Readers Respond -- Growth debate pitting residents against

developers

As both employees of Conexant and residents of Newport Beach, we are

concerned about the impact Measure S will have on our city. As residents,

we are saddened by the divisiveness this is creating in our community,

and secondly, as employees of the city’s third-largest revenue generator,

we are concerned about our future in the city of Newport Beach.

Newport Beach is a great place to live and our quality of life is

unmatched. Conexant is part of our community and wants to make a

commitment to staying and doing business here. This is not only

advantageous for Conexant, but it is good for the city. The revenue

Conexant generates for the city (currently around $1.5 million annually)

helps fund public safety, parks and libraries and all the things that

make the quality of life and doing business in Newport Beach great.

Unfortunately, all these benefits are threatened by Measure S. If

passed, Measure S would require that anyone wanting to update, upgrade or

even expand, in some cases by as little as 100 square feet, would be

required to go through the city’s review and approval process and then to

a citywide vote, if certain thresholds are met. We would be required to

vote on all kinds of projects.

The divisiveness Measure S has created in our community is bad enough

right now -- we can’t imagine if we have to go through this every time we

hold an election. Think of the tax dollars we could lose; none of us want

to see those precious funds diminish or have to raise our own taxes to

cover them. This would be devastating to the great place we call home.

We urge you, the residents of Newport Beach, to vote no on Measure S.

Susan Blumencrantz, Patti Byrne, Sandy Digilio, Fred Jarrar, Julie

Long, Hussein Makki, Stephanie Miller, Edward Moran, Dena Partridge,

Sandra Petty-Weeks, Sujit Pillai, Stuart Proctor and Lana Vorontsova

Newport Beach

Why the City Council of Newport Beach would consider moving the

American Legion Post 291 away from its location on the bay is beyond

reason.

Even the council admits it gets more revenue from the vets than it

would from the developer’s traffic-generating hotel. The requirements to

belong to the legion and its yacht club are not money, but [instead] if

you or someone related to you served our country.

These good people are still serving. They raise money for

scholarships, take the disabled and blind out in their boats, and give

the hall for free or at a discounted rate for community service events.

No hotel could possibly commit to serve our community as the legion

does. Please call your City Council representative. Tell him or her what

you think of the idea of taking the marina and present bay location away

from our good neighbor.

MARTHA DURKEE

Newport Beach

Tom Edwards objected to Measure S in a recent Daily Pilot article

based on hospitals not waiting two years for a regular election to

approve any significant expansion and thus would need a costly special

election. Hey Tom, Hoag doesn’t just decide to put on a “wing” to the

hospital and expect the plan to be carried out within a few months. Years

of planning, fund-raising, etc. are part of the process. Certainly, it

will not take a genius to figure out the best timing to submit the

project for the next ballot. Also, Tom, give the people of Newport Beach

a little credit for knowing which projects are beneficial to the

community and which are detrimental.

MARY ADAMS

Newport Beach

Marian Bergeson is right when she says we elect people whom we hope

will reflect our values and our views (Daily Pilot, Oct. 17). The problem is, they haven’t been doing that.

I have watched many City Council meetings where scores of citizens

have expressed legitimate concerns over some project which they feel

would be detrimental to the community. They might as well be talking to a

wall.

I get the sense that Bergeson feels the citizens are too dense to

“understand what is best for them.”

What we do understand is many of our elected officials turn a deaf ear

to the concerns of the residents (the main reason for Measure S --

Greenlight) and have come up with a competing measure to kill it.

That hardly reflects the citizens values and views.

ANN MERRITT

Corona del Mar

Most of the time I find the safest course is to take the opposite one

that the liberal-thinking Joseph Bell is advertising. Imagine my

amazement to have not one but two issues on which we agree, and in the

same column “Bronx Bombers a good reason to support Greenlight.”

Like Bell, I also do not favor the Yankees because they bought a

pennant race. But even more important, Bell resonated with a lot of

readers with his reasons for supporting Greenlight (Measure S).

I’d like to add one more major reason I’m against Measure T and in

favor of Measure S. While Bell rightly questions all the money being

spent to defeat Measure S, he could have even gone one step further. The

literature that the money produced is intentionally misleading, and in

some cases contains downright lies.

Measure S will not need to cost taxpayers millions of dollars for

special elections. It will not detract from public safety. The truth is

it will probably keep us more safe and sane by helping to reduce traffic.

DAVE HARRINGTON

Newport Beach

The mystery is now at least partially solved as to why the current

Newport Beach City Council is consistently biased in favor of proposed

major building projects, in spite of vehement objections by residents.

The clue to the mystery is now surfacing and for lack of a better

description, could be called the “Conexant Connection”.

According to recent newspaper reports, Ed Selich, planning

commissioner and Councilmen Tod Ridgeway, Gary Adams and Dennis O’Neil

actively participated in various official discussions regarding

Conexant’s desire to add 500,000 square feet of office space. At the same

time, it is reported that these officials held stock in Conexant.

It is the ethical and likely legal obligation that such officials be

“squeaky clean” when entering into discussions where there is the

potential that such discussions might result in personal financial gain.

Even the appearance alone of impropriety is enough to require city

officials to recuse themselves from discussions and or votes on such

matters.

To do otherwise, helps to reinforce the perception that the current

City Council is nonrepresentative with respect to residents’ wishes. A

yes vote on Greenlight’s Measure S would help to counteract those

official activities which appear to be heavily biased in favor of

developers.

MEL MANN

Newport Beach

As a fellow supporter of Greenlight, I couldn’t agree more with Joseph

Bell’s logic in deciding which way his vote goes. Makes sense to me. What

doesn’t make sense is if City Councilman Dennis O’Neil believes that

Newport Beach is, “the best city in the county, the state, if not the

nation,” then why is it that we cannot swim in our own bay waters?

I grew up swimming in the waters off Balboa Island. In fact, my

great-grandparents built the 10th house there, where it still stands. I

participated in the swim races off Buddy Epsen’s dock right in front of

the ferry, and on a regular basis, would find real live sea horses

swimming along side me on the north bay front.

Where am I going with this? This IS the finest city around, so why are

our waters such an embarrassment? Does the City Council warn our tourists

not to let their children swim when they pay good money to rent on the

harbor?

I don’t think so.

Would the developers of the proposed Dunes resort inform their guests

to stay away from the waters there? I doubt it. (Newport’s worst kept

secret).

If all those opponents to Greenlight want something worthwhile to

spend all their money on after they lose to the real Newport residents

and all that come to visit, (not outside developers with deep pockets)

why don’t they put their money where their mouth is and start a fund to

clean up our waters so we can once again swim in the very waters we

choose to live so close to without fear of becoming ill.

KRISTEN MOLINARI

Corona del Mar

I am writing in response to Joseph Bell’s commentary titled “Bronx

Bombers a good reason to support Greenlight.”

I would first like to say, it is a sad state of affairs when a

columnist, who is supposed to be knowledgeable and give insightful

dialogue on city issues, does not take a major community splitting issue

as Measure S (Greenlight) seriously.

Additionally, it is pretty disheartening when you have a columnist who

seems to have intellectual capabilities deciding which way he will vote

on the outcome of a baseball series.

Is this what our democratic society has come to?

People arbitrary take stands on major issues as they enter the voting

booth. Actually, Bell, maybe you have the right idea the Los Angeles

Clippers have been doing well this preseason.

I think I will vote Ralph Nader for president!

DOUG STUCKEY

Newport Beach