Anti-Greenlight forces outspending foes
Mathis Winkler
NEWPORT BEACH -- Greenlight Initiative: $11,925.
Traffic Phasing Initiative: $111,486.
That’s the amount of money the two opposing traffic and growth control
measures on Newport Beach’s November ballot have spent on campaigning so
far.
While Greenlight has raised $20,061 over three years to pay its
expenses, the Traffic Phasing Initiative has almost $72,000 in unpaid
bills, according to campaign disclosure statements.
Greenlight supporters claim their opponents are expecting major
contributions from developers to cover the difference.
But Traffic Phasing Initiative proponents said they still didn’t know
where they’d get the money.
“We will be out raising money to pay that off,” said Clarence Turner,
the initiative’s co-chairman, adding that no promises for donations had
been made. “It’s a burden that we have to shoulder.”
Greenlight, which will appear as Measure S on the ballot, proposes to
put “major” developments before a citywide vote. The Traffic Phasing
Initiative, christened Measure T for the election, would add the city’s
existing traffic ordinance to the city charter and nullify Greenlight,
should voters approve both measures.
With the election still months away, supporters for both sides were
quick to paint the vast differences in campaign chests as an advantage.
Greenlight supporters said the opponents’ large money supplies exposed
the Traffic Phasing Initiative as backed by developer interests.
“The opposition has bought their way to the ballot while Greenlight
has earned their way,” said Susan Caustin, a Measure S supporter and
environmental activist. “In my mind, what it comes down to is special
interests versus the people.”
In response, those in favor of Measure T said Greenlight’s failure to
raise more money simply showed Newport Beach residents did not support
the idea of putting major developments before a citywide vote.
Greenlight has “been the only game in town for a year,” said Tom
Edwards, co-chairman of the Measure T campaign. “They don’t like the fact
that someone is finally exposing them for what they are.”
Measure S would undermine the authority of Newport Beach’s City
Council, which has served the city well so far, Edwards said.
Even Greenlight supporters agree that out of 15 developments that
would have required votes by residents during the past decade, only one
-- an expansion of Harbor Day School -- would have been controversial.
“Talk about ridiculous,” said Edwards.
But Measure S supporters said the opposition’s coffers were filled by
organizations such as the California Assn. of Realtors ($12,000,) Pacific Mutual ($10,000,) Newport Dunes ($2,500,) and a range of developers.
Greenlight, on the other hand, has mainly relied on contributions ranging
from $100 to $250 from residents.
“It’s pretty obvious,” said Allan Beek, treasurer of the Measure S
campaign. “We’re up against the development community.”
Turner countered that developers would naturally support Measure T.
“It is a property rights issue,” he said. “And you can expect people
with property -- big and small -- to support us.”
FYI
o7 Major contributors to the Traffic Phasing Initiative (Measure T):
f7 California Assn. of Realtors $12,000
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. $10,000
Building Industry Assn.(paid in kind) $ 9,500
Taylor Woodrow Homes $ 5,000
McLarand, Vasquez & Partners $ 2,500
Dunes Hotel $ 2,500
Robert Bein, William Frost & Assoc. $ 1,000
Kaufman & Broad $ 1,000
Lido Peninsula Co. $ 1,000
Orange County Business Council $ 1,000
John Saunders, London Coin Galleries $ 1,000
Standard Pacific Homes $ 1,000
VMA California $ 1,000
Westbay Properties $ 1,000
David Wooten, Intl. Bay Club, Inc. $ 1,000
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.