Thomson under fire for straddling Greenlight

Mathis Winkler

NEWPORT BEACH -- At a recent forum, when City Council candidates were

asked their positions on two growth-control measures appearing on the

November ballot, Councilman Tom Thomson dodged repeated requests for a

definite response.

While the other eight candidates gave “yes” or “no” answers on how

they’ll vote on Measures S and T, Thomson, who is running for reelection

in District 7, declined to do so.

“I am on the City Council and have one out of seven votes,” he said at

the Oct. 4 forum. “If all the City Council people voted like me, we

wouldn’t have the problem.”

However, residents supporting either measure say his unwillingness to

take a stand could weaken his chances of holding on to his job.

In fact, Thomson has not only lost the endorsement of the local

chamber of commerce, but also was unable to earn the backing of

Greenlight and Measure S, to which he appeared to give only lukewarm

support last spring.

“I believe people who are in that position should be prepared to state

their position,” said former Newport Beach city manager Bob Wynn, who

worked on Thomson’s campaign four years ago.

This time around, disappointed by Thomson’s accomplishments on the

council, Wynn decided to run against his former ally for the District 7

seat.

Wynn added that Thomson’s refusal to give a clear-cut answer was a

sign of “not wanting to do something that might persuade [voters] not to

vote for him,” he said. “One of the problems I’ve had with Thomson ... is

his lack of political leadership.”

Thomson distanced himself from his fellow council members with his

statement of support for Measure S at a March council meeting. Soon

after, he backed away from that stand, agreeing with the ideas behind the

measure while seeing it as the wrong way to achieve growth control.

Measure S, also known as the Greenlight Initiative, proposes to put

before a citywide vote any development that allows an increase of more

than 100 peak-hour car trips or dwelling units or 40,000 square feet over

the general plan allowance.

Measure T would add parts of the city’s traffic phasing ordinance to

the City Charter and nullify Measure S, should voters approve both

measures.

During a conversation Monday, Thomson denied that he ever supported

the measure itself. He said the only thing he had done was vote twice in

favor of putting the measure on a special election ballot earlier this

year.

“They’d earned their right to have a special election,” he said.

Thomson also said for the first time that he opposes Measure T.

“It takes a flexible piece of the municipal code and turns it into

[part of the City] Charter that can only be changed by a vote of the

people,” he said.

Measure S supporters said Thomson’s refusal to take a clear stand does

not reflect a balanced view.

“Thomson’s neutral position is the same as a ‘no’ vote on [Measure S]

that puts him in the same pro-growth camp as his opponent, Bob Wynn,”

said Phil Arst, a spokesman for the Greenlight campaign. “That’s why we

have endorsed [District 7 candidate] John Heffernan.”

While surprised by Thomson’s stand against Measure T, Heffernan said

Thomson’s endorsements by groups such as the Lincoln Club made it

impossible for him to support Measure S.

“You can’t be a [Measure S] ‘yes’ candidate with those people

supporting you,” Heffernan said. “I think this noncommittal stand is

typical of an incumbent trying to garner votes without antagonizing one

side or the other.”

Other Measure S proponents said they were disappointed with Thomson’s

behavior.

“I don’t know why he doesn’t want to take a position on the ...

issue,” said Nancy Skinner, an environmental advocate. She added that in

the past, Thomson had been supportive of the type of issues she and other

growth-control proponents addressed.

“He has certainly done some very thoughtful and good votes,” she said,

offering Thomson’s successful effort to protect a parcel of open space at

the corner of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road as an

example.

“But I’m still mystified by his vote on the Marinapark resort,”

Skinner said.

Instead of backing plans to keep the city-owned, bayfront parcel as

open space, Thomson and his council colleagues voted in late August to

enter exclusive negotiations with a developer proposing to build a luxury

hotel on the site.

Thomson’s strategy is not winning any support from the pro-Measure T

crowd, either.

“That kind of a waffling stand will come back to haunt him,” said

Clarence Turner, co-chairman of the Measure T campaign. Turner, a former

Newport Beach mayor, said his group has no plans to endorse candidates.

The Newport-Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce, which endorsed Thomson

four years ago, put its weight behind his opponent, Wynn. The chamber has

also endorsed Measure T.

“We were very concerned about [Measure S,]” said Richard Luehrs, the

chamber’s president, adding that the slow-growth issue was not the

chamber’s only criteria to endorse candidates.

“Of course, [Thomson] has not indicated one way or the other whether

he’ll support [Measure S,]” said Luehrs.

When asked if he thought his behavior could damage his chances for

reelection, Thomson stayed right on course.

“My job as a city councilman is to listen to the people and not to

tell them how to vote,” he said. “That’s my story and I’m sticking with

it.”