JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

If one of those pollsters were to ask me today how I planned to vote

on the Greenlight initiative, or Measure S, I would probably show up in

the “undecided” column. And I suspect there are a lot of other local

residents who would show up there with me.

For many weeks now, I’ve been following the Greenlight debate at

dinner parties, as well as in the news pages and letters column of the

Pilot, without reaching any kind of conclusion. It rather reminds me of a

magazine piece I did many years ago in which I interviewed Edward Teller

and Linus Pauling separately and at considerable length over the issue of

atomic testing in the atmosphere.

Pauling said it would poison all of us. Teller said it wouldn’t cause

any harm at all, and, besides, it was essential to our national defense.

At the end of the second day, as I was packing up my tape recorder

after hanging out with Pauling, I said to him: “Where am I supposed to

come down? I’ve just spent two days with two Nobel Prize winners who have

taken exactly opposite positions on a scientific matter of critical

importance to the citizens of this country. So who do I believe?”

And Pauling smiled his elfin smile and said: “Who did you like the

best?”

Well, Pauling’s answer wasn’t altogether flippant -- and is about the

only certain yardstick I’ve been able to apply so far to Greenlight.

There’s not much question in my mind that the Greenlight people are a

lot more likable than the heavy hitters who want to build out Newport

Beach and seem to have a hand on the collective shoulder of the City

Council. The patronizing arrogance that I see the council members showing

toward the passionate advocates of Greenlight is almost enough to push me

over.

But not quite. Not yet.

I’m deeply wary of town-meeting government. It worked reasonably well

in the small towns of Colonial America, where landowning men would gather

to debate issues and make collective decisions.

But government was simpler in those days, and as it became more

complex, it became clear that it was both awkward and expensive for every

issue of import to be voted on by the public. Thus representative

government became the norm at every level.

Greenlight, it seems to me, would be a kind of throwback to the town

meeting. The argument on behalf of Greenlight that only 15 special

elections would have been required over the last decade seems to me an

argument against it. That’s a lot of expensive, time-consuming special

elections.

But the other side of that coin is almost as persuasive. It may well

require such draconian measures to force the City Council to recognize

and give full weight to a growing group of local residents who don’t

regard the Chamber of Commerce’s lust for economic growth as a desirable

goal for their home community.

So that, finally, is where it plays out. Has the arrogance and power

of the developers and their supporters in government grown to the point

that the excesses of Greenlight are the only way to turn attention to the

urgent concerns of a large and growing portion of the electorate?

There are plenty of historical parallels to this question. Almost

every basic social change that has taken place in this country has grown

out of the refusal of those in power to listen and act on the needs of

those who lack power. The unionization of workers in the 1920s and ‘30s,

the civil rights movement, the protection of child labor, standards for

our food and drugs, and many more.

Sometimes the reform is excessive and has to be reeled in. School

busing, for example. But even the reforms that have had to be seriously

modified have almost always achieved their initial purpose of forcing a

power structure to look at the needs that motivated the reform.

The ideal solution to the problems that fostered Greenlight is, of

course, to deal with them through representative government. Put up

candidates who support damping growth and protecting first of all the

livability of our environment and elect them to public office.

That takes a lot of time, effort, dedication and money -- but it is

the way our system works. And here we might take a lesson from the

passion and relentless determination of the South County folks who

torpedoed the El Toro airport -- and are still at it, as shown by the

mildly hysterical brochure I received from them yesterday.

The excessive rhetoric coming out of South County is being matched in

the Greenlight contest by opponents who are saying such things as

Greenlight would “destroy our community” and “do more damage than any

storm God could devise.” To which this “undecided” is saying, “C’mon.”

Oh, yes. There’s also Measure T, whose principal purpose in life is to

shoot down Greenlight if it should happen to pass. No reason to be

undecided about this one.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.