Save Newport Real News in Newport Beach
Most all of current council have endorsed Measure Y– with the headlining person being current councilman Keith Curry. If that’s not enough alone to make you vote against it, then let me tell you exactly how they are attempting to bilk the public on this measure, yet again:
Measure Y was written by the City Attorney’s office (who also wrote the “unbiased opinion” on the measure). Ostensibly, they want you to believe that the city has independently come up with the whimsical idea to have major land-plan changes involving only Irvine Company-owned land, and that the Irvine Company was never even consulted on it. Then, the city wrote the measure themselves, and therefore will pay all of the substantial Environmental Impact Report costs with taxpayer dollars, all without any input from the Irvine Company. Yes: Seriously.
Even more ostensibly, they claim that they are “swapping building rights” from property down south. Let’s count the ways that statement is inaccurate:
1) There is no “single property” that they are “swapping rights for”– it is made up of multiple properties from one side of Newport to the other, most of which were built out to about 90%, leaving scenic greenery and claiming it “wasn’t fully built out to maximum potential”, then attempting to leverage this for “trading rights”.
2) The biggest property– they one they are referencing– is not even “swapped” in the measure itself. In fact, there are over 350 homes that are completely unaccounted for in this measure. If they are “trading building rights”, as Keith Curry claims, then where is the trade? The City Attorney has yet to respond to this inquiry, which has been asked multiple times in both private and public sessions.
3) In the Irvine Company’s annual report published last September with the City of Newport Beach, The Irvine Company states very clearly that they have achieved maximum build-out in the area.
Despite all of these facts, Keith Curry and his cronies still claim that we are “swapping building rights” for a project that is already built-out to completion according to the builders themselves, and yet we leave the building rights of over 350 homes completely unaccounted for. What kind of “trade” is this, to trade for something that has no value? Furthermore, when these absent buildings are accounted for, this is a net GAIN of traffic, contrary to what the city has managed to squirm into the ballot text.
Still not convinced? How’s this: The authors of this bill themselves admit when comparing the current land-use plan and the “Measure Y Plan” at maximum buildout, there is a six million dollar shortfall. Annually. Let me re-emphasize that: If we pass Measure Y, Newport Beach will lose $6,000,000.00 annually. Forever. Call me suspicious of the accuracy, but I believe the numbers will be far greater. After all, even the figures on the invoice from the project accountant himself didn’t add up correctly.
And finally, resolutions will be triggered upon the passing of this bill which embrace “Human-Caused Climate Change Mitigation”, aka “green building”. This type of building and the materials used are prohibitively expensive to most property owners. We have one “green” building in town: the City Hall. That cost us $250m when our neighbors did it for $24m. Do you want to have those guidelines for your next building permit?
Crackpot Curry has been running around town trying to tell anyone who will listen that I am anti-property-rights for being against Measure Y. Me? Anti-property rights? The fact is, one of the fundamental reasons I am against this bill is because of the aforementioned destruction of property rights that is triggered thanks to ordinances that Keith Curry himself created.
If the Irvine Company wants to build in Fashion Island, then fine. Have them pass their own measure. Get them to pay for the EIR themselves. Eliminate all this sideplay. Pass a measure that makes sense. However, this bill is an embarrassment to Newport Beach. Both sides claim property rights, both sides claim traffic decreases. There are multiple, major critical errors in the bill itself– opening up this ambiguous bill to decades of “interpretation”.
I’m not opposed to passing legislation to help the Irvine Company, but Measure Y is irrational, ambiguous, and disingenuous. I’ll be voting NO on Measure Y for these reasons.
The intentionally-deceptive BALLOT WORDING SAYS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS BILL DOES.
Don’t let our current establishment in Newport pull the wool over our eyes yet again! Aside from ousting Rush Hill, this is the most important vote on the ballot. We cannot vote Measure Y out of office in 4 years; it will be here– forever.
The truth of the matter is:
– If you are against increasing traffic-congestion, the correct vote is NO on Measure Y.
– If you are against large corporations forcing Newport to pay their bills for them, then the correct vote is NO on Measure Y.
– If you support property rights, the correct vote is NO on Measure Y.
– If you support small government, the correct vote is NO on Measure Y.
– If you support readable, senical, and honest legislation, the correct vote is NO on Measure Y.
– If you support a fiscal responsibility, the correct vote is NO on Measure Y.
