Thursday, June 1, 2006
Dismissing Duffers - Who's Next?
Well, the fan continues to spin and interested parties would
be well advised to wear raincoats, ponchos or carry umbrellas to
avoid being soiled by the stuff that's flying off it.
Our young jailer/mayor and his anointed running mate, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairwoman Wendy Leece, have provided us with illumination on their scheme to take 25% of the holes at the Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club and turn them into what they refer to as "a first-class Costa Mesa Youth Sports Complex". Today, in a Daily Pilot commentary jointly authored by these two "visionary leaders", they gave us the whole scoop on their plan.
Apparently, this scheme is what they consider one of their "real and lasting solutions that do not affect the quality of life of our residents." I guess the fact that by plowing under the holes in question they would effectively destroy the youth golf programs of all our local high schools doesn't count as a quality of life issue. And, what about the senior golfers who extensively utilize the course scheduled to be sacrificed - is their quality of life not affected?
Amazingly, this dippy duo admit "that the golfers may be hesitant to look at this proposal..." Well, duh! I guess the golfers would be more than hesitant to look at this proposal - I suspect they will be inclined to let the council know their feelings with pitchforks and burning torches! These two candidates for election in November go on to say, "We firmly believe that we need to take a balanced approach to meet the needs of everyone..." I guess that means that they will continue on with these kind of boneheaded plans until every single resident of the city is adversely affected one way or the other.
They proceed to tell us that they would turn what would be left of the Mesa Linda course - the one they plan to cannibalize - into a "modern, and more challenging, 18 hole 'executive' course to replace the 1960s course. This change would revitalize and renew a course many have played literally hundreds of times." I guess that means that once you've played a course there's no reason to ever play it again, right? I'm surprised they just didn't propose turning the remaining 9 holes into a miniature golf course, complete with windmills and snapping plastic alligators! Talk about out of touch! These two have taken cluelessness to a new level!
The last sentence in that particular paragraph of their commentary has me reeling. It reads as follows: "This approach fits our philosophy of not affecting our community in the name of serving our community." WHAT?! What the heck does that mean? Even for them, this is a new low when it comes to incomprehensible double-speak! Good Grief!
It gets better. When addressing the concerns expressed by many people about the loss of revenue to the city when the current course is chopped up, they assuage our fears by telling us that their version of a golf course would generate the same fees. They end that section by saying the following: "This approach provides sufficient field space, and no neighbors would be affected by the lights, noise or traffic." I guess they don't count those folks along Joann Street, many of whom are Latinos. Or, perhaps, our young jailer/mayor feels his plan to expunge them from our borders will have taken effect by then, so they won't be a problem. Once again, the old "Mansoor double standard" comes into play when we talk about quality of life issues.
One of their really interesting ideas is to extort homes from potential developers in the Westside and Sobeca overlay zones to be used as raffle items to help defray the costs of their plan. This is right out of Eric Bever's "Let's Hold a Gun to the Head of the Owner of Triangle Square Handbook of Enlightened Governance." Of course, they'll call that a "condition of approval" for a development, but the net effect is the same - they withhold approval of a project until and unless the developer agrees to pony up some of his profit. Sure sounds like extortion to me.
Fairview Developmental Center, which is almost surrounded by the golf courses in question, uses their proximity in their promotional materials to provide the feeling of tranquility such a setting evokes. I wonder how the management of that facility, and the state, feel about eight or ten lighted playing fields, with enthusiastic children doing what they do best - run and holler - replacing that tranquility. Seems like the antithesis of a golf course, doesn't it? I find myself wondering if, in their condition of sale of that land to the city, the state might have required there to be a golf course or some other tranquil utilization of the land in perpetuity.
In a curious bit of timing, on the agenda for the next council meeting on June 6th there is an item snuggled away on the consent calendar that is particularly relevant. This item, number 13 on your dial, is a proposal to get a jump start on that hunk of land the city is trying to lease from the state on the other side of the Fairview Developmental Center along Harbor Boulevard to also be used as playing fields. Without a lease in hand, and without all the necessary approvals, our city staff is apparently proposing that the council give it's approval to go ahead and begin work on the property so we won't miss the growing season for the grass. Now, I understand the need for fields in this community, but is it so important that we just throw good management practices completely out the window? As a taxpayer and voter in this city, I sure don't think so.
Our young jailer/mayor and his consort, Ms. Leece, leave us with the following thought: "It's time to stop fiddling around. It is time to play ball." Not only is that offensive to those real leaders in this city who have been working hard to come up with a solution to the field situation, but the "fiddling" reference has a kind of "while Rome burns" feel to it. Come to think of it, that may be precisely what Mansoor is doing - fiddling while Costa Mesa burns.
Five months until the election - it can't come too soon for me.
5:34 pm pdt
Our young jailer/mayor and his anointed running mate, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairwoman Wendy Leece, have provided us with illumination on their scheme to take 25% of the holes at the Costa Mesa Golf and Country Club and turn them into what they refer to as "a first-class Costa Mesa Youth Sports Complex". Today, in a Daily Pilot commentary jointly authored by these two "visionary leaders", they gave us the whole scoop on their plan.
Apparently, this scheme is what they consider one of their "real and lasting solutions that do not affect the quality of life of our residents." I guess the fact that by plowing under the holes in question they would effectively destroy the youth golf programs of all our local high schools doesn't count as a quality of life issue. And, what about the senior golfers who extensively utilize the course scheduled to be sacrificed - is their quality of life not affected?
Amazingly, this dippy duo admit "that the golfers may be hesitant to look at this proposal..." Well, duh! I guess the golfers would be more than hesitant to look at this proposal - I suspect they will be inclined to let the council know their feelings with pitchforks and burning torches! These two candidates for election in November go on to say, "We firmly believe that we need to take a balanced approach to meet the needs of everyone..." I guess that means that they will continue on with these kind of boneheaded plans until every single resident of the city is adversely affected one way or the other.
They proceed to tell us that they would turn what would be left of the Mesa Linda course - the one they plan to cannibalize - into a "modern, and more challenging, 18 hole 'executive' course to replace the 1960s course. This change would revitalize and renew a course many have played literally hundreds of times." I guess that means that once you've played a course there's no reason to ever play it again, right? I'm surprised they just didn't propose turning the remaining 9 holes into a miniature golf course, complete with windmills and snapping plastic alligators! Talk about out of touch! These two have taken cluelessness to a new level!
The last sentence in that particular paragraph of their commentary has me reeling. It reads as follows: "This approach fits our philosophy of not affecting our community in the name of serving our community." WHAT?! What the heck does that mean? Even for them, this is a new low when it comes to incomprehensible double-speak! Good Grief!
It gets better. When addressing the concerns expressed by many people about the loss of revenue to the city when the current course is chopped up, they assuage our fears by telling us that their version of a golf course would generate the same fees. They end that section by saying the following: "This approach provides sufficient field space, and no neighbors would be affected by the lights, noise or traffic." I guess they don't count those folks along Joann Street, many of whom are Latinos. Or, perhaps, our young jailer/mayor feels his plan to expunge them from our borders will have taken effect by then, so they won't be a problem. Once again, the old "Mansoor double standard" comes into play when we talk about quality of life issues.
One of their really interesting ideas is to extort homes from potential developers in the Westside and Sobeca overlay zones to be used as raffle items to help defray the costs of their plan. This is right out of Eric Bever's "Let's Hold a Gun to the Head of the Owner of Triangle Square Handbook of Enlightened Governance." Of course, they'll call that a "condition of approval" for a development, but the net effect is the same - they withhold approval of a project until and unless the developer agrees to pony up some of his profit. Sure sounds like extortion to me.
Fairview Developmental Center, which is almost surrounded by the golf courses in question, uses their proximity in their promotional materials to provide the feeling of tranquility such a setting evokes. I wonder how the management of that facility, and the state, feel about eight or ten lighted playing fields, with enthusiastic children doing what they do best - run and holler - replacing that tranquility. Seems like the antithesis of a golf course, doesn't it? I find myself wondering if, in their condition of sale of that land to the city, the state might have required there to be a golf course or some other tranquil utilization of the land in perpetuity.
In a curious bit of timing, on the agenda for the next council meeting on June 6th there is an item snuggled away on the consent calendar that is particularly relevant. This item, number 13 on your dial, is a proposal to get a jump start on that hunk of land the city is trying to lease from the state on the other side of the Fairview Developmental Center along Harbor Boulevard to also be used as playing fields. Without a lease in hand, and without all the necessary approvals, our city staff is apparently proposing that the council give it's approval to go ahead and begin work on the property so we won't miss the growing season for the grass. Now, I understand the need for fields in this community, but is it so important that we just throw good management practices completely out the window? As a taxpayer and voter in this city, I sure don't think so.
Our young jailer/mayor and his consort, Ms. Leece, leave us with the following thought: "It's time to stop fiddling around. It is time to play ball." Not only is that offensive to those real leaders in this city who have been working hard to come up with a solution to the field situation, but the "fiddling" reference has a kind of "while Rome burns" feel to it. Come to think of it, that may be precisely what Mansoor is doing - fiddling while Costa Mesa burns.
Five months until the election - it can't come too soon for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment