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