Marinapark din increasing measurably

Alicia Robinson

Cost of running the pro-Measure L campaign as of Oct. 16: $141,989.

Cost of running the anti-Measure L campaign through Oct. 16:

$19,273.

Cost of a clean, friendly election: priceless.

Both sides of the debate on Measure L, a general-plan amendment

that would allow development of the Marinapark resort on city land,

have poured money into their campaigns. Both sides say they’re

victims of sign theft and vandalism and have been slandered by

opponents.

And voters can expect to be bombarded in the next six days with

material from both sides, because each has money left and plans to

spend it.

The controversial ballot initiative would amend the city’s general

plan to allow development of a commercial hotel on a piece of

city-owned land now designated for public recreational use.

The measure is backed by developer Stephen Sutherland, who signed

an agreement with the city in 2000 for the right to negotiate to

develop the property. His plans, which include a 110-room luxury

waterfront resort with 12 fractional units sold for three-month

periods and upgrades for nearby American Legion and Girl Scout

facilities, must still be approved by the City Council if Measure L

passes.

Opponents say the land should be reserved for public use and not

turned over to commercial development.

Sutherland has thus far funded the entire pro-Measure L campaign

himself, dumping $163,500 of his own money into it. He has TV

commercials on various cable channels, he’s sent out a color

brochure, and he’s put up signs all over town. But he said the effect

has been muted by theft.

“Hundreds of signs have been removed,” Sutherland said. “I’m not

accusing anyone of anything, [but] I can tell you that as fast as

they go up, they come down.”

Bruce Harrington, who lives in the port streets and supports

Measure L, confirmed that about half a dozen yard signs in his

neighborhood vanished in the past two weeks, and others have been

tampered with.

“Someone is out there defacing the pro-L signs, there’s no doubt

about that,” Harrington said.

Another obstacle has been the personal attacks on the developer

rather than the project, Sutherland said.

Marinapark opponents have brought up every tidbit of information

they can find on Sutherland and his past and present business

partners. They dug up tax liens the state has against Sutherland, and

they pointed out that his former business partner D. Michael Talla

has a financial interest in strip clubs and is embroiled in legal

battles over his business dealings.

“The project was designed very well, it’s a thoroughly reviewed

project, and it’s a great project,” Sutherland said. “It’s a very

difficult project for opponents to attack, so they’re going through

trash cans at night and trying to find anything they can to discredit

anyone who has anything to do with this project.”

Spearheading the opposition to Measure L is Protect Our Parks, a

group formed specifically to fight the initiative. As of the most

recent campaign-finance reports, the group was out-funded more than

eight to one. Supporters raised $44,165 as of Oct. 16 but had spent less than half of it. Protect Our Parks has hired a consultant and

has put out its share of mailings and yard signs.

Protect Our Parks spokesman Tom Billings said “No on Measure L”

signs have been disappearing too, and in one case someone was even

seen taking a sign.

“We’ve had scores of signs disappear, and not by the city crews,”

Billings said.

While he’s been threatened with a lawsuit by a Measure L

supporter, he said his group has taken the high road in its effort to

defeat the initiative. Everything Marinapark opponents have brought

up about Sutherland and his deal with the city is relevant and points

out the city’s lack of research into the project, Billings said.

“What we did was not personal attacks,” he said. “It was due

diligence of factual information that the public needed to know....

[The city] should never have entered into this contract in the first

place.”

This isn’t the first time Newport Beach residents have been up in

arms over a ballot issue. A referendum over expansion of commercial

space at Fashion Island “created quite a stir,” former Mayor Evelyn

Hart said, and developers backed off on a hotel planned for Newport

Dunes because it was so divisive.

“I see some very hard lines coming down on the way people feel

about what they want around their bay front in Newport Beach, and

everyone knows there’s potential for three if not four more hotels

being planned for the bay,” said Hart, who identifies herself as an

opponent of Measure L. “People feel strongly about their own vision

and what should happen.”

Billings hopes the Measure L battle will increase community

involvement rather than rancor in the long run, but that seems

unlikely in light of a lawsuit trying to reverse the election results

if Measure L passes.

Environmental group Stop Polluting Our Newport filed the suit in

September because it said a key environmental report on the project

was misleading.

The lawsuit is particularly appalling to Sutherland, who sees it

as anti-development activists telling people how to vote.

“These are the same people that told Newport residents four years

ago [with the Greenlight initiative] that their vote should count,”

he said. “Now those same people are saying, ‘Vote the way we tell

you, or your vote won’t count.’”

* ALICIA ROBINSON covers business, politics and the environment.

She may be reached at (714) 966-4626 or by e-mail at

alicia.robinson@latimes.com.