Every community has hidden gems. Whether it’s a locals-only restaurant, a small park or community event, they are what make every community special.
Usually they are small and out-of-the-way places. In this case, the hidden gem may be out-of-the-way, but at more than 100 acres it is not small. What I am talking about is the Mesa Verde Country Club, which turns 50 this January.
Many of the non-golfers in the community confuse it with Costa Mesa Country Club, which is off of Mesa Verde East but just south of Adams Avenue. Mesa Verde Country Club is north of Adams just off Mesa Verde West. You can understand the confusion.
The land where the golf course sits was sold in 1956 to investor Adolph Sleceta, who planned to work with the developers Ray Watt and Walter Gaynor to build more housing in Mesa Verde.
Due to terrain and utility issues, however, they could not build homes. They instead decided to fund construction of a golf course and clubhouse. Not so good for them, but lucky for us.
Over the years, the club passed though several corporate owners until 1975 when the members bought it from Japan Golf Promotion for a whopping $2.1 million. Today, even in a down market, many of the homes on the course sell for more than that.
The golf course has a very rich history. It has been home to many PGA and LPGA tournaments. It hosted the first Orange County Open, a PGA Tour event in 1959 and continued that event until 1962. Starting in 1979 it hosted LPGA tour events for six consecutive years.
This club rates high among golfers. Steve Rhorer, club vice president, avid golfer and Mesa Verde resident, joined in 2000. Prior to that, he had been a longtime member of the Virginia Country Club in Long Beach.
“I have played every private course in the county and from a pure golfing standpoint; this course is second to none,” he told me. “You will use every club in your bag, and with the tree-lined fairways, you better be accurate.”
More than 600 local families are associated with the club as golf, tennis or social members. Seventy percent of the families used to be from Costa Mesa. Now it is composed of almost equal parts Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach residents.
I talked with past board member Pete Daley, who joined in 1977. Daley, now residing in Aliso Viejo, lived on the bird streets for more than 20 years. He told me it is a very family-friendly club.
“Our three kids went through all the swimming and tennis programs,” he said. “The club played a big role throughout their youth.”
For the past 50 years, Mesa Verde Country Club has been one of those hidden gems that make up Costa Mesa and Newport Beach. It has not just been a place to play golf and tennis, but a place that makes you part of a community. It is where your kids learn how to swim and where you make friendships that last a lifetime.
On a different subject, make sure you all get over to the Lions Club’s annual Fish Fry today and tomorrow at Lions Park (18th Street and Anaheim Avenue). I recently received a call from longtime Lions Club member Jim Wahner, and before the conversation was over he had yours truly committed to help work the Fish Fry. So come on by, say hi and introduce yourself, even if you do have a “fish to fry” with me (pun definitely intended).
All the money raised goes to good local causes. It goes from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Besides the famous fish, there will also be carnival rides, local bands and the cutest baby contest.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Martin has advantage for Sheriff
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday will hold public interviews with the nine finalists to replace Mike Carona as the next sheriff in Orange County.
The voters normally pick the position — it’s a politically-elected position. Sheriff Carona’s resignation has handed the decision to the supervisors.
The one-at-a-time interviews will last all day and into the evening. Think of the sheriff as being the CEO of a company with 3,800 employees, a budget of $700 million and serving 3 million customers who, by the way, has to be elected by the people within two years to hold onto his or her job.
Even if every accusation against Carona is proven to be false, the department has still been through a severe amount of turmoil over the past few years. In the next highest positions the department has, two of his five assistant sheriffs have pleaded guilty to federal charges and are awaiting sentencing. A recent DA investigation shows a complete breakdown in administering the jail system.
Needless to say, the new sheriff will have to do a wholesale shake-up at every level of the department’s leadership.
I do not want to presume that I understand all the issues and concerns that a supervisor has in making this decision. But in my 30 years of running companies and being on boards, I do know a lot about hiring and firing of leadership.
So, without trying to be too presumptive, here are the issues I think should be taken into consideration when choosing our next sheriff.
All nine candidates on paper seem qualified to be considered for the job. My comments here mean no disrespect to any of them. I am sure they are all fine people. The reality is you can pick only one.
The sheriff’s position, while it will be appointed this time, will require the chosen candidate to run for office in 2010. Running for office requires a whole different skill set than running a law enforcement organization.
Therefore, the new sheriff must have ties to Orange County that will ensure he will get elected. This is an absolute must. The department cannot afford to have a leader who has any chance of losing his job in two years.
First off, it makes that person a lame duck as soon as he takes the job, and anyone who disagrees with his decisions will just wait them out.
Secondly, the decisions that must be made will not make everyone happy; if the candidate does not have a lock on the election, he will find himself making decisions based on the politics of special interests that may not be in the best interests of the 3 million Orange County residents he serves.
The department’s various labor unions have spent millions of dollars over the years getting people elected who will get them more pay for less work and more generous retirement packages. The labor union’s job, rightfully so, is to do what is best for its members.
The sheriff needs to do what’s best for the citizens, which will be in conflict with the union’s goals. The unions will spend millions of dollars to get a new sheriff in two years if they think they have a chance of getting someone who will give them what they want.
Of the nine candidates, only six have any connection to Orange County, of which only four have the political skill set and local support to get elected. For example, Beau Babka of Salt Lake City may make a fine sheriff in his hometown, but he would not have enough time to figure out the freeway system let alone understand the political landscape in Orange County. He would not stand a chance against a well-known, well-financed candidate in 2010.
Which leaves us with Orange County Interim Sheriff Jack Anderson, recently retired Orange County Deputy Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt, who ran previously against Carona, Commander Ralph Martin of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Santa Ana Chief of Police Paul Walters.
This next cut is much tougher. Over the years, I have met all of these men. Each one has the education, experience and credentials to do the job; but again, you can pick only one.
In any company or organization that has similar leadership problems, there needs to be a clean break from the past in order to move forward without any constraints. In a properly functioning organization, it is perfectly reasonable to move someone up though the ranks to the top spot.
In this case, not only is it not functioning properly, but the top leadership has also been tainted with associates that have either pleaded guilty to federal charges or are under indictment for the same.
Any candidate with direct ties to the department will not have the clean slate necessary to make the hard decisions without first having to consider previous relationships.
This choice on a personal level pains me in that I know both Hunt, who was one of the first to bring forward the problems in the department, and Anderson, who has done his best to run the department after the scandals.
The fact remains that it will take an outsider to clean it up. In business, we call them turn-around specialists, and they very rarely come from inside of a broken organization.
This leaves us with Martin and Walters. Both men lead large groups of sworn and non-sworn staff. Both will interview well. The only concern is who is electable in 2010. Once we choose a sheriff, he has to win in 2010.
We cannot go though this again. Martin is a lifelong Republican. Walters was a lifelong Republican and then became a Democrat in 2000 and then became a Decline to State in 2003 and then became a Republican again in 2007, after Carona was indicted.
I cannot assess the motives of someone who changes political parties three times in seven years; that would be for the voters to decide. But I can guarantee you that Walters would draw very strong opposition in 2010 because of his lack of commitment to any one party. This is an elected position, and politics matters.
The supervisors do not want to have a sheriff with political trouble in two years. Therefore, in handicapping this pick, the advantage goes to Ralph Martin.
The voters normally pick the position — it’s a politically-elected position. Sheriff Carona’s resignation has handed the decision to the supervisors.
The one-at-a-time interviews will last all day and into the evening. Think of the sheriff as being the CEO of a company with 3,800 employees, a budget of $700 million and serving 3 million customers who, by the way, has to be elected by the people within two years to hold onto his or her job.
Even if every accusation against Carona is proven to be false, the department has still been through a severe amount of turmoil over the past few years. In the next highest positions the department has, two of his five assistant sheriffs have pleaded guilty to federal charges and are awaiting sentencing. A recent DA investigation shows a complete breakdown in administering the jail system.
Needless to say, the new sheriff will have to do a wholesale shake-up at every level of the department’s leadership.
I do not want to presume that I understand all the issues and concerns that a supervisor has in making this decision. But in my 30 years of running companies and being on boards, I do know a lot about hiring and firing of leadership.
So, without trying to be too presumptive, here are the issues I think should be taken into consideration when choosing our next sheriff.
All nine candidates on paper seem qualified to be considered for the job. My comments here mean no disrespect to any of them. I am sure they are all fine people. The reality is you can pick only one.
The sheriff’s position, while it will be appointed this time, will require the chosen candidate to run for office in 2010. Running for office requires a whole different skill set than running a law enforcement organization.
Therefore, the new sheriff must have ties to Orange County that will ensure he will get elected. This is an absolute must. The department cannot afford to have a leader who has any chance of losing his job in two years.
First off, it makes that person a lame duck as soon as he takes the job, and anyone who disagrees with his decisions will just wait them out.
Secondly, the decisions that must be made will not make everyone happy; if the candidate does not have a lock on the election, he will find himself making decisions based on the politics of special interests that may not be in the best interests of the 3 million Orange County residents he serves.
The department’s various labor unions have spent millions of dollars over the years getting people elected who will get them more pay for less work and more generous retirement packages. The labor union’s job, rightfully so, is to do what is best for its members.
The sheriff needs to do what’s best for the citizens, which will be in conflict with the union’s goals. The unions will spend millions of dollars to get a new sheriff in two years if they think they have a chance of getting someone who will give them what they want.
Of the nine candidates, only six have any connection to Orange County, of which only four have the political skill set and local support to get elected. For example, Beau Babka of Salt Lake City may make a fine sheriff in his hometown, but he would not have enough time to figure out the freeway system let alone understand the political landscape in Orange County. He would not stand a chance against a well-known, well-financed candidate in 2010.
Which leaves us with Orange County Interim Sheriff Jack Anderson, recently retired Orange County Deputy Sheriff Lt. Bill Hunt, who ran previously against Carona, Commander Ralph Martin of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and Santa Ana Chief of Police Paul Walters.
This next cut is much tougher. Over the years, I have met all of these men. Each one has the education, experience and credentials to do the job; but again, you can pick only one.
In any company or organization that has similar leadership problems, there needs to be a clean break from the past in order to move forward without any constraints. In a properly functioning organization, it is perfectly reasonable to move someone up though the ranks to the top spot.
In this case, not only is it not functioning properly, but the top leadership has also been tainted with associates that have either pleaded guilty to federal charges or are under indictment for the same.
Any candidate with direct ties to the department will not have the clean slate necessary to make the hard decisions without first having to consider previous relationships.
This choice on a personal level pains me in that I know both Hunt, who was one of the first to bring forward the problems in the department, and Anderson, who has done his best to run the department after the scandals.
The fact remains that it will take an outsider to clean it up. In business, we call them turn-around specialists, and they very rarely come from inside of a broken organization.
This leaves us with Martin and Walters. Both men lead large groups of sworn and non-sworn staff. Both will interview well. The only concern is who is electable in 2010. Once we choose a sheriff, he has to win in 2010.
We cannot go though this again. Martin is a lifelong Republican. Walters was a lifelong Republican and then became a Democrat in 2000 and then became a Decline to State in 2003 and then became a Republican again in 2007, after Carona was indicted.
I cannot assess the motives of someone who changes political parties three times in seven years; that would be for the voters to decide. But I can guarantee you that Walters would draw very strong opposition in 2010 because of his lack of commitment to any one party. This is an elected position, and politics matters.
The supervisors do not want to have a sheriff with political trouble in two years. Therefore, in handicapping this pick, the advantage goes to Ralph Martin.
Friday, May 9, 2008
$4 A Gallon: We Did It To Ourselves
I just bought my first $4-plus gallon of gas today. My wife’s car takes premium, and there it was; $4.05 per gallon at the Arco on Bristol Street. The price of oil hit $126 per barrel this week. That is a 650% increase over the $22 per barrel we paid just six years ago. But we have nothing to complain about as Americans and especially Californians — this is exactly what we asked for.
Through our legislators we have decided that we do not want offshore oil drilling, nuclear power, oil refineries, power plants, power lines, pipelines, faster freeways or windmills that spoil our ocean views.
Well, we might consider windmills if we don’t have to see them. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is completely out of the question. God forbid, if we drill on 1% of it during the winter, it might affect Caribou mating patterns.
Bottom line, we have done everything we can to thwart the discovery, production or distribution of energy in this country, especially here in California.
The energy problems in California are self-imposed. Like self-indulgent children we stomp our feet until we get what we want. We want to drive our cars, air condition our homes and watch our energy-sucking, 52-inch, flat-screen TVs. But how we get the energy is someone else’s problem. Of course when we are given solutions to supply the energy we complain. Recently, when the residents of Ladera Ranch were told they needed a small peaker power plant to avoid summer blackouts, more than 500 people protested. They want it built somewhere else — like, say, India.
I talked to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher regarding his recent comments in the Daily Pilot on how to bring down oil prices. For the readers who do not know, some full disclosure is in order: Dana and I have been close friends for 18 years. I have volunteered on his campaigns, given and raised campaign funds for him and celebrated our children’s birthdays together. So to say I am a little biased would be an understatement. “Before we send our young men and women in uniform overseas, to ensure that our supply of energy is not controlled by radical Islamists who hate us, we should be drilling for oil in our own country and that includes [the Alaskan wildlife refuge] as well as offshore.”
Rohrabacher must be kidding. He can’t actually be thinking of drilling off our coast. Not Newport Beach. Does he really want us to lose our unspoiled coastline view just to save the lives of some unknown soldiers? Could you imagine how traumatic it would be for us to look out over the ocean and see an oil platform five miles off the coast? The horror could cause a collective mental disorder. The fact that someone’s son or daughter might get killed protecting our strategic interests is minor when you compare it the beauty of an unblemished ocean view. The parents will get over the loss, but a view is forever. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m being sarcastic, OK?
We could save millions of barrels of oil a day if we built environmentally clean nuclear power plants like the French and Japanese. But where are the screams of support for Assemblyman Chuck Devore’s bill to start building nuclear power plants in California? The silence is deafening.
I can already hear the pseudo environmentalist’s peanut gallery screaming all we have to do is conserve energy, take mass transit or car pool. Unless you carpool or take a bus to work, have solar panels on your roof and live like Ed Begley Jr. save your comments for someone who cares. For the people who tell me, “I would use a mass transit system if it would take me where I want to go when I want go,” they already have that — it’s called a car.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for conserving energy and pushing technology as far as we can to come up with solutions to our energy needs. But I am also a realist. There is no perpetual motion machine. Unless you want to live in the dark ages, we need energy. I would rather we produce energy here than send billions of dollars to foreign dictators and despots who hate our way of life. So, at the risk of being politically incorrect, here goes: Let’s start drilling the wells, building the nuclear power plants and windmills. It is time grow up and start acting like adults.
Through our legislators we have decided that we do not want offshore oil drilling, nuclear power, oil refineries, power plants, power lines, pipelines, faster freeways or windmills that spoil our ocean views.
Well, we might consider windmills if we don’t have to see them. Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska is completely out of the question. God forbid, if we drill on 1% of it during the winter, it might affect Caribou mating patterns.
Bottom line, we have done everything we can to thwart the discovery, production or distribution of energy in this country, especially here in California.
The energy problems in California are self-imposed. Like self-indulgent children we stomp our feet until we get what we want. We want to drive our cars, air condition our homes and watch our energy-sucking, 52-inch, flat-screen TVs. But how we get the energy is someone else’s problem. Of course when we are given solutions to supply the energy we complain. Recently, when the residents of Ladera Ranch were told they needed a small peaker power plant to avoid summer blackouts, more than 500 people protested. They want it built somewhere else — like, say, India.
I talked to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher regarding his recent comments in the Daily Pilot on how to bring down oil prices. For the readers who do not know, some full disclosure is in order: Dana and I have been close friends for 18 years. I have volunteered on his campaigns, given and raised campaign funds for him and celebrated our children’s birthdays together. So to say I am a little biased would be an understatement. “Before we send our young men and women in uniform overseas, to ensure that our supply of energy is not controlled by radical Islamists who hate us, we should be drilling for oil in our own country and that includes [the Alaskan wildlife refuge] as well as offshore.”
Rohrabacher must be kidding. He can’t actually be thinking of drilling off our coast. Not Newport Beach. Does he really want us to lose our unspoiled coastline view just to save the lives of some unknown soldiers? Could you imagine how traumatic it would be for us to look out over the ocean and see an oil platform five miles off the coast? The horror could cause a collective mental disorder. The fact that someone’s son or daughter might get killed protecting our strategic interests is minor when you compare it the beauty of an unblemished ocean view. The parents will get over the loss, but a view is forever. In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m being sarcastic, OK?
We could save millions of barrels of oil a day if we built environmentally clean nuclear power plants like the French and Japanese. But where are the screams of support for Assemblyman Chuck Devore’s bill to start building nuclear power plants in California? The silence is deafening.
I can already hear the pseudo environmentalist’s peanut gallery screaming all we have to do is conserve energy, take mass transit or car pool. Unless you carpool or take a bus to work, have solar panels on your roof and live like Ed Begley Jr. save your comments for someone who cares. For the people who tell me, “I would use a mass transit system if it would take me where I want to go when I want go,” they already have that — it’s called a car.
Don’t get me wrong. I am all for conserving energy and pushing technology as far as we can to come up with solutions to our energy needs. But I am also a realist. There is no perpetual motion machine. Unless you want to live in the dark ages, we need energy. I would rather we produce energy here than send billions of dollars to foreign dictators and despots who hate our way of life. So, at the risk of being politically incorrect, here goes: Let’s start drilling the wells, building the nuclear power plants and windmills. It is time grow up and start acting like adults.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Toll Road to Cost Millions More for Us
Did you know that today we pay 47% more per mile to use our end of the 73 San Joaquin Toll Road than South County residents pay to use their end of the same toll road? It gets worse. By 2031, we will be paying 108% more than they do. That same toll road will collect $100 million this year in tolls. That’s three times what it did when it opened in 1997.
How did I become such an expert on toll roads? It all started when Newport Beach City Councilman Don Webb left me a message two weeks ago about an idea for a column. I got a hold of him later that week and he asked if I had heard about the rate increases that were being proposed for the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road. I remembered skimming over an article in the Pilot referring to a 25-cent increase. He explained how Newport-Mesa residents were going to be charged more per mile entering or exiting the toll road at Newport Coast Road.
I’ve got to be honest with you, getting excited over a 25-cent increase seemed a little over the top; but what the heck, I thought. I was in my car on the Eastside and Don’s home was two minutes away, so I stopped by his house to pick up his copy of the “Traffic and Revenue Report for the Transportation Corridor System.”
This two-inch-thick tome was packed with graphs, charts and models that only an engineer could love. Don, who in his previous life was Newport Beach’s city engineer, had his copy all highlighted and tabbed. Don also created his own graph showing the cost per mile up and down the 73. Sure enough, based on his calculations, Newport-Mesa residents were paying more per mile to use our end of the toll road than south county folks paid to use theirs.
The 73 is a major transportation backbone for Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and UCI. Of the 6.5 miles that go though our towns, 1.8 miles of it is a toll road. That last 1.8 miles costs you $1.50 each way today. You could argue that there are other ways to get to the Eastern parts of Newport Beach without using the toll road, but the options are limited. If you are already traveling south on the 73, it would be unusual to get off two miles before your destination and take side streets to Newport Coast. So unlike other parts of the county we have to pay to travel around our community.
But is Don really getting worked up over a two-bit increase? Well, it was not the first 25-cent increase that was his concern. It was getting a 25-cent increase every two years until 2031.
That $1.50 trip will cost you $4.25 in 2031 while south county users don’t get a 25-cent increase for seven years; and then they get only a 25-cent increase every five years. Their trip that costs them $1.25 today goes up to only $2.50 by 2031.
If I have not confused you enough, here is the bottom line: Newport-Mesa users will pay $66 million more than South County users for traveling the same distance. Didn’t think those quarters could add up that fast, did you?
On May 10 the San Joaquin Hills Transportation agency’s “SJHTCA” board will probably approve the rate increases. Only two of the 14 board members, Don Webb and Costa Mesa Mayor Eric Bever, are from our end of the road.
I will let you in on a little secret about local governance. While most of the residents are still arguing about where we should locate City Hall or whether we should light the athletic fields — be it the SJHTCA, F/ECTA, OCWD, OCSD, MWD, OCWM, OCTC or SCAG — the real money is being spent in a bunch of agencies you’ve never heard of with alphabet soup-like acronyms.
How did I become such an expert on toll roads? It all started when Newport Beach City Councilman Don Webb left me a message two weeks ago about an idea for a column. I got a hold of him later that week and he asked if I had heard about the rate increases that were being proposed for the San Joaquin Hills Toll Road. I remembered skimming over an article in the Pilot referring to a 25-cent increase. He explained how Newport-Mesa residents were going to be charged more per mile entering or exiting the toll road at Newport Coast Road.
I’ve got to be honest with you, getting excited over a 25-cent increase seemed a little over the top; but what the heck, I thought. I was in my car on the Eastside and Don’s home was two minutes away, so I stopped by his house to pick up his copy of the “Traffic and Revenue Report for the Transportation Corridor System.”
This two-inch-thick tome was packed with graphs, charts and models that only an engineer could love. Don, who in his previous life was Newport Beach’s city engineer, had his copy all highlighted and tabbed. Don also created his own graph showing the cost per mile up and down the 73. Sure enough, based on his calculations, Newport-Mesa residents were paying more per mile to use our end of the toll road than south county folks paid to use theirs.
The 73 is a major transportation backbone for Costa Mesa, Newport Beach and UCI. Of the 6.5 miles that go though our towns, 1.8 miles of it is a toll road. That last 1.8 miles costs you $1.50 each way today. You could argue that there are other ways to get to the Eastern parts of Newport Beach without using the toll road, but the options are limited. If you are already traveling south on the 73, it would be unusual to get off two miles before your destination and take side streets to Newport Coast. So unlike other parts of the county we have to pay to travel around our community.
But is Don really getting worked up over a two-bit increase? Well, it was not the first 25-cent increase that was his concern. It was getting a 25-cent increase every two years until 2031.
That $1.50 trip will cost you $4.25 in 2031 while south county users don’t get a 25-cent increase for seven years; and then they get only a 25-cent increase every five years. Their trip that costs them $1.25 today goes up to only $2.50 by 2031.
If I have not confused you enough, here is the bottom line: Newport-Mesa users will pay $66 million more than South County users for traveling the same distance. Didn’t think those quarters could add up that fast, did you?
On May 10 the San Joaquin Hills Transportation agency’s “SJHTCA” board will probably approve the rate increases. Only two of the 14 board members, Don Webb and Costa Mesa Mayor Eric Bever, are from our end of the road.
I will let you in on a little secret about local governance. While most of the residents are still arguing about where we should locate City Hall or whether we should light the athletic fields — be it the SJHTCA, F/ECTA, OCWD, OCSD, MWD, OCWM, OCTC or SCAG — the real money is being spent in a bunch of agencies you’ve never heard of with alphabet soup-like acronyms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
