MAILBAG - Feb. 2, 2007

Permanent towers not needed

James Pribram’s column [Surfing Soapbox, “Towers Deserve Support,” Coastline Pilot, Jan. 19] regarding the permanent lifeguard towers in the unique coves of Laguna Beach was feeble and biased. You interviewed one side of a hot topic. A good reporter does their research and gets both sides of a story.

There are many alternatives, including an enclosed temporary lifeguard tower that would give the lifeguards protection. The individual beach lifeguards are seasonal and the proposed lifeguard towers would be permanent and cost more than $20,000 each. Putting in 28 — hmmm, you do the math.

A true beach and ocean lover would research the alternatives to preserve our pristine coastline.

The Laguna Beach planning division at City Hall has a large file full of alternatives that would protect our lifeguards and meet OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] requirements, yet keep our beaches beautiful. We are not Los Angeles, and if you like the idea of having permanent lifeguard towers that look like outhouses, then maybe you should live in LA!

A. JOHNSON

Laguna Beach

Appalled by proposed towers

Yesterday I signed a petition in opposition to the placement of 28 new permanent lifeguard towers in our outlying beaches.

There are two of these already in place on Main Beach, and they are quite noticeable. In fact, it brings to mind the beaches of LA, Huntington Beach or Bolsa Chica, all vying for that institutional and impersonal look.

OK, Main Beach has become a G-rated and rather blah scene since the “Window to the Sea” became a reality, the tide pools began to die and the water is often polluted to the point of unusability — so why not add these eyesores to the mix.

But I’m told that plans for 28 more of these monstrosities have already been approved by our enlightened City Council — at a cost of $28,000 a copy … brilliant!

Please consider the aesthetic impact of such a structure at, say, Diver’s Cove. How about Moss Beach? Victoria Beach? Any of our beautiful, bucolic coves? One word suffices — hideous.

Do any of our council members even go to the beach? I can’t imagine that they do, otherwise they would have more sense than to approve such an ugly, unnecessary waste of resources.

Speaking of sense, let’s do the math. We’re looking at 28 towers at a cost of $28,000 each. This amounts to $784,000. At first glance. Of course, if you watch municipal projects, you will note that within hours of a deal being struck, costs seem to “escalate” (see Montage, Bluebird slide, etc., for evidence).

I’ve often wondered how this occurs since, in my experience, once a deal is struck it is honored as such — but this doesn’t seem to be the case when Laguna Beach enters into an agreement or contract. Guess I don’t know how that particular business world operates.

In fact, we have imposed upon ourselves — or at least some of us have — a tax hike to pay for Bluebird, yet we have all this loot to fund this ridiculous fiasco. (Ken [Frank, city manager] — can you shed any light on this?).

Perhaps the most galling aspect of this debacle is that while the city can come up with $784,000 (which will probably amount to $1 million plus) to destroy the aesthetic appeal of our beaches, they whine that there isn’t enough money to properly compensate the personnel who will be operating them.

Do they think that our lifeguards will be happier with some fancy-shmancy tower than with a well-deserved compensation for their heroic efforts?

Finally, I’ve heard those in opposition to this called NIMBYs [an acronym of “Not In My Back Yard”]. In some cases, this may be true, but can you blame them? On the other hand, I’m a 61-year-old native son, and I don’t live in a white-sand, ocean-view home, but I do traverse our beaches regularly.

In the summer, there are transportable towers in evidence, and they are appreciated as a necessity for the safety of our water lovers and visitors — and they’re relatively unobtrusive. In the winter, they’re gone.

These permanent towers are ugly and institutional, and will, over time, deteriorate (yes, we do live in a world of impermanence, even if they call them “permanent”), thus incurring more unnecessary expense to the city (us).

Please speak out on this issue — I believe you’ll be glad you did. It’s not too late. Progress is one thing, but this is another — something that can preserve or destroy our precious beaches.

JASON WINEINGER

Laguna Beach

Airport paranoia pays off for Irvine

Since the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority just disbanded, the El Toro war must finally be over. Well, kudos to Irvine for finally seizing control of 4,700 acres of prime real estate. This whole time, the “Planned El Toro Illusional Airport” was really just a mirage.

It was only because of the John Wayne settlement agreement that the county even went through the motions to find a “second airport” — which was about as authentic as O.J. [Simpson]’s “search” for the real killers.

Only the scientifically illiterate could truly support flying with tailwind into rising terrain or going against incoming traffic to other airports.

How would the county ever enforce flying such unsafe routes — have Jim Silva stand on the tarmac with sheriff’s deputies? Had the county actually wanted a workable airport to work, they would have implemented the “pilot’s plan.”

In the meantime, Irvine stirred up people’s emotions that El Toro would make for a “very bad neighbor.” Ironically, Irvine doesn’t feel that airports are such bad neighbors after all. Look at all the new homes under construction near John Wayne — some as close as Von Karman Avenue.

Of course, this was all approved after the El Toro election. Supposedly, the El Toro fight was all about “preserving quality of life” from nasty side effects like “traffic.” However, Irvine’s imminent approval for 9,600 new homes at El Toro will only exacerbate traffic.

By the way, that would make El Toro No. 1 for the largest quantity of homes ever shoehorned on any base closed since the end of the Cold War.

No matter what the county had planned for the property, Irvine was determined to grab it. There could have been a proposal for creating the Garden of Eden for the second coming of the Good Lord himself and Irvine would have terrified the voters with propaganda that a garden at El Toro would bring vermin, locusts and plagues.

The most amazing part of all is Irvine convinced nine other South County cities to spend millions on their successful El Toro war. They even duped Lake Forest to pay for not one, but two seats on the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority. Typically, local communities will divvy a former base. (For example, Fort Ord was split up by four different cities.)

However, Irvine alone will rake in millions in tax revenues and developer fees on El Toro. So much for sharing the spoils of victory with any of the other nine cities that were on their ETRPA “team.”

I sure wish I could get nine other investors for a business, yet be allowed to keep 100% of the revenues. Irvine successfully parlayed paranoia into payola.

REX RICKS

Paradise

Applause for ‘Happiness’

This weekend ends the run of Laguna Playhouse’s “The Pursuit of Happiness.” What a great play — funny, but profound and thought-provoking. All five members of the cast turn in stellar performances.

The play is by the same playwright who wrote “Rounding Third,” which was at the Laguna Playhouse in 2003. If they have another play by Richard Dresser, I’m definitely attending.

GENE FELDER

Laguna Beach

Help to homeless praiseworthy

Kudos to the Calvary Church for donating 80 blankets to the Laguna Beach Cold Weather Shelter program (“Cold weather sends more to shelters,” Coastline Pilot, Jan. 19) and to the Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Church and the Neighborhood Congregational Church for offering their facilities. That’s what I like to see churches doing.

NIKO THERIS

Laguna Beach