Clarifying DWP letter
I would like to make clarifications to my letter in the Sun’s Jan. 13 edition, and one published Jan. 20, titled “Other people’s money” written by Earick Ward.
First, the Sun Newspaper put the title on the letter “Owners should give the DWP land to the people.” I never wrote that.
The property owners and the city should do the right thing. Take a tax deduction and donate the property.
I should have written “donate the Rivers End Road portion” of the property and that the city should name the street after the property owners.
The comment on the costs have to do with the difference between the assessments made on the property. I think one was on the Rivers End portion and the other on the total property.
I do believe we should open our hearts, however I don’t think we should take or give away other peoples’ land or money.
Penny Peddicord
Seal Beach
Editor’s note: The Sun Newspapers retains the right to edit and put headlines on letters it deems appropriate and fitting to the text submitted by the letter’s author. The Sun’s editor stands behind the title of the letter Ms. Peddicord submitted as referred to above.
The DWP Property and Eminent Domain
The purpose of the city of Seal Beach’s eminent domain action against the DWP Property is, ostensibly, to ensure continued access to River’s End and the sewer access point. Not only is this disingenuous, as access has not been restricted by Bay City, but Bay City has offered to donate the land to the city upon approval of its development plans, and has offered the city free use of the land in the meantime.
Bay City (owned by locals, it should be noted) wants to develop the land they rightfully own, and has submitted two options, both of which include open space covering the majority of the property. All they are asking for is a show of good faith from a city that has consistently demonstrated through its actions that change is an intolerable anathema.
The city has responded by offering a pittance rather than anything resembling the “just compensation” that is constitutionally required, and is spending huge sums of our money to forcibly take what Bay City has already promised. This suggests that the city’s true goal is to remove the only bargaining chip that Bay City has.
If the city wants the land, they should play by the same rules that we, the citizens, must abide by. Would I like to see improvements to River’s End? Sure. But I would much rather see 5-plus acres of open space developed without my tax dollars, all while respecting the principles of liberty and property rights on which our country relies. Resorting to eminent domain to effectively steal private property (which is being offered for free) is a disconcerting blemish on our otherwise idyllic town.
Brett Florio
Seal Beach
