FAIR GAME:

People around town might remember that I’ve railed against dirty politics before. Well today, unfortunately, I’m going to do it again.

A flier hit my home earlier this week from the No on B side.

These are the folks who want Newport Beach city hall anywhere else but in that weed patch above Newport Beach library.

You remember, the park. Debra Allen?

Yeah, right, that park.

Well, if your idea of fun on the weekend is walking through weeds, then I might suggest that you head to the corner of Coast Highway and Jamboree Road. We’ve got you covered.

Anyway, the above mentioned flier asked several questions on the front, attempts to offer some opinion on the inside spread and then lists supporters on the back.

I’d like to say it’s a typical political flier. But where the dirty politics come into play is on the lower front panel with a quote that is associated in a box with the Daily Pilot logo.

The quote reads, “There are and will be many more places and ways to expand city hall. This is not the right time nor the right place.”

Forget about the double negative for a second.

Attribution below it in smaller type says “[Web Threads 1/14/08].”

The quote gives one the impression that this is the voice of the Daily Pilot, when in fact, it is directly opposite.

Let us not forget, the Daily Pilot has previously endorsed Yes on Measure B.

So, Newport Beach, here’s the real deal of what you’re witnessing.

The No on B folks previously campaigned under the Parks are Priceless mantra.

That rallying cry didn’t catch on.

So they moved on and tried traffic gridlock. Traffic always raises a red flag.

The funny thing is that a site the No on B people have endorsed is just a half-block away.

Wouldn’t it stand to reason that the traffic impact would pretty much be equal with either site?

And I remind you, this site came into play only after their failed rallying cry for the Orange County Transportation Authority site that sits directly across the street from the park.

The No on B people talk about developer fees that will be used with sites other than the park site.

Again, the facts are that the developer fees, referring here to the Irvine Company agreement, are in play no matter where city hall is built. That’s right, even in the park.

They also talk about the excess cost that will be required if city hall is built in the park.

I’ve asked this question before, and I’ll ask it again. If choice No. 1 is you get land for free, and choice No. 2 is you have to pay $8 million to 10 million, which one do you believe in the long run has a better chance to be cheaper?

What the No on B people are attempting to do is compare an alternate site’s speculated costs against the park’s speculated costs. The trouble is they’re using false numbers.

The numbers they’re comparing against aren’t even from the Ficker plan.

The fact is, the numbers being compared are numbers some outside consultants came up with at the direction of several City Council people. One of whose name is on the back of the No on B flier.

Could it be that they added underground parking and massive land movement just to drive up the costs?

People, let me remind you this is politics.

All measures in the No on B campaign have failed to date. Their new attempt is to throw confusion at every turn. It’s their only hope.

Don’t be fooled.

TOM JOHNSON is the publisher. Readers may leave a message for him on the Daily Pilot hotline at (714) 966-4664 or send story ideas to [email protected].