Residents need to vote on City Hall

In an op-ed piece he wrote for this newspaper last Monday, Newport Beach City Councilman Keith Curry began with this: “The location of City Hall is an issue that has needlessly divided our community like no other” (“Unite and move forward now on City Hall,” July 29).

Let’s dissect that statement for a second.

The community may indeed be divided, that’s true, but like “no other” may be a stretch. We can think of a number of other issues that have roiled the community just as much if not more. Can anyone say Greenlight?

And we also quarrel with the idea that this is a “needless” exercise. The location of a new City Hall is a big, important step for Newport Beach, and where to put that facility is certainly a question and debate for all of the city to have. In fact, we’d say rather than being “needless,” this has been a much-needed discussion.

Curry’s main point, though, is that his favored plan for where to put City Hall is better than others being postulated.

Curry and fellow Councilman Ed Selich are pitching the idea that City Hall should be constructed on the Orange County Transportation Authority bus facility north of San Miguel Road and Avocado Avenue.

That plan, they say, is better than the other plan being floated by noted Newport Beach architect and business leader Bill Ficker.

Ficker rankled several feathers with his plan that calls for City Hall to be built on three or so acres of a 12-plus acre swath of land just south of the transportation authority’s property and adjacent to the current Newport Beach Central Library.

The problem with Ficker’s plan, Selich, Curry and others say, is that space has been forever promised as parkland by this and previous city councils. So the council majority, led by Selich and Curry, has given little attention to Ficker or his plans.

Ficker decided to ask the residents of Newport Beach what they thought, and he is now out gathering signatures to put his plan on the ballot in a special election this February.

Now as Curry, Selich and the rest of the council majority is faced with that upcoming specter, we have a suggestion.

Put both plans to a vote.

If the community is “divided,” as Curry says, then let the voters have their say. Put the transportation authority site plan and Ficker’s plan on the ballot for the February election, and let both sides make their case why one plan is better than the other.

What the Council will say is this is ballot-box planning and takes the decision-making away from the elected leaders.

We agree it is not the best course. In fact, we opposed Greenlight in 2000 on that basis. But we’d argue that’s going to happen and has with Greenlight, anyway.

And we doubt Ficker, a noted yachtsman, would have any problem with a little competition.

What do you say City Council?