EL CAMINO CENTER AND A LITTLE QUID PRO QUOAt its upcoming May 20th meeting, the City Council is expected to sign an extension agreement with the owner of the closed down El Camino Center located in Mesa del Mar, where Snow Bunny Katrina Foley lives, that will give the owner an additional year to complete
off-site and street improvements around the site.
These off-site and street improvements will consist of removal of existing improvements, new sidewalk, curb/gutter, cross gutter, spandrel, asphalt paving, storm drain inlet and pipe, and traffic striping and markings.
In exchange for granting the one year extension, the City is requiring the owner to demolish the center within 30 days after receiving a demolition permit from the city.
Here's the timeline: Council approves the agreement on May 20. Owner must apply for demolition permit within 5 working days--by May 28. Owner must complete demolition of all buildings on site within 30 days. The agreement is silent as to whether this 30 days is working days or calendar days, but assuming working days, all buildings should be demolished by July 10, 2008.
Will we actually see the buildings gone by July 10?Hopefully, yes. But we wouldn't be surprised if a number of requests for extensions aren't suddenly received by staff. On what basis? Oh, we can think of about a hundred things an owner could use if he wanted to.
And, there's not much teeth in the agreement except a performance bond, and that's the same performance bond that was in the agreement the last time the owner asked for a year's delay that was granted by the City Council.
What then? When will homes be built on the site?Even if the present buildings are demolished, there will still be a large empty lot with an ugly chain link fence around it until homes are finally built on the site. And, there's no telling when that will be.
Still, at least something seems to be moving forward and that's a step in the right direction.
Now, if the City will thin out the slums right across the street from this site, a developer might be more inclined to put in some homes that will be an asset to the community.
With the slums remaining there, a developer is risking his investment.
Say you're a home buyer from out of the area and you're not yet sold on the benefits of Costa Mesa, as are so many of us who choose to live here--cool breezes, close to ocean, close to Newport Beach, a certain "feel."
Would you buy an expensive home across the street from a slum in a city with the negatives that some of us are trying to fix--failing schools and gangs, etc., and an establishment that is fighting to keep the slum status quo?
Or, would you, as have so many others, simply flee Costa Mesa and buy a home for about the same price in South County and not have to put up with the crime and problems that our successive City Councils have allowed to grow in Costa Mesa?
In other words, would you trust that the Improvers can fix broken Costa Mesa or would you be fearful that they'll fail, and instead of improving, the city will go in the other direction and become a new Santa Ana?
Would you risk being trapped in a slum by buying a home on the El Camino Center site while a massive slum sits right across the street from your home and all you see happening in the slum is that Snow Bunny Katrina Foley and her fou fou pals are planting flowers in front of the slum and telling you that everything is now fixed?
# # #
HOT THIS WEEKENDAccording to the Daily Pilot, merchants in Newport Beach are expecting to make a lot of money this weekend as people from inland travel to the ocean to cool off.
Maybe those merchants should cough up some of their profits to help put the 55 Freeway in a tunnel so their customers don't keep screwing up Costa Mesa as they rush right past our merchants to the sea.
# # #
CHUCKY DOESN'T LIKE GAY MARRIAGE AND GETS SMARMYThe California Supreme Court said yesterday that gay marriages are okay...under the law.
It didn't take long for Assemblyman Chuck Devore, as reported in the Daily Pilot, to say that the ruling will now stop the state from being able to ban "polygamous marriages."
LINKWe've heard that argument before. What those saying this are really saying is "I don't like gay marriages, but gays are militant. And, because of their militancy, they've become PC and will have some moral high ground to attack me if I attack them. So, being a typical politician, I'm only going to attack gay marriage obliquely by attacking polygamous marriages [such as practiced by the FLDS down in Texas], because polygamists haven't become militant enough yet and are still easy targets for bigotry."
Or, in good old boy speak: "Why, shucks, gay marriages are okay with me boy, but gee if we allow them to marry, then those evil polygamists will also get a pass."
Bigotry doesn't change. It just changes targets.
Our position on marriage
Marriage is a contract between individuals and is not the business of the state.
However, as with many of our positions on the bigger questions of existence, we look to what we can observe or infer from nature for a deeper understanding of existence and our place in it.
It seems clear to us that nature's primary directive, written in the genes of everything that lives, is "expand yourself [no matter who or what "yourself" is] by making more like yourself." We see that as part of the eternal struggle to be.
If we are right, then all arrangements, including polygamy, that help you expand yourself by making more like yourself, are in concert with nature, and all arrangements that do not do this are counter to nature and what can be called the life force [but not used here as it is sometimes used in esoteric philosophies].
In either case, and to repeat, we don't think marriage is the business of the state, or at least not in our culture that pretends to want diversity in all things. Of course, this leads off into a long discussion about the nature of the state and nations and peoples and religion and even physics (yes, physics), but we'll forgo that for now.
# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.