Initiative foes say name is biased

Alex Coolman

NEWPORT BEACH--Opponents of an initiative that would cause parts of the

city’s traffic phasing ordinance to be protected by the City Charter say

the title and language of the measure are misleading.

The group contends in a letter to the City Council that the Traffic

Planning Initiative’s title is inaccurate and that it is legally required

to refer to the Greenlight Initiative, which would be killed if the

Traffic Planning Initiative were passed.

The letter also argues that the reference to the Greenlight Initiative in

the text of the petition for the Traffic Planning Initiative is made in a

way that “promotes the overlooking of significant information” by voters

who might read it.

Phil Arst, who signed the letter, said he was concerned that the Traffic

Planning Initiative had been given what he called a misleading name

because of “bias on the part of the city” in favor of growth.

He said, however, that it also was possible that the initiative’s

language had come about through “a series of mistakes on the part of city

government.”

“We’re hopeful that they will set the matter right for the public,” Arst

said.

The letter comes amid a hurried signature drive to get the Traffic

Planning Initiative on the November ballot.

If successful, the drive will see the measure competing against the

Protection from Traffic and Density, or Greenlight, initiative for voter

approval.

The Greenlight Initiative would require all developments requiring a

major general plan amendment to be approved by voters.

Proponents of the Traffic Planning Initiative say they aren’t crazy about

their measure’s name either.

“I think the title should talk about the major provisions” of the

measure, said former Newport Beach Mayor Clarence Turner, who is helping

organize the signature drive for the initiative.

“We have nothing to do with [naming the initiative],” he said. “The title

was given to us by the city attorney.”

City Attorney Bob Burnham declined to comment on the suggestion that the

initiative’s title may be misleading.

He said he had “no plan to respond” to the complaint letter.