THE TAIL

WAGS THE DOG:

Does "Community Development"
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
4/23/98 Dana Point News

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
4/23/98 Dana Point News

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