Advertisement
Share

Letters to the Editor: Councilwoman Katrina Foley is taking the right path on sober-living homes

After reading “Costa Mesa council denies permits for 2 sober-living homes” (July 19), I thought about Councilwoman Katrina Foley’s efforts to control sober-living homes in Costa Mesa.

I have known Foley, a longtime local business owner (law practice), Costa Mesa city councilwoman and 2018 mayoral candidate, for several years and appreciate that she has deep roots in the community. As a result, Foley doesn’t take positions or make City Council decisions without considering what is best for local businesses, residents and their families, including her own family.

Foley’s comment cited in the article is a very good example of her current, thoughtful position on sober-living homes and is consistent with her previous efforts. In the past, Foley led the effort to make several revisions to regulations governing sober-living homes in Costa Mesa, including requiring increased transparency and preventing evicted occupants from adding to our homeless population.

However, she recognized that state and federal laws needed to be changed in order to protect the public and patients from rehab home operators that are exploiting the current laws. Foley went to Sacramento, and Washington, D.C., to testify in committee hearings and educate committee members about the abuses of bad rehab home operators.

She has also worked with the county to obtain Costa Mesa’s share of mental health funding and continues to work with other cities and states to correct the laws that allow rehab home operators to exploit and traffic addiction patients.

Based on her actions and position on sober-living homes, and her vested interest in Costa Mesa, I am voting for Foley for mayor in November.

Margaret Mooney

Costa Mesa

*

Unwanted, desalination project goes forward anyway

Re “O.C. Water District approves updated terms for buying water from H.B. desalination plant if Poseidon gets final permits,” (July 20): Reading between the lines of staff writer Priscella Vega’s article, one can deduce that the proposed Poseidon desalination plant does not enjoy much community support and is assailed as both a $1 billion boondoggle and an insult to our coastal environment. Dozens of speakers in public comments, myself among them, railed at the board for considering a project where the details were still so unclear, the costs were not yet determined, and the future is still murky after 15 years of wrangling. Dozens of speakers also criticized the board majority members for forcing this expensive water down our throats.

Tim Geddes

Huntington Beach

*

‘Sanctuary city’ lawsuit is ‘mean-spirited’

Re “Judge denies state’s request to delay Huntington Beach lawsuit against ‘sanctuary’ law” (July 19): What is the true meaning of Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates expressing that he’s “very pleased” with an Orange County Superior Court judge’s decision to allow this mean-spirited lawsuit to proceed? Further, what is the truth beneath Huntington Beach Mayor Mike Posey and Mayor Pro Tem Erik Peterson’s proposal to “seek relief” from the state’s sanctuary law?

Are they hanging on the coattails of President Trump? If so, how long will those coattails last before they’re tattered and shredded by the sharp edges of reality? Remember what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once warned, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

Ben Miles

Huntington Beach

*

Voters are getting a say on Fairview Park

In November 2016, much of the at-large Costa Mesa public voted in favor of ballot Measure AA. This measure, dubbed by some groups as the “Save Fairview Park” campaign, directly affects some of our current and future residents in District 5. It also directly affects disabled populations who want to enjoy Fairview Park.

While those who drafted Measure AA may have had a venerable goal (I too am pro-environment and want to save Fairview Park) in composing lacking, vague/stringent language and exemptions, the writers potentially kept some populations from being able to enjoy the park while putting the safety of some of our District 5 residents at risk.

In a recent Costa Mesa City Council meeting, the council had the opportunity to decide what the public would be able to vote on this November. One option was to solely go with the Fairview Park Steering Committee’s language and recommendations for the November vote, which in one way disenfranchised disabled populations and in numerous other ways put the safety of nearby District 5 residents at risk. Another option was to go with a project on which I worked with District 5 residents, one that asked the council to include items A-E as public safety exemptions now — not wait until November.

Our requested exemptions included making areas of the park accessible in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, providing a turnaround for District 5 residents who live next to Fairview Park (providing security for them) and allowing a drainage system so they no longer have flooding and standing water. A third possible option was to consider allowing at-large, unaffected voters to decide whether items A-E should be considered. This would have kept the affected District 5 residents in harm’s way and denied the disabled access until the voters decided this November.

In a somewhat shocking upset, the council moved our option forward. I am sure disabled populations are now relieved their needs were considered and their problems will finally be resolved. Now we just have to continue to hold our council accountable to its word, and to agreed upon timetables, and see this through until the changes we requested are actually made.

Rebecca Trahan

Costa Mesa

The writer is a City Council candidate in District 5.

*

How to get published: Email us at dailypilot@latimes.com. All correspondence must include full name, hometown and phone number (for verification purposes). The Pilot reserves the right to edit all submissions for clarity and length.


Advertisement