TOM AND ELEANOR EGAN -- Community Commentary

We appreciate the interest Byron de Arakal has shown in the future of

Westside Costa Mesa, and we recognize that columnists often paint with a

broad brush.

However, de Arakal’s column of Feb. 21 [“Leaders without ears, beware

the quaking ground beneath you”] seriously erred in portraying us, Tom

and Eleanor Egan, as being opposed to “visioning.”

That word has been widely misused and misunderstood. So-called

“visioning” is just the first step, to be followed by strategic planning,

then implementation, (as in “Ready, Aim, Fire”) in a long-range planning

effort. Far from opposing it, we have been working hard for nearly two

years to bring community-driven, long-range planning to Costa Mesa.

We certainly don’t want to delay the improvement of the Westside, even

by one second. That’s why we are concerned that redevelopment not be

stalled by endless strife among the conflicting interests involved,

wasting precious time and money. Redevelopment of the Westside must not

be done piecemeal, without an overall plan.

Haphazard, piecemeal development brought about many of the ills from

which the Westside now suffers. It’s true that building community and

being systematic often seem to take too much time at the beginning. But

it’s worth it, as it saves time and money in the long run.

As the speakers from Laguna Beach who came to Costa Mesa’s City

Council retreat emphasized, the community-building part is vital and

cannot be glossed over. Without full participation by the community, any

redevelopment effort is likely to be torpedoed by one group or another,

and the effort will end up on the shelf.

Since it seems to be generally agreed that there is little sense of

community in Costa Mesa, it is important to work at building community.

In order to avoid repeating the sad history of the Westside Specific

Plan effort, the differing interests must actually confront one another

in open meetings and hammer out solutions together. We are confident that

people who have differing ideas and desires -- citizens, business owners,

property owners and leaders of religious institutions and other local

organizations -- can craft a plan that all can accept. Without this step,

improvement of the Westside may not take place, and the failure may leave

hard feelings all around, delaying improvement even further.

De Arakal correctly pointed out that citizen activists care deeply

about our city. However, we can be fractious and contentious, and are

likely to differ sharply on both the details and on the process of

getting from point A to point B. (We even disagree with each other from

time to time!)

So it’s no surprise to see some activists, eager to see real change

ASAP, rejecting any focus on an orderly process and hungering for

tangible signs of progress.

We hope de Arakal will learn the differences in approach and

philosophy among the various civic activists so that he can paint with a

finer brush. It’s important that the citizens of Costa Mesa discuss and

choose between the two approaches -- the systematic, community-building

way vs. “Fire, and forget about aim and ready.”

If de Arakal will delineate the details, he can help promote that

discussion. We think he will find the details will provide him even more

interesting material for his columns than generalities can provide.

* TOM AND ELEANOR EGAN are Costa Mesa residents and community

activists.