GEORGE JEFFRIES -- Community Commentary

To avoid the Greenlight Initiative, the Newport Beach City Council

should reconsider the amended Traffic Phasing Ordinance.

Readers may recall that the council, in amending the prior slow-growth

traffic phasing ordinance, declined to include 16 of 19 amendments

requested by slow-growth supporters.

The Greenlight Initiative was their response. Greenlight would permit

voters to make important land-use decisions bypassing our elected

representatives.

This practical answer may be preferable to the amended traffic phasing

ordinance, but it is not a good one. The council created this problem and

can resolve it by reinstating the prior slow-growth policy.

The council amended the traffic phasing ordinance principally because

of building industry influence, recent court decisions, and concern over

potential city liability. But it overreacted and threw out the baby with

the bathwater.

The traffic phasing ordinance probably did not pass constitutional

muster, but it needed only modest revisions consistent with prior

slow-growth policy. There was no “sky is falling” mandate or threatened

legal action requiring major changes.

Fear of liability was misplaced because of the learning curve provided

by prior precedent, and state statutes protect the city from developer

liability other than the return of excessive fees. But the council, in

opposition to its prior electoral mandate, eliminated the traffic phasing

ordinance’s protective slow-growth covenants.

Five of six councilpersons oppose the Greenlight Initiative, proposed

by 9,000 of our 45,000 voters. Is this in the residents’ best interest?

There have been a long list of things that make it very difficult for

voters to honor the mayor’s request to “trust the council” on this issue.

These have included: developer campaign funding of the council; the

council’s gutting of the traffic phasing ordinance (opening the

floodgates to over-reaching developer requests for new building projects

totaling hundreds of thousands of square feet); the limited ability of

under-financed and inexpert residents to counter the well organized and

financed developer “dog and pony shows” to a city staff and council all

to willing to seek extra tax dollars for a burgeoning bureaucracy; a

pleasingly plump city budget; the council’s decision to postpone the

Greenlight election twice “for financial reasons” while refusing to

postpone consideration of major developments, but the mayor’s refusal of

my written request to post on the city Web site the list of developer

campaign contributions to the council, ‘on financial grounds”; the

council’s willing funding of professional assistance, with the further

assistance of the chamber, to critique Greenlight; and the council’s

failure to do anything about the horrendous traffic problem in Mariners

Mile, coupled with Irvine Co.’s new apartment densities beyond belief.

At this point passage of Greenlight appears likely. The council could

avoid Greenlight and enhance public confidence by: reexamining the

traffic phasing ordinance amendments with significant concessions on most

points urged by slow-growth proponents; adopting a proactive traffic

mitigation program including implementation of certain city staff

recommendations made in the ‘80s for Mariners Mile; publishing on the

city Web site the council campaign finance contributions (as is done in

other cities) to show good faith; and individually and publicly asserting

support for slow-growth and traffic mitigation programs.

The council appears to be in denial.

Unfortunately, it may well preside over the end of representative

government concerning important land-use decisions in this city and

postelection litigation. Does our council want this to happen on its

watch? Will the voters have to assume the council’s role to tell

developers that smart growth is slow growth? Will this council defend

Greenlight against developer challenges?

The council has created this mess and has an opportunity to control

the outcome, but it will take more than words. Whose city is this? We

need policy over politics and leaders with the recognition, vision, and

will to act in the interest of the voting majority to maintain and

enhance the quality of life in our city.

* GEORGE JEFFRIES is a 40 year resident of the city and a former

trustee of the city library.