L.A. TIMES
By Kent Welton |
The silence from the (Los Angeles) Times on the Chandler family's
development of the LAST remaining open space in Dana Point, and
vital coastal preserve, is truly deafening. The hypocrisy and
cowardice of the Time's editors in this matter is simply pitiful
- and lends real insight into the utterly oligarchic institution
within which its editors are employed and self-righteously refer
to as a "free press."
In short, the Times has studiously neglected commenting on the
Headlands, and even seen fit to erase its very existence from
maps illustrating other endangered coast areas in California.
It has the gall to comment on, among others, the Hearst family's
San Simeon Development (urging restraint and preservation) while
neglecting the Headlands altogether. It has noted the great and
vital contributions of irreplaceable spaces and places like Griffith
Park, as well as the legacies of other mega-wealthy people like
David Packard and Ted Turner, et al. But whither the Chandlers
and their heirs, and the morality and consequences of their actions
here?
Clearly, the Chandlers have done many good things for L.A. and
left valuable legacies like the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, etc.
However, the sorry spectacle of a family worth close to $2 billion
now seeking to eek out a few more millions by developing the last
open space, and coastal preserve, of an already overdeveloped
city is nothing short of ugly and reprehensible. This is especially
the case when we consider millions in tax credits could be made
simply by donating the majority of the land to a preserve and
building a small number of houses on the remainder; i.e., in those
locations where the Chandler family has had a long history of
enjoying the coastline since their acquisition of the property
many decades ago.
In sum, the Times said the right and necessary things in regard
to the Hearst family's abomination in San Simeon, but, in this
case, the citizens of Dana Point are about to lose - FOR
ALL TIME - the last of their open space.
SOURCE: Reprinted from a letter to the editor in the 19 March, 1998, issue of the Dana Point News, a property of the Orange County Register. Reprinted in the public interest.
(DANA POINT ON-LINE EDITOR: The Chandler family began its rise
to wealth and power when Mulholland brought water down into the
San Fernando Valley, and the principals behind the Times bought
up all the land out in the valley cheap, and made a killing once
the aqueduct brought water to the otherwise valueless lots. Apparently,
the Chandler's made money on the first lots sold in California,
and they intend to make money on the last lots sold in California,
even if it amounts to holding the very landmark hostage that makes
Dana Point a point. Dana Point should have been
incorporated in the 1970s; the only reason it was not incorporated
was because of the influence of the Chandler family, who felt
that a city government would threaten their property interests.
It is absurd that the City of Dana Point exists without possessing the actual Headlands from which the very name Point is derived. That delicate coastal area should be purchased as a public park and environmental preserve, so that the public can enjoy a view that is their heritage as residents of Dana Point. A community is not just a place to hang your clothes, and catch meals; a community is the place where human beings live, and human beings need access to the principal landmarks that define the area. This does not mean that the property should be taken or confiscated from private owners, but there has to be an accommodation of the public interest, because that interest belongs to all of us). |
RETURN TO DANA POINT ON-LINE NEWS INDEX |