Venezia: Rehab home comments seem out of order

There’s an old saying, “Loose lips sink ships.”

The phrase was created by the U.S. War Advertising Council during World War II. It was used on posters by our government as a way to advise military service members and other citizens to avoid careless talk concerning secure information that could be used by the enemy.

Basically, it warned of oversharing, something we all do a bit of in this day and age on social media and YouTube.

But did Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter overshare while speaking to the Newport-Mesa Tea Party recently about Newport’s $8.5 million legal settlement with a rehabilitation home operator?

This came to my attention last Friday as a link to Peotter’s speech to the tea party group appeared on the Costa Mesa Public Square Facebook page.

The YouTube video of Peotter’s 22-minute speech was making the rounds when some started questioning the appropriateness of revealing what seems to be a settlement agreement discussed in a closed City Council session.

In the video, Peotter claims that Newport has “literally spent close to $10 million on lawsuits,” including fees and settlements.

He goes on to explain the overall issue of rehab home proliferation — that rehab homes are troublesome neighbors and that addicts are deemed disabled by the state and therefore cannot be discriminated against.

Peotter shared a dramatic story of one rehab operator trying to skirt Newport’s rehab home ordinance by taking a triplex, which should have housed six people, and placing “18 young male felons in one building.”

He described the inhabitants as “sitting on a porch, wasting the day away, swearing, smoking cigarettes, and your 3-year-old is listening to all of this.”

OK, so no one wants to live next to rehab homes. I get it, and when Newport clamped down, many of the businesses went to Costa Mesa.

Peotter went on to tell his audience that the city lost a particular case and, rather than appeal to a higher court and risk the entire city ordinance being deemed illegal, it made an out-of-court settlement to the tune of about $8.5 million.

The settlement, by the way, is not covered by the city’s insurance, he said.

So did Peotter speak out of turn and reveal closed-session information about the settlement?

Newport City Attorney Aaron Harp declined to comment.

But on the city’s site I found its “Social Media Policy,” which clearly says city representatives shall not convey information regarding “attorney-client privilege or records concerning pending litigation.”

Interestingly, when I went to look at the video again on Monday, it had been removed from YouTube and was no longer on Costa Mesa Public Square’s Facebook page.

But we’re talking about the Internet. Nothing really goes away.

Copies of Peotter’s original segment are again making the rounds.

And by Wednesday, an edited version was on YouTube – only 16 minutes this time.

What if this settlement agreement is still pending and not quite a done deal?

Disclosing it could undermine the city’s negotiating position, creating more liability for taxpayers.

Watching the video, I cringed, not only when Peotter talked about the settlement but also when he started talking about what happened when Newport supposedly called the state for help with the rehab home proliferation issue.

“We go to them and say we have a problem,” he told the audience. “Newport Beach has a problem? [He laughs.] It’s about time you guys have your share of this. There is no sympathy in the Democratic-controlled Sacramento.”

I’ve written about the rehab issue on many occasions, and when calling the California alcohol and drug programs and other state agencies for information, I can say they’re not flippant in their responses. They take this stuff seriously.

Peotter didn’t return my email with questions about all of this.

So now he stops talking?

I guess those “loose lips” are tired from all the talking they did at the Tea Party gig.

BARBARA VENEZIA lives in Newport Beach. She can be reached at [email protected].