CM PRESS # 180

WE GET MAIL ABOUT THOMAS H. JOHNSON, PUBLISHER OF THE LIBERAL DAILY PILOT


Dear CM PRESS:

I believe that Thomas H. Johnson, the publisher of the Daily Pilot, actually lives in Newport Beach, not Irvine.

In either case, he doesn't live in Costa Mesa. But, that doesn't stop him from trying to keep our city from improving to be as nice as surrounding coastal communities.

Funny how liberals who have never seen a man bleeding to death from a drive by shooting (on Baker Street, for example) and who don't hear gunshots in the night and who don't have to worry about failing schools and other similar problems in their own cities, try to tell people who live with those things not to worry.

Johnson says he's not a liberal. What a laugh. He was in favor of the job center (so long as it was in Costa Mesa and not near where he lives). He was against having our cops check ID on suspected illegal aliens. And, in the last election, he backed the two liberal losing candidates even though he can't vote in Costa Mesa.

Name Withheld by CM PRESS
# # #

THE GREAT, BUT PHONY, PASSIVE PARK CONTROVERSY

It's been interesting to read the comments about Paularino Park being designated a passive park. Many of these comments come from people who apparently get their information from the Daily Pilot and are thus led astray.

Because they don't understand the reason for and the nature of the passive park designation, and because the Pilot doesn't enlighten them, some are outraged and say things such as: "What, I can't throw or kick a ball to my kid in a park."

Actually, if you can throw or kick a ball to your kid in the park now, this new ordinance isn't going to change that.

However, did you know that there's already an ordinance on the books that says you can't throw or cause to be launched (read kick) a "projectile" (a ball is a projectile), in any of our parks? It's Costa Mesa Municipal Code (CMMC) Sec. 12-20 (a) (3).

But, there's more.

Say you or your kid climb on a park bench. That's a violation of CMMC Sec. 12-20(a)(7).

What if you or your kid let a balloon go in a park? That's a violation of CMMC Sec. 12-20(a)(8).

Maybe you wrestle with your kid on the grass or even (strictly speaking) just walk on the grass. That's a violation of CMMC Sec. 12-20(a)(9).

How about if you and your kid want to walk through the park after dark? That's a violation of CMMC Sec. 12-23.

Now, have you ever heard of anyone being arrested for violating any of the above Costa Mesa Municipal Codes that have mostly been on the books for years? Probably not. They're on the books in case they're needed. They're used reactively not proactively.

For example, suppose someone endangers toddlers by throwing a baseball to someone who is standing near or in the midst of the little kids. The police have the legal authority under CMMC Sec. 12-20(a) (3) to ask those throwing the ball to stop doing that. If they refuse, the police can eject them from the park. If they resist that lawful order, well...things begin to escalate into other violations.

But, if you listen to Linda Dixon and her pals, such as Waving Johnson over at the Daily Pilot, you'd think making Paularino Park passive was going to cause the police to hide behind trees and arrest ten year old kids for tossing a ball to each other.

The new rules and the new boulders and trees in the park will close some loopholes and make the park much, much more enjoyable for all who wish to use it while respecting the rights of others.

# # #
Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.

CM PRESS # 177

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.

CM PRESS # 93

REPORT FROM THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION

Commissioner Terry Shaw votes against Mesa North!

Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2007--This was the first meeting of the new Parks and Recreation Commission.

The members of the commission are Chair Bob Graham, Vice Chair Kurt M. Galitski, Commissioner Mike Brumbaugh, Commissioner Mark Harris, Commissioner Terry Shaw.

PAULARINO PARK

The CM PRESS briefly brought the Commission up to date about the problems residents in Mesa North have had with their passive Paularino Park being used by sports teams whose members defecate in the bushes and in the tot lot and who cause dangerous conditions for residents who want to use the park for its intended passive purposes.

We also related how Recreation Manager Jana M. Ransom (call her (714) 754-5654) had met with citizens of Mesa North, and left them with the impression that trees, and possibly boulders, and various other things would be added to the park to ensure that Paularino remains a passive park and is not used for dangerous team sports, but that nothing appears to have been done on things that citizens thought would be done.

Then, later on in the meeting, Commissioner Brumbaugh made the excellent suggestion that a tree that is to be removed from Wilson Park be placed in Paularino Park. This passed on a 4 to 1 vote with Commissioner Terry Shaw voting against the residents of Mesa North.

Shaw made no comments before or after the vote as to why he was voting against Mesa North, but this vote may be an early indicator that Shaw is going to be against real improvement in our city.

In addition, in light of the CM PRESS's earlier comments at the meeting about how citizens in Mesa North, via their Community Association, let it be known that they would like to have more trees and boulders, etc. in Paularino Park, Shaw's vote can probably be interpreted as an intentional insult to Mesa North citizens.

When Commissioner Mark Harris asked staff about the general progress of the plan of putting in trees and boulders in Paularino Park, Bruce Hartley, who handles these matters for the city, replied that he had not received any direction from City Council to move forward with the project, so nothing was being done!

Hartley's comments were contrary to what the CM PRESS thought was happening. We believed that Council had, in fact, given direction to staff and that staff was working to put these features in Paularino Park.

Then, when Commissioner Harris asked Ms. Ransom about possibly using the field at Paularino School for soccer (something that Mesa North residents are also against because of the closeness of homes), Ms. Ransom said that she had talked to a man who comes to City Council Meetings and that he has an "in" with the apartment residents and that they were going to talk to those residents about what they want.

The apartments that Ransom was referring to are the Fillmore slums where there have been a number of shootings and where there is gang activity and where many suspected illegal aliens are believed to be living. And, our guess is that the man who Ransom mentioned with the "in," is a guy who doesn't live anywhere near Mesa North, but who has tried to get the city to let soccer be played at Paularino Park.

So, are we left to conclude that the quality of life of the citizens of Mesa North, a neighborhood with more than 700 single family homes, is going to be left in the hands of the few who live in the Fillmore slums--including some who probably aren't even in this country legally?

Is this the way the City of Costa Mesa wants to treat citizens?

How about it City Council--did you give direction to staff or did you not? Are you going to ensure that the citizens of Mesa North get to safely use their park for its intended passive purposes or are you going to let sports teams kick citizens out of the park so they can use the park--which has no sports fields--for team sports?

Are you going to let sports teams, as they did before, tell a grandmother holding her infant grandson in her arms, to get off the only sidewalk in the park because the sports teams are playing soccer across that sidewalk?

If you check on this with Ms. Ransom, City Council, don't buy the business about there not being "organized teams," using the park as she stated at the meeting tonight. That's a red herring.

Most of the teams who are using the park may not be part of regular soccer leagues, but they are still teams with two sides each running and trying to make goals. They are putting little children and others in danger by their activity.

And whether or not they're part of a league or formal team, the members still urinate and defecate. You don't have to be part of a league or formal team to do that anymore than you have to be part of a league or formal team to kick a ball into a toddler's face or into a passing car on busy Paularino Avenue.

Paularino Park does not have a sports field. These soccer players should obey our laws and apply to the city to use sports fields as do the regular soccer leagues.

Even if you don't live near Paularino Park this issue should be important to you. There are parks in almost all of our neighborhoods in Costa Mesa that are small passive parks similar to Paularino Park. If the City lets this type of dangerous activity go on in Paularino Park, your park may be next.

Here's the email address of the City Council: op2council@ci.costa-mesa.ca.us

If the above email address is dead, try the City's email directory and the link should work: http://www.ci.costa-mesa.ca.us/contact/email.htm

# # #

Those are our opinions. Thanks for reading them.