LINDA DIXON TRIES TO STIFF MESA NORTH
On a vote of 2 to 1 (Mansoor and Foley absent) the City Council acted tonight to make Paularino Park safe for residents by naming it a Passive Park.
Linda Dixon voted no, and thus against Mesa North, while Mayor Pro Tem Bever and Councilmember Leece voted yes, and for Mesa North.
Say, did we mention that Dixon is up for reelection next year?
The CM PRESS anticipated Dixon's vote against Mesa North. Dixon is no friend of Mesa North or of the improvement of our city. Now, if the issue had been to open a new job center for illegal aliens, you probably would have seen Dixon voting for it. Citizens--even the more than 2-3 thousand of them living in Mesa North? To hell with those peons and what they want seems to be her attitude.
The result of this passive park designation that was approved, over Dixon's silly attempt to kill it off, will be that residents who want to use this tiny park for its intended purposes won't have to fight with soccer players or have to try to avoid having themselves and their young kids run over by these players or be hit with soccer balls.
Audience members we spoke to were virtually unanimous in saying that Dixon looked "stupid" and "silly," in her attempts to stiff Mesa North.
Here's the straight scoop:
Mesa North has more than 700 single family homes and is represented by the Mesa North Community Association that has an elected board of directors. The board, reflecting the will of the neighborhood, wanted the park made passive.
In addition, at a recent meeting of the neighborhood, put on by the City of Costa Mesa, almost all participants said they wanted the park to be made passive.
At tonight's meeting, both the new president of the association along with the former president, along with the publisher of the association's newsletter as well as other residents, asked that the park be made passive based on their knowledge of the park and what residents want.
Yet, Dixon ignored what Mesa North has repeatedly told the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council what it wants--A SAFE PARK FOR RESIDENTS!
Dixon apparently thinks she can go against the wishes of an entire neighborhood and impose her screwball will on that neighborhood.
Dixon's argument against making the park passive went something like this (we're paraphrasing):
Are we going to arrest a couple of ten year old kids for throwing a ball to each other?
Actually, no, Dixon, that's absurdly silly, and you know it. And, it's not what we're going to do. If anyone is acting in such a way as to be a danger to themselves or others and if the police are called, the police will simply warn the offenders, and if the offenders don't comply, then ejectment from the park is the penalty. No reasonable residents are going to complain if a couple of kids and/or some parents and their kids are tossing a ball back and forth and not bothering anyone.
Dixon's silly argument contained two logical fallacies:
1. Dicto Simpliciter--This fallacy occurs when one takes a general rule and applies it to exceptional circumstances. The general rule for the passive park will be no sports that will interfere with the passive uses of the park. A couple of kids who do not interfere with the passive uses, even if they, themselves, are throwing a ball to each other, will not be violating the rule.
2. Appeal to Pity--This is an emotional appeal. It's an evasion of the real issue--making the park safe--and tries to win the argument based on gaining sympathy. One can almost imagine someone saying: Poor little starving orphan kids are being kept from their one happiness in life; throwing a soft, tiny little ball underhand to each other in this great big empty park. Now, they'll have to go play on the 405 freeway where they'll be run over by big rigs.
No, dear friends, that's not what's going on. The reality is that the park is often taken over by adult soccer players who may not even live in Costa Mesa. They urinate and defecate in the bushes and even in the tot lot. They demanded that a grandmother who was holding her infant grandson in her arms get off the only sidewalk in the park because they were playing soccer there--on the sidewalk. They also kick balls into the tot lot where there are often very vulnerable toddlers playing. Soccer balls are also often kicked into traffic on Paularino Avenue.
Look, this isn't difficult; unless you're Linda Dixon. Playing soccer at Paularino Park is no more appropriate than it would be for someone to have a picnic in the middle of the Farm Soccer Fields when teams are playing soccer. Some parks are good for this or that, but not for something else. Geez!
Here's something else that might make you mad if you live in Mesa North. When a few residents who live near a basketball court in Mesa Verde complained to the City about the noise, the City quickly removed the basketball hoops so basketball can't be played on the court.
Did you read about that Mesa Verde park being changed to stop sports--in this case basketball--because the residents wanted basketball stopped? Of course not. It was handled quickly and efficiently and below the radar. But, when the residents of Mesa North asked to have our park made safe, it turned into a several years long battle.
Can it be that Dixon and her pals think they can disrespect Mesa North with impunity? Do they think Mesa North residents are so apathetic or stupid that we don't see what's going on?
Well, Dixon, our guess is that you've made some folks in Mesa North angry with your insulting actions tonight. Maybe they're just as mad as the Westside Improvers were a few years ago because you and your pals were treating the Westsiders as second class citizens.
We'll see.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.
