Mailbag: Undergrounding proponents don’t tell the whole story

The signature-gathering phase of the undergrounding petitions in Assessment District 114 and 118 — both Newport Heights areas — is coming to a close.

The opposition, unable to counter-petition the proponents of utility-line undergrounding, has gone about documenting opposition to these petitions with the goal of demonstrating to Newport Beach that proponents do not have sufficient support to justify spending $400,000 per district for feasibility studies, determining each parcel owner’s assessment and conducting an election.

To this end, the opposition in district 114 has gathered signatures through door-to-door canvassing, online sign-up via NoUndergrounding.com, and a general meeting convened April 2 at the home of an organizer.

In the course of canvassing, we have had many one-on-one conversations, and one question we always ask is whether the person has signed anything prior to our soliciting a signature. If the answer is yes, we urge the person to rescind his or her signature. We have had some success in this effort.

What we have learned from these conversations, and what should be of concern to the city, is that canvassers for the proponents of undergrounding could be using deceptive means in presenting the case for undergrounding.

We have been informed that people are being told that they are signing up for information rather than indicating support for undergrounding.

Should deceitful tactics be fully exposed, they would become a major issue for the inevitably nasty campaign that would follow any certification and consequent election.

Spend $400,000 here and $400,000 there, and pretty soon, at the municipal level at least, we are talking about real money.

Lynda Adams

Newport Heights

*

City isn’t hearing true feelings of majority

I had thought from time to time of the existence of lines and poles in the Newport Heights neighborhoods. At first I thought of them as a nuisance, but as time passed, I learned to accept them as part of the uniqueness and charm of the neighborhood.

When I attended a general meeting in January in my Heights neighborhood, I was ambivalent. What did concern me was that the proposed action appeared to be championed by a minority of vocal people, while it appeared that the vast majority at the meeting seemed to feel like once City Hall got involved, it was a done deal.

In other words, I do not think that the true feelings of the audience were represented at that meeting. Perhaps there should have been an attempt at the meeting to solicit written opinions from those in attendance, especially for a proposal that could end up costing them thousands of dollars.

To my knowledge, the city has not made an attempt to objectively seek the opinions of the residents in Newport Heights. Please correct me if I am wrong.

As time wore on, I began to think of the elderly lady who sat beside me at the meeting who did not raise her hand in favor of the proposal. As I drove up and down the streets of the Heights, I wondered how many people felt like that lady, who confided in me that she was not able to afford such an expense.

I randomly counted the number of large homes in the Height’s area. While new ones are continually being built, it appears that a majority of the houses are still modest in comparison. Thus, to many people in the Heights, $25,000 might be a lot of money. Are those people being represented by the city?

Should the city become involved and take sides in a costly improvement that is most surely being championed by a vocal minority? I got the feeling that this was the case when very ambiguous postcards were sent out by the city. I did not return mine because it totally confused me.

By the way, I believe that the $25,000 figure is very low, knowing that the cost of modernizing an older home is often underestimated.

I can afford the improvement but I have begun to resent the fact that a vocal minority is in favor of making costly decisions that will affect the majority.

I would like to believe that the council members would objectively represent the views of the majority of the citizens in the Heights neighborhood and that they would not spend city and resident dollars pursuing a goal that does not speak for the majority.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Heights

*

*

Don’t criticize councilman for keeping promises

I fear that Barbara Venezia’s June 26 column, “Rehab home comments seem out of order,” suggests that it is appropriate for local government representatives to keep their mouths shut and not raise issues of wasteful local government spending.

By concluding that Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter had an inappropriately big mouth by discussing the millions spent by the city in a legal settlement, Venezia suggests that we should condone secrecy regarding taxpayers’ money.

Peotter, along with several other members of the City Council, were elected based on promises of local government transparency. Now, Peotter is criticized for following through as promised.

The Brown Act was signed into law in California to promote local government transparency, to enlighten public understanding and to curb misuse of the democratic process through secret conduct by public bodies like the Newport City Council. While there are narrow and limited exceptions, discussion of the millions of dollars spent by Newport Beach to resolve past claims is not such an exception.

I commend Peotter and those on the council who we elected based on their promises of government transparency. They should not be criticized unfairly for following through on those promises.

Randy Curry

Newport Beach

*