Philip Arst and Rick Taylor
The Greenlight philosophy of having the people decide on major
developments like the Marina Park hotel/timeshares is based on the
very simple premise that for the public to make an informed decision
they need an accurate assessment of the facts. If the electorate is
given incomplete or erroneous information by the city on an issue
they are to vote on, their voting doesn't cure the error, it
compounds it.
Under the city's current approach, the whole process is flawed.
The Pilot missed this essential principle in its commentary that took
Greenlight to task for insisting that the obvious defects in the
environmental report be cured before being submitted to the voters
("Green light or red light on a public vote," Aug. 1).
Clearly there was cause for concern when it came to light that
some of the original financial backers of the project were no longer
involved in the process, and new mysterious principals emerged, with
little or no due diligence performed by the council as to their
viability.
The Pilot also overlooked some other key facts. Pages 3 through 9
of the environmental report for the Marina Park hotel/timeshares
states that 17 discretionary approvals of project-description
criteria are needed for its full approval. For example, an obvious
and major benefit claimed for the hotel/timeshare is that it will
provide revenue for the city. However, instead of informing the
voters by giving them a signed lease demonstrating that this claimed
revenue is real and not speculative or reduced by incentive
giveaways, all the voters get is some vague assurances in the city
staff report that everything will somehow be "OK," even as they admit
that a number of major issues remain unresolved.
Additionally, it was disclosed that the city will have to write
separate land leases for the hotel and timeshares because of the huge
potential liabilities the taxpayers will have to assume if the hotel
goes bankrupt and the city is stuck with fulfilling its promised
obligations to the large number of timeshare owners. Reasonable minds
may differ as to the efficacy of the project but it's clear, further
studies, information and details, should have been required by the
city.
Who can realistically argue that the residents of Newport Beach
should have to vote on a project when crucial information as to the
risks they are being subjected to aren't even properly laid out?
Need more? OK, how about the city's failing to fully and fairly
