In Newport, parking seems more likely than driving forward

TONY DODERO

I got an e-mail this week from a Greenlight leader, who I will not

name, who accused us of badly misreading the electorate on Measure L,

the city initiative that would have rezoned the city-owned Marinapark

property to allow the construction of a hotel on land that is now

home to a mobile-home park.

Hear that folks? The vote in essence preserves a mobile-home park

on city-owned beaches, not a park that the Measure L opponents kept

referring to as they fallaciously and successfully pulled the wool

over the public’s eyes. The park is yet to be built.

But hey, enough of that, let’s get back to our alleged misread of

the public.

As I told the anti-growth e-mailer, we did not read the public

wrong at all.

We knew the anti-growth forces would whip up the voters into an

emotional frenzy, ignore the facts and instead concentrate on

trifling issues and ways to smear the developer.

In fact we even predicted as much when Greenlight successfully

pushed through Measure S, the city initiative that calls for votes on

land-use issues, back in 2000. Here’s an excerpt from our editorial

that ran right before that vote:

“Greenlight would render useless our representative government’s

role of giving careful study to development plans and seeking

compromises and consensus from builders. Instead, the fate of those

projects -- good or bad -- could be subjected to the emotional whims

of an electorate that won’t have the time to weigh important and

practical planning matters against the impulse of stopping all growth

in its tracks. We worry about that, too. We worry that the public has

such low opinion of developers that it would be unlikely a project as

controversial as the Dunes hotel, for example, could ever get the

fair hearing it deserves.”

This election proves that point. Greenlight-friendly candidates

like John Buttolph and Dolores Otting, Alan Beek, Richard Taylor and

Madeline Arakelian continue to lose at the polls, but any project

with the word development in it gets skewered.

It’s a weird dichotomy. The electorate keeps putting people in

office to represent their views and then shuts down those

representatives through the Greenlight-mandated public vote on

development.

I can’t figure that one out. But here’s another prediction. Ten

years from now, the land at Marinapark will still be home to a

mobile-home park.

I just don’t see the residents nor the city with the will to reach

in their pocketbooks and turn that mobile-home park into an actual

park that people can use, which it really isn’t now.

I hope I’m wrong, but city history backs me up.

Back when I was making a living as a reporter, I covered the story

some 12 years ago of the Castaways development. At that time, the

Irvine Co. was making its pitch to develop the last vestiges of open

space it owned in Newport Beach.

Problem was, the land to be developed ringed the Back Bay and

consisted of such sentimental sites as the Castaways, the bluff-top

land on the west end of the bay along Dover Drive, and Newporter

North, a chunk of environmentally sensitive property on the opposite

of the bay, just across the street from the Police Department.

Then Councilwoman Jean Watt, who has always been a class act in

these fights and has my utmost respect, joined with others like Beek,

whom I also deeply respect, to form what was then known as the

Newport Conservancy.

The conservancy’s noble goal was to preserve that land in its

entirety. But to do so, the Irvine Co. said it had to be purchased at

fair market value.

At one point, the land had been appraised at $80 million. But the

early 1990s recession helped drag the price tag down to $68 million.

In an act of good faith, the Irvine Co. even shaved off $10 million

to offer the property for $58 million.

The only thing left was to convince the voters to purchase the

property. To do so, an initiative was floated by the conservancy,

Measure A, which if passed would place an assessment on property

owners’ tax bills to pay for the purchase.

For a price of about $120 a year for most homeowners, the

conservancy would buy the land and maintain it as open space. The

cost was more for most business owners, particularly the Irvine Co.,

the largest landowner in town.

Still, I remember there was lots of momentum to pull off this

purchase with merchants all over town donating money to the

conservancy’s efforts and respected council members Clarence Turner

and Evelyn Hart lining up to support the cause.

In fact, pay a visit to the Hard Rock Cafe at Fashion Island and

you will see a fountain with a plaque that says the money tossed in

there would be donated to the Newport Conservancy.

Here are some excerpts from a story I wrote in 1993:

“With the purchase price still being haggled out, conservancy

members have mapped out plans for walking trails, baseball and soccer

fields, habitat restoration and areas for kite and radio controlled

glider flying on the parcels.... Under the conservancy plans, the

more ecologically sensitive, 77-acre Newporter North site will remain

largely undeveloped. The plans call for walking trails, reforestation

of native plants, habitat restoration and viewing sites for that

property, which lies at the east end of the Back Bay just to the

north of the Newport Dunes.... The 56-acre Upper Castaways will have

a different fate, though. Sitting near the corner of Dover Drive and

Coast Highway, conservancy members believe this bluff top parcel can

be tailored to fit the recreational needs of Newport Beach residents.

‘Castaways will be mostly usable for people things,’ Jean Watt said.

‘I can see continuing to use it for the Boy Scout Camporee every year

for instance.’ ”

Do all those promises of park land sound familiar?

Despite all the momentum and support for Measure A, the result,

dear readers, was not a good one.

Measure A was trounced at the polls in November of 1993 with 65%

voting no and 35% voting yes.

There simply was no will on the part of the voters to pay for

parkland. Instead, the Irvine Co. went forward with its plans to

develop homes on the Castaways and Newporter North properties and the

rest is history.

Is Marinapark different? I doubt it. The city seems to only have

enough money to pay for basic services, much less a park.

Developing a park will mean going to voters again, and we saw how

that ended up.

What we said in our editorials about Marinapark was to take a

stand for reason and fairness, much like we did in 2000, knowing that

the voters might not want to hear what we had to say.

We just hoped that they would look at the facts and determine if

the land should be built out as a hotel or turned into a park. And we

accept that the voters said no to a hotel.

Now, the anti-growth people have their work cut out for them. They

are promising a park on that land and think they can convince the

voters to build it.

We’ll be watching to see just how well the anti-growth folks read

the electorate on that one.