Greenlight debaters turn red at meeting

Noaki Schwartz

NEWPORT BEACH -- Beneath a thinning veneer of polite exchanges,

emotions rose between council members and proponents of the Greenlight

initiative Tuesday night as they debated the merits of residents

controlling the future of city growth.

On one side of the debate were proponents of the Greenlight

initiative, which proposes to let residents vote on certain major

developments. The added public input would lengthen an already

time-consuming planning process, which includes reviews by both the

Planning Commission and City Council.

On the other side are supporters, including the council, of the

competing Traffic Phasing Ordinance measure. If passed, it would cement

the city’s traffic law into the City Charter and kill Greenlight.

The divisions between the two sides are great, even if both claim to

have residents’ best interests at heart.

Greenlighters feel their measure is the result of voters reacting to

an apathetic council that has approved too many developments.

But council members, responding to the accusation that their work as

elected officials has been poor, say the measure will undermine one of

the basic tenets of democracy -- representative government.

Somewhere in the middle of the storm sit confused community members

who will vote on both measures this November after the council placed the

Traffic Phasing Ordinance measure on the ballot at the meeting.

Residents had hoped for clarity on the issue at this city council

meeting, after council members promised open dialogue on an analysis of

the Greenlight initiative.

Indeed, the evening opened with some valid points.

Councilman Gary Adams pointed out that the general plan amendments

outlined in the analysis reduced car trips throughout the city by 1,352.

“This shows that the reduction of traffic takes place naturally by

elected officials,” councilman Tod Ridgeway agreed.

Greenlight proponent Allan Beek countered that if their measure had

been in effect, residents could have participated in the process, voting

on about 15 development proposals in the last decade.

“Greenlight would catch the things that were withdrawn earlier this

year,” Beek said, referring to the group of companies -- including the

Irvine Co. -- that withdrew their Newport Center expansion plans in

January.

But Adams suggested that the debate over proposed developments the

measure could create would give rise to special interest groups around

the city.

Just as quickly as it began, the healthy debate was deflated by some

personal attacks.

“Greenlight has caused you to say ‘We can’t just rubber-stamp the

Dunes,”’ said proponent Phil Arst, referring to the council’s recent

decision to take more time on the $100-million Dunes resort proposal.

“Greenlight trashes our democracy!” responded Councilman Dennis

O’Neil.

Finally, resident Dolores Otting stood up, voicing how some community

members may be feeling.

“I don’t understand what you [City Council members] are so afraid of

for people to go out and vote,” she said. “Over 10,000 people signed

these petitions. If they thought everything was hunky-dory in the city,

they would not have signed.”

While both measures promise to be the answer to residents’ fears that

the city’s quality of life is under threat, there is another problem

arising from the heated debates, said Councilwoman Norma Glover.

“These elections will divide the community,” she predicted. “We’re

dividing the community right now.”