Listening to the Planning Commission Jim Righeimer audio tape should be mandatory listening for all Costa Mesa voters ("City shares tapes of tiff," Sept. 30). While he certainly doesn't sound belligerent, he is way out of line stating that "this is not education" and "we need to have a meeting tomorrow." Then he has the gall to accuse the Costa Mesa Police Association of trying to smear him.
No need for them to try, Mr. Righeimer. You did a pretty good job of doing it all by yourself.
Concerning the DUI checkpoint set up by the police at Harbor Boulevard and Gisler Avenue, I am in complete agreement with Jim Righeimer regarding the placement and time of the DUI checkpoint. I spent six signals trying to make a left-hand turn onto Harbor from Gisler — and I was only the second car back!
And yet two Costa Mesa motorcycle officers, when they realized they could not get out there legally, just went around the car in front of them and weaved around the cars in the intersection and went on their unimpeded way. No sirens, no urgency.
But I guess it never occurred to them to get out and direct the traffic.
I am so glad that Mr. Righeimer, as a resident of this city, got out of his vehicle and asked questions. I am sure that the Costa Mesa police do not like being questioned by us mere mortals, but I had questions, too.
Who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to set up a checkpoint in rush-hour traffic at that particular intersection, and then not have the decency or brains to monitor the resulting and predictable backlog it created?
Mr. Righeimer might be a member of the Planning Commission, but I doubt he was throwing his "political muscle" around. If I weren't already going to vote for him for City Council, I would now.
Sorry for my cynicism, but I think this has all to do with his questioning the expensive reform packages for public-safety employees, and not much to do with his perfectly reasonable questions and concerns about the checkpoint. Let's face it: If enough negative publicity can be generated over this, it might hurt his chances of being elected, and then the potential "thorn in the side of the unions" would be eliminated.