Editor,
It’s interesting that South Laguna, Village Laguna and Ann Christoff would embark on a deal that was never legally consummated.
That they should have gone ahead and worked so hard to embellish the lot with plants, little veggie gardens, and have event after event (many to recruit followers for Village Laguna) and expect the rest of us to pay who knows what for this little plot of land which is subject to much automobile pollution from Coast Highway traffic.
I was shocked when City Council agreed a year or so ago to donate (our tax dollars – not theirs) $250,000. Now the amount is up to $500,000 and we don’t know if the owner is even interested in selling as efforts to contact him have failed. The owner may want more as property values have increased, knowing that many people have committed their energy to developing it and then City Council wants to spend our tax dollars toward an effort to buy this gardenpark. A park that has a gate to keep people from wandering. You can be in and out in 10 minutes. Does that define a park? I think this group that never wanted to be part of our town should have a park, but surely there must be a larger area that everybody can enjoy, get exercise or walk their dog.
The whole thing sounds like a well-planned plot to have the city buy this land when they only raised $175,00 in years of fundraising. I think some city council voted for this project with elections coming up this year and in two years to ensure their re-election.
Please do not spend any more tax money on such projects; Park Plaza is another bad decision. We have many too expensive issues to deal with.
Ganka Brown, Laguna Beach
Many agree with you, it amazes me how much of our tax dollars are spent on things other than sewer, street repairs and undergrounding of dangerous and unsightly utility lines and poles. Art and gardens are nice but our infrastructure really needs tax dollars to go towards repairs.
The question remains if the owner is unresponsive do they have permission to use the land? If I was the owner and threatened with Eminent Domain as council mentioned I would have them evicted from the land.
I don’t understand this. We apparently need more police officers to enforce what has become a highly debated noise ordinance affecting a large population of residents living along PCH and inland. We are looking for ways to raise money for under grounding utilities. Both concerns affect the entire community in one way or another (safety, views, whatever one wants to embrace….) and here we are looking at the city financing , thru tax dollars paid by the entire community…a park (while very lovely) that really only serves a few hundred people. It is my understanding the current “park “ has been extended the privilege of using the property at no charge…..And is now discussing the threat of eminent domain. Wow….what happened to property rights. Whether the gentleman that owns it lives in America or not……….he owns the property. (is he paying his,property taxes??? )
I’m having a tough time following the rationale behind this one. I would bet the property owner will not sit idle when threats of selling or hostile takeover are finally presented. Wouldn’t it make more sense to develop a park that will
serve a greater number of the community….since we are the ones paying ?????????