MAILBAG - May 3, 2006

Greenlight initiative closes a loophole

Once again John W. Nelson seeks to use the Pilot to persuade local voters to vote against their best interests in a diatribe against Greenlight (Mailbag, April 16, “Greenlight II all about getting their own”). Citing no facts, he criticizes supporters with irrelevant personal remarks and colorful unsupported adjectives that fail to inform, much less persuade. Although he claims there is “no room for dishonesty, sophistry or disingenuous discourse ? “ he relies exclusively on this type of advocacy to support his position.

Just listen to a few of his words: “fiendishly deceptive,” “menace,” “false pretense,” “xenophobic thinking,” “selfish and corruptive,” “feed the mindless forces of reaction,” “arrogant message” and (we may become) “the eccentric time capsule of a past era ? because of a ? self imposed cocoon?. “ He only neglected to mention that the sky is falling.

Although the issue is well settled, he plays once again the “no growth” card. The correct phrase is “smart growth” or “representative growth.” Green- light and proposed Greenlight II let the residents vote to approve or disapprove an extremely small percentage of proposed high-impact projects (less than 5%) that amend the general plan after they have been approved by the City Council.

Now, the city is seeking to bypass Greenlight by promoting a new general plan that will welcome new major developments without a vote.

The Greenlight II initiative closes this proposed loophole by applying the law to major developments, not just those that amend the current general plan. It will apply the same standards and continue to affect the same very small number of proposed developments.

Mr. Nelson accuses residents supporting Greenlight of the “I’ve got mine” mentality. Greenlight permits our residents to decide how much is too much. If you like the massive Irvine apartments and condos, or Santa Monica and its density, traffic, parking problems, crowded schools and reduced access to crowded business establishments, then you can vote to approve additional housing for 30,000 new residents and 200,000 daily car trips, as currently proposed. What’s wrong with that?

Greenlight II permits the city and developers to work together to decide on their version of our best course with the knowledge that the voters will occasionally look over their shoulders. It shines a bright light on the rubber stamp mentality of business as usual that could ruin our city the way other cities have and are being ruined.

For example, our city currently has six major congested intersections that are operating below city-mandated levels. A prominent council member has estimated the cost of redoing one of these intersections at $20 million. The city has done little about this, preferring instead to increase its burgeoning staff while largely ignoring these infrastructure needs, and promoting a new city hall with an end-run financing scheme. How about reexamining our staffing needs first, fixing intersections second, and constructing a city hall with a voter-approved bond issue third. But I digress.

The Greenlight II petition is proceeding toward the ballot nicely, but needs additional signatures to qualify. Thousands of our residents have signed the new petition. If you agree and wish to protect and preserve our quality of life, please drop by the Central Library on Avocado Avenue in Corona del Mar to sign the petition, or contact Greenlight at www.newportgreenlight.com.

Xenophobes need not apply.

GEORGE J. JEFFRIES

Newport Beach

Smith right about Bush, not guest-worker policy

Steve Smith’s On the Town column of April 26, “What I would have told President Bush,” was a breath of fresh air for the Daily Pilot. His opinion of Bush and company may not be the most popular here in Newport-Mesa, but it is definitely the majority opinion in California and the U.S.

However, I disagree with Steve Smith on the issue of Bush’s guest-worker program. This program is bad for immigrants because it is full of too many hurdles to citizenship. Its real intent is to create a revolving-door temporary workforce that will never be able to organize labor unions.

That is why a coalition of multinational corporations has been lobbying for the program: It would provide cheap labor without the threat of organizing. The most ethical solution would be to grant full amnesty to our “guest workers” so they will be able to advance themselves for posterity and society as a whole.

JOEL FLORES

Costa Mesa