Pilot on the wrong course on resort

The Daily Pilot seems to have gotten the idea that Measure L’s

opponents think it is only a referendum on Stephen Sutherland, the

individual. You are echoing the bleeding-heart song about “personal

attacks” that he’s been singing for years.

As the Pilot suggests in the editorial, look at the facts. The

stated and restated objective (seemingly ignored by the Pilot) of the

principal opponents of Measure L has been to stop the giveaway of

designated public parkland to private interests.

A goodly number of people in our community have been doing their

best for some months now to bring the “facts,” which the Pilot thinks

should drive the Measure L vote, to the attention of our citizens.

The way our council operates, these facts are not easy to come by.

In one sense, you are absolutely right; it is a land-use issue.

And in normal circumstances, that’s where the discussion would focus.

But there’s more to this situation than that. If Measure L is

successful, the city has obligated itself to negotiate a lease “in

good faith” with this promoter. That clearly makes him part of the

debate. The idea that there will be plenty of time to examine, then

accept or reject, the construction plans and credentials of the

promoter ignores one major reality -- the “good faith” issue.

I’m sure there are contingency lawyers around town just salivating

at the opportunity to press a “good faith” lawsuit against the city’s

deep pockets should negotiations break down. To my way of thinking,

the academic credentials, professional affiliations, technical

qualifications, experience, work product and financial resources of

anyone with whom the city does its business are always legitimate

areas for examination. All the more so in this case. The Pilot

appears to have been successfully diverted by those who view

everything opposed to their views as “character assassination.” You

should be focusing your attention on the past and present actions of

the City Council regarding this proposal.

Please add my “shrill” voice to the many others that are saying

“No on L.” We are opposed to any change in the city’s general plan

that would rezone designated parkland for commercial use of any kind.

JOSEPH F. O’HORA

Newport Beach

I’m writing this in response to your editorial concerning Measure

L, which appeared Sunday. I agree with your position that a vote on

Measure L is a vote on changing the city charter.

Currently, zoning for the Marinapark area is “Parks and

Recreation,” and a “no” vote would leave it that way, while a “yes”

vote would change zoning to permit a commercial venture (currently a

hotel of 110 rooms including 12 timeshares). Insofar as Sutherland is

concerned, he is a developer. Developers use land to build or rebuild

on hoping to earn a profit. That’s fine. This developer has doggedly

stuck with his basic plan for a couple of years through multiple

costly mutations. This tells me that he believes he is on to

something extremely good for him, and that’s OK, too.

As the Pilot intimates, certain facts need to be pointed out

clearly. To me, the important ones are the following:

1. Whatever results from the vote on Measure L, the mobile-home

park is going to go.

2. If L passes and the developer is successful with his

negotiations with the city, total revenues projected currently and

most optimistically are a little more than 1% of the current city

budget on an annualized basis -- not much.

3. The Marinapark parcel is the last remaining, larger, city-owned

waterfront property in Newport zoned for park use, which could be

developed into a marine-oriented park facility

4. If Measure L passes, Sutherland will begin financial

negotiations with the city of Newport. If his negotiations are

successful, the Marinapark parcel will be out of play for 50 years.

Should he fail in his negotiations, Measure L will still be in place,

leaving the door open for other development proposals of unknown

character.

5. If Measure L fails, all bets are off -- parcel zoning remains

as it is (recreational/marine) and the hotel goes away. This will

create an environment for detailed discussion of the many proposed

park proposals that have been floated.

Sutherland claims the beach area would remain in the public

domain, and I’m certain that legally this would be the case. However,

with 10 dedicated parking spaces and a two-story structure stretching

the entire length of the beach, I don’t think potential beachgoers

will have the slightest idea this exists, let alone try to find

parking in order to access the beach. The city parks and recreation

provides swimming and sailing classes there all summer long. I have

no idea what their access will be, but it can’t be very convenient.

Sutherland states that the beach is little-used, but my own

experience is that this just isn’t true.

I’m a member of no political-action group, am a resident of the

peninsula and, like probably 75% to 80% of my neighbors, am opposed

to Measure L (as a “yes” vote is tantamount to citizen approval of a

hotel on the site). Right now, the small-boat-storage facility in the

Back Bay is full and has a backlog of people wanting to store small

boats there. One park proposal I’ve seen creates a large rental space

for small boats, a launch area, an area for swimming, kayaking, green

space, parking, etc., all dedicated to marine (harbor)-related

activities, and I believe this use makes lots more sense than a

hotel, in view of the current oversupply of luxury hotel rooms and

permanent shortage of waterfront land, which could be used for

bay-front recreational activities.

Additionally, I thought your vitriolic attack on Greenlight and

its supporters was unjustified. Please don’t forget this is a

democracy, which permits those who disagree with positions you

support the opportunity to be heard. Remember that the people of the

city of Newport overwhelmingly voted down a hotel in the Dunes as

well as increased size of buildings in the airport area last time

Greenlight was triggered. We would not have had the right to vote on

these issues had it not been for Greenlight’s insistence on making

Measure S law.

JERRY MCCLELLAN

Newport Beach