Anti-Greenlight forces outspending foes

Mathis Winkler

NEWPORT BEACH -- Greenlight Initiative: $11,925.

Traffic Phasing Initiative: $111,486.

That’s the amount of money the two opposing traffic and growth control

measures on Newport Beach’s November ballot have spent on campaigning so

far.

While Greenlight has raised $20,061 over three years to pay its

expenses, the Traffic Phasing Initiative has almost $72,000 in unpaid

bills, according to campaign disclosure statements.

Greenlight supporters claim their opponents are expecting major

contributions from developers to cover the difference.

But Traffic Phasing Initiative proponents said they still didn’t know

where they’d get the money.

“We will be out raising money to pay that off,” said Clarence Turner,

the initiative’s co-chairman, adding that no promises for donations had

been made. “It’s a burden that we have to shoulder.”

Greenlight, which will appear as Measure S on the ballot, proposes to

put “major” developments before a citywide vote. The Traffic Phasing

Initiative, christened Measure T for the election, would add the city’s

existing traffic ordinance to the city charter and nullify Greenlight,

should voters approve both measures.

With the election still months away, supporters for both sides were

quick to paint the vast differences in campaign chests as an advantage.

Greenlight supporters said the opponents’ large money supplies exposed

the Traffic Phasing Initiative as backed by developer interests.

“The opposition has bought their way to the ballot while Greenlight

has earned their way,” said Susan Caustin, a Measure S supporter and

environmental activist. “In my mind, what it comes down to is special

interests versus the people.”

In response, those in favor of Measure T said Greenlight’s failure to

raise more money simply showed Newport Beach residents did not support

the idea of putting major developments before a citywide vote.

Greenlight has “been the only game in town for a year,” said Tom

Edwards, co-chairman of the Measure T campaign. “They don’t like the fact

that someone is finally exposing them for what they are.”

Measure S would undermine the authority of Newport Beach’s City

Council, which has served the city well so far, Edwards said.

Even Greenlight supporters agree that out of 15 developments that

would have required votes by residents during the past decade, only one

-- an expansion of Harbor Day School -- would have been controversial.

“Talk about ridiculous,” said Edwards.

But Measure S supporters said the opposition’s coffers were filled by

organizations such as the California Assn. of Realtors ($12,000,) Pacific Mutual ($10,000,) Newport Dunes ($2,500,) and a range of developers.

Greenlight, on the other hand, has mainly relied on contributions ranging

from $100 to $250 from residents.

“It’s pretty obvious,” said Allan Beek, treasurer of the Measure S

campaign. “We’re up against the development community.”

Turner countered that developers would naturally support Measure T.

“It is a property rights issue,” he said. “And you can expect people

with property -- big and small -- to support us.”

FYI

o7 Major contributors to the Traffic Phasing Initiative (Measure T):

f7 California Assn. of Realtors $12,000

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. $10,000

Building Industry Assn.(paid in kind) $ 9,500

Taylor Woodrow Homes $ 5,000

McLarand, Vasquez & Partners $ 2,500

Dunes Hotel $ 2,500

Robert Bein, William Frost & Assoc. $ 1,000

Kaufman & Broad $ 1,000

Lido Peninsula Co. $ 1,000

Orange County Business Council $ 1,000

John Saunders, London Coin Galleries $ 1,000

Standard Pacific Homes $ 1,000

VMA California $ 1,000

Westbay Properties $ 1,000

David Wooten, Intl. Bay Club, Inc. $ 1,000