Of Precious Shore Lands and Development Pressures

* On Dec. 17, The Times ran an article titled “Ritzy Resort or Rustic Retreat?” about Crystal Cove State Park and the planned resort development. There are several inaccuracies I would like to clarify.

The article states, “The residents must raise $35 million, the cost of refurbishing the cottages. . . .” The residents of Crystal Cove are not involved in the alternative plans being formulated for the project, nor are they in any way involved in raising money for the effort.

The article states, “Leaking septic tanks are sending raw sewage into the protected waters, which are dolphin birthing grounds.” There is no evidence to back this statement up.

The article states, “The Alliance to Rescue Crystal Cove, a consortium of cottage dwellers and environmentalists, has been meeting with the developer--Crystal Cove Preservation Partners . . . “ The alliance is not a consortium of cottage dwellers and environmentalists. Environmentalists, yes. Cottage dwellers, no.

The article states, “Locals want to set up a nonprofit Crystal Cove Conservancy for fund-raising.” The “locals” are the alliance and concerned citizens in nearby cities, not the residents of Crystal Cove.

The article states, “[State parks director Rusty] Areias and [developer Mike] Freed maintain that if the conservancy is given time to raise the money and is unsuccessful it should support the state’s resort plan.” The Alliance to Rescue Crystal Cove has never said they would support the resort, and we never will.

The mission of the alliance is to preserve and protect the Irvine Marine Life Refuge and the Historic District at Crystal Cove State Park. In order to preserve the district, the cottages must be refurbished. The alliance has proposed that a nonprofit foundation be formed to raise the money needed for the refurbishment.

Then a retreat would be established providing educational facilities, community centers, research field stations and cultural activities, rather than a luxury resort within the park. By acquiring grants and endowments, the district would be refurbished and still provide cottage rentals, but at an affordable rate.

The main objective is to preserve the district, but to also provide a plan that will have no additional environmental impact on the area. Now we must raise the money.

LAURA DAVICK

President

The Alliance to Rescue

Crystal Cove

* I moved here 11 years ago from a Midwest that was utterly fenced-off and confined to cubicle and car, believing the myth that California’s generous climate must needs translate into a generosity of temperament.

Alas, those days must be long gone. If I were king of Dana Point, or even governor of California, I would see in the Dana Point Headlands the opportunity to create one of the world’s great parks of surpassing and sublime beauty, to be enjoyed by all. Alas. I am not encouraged by assurances that the public will maintain beach access, once the property is developed.

Up at Laguna’s Treasure Island development, public access is being accommodated by the provision of picnic tables--which no doubt will require reservations, which no doubt will never be available. Not to mention Crystal Cove, given over to a luxury resort which will charge several hundred dollars a night.

And so it is that each time I walk the beach, my pleasure is amply balanced with the knowledge that my time to enjoy it is short.

KENT SOUTHARD

Dana Point

* Re “Ritzy Resort or Rustic Retreat?” Dec. 17:

Before any construction plan is chosen, shouldn’t we ask: Is it wise or desirable to “develop” our precious state parks at all? Why can’t our beautiful beach simply be preserved in its natural state for all to enjoy? Why don’t Gov. Davis and the Legislature immediately jettison the ill-conceived idea of turning a shantytown on public property into a luxury resort?

CHRIS HENNES

Huntington Beach