EDITORIAL:City hall on ballot merits a green light

So we noticed this week that three notable environmentalists have announced their intentions to actively oppose the plan by architect Bill Ficker to place city hall on the patch of land near the corner of MacArthur and Coast Highway that is currently slated to be a passive park.

To Allan Beek, Jean Watt and Jan Vandersloot, we applaud your willingness to step into the debate. It would be hard to imagine three who have cared more about the preservation of open space in Newport Beach than Beek, Watt and Vandersloot. And we have much admiration for all three of them.

But as we were reading about their announced intentions, we stumbled upon something that gave us pause.

The trio is writing a letter to supporters asking them not to sign the petition to put the city hall question on the ballot.

Beg pardon?

This is from the same Beek who is widely credited for authoring the Greenlight Initiative, an initiative whose very existence came at the ballot box; and from Watt, who spearheaded an effort several years ago to have the public decide the fate of the Castaways land.

Indeed, at its very heart, the Greenlight Initiative, supported by all three, is all about asking the voting citizens of Newport Beach to make ballot box decisions about major land-use issues.

Say it isn’t so, Allan, Jean and Jan.

The residents of Newport Beach deserve to make this decision. If there is a rational debate to be had about the Ficker measure and its benefits and flaws, then so be it.

But to attempt to squelch that very process is a hard position to defend — and frankly, we’re surprised the trio would take that path.

Whatever you think of the park, it’s hard to not see that Ficker’s plan has merit. We suspect that anyone who sits down to hear and see his plans will acknowledge that fact.

And that’s why we suspect the critics of the plan are so vocal. They know it has potential. To deny the residents of Newport Beach the chance to see and hear that potential is unconscionable.

That’s all Ficker has asked for all along. That’s all we would like to see as well. The plans for this city hall, which would coexist with the current passive park, deserve to be seen by all residents.

If the residents end up agreeing with Watt, Beek and Vandersloot and reject the plan, then so be it.

The people will have spoken.

But if the residents agree that spot would be the best location to place a city hall, then Watt, Beek, Vandersloot and the other critics of the plan need to take heed.

The people will have spoken.

Just don’t try to deny them that right.