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.
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.