EDITORIAL -- NO ON MEASURE S

Quality of life.

Never have three words meant so much to the people of Newport Beach.

And as voters head to the polls on the speeding freight train known as

Greenlight, we can’t help but worry that in their zeal to use those very

words as a shield against big development and growth, they will adversely

sway growth in this town for decades to come.

So pardon us as we step in front of that oncoming train. It is going

to be painful, even agonizing, but we believe this community could be

headed for an even bigger, more devastating collision.

The city needs to know there is a better option than Greenlight.

It is acknowledged that the Greenlight initiative, Measure S on the

ballot, was crafted by those who have the very best interest of Newport

Beach in mind.

They have impeccable environmental credentials. They are the same

people who decades ago stopped the Pacific Coast Freeway in its tracks;

the same people who managed to wrestle Upper Newport Bay from developers

in the 1960s; the same people who through a referendum stopped the Irvine

Co. from expanding its high-rises at Newport Center; and the same people

who fought unsuccessfully to save the Castaways and other prime pieces of

bayfront land from development in the 1990s.

But it is also clear that their cause today was spawned by

frustration.

Frustration over traffic gridlock. Frustration over developers having

a seemingly open door at City Hall while residents are left in the cold.

Frustration over a City Council that many believe to be ineffective and

unsympathetic to community concerns.

Frustration with a council that voted in mid-1999 to soften several

features of the city’s tough traffic ordinance that for 20 years had been

instrumental in easing the traffic burdens placed on the town by

development.

That frustration is understood. We even share it at times. But

Greenlight goes too far in trying to end it.

The wording of the measure is complex. It leaves open the possibility

that not just major developments will face voter approval, but even

something as routine as the creation of a four-unit, two-family

residential building.

We worry about that.

Another concern is that the election docket could very well be clogged

with scores of innocuous votes for years to come.

Greenlight would render useless our representative government’s role

of giving careful study to development plans and seeking compromises and

consensus from builders.

Instead, the fate of those projects -- good or bad -- could be

subjected to the emotional whims of an electorate that won’t have the

time to weigh important and practical planning matters against the

impulse of stopping all growth in its tracks.

We worry about that, too.

We worry that the public has such low opinion of developers that it

would be unlikely a project as controversial as the Dunes hotel, for

example, could ever get the fair hearing it deserves.

Despite these misgivings, please don’t get us wrong. We do share the

sentiment of our Greenlighter friends. We agree that Newport Beach’s

quality of life is worth fighting hard to preserve.

But we also believe that no community can survive without balancing

both the needs of commerce and residents alike.

And we sincerely believe it can be accomplished without Greenlight in

place.

We just hope it’s not too late to stop that train.