Readers Respond

Why are the citizens of Newport being sent to the polls to vote on

measures, S and T which cancel each other out? Measure T, known as the

Traffic Phrasing Ordnance or TPO, is sponsored by politicians, the

business sector and organizations that all depend on city money.

Measure S, known as the Greenlight initiative, is sponsored by

residents, who hope to control density of building as well as density of

traffic by allowing residents to vote only on projects that exceed the

city’s general plan.

My dumb questions are: What is the general plan? Who pays for it and

why is development allowed to exceed the general plan?

All I know about the general plan is that the city is divided into 49

sections and each section has heights, density and use limits, etc. An

example would be Fashion Island, a sector that would have a plan

different from the plan that would control the development of the Dunes.

The John Wayne Airport is another sector with a different plan.

Who pays for this general plan? I’m sure that city business comes out

of city taxes that we all pay and that by our votes we give the City

Council control of its spending.

They decide when the plan should be amended and when it should be

rewritten. I think we all agree that every few years our needs change and

the plan needs to be adjusted. When this happens, I’m guessing that it

costs money to rewrite this plan.

So, why is development allowed to exceed the general plan? If the

citizens are paying for a general plan and the city feels one is

necessary and the developers know what the general plan says, why do they

keep asking the City Council to amend it?

Is this representative government? This seems to be business as usual

for Newport Beach and we the people need to stop this! A vote for

Greenlight will help. Better yet, vote for council members who will

support saving the quality of life for all citizens and not those whose

only purpose is to bring money to the city to pay for further

extravagances.

JOYCE LAWHORN

Newport Beach

Former mayors Bill Ficker and Marian Bergeson, and the Irvine Co. are

all backing Measure T for “traffic solutions.” Every ad in the Daily

Pilot and the literature sent to me has been against Measure S.

On the upper left-hand corner of the literature I received reads,

“Citizens for Traffic Solutions.” Yet, none of these citizens or the

Irvine Co. lists the solutions.

Would they along with Councilman Gary Adams, who is a traffic

engineer, please list all your solutions to the traffic problems we now

have. How many solutions do they really have and what are they?

RACHELLE E. FOSTER

Newport Beach

I understand that Measure S calls for a referendum on projects

requiring major exemptions to the general plan only. What I don’t

understand is what’s so wrong with the general plan that major exemptions

need to be granted anyway?

And if it’s so flawed, why doesn’t the council update the general

plan?

Here’s the reason, as promulgated on the Greenlight proponent’s Web

site:

“In June of 1999, the City Council seriously weakened the Traffic

Phasing Ordinance, a law that had protected us from excessive traffic

congestion. For example, permanent gridlock at an intersection can now be

authorized by four votes of the council. They did this instead of

updating the city’s general plan as that would have required roads to be

developed to match any desired growth over and above our present growth

plan.

It is clear that we need the protection of voter oversight of

traffic-generating developments that require changes to the general plan

if we are to retain our quality of life.”

ED VAN DEN BOSSCHE

Newport Beach

I totally agree with Michael Browning’s letter, published in the Daily

Pilot on Sept. 28.

The Greenlight initiative is wrong for Newport Beach. The

pro-Greenlight people have been stuffing our mailboxes with fliers; some

coming through the mail and others just placed there.

Someone should tell them it’s against the law to stick things in

people’s mailboxes.

No on Measure S!

DOLORES KERMIN

Newport BeachI couldn’t agree more with Joseph Bell (The Bell Curve,

Sept. 28). Greenlight is indeed a desperate measure necessary because our

elected council is not listening to us, the folks they are supposed to

represent.

Ideally, they should reflect our wishes, but no, they just don’t get

it.

They have adopted the attitude that they know best. This paternal

“arrogance of power” and refusal to curb out-of-town business interests

leaves us with no other choice.

To those who say we don’t have a traffic jam problem, I contend it’s

never been worse. We don’t want more hotels and cars. Greenlight may not

be perfect, but it is our only chance to take back our city.

Dedicated unpaid volunteer residents are working hard to bring this

message to the voting public. But we are faced with big money daily ads

(i.e. Marian Bergeson, Bill Ficker) and mailings from ex-mayors eager to

reinforce the old power structure.

Their claims are wrong. For example, “15 costly special elections over

the past 10 years.” Experts on both sides agree that no special elections

would have been necessary; voters could voice their opinions at regular

elections.

If an overeager, impatient builder can’t wait for a regular election,

he would have to pay the cost of any special election.

The truth is that our unresponsive, developer-influenced council does

not represent us; thus they resent Greenlight’s goal, to return power to

the people.

Draconian measure? Some would call it democracy.

MILDRED LITKE

Newport Beach