Reasons for changes don’t ring true Councilwoman...

Reasons for changes don’t ring true

Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman speaks of making the playing field

level in an attempt to justify changing Laguna’s Campaign Reform

Ordinance.

Her justification is a ruse because more independent expenditure

money was spent getting her elected then on any other candidate in

the 2000 election. According to disclosure forms, the facts are that

independent committees spent a total of $10,925 in support of

Kinsman. $7,665 was spent by the Laguna Beach Firefighters Assn. and

$3,260 was spent by the Tax Payers Assn. while Iseman and O’Neil had

only a total of $4,036 spent on their behalf by Village Laguna.

(Village Laguna spent $2,013 in support of each candidate.)

Kinsman’s campaign disclosure forms reveal that she spent a total

of $53,896 on her campaign which is also far more than any other

candidate.

With a total of $64,821 spent to elect her, Cheryl Kinsman

received 4,253 votes; $15.24 being spent on each vote. By contrast,

Wayne Baglin was also elected with only $6.70 being spent on each

vote.

If anyone has had an unfair financial advantage, including

expenditures from independent committees, it’s been Councilwoman

Kinsman.

JOHANNA FELDER

Laguna Beach

Campaign changes bad for Laguna

We all know well that the right to have a voice in our government

is one of the most crucial elements of our country. Without question,

it is a pillar of our very livelihood as individuals, as a community

and as a nation. Accordingly, the goal of our governing system is to

maximize that voice, the voice of the people, such that they may be

truly represented by their elected officials.

While campaign donations are not the do-all and be-all of

campaigns, they are a critical part. In this town, it is easy to say

what people want to hear and so, while a candidate must still be

voted into office, it’s not exactly difficult to prop up a phony

superstar with all the right stuff. By limiting campaign

contributions we prevent this possibility and promote active

participation in elections and a level playing field for our entire

community.

Elevating the campaign contribution to $500 is a significant

threat to our voice as residents of Laguna Beach. It does not

maximize the voice of the people, it limits it, by substantially

reducing the amount of requisite supporters to push a candidate

toward office.

Consider the impact of this increase on the average amount of

money contributed in the most recent elections. Between the six

candidates, with Councilman Steve Dicterow on the low end, at about

$22,000 and Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman on the extreme high end, at

about $65,000, we arrive at an average sum of approximately $35,000.

With a contribution limit of $250, this amounts to at least 140

contributors. 140 people who can participate in the process and exert

influence on the outcome.

By maintaining the limit at $250, it is understood that you need

quite a few supporters to contribute. This means that, as a

candidate, you have to get your message out. You have to answer

pointed questions, you have to delve into tough issues, you have to

interact with the community and, most importantly, it means that your

message needs to be accepted by a wide group of Laguna Beach

residents to garner sufficient contributions. Furthermore, a limit of

$250 makes everyone feel like they can participate, like they’re not

going up against a 500-pound gorilla with their measly $100

contribution.

Clearly, democracy is not about the size of one’s contributions.

It is about how many people support you and your message, as a

candidate and as a possible guardian of their well-being. The more

people involved in the election process, the more democratic it is.

Yet increasing the campaign limit severely restricts the amount of

people involved in an election.

If you increase the campaign limit to $500, the minimum 140 people

seen at the $250 limit shrinks to 70 people. 70 people! You can run a

successful campaign with 70 supporters. I want to know how the

council majority considers that democratic in a city of over 24,000!

And who will these 70 people be? Teachers, firefighters, artists,

small-businessmen and women from small-town Laguna? Probably not.

Most of these people cannot afford $500 contributions. So who are you

left with ... developers, lawyers, architects, real-estate

corporations, large retailers.

Now these types are obviously not damaging as a rule. We all know

ethical, compassionate lawyers, developers, real-estate speculators

and so forth. Many live here and care deeply about Laguna Beach.

However, there are also a great deal whose primary objective is not

the well-being of Laguna Beach, but the width of their wallets. And

in a wonderful town with so much at risk, especially in terms of

overdevelopment and village character, increasing the limit to $500

is inviting serious trouble.

Dicterow has proposed both elevating the contribution limit and

reducing the voluntary spending cap to $15,000. These two ideas

conflict in an obvious paradox, for by increasing the contribution

limit and reducing the spending cap, you effectively reduce the

minimum number of contributors to 30. With many couples, such as

Laguna’s most prolific architect, donating the maximum in concert

with their spouses, 30 is thus reduced to 15.

Obviously this is a frightening number, but it’s ultimately

irrelevant because no one, outside of long-standing incumbents, is

going to volunteer for the $15,000 limit anyway. If you want to make

a spending limit impactful, make it mandatory, but a better option is

clearly to retain our original $250 limit.

If the goal of Kinsman and Dicterow and Councilwoman Elizabeth

Pearson is truly to reflect the will of their constituents, as it

should be, then our campaign limits should not be elevated 100%.

Their recent vote is an insult to our individual and community

voices.

DEREK OSTENSEN

Laguna Beach

Laguna creek should be protected

As a longtime resident of Laguna Beach, one of the aspects of our

unique community that brings me the most pleasure and pride is the

preservation of our ecology. We have only to look around us -- and to

compare ourselves with surrounding communities -- to see what a

priceless heritage remains through the visionary efforts of Laguna

residents.

The natural landscapes of Laguna, which have drawn residents,

artists and tourists for so many years are a continual delight -- but

a delight which could easily have been forfeited without collective

vision.

I strongly support the plan for the gradual restoration of Laguna

Canyon Creek because I believe that it will help re-establish and

reconnect the natural system that surrounds and sustains us.

Anyone who has ever hiked in Laguna Coast Wilderness Park knows

what it’s like to hear the roar of the toll road in the midst of

natural sounds. Opportunities for enjoying pristine natural beauty

are constantly being eroded in this way. I look forward to the day

when habitat restoration and beautification bring back the quiet

enchantment of sitting beside the creek, enjoying the trees and

plants and animals, and seeing once again the loveliness captured by

early plein air painters.

Yes, it will cost money, and, yes, it’s challenging to maintain

vision when faced with conflicting interests. But aren’t most of us

Laguna residents here because we treasure the beauty and wonder in

our midst? I’m all for adding to that beauty and wonder.

KEVIN O’BRIEN

Laguna Beach

I am a new Laguna Beach resident and one of the reasons I moved to

this town was its natural beauty. I think the Laguna Canyon Creek

should be restored for not only our residents but for the visitors

and tourists that visit Laguna Beach year after year.

BILL SCHALABA

Laguna Beach

Big Bend also needs renovations

The large empty piece of land at Big Bend in Laguna Canyon was

purchased by the city of Laguna Beach from the U.S. Postal Service in

1998, using $350,000 from the Open Space fund.

At the time of purchase it was a beautiful natural meadow where

deer were often sighted. Today it lies worse than fallow; it is

barren and ugly. It has been used as a dumping ground and truck

storage area for the city and its contractors. We would like to see

it cleaned up and restored to a meadow.

Restoration efforts could draw on the biological resources

inventory of Laguna Canyon prepared for the city in 1993 by Karlin

Marsh, which identifies the Big Bend cliffs and the adjacent vacant

land on the canyon floor as second only to the Hobo Canyon area in

biological significance and priority for preservation.

The cliffs are a scenic landmark of regional importance and the

home of the one of the world’s three largest known populations of

endemic Laguna Beach dudleya, and the area is a major cross-canyon

wildlife dispersion corridor.

The degraded condition of the property is a highly visible

embarrassment to a city that holds private developers to strict

standards of environmental sensitivity. We urge the City Council to

take immediate steps to restore the area to healthy open space.

GINGER OSBORNE

President, Village Laguna

Felder shouldn’t throw stones

I read with little interest and considerable irritation Gene

Felders opinion regarding “Alta Laguna Site needs more input” in last

week’s Coastline Pilot (Oct. 17). I was particularly incensed by his

reference to the preservation of public and coastal views.

Felder also has a reputation locally for personally validating

many neighborhood building permit approvals every time even the

slightest home improvement activity occurs and I find his constant

and insatiable interest in the neighborhood quite objectionable.

I have reason to personally find Felder’s opinions hypocritical

and self serving, especially regarding view preservation. The

Felder’s live on Park Avenue, diagonally opposite my home on Bern

Drive at Top of the World. When our family moved into our home in

1992 we had an unobstructed view of Catalina Island and the Pacific

Ocean over the rooftop of the Felder residence which is slightly

downhill and approximately 250 to 300 feet from our home. However,

over the years the Felders have encouraged the growth of several

plants, including tall Cyprus trees, on the Park Avenue side of their

home that do not in any way impact their ocean view. These trees are

gradually destroying the fine vistas that our family has enjoyed from

our home.

I find it quite ironic that Felder is so committed to continuously

stick his nose into local affairs that don’t directly affect or

impact him when he has a neighborly conflict on his own doorstep that

he either deliberately planned or is possibly oblivious too.

I have not made any contact with Felder to resolve or discuss this

issue since his reputation locally would indicate or suggest that

such a confrontation would only further satisfy his insatiable

appetite for public debate. He would, no doubt, revel in the

attention. Life is really too short for such nonsense and I just hope

that Felder’s untidy vegetation eventually becomes a haven for

insects, vermin, parasites and termites that will take his attention

away from that of his neighbors and allow him to concentrate on his

own housekeeping.

DAVID WARD

Laguna Beach

Self-appointed president of

the TOW Neighborhood

Assn. against Nosey and

Irritating Neighbors

The Coastline Pilot is eager to run your letters. If your letter

does not appear, it may be because of space restrictions, and the

letter will likely appear next week. If you would like to submit a

letter, write to us at P.O. Box 248, Laguna Beach, CA 92652; fax us

at (949) 494-8979; or send e-mail to [email protected].

Please give your name and include your hometown and phone number, for

verification purposes only.