ON THE TOWN:Newport council’s policy flip is far from a flop

In a moment consistent with the heightening political season, the Newport Beach City Council has decided to reopen the options for the vacant land near the library at MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road.

A council majority had voted to devote the space to just a park, declaring that it needed to keep a long-ago promise to residents to do just that.

The alternative was to put both a park and a new city hall on the spot, using a design that would have made the new building more of a bunker than a low-rise. It sounds strange, but the idea had merit.

The reason for reopening the discussion has caused some controversy and some finger-pointing, but that is not unusual as this has been an emotional issue from the start.

To some, the council’s recent decision is a flip-flop, the term politicians use whenever they want to accuse their opponent of shifting with the prevailing polling results.

It is therefore interesting to note that the Republican presidential candidate who has raised the most money, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is perhaps the candidate who vacillates the most.

Frankly, I don’t buy Romney’s explanations for his change of position on gay rights and abortion, among others. It’s not that I agree or disagree with his old or new positions, it’s just that his reasons for changing his mind are scary.

For Romney, it’s as though he had a series of “A-ha!” moments on each of these controversial topics that gave him the personal freedom to change his mind.

Most people change their mind based on new information. One of the tactics of a good salesperson, for example, will be to try to get someone to change their “no” buying decision to “yes” based on some change in the benefits of the product or a change in the offer.

In Romney’s case, what he learned wasn’t new. It just seems to me that he was looking for the right reason to change his mind because it was politically expedient.

In the case of the Newport Beach City Council members, they had every right to change their minds, for they did receive new evidence that Debra Allen’s home was a little too close to the park for everyone to feel comfortable.

Count me as one of those who are very happy that the City Council is taking a second look at this opportunity. I thought the majority’s original explanation of wanting to keep a promise the city made a few years ago was very shortsighted.

As I wrote at the time, things change, and it is the duty of the members of the City Council to make the necessary adjustments. These new decisions will never make everyone happy, but they must make these decisions for the greater good. And if that greater-good decision means that there will be a city hall and a park on what was supposed to be just a park, so be it.

This is not a flip-flop. This is a sound, reasonable decision made on the basis of important new information.

My bias is well-known. I believe the park land to be an excellent location for a new city hall, even one with a playground and grass on the roof.

Three cheers to Daily Pilot columnist Joe Bell for his recent column on the discrimination of gays and lesbians.

In case you missed it, Bell wrote, “ … discriminating at any level against the rights and the humanity of gay people is quite simply spiritually, ethically and democratically wrong.”

Despite what many believe, homosexuality is not a choice. What it is for many men and women is prison — living in fear of being discovered, even with the great strides this country has made toward acceptance.

Bell’s column was a timely reminder.