Don't destroy course; support it
I support the new lease for the Newport Beach Golf Course, and I am opposed to the destruction of the golf course ("Newport council votes to oppose golf course idea," May 9).
JEANINE BASHORE
Concrete isn't the same as good old grass
I am writing to voice my support of a new lease for the Newport Beach Golf Course ("Back 9 is for golf; park JWA cars elsewhere," Editorial, April 29).
I took my clubs to a nearby parking lot and tried to play nine holes of golf. Man, was that stupid. There are just cars everywhere and the concrete doesn't caress the ball the way good old grass does.
So, to anyone reading who can make a difference, please extend the lease.
JOSEPH FOULK
Do not destroy the back nine at golf course
I support Councilwoman Leslie Daigle's resolution to save the Newport Beach Golf Course ("Daigle pushes council to take stance on golf course," May 8). I am completely opposed to the destruction of the golf course's back nine for airport parking.
STEVE DEARING
Acreage is dwindling; what about height?
I am baffled by Bill Ficker's meandering estimate of how much of the Newport Center Park his design would consume (Behind the Headlines, Bill Ficker," May 12). The city staff has, I believe, estimated that a 75,000-square-foot, two-story facility with parking will consume almost 6 acres of land, and this is the space Ficker first had in mind for the 12-acre park land. Subsequently, I heard him say 4 acres.
This February it was down to 3 1/2 acres. Now, Ficker says his city hall plan will only take 2 1/2 acres!
Does Ficker's land requirement keep shrinking because he is mentally building up? Does he visualize a high-rise building plus a parking structure on top — something that his proposed initiative erasing building controls for this parcel would permit?
TOM MOULSON
Today's leaders must learn to compromise
If they had been politicians in 1787, no doubt Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor would have denounced the proposed new Constitution because it was a product of compromise that didn't meet their, or anybody else's, aims in full. Today they attack the compromise on immigration before it is even published ("Rep. attacks reform bill," May 18). This is a compromise reached by leaders from all segments of our political spectrum, from liberal Sens. Ted Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein to President Bush and conservative Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain from the border state of Arizona.
Political figures on the left are also sniping at this last, best chance for fixing our immigration system. I hope I am wrong, but it seems that our system has become dysfunctional because our leaders, unlike the Founding Fathers, are unable to compromise.
PAUL C. EKLOF
Amnesty by another name is still amnesty
The citizens of the United States are disgusted and outraged over the details of this immigration proposal ("Rep. attacks reform bill," May 18).
This is an amnesty through and through. If someone is in the country illegally and our government allows them to become "legal," that is amnesty.
Those in favor of this proposal attempt to confuse the American citizen by claiming it's not amnesty because fines will be paid. The people who have entered our country illegally have disrespected and broken our laws. If paying fines and buying your way out of committing a crime in this country was the answer, then Paris Hilton wouldn't be going to jail next week.
This proposal must be defeated. The American people must speak up now or forever live in regret.
EILEEN GARCIA
Stop the cash flowing south of the border
This whole illegal immigration thing is proving really difficult to solve. Some of the brightest minds in government (isn't that an oxymoron?), law and education have been toiling for years trying to come up with a solution acceptable to all, but to no avail. Now, the U.S. Senate has conjured up a tortured plan that includes fines, fences and workplace enforcement. But it does not include what, to me, is the simplest, easiest, quickest and cheapest way of stopping a big piece of the problem dead in its tracks.
Do you know what constitutes Mexico's second largest source of revenue, just behind oil exports? It's the $24 billion sent back home each year by the 15% of its citizens who've surreptitiously moved to El Norte because they can't earn enough to feed and clothe their families in their own country. That money is all that keeps the beleaguered Mexican economy from collapsing. It also keeps the citizens of Mexico from finally launching a massive uprising against the feudal lords who run the country to the detriment of all but a few of its people. That's why our buddies south of the border choose not to help us stop the never-ending wave of one-way border crossings. Not good.
So here's my solution. The feds make it a law that anyone wishing to ship some of our dollars back home has to produce proof that they're here legally. Period. No proof, no out-migration of our dollars. I've got a feeling that a big chunk of the problem would come close to solving itself without any more "help" from the likes of Teddy Kennedy.
CHUCK CASSITY
News Archive |
