Readers Respond

The new “traffic relief plan” is more appropriately the “relief from

having to do anything about traffic plan.”

This plan, call it Redlight, is nothing more than a ploy to displace the

residents’ Greenlight initiative with smoke and mirrors. So far, Redlight

proponents are ex-politicians, ex-bureaucrats and assorted mercenaries.

Redlight will do nothing to moderate the rate of increase in traffic. It

will give the incumbent politicians more latitude to permit more density

and more traffic, not only on Pacific Coast Highway and the north-south

corridors, but in the vaguely defined “airport area.”

What chutzpah to claim that land use and traffic issues are too complex

for the ballot; too complex for us ordinary slobs to understand? I just

voted on a ballot containing a dozen bond issues with a potential zillion

dollars of indebtedness. Nobody worried about my financial acuity on

those issues. I think I muddled through just fine, thank you.

Whatever happened to representative government, they ask? Mark

Baldassare, author of “California in the New Millennium: The Changing

Social and Political Landscape,” has the answer. It’s being replaced by

political distrust. Further, he writes, Californians are disillusioned

with their elected officials. They believe that their governments are

bloated bureaucracies unable to solve problems, spend taxpayers money

efficiently, or represent the interests and policy preferences of average

voters.

The original Traffic Phasing Ordinance was recently revised to no good

end, and is no longer the “toughest traffic ordinance in Orange County.”

Our “tough ordinance” sets meaningless, manipulable goals. Neighboring

cities cites standards to be met.

Greenlight is not confusing, unless you listen to the tripe. Greenlight

is not about the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, revised or original. There is

no plan on the table to reduce traffic, only control its increase. There

is nothing in Greenlight about diminished property rights, only about the

occasional request for excessive new “entitlements” beyond those explicit

property rights. Greenlight is about us residents being in timely control

of those who would barter with our quality of life in Newport Beach, and

exchange that for nebulous gains in “revenue.” If we adopt the Greenlight

Initiative, and reject Redlight, we will have the right to the final

decision on the occasional but extraordinary General Plan amendment the

politicians may think is good for us.

Tom Hyans

NEWPORT BEACH

So, if Greenlight succeeds in blocking significant growth in Newport

Beach, the city will lose potential revenue. Are Paul K. Watkins

(“Rebuttal: Vote ‘no’ on the Greenlight measure,” April 20) and others of

his opinion trying to scare us? If increased revenue means an equivalent

reduction in taxes, keep talking. But we all know it will be used instead

for additional roads, parking areas, housing for the increased

population, and city hall staff to support the new projects.

It’s axiomatic that there will be growth, but it doesn’t have to be here.

There are communities all around the country that need growth to support

development of the amenities we already have. My wife are big-city people

who have lived in some of the finest cities, here and abroad. But that’s

not what we came to Newport Beach for.

Those who want Newport Beach to grow into a mini-Los Angeles have that

right. And those who say Newport Beach is properly sized have that right.

And if that’s how they vote on Greenlight, so be it.

Tom Moulson

CORONA DEL MAR

I responded to the recent survey that was recently sent out by the

Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce. Like the overwhelming majority

of respondents, I support the law that provides some traffic relief from

new developments. What I did not support was the way the chamber worded

and structured the survey. Did anyone else out there feel that the survey

was not unbiased in the way the questions were asked? Does anyone else

get the impression then and now that the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of

Commerce is a tool of development interests in the city while the best

interests of the citizens and the quality of life in Newport Beach be

damned?

Paul James Baldwin

NEWPORT BEACH

I am in favor of the new measure based on the city’s law.

The Greenlight initiative would halt all major development in the city

and force all developers to abandon the future needs of Newport Beach.

These decisions belong in the hands of the professionals responsible for

the zoning of our city. The electorate barely votes for a new president

let alone for a development in the various parts of the city. The only

people to vote in mass will be the Greenlight supporters.

I’ve lived here since 1972 and at that time if you had to go from Corona

del Mar to the hospital, in the summer, you had to go by way of Bristol

Street. Coast Highway was a parking lot. Traffic moves through this city

as well if not better than any city I have visited. The Greenlight people

should visit Miami if they want to see gridlock. This initiative has

nothing to do with traffic. It has to do with people who have a desire

not to see Newport Beach progress with time.

Imagine Newport Center as it was in 1972. This is the kind of progress

Greenlight would prevent.

Leonard Balis

NEWPORT BEACH

The Traffic Phasing Ordinance ensures that traffic -- the number of

cars/car trips -- will increase. Greenlight will limit the number of

cars/car trips.

It’s easy: Greenlight = a good thing; Traffic Phasing Ordinance = a bad

thing.

Greenlight limits growth, which will limit traffic, and the Traffic

Phasing Ordinance allows unrestricted growth and increased traffic.

Mary Ann and Phil Root

CORONA DEL MAR