Green light or red light on a public vote?

It’s only fitting that the City Council has sent Stephen Sutherland’s

Marinapark resort plan to the voters.

In a sense, that should have been what opponents of the project

wanted.

But it hasn’t been, and that leaves us scratching our heads and

wondering if Greenlight advocates are playing a game more reminiscent

of the children’s playground game, red light, green light.

If Sutherland’s 110-room luxury resort on the Balboa Peninsula,

between 15th and 18th streets, will be such a death knell for the

area’s residential and recreational character, as the pro-Greenlight,

anti-resort bloc argues, why is there such resistance to it going to

voters?

Granted, the ballot this November will be stuffed with measures.

Voters will have to do their homework on a litany of propositions.

They will be overwhelmed if they don’t. But if the property on which

Sutherland wants to build is such a precious jewel and should remain

untouched by a resort, it seems to us that opponents should have

confidence that voters will save what Protect Our Parks founder Tom

Billings called “a public community asset and the last public

waterfront beach park of its kind on the Balboa Peninsula.”

That’s a lofty claim, and an important one to make. Officials

should take care to preserve vital recreation space and protect it

from commercial interests that threaten to damage an area.

But this space is not to be preserved only for one neighborhood.

Las Arenas Park, which would be reconfigured under Sutherland’s plan,

is a public park, not just a park for a group of homeowners, or for

Greenlight supporters.

We respect Billings’ efforts to keep Sutherland honest, but if

this debate is about the public’s right to enjoy and live in what is

indeed a beautiful peninsula area, then surely the public should be

able to weigh in on the resort plan.

And that’s the way one would think opponents would want it. But

some opponents, which include Greenlight advocates, vigorously tried

to stop the project’s environmental report from being certified by

the City Council, thus keeping the proposal from a vote in November.

We find that curious given that Greenlight was founded on the

premise that “controlled growth” in the city should be approved by

the voters.

Greenlight backers say not enough information has been fleshed out

in the project’s environmental report. And they argue that not enough

public hearings have been offered by the city for the public to

absorb Sutherland’s plan and to make an informed decision. But this

refrain of not enough time, not enough information -- given the

intensity of outrage to the project -- could have been argued

forever. At least now the public -- the voters -- will watch the

sides battle it out in what promises to be a vigorous campaign for

your vote. In the end, maybe that will be what serves the voters

best. Not a game of red light, green light.