Seeking sense and civility in Newport

An open and professional dialogue is clearly the preferred manner in

which to carry forward continued progress and resident participation

in city government. Any serious student of democratic values knows

that personal attacks and demeaning statements only alienate and

frustrate, rather than invite further discussion. Such divisive

tactics chill the ordinary citizen’s right to participate and engage

in meaningful dialogue with city leaders.

When these rights are “chilled” or impeded in any way, city

government becomes unrepresentative and stagnant.

Evidence of these disconnects can be seen in prior city council

meetings when both private residents have been insulted or dressed

down with no opportunity to respond by City Council members. Now,

Homer Bludau, the Newport Beach city manager, has taken that

incivility to a new low in his “Community Commentary” in the July 19

Daily Pilot (“Facts don’t support Greenlight contentions”).

He referred to me as “disingenuous” because we have disagreed in

the past on the logic of an outsourcing plan that had been advocated

by the undersigned. This disagreement between parties is completely

logical and to be expected. What is not to be expected however is for

any city staff member to insult and belittle any private resident for

bringing forth suggestions.

Bludau needs to remember that we voted for our city officials. We

did not however, vote for him. It is clearly his right under the 1st

Amendment to express his opinions in the manner in which he chooses.

However as a city government employee, particularly one who exists on

the tax dollars of the residents he now disparages, his uncivil

discord is most inappropriate.

Several months ago in a Pilot article, Mayor Steve Bromberg made a

personal attack on Greenlight as a group. Shortly thereafter, David

Ellis, a hired political consultant for five sitting city councilmen,

made a personal attack on me. The message is quite clear: the city

councilmen are most interested in listening only to those who agree

with what they are doing. If you don’t, then you better watch out,

because you are going to be subject to verbal barbs, whether in

person, via the news media or at City Council meetings.

Bludau should make note of the manner in which progress can be

made in citizen/government discussions. Recently, a meeting was held

with Senior City Planner Patrick Alford on the proposed Local Coastal

Plan. We were very concerned that it could take away the residents’

right to vote on new major traffic creating developments under the

“Greenlight” law. In a very civil and rational discussion, Alford

assured us that was not the intent, and we mutually agreed upon areas

that needed to be changed. While there was not full agreement on all

matters, there was definite progress without the personal attacks.

This is an example of what we need from city government. Constructive

dialogue is desirable, personal attacks, verbal barbs and

condescending behavior only frustrate the participatory process.

In his article, Bludau claimed I had all the facts wrong and used

some questionable arguments to make his point. The specific of his

“disingenuous” charge is one example. In my July 13 article “Waste to

blame for service cuts,” I had advocated an outsourcing plan for city

services except for our police and fire services. That was what I as

a resident would accept and I am sure would be accepted by the

majority of the residents. It was a sensible approach. Bludau claimed

that I should have advocated that all city services should be

privatized, even though in a previous private conversation with him,

I had explained that wasn’t a plan that the residents would accept.

But that was what he wanted me to do so that nothing would be

accepted. For that disagreement in approach, I was called

“disingenuous.”

As to the claimed incorrect facts, I don’t intend to take on the

entire city staff in an ongoing debate over details. I stand by my

main point “that the city had cut services because of government

waste.” Bludau says the city cut services because he did not have

enough staff to administer the original amount he and the staff had

budgeted before the cut. That proves my point. If Bludau had

outsourced those needed services, he could have spent the funds

wisely without cutting services for the residents as the city did.

The first step in city government and public interaction is the

maintenance of civility. Personal attacks have no place in a

constructive climate. If we all work together on a civil basis, many

problems can be worked out cooperatively.

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Phil Arst is a community activist and a

consultant. Although Arst is a leader of the controlled-growth

Greenlight movement, this commentary represents his personal opinion.