Leases could go to state budget The...

Leases could go

to state budget

The most important reason to extend leases at El Morro Village is

to generate needed cash of $50 million and rental income of $3.2

million per year for the California state budget.

Most of the California budget is spent on very essential services

for the people of California. School districts are being forced to

cut back from essential needs. The building of 60 campsites should be

put off until at least there is a surplus in the budget.

Crystal Cove Historic District residents were asked to leave to

make room for this park to be used by the public several years ago.

The public still has no access to the park or beaches. During this

period of time, the state did not collect $500,000 per year from the

former residents. More income to the state was sidelined for a

project that should have been delayed because the budget is out of

balance.

Fix up the 295 parks in California before any expansion of park

building. The unfinished maintenance to the park system is $1

billion, according to Ruth Coleman, director of California Parks and

Recreation. Where is that money coming from?

JAMES CROWELL

Santa Ana

El Morro lease

biz smells bad

Apparently Assemblyman Chuck DeVore maintains that his proposal to

grant a 30-year [lease] extension, after the previous five-year

extension, after the previous 25-year extension, has nothing to do

with $66,000 of contributions to his campaign from El Morro owners

and arises only from his wish to raise funds to help the state solve

its budget crisis.

If that is his motivation, then why sell this lease at a bargain

rate? Why not have an auction and sell the 30-year extensions to the

highest bidders, rather than giving them away for about $470 per

space per month?

Certainly much more could be raised that way than by practically

giving it away as DeVore proposes. And if the motivation is to help

the state get over a temporary crisis, why a 30-year extension?

I usually vote Republican. Republicans are supposed to be good

businesspersons. This proposed deal makes no business sense for the

public. Something smells bad.

STAN FRYMAN

Laguna Beach

Why did Dicterow flip-flop on Montage?

Those with a penchant for following the doings of our City Council

may not have been surprised by the abrupt change of heart from

Councilman Steve Dicterow. In the space of only two weeks, Dicterow

changed his vote and absolved the Montage from having to meet parking

requirements that he had personally crafted just two weeks earlier;

conditions without which, Dicterow agreed, the city would lose

control of the Montage parking situation. Dicterow’s all-too-frequent

habit of changing his mind begs the question of whether he can

remember how he voted on an issue the last time it came before him.

However, in this case, with the reversal coming only two weeks on the

heels of his original vote, on conditions he was instrumental in

forging, we are required to look for another explanation.

And lo and behold, one can be found. The common thread? The

Montage. In February 2002, the council was discussing the runaway

costs associated with construction of our beautiful, yet very

expensive park next to the Montage. Estimated costs had far exceeded

the original estimate, and Dicterow said he felt the “costs were

neither reasonable nor bona fide and were the developer’s problem.”

Based on his lawyerly reading of the development agreement, he opined

that there was no “basis for proceeding with construction beyond the

$5.3 million” and “anything above that was the responsibility of the

Athens Group.”

What a difference a few months makes. When the issue came up again

at a May 2002 council meeting, Dicterow found that the $8,460,000

cost cap proposed by the Montage looked reasonable. As if to make

residents feel better, he expressed “frustration at the difference in

the current costs versus what had been expected during the campaign.”

The only member of council to vote against the decision to pay the

Montage $8,460,000, plus interest at 8.5%, for construction of the

park was Wayne Baglin. A group affiliated with the Montage

contributed $30,000 to the political action committee organized to

defeat Baglin in the last election. Coincidence? You decide.

Councilman Dicterow looked at the facts and decided that it was more

important to protect his political viability than to protect the

citizens who elected him. We should remember that when and if his

name once again appears on a ballot, asking us to support his desire

to “represent” us.

TOM GILES

Laguna Beach