COMMUNITY COMMENTARY:General plan update a threat

The Pilot editorial last Sunday, “Has Greenlight run into a red-flag issue?” provides a one-sided and factually incorrect commentary on the Greenlight II Initiative.

The Pilot’s major example of applying the 40,000-square-foot vote-triggering threshold of Greenlight II to individual residential units is just plain wrong. This square-footage building limit is intended for commercial developments, and as stated in the initiative text, specifically applies to residential units only if they are developed as a part of a mixed-use complex [on a commercial site].

After its initial attack on Greenlight II, the Pilot ends the editorial with the phrase: “it appears the rules [of Greenlight II] will not directly hurt homeowners.” So the editorial ends up being much ado about nothing.

We certainly support the freedom of the press that allows the Pilot to continue to editorialize against the Greenlight residents’ group, as it has done since the inception of Greenlight I. However, the editorial should at least use correct facts to justify its attack on Greenlight II and hopefully provide some balance.

The Pilot does not cover the other side of the debate. Much more of a threat to the residents of Newport is the fact that 100% of the homes in the city will be subject to an almost immediate increase in traffic and density if the City Council’s general plan update is approved. This increased traffic will last indefinitely and lower the exclusive character of the city, impacting property values and quality of life of the residents.

A huge threat to the residents omitted by the Pilot is that the update essentially takes away the residents’ “Right to Vote” provided by Greenlight I. Where would we be if the previous waterfront and traffic generating developments proposed by developers and rubber stamped by the pro-development City Council were not turned down by the voters by an average 63% vote?

While the Pilot extols “representative government” it does not acknowledge that the initiative approach is needed because the city government is not representative. The deciding council votes to pass a general plan update that does not meet the voter’s wishes are pro-development appointees who have not received a single vote from the people, yet will vote to set the 20-year future of the city.

While we admire the Pilot and are regular readers, we also recognize that it is against Greenlight and the residents of Newport Beach who support it. But we would hope that it could get its facts straight and provide at least an unbiased description of the concerns on the residents’ side.