Run Dana Point?
Why are the City Staff and Planning Commission recommending a
massive Headlands development for the landowner and demanding
nothing in return? They can't legally deny him "economically-viable
use of land," but the City has no obligation to maximize
the developer's profits. So why was the community's overwhelming
testimony favoring the Nature Park Plan ignored by the Planning
Commission?
Why did the Commission allow 185 new homes without obtaining any
permanent open space in return? Why are they destroying Strands
Beach and allowing massive build-out on top of the Headlands ridge
line and taking away the scenic road? They aren't protecting
the community's rights.
City staff hides their incompetence by promoting fear that the
developer will sue us for "Taking" his land. That's
a developers trick. Staff hasn't even done a study to determine
what is, or isn't, "economically viable." That would
protect the Strands, the Headlands features and the scenic road,
and allow about 70 new homes. In fact, even fewer homes would
still be economically-viable. But without any economic study
they are just acting out of pure ignorance! That's not good;
except for the developer. Let's hope the City Council shows more
sense.
-Tom Southern
City staff manipulated Planning Commission approval of Headlands
Plan A. If Plan A is now adopted it will be one of the biggest
screw-ups this City has ever made! It destroys some of the Headlands'
most beautiful land forms. It ruins some of the best public views
and basically cuts the driving public off from the Headlands.
The City is supposed to protect those things. It will ruin Strands
Beach to allow so much development down there.
Plan A ignores the existing topography and just bulldozes the
whole hillside down above the Strands. Any development should
be sensitively planned to follow and preserve the existing land
forms. If the City got 70 or 80 acres of permanent open space
in return, it might be OK to allow as many homes as Plan A proposes
(185). But the City gets nothing. The open space remains private
open space owned by the developer (including the beach)!
All the developer has to do is buy another election (and that's
fairly cheap). Then he rezones the private open space of Plan
A and builds another 200 or 300 homes in addition to the 185 already
proposed. This stinks!
-Sonia Neil
DANA POINT ON-LINE EDITOR: Of course, the majority owner of the
Headlands, and the primary force behind development, is the Chandler
family, owners of the Los Angeles Times. It is ironic that morality
only seems to apply to the "little people," never to
the Chandler family themselves, especially as that is expressed
by such things as neighborliness and community values. As absentee
land-owners, the Chandlers don't care about the quality of life
of residents of Dana Point; their only concern is to profit off
of the exploitation of their interests no matter who has to make
sacrifices along the way. |
RETURN TO DANA POINT ON-LINE NEWS INDEX |