Readers respond

AT ISSUE: As the Nov. 7 election nears, Newport Beach residents speak

out about stopping development, preserving the community and Measures S

and T.

I plan on supporting Measure S because I believe the residents of

Newport Beach should have a say in the important matter of what is

developed in their area.

I was born in Newport Beach and am sad to see much of the former open

space replaced with development. I am not antidevelopment, but I believe

that more controls on it would be wise.

Thomas Edwards and Clarence Turner say that passage of Measure S would

“do more damage than any storm God could devise” and that its proponents

are “destroying our community.”

This is not true and is an example of the hyperbole that some of those

in opposition to this measure are expounding. The same thing was said in

1978 when Proposition 13, which reduced revenues to the county by putting

a limit on property tax increases, was on the ballot. Proposition 13

passed by a large margin and our county has done just fine for the last

22 years.

Opponents of Measure S have to realize that controlling growth makes

our community more valuable and more livable, not less. Having more parks

and open space would be a greater benefit than more resorts, strip malls

and office buildings. And as to the argument that more development

creates more jobs and fuels our local economy, I would bet that most of

the laborers and contractors on these developments would come from

outside our city and that a good number of the employees working at the

completed developments would as well.

Measure S is not doom and gloom. It is just the voice of our citizens

when they see a threat to the beauty of their community. The

entrepreneurs and developers in our area are resilient and resourceful,

and if Measure S passes they will simply have to be more creative in

their proposals and that will work to their advantage as well as to our

residents.

JULES MARINE

Newport Beach

Seven and counting. That’s how many anti-Greenlight ads have appeared

since Sept. 6 in the Daily Pilot. In the latest version, Bill Ficker is

the featured poster boy and his 1970 America’s Cup win is the lead-in.

But this election isn’t about the America’s Cup. That was 30 years

ago. It is about what’s changed in those 30 years, not all of it for the

better.

In 1970, getting around town was a breeze and traffic was only a

problem on summer weekends, mostly on the Balboa Peninsula. And we had

plenty of local merchants close at hand. Remember Forgit Hardware? The

two nearby lumber yards? All the sailmakers and boat yards and marine

hardware stores?

This community had character then. Now it’s a page out of “Newport

Beach [714].” Restaurants, office towers, hotels, party boats--not to

mention congestion and pollution from residential sources.

All of this happened under the stewardship of professionals schooled

in “peak hour” and “level of service.” It happened more with the consent

of the governors than of the governed. It happened with the lobbying and

financial largess of out-of-town developers.

So much for representative government, Newport style. It’s time to fix

it, and Greenlight is our best shot, Ficker’s opposition notwithstanding.

He is dead wrong when he says Greenlight will cause “an endless series of

elections.”

Concerned about that, the city hired urban planner John Douglas to

study Measure S. Conclusion: Had it been in effect over the last 10

years, 15 elections would have been required. The Daily Pilot covered

this in detail on June 27.

Greenlight doesn’t destroy the city’s planning process; it gives us

the final say, which is as it should be. This is our community. We live

here, the big-shot developers don’t. This November, vote “yes” on S and

“no” on T.

DICK LEWIS

Balboa Peninsula

The one issue in Newport that would unify residents and the City

Council is the fight to keep John Wayne Airport from expanding and to

prolong the current agreement limiting airport growth.

But proponents of Measure T, in their zeal to fight Greenlight’s

Measure S, have made a strategic and significant error that plays into

the hands of powerful interests who will push for the airport’s

expansion.

The error is that Measure T specifically exempts the airport area. If

Measure T is voted in, new high-rise buildings would spring up around the

airport. Such development not only puts undesirable pressure on the city

in its fight against airport expansion but would create traffic overloads

on Irvine Avenue, Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard.

This error in Measure T is further compounded by the City Council’s

desire to encourage more new hotels and convention centers.

What could be more convenient for new high-rise buildings, hotels and

convention centers than an expanded John Wayne Airport, capable of

handling a multitude of coast-to-coast fights.

I was mayor of Newport Beach when the present airport agreement was

hammered out. Countless hours were spent working the county, Airport

Working Group and Stop Polluting Our Newport. The final agreement

incorporated a cap on the number of passengers, a curfew and noise

standards.

This agreement, while not perfect, has served our community well. We

must extend the agreement without the added pressure of new development

in the airport area.

Still another disturbing element associated with a group of supporters

for Measure T is the “anti-S” position of our city fire and police

associations.

Apparently, in the eyes of these city employees, if there is more and

more development, there would be a concurrent expansion of the fire and

police departments. And of course this would require more police

officers, firefighters, equipment, etc.

The threat of increased traffic and gridlock does not seem to bother

these employees, who ironically pride themselves on rapid response times

when a medical or other emergency occurs. It is disappointing that our

police and fire associations take a position against the very people they

are sworn to protect.

Measure S is an opportunity to vote on the big projects, to make

Newport a place you want to raise your family and retire. Keep our city

the gem that it is. Vote “yes” on S’ and “no” on T.

EVELYN HART

Newport Beach

Former City Manager Bob Wynn now works as a developer’s consultant,

making his opposition to Measure S--the Greenlight Protection from

Traffic and Density Initiative--easily understood.

Much less understandable is his willingness to repeat the

misinformation developers have been propagating.

He promotes the idea that Measure S would cause “dozens of costly

elections.” In fact, Measure S would require no special elections, is

expected to generate only one to two votes per year and will cost only

$4,000 for each issue added to a general election ballot. Wynn knows

this.

He threatens “funds [will be] diverted to road maintenance,” causing

cuts to fire and police services under Measure S. Measure S makes no such

funding cuts or diversions. In fact, funding for road maintenance would

remain exactly as it is now, and Wynn knows this.

He claims that “public hearings and environmental reviews [will be]

abandoned” under Measure S. But it leaves all review procedures in place,

as all projects will continue to need the approval of the Planning

Commission and the City Council. Wynn knows this.

Wynn’s willingness to disseminate misleading and deceitful information

is dirty politics. Such actions by a City Council candidate begs the

question: What type of ethics can we expect if Wynn is elected?

I would personally prefer a council member who works for the citizens

and not the developers’ special interests.

ROBERT CAUSTIN

Newport Beach