Hall plans lack openness

John Buttolph

Much opposition to the proposed construction of a new city hall

arises from a style of government by which the Newport Beach City

Council and its city manager have advanced their agenda largely

hidden from the public eye.

Rewind back to the Feb. 8 council meeting as a $650,000 consulting

contract -- originally awarded two years ago but canceled because of

the consultant’s conflict of interest -- is surprisingly reinstated

over protests from one councilman with the sensible idea that

rebidding was appropriate for a contract of such magnitude.

If you blinked, you missed the grateful consultant’s low-key

announcement of three public meetings, which the council scheduled

for the last half of April. Ten residents who didn’t blink and

actually showed up at the first meeting were told they would not be

permitted to address the need for or desirability of a new city hall.

At this and later meetings no opportunity was provided for public

statements in opposition to the project. Public input was restricted

to “review preliminary design concepts” for a new city hall, a new

fire station and an adjacent multi-story parking structure.

The perception that public notice requirements had been

manipulated to minimize turnout netted a postponement of meeting No.

2, the addition of a fourth meeting to the agenda, and a large banner

in front of City Hall defining the issue as “Replace or Remodel?”

Well folks, the public meeting part of the process has ended,

wherein we were treated to a slick presentation by our city manager

and his highly paid consultant, leaving many of us with unanswered

questions and a deep sense of frustration.

Three responses come to mind. First, why were these public

meetings conducted as if the decision to proceed at a cost of tens of

millions of dollars had already been made, with the city merely going

through the motions of public meetings to diffuse public opposition?

Was that the best they could do, and was that all we residents of

the city should expect? The council disregarded any effort at

salesmanship and arrogantly presented the project as a fait accompli.

Second, why no discernible attempt to present alternatives to the

“scrape and build” approach? Why no public discussion of off-site

relocation for high-usage services like the Building Department, thus

relieving traffic, parking and space problems at our current City

Hall?

Why no public discussion of outsourcing, or reducing the number of

city staff housed in City Hall? Why are we compelled to link a new

city hall, a new fire house and a new high-rise parking garage as one

project instead of considering each separately on its own merits?

And, if the city had already addressed these issues, why weren’t

their conclusions disclosed openly at these public meetings?

Third, what are we giving up if the city is permitted to build

this monument to big government instead of spending tens of millions

on more pressing city improvements? Think what $40 million could do

for our overcrowded and under-funded schools, for infrastructure

maintenance, for acquisition and improvement of open space and parks,

for more police protection and emergency services, and the list goes

on and on.

Let’s compare the need for a new city hall relative to our city’s

desire to acquire John Wayne Airport, to protect water quality, and

to improve traffic circulation before we allow our council and city

manager to incur a massive amount of debt for a new city hall.

Remember, the recent city-sponsored Visioning Festival didn’t even

mention a new city hall. Residents rated road improvements, more open

space and parks, water quality, and public safety as their priority

choices for spending our tax dollars.

For the city to respond -- without any meaningful public

discussion -- by giving its highest priority to a new city hall

complex costing tens of millions of dollars is narrow minded and self

serving.

If the City Council insists on proceeding with this massive outlay

of public funds based on a decision-making process largely hidden

from public scrutiny, let concerned residents e-mail their council

members or attend Tuesday’s City Council meeting and state whether

they want to pay for it.

* JOHN BUTTOLPH was a candidate for council in November of 2004

and is a member of Newporters for Responsible Government.