READERS RESPOND

The statement by John W. Nelson that the Greenlight II initiative is “intended to stop any and all growth” and is a “no-growth group” is simply untrue (Mailbag, April 16, “Greenlight II all about getting their own”). Nelson is engaging in the same kind of “dishonesty, sophistry and disingenuous discourse” that he accuses others of doing.

The Greenlight II initiative provides for a public vote on “major developments” ? not all developments, as Nelson writes. Under the guidelines of Greenlight II, a major development is defined as a discretionary development proposal that exceeds 100 dwelling units, 40,000 square feet of commercial building space or any project that increases traffic by more than 100 additional peak-hour trips. These parameters are hardly no-growth, but the initiative does provide the residents of Newport Beach with the opportunity to vote on large, traffic-generating projects.

The residents have a right to be concerned about the new general plan update that is now being considered by the Newport Beach planning commission and City Council. According to the notice of preparation for the environmental report issued in January 2006, the proposed general plan update will add more than 15,000 new residential units to the city, creating nearly 200,000 car trips from about 30,000 new residents to the city, which now has a population of about 80,000 people. That’s a population increase of about 37%.

Do we want such large growth? Can we afford such an increase in population and traffic? Can we accommodate such an increase?

Greenlight II simply gives the people of Newport Beach the power to vote and decide their destiny ? as far as density, intensity, and traffic is concerned. If they want a low-density city with relatively low traffic, they will vote for Greenlight II. If they want a high-density city with traffic-snarled roads, they can vote against Greenlight II.

JAN VANDERSLOOT

Newport Beach

He’s back! Mr. Hyperbole (a.k.a. John W. Nelson) is on the warpath ? with thesaurus in hand, but no facts. Now Greenlight II is “fiendishly deceptive and a menace.” Newporters For Responsible Government is “another anti-progress organization ? trying to remove a funding mechanism allowed under state law.” Greenlight’s “xenophobic thinking is selfish and corruptive of the spirit.”

What nonsense!

Wild charges with no facts serve little constructive purpose in this debate. Greenlight II is certainly not no growth. It has generous exclusions for infrastructure and essential service facilities. Traffic is a problem and the general plan update will add as much as 190,000 average daily auto trips to our streets. Newporters for Responsible Government is not attempting to remove a funding mechanism (certificates of participation) that has no purpose other than to avoid a charter- required vote on bond issues. It is just trying to hold the city accountable for major capital expenditure projects by blocking their end run.

In response to Nelson’s theoretical question, I did move my family to New- port Beach some 35 years ago, and the control of growth and development were a central issues then. I’ve spent the more than three decades since that time watching a succession of courageous, intelligent and hard-working people wage a continuous and mostly successful struggle against constant development pressures. Thank God for their foresight and energy. What he and I have today is in no small measure the result of these unselfish efforts.

Nelson is right on one thing though. Newport Beach is today “one of the premier beach communities in the state,” but it certainly didn’t get there by rubber-stamping every development proposal in the last 35 years.

JOSEPH F. O’HORA

Newport Beach