Facts should drive Measure L vote

There are people in Newport Beach who would like to convince the

voters that Measure L is bad for Newport Beach.

Bad because it will allow a hotel by local developer Steve

Sutherland.

Bad because Sutherland’s financing is backed by a so-called strip

club owner out of Las Vegas.

Bad because it will take away parkland.

Bad because of potential traffic problems.

Bad because of liens against property in Orange County by

Sutherland.

Bad because of improper documents.

Bad because Sutherland is bad for Newport Beach.

But don’t be fooled.

Measure L isn’t a vote for or against Steve Sutherland

specifically. It’s actually a vote on a potential land-use issue for

Newport Beach. It’s quite simple, really. Do you, a resident of

Newport Beach, want the land in the Marinapark area to be (a) changed

in the general plan to permit a resort with a maximum of 110 guest

units, a community center and a public recreation facility, or (b)

don’t you? At this point, it has nothing to do with Sutherland. It

also has nothing to do with the current city parkland already there

and actually will require public recreation on three acres.

If and when the voters vote yes, Sutherland then has the first

opportunity to complete a potential deal to build “his” hotel

property there -- but not before satisfying environmental concerns,

financial issues and moral-character questions concerning him and his

backers in front of the City Council.

Before we even get to that point, these naysayers would have you

believe that Sutherland is an evil developer out to destroy the

ambience of the Balboa Peninsula.

In fact, Sutherland, a 43-year resident of Newport Beach, is

anything but. The project he has proposed, which includes a small

upscale hotel on the property, includes a new Girl Scout facility

that will be second-to-none and an additional $500,000 toward the

refurbishing of the American Legion Hall.

The naysayers don’t want to talk about this.

They’re too busy slinging mud in an effort to cloud the thinking

of the Newport Beach public.

These naysayers, also known as Greenlighters, flip-flop more than

other more-noted politicians. Here’s the best example: In 2000, they

successfully fought to impose Measure S on the city and require large

general-plan amendments to be voted on by the public. Now they’re

opposed to a public vote because it just might pass. They even have a

lawsuit waiting in the wings, just in case it does.

These naysayers would have you believe that Sutherland is backed

by tainted money. His former partner Michael Talla was raked over the

coals and called by these very people a “strip club owner.”

Talla, in fact, has a vast and diverse investment portfolio led by

investments in such businesses as the Sports Club of Irvine, an

upscale workout facility that sets the standard in its class. The

fact that one of Talla’s many investments includes ownership in a

topless dance club in Las Vegas makes him no more of a strip club

owner than Donald Trump, who owns hotels and casinos that include

burlesque shows.

Sutherland, too, has been beaten down as the enemy, when in fact,

he was just one of eight groups who responded to a request for

proposal by the city of Newport Beach to develop the land known as

Marinapark.

The state of California has determined that Newport Beach is in

violation of land use on tidelands by allowing the mobile homes on

Marinapark. They were told to correct the situation or lose the

rights of this property to the state.

Sutherland was one of the innocent few who then followed up with a

project proposal for a better use of the land. Never in his mind did

he expect to find the negativity instilled by the Greenlighters.

Whether the voters approve Measure L or vote it down, we believe

the public needs to know just how much backstabbing and dirt throwing

is being done and how that is blurring the real issue -- the best use

of the land at Marinapark.

The aforementioned group of naysayers wants to control the Newport

Beach political community, even to the point of stopping the

democratic vote that they once fought to incorporate in the City

Charter.

They want their voice heard loud and clear but nobody else’s.

We think the voters should let their shrill voices fall on deaf

ears this time around and make up their own minds on what is the best

thing for the city of Newport Beach, based on the facts and not

character assassination.