BYRON DE ARAKAL -- Between the Lines

Something’s up in Costa Mesa. In poker circles, they call it deck

stacking. In medieval Europe, it was known as feudalism, the practice of

vassals building fiefdoms populated by serfs, over whom the vassals held

complete authority. In either case, the idea was to amass as much control

as possible over, say, a card game or a kingdom to assure some reality

favorable to the agenda of the deck stacker or the kingdom builder.

Which is what I believe we have going on with the Costa Mesa City

Council’s curious and troubling tinkering with the city’s Planning

Commission.

Here’s what we know. In recent weeks, Mayor Libby Cowan -- with

Councilwomen Linda Dixon and Karen Robinson in tow -- has led the charge

to unceremoniously show the door to the current slate of planning

commissioners: Walt Davenport, Tom Sutro, Katrina Foley and Katie Wilson.

Never mind that some of these able and dedicated volunteers have

considerable time remaining in their terms or that the machinery of city

government has been fired up to craft a new ordinance to make this

massacre legal.

What’s particularly bothersome is that this pink-slip parade kicks off

an unabashed power grab by the City Council to transform the current

Planning Commission from an independent, deliberative body -- one that’s

presumably guided by the spirit and letter of ordinance -- into a

collection of rubber-stamping “yes” men (and women) vulnerable to the

riptides of politics.

As it stands now, planning commissioners are appointed to four-year

terms by a majority vote of the City Council. It’s a sound and wise

process for two important reasons. First, an appointment by City Council

majority signals -- both in reality and symbolically -- that a planning

commissioner has been vested with the authority to make crucial planning

and development decisions on behalf of a majority of the city’s

residents. Second, majority consent insulates a commission appointment

from the peculiar political interests and agenda of any single council

member.

But, apparently, that’s too much representative democracy for Cowan,

Dixon and Robinson to stomach. They’re backing a plan that allows each

council member to appoint one member to the Planning Commission. No

debate. No public comment. No vote. And there’s been some inside

speculation that these commissioners would remain behind the dais for the

length of time the council member who appointed them remains on the City

Council, or until such a time a majority of the council votes to give

them the boot.

The real and present danger in cobbling together planning commissions

by appointment without majority approval of the council is the creation

of little fiefdoms with peculiar planning and development agendas that

might easily conflict with the peculiar planning and development agendas

of another council member and his or her commission puppet. That’s a

recipe for gridlock, political infighting and bad planning.

If Cowan, Dixon and Robinson want to appoint a Planning Commission

candidate, that’s fine. But whether that candidate is actually seated on

the Planning Commission must remain a function of a full City Council

vote. And they should serve a four-year term.

Given that, it would be the wiser move for the City Council to halt

its careening and ill-advised juggernaut to pen a new ordinance to unseat

the current commission midterm. It sets a troubling precedent that may

well encourage the capricious re-engineering of city commissions whenever

it suits the purposes of the City Council.

This Greenlight may mean stop

The head-scratching and shoulder-shrugging episodes plaguing the

Newport Beach City Council over the “look-back” provisions of the

Greenlight Initiative is fresh evidence that the goofy-worded clause

should have been clarified before the November election.

Greenlight Founding Father Allan Beek told the Daily Pilot the squad

of residents who pushed the initiative’s words together understood that

the provision’s reference to the “preceding 10 years” should have been

changed. But apparently that would have made it more difficult for the

measure’s supporters to collect the requisite signatures to earn a ballot

slot.

A literal interpretation of the look-back provision can only conclude

that certain general plan amendments made as far back as 1990 must be

factored into Greenlight’s threshold for triggering special elections. If

that is the case, development in Newport Beach will nearly halt or the

city’s residents will be visiting a few voting booths in the coming

months and years.

But even Beek agrees that’s in nobody’s interests. And, if the City

Council votes to approve guidelines that mandate the beginning of the

look-back period as the date Greenlight took effect (Dec. 15), you can

expect the more ardent no-growth folks to high-tail it to the nearest

court house.

* BYRON DE ARAKAL is a writer and communications consultant. He lives

in Costa Mesa. His column runs Wednesdays. Readers may reach him with

news tips and comments via e-mail at [email protected].