Resort plan a threat

Regarding “Marinapark project battle goes public,” Tuesday in the

Pilot -- as a famous Californian once said, “There they go again.”

The 1948 Newport Beach City Council might be forgiven for leasing a

prime piece of public property for the creation of the Balboa Bay

Club.

At that time, there were lots of waterfront properties, and the

creation of this facility probably made a lot of sense, because the

use of land at that time was for dumping naval war equipment. The

land, however, was deeded to the city by James Irvine in 1928 for

“public use.”

Does “public use” mean an exclusive private club that only

recently, upon the lease renewal, posted two small signs at their

entrance stating “Public Welcome”?

Today, as opposed to 1948, we have a very different situation.

Limited harbor-front access and a scarcity of open space on the bay

is the reality. The city of Newport Beach is built out, as are many

urban areas in desirable locations. Now, the only prime land

available for development is the remaining space set aside and

designated for parks, recreation and public use. The Marinapark

property is just that, designated in the current Newport Beach

general plan for recreation and open space.

The public would be better served by a public aquatic center, park

and recreation area than another high-end hotel/timeshare catering to

a few wealthy visitors.

In 1997, the State Lands Commission advised the city of Newport

Beach that Marinapark is primarily tidelands. The state holds

tidelands in trust for public purposes; another “gift” to the city

for “public use,” only this time given by the people of the state of

California.

Marinapark resort developer Stephen Sutherland attempts to equate

the situation at Marinapark to the Great Park and El Toro, the issue

everyone loves to hate. Actually, the building of the hotel/timeshare

is taking public land and using it for private profit, which some

accuse the promoters of the Great Park of doing. The resort

promoters, Sutherland and company, are using all of the standard

approaches: Buy off the Girl Scouts and the legionaries with new

buildings; conduct “push polls” (have you gotten your call yet?); tie

the opponents to an unrelated yet despised issue (Great Park); and

accuse the opposition of not being honest. The opposition is made up

of volunteers who have nothing to gain monetarily. Can Sutherland and

resort supporters say the same? The financial and material gain of a

few will be at the expense of many.

The vote on Measure L will be whether to modify the general plan

to change the designation “Recreation and Environmental Open Space”

to “Recreational and Marine Commercial.” Once that is done, the land

can be developed, and yet another piece of the public’s land is lost.

In 1948, the residents of Newport Beach didn’t have much direct say

in the giveaway of public land. They do this time. Will this city

again tie up public land through a long-term lease for the exclusive

use and profit by a few?

DENNIS BAKER

Corona del Mar