,” where we can feel warm and safe from hearing Socratic dialogue and free speech. What a relief to be protected from the free expression of any thoughts.

Al Wonders

Newport Beach

*

Peotter rode on coattails

Why is no one criticizing the man who got Scott Peotter elected? Without the use of Mayor Pro Tem Marshal “Duffy” Duffield’s highly recognizable name, and Duffield’s support of Peotter on his “Team Newport” slate, candidate Mike Toerge surely would have won the election.

I believe he won the Corona del Mar vote. Without Duffield’s endorsement, there is absolutely no way a newcomer like Peotter could have won a seat on the City Council (Peotter moved into CdM from Irvine not long before the election).

Thanks a lot, Mr. Duffield, for ushering in this polarizing out-of-towner into the leadership of our city. When will you put our city before your self-interests and call Peotter out? Distance yourself from him or forever be linked to this misguided soul.

Laura Hastings

Newport Beach

*

Supply and demand beats rent controls

Mr. Eugene Suh has much to say about the need for all of Orange County to implement rent controls on rental property and apartments, especially his, which was increased by 9% per month (“Commentary: It’s time for pricey O.C. to implement rent controls,” June 9).

Mr. Suh seems to be suffering from a lack of knowledge of our supply-and-demand principals (a basic factor of the U.S. capitalistic economic system) that plainly state you get what you can pay for.

A person can buy a new car for $16,000 or $500,000. Both have four wheels, and both offer transportation from Point A to Point B. A person with income of $29,528 would certainly like to own a $500,000 vehicle, but would likely settle for the less-expensive version.

Why is it different for having a house or apartment? I would certainly like to live in Beverly Hills, or in an apartment in Santa Monica with an ocean view, but I simply can’t afford it!

My answer to Mr. Suh’s article does not involve changing the tried-and-true system of the law of supply and demand simply to suit him and others in his predicament, or trying to increase the reach of the poisonous claws of the socialistic nanny state we find ourselves in, but simply for him and others to live where they can afford the rent or the house payment — or the payment of car they own or the clothes they wear.

The other alternative, which always has been a positive incentive in this country, is for people to earn more money to afford the lifestyle they want.

To put it another way, if people couldn’t afford the rent for such an apartment it would sit empty, and if all such apartments sat empty and $500,000 cars sat unsold, owners, and builders of such would revise their prices and tax collectors would necessarily revise their expectations of income as well — giving the government less and less income for the community good.

Joseph Caro

Huntington Beach