Measure L best choice for public

Clarence Turner

If we can fight our way through the blizzard of campaign rhetoric

from the opposition to Measure L on the Nov. 2 ballot, a clear

question emerges. What use of the Marinapark land will provide the

greatest benefit to all the residents of Newport Beach?

Before exploring that question, it is instructive to lay to rest

one argument of the opposition to Measure L. To allow a resort, they

claim, is a giveaway of public land to a private commercial interest.

This would be true only if the resort failed to return any financial,

environmental, recreational or quality-of-life benefits to the

public. Furthermore, the argument seems to imply that a private

commercial interest on public land is oxymoronic and incompatible.

The reality is these types of arrangements occur all the time. Think

of the private resorts within Yosemite National Park or on San

Diego’s Mission Bay, for example.

Nevertheless, it is problematic to argue that the Marinapark

resort and community plan is a giveaway of public land to a private

commercial interest since the resort will provide a host of benefits

to the greater Newport Beach public.

The resort will contribute $2.2 million a year to the city’s

general fund in lease revenues, sales and bed taxes. Over the term of

the lease, that represents more than $100 million.

The resort will contribute approximately $1 million a year to the

Newport Beach Tidelands Fund for water-quality improvements to the

bay. That’s $50 million over the term of the lease.

The resort will provide new view and pedestrian corridors to the

300 yards of bay-front beach for all members of the public to enjoy.

This means vastly improved public access to the beaches in front of

the mobile-home park -- beaches that today are nearly inaccessible.

The resort will provide the city with a new community center and

Girl Scout House, as well as a refurbished American Legion Post.

The resort will provide storage and dock facilities for the city’s

watercraft recreation programs.

The resort will rebuild the municipal tennis courts on the site.

The resort will spark the revitalization of the Balboa Peninsula.

Now, in assessing whether the resort provides a better use and

greater public benefit, we have to assess what benefit a public park

would provide. Tom Billings, founder of Protect our Parks and the

chief opponent of Measure L, has presented a plan calling for a

soccer field, public boat-launch ramp, picnic areas and other

elements. It sounds good, but what public benefit would it provide?

Other than a new point of bay access for tens of thousands of people

from Newport Beach, Orange County and the Inland Empire, there aren’t

many.

According to a city staff report, a park will cost Newport Beach

taxpayers as much as $5.25 million to build and, minimally, nearly

$21,000 a year to maintain (a cost, by the way, that does not include

drainage and pumping-facility costs). It will generate very minimal,

if any, revenue.

According to the certified environmental report on the Marinapark

resort plan, a public park on the site will generate two to three

times more traffic than the existing trailer-park use.

The presence of grass for picnic areas and a soccer field will

create serious environmental concerns related to fertilizers, animal

waste and other pollutant runoffs into the bay.

The boat-launch ramp and soccer and picnic facilities will create

a significant demand for new parking to accommodate boat trailers and

vehicle traffic for soccer games and picnicking.

In my opinion, the Marinapark resort and community plan provides

the better financial, environmental, recreation and quality-of-life

benefits to all of us. A park use does not.

Measure L is right for Newport Beach.

* CLARENCE TURNER is a former mayor of Newport Beach.