Mailbag: N.B. council ignored constituents’ concerns

I take no particular pleasure in saying that Tuesday was a sad day in the annals of City Council meetings (Newport Beach approves mooring permit rental rates increase, Daily Pilot, July 11). The sheer arrogance and nonchalance with which an issue of financial importance to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, affecting over 1,000 families, was rushed through, will be an indelible blot on this council’s credibility as representatives serving its constituents. A simple request to postpone a decision on a subject of such importance, considering the last minute, highly ambiguous, major changes cobbled up to appease some of the opposition, fell on totally deaf years. It was as if the council had not heard one word of the legitimate issues raised by dozens of attendees.

Over the past couple of years, many of us have questioned the patently absurd increase is mooring rental rates requested by the Harbor Commission, based on a provably flawed analysis by a consultant. We prepared for the July 9 meeting with the understanding that we would be discussing the commission’s absurd request. During our protracted interaction with the commission we were absolutely assured, both verbally and in writing, that the current protocol regarding “transferability” of moorings will not be changed.

City staff’s proposed changes to the Harbor Commission proposal were distributed on the Friday after Independence Day and put on the agenda for the following Tuesday — no discussions, no debate, no public input, no time to digest the ambiguous proposal or offer improvements. Based on the questions that were asked by many of the council members, even they appeared to be uncertain of what the new proposal entailed.

One thing was clear. The written commitment by the Harbor Commission about mooring “transferability” was being reneged on, and a new commitment was being made by the City Council about “grandfathering” current mooring occupants against the increased rents. However, this commitment is not and cannot be binding on any future councils, and hence it is of little value.

One can surmise, from the above shenanigans, that what is being engineered here is a scheme to expropriate $30 million to $50 million from current mooring occupants and convert it into city income. Protestations by the council that the current system is unfair to newcomers and was never approved has some superficial validity. However, the council and the Harbor Commission cannot deny that this was known to them and was administered by them for decades, without question. This acquiescence resulted in prospective mooring users forking out tens of thousands of dollars to acquire a mooring.

This is not Cuba or Venezuela. This is the heart of conservative Orange County. You do not take away something from an individual without due compensation, even under eminent domain. There are ways to fix this issue equitably for all parties, if the City Council finds the humility to ask for ideas and does not cater to vested interests.

Jamshed Dastur
Newport Beach

NIMBYism at play in Surf City

So you’re telling me that the same folks who dissolved the citizen-led Huntington Beach Environment & Sustainability board, who needlessly removed the city and residents from the Orange County Power Authority, who ended Main Street’s renaissance as a pedestrian mall and who blindly continue to promote an air show in the sky above our precious wetlands now want us to believe they give a damn about our environment? I’m sorry, but I call “B.S.!”

For the past 20 months, the current City Council majority has set the agenda and controlled the direction of our city government. Not once in that time have they ever expressed even the slightest interest in the environmental or sustainability issues confronting our community. To say that I consider this newly found interest to be completely disingenuous would be a vast understatement. This new transparent attempt to employ environmental NIMBYism is nothing less than an insult to every conscientious individual who has ever donated, volunteered or in any way participated in efforts to protect Huntington Beach’s environment.

If Councilman Casey McKeon wants to address issues like air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, congestion and roadway public safety, that’s great. However, to make any future progress, he will need to understand that the solution to those issues and the future sustainability of our community does not involve championing a failed status quo that relies on single-family housing and private automobiles.

Steve Shepherd
Huntington Beach

As I predicted in my remarks at the Huntington Beach City Council special meeting called on Monday afternoon, the effort by the council majority to ram home a charter amendment on housing restrictions quickly became a “show trial” worthy of the term’s many negative associations. The council’s three minority members shunned the meeting and refused to accord it any public credibility. Only the four amateur authoritarian members sat on the dais to perfunctorily pass the amendment to put on the November ballot. A statement from the council minority was read into the record, which blasted the majority on many grounds, especially the rushed nature of the proceedings and the complete lack of analysis of “unintended consequences.” Similar “rush jobs” to weaponize the City Charter successfully occurred in March at the expense of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars and despite dubious drafting. The egregiousness of this charter amendment was compounded by its alleged environmental protection trappings and its “in your face” invitation for state action to punish Surf City for its institutional insolence. This was one show trial that fooled nobody on either side. It was pure political theater that could hurt the city big time. Show trials only work if the public is cowed or conned. This meeting achieved neither aim.

Tim Geddes
Huntington Beach

Settlement is unsettling

Now it is evident why City Atty. Michael Gates wanted to keep the details of the air show settlement secret. The original law suit brought against the city by the Pacific Airshow was for a one day cancellation, and the city had the protection of the public as its defense, since the area sustained damage from the oil spill.

How does this translate to a multimillion-dollar settlement that could last 40 years and forces the city to accept subsequent entities, if the contract is sold or transferred to others?

A trial could have resulted favorably for the city and instead this supposed settlement has cost public funds without justification. This settlement has to be set aside as self serving, since there are still many unanswered questions.

Richard C. Armendariz
Huntington Beach