Greenlighters do not speak for everyone

Susan Taylor

Q: When does Greenlight become a red light?

A: When it tries to bring everything in Newport to a screeching

halt!

Just as witnesses to a car crash can have very different

recollections of what happened, Dolores Otting (in her Watchdog

column in the Daily Pilot Forum of April 17) and I are at odds about

the April 2 town hall meeting regarding the proposal to rebuild or

remodel City Hall.

As a long-time resident of Newport who has followed the project

closely over the past year, I feel it is important to set the record

straight.

At the start of the meeting, Homer Bludau, our city manager, and

Roger Torriero of Griffin Structures, the presenter, clearly stated

that the purpose of the meeting was to seek residents’ input on the

various proposals now under consideration. Someone suggested that a

poll be taken to determine how many of those present wanted a new

City Hall.

Bludau clarified that the City Council has addressed the dire need

for more space in numerous public meetings over the last two or three

years. Griffin Structures, a consulting firm with significant

expertise in the construction and renovation of public facilities,

was hired to conduct a study of the city’s need for administrative

offices, public meeting space, a seismically-safe fire station, and

additional staff and visitor parking. The completed study indeed

showed a pressing need for more office space to enable the staff to

provide the high level of municipal services Newport residents

demand, a safe new fire station, and additional parking for the 3,500

people that visit City Hall each day.

Based on the findings of the study, the City Council had directed

staff and the contractor to hold a series of public meetings to get

residents’ views on the proposed solutions to the space problems.

Bludau stated that if any of those present wanted to challenge the

City Council’s actions to date on this matter, the appropriate forum

would be the City Council meetings -- not this meeting.

A few people, realizing that the meeting agenda would not be

altered to suit their desires to vent their opposition to any changes

whatsoever, left the meeting.

I disagree that this equated to “people being told that if they

did not like it, they could leave.” It was simply a clarification of

the agenda that enabled a meeting with a hundred participants to

continue expeditiously, offering as many people as possible a chance

to voice their opinions.

From the very start, several members of the Greenlight faction

tried to monopolize the discussion. It appeared that the

Greenlighters felt they had a mandate to represent all the residents

of Newport. But I’ve lived in Newport for many years and Greenlight

has never solicited my opinions on anything -- and they surely do not

represent me with their endless naysaying and sniping.

It’s sad that a group founded on good intentions now seems to

exist primarily to oppose every attempt by the Council to maintain

and improve the quality of life in Newport. I believe we are

fortunate to live in a remarkable city and that problems are better

solved by an honest discussion of the facts than by shouting “No!” as

the answer to every question.

Other would-be participants in the meeting began to speak up in

frustration, telling the Greenlighters to give others a chance to

speak -- at which point some of the Greenlighters left in a huff.

Torriero and architect Rick D’Amato continued the meeting,

summarizing the basic courses of action open to the city. They showed

several options for combining some of the existing structures that

now comprise City Hall with new structures, as well as options for

complete replacement of the existing structures.

As Otting noted in her column on Sunday, there was no “plain

vanilla choice of just a remodel option.” I thought the reason for

this omission was self evident. There is simply no way to just

“remodel” the existing buildings, which have an area of 40,000 square

feet, into the efficient 62,000-square-foot facility we desperately

need.

One square foot of space is one square foot of space -- no matter

how it is reorganized, repainted or refurbished. There is no way to

just “remodel” a 50-year-old, falling-down fire station to make room

for a second huge fire truck and today’s fire-fighting equipment and

the paramedics and expanded staff we rely on to keep us safe.

As anyone who has ever remodeled a home knows, remodeling always

costs more and takes longer than anticipated. Otting questioned the

need for a parking structure and asked what is wrong with the 400

parking spaces that now exist. Probably nothing, if you can find one.

However, with an average of 3,500 visitors to City Hall every day and

nearly 200 employees, there is a tremendous parking problem.

As instructed by the City Council, the presenters summarized the

audience feedback from the first town hall meeting. Torriero made it

very clear that these responses were not very useful, since only 12

people were at the first meeting and not all of them had responded to

the questionnaire they were given.

Otting stated, “In the end, we saw what four residents at the

previous meeting voted for. We were told that this would be what we

all want.” Could anyone really believe that the entire planning

process would be reduced to that smallest common denominator? Sure,

we were shown the results from the first meeting, but we also saw a

broader range of options and had an opportunity to discuss them.

Critics of the project have jumped ahead of the facts and cited

potential costs for the City Hall -- at first $20 million, then $40

million and then $60 million -- ignoring the fact that there is no

cost estimate and there cannot be a cost estimate for building or

remodeling plans which do not yet exist, except in the most

preliminary sense.

I find this every bit as irresponsible as their charge that City

Council members are looking to build a “Taj Majal” or some sort of

monument to their egos. Greenlight does not have a monopoly on

concern for fiscal responsibility. On the contrary, one of the

reasons Newport Beach is such an affluent community is that our

residents have a very good understanding of fiscal management. Our

City Council members are certainly astute enough to know that the

residents hold them accountable for the city’s finances, and to act

accordingly.

In closing, Otting bemoaned the fact that this project is exempt

from the Greenlight law and suggests that this somehow violates

democratic principles and mutes voices of opposition. However, this

conveniently overlooks the fact that we have a representative

democracy because it is commonly understood that the public business

cannot be conducted expeditiously in large group settings.

We exercise our rights and offer our opinions when we elect our

representatives and charge them with the thoughtful and fair conduct

of our affairs. I think the fact that the vast majority of Newport

Beach residents have chosen to let the City Council handle this

project in the normal course of city business is a measure of their

confidence in the council.

Our City Council has acted responsibly by acknowledging the need

for expanded facilities, carefully and clearly assessing the city’s

current and future needs, and exploring various ways of meeting those

needs. Now it is our turn to engage in rational and respectful

discourse, carefully consider the alternatives, and then move forward

with the solution.

While discussing plans for another government building, Winston

Churchill noted that “We shape our buildings; thereafter, they shape

us.” We now have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to use our shared wisdom

and common sense to shape the heart of our city to reflect its

beauty, strength and unique character. Let’s do it!

* SUSAN TAYLOR is a Newport Beach resident.