Mailbag: Be considerate of Bluebird residents

We who live in the Bluebird Park neighborhood enjoy the summer concerts. We do not enjoy having our bushes and landscaping parked on by fellow attendees.

We enjoy even less the aggressive, uncooperative responses when this is brought to the attention of the drivers. Just this past weekend, several of us blocked spaces for expected guests. People moved our reserved parking blockades and parked in those spaces.

What is meant to be a pleasant experience for the residents of lovely Laguna Beach has become a display of disrespect to those of us who live in the park area. Please be thoughtful.

Michele Leighton

Laguna Beach

*

Council not looking at history of project

The Village Entrance Project that the City Council is considering was designed more than two decades ago and doesn’t take into account all that we have learned over these past 20-plus years.

The Planning Commission has held several community workshops concerning parking, traffic and public transit that should be considered before the council makes any decisions about the project.

All of our parking studies conclude that a parking structure built where there is already a congestion problem will just make the congestion worse. There are so many innovative and 21st-century solutions to parking problems that do not add to congestion — peripheral parking for one.

If we in the community were asked what is the most important big problem that Laguna Beach should address, it wouldn’t be parking. It would be congestion. Why not find out what the community wants and let Laguna vote?

Darrylin Girvin

Laguna beach

*

We’re smart enough to vote

I feel that I must voice my feelings concerning the Village Entrance Project.

We are talking about a multimillion-dollar project — the final and true cost is still unknown — that will place our city in debt for 25 years and take five years to complete. I truly believe it shouldn’t be left to the discretion of the five members of the City Council.

We have two bipartisan members, Mayor Kelly Boyd and Councilwoman Toni Iseman, who believe as I do, that this issue needs to be put to a citywide vote.

The last time I looked, our residents were well-educated, well-informed and quite able to make intelligent decisions on important matters.

Whether it is voted up or down, let the voting residents of Laguna Beach decide.

Regumbah Connolly

Laguna Beach

*

Revenue bond likely to lead to future problems

There is a reason why three council members wanted to issue a general obligation bond rather than a revenue bond for the Village Entrance Project.

A revenue bond does not require a vote by the taxpaying residents of the city; a general obligation bond does. Allegedly, this is because the entity for which the $65 million is being borrowed is supposed to pay for itself, thereby not affecting the taxpayers. Except that it will affect the taxpayers in nefarious and indirect ways that are no less harmful for being sneaky.

Given that the taxpaying residents of this city are not stupid, had a vote for this fiscal recklessness been put to them, it in all likelihood would have been voted down. So one does wonder at the real motive behind this council effort to circumvent such a vote.

The numbers discussed are $65 million worth of debt with the debt service obligation at about $2 million per year for 25 years. The structure would be at full capacity for about two months out of the year. The operating costs for this kind of structure would not be insignificant, and they would be year round.

This city has spent a lot of money on a lot of studies, not to mention a parking management plan that seems to be ignored, and yet leaders decide to put us all in hock for this boondoggle.

Because revenue bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the city, they are riskier and costlier than general obligation bonds. Some cities that had excellent credit ratings have tanked when their debt obligations could not be met because of economic contingencies.

The puffed-up projections, and kind of math one might find on the bottom of a boot, did not save them from the tangle of resulting lawsuits. Of course, this was long after the politicians responsible for the mess were no longer in office.

If we are not allowed a vote, shouldn’t we at least get dinner and a movie.

Cindy Hall

Laguna Beach

*

Entrance project doesn’t provide what city needs

Is Laguna Beach’s proposed Village Entrance Project little more than landscaping to screen a concrete-box garage the size of a football field? Or is it a feeble attempt to bypass Laguna’s voters by instructing staff and money-hungry consultants to proceed with the project?

Perhaps it’s a most fiscally irresponsible project, and three council members have joined together as an elite autocracy to satisfy the festivals and a few merchants. It could even be a fiscal disaster sucking the air out of city funds for 30 years through very, very costly revenue bonds.

In any case, the cute name is hardly a “village entrance” for those of us who drive the utility-pole burdened Laguna Canyon Road, which is, in fact, the village entrance.

And what’s wrong with at least one of the three autocrats joining forces with Mayor Kelly Boyd and Councilwoman Toni Iseman to let 16,409 Laguna voters (16,406 less the three) get involved in this horrifically costly project that under-delivers on parking spaces. You know, a net increase of 200 parking spaces and a few trees for (gulp) $65 million.

What happened to Councilman Steven Dicterow espousing pre-election statements, forever memorialized on YouTube, stating that he should be elected because “They (the then-council members) have not focused on the core issues of public safety, fiscal responsibility, infrastructure … and I want the long-range vision to take care of these kind of problems. …I will always fight for the residents and citizens of Laguna Beach.”

This project does nothing for public safety, is totally fiscally irresponsible, and provides very little infrastructure for the $65 million. In fact, it will suck the city dry of funds to deal with all of these issues.

The council members all took an oath of office that pledges to support the California and U.S. constitutions. The California Constitution states, “All political power is inherent in the people,” something the three autocrats seek to bypass with a revenue bond issue.

Revenue bonds don’t require voter approval and cost more than a general obligation bond approved by voters. Is this how the council members will fight for the residents of Laguna Beach?”

I challenge at least one of the three autocrats to man up and let Laguna vote on this horrific and fiscally irresponsible expenditure before digging a humongous hole in the city budget.

If public safety, fiscal responsibility and representing the voters is really a core value, let’s do a $200 million bond issue and underground the canyon, build a parking structure at Act V, create Coast Highway overpasses for pedestrians, and add parking on the north and south entrances to Laguna Beach. And let’s do it with general obligation bonds that are the absolute cheapest and most secure to fund infrastructure.

Now that’s long-range thinking that is fiscally responsible and contributes mightily to public safety. Think long range. Be fiscally responsible. Improve public safely. Let Laguna vote.

Victor Opincar

Laguna Beach