Council can do its job

Once again, it appears Newport Beach is heading inextricably toward a

divisive, citywide vote on an issue that clearly is a City Council

matter. This time the debate will be about the proposed city hall and

civic center. Earlier ones involved a proposed hotel at Marinapark

and an expansion of the Koll Center. All can be traced back to the

Greenlight vote in 2000.

Opponents of the city hall plan, which estimates say will cost the

city between $3 million and $4 million a year for 30 years, argue any

such great expense ought to go to a vote of the people. The city,

however, is planning to finance the cost via certificates of

participation, which are not a bond and will not raise residents’

taxes. By city law, the council does not need to put the decision to

a vote.

The divide is pretty obvious and pretty wide. City leaders say

they can handle the annual cost easily as part of the city’s budget

and that a new city hall is desperately needed. Opponents question

both claims and say they soon will begin collecting signatures to put

the issue on the ballot. If they succeed, there will be another

costly vote, a campaign filled with empty arguments and ill will, and

the losers are going to be the residents of Newport Beach.

Make no mistake. Newport Beach residents have ended up the

unfortunate pawn in political battles during the previous votes, and

there is no reason to expect any different if there is an initiative

next year to force any city borrowing greater than $3 million to the

ballot. It will allow a small group of residents to hype fear and

doomsday scenarios in an effort to get their say since they have been

unable to do so by getting dedicated and loyal members onto the

council.

However, that should be their goal. If residents don’t like how

their city is being run, they should run strong candidates against

the sitting council members. That is how we make political change in

America, though increasingly “ballot-box legislation” is becoming the

quicker and easier method, particularly in California. Here in

Newport Beach, we shouldn’t have to stoop to quick and easy methods

-- doing so ruins the credibility of such votes when they truly are

needed, in the old “boy who cried wolf” way.

In this instance, there is no reason to cry wolf. The City Council

members are doing what voters elected them to do -- decide what they

believe is in the best interest of the city and its people. If they

-- yes, there are two members who were appointed by their colleagues

-- decide the new city hall and accompanying fire station are needed,

voters should trust their judgment. After all, they voted for them.

If they don’t like the decision, they should vote for someone else

next time.