Mailbag: Study session revealed issues alternate traffic routes would cause

When is a study session not really a study session? I attended the Newport Beach City Council Study Session April 12 on the data collected in the Newport Heights area before and after Tustin Avenue received permission to close one end of its street on a trial basis. Perhaps a better title for the evening would have been “Traffic Issues in the Heights” because of the effect that this closure, if it becomes permanent, will have on the rest of traffic flow in the Heights will be substantial.

It turns out, with good visuals provided by the city traffic specialist, that after Tustin residents received the go-ahead for a trial traffic closure of their street, the number of cars decreased from 834 to 276, but for the only other thoroughfare, through the Heights, Riverside Avenue, the numbers increased from 1,862 to 2,053 — to the tune of approximately 200 additional cars per day! I guess they figure that if you can handle that many cars, 200 more wouldn’t make much of a difference! Upper Tustin’s numbers go down, all other alternate routes’ numbers go up.

Only Councilman Avery raised the issues of inequity and impartiality that these changes would bring. The meeting was supposed to be a study session, but questions are not allowed after the statement period. When the traffic specialist gave statistics about results of the Tustin study, only council members could ask questions.

It has been brought to my attention that there is nothing in state law that prevents a free-flow discussion with the public asking questions on items announced on the agenda.

I hope that when we elect new council members, we select those who have a proven record of interest and commitment to the community, not just their own careers. If you have followed the council the last several years, you will understand what I am saying. If you haven’t, hopefully you will start paying closer attention to the current council and the new candidates.

Lynn Lorenz
Newport Beach

Recall effort is a sign of autocrats

Is anyone the least bit surprised that after failing to get enough signatures to recall six members of the Huntington Beach City Council, those responsible now want a recount of the recall petitions? Look closely and you’ll no doubt discover that this is a MAGA crowd trying to win an election they lost. They level their grievances about stolen elections while failing to provide any evidence other than shouting and recall attempts is relentless and not interested in democracy. It is a nascent autocratic movement where only one side — their side — can ever be in power.

Democracy is under assault in America. From the highest office in the land down to the city council and school board level. Make no mistake about it, this group will not stop unless they are crushed at the ballot box. Fortunately there are more democracy-loving citizens here than those that would bring this whole American experiment down. But we have to vote! And vote and vote and vote. We have become complacent that our way of life here in America is automatic and/or ordained, that it could never unravel and turn us into something other than the democratic republic that it is.

Benjamin Franklin was aware of this at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 after which he was asked by a citizen upon leaving the convention what form of government we were going to have? Franklin famously said, “a republic, if you can keep it.” We have an election coming in November. I vote we keep the republic. How about you?

Mike Aguilar
Costa Mesa

A tale of two cities

Issues in two cities came into convergence for me with the Easter Sunday Daily Pilot Mailbag. First was the City Council recall issue in Huntington Beach, ably addressed by letters from Galen Pickett and Steve Shepherd. Second was the directly elected mayor issue in Newport Beach, also ably addressed by Jeff Herdman. Both issues show the destructive and anti-democratic influence of conservatives intent on subjugating the citizenry in both cities to their ideological zeitgeist. This can be recently exemplified by the election of Tito Ortiz to the Huntington Beach City Council in 2020. Ortiz was a partisan puppet with no leadership skills or understanding of local government who rode the wave of anti-establishment Trumpism into office. He was a “celebrity” political novice in way over his head, and he soon bailed on his position.

Imagine if Ortiz had been directly elected to a four-year term as mayor in either Huntington Beach or Newport Beach. It would have been a civic catastrophe. Under the rule of such an office holder, partisans and special interests seize control of the levers of power and use it to their advantage, often to the detriment of the general public.

The failed recall effort in Surf City was another attempt to grab power and punish political enemies by wrecking the efficiency of local government through specious and “trumped up” contentions. The same forces intent on hijacking local government are still a menace to society with the candidates they have running for City Council this November. They have no shame in bashing any constructive attempts to move the city forward in a headlong pursuit of their aims. They have no shame in viciously attacking their political enemies.

The voters in both Huntington Beach and Newport Beach must be wary going into this year’s elections about who they want to hold the reins of power. While the experience of having Tito Ortiz serve on the council has sobered the Surf City electorate to a directly elected mayor position, I fear for folks in Newport Beach who could easily have a “bought and paid for” mayor foisted on the citizenry for years.

We need to be vigilant in preserving the integrity of our local governments by turning back anti-democratic right-wing attempts at takeovers. This “tale of two cities” should be cautionary to other communities in Orange County as well going into November.

Tim Geddes
Huntington Beach

Elected mayor would have too much power

Bob Rush’s letter in the Daily Pilot presents the elected mayor initiative in Newport Beach as a simple change, but it is anything but that. This proposal will radically change our city governance and as such, is opposed by most former mayors, City Council members and city managers. While Rush denigrates these former public servants, their collective wisdom is that this proposal is a bad idea for Newport Beach.

There are many reasons why residents should be wary of this proposal, but let me describe just one. Right now, the city manager can put items on the council agenda, usually routine contracts, etc. This proposal removes that ability, meaning that any time the city manager has business that must be voted on, she must go through the mayor to place that item on the agenda. This immediately changes the relationship from a working partnership to a subservient relationship. The city manager will not be able to complete the business of the city without the direct intervention of the mayor.

You may not be aware that the City Charter prohibits council members from directing city employees how to do their job. Only the city attorney, clerk and manager report to and are directed by the City Council.

However, if the city manager must maintain a good relationship with the elected mayor in order to simply run the city, might there be a temptation to ask for a quid pro quo? If the elected mayor wanted a particular development to go through permitting faster, might he slow-walk the city manager’s agenda items unless she helped him accomplish that? Or discipline a particular employee? Or fire them? The City Council is not allowed to control city employees, but the city manager is, and the city manager will now be beholden to the mayor, creating an opportunity for undue influence.

If you were an excellent city manager, would you accept a job that restricts you like this or would you go elsewhere? And if we can only get a second-rate city manager, might that affect the quality of people further down the organizational chart? Why would top-notch employees want to stay in a city that isn’t run well? Over time, it is easy to see how an unintended effect of this proposal could result in a degradation of services in Newport, and it will take another election to unwind these problems when they occur.

We have nothing to gain and everything to lose from this proposal. I encourage residents to vote “no” on Measure B in the June election.

Susan Skinner
Newport Beach

In favor of electing the mayor

“No Elected Mayor.” Why does that sound like a campaign to limit my ability to decide who leads my city? Because it does. Sadly, it’s the No On Measure B campaign’s intent. It should give everyone pause to just think about those words.

The Elect Our Mayor (Yes On B) campaign has prompted many of us to consider how we think about the significance of the mayor of Newport Beach. Regardless of who any future elected mayor might be, I’ve come to the following conclusions:

• The directly elected mayoral model delivers far more visible leadership of the city, which can be important in dealing with other federal, state or regional agencies and other cities.

• A direct election gives substantial democratic legitimacy and makes a mayor directly accountable. Answering to the voters has a direct correlation to looking out for the good of the entire city as a whole.

• A strong leader is more likely to be effective in developing a forward-looking vision for the city. How can a vision be cast and implemented in a one-year term? No effective organization is set up this way.

• Four-year terms provide stable leadership. There is value in continuity and stability in good times and in tough times.

• Elected officials who can be held to account are the ones who should set the city council agenda, not unelected city managers, no matter how good any city manager might be.

Change can be uncomfortable and not entirely devoid of risk. However, the benefits far outweigh the risks for the Elect Our Mayor Measure B. I want to elect my mayor and will vote yes on B. I reject any movement that seeks to limit my ability to elect my civic leader.

Ruth Sanchez Kobayashi
Newport Beach

I want to have a direct say over who becomes mayor of Newport Beach. And I want the mayor to be directly accountable to me. It’s that simple.

That kind of power — the power to select the mayor — should be with the voters. We’ve seen what it looks like when power is farther away from the people. It doesn’t go well.

When I’ve seen signs around town saying that voters shouldn’t have that power, that voters wanting that power would be accused of a “power grab” that should be stopped, I just shake my head.

Last week, I saw an ad on Facebook from these opponents. I commented: “Wait so the people electing a mayor is bad? A power grab? Is anyone falling for this?” For hours, the official Facebook account for the opponents attacked. And then my comments were gone from public view. And then I was blocked from even seeing the post.

Take from my experience and don’t be bullied into voting against your own ability to vote. We should all want direct accountability and a direct say over who is our mayor.

I was leaning toward voting yes on B to Elect Our Mayor. Now I’m a definite yes on B and will tell all my friends the same.

Coleen Tunney
Newport Beach

Support our coverage by becoming a digital subscriber.