READERS RESPOND

AT ISSUE: A proposal to make the city’s Traffic Phasing Ordinance a

part of the City Charter.

As a former planning commissioner, I was intrigued with the so-called

Greenlight Initiative. In fact, I even signed the petition to place it on

the ballot. Then I read the fine print. Wow! This is a Trojan Horse if

ever there was one.

Greenlight would have all of us voting on most of the General Plan

changes in the city. I cannot imagine that. Are Greenlight supporters

saying that we keep voting all year to process these General Plan

requests? Alternatively, are they saying that they want the city to hold

up these requests so we can vote on them during each general election? In

either case, I cannot imagine the voters plowing through massive

environmental impact reports to enable them to cast informed votes.

Whatever happened to representative government?

The Traffic Phasing Ordinance has served quite well, thank you, and

that is what we should stick with.

JOAN WINBURN

Newport Beach

I am writing in response to the article, “TPO Measure: more choices,

more confusion,” April 19.

Citizens for Traffic Solutions was formed because we strongly believe

in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and we believe it is a much better

policy to control traffic and fund improvements than the Greenlight

initiative. We’re putting it on the ballot as an alternative to

Greenlight -- so people can learn about it and decide for themselves if

it is a better proposal.

In that same article this paper misstated the reason why the law was

amended in 1999. The ordinance was amended to comply with recent Supreme

Court decisions that would have made the law as it was written

unconstitutional and unenforceable. Our city (and taxpayers) risked the

complete invalidation of the ordinance (with huge potential costs to

taxpayers) if we had not revised it to make it “proportional” -- meaning

developers pay their share of needed road improvements. These amendments

have therefore made the ordinance legally enforceable.

The ordinance is the toughest traffic ordinance in Orange County. The

Greenlight initiative will not raise one dime for traffic improvements

and our traffic woes will just grow worse. Regional traffic will continue

to increase regardless of whether one more store is built in Newport

Beach. Without funds from the ordinance to pay for future improvements,

our city will suffer.

CLARENCE TURNER

Co-Chair, Citizens for Traffic Solutions

Former mayor of Newport Beach

Newport Beach voters should celebrate the news that a sound

alternative to the Greenlight initiative is now headed for the November

2000 ballot.

As a business community advisor, I worked for months with community

activists on the reform program for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance that is

now on the city’s books. The new initiative announced last week would

protect the core values of the reformed ordinance by embedding the text

in the City Charter, subject to change only by a vote of the people.

That’s good insurance.

Whatever one thinks about the Greenlight initiative, it’s clear that

measure was drafted by insiders behind closed doors, and was never

subject to any environmental impact report or field testing. That’s why

Greenlight frightens small business owners worried about their property

rights and future well being. I don’t share the Daily Pilot headline

last week that voters will be confused by two measures in November.

Newport Beach voters should be confused by Greenlight. If they want to

protect the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and ensure that property owners pay

their fair share for traffic improvements, they will reject Greenlight

and support the new Citizens for Traffic Solutions Committee measure.

Voters here do not want more elections. They do want firm controls on

traffic, tough performance standards and fair share funding of

improvements.

PHILIP F. BETTENCOURT

Newport Beach