Rebuttal -- Allan Beek

Newport Beach is not a no-growth city (“What does the council think of

Greenlight?,” Jan. 13). We are pro-growth, we have a plan for growth, and

it has been carefully coordinated with our circulation system so that we

don’t get out of balance. If we build everything our growth plan allows

for, we will generate 20% more traffic than we do now. Who says that is

“no growth”?

The purpose of the Protection from Traffic and Density Initiative is to

protect the integrity of our growth plan. Yet Councilman [Tod] Ridgeway

says it “stops development.” It does not stop development, but just lets

us stick to our plan.

Councilwoman [Norma] Glover calls it “a slow-growth policy,” but the

initiative does not establish any policy at all. It merely lets the

voters establish our policy. Glover assumes the voters will select slow

growth. If that is what she thinks the voters want, why isn’t she for it?

Councilman [Gary] Adams says “it will essentially eliminate all general

plan amendments.” But the record shows that 80% of the general plan

amendments are so small they wouldn’t be affected. Only 20% would be put

to a vote, and most of those would pass. Maybe 4% would be turned down.

Does Adams think that 4% is “essentially all?”

No one can disagree with Councilmen [John] Noyes, [Dennis] O’Neil, or

[Tom] Thompson, who tell us their plans for voting. Undoubtedly, their

reports are accurate.

Councilwoman [Jan] Debay argues against the initiative on the premise

that Irvine will build less office buildings if Newport Beach builds

more. This clearly shows the advantage of leaving the major decisions to

the voters, not many of whom will be influenced by such quaint notions.

But if she can convince a majority of us that this reasoning justifies

more offices here, then we will approve them.

We all give thanks to the Daily Pilot for presenting the views of our

City Council, and for the accompanying explanation of how the initiative

would work. Initiative supporters further thank the Pilot for its call

last Saturday to put the question on the ballot, and for the courtesy of

printing this article today.

The purpose of the cumulative 80% provision is to keep a big general plan

amendment from being slipped through piecemeal as a string of small

amendments. For example, five amendments each for 100 dwelling units

could be made in rapid succession to allow 500 new dwelling units with no

vote of the people. But as the initiative is written, 80 from the first

amendment would be counted against the second, so the second could only

be 20 units to escape a vote. Then 16 of those 20, plus the original 80,

would be counted against the third so the third amendment could only be 4

units to escape a vote. So the 100-unit limit could be stretched to 124

by making piecemeal amendments.

This degree of stretch was deemed acceptable.

* ALLAN BEEK is a proponent of the Protection from Traffic and Density

Initiative. To comment on this column, call our readers hotline at (949)

642-6086 or send an e-mail to o7 dailypilot@latimes.com.f7