More debate on Marinapark

S.J. CAHN

I seem to be the rare creature in Newport Beach conflicted about the

Measure L debate.

My column last week on the issue gathered an expected reaction.

But I’m happy to report that, other than one unprintable voicemail,

the responses, even when they disagreed, were respectful.

OK, unless the person responding was somehow involved in the

pro-hotel camp, the responses all were anti-hotel and, as a result,

anti-me.

Of course, I never came out pro-hotel. I’m just, by temperament,

against the way the Measure L campaign seems to be running -- on

personal attacks and off the issue rather than substantive and

honest.

So I appreciate the thoughtful and at times exhaustive comments. I

find most of them, however, to be misreadings of the agreement with

Stephen Sutherland or, frankly, to be fishing for “facts” that would

make residents question a “Yes on L” vote.

There are unanswered questions about the city’s contract with

Sutherland -- including whether Sutherland will be the one to develop

the land -- because the details are going to be hammered out after

approval, for instance.

There will be more on these issues in the days ahead. For now,

though, I’m going to take the advice of one reader and “follow the

money.”

It just might not be the money the person had in mind.

I was surprised at the sources of dollars that appear on the

campaign statements for Protect Our Parks and the “Yes on L” camp.

First, “Yes on L.” As of the end of September, Sutherland had

loaned himself $68,500. That’s the sole source of his money.

That surprises me, because I’d guess there are people in the

community willing to throw some money to back the passage of Measure

L.

Protect Our Parks’ statement offers a more grass-roots picture --

but just where the grass is growing is an issue. Out of 51

contributions, totaling almost $22,000, 28 of them were from people

who live outside of Newport Beach. At least one of the Newport Beach

residents contributing lives in the Marinapark mobile-home park.

Now, I know I’m not the only one thinking this, but it’s hard not

to jump to the conclusion that at least some of these contributions

are coming from Marinapark residents or people who own vacation homes

on the property.

Tom Billings, head of the group, acknowledged that some of the

group’s support is coming from Marinapark residents, though he said

it isn’t exclusively them.

That raised another question: Why would residents there, who I

would think want to stay in their harbor-front homes, support a plan

that ends with them gone and a park in their place?

The answer, from park resident Stewart Berkshire, is that it is

important to defeat the hotel plan, which would set in motion the

quickest demise to their homes.

“The first thing is to defeat the hotel if at all possible,” he

said.

Not that the battle would end there. If Measure L does go down to

defeat, Berkshire said he expects the city to quickly start the

process all over again to put something other than mobile homes at

Marinapark.

“The city feels like it’s a black eye to have a mobile-home park

in the city on the harbor-front,” he said.

Another Newport resident who owns a mobile home in the park, John

Rettberg, put the answer simply: “We obviously would like to stay

there.”

That’s a rationale I can understand.

Rettberg further argued that, if the mobile homes have to go,

residents there want to make way for a park -- as, he added, their

leases say will replace them -- and not a hotel. Thus their

opposition to the hotel.

Those are about the most simple issues I’ve run across in the

Marinapark debate. Both Rettberg and Berkshire raised plenty of

others that, I suspect, will be parts of stories (and even more

columns) during the next 12 days.

One conclusion I believe may also be simple: If Measure L fails,

there will be a continuing battle about how and when to relocate the

mobile homes.

* S.J. CAHN is the managing editor. He may be reached at (714)

966-4607 or by e-mail at [email protected].