At Newport City Council, it’s time to go to church

Flip forward a few pages (not yet -- when you’re done reading) and

you’ll find a host of letters and phone call transcripts on our Forum

page about the expansion plans for St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church.

And those are just the tip of a huge outpouring of response to

questions the paper has asked the past couple of days about St.

Andrew’s.

We’ve easily had 200 e-mails, calls or letters in the past few

days. We haven’t had enough room to run them all, but we’ll be in

great shape if the Newport Beach City Council postpones a decision

tonight.

A lot of the letters are a version of either of the following:

“I want to express my support for St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church

and their expansion. I hope the Newport Beach City Council votes in

favor of expansion. It will not only be a blessing to our church

community, but the greater community in general.”

Or:

“The Newport Beach City Council should vote no on the St. Andrew’s

expansion and amendment to change the general plan.”

Many, many more are lengthy, thoughtful arguments from both sides

of the issue.

It’s still to be seen whether tonight’s meeting -- happening at 6

p.m. at Newport Beach City Hall -- will maintain that thoughtful tone

or will turn into a shouting, name-calling exercise in democracy.

There are a few quick things notable about the responses.

The tide as of Wednesday afternoon had turned to the

“pro-expansion” crowd, having picked up steam as the day went on. In

all honesty, with the late influx, the numbers are running in favor

of the church’s side.

And of course there are only “yes” messages from outside the city.

Anyone writing in from Costa Mesa, Irvine, Corona or Huntington Beach

is a member of the church and supportive of the expansion.

Not all members -- or at least writers who say they attend St.

Andrew’s -- are for the expansion, however.

The reasons given by the various writers are the ones we’ve all

been reading: The church is expanding for the sake of young people,

or it’s already too much a burden on the neighbors.

These are well-represented on today’s Forum page. A few new themes

in the past days are:

* Pointing out that the neighbors are not squeamish about

expanding their homes.

* Suggesting that since the division seems to be so close, the

council should vote no because there will be so much ill will.

* Worry about whether the council’s decision will end up setting a

precedent that other churches will attempt to follow.

* Suggesting the church use its money on its many programs instead

of the expansion.

* Comparisons of the proposed underground parking to the parking

at Triangle Square.

There obviously is an organized effort on both sides to send us

messages.

What’s pleasant to report is that the messages, while perhaps

carrying the same ideas, do seem to be original to each writer,

unlike “Astroturf” -- which is false grass-roots campaigning that

deluges the media with identical messages. (One of these that came to

the Daily Pilot on Monday began: “Dear Daily Pilot: Gas prices are up

-- to almost $3 a gallon. Demand for oil is up. Americans are dying

in Iraq, and dependence on Persian Gulf oil is up.

Even the President agrees climate change is a growing concern.

Instead of addressing these problems head on, the energy bill just

signed into law by the President displays an abject failure of

leadership.” No way we can see through that, right?)

So, what can we glean from these letters and calls?

First, a packed City Hall tonight. Get there early if you want

parking.

Second, a nervous City Council. They might argue this point, but

if they aren’t nervous when faced with such a big, important

decision, they aren’t in the right line of work.

Finally, a decision.

There is such a swelling of opinion, so much pressing about the

issue, that tonight is the night -- not that there’s any indication

the council will try to call a time out.

It’s simply that everyone is ready.

Now, we just have to see what it is we’re waiting for.

* S.J. CAHN is the managing editor. He may be reached at (714)

966-4607 or by e-mail at o7s.j.cahn@latimes.comf7.