READERS RESPOND

* AT ISSUE: We asked readers if the Newport Beach City Council should cut

costs or try to generate revenue to offset a predicted economic downturn

over the next five years.

The Newport Beach City Council and staff are disconnected from the

electorate -- the very people they are supposed to represent (“Newport

Beach has its eye on future finances,” Nov. 16). Time after time, the

wishes of residents are brushed aside in favor of business interests.

There are many examples where staff and City Council join hands to look

favorably on unpopular projects, guided only by the rationales that “the

city needs to generate more revenue.” Translated, this means more

tourists, more hotels, more high-rise office buildings, more parking

needs -- all of which generate more traffic -- while satisfying the

financial interest of private business who could care less about the

negative effects on the residents.

Most residents have selected Newport Beach as a place to live because of

the lovely ambience the city enjoys -- and hardly with the expectation

that city government would pursue a policy that erodes that ambience.

Increasingly, city policy is driven by the need for more revenue. Yet, no

member of the City Council talks about ways to reduce costs, only ways to

increase revenue. If revenue shortfalls are anticipated, why not look

hard at city expenses, including, but not limited to privatization,

salary and fringe benefits, which consume 64% of the city budget?

Let’s look at specific examples where staff and council have opted to

sacrifice quality of life in favor of revenue.

The City Council is seeking proposals from interested parties for the

purpose of awarding a long-term lease involving a 10.7-acre site located

on Balboa Boulevard between 15th and 18th streets. About 75% of this site

is currently leased to the American Legion and Marinapark Mobile Homes,

whose leases are soon to expire. Three homeowners associations

surrounding this site have strenuously objected to future use of this

site for a hotel. Yet the City Council has specifically directed staff to

seek a proposal from Stephen Sutherland, a hotel developer.

Some months ago, the city staff was authorized to expend more than

$100,000 to hire a consultant to study parking management on the Balboa

Peninsula. The consultant was required to discuss at public meetings

various recommendations on how to better manage parking. The consultants

recommendations were presented at public meetings, and straw votes were

taken.

One might assume that if a consultant’s recommendation was voted down by

a majority, that the recommendation would be dropped or at least modified

to reflect the views of the public. Not so. The city staff recommended

that the following be pursued, even though a clear majority voted against

the particular recommendation:

* Increase meter fees in central Balboa -- 70% voted against

* Implement trial valet parking -- 93% voted against

* Implement resident parking permits -- 57% voted against

When city government takes a philosophical turn that ignores the wishes

of the residents, draconian steps need to be taken to reverse this

disconnection.

Greenlight’s Protect from Traffic and Density Initiative is a classic

example of a grass-roots movement designed to counteract the disconnected

attitudes of city officials.

The initiative was spawned by the City Council’s failure to enact

legislation that would place reasonable limits on traffic growth. The

initiative would require voter concurrence for any major general plan

amendment which significantly increases traffic.

For example, if the initiative were to become law today, voter

concurrence would be required to approve the proposed 500-room Dunes

Hotel, two Newport Center high-rise office buildings, 1,750 homes at

Banning Ranch, a 1 million-square-foot office building for Conexant, to

name just a few.

It is a pity that an initiative is necessary to counter the disconnection

between city government and the citizens of Newport Beach. To quote a

recent article by Fred Martin, “Protecting paradise around here is

virtually a full-time job.”

MEL MANN

Newport Beach

The city can raise revenue by jacking up current rates and getting

creative with new sources such as short-cutting the courts and collecting

100% of administrative fines (“Newport Beach has its eye on future

finances,” Nov. 16). But can we operate our proposed City Punitive

Department for less than the potential gain? I doubt it.

There is little honesty in the hand-wringing that accompanies the

reported 15% cutback in staff in the mid-’90s. That cutback, orchestrated

by our departed city manager, with council singing tenor and soprano, was

accompanied by a 5% increase in total salaries and benefits paid city

employees. Was it the high-priced employees who were cut? Doesn’t look

like it.

There needs to be an honest, unbiased assessment of all expenses as well

as the cost of services provided by city employees. Can we procure the

same services at reasonable cost? Privatization in Newport Beach has been

given lip service. We need fire protection, we need paramedics, we need

police, lifeguards, etc. But can the same services be provided at

competitive costs? Once the hard questions have been answered, then we

can consider selling off our quality of life to pay the essential bills.

There are plenty of sites already charted for resort hotels, high-rise

commercial buildings, increased density everywhere in town. The city is

not built out. That’s an Irish fable still lingering. Anyone who believes

that needs to examine the stimuli that aroused the Greenlight bunch.

TOM HYANS

Newport Beach