Resort’s plans don’t call for taking away recreational and

environmental space

In Greenlight leader Phil Arst’s Community Commentary of June 19,

2003, he continues the policy of Greenlight Member Tom Billings’

attempts to mislead residents.

First of all the Regent is not taking away recreational and

environmental open space. The plans call for increased access to the

property while at the same time improving the existing recreational

programs offered by the city’s Parks and Recreation Department. The

Regent not only maintains the public open space and recreational

aspects of this site, it improves it. And this will be done with

private funds, not taxpayers’ money. Everything Arst suggest is to be

paid for by you, the resident, and the taxpayer. All of the

improvements included in the Regent plan won’t cost residents a dime.

This is a win for the Regent and for the residents.

Arst’s claim that he testified at the March 11, 2003 City Council

hearing in opposition to the Regent Resort is false. The official

minutes from that hearing state “Phil Arst stated that he is

delighted a vote will take place on the project.” Nowhere in the

official minutes, contrary to Arst’s statement, does he say that he

or Greenlight are opposed to the Regent. In fact, nowhere in Arst

testimony before the council is the word opposed even used once. My

past prediction that Greenlight would at some point find some reason

to oppose the Regent has now come true.

By the way, at this same City Council meeting my agreement with

the city was approved by all seven council members. Yes, even

Greenlight Councilman Dick Nichols voted in favor of the Regent.

Arst’s next statement in his commentary is even more unbelievable.

He claims residents must vote on the Regent Resort because of the

Greenlight law and not because the city’s leaders and I believe

residents should decide a matter of this importance. This assertion

is easily disproved by simply reviewing Greenlight’s own Web site or

by reviewing the Greenlight law itself. The truth is that the Regent

is subject to a Greenlight vote only if it exceeds the traffic

limitation laid out by Greenlight and it does not.

When Arst declares, “there are still judges who can decide the

legality of bypassing the Greenlight law,” it seems he is threatening

to file a lawsuit against the city if the residents’ vote on the

Regent is not to his liking. This again will be at a monetary cost to

our residents and it is a slap in residents’ faces.

Arst then reverts to “the old scare them with the turning of the

city into another Miami Beach tactic.” Does he mean this one and two

story 110-room luxury resort is going to turn Newport into Miami?

This “the sky is falling” farce is going too far.

Based on current events, Arst needs to clean up his own Greenlight

house and stop trying to spend taxpayers’ money. Especially when the

Regent Newport Beach Resort provides improved recreational and open

space with private money.

* STEPHEN R. SUTHERLAND is a Newport Beach resident and partner of

the Regent Newport Beach Resort