Measuring the Measure L debate

S.J. CAHN

A few weeks ago, I took copies of this column to a neighbor of my

parents, someone I grew up next to. This person doesn’t subscribe to

the Los Angeles Times for what I assume is a feeling common in

Newport-Mesa: My neighbor thinks The Times is too liberal.

We’ve had a few conversations about whether the media is liberal

-- as a journalist you get used to people asking about that. One of

the things I talked about was my column, which, I said, I try to keep

free of my opinion and bias of any sort. (That’s a goal I’ve written

about in the past). Since I’m less conservative than this neighbor, I

sensed some skepticism that I could write a political column that

wasn’t slanted.

So I took some that I thought were pretty straight-forward, unlike

this one, which won’t be free of opinion, though I hope the opinions

come across as fair as I mean them to be.

The above is all a prelude, because it is never my intention to

abuse the fact that I can command space on Page 2 of the Pilot every

Thursday. I try to keep this column as informative, and not

inflammatory, as I can. I want to add to readers’ understanding of

the local political scene, if possible.

It isn’t an editorial or opinion piece, in other words. Except,

perhaps, this week.

I’m, frankly, befuddled by the debate going around about Measure

L, Newport Beach’s Nov. 2 initiative on what to do with the

Marinapark land. The vote, according to the ballot, is this:

“Shall the Newport Beach general plan designations for Marinapark,

approximately eight acres of city-owned bay front property on Balboa

Peninsula between the American Legion and 18th Street, be amended

from Recreation and Environmental Open Space to Recreational and

Marine Commercial to permit a resort with a maximum of 110 guest

units (including 12 timeshare units) and 96,000 square feet on

approximately five acres and a community center and public recreation

facilities on three acres?”

As a Pilot editorial on Sunday explained, the vote is about a

land-use issue. But it has turned into a series of attacks on the man

who wants to develop a hotel on the site, Stephen R. Sutherland.

Sutherland, as far as I can tell from a handful of meetings with

him, is a nice guy. Other people I trust say the same thing. I get

the sense from him that he believes his plan for an upscale resort is

the best thing for the city. (Yeah, I know it’ll be a good thing for

him, too, if it succeeds.)

The reason I’m befuddled is that the people -- largely those

involved with the controlled-growth Greenlight movement -- on the

attack here are also nice guys. They’re people I almost unanimously

like, a lot. I’ve never gotten any sense from them that their take on

development -- I’m not going to call it anti-development -- reflects

anything other than their belief in what’s best for Newport Beach.

Until now. The vitriol with which they are opposing this resort

plan continues to rise. For instance, I’ve heard the improvements

Sutherland would make to the American Legion and Girl Scout building

called “brides,” nasty rhetoric that damns those making it in my

eyes. And each time opponents obfuscate the vote, I get more and more

concerned.

The latest issues revolve around the nature of Sutherland’s

business. In an early version of the agreement between Sutherland and

the city -- one that, as best as I can determine, gives Sutherland

the first opportunity to negotiate with the city and not the

“exclusive” right, as opponents argue -- Sutherland’s group is listed

as being an “LLP,” or limited-liability partnership.

By the time the agreement is signed, the LLP is gone.

Opponents of the resort plan say this is a big deal -- a

deal-breaker, even. We reported on it, to an extent, on Sept. 30 in a

story headlined: “Vote on hotel plan expected in 2 weeks.” (Probably

not, by the way, our best headline, since it was the city agreeing to

a tentative deal with Sutherland that was expected in two weeks.)

I’ve received several arguments about this change and what it

means. I’m not going to outline them because -- and I can’t stress

how important I think this is -- I’ve not been able to find anyone

who agrees that the charges being made are valid, important or,

therefore, newsworthy.

At this point, they amount to unfounded innuendo. And I just can’t

give them legitimacy by writing about them, even then to knock them

down.

Believe me, I checked into this LLP matter. I consulted with city

officials but didn’t limit my reporting there because, if Measure L

opponents were right, city leaders would put their best spin on the

issue. So I also asked several Times attorneys about the matter.

They said, unanimously, that it isn’t a big deal.

As best as I can tell then -- and I’ve probably done as much

reporting on this single issue as I’ve done on any story during my

five-plus years at the Pilot -- the issue of Sutherland’s partnership

or company or group isn’t an issue. There is nothing wrong with his

contract with the city, no matter what people are saying.

It’s ironic, of course, that opponents are questioning how

Sutherland’s backing has changed, because they were the ones who

raised a huge stink over his first partner, Michael Talla, having an

interest in a Las Vegas strip club. That stink led Sutherland to ask

Talla to pull out of their partnership.

It’s also ironic that members of Greenlight, a group dedicated to

giving residents of Newport Beach the opportunity to vote on large

developments in the city, just don’t seem to be playing fair on this

vote. Residents should be deciding if they want a hotel to be built

where the mobile-home park is now. The debate should be whether a

hotel or a park (if it ever were to become a park, an “if” I think is

mighty, well, iffy) is the best use for that land. Which would bring

more traffic and crowds, really? How important is it for that land to

generate revenue for the city? What kind of harbor-front do residents

want?

Instead, I’m hearing and reading a lot of unsubstantiated charges

about what Sutherland or the city have or haven’t done. These charges

are being touted as “facts,” but they aren’t.

And that’s why I’m concerned. As I wrote, I like the Measure L

opponents and don’t want to think badly of them. So I try to figure

out why they are attacking the debate the way they are.

Maybe, I reason, they truly believe the other side isn’t being

fair, and they need to fight fire with fire.

But so far, I don’t see evidence of that. And, so, I don’t

understand why they’re acting how they’re acting.

* S.J. CAHN is the managing editor. He may be reached at (949)

574-4233 or by e-mail at [email protected].