clear sky


Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Miller’s attacks on Stapleton denounced by four former mayors

We are off to a poor start for the 2022 election. Tom Miller, a newcomer to Newport Beach who recently sold his auto detailing business, moved to town and decided it would be fun to be on the city council, has personally and through surrogates attacked the integrity of Joe Stapleton, one of the most ethical and community-focused candidates to run for office in a generation.

Without any connection to the community, Miller invested in out-of-town consultants who are gleefully spending his money on Thanksgiving cards and “opposition research.” They found that more than 20 years ago, Joe Stapleton (who does not drink) was the designated driver for his friends and was at a party where alcohol was served and some were under 21. He received a traffic ticket and wrote an essay as punishment. Let us note that many of us, and we expect many of you, may have been in this same situation.

As a political neophyte, Miller seized on this as his silver bullet and used this information to attack Stapleton at the Republican endorsement committee.  When the committee heard the facts, they not only unanimously endorsed Stapleton, they unanimously issued a rare negative recommendation on Miller.  This is essentially a finding that Miller is unfit to hold public office. That is a remarkable rebuke to his dirty campaign tactics.

Since this is the only issue his campaign seems to have, he has used surrogates to try to keep the story alive in increasingly shrill and mudslinging letters to the editor. It is a strategy that does not belong in our community.

Collectively, we have been active in the civic affairs of Newport Beach for decades, none of us had ever heard of Tom Miller until he started running for council last year. We often don’t agree with each other on the issues, but we all agree that Joe Stapleton has given decades of service to make Newport Beach a better city. As a member of the Finance Committee, he can hit the ground running on day one to ensure we stay a well-managed city. As a former Harbor Commissioner, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, Citizen of the Year and leader of the Newport Beach Foundation, Joe understands our city, its unique character and is committed to keeping it strong and vibrant. 

One more thing, it is completely hypocritical and dishonest for Miller to challenge Stapleton’s veracity, when he himself has been called out for listing “endorsements” from former elected officials who have never endorsed Miller. Newport Beach cannot afford out-of-town amateurs moving in and taking over our city. We support Joe Stapleton and we encourage you to join us. 

Will O’Neill, Former Mayor

Duffy Duffield, Former Mayor

Rush Hill, Former Mayor

Keith Curry, Former Mayor

Letters to the Editor

Concerned with ocean pollution and potential damage to beaches

Living near the beach, I was shocked to hear the news last week that coastal DDT dumping is far worse than expected. In short, we now know the highly toxic pesticide wasn’t just dropped to the ocean floor in sealed containers, much of it was poured directly into the waters off Catalina Island.

As far as I am concerned, these revelations are as dangerous as any oil spill along our coast. Just so you know, even if I wasn’t running for the Assembly this November, I always wake up every morning thinking of ways to best protect Newport’s coastline.

One thing we all know is this: Polluting the ocean and damaging our beaches isn’t just bad for the environment, it’s bad for our local economy. You can’t uncouple the two. They clearly are linked together. 

Judie Mancuso, Candidate

Assembly District 72

Laguna Beach

Letters to the Editor

Jim Mosher is certainly more to this City than a “gadfly”

I enjoy your (Fair Game) commentaries however, I took exception to your recent reference to Mr. Jim Mosher as a “gadfly.” 

Webster’s definition of a gadfly is as follows:

1: any of various flies (such as a horsefly, botfly, or warble fly) that bite or annoy livestock. 2: a person who stimulates or annoys other people especially by persistent criticism.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Mosher from seeing him at all but one meeting (that I can recall) in the past six years for our Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission. His contributions are always polite, succinct and many times thought-provoking. He appears to be an expert on our City’s bylaws and General Plan. I truly enjoy his perspective on issues and always give them consideration.

Mr. Mosher not only attends our Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Commission meetings but most of all the City meetings open to the public that I am aware of. He also takes the time before every meeting to go through the upcoming agendas, do his homework and add valuable comment.

Does he do this for self-recognition or financial gain? To further his status in the community or his political career? Jim only wants what’s best for the City of Newport Beach, the City that he loves and calls his home.

So, gadfly? Annoying people? Definitely not! Jim is an altruistic, knowledgeable, generous and involved citizen. If speaking intelligently and the truth is annoying, maybe all politicians could learn something from Jim Mosher. I look forward to seeing his name on the ballot.

David Granoff, Commissioner

Parks, Beaches, and Recreation

City of Newport Beach

This type of deceit would disqualify any ordinary “Joe”

Recently we all learned that Newport Beach council candidate Joe Stapleton had prior violations of law when he was a 22-year-old that were not disclosed in his bid for endorsement from the OCGOP.

We all understand that mistakes are made during the college years, but this type of deceit would disqualify any ordinary Joe and any of us from getting a job in the Newport Beach government or any of its outstanding public service divisions such as fire, police, parks, etc.

Joe Stapleton says on his website, “Keep Newport…Newport.” This worries me – he has been spending lots of time with the Newport Beach government elite for years. Do they cover up inconvenient history? Was he trained by his sponsors to avoid the same standard of truth that a city employee would be required to meet? What else haven’t we been told the full truth about?    

Friends and neighbors – this is not the time for an experiment. Let’s elect an independent, honest leader, who is on a mission to help Newport Beach reach its greater potential. 

Mike Dutton

Corona del Mar

Letters to the Editor

Still can’t get past what Joe Stapleton did to the Central Committee

(Tom – I’m still “stewing” over your defense of Joe Stapleton and his outright lies to the Central Committee. However, I do admire your loyalty to friendship.)

Recently, the story broke about Joe Stapleton’s arrests in Arizona for liquor violations. Joe Stapleton lied about this on his questionnaire to the Republican Central Committee. He now acknowledges that he – in fact – did lie. These actions were merely youthful indiscretions. Really?

The decision to lie on the Republican questionnaire was not the decision of a college student – it was the decision a mature, grown man – Joe Stapleton; supposedly an upstanding citizen, who is seeking public office to be on the Newport Beach City Council.

However, he does not seem capable of owning up to his past transgressions. Joe Stapleton knowingly lied to the community that he wants to represent…and withheld critical information that will affect his candidacy.

Joe doesn’t get it! The American people are tired of being lied to! They lied to us about COVID. They lied to us about the Uvalde massacre. They are lying again – telling us there is no inflation. Along comes Joe Stapleton who lied to Newport Beach about his two arrests. One there more?

What else is Joe Stapleton lying about? What else is yet to be revealed? Lying to protect oneself might well be the act of a college student. It is not acceptable behavior for a grown man who is seeking the trust and honor of representing the people of his community.

Joe Stapleton – by his actions – has already violated the public trust. By his behavior, he has clearly demonstrated that he doesn’t have integrity and does not deserve to hold public office. He won’t be getting my vote!

Marilyn Brewer, Assemblywoman ret.

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Is there more than one of her?

In the Tuesday, July 19 issue of Stu News Newport, Joy Brenner (along with Councilmember Diane Dixon) is shown signing the “Topping Out” banner for the new Friends of Newport Beach Animal Shelter. 

Got me thinking.

Joy seems to be everywhere. Maybe there are two of her.

Speak Up Newport. Wake Up! Newport. CdM Residents Association meetings (and Co-Founder/President). CdM Chamber meetings. District 6 Town Hall meetings. Actively opposed Measure B. Fire Station No. 2 groundbreaking and the recent dedication ceremony. Her participation in the early planning of the Balboa Library Branch/Fire Station Replacement Plan. Project Adult Literacy. Witte Lecture Series. Library Live Lectures. And, perhaps her crowning achievement: Leading the charge to not lose the CdM Library Branch as a Co-Founder of the Friends of the Corona del Mar Library and an inspirational speaker at the July 20, 2019 dedication of that new branch and the contiguous fire station.

I know from personal experience with one of her District 6 constituents that Joy is a willing listener to folks in her District and otherwise around town. She is positive, respectful, polite, and constructive; and she isn’t bashful about sharing her views – whether or not she supports yours. 

Not to mention her engaged, active, always well-prepared participation on the Council and her many council committee assignments. 

If my count is correct, she’s been around this City for some 61 years dating back to her days at Harbor HS, PTA service, chair/member of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission, fundraising for the UCI School of Medicine, work with the Hoag Hospital Foundation, and support for the Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine at UCI. 

Fast forward, I encountered her as a Board of Library Trustees rookie six years ago; she and a couple of colleagues came to every Board meeting. Joy, in particular, wouldn’t let our Board forget about saving the CdM Branch. She was deferential but direct with the Board; and to this day, I’m not sure we’d have the beautiful new library and fire facilities on Marigold but-for Joy’s positive activism and support.

I’m told Joy is running for re-election on November 8. She’s exceptionally well-qualified and deserves to be returned to the dais – perhaps this December (finally) as Mayor Pro Tem.

As we approach another election season, it’s my guess that the moneyed power seekers who attempted to smear her in 2018 will rise from the ashes and fictionalize issues against Joy’s sterling name. Anyone opposing Joy will have to overcome decades of Joy’s achievements and enviable reputation in our community. 

Our electorate needs to see the goodness, the commitment, the sane/sensible/respectful/collaborative approach which has been the hallmark of Joy’s first four successful years. 

Re-Elect Joy Brenner on November 8. No one is more deserving. No one has worked harder for Newport Beach.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Police Chief calls out candidate

I just read your piece on Joe Stapleton lying to the Republican Party. 

I certainly understand that the offenses were nothing that should follow him around for life, but you avoided the main issue, lying about it. He should have just told them the truth and the story behind it rather than just saying “no”. All he did was succeed in giving ammo to anyone trying to find dirt on him. As we know, politics is a dirty business. 

If this would have been a police applicant, he would be disqualified for lying for answering “no”, or by leaving it out of the application all together if he didn’t mention it in the application. 

My thought is that Joe should have explained it thoroughly why he answered no. 

Dave Snowden (former Chief of Police, City of Costa Mesa)

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

(The first two letters are in response to the Fair Game column in Stu News Newport on July 15 regarding two incidents from college related to City Council candidate Joe Stapleton. Joe was “ticketed” for driving a car where a friend had an open container in the backseat (went to court and was released without further incident) and on another occasion for having a college party without a liquor license. He was asked on a questionnaire from the Republican Party of Orange County whether he had ever been arrested. He answered no. The opposition claims he has.)

“They were tickets, he didn’t lie”

I lived in Newport (CdM) from 1956-1983. My parents and my in-laws lived there their whole lives. I now live in Berkeley, but love reading Stu News. I feel like your articles come from the “NBB4OC” mindset, which is great. However, I was disappointed that your article on Joe Stapleton didn’t end with a clear statement that he in fact didn’t lie, as accused. 

The question was, “Have you ever been arrested?” Citations, tickets etc., are not by any means arrests. I don’t know Joe, or any other candidate in Newport, but it only seems fair that your response to the accuser be “You are wrong, Joe did not lie!”

Bill Godwin

Santanella Terrace 1956-‘61

Seadrift Drive 1961-‘67

Vista Entrada 1967-‘77

Villa Balboa 1980-‘83

The truthful answer, “he lied…and yes, he was arrested”

I agree that we all have things in our youth that should not follow us forever, BUT you chose to overlook and thereby excuse the main point: he lied. To the question, were you arrested? The truthful answer was yes. 

This is not about his college age antics, and it certainly is not an amusing anecdote to chuckle at. This is about his honesty and character now. I have filled in many questionnaires, as I am sure you have, that had questions that were uncomfortable or embarrassing to answer, but you answer truthfully and explain at that time. All questionnaires I have been asked to complete have the space that says, if “Yes,” explain, so you have an opportunity to explain what happened.

If the results are not as you hoped, like not getting the GOP endorsement, then so be it. You were honest and principled. To lie, to cover up, even youthful missteps is wrong, period. 

And why is that endorsement sought for a council seat? This is supposed to be a non-political campaign.

Kathy Frazer

Newport Beach

Mayor Pro Tem Blom called into question over his prior drinking on the council dais

Whether it’s city council, a bank board or let’s say before a doctor does surgery…drinking on the job is ludicrous. Mr. Blom is a loose cannon. If he doesn’t want to follow common sense and courtesy he shouldn’t be on the council. 

Perhaps a policeman should give him a DUI test after every meeting or drive him home. He says he never apologizes for who he is. What arrogance. 

I knew his mother. She would be ashamed of him and make him apologize.

Patricia Dreyfus

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Concerns remain for tennis and pickleball club

First, according to minutes from the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission, Mr. O Hill’s plans that he submitted (for expansion of The Tennis Club [and Pickleball] Club of Newport Beach) in 2012 have expired. The City of Newport Beach is currently reviewing his amendments to the Agreement from 2012 but he will be required to resubmit plans to meet current codes. He can then apply for permits.

Secondly, it is not good news for tennis players as there are only courts for pickleball players unless Mr. O Hill plans to stripe the tennis courts for tennis and pickleball. In which case tennis players still lose as you cannot hear anything when playing in the midst of the loud whack noise of pickle balls.

Susan Kramer

Huntington Beach

Letters to the Editor

Public safety and communication are crucial

Public safety should be the number one priority of our city government.  Unfortunately, it appears right now that there is a very serious failure of timely communication between the city government, law enforcement and the local residents. This failure to properly communicate in a timely manner is creating an environment where residents are suffering more than ever. 

Many of our communities are under siege and there is no warning, instruction or education from our city government. We are witnessing local panga boat landings which proceed to unload numerous people illegally entering our country and specifically our community. 

We are witnessing a growing homeless population that rejects shelters because they refuse to live under any rules or curfews and therefore become permanent “residents” in our communities. 

We are witnessing what appear to be open drug use and drug sales at our piers, our parks, our public bathrooms, our boardwalk, etc. It is difficult to walk along the boardwalk without constantly smelling drugs in use. 

We are witnessing roving gangs of people going up and down the Balboa Peninsula streets, the boardwalk and the piers attempting to start physical confrontations and fights. 

We are witnessing an alarming increase in home robberies and home invasions throughout our communities. 

We are witnessing an increase in thieves working in teams going along the beachfronts, the piers and the boardwalk looking to steal bikes that have been momentarily left unattended. 

As residents we should receive better communication from our city government. The information should be detailed and informative so that residents can have the knowledge to better plan their individual security needs and the security needed for our communities. 

The various law enforcement groups on the land and the sea need to communicate better between themselves and with the city government. This is not the time for rivalry between various law enforcement agencies. Everyone needs to work together. The real victims of silence are the uninformed residents.

Nancy Arrache

Balboa Peninsula

Letters to the Editor

There are lots of questions with road closures leading through the Heights

It is disconcerting when the Council grants special favors to individuals in a neighborhood which can impinge on the rights of fellow neighbors. Just as the Council should not grant these special favors, individuals should not request them as it tears apart the fabric of the community.

The question that was to be decided at this last Tuesday’s council meeting (June 28) was whether lower Tustin in the Newport Heights area should remain closed off to through traffic? The City Traffic Engineer, Tony Brine provided residents with some very useful information, particularly a map showing the differences in traffic flow which was developed as a result of the closure.

Additional statistics which I requested through the Public Information Act, and were provided by the Newport Beach Police Department, helped paint a picture of traffic flow and traffic safety in the Heights. I asked for the accident reports from the last 10 years for the areas affected by the closure. 

The area that was closed off from the rest of the Heights, lower Tustin and Oceanview saw a total of five accidents over the 10-year period. 

With the closure of Tustin, the number of cars on Tustin decreased from 834 to 276 daily while Oceanview saw an increase from 169 to 255.

However, with this closure, traffic increased on other streets. Cliff Drive saw the largest traffic increase, with 323 additional cars daily. I used the 2400 through the 2600 blocks that looked to me to be the area that was most affected. This area also had the largest number of accidents (other than Riverside) from 2012 through 2022 with 19 accidents.

The next area which bears the brunt of the traffic from the closure is Riverside Drive which had an increase of 1,200 cars weekly. They experienced six accidents in the 400-500 block in the last 10 years before the closure.

However, if you look at all of Riverside from Pacific Coast Highway to 15th St., which will become the single most popular thoroughfare through the Heights, it is not too unrealistic to look at what could happen in the future. Drivers will anticipate the closure of Tustin and will very likely get used to the idea of taking the Riverside thoroughfare exclusively to cut through the Heights. 

Imagine the accident count then. In the last 10 years there were 126 accidents on this thoroughfare (meaning from PCH through to 15th Street). Riverside would become the poor stepchild of the Newport Heights.

Upper Tustin had an increase of four cars daily, which doesn’t seem like much until you look at its statistics. Upper Tustin, one of the most beleaguered streets in the Heights, sees a total of 2,513 cars daily. It had a relatively high accident rate of 14 cars (more than twice that of Redlands and the 400-500 blocks of Riverside.)

Upper Tustin, Cliff Drive and Riverside have big traffic problems even without the closure of lower Tustin. These problems will only increase with the anticipated development on Pacific Coast Highway. We should be solving their traffic problems, too, instead of focusing on just one small area.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

(The Newport Beach City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to direct staff to remove the barricade at Tustin and come back in the Fall with an engineering drawing of various options that could be considered in the future, such as adding sidewalks, widening lower Tustin or closing off the bottom rather than the top of Tustin).

Letters to the Editor

Bikes on the sidewalk need to either slow down or move to the streets

I have a modest proposal for bicycles, whether electric or not, on sidewalks.
No faster than eight miles per hour.

My dog and I have been nearly injured several times on the segment of sidewalk on Dover near Bob Henry Park. It is a popular way for kids to go from Dover Shores to their schools.

Another dangerous stretch is on Newport Boulevard, the bridge near Lido Village.

I have seen kids going 15 or even 20 miles an hour on these stretches of sidewalk. In my view, NO bike should be going faster than eight miles on a sidewalk, ever. If you want to go faster than that, get out into the street, with the cars. I say this as a lifelong cyclist, who is occasionally on the sidewalks, because those are often the safe and easy way between A and B.

Let us not wait for someone to be seriously injured.

Walter Stahr

Newport Beach

Guest Letter

Erik Weigand

Newport Beach Planning Commissioner/

City Council candidate, District 3

Moving forward

Guest Letter Erik Weigand

Click on photo for a larger image

Courtesy of Erik Weigand

Erik Weigand

As the dust settles on last Tuesday’s Primary Election, it’s important to recognize the strengths that our beautiful city has to offer. Obviously, our beaches, harbor and charming neighborhoods come to mind. But lost in the shuffle of our natural beauty comes those who are our decision makers. Those who strive to make Newport Beach a better place. 

To many, Measure B was a controversial proposal aimed at benefiting those in a position of power. To others, it was a simple ask: “shouldn’t the public get a say on who serves as Mayor?” Whatever side of the issue you might have been on, it’s time to pick up from those disagreements and work together for the best interests of our city.

Having served on the City’s Planning Commission for the past six years and now a candidate for City Council, I have had the distinct pleasure of personally knowing all seven members of our City Council. I can tell you that all of them are hardworking, highly educated and passionate about our city’s prosperity. Do they get it right 100% of the time? No. Do they disagree with one another every now and then? Yes. Do they make mistakes? Of course. But do they serve the community with the best interests to make our lives better? Absolutely!

For the past several years it seems like politics at every level has gotten to the point of where civility no longer matters. Where disruption and conflict are the norm. It’s time we do better and set an example for others to follow. By moving on from the divisiveness of this past election, we simply need to encourage more positivity. 

It is my hope our community rallies together to support those who are leading our city. We have less than six months remaining on the terms of Mayor Muldoon, and Councilmembers Dixon and Duffield. Whether you have disagreed with them in the past, we can all recognize the tremendous amount of time and commitment they have provided our city. It’s difficult to be in that arena and they have all worked hard to give back to the community they love. We should thank them. 

Councilmembers Avery, Blöm and O’Neill are guaranteed two more years of service, with Councilmember Brenner seeking reelection this upcoming fall.  Their leadership will guide us, and we must embrace their strengths rather than seek out weaknesses. With Sacramento’s constant erosion of our local control, it is important to rally around our leaders to protect us from crime, overdevelopment and an ever-decreasing quality of life. Newport Beach is a special place and we need our Council’s undivided focus to help us keep it that way.

With the Primary in the rearview mirror, we are five months away from the General Election. This upcoming election will decide three new members of our Council, as well as Councilwoman Brenner’s reelection. It will also bring forth three brand new representatives for Congress, State Senate and State Assembly, as well as the opportunity to choose a new member of the Board of Supervisors. I cannot think of a time when we will see so much potential for change. We must remain vigilant and pay close attention to who is seeking election to represent our city.

It is my hope that all Newport Beach residents show kindness and compassion to those who seek to serve us. Debate, engagement and even disagreement are encouraged. Anger, resentment and disorder should be left behind and permanently removed from our vocabulary. Newport Beach can set the bar for others to follow. 

Erik Weigand is a lifelong resident of Newport Beach and candidate for the Newport Beach City Council in District 3.

Letters to the Editor

Getting back to Newport’s business

I do not speak for the Yes On Measure B folks. I do not speak for the No On Measure B folks. Like you, I am simply a resident of Newport.

Good, bad, or indifferent, the outcome of Measure B has been decided. 

As my Dad would’ve said about management issues in the law firm with which he was affiliated: “Once a controversial issue in the firm has been discussed and resolved, it is time to put the issue behind you, to join hands, and to look forward – not back.”

So, it should be with the Newport Council’s business. Homelessness/Be Well/Bridge Shelter, the budget, capital improvement projects (including Junior Lifeguard building, library lecture hall, Balboa Library Branch/Fire Station replacement, drainage improvement projects, Friends of Newport Beach Animal Shelter, infrastructure, etc.), the drought, the library, unfunded pension liability, the return of tourism/hospitality, John Wayne Airport/Aviation Committee, our harbor, film festival, boat parade, COVID-19 pandemic, our parks, our departments and their directors and their valued staff/employees, RHNA/City’s Housing Element/General Plan Update, PD/FD issues, waste disposal, group residential uses, a myriad of commissions/committees, and many, many, many more issues to tackle.

Soldier on – with civility and collaboration. 

Or as author Paulo Coelho tells us in his 1993 classic The Alchemist: “When you can’t go back, you have to worry only about the best way of moving forward.”

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Video was unacceptable and unnecessary

In our city’s politics, it is critical that we all demonstrate respect for each other. We need to spend more time listening than talking. We must call out threatening behavior when we see it. Most of all, we must condemn violence against each other, real or depicted.     

Last Saturday, the Good Morning Newport website posted a video on its social media platforms regarding Measure B. It featured the last of a three-part series entitled “The Godfather.” The ending of the four-minute video depicted a character playing the mayor of Newport Beach being shot by two other politicians. The scene was totally unacceptable and unnecessary.   

Fortunately, the video was taken down within 20 minutes of being posted on the No on Measure B website.

Apparently, a consultant for the No on Measure B campaign posted the video without reviewing its contents. The No on B Committee has taken responsibility for the posting and has apologized to anyone who felt threatened or concerned about the video’s content. While the Measure B campaign paid for a previous video (non-violent) it did not commission or pay for the final video of the series. Good Morning Newport has apologized and described the video as satire. 

Gun violence against political figures is real. In the final days of the contentious Measure B campaign, and during a period of extreme gun violence in our country, the ending of the video demonstrated a complete lack of awareness of our current national news cycle and this moment in our local election. 

We are fortunate to live in a peaceful city. This incident can be a lesson for us. While we have the right to speak and create, all of us, including political rivals, must remain vigilant against increasing to the erosion of societal norms which help keep us safe. 

Brad Avery, District 2 

Newport Beach City Council 

Inappropriate political satire video; divisive Measure B

I did not see the video. From reports, it was inappropriate and in bad taste.  Political satire run amuck. Not created or produced by “NO on Measure B,” I know, but nonetheless unprofessional and unthinking by those folks responsible for it.   

But as I mulled over the Measure B conflict which has divided Newport since it was announced by its chief proponent on Friday, September 3, 2021 (over nine months ago), it occurred to me that perhaps the proponents of ill-advised Measure B should long ago have DESAVOWED the firestorm they created resulting from the poorly conceived and sloppily drafted Measure B. I have not seen such community division in my 68 part-time and full-time years of residency in this great City.

The proponents must have seen the explosion of immediate and continuous opposition from former Mayors, present and past Councilmembers, current and past Citizens of the Year, numerous members of City Boards and Commissions, and other concerned influential residents. 

Would more thoughtful proponents have stopped the festering conflict?  Would more thoughtful proponents have DISAVOWED the idea? Would more thoughtful proponents have lobbied for an ad hoc blue-ribbon committee appointed by the co-equals Council to study the issue, hold public hearings, and draft a comprehensive, thoroughly researched, well written Charter Amendment for Council to approve and on which our residents could then have voted?

A DISAVOWAL in the face of clear overwhelming opposition would have sent the right message: the proponents would be taking the high road, the less traveled road, the ethical road, the more reflective less impulsive road, the democratic road. A costly campaign on both sides would have been avoided.

Well, unfortunately, the train has left the station and the voters will have the last say on what many view as a fatally flawed, defectively drafted proposal.

Please vote “NO” on Bad for Newport Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

A waste of money has been spent on Measure B

Anybody who is familiar with people who have played a strong role in the “No on B” campaign knows that they are community leaders who are strong on integrity. They would never knowingly take a foolish step to compromise their position. 

On the other hand, some of the leaders of “Yes on Measure B” put questionable things in their fliers; they exaggerate the truth, and they overreact to situations to try to influence voters. 

You need to look at the players of “No on B” and, if you know them as well as I do, you know that they want what is best for Newport Beach, not for themselves. 

If the “No on Measure B” campaign wins, and I sincerely hope that it does, we can look at all the money it cost the city and individual donors and say how much better it would have been to donate that money to a worthier cause, like the children in Ukraine or the homeless in Orange County, instead of trying to play with the minds of the voters. 

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

We deserve a mayor that’s accountable to the residents

2020 woke up a lot of people just like me. Moms who thought we didn’t need to engage much in politics suddenly saw that our disinterest in politics didn’t mean that politics wasn’t interested in us. 

During that time, leadership mattered. Having a person in charge as Mayor mattered. Having a city council majority that would keep beaches open, would push back on bad policy, and would fight for our kids mattered.

By the end of 2020, many of us suddenly realized that our system needed more accountability to us. We didn’t elect our Mayor? Seriously? We just roll the dice and hope for the best among seven people? Two of whom voted to close beaches and put mask mandates in place in our city? That’s how our Mayor gets chosen?

We deserve better and we deserve to have our Mayor campaign directly to us for that position.

At the end of the day, the question we’re asked is simple: should our Charter be changed to provide for the direct election of our Mayor. I’m voting yes and hope that you will too.

Annette Harper

Newport Beach 

What’s the problem that Measure B solves?

Let me revert, in the closing days of the Measure B campaign, to a question that has been raised often over the past few months.

What is the problem in Newport Beach that Measure B solves?

Are we spending too much money on civic improvements? Are we making mistakes in our police or fire policies? No. Almost everyone agrees that Newport Beach is well-governed, perhaps one of the best-governed cities in the state.

At no point have the Measure B proponents ever identified a real-world problem in Newport Beach that Measure B would solve.

At best, proponents of Measure B say that the “problem” it solves is that we do not elect our mayor. That is a rather circular definition of a purported problem.

The main proponents of Measure B, Will O’Neill and Noah Blom, said not a word about direct elections of the mayor when they ran for council in 2020.

Indeed, nobody in Newport Beach was talking about this issue until late 2021, when the proponents started soliciting signatures on a petition to change the charter. Surely, if our current council system was causing real problems, people would have been talking about those problems for more than a few months.

There is no problem in Newport Beach that Measure B will solve. Rather, if passed, Measure B would create problems in Newport Beach, by destroying our collegial city council in favor of an all-powerful mayor. Please, join me and the many former mayors, city councilmembers and other city leaders in voting NO on this ill-advised measure.

Walter Stahr 

Newport Beach

Look through the clutter and vote Yes on B

Have you voted yet? In the few days left to vote, I hope you’ll join me in answering the following question: Shall [the Charter] be amended to provide for the direct election of the Mayor, who would be nominated by residents and registered voters of the City of Newport Beach and elected by the voters of the City at-large?”

That’s it. That’s the question. Should the charter be changed so that we – the voters – can choose our Mayor?

My answer is YES on B. 

Have you ever seen the opposition to this question talk directly to what is on our ballot? Or to the City Attorney’s impartial analysis? I haven’t.

Instead, they want you to answer completely different questions. They have run mail pieces asking if you want an “elected King” or to spend “hundreds of thousands of dollars” on the Mayor position. They’ve sent out mail asking if you want a “Republican power grab” and even invoked Donald Trump’s name as a boogeyman. None of that is on our ballot.

So, look past the clutter, the irrational fear mongering, the made-up stories and the bitterness. Answer the question in front of us. If we do that, we’ll have a Mayor that is directly accountable to us for the first time. 

Ruth Kobayashi

Newport Beach

Closing argument on Measure B

I have followed the debate on Measure B very closely. I remain a strong YES on Measure B. I urge Newport Beach voters to read the actual measure and read the voter pamphlet and ignore the hyperbole from the opposition. If you do, you will most likely vote YES on B.

I must confess that I am extremely disappointed with the tactics of the NO on B group. There are, no doubt, many fine people in the NO on B group. But the group clearly rejected the path of an honest debate in favor of an “end justifies the means” campaign to defeat Measure B. Misleading slogans, half-truths and outright misrepresentations about Measure B are mostly what I saw and read from the opposition. To be sure, the best example of the misdirection is the central rallying cry of the NO on B group – “Stop the Power Grab.” This sounds sinister but it actually makes no sense. Exactly what power is being “grabbed” and by whom is it being grabbed? These questions were never answered by the No on B group because they are unanswerable. It was simply a scare tactic.

Measure B merely gives Newport Beach voters the right to cast a ballot for the Mayor of their City. Power to the people.

John O’Hara

Newport Beach

Measure B is all about one guy’s future political career

Although I recently moved from Newport Beach, we have many friends there and a sincere interest in the city. 

I am bemused at the entire Measure B issue. A revealing look at the Measure can be made by taking Mr. O’Neill’s (recent) op/ed penned May 8 and substituting his name in the text every time you see the word “Mayor.” It clearly paints the picture that Councilman O’Neill conjured up the measure with the sole purpose of him being the only likely choice in a free and clear election of a Newport Beach Mayor. 

I have never seen such an obvious self-serving proposal to keep his political life extended after his expected “terming out” of council in 2024! He obviously has sights on higher office than Mayor which makes his potential 8-year gig in that capacity a needed steppingstone to a state or federal post. Without something to step on and from, he is destined to be a former councilman and mayor with nowhere else to go. 

It IS a power grab, but not by a committee or PAC. It is an attempted power grab by the sole author of the self-serving Measure B. Don’t fall for it. Let Mr. O’Neill term out and fade away. 

Richard Weaver

Castle Rock, CO

There’s a lot wrong with Measure B, where to begin?

Newport As We Know It

Since our City’s incorporation in 1906, Newport Beach voters have elected a governing body of co-equal decision makers who, at least as often as new members are elected to it, select one among themselves to serve as their presiding officer. The City’s hired professional, and hopefully objective, administrative staff brings matters before this governing body when a decision is required of them, on behalf of our citizens. 

The presiding officer, as the governing body’s figurehead, has a duty to sign papers related to the decisions made by it as a whole, and, when asked, to articulate its majority’s position, whether or not he or she personally endorses it.

Originally referred to as the “President” of our City’s “Board of Trustees,” since August 1927 California law has described such a presiding officer as the City’s “Mayor,” and the body as a whole as the “City Council.”

This is not a perfect system. None is. But it does allow the council to choose as their presiding officer the colleague they feel will be most congenial and effective in executing the largely ceremonial duties attached to the office – and to immediately choose a different colleague if their first choice doesn’t work out.

The Promises

Measure B dangles before us the alluring fantasy of a new world in which – if we only vote “yes” – we will be able to impose on the Council a presiding officer aligned with our vision for the City who will, in a way “accountable” to each of us, magically guide the rest of City government precisely as we would like.

Much as I would like to have more control over how my city is run, I am voting “NO” because to accomplish its goals Measure B would enact a very specific scheme replete with poorly-thought-out details. Most of those details do not actually accomplish the stated goals and most could not be changed without another costly voter initiative. 

In my view, Measure B would permanently impose on us a system even less perfect than our present one. 

Shared Vision? 

First, since the Mayor would be elected in exactly the same way as all the current Councilmembers, I see no guarantee the person elected would be any more to my liking, or share my vision, than the seven from whom the Mayor is currently chosen.

At least equally important, unless the Mayor were to be elected through a system of primaries and runoffs – something Measure B does not propose – there is no guarantee the person elected will even be preferred by a majority of the people. 

When recently disgraced Anaheim elected Mayor Harry Sidhu ran for election in 2018, he was in an eight-way winner-take-all race in which only 49% of Anaheim’s voters participated. Of those voting, less than a third chose Mr. Sidhu. So, he became “the people’s choice” with five out of six Anaheim voters never having expressed a preference for him, and more than two thirds specifically wanting someone else. We can expect similar results in Newport Beach under Measure B.

Rotating the position among seven separately elected persons does not ensure any one of them will share my views, but it does seem likely more different people’s views will be held by the rotating Mayor at some time, than if we place all our bets on just one person for four years at a time.


Second, the Mayor under Measure B will clearly be less accountable to the people, not more. 

Currently, if we don’t like a Councilmember’s performance as Mayor, our Council of representatives can, on our behalf, at any time, demote that person back to the status of a regular Councilmember.

Measure B would remove that power. Once elected, the Mayor could act with much more impunity. For far from being more accountable to the people and their representatives, we would be limited to the options we already have for all elected officials: waiting for the end of their term or mounting a difficult and expensive recall campaign. 

If the Measure B proponents truly wanted a Mayor accountable to the people, why are they proposing to give the person a four-year term? Isn’t it axiomatic that a truly accountable Mayor should face the people more frequently – say by running for election every two years, or even annually? 

Moreover, if a misbehaving Mayor chose to leave office voluntarily, as Mr. Sidhu did recently in Anaheim, or if the seat became vacant for any other reason – such as the sitting Mayor moving, becoming incapacitated or being elected to another office – Measure B would generally require our City to hold an expensive special election to fill the vacancy, likely attracting few voters. Especially considering the many alternatives available, that is, to me, a completely unnecessary waste – much like the estimated $215,000 being spent to put Measure B on a non-normal City ballot – to fill what is supposed to be a ceremonial and ministerial position. 

Among the alternatives: the Council could simply continue to function with the Mayor Pro Tem serving as Mayor until the next election; or the Council could be empowered to appoint a caretaker Mayor pledged not to run for the position when, at the next regular election, the people would elect a permanent replacement.

Directing Government As We Wish? 

Third, Measure B proposes to afford the Mayor greater influence over the City’s direction by giving him or her unprecedented agenda setting power and cementing into our City Charter a rule that would suppress the ability of our other representatives, and their constituents, to be heard. 

The agenda is the way (and under state law, the only way) matters are brought before our elected decision makers for public discussion. The vast majority of these are matters presented by the City’s paid administrative staff that require a decision by the Council. A few others are items placed on the agenda by Councilmembers on behalf of their constituents or on their own initiative. The details of how the agenda is prepared for a particular meeting, including the City Manager’s role in that process, has always been left entirely to the discretion of the Council, so they are free to modify the agenda-setting procedures to meet changing needs. And the procedures have, indeed, changed over time.

By placing it in our Charter, Measure B would make permanent one particular and untried system of agenda setting. 

Matters could be placed on the agenda, and therefore come up for discussion, only with the permission of the elected Mayor. The Mayor, it seems, would be completely free to reject requests from staff and colleagues. The only exception would be that the elected Mayor may have to accept the request of three or more Councilmembers to place an item on some future agenda, likely of the Mayor’s choosing. 

Such rules are widely seen as tools to consolidate power by suppressing dissenting views, creating a government less responsive to citizen interests, not more so. 

Shortly after his election, the now-disgraced elected Mayor Sidhu in Anaheim pushed through his Council very similar restrictions on agenda setting (but milder since he still allowed staff to put items on the agenda without needing mayoral consent). Fortunately for Anaheim, he did not manage to get those restrictions cemented into their city charter, so the council is free to move back, as they appear to be doing, to the former system in which every councilmember, individually, had the power to place any item of interest to them, or their constituents, on the agenda for discussion.

More Problems

A final example of the many that might be mentioned as new problems Measure B would create – and one I do not recall having been pointed out in any previous letters to Stu News or the campaign mailers – is the imbalance it will create in the timing of our from-district Council elections.

Newport Beach voters currently elect representatives from Districts 1, 3, 4 and 6 at one election and from Districts 2, 5 and 7 at the next. Measure B proposes to rather arbitrarily eliminate District 7 to create a council consisting of a Mayor and six lesser from-district representatives. But the obvious problem (aside from why not seven plus a Mayor?) is that would leave four of the lesser Council seats up in one election and only two in the next. 

For so-called general law cities, Government Code Section 34906 provides a simple way to get back to even staggering (with three of the six seats up at each election). 

Measure B cements the uneven staggering into our City Charter, where it could only be corrected with a future initiative. 

My Conclusions 

In short, Measure B is more than some sort of advisory request for voters to say whether they support directly electing the Mayor of Newport Beach, with details to be worked out later. 

It is, instead, a request to vote “yes” or “no” on permanently instituting a very specific way of implementing and empowering a directly elected mayor. 

The specific way offered by Measure B is fraught with problems, just a few of which have been detailed above. 

In my view, Measure B’s way would be even worse than the admittedly imperfect system we have now.

Given that, one might ask: Why did the Council majority that put Measure B on the ballot not take the time needed to discuss and correct its many problems?

For, as currently written, B is bad for Newport Beach.

I am voting “NO.”

Jim Mosher

Newport Beach

The strong mayor and setting of the agenda

A recent mailer by the proponents of Measure B included the definition of “accountability.” According to Measure B’s supporters, the strong mayor will be “accountable” to each of Newport’s 85,239 residents. The mayor is gonna be busy.

Taking this cue, I decided to check out the meaning of “SOLE DISCRETION” which words appear in Measure B: one person “shall have SOLE DISCRETION to set City Council agendas and to change the order of business on the agendas.” 

The “Law Insider” says that “SOLE DISCRETION” means “the right and power to decide a matter, which right may be exercised arbitrarily for any reason or no reason at any time and from time to time.” 

Wow! Pretty expansive “right” and “power,” eh?

The definition prompted the following hypothetical: I like cigars. The strong mayor may not. If I were a Councilmember or resident and if Measure B passes, can the strong mayor block my cigar bar proposal as an agenda item or, in the alternative, can the strong mayor put my matter near the end of the agenda when residents may have already left the chambers or dozed off? Or maybe – in the strong mayor’s SOLE DISCRETION – can my cigar bar proposal be blocked until a year from now? 

Sadly, I believe the answer to these questions is “yes.”

And, by the way, I believe the defectively drafted Measure B would allow the strong mayor to thwart consideration of my cigar bar on the agenda EVEN IF three other Councilmembers requested its inclusion. 


The Measure B language (unfortunately) is clear on its face: “With the concurrence of at least three members of the City Council at any public meeting, an item MAY [not “WILL”] be added to a FUTURE agenda.” 

Please note the ill-advised choice of the word “MAY” instead of the word “WILL” which word change, of course, would have compelled the strong mayor to add my cigar bar proposal if three other members agreed. So, as you can see, the strong mayor can decline to add my cigar bar to the agenda EVEN IF THREE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS request its addition. 


And – even if added – the strong mayor has the SOLE DISCRETION as to WHEN (if ever) to add the cigar bar to a FUTURE agenda.

Does FUTURE mean in two weeks? Does FUTURE mean in a month? Does FUTURE mean in a year? Does FUTURE mean when the strong mayor develops a liking for cigars?

Sad (again).

As seen, Measure B’s agenda setting language is fatally flawed on several fronts. Please vote “NO” on the Bad for Newport Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Spirited community meeting discusses traffic and potential solutions

I was at the community meeting last night concerning the closure of lower Tustin Avenue which is being done on a trial basis in the Heights. It was nice to see the number of neighbors in attendance, particularly those who live on other streets which are affected by the closure. 

One issue that was brought up but that was probably lost during the spirited speeches was: What are the widths of all the streets whose traffic has increased during the time that Tustin has been walled off? My house on Redlands and a friend’s house on Riverside date back to approximately 1943. If I heard correctly, that was before the houses were built on lower Tustin and Oceanview. 

One of the main problems residents from lower Tustin and Oceanview expressed was that their streets were only 30 feet wide. That is why I thought the width of other streets could be of concern as well. 

Different alternatives to the closure which many in the streets around Tustin and Oceanview prefer (as well as a few from the latter who spoke), are one-way streets, the addition of sidewalks and increased policing to name a few.

Riverside, with traffic parked on both sides of the street, and visibility limited by a hill, seems particularly hazardous to residents who cannot let children play in their front yard, nor enjoy walks on their street. The closure of Tustin results in an increase of 200 cars per day or 1,400 per week which aggravates an already trying situation.

Also, the traffic on Riverside and upper Tustin is very fast moving which, when coupled with the number of cars that use those streets, creates great cause for concern.

As mentioned, traffic on upper Tustin is a nightmare. It would be interesting to know its width as well. Not to say that lower Tustin, and Oceanview don’t have their problems, but it would help the traffic discussion to talk independently about the problems of each street. Or as in the case of Tustin, the traffic of each half.

It never serves the community well in the long run to make changes that do not take all factors into consideration equally, not just those (to use an overworked metaphor), of the “squeaky wheel.” 

The map that was used at the first traffic meeting was very helpful to see the numerical effects on each street when the barricade was put up. We tried to distribute those maps in the community so that everyone started with the same amount of information. Some in attendance felt that the traffic counts should take summer traffic into consideration. Unfortunately, no one was there from Cliff Drive to express the new traffic problems that they were facing. Irvine, which has terrible traffic at certain times of the day was not represented either. Perhaps these streets trust that the Council will make decisions that take their problems into consideration.

After the meeting, one lady from Riverside spoke to me of a very bad traffic accident on that street. Yet there didn’t seem to be an opportunity to express such information from other streets as the residents from lower Tustin and Oceanview were a bit more aggressive than the others even though it seemed that they did not outnumber them. I tried to say something and was repeatedly interrupted by the people around me.

Between the time limited monologues at council meetings and a boisterous and over energized crowd is a happy medium. That said, last night’s discussion was handled aptly by Mr. Brine and Mr. Webb, despite the feeling among some spectators that perhaps the decision of what to do with Heights’ traffic had already been made.    

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Elect Our Mayor campaign flyers

Measure B is an important proposition for our city of Newport Beach and so warrants discussion and thoughtfulness. Thus, I have tried my best to read information for both sides of the argument.

However, there has not been much available information for the “pro Measure B argument,” so much was my delight when a huge flyer from “Elect Our Mayor” was in my mailbox at the end of last week. My hope was that it would contain relevant facts and details to help me reach my best judgement for supporting Measure B.

My anticipation was short lived and replaced by outright disbelief, when not only was there a lack of information, but the wording “why are opponents of Measure B lying to you?” was accompanied by a not-so-subtle image of Pinocchio. Surely, they could not and would not be using it in such shallow terms to merely brand all opposition as liars. That would mean any opposing voter being labeled as a liar.

Measure B was initiated by some members of the council, the flyer stated, “paid for by elect our mayor,” so I find it difficult to not believe that the councilmembers supporting Measure B have not bestowed their approval for the flyer. If that is the case, then name calling of opponents in such a childish and churlish manner would show the true disdain held for anyone who is of an opposing mind.

I do not usually like to quibble about ideas made by others; however, I think that the reference of Pinocchio may be interpreted another way and so in this instance I will quibble.

We are aware that Pinocchio was a puppet with a puppet master pulling the strings. Maybe it was a Freudian slip by the proponents of Measure B who see themselves more as Pinocchio with a puppeteer behind their scenes?

I would say to the people behind the campaign for Elect Our Mayor that if you decide to send such information to my home, then please have the decency to self-check what you are sending to me and how it may be offensive. I ask that you please treat us, residents and voters with respect regardless of what any voter’s stance is on any issue.

Gina Cruz

Newport Beach

Pro Measure B arguments – Where’s the beef?

Proponents of Measure B started out their campaign saying the issue was simple – do you want to directly elect your Mayor. But as opponents of Measure B have defined the numerous harms and flaws of Measure B, proponents have found a new “reason” for you to support it.

Recently in both letters and social media posts some proponents have claimed that the unelected, professional City Manager (who is hired and can be fired by City Council majority vote) has too much power because the City Manager creates the agenda, while it takes the votes of three City Councilmembers to place an item on the agenda. Therefore, agenda setting should be vested in a strong elected Mayor. This argument is totally disingenuous because the policy that requires three City Council votes to place an item on an agenda is a City Council policy (Council Policy A-1) that can be changed by Council vote any time the members see fit! At their next meeting the City Council could vote to allow only one City Councilmember to request an item be placed on the agenda if that was really an issue!

Measure B proponents have had to manufacture false issues to come up with reasons for voters to support Measure B. But Measure B will:

–Allow a powerful Mayor to decide what goes on and what stays off City Council agendas.

–Increase term limits to allow one person to serve 16 years combined as a Mayor and a City Councilperson. 

–Result in massive expenditures on Mayoral campaigns with outside interests becoming major contributors.

–Measure B is a political solution in search of a problem. There isn’t one thing Measure B proponents can point to that the City did not obtain over the past 67 years due to not having a strong Mayor.

Measure B is opposed by 12 former Mayors and many Citizens of the Year as dangerous to our community.

–Eliminates one City Council district, which allows the district the Mayor resides in to have twice the voting power as every other City Council district. 

Don’t be fooled by the power grab. Vote No on Measure B.

Homer Bludau, 

Newport Beach City Manager (1999-2009)

Measure B: A solution in search of a problem?

I read the “City Attorney Impartial Analysis.”

I read the “Direct Argument In Favor of Measure B” and I read the “Rebuttal to Argument Against Measure B.”

I get that the Mayor “should have to talk to you” – yes, presumably, to all 85,239 of us (according to the 2020 census) as promised by the Measure B proponents.

I get that the Mayor should “be accountable to all of us” – yes, presumably, to all 85,239 of us as promised by the proponents.

But, for the life of me and despite all this new knowledge from the “Voter Information Guide,” I have been unable to determine what problem the proponents of Measure B are trying to solve. 

I have concluded that Measure B may be a solution in search of a problem and may possibly be a one-person crusade.

Here are some questions to ponder:

–Is Newport one of the most financially stable and healthy cities in California?

–Does Newport balance its budget each year and also pay down the unfunded pension obligations each year?

–Has Newport’s fiscal management resulted in a surplus every year for the past 10 years?

–Does Newport’s current management structure (a City Manager and staff) create a superbly managed, collaborative, fiscally strong, highly rated city as concluded by residents, visitors, other cities, bond raters, investment participants, developers and others?

–Does the current Council/Manager governance model evenly disperse power among seven co-equals which model has served us well for nearly seventy years and results in the indisputable conclusion that (as Mayor Muldoon stated at the May 19, 2022 Speak Up Newport Mayor’s Dinner) Newport Beach is stable and strong?

If the foregoing questions can all be answered “Yes,” please help me understand what is broke in Newport and what problem we are attempting to solve by enacting Measure B.

As the majority of absentee votes have now been cast and as we approach the June 7 decision day, I cannot get the notion out of my mind that Measure B is not only a solution in search of a problem, but it is a deficiently drafted, poorly conceived and unnecessary idea that may lead to regrettable unintended consequences, conflict, enormous taxpayer costs and possible corruption not unlike what the City of Anaheim recently experienced. 

Please vote “NO” on the Bad for Newport Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Measure B opponents accused of lying

And we wonder why good people with honorable intentions don’t want to run for public office or to oppose ballot measures in good faith.

In its most recent costly mailer, the “Yes on B” proponents ask in bold red type “WHY ARE OPPONENTS OF MEASURE B LYING TO YOU?”

That same ad shows a slightly overweight, double-chinned, bespectacled accountant-type with fingers crossed asking the “why do they lie” question.

Additional accusations follow in the mailer:

–“Dishonest campaign”

–“Opponents have literally been lying to you”

–“Lie #1”

–“Lie #2”

–“Lie #3”

So, time for honest rebuttal to the proponents’ lying accusations. 

YES, Measure B IS a power grab. Measure B states that one person “shall have SOLE DISCRETION to set City Council agendas and to CHANGE THE ORDER OF BUSINESS on the agendas.” Sounds to me like a heckuva lot of discretionary power is vested in one person. How possibly can the proponents disagree with the meaning of their own words? 

YES, Measure B changes our form of government from seven co-equal collaborative representatives to a strong mayor with six subordinates. Please use common sense. Of course, a strong mayor form of municipal governance dramatically and radically changes our current co-equals governance. 

YES, and ask any city with a strong mayor: the expense of the strong mayor’s staff to administer the strong mayor’s Council subordinates, other City staff and the residents (all 85,239 of us to each of whom the strong mayor will purportedly be “accountable”) will cost a bundle.

I am not naïve. I get that politics is a blood sport as reflected by this latest mailer. But is it any wonder that able folks whose hearts, intentions and ambitions are in the right place are deterred from running for public office or from opposing ill-considered ballot measures? 

Please vote “NO” on Bad for Newport Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Problems in neighboring cities are proof that Measure B is bad

I’ve been opposed to the Measure B charter change since I first read the text and learned who was behind it. It’s amazing that so many of the dangers I and others saw in it are playing out in other cities just as we prepare to vote. 

For instance, we learned this week that in Anaheim, which has a system similar to what Measure B would introduce in Newport Beach (directly elected and incredibly powerful mayor), the elected mayor is now the subject of a federal corruption probe. He is alleged to have tried to ram through the sale of Angel Stadium to secure $1 million for his reelection campaign. 

This is one of the biggest risks Measure B poses in a city like ours: that the race to be mayor of Newport Beach would be astronomically expensive and open the door to corruption. The race could easily attract crooked politicians from other cities who would seek to buy the office by raising millions through back-room deals with actors who couldn’t care less about our city.

Meanwhile, in Westminster, which also directly elects its mayor for four years, voters will be asked next month if they want to scrap their system and return to one like ours, where the mayor position rotates annually between councilmembers. That city has often seen hours-long, rancor-filled council meetings and it is expected to file for bankruptcy within the next few years.

It would be naïve to think Newport Beach is immune from these kinds of corruption and chaos. 

As someone who’s been observing Newport Beach politics for years, I can honestly say that our system of government works. No one councilmember has too much power. Because the mayor position rotates annually and is mostly ceremonial, and thanks to the checks and balances built into the system, there is little incentive for corrupt and self-serving politicians to run for office. Instead, the system is designed to attract those who simply want the opportunity to give back to the community. 

If Measure B passes, all of this goes away, and all bets are off. 

I’m definitely voting NO and hope you will too. 

Dorothy Kraus

Newport Beach

What to do with Tustin Ave. traffic could be decided at community meeting

Residents in the Newport Heights area are beginning to wake up to the traffic problems that they will be facing if the city decides to block one end of ongoing traffic on Tustin Ave.

Residents are learning how much the changes in traffic flow on other streets will be impacted as drivers are diverted to alternate routes.

According to a traffic study conducted by the city, neighbors learned that the Tustin Ave. closure which greatly decreased its traffic flow from 834 cars to 276 daily, increased the traffic on the only other straight thoroughfare Riverside Ave., which runs from PCH to 15th Street, by 1,400 additional cars per week and increased their daily average by 200 more cars per day.

The other end of Tustin Ave., which reaches to 17th St., will get no break, pushing their total cars average per day to 2,517.

If you are a pedestrian, avoid walking on that street. You would do so to great peril.

Other streets which will see increased traffic from the Tustin Ave. closure, are Ocean View Ave., Avon St., Cliff Drive, Irvine Ave. and Redlands Ave. – literally all streets running parallel to Tustin Ave. will be greatly affected by the closure.

The reasons that Tustin Ave. residents give for wanting to close their street are not clear. Some say the street is very narrow, especially when cars are parked on both sides, that partygoers bring a lot of noise to the area and some councilmembers just said that the reason was because the street was ”unique.”

Actually, every street in the Heights is unique as it is a relatively old area.
But Newport Heights residents should not yet despair. They will have an opportunity to make their concerns known at a Community Meeting next Wednesday evening, June 1. It will take place at the intersection of Tustin Ave. and Ocean View Ave. at 5:30 p.m.

After the neighborhood meeting, there is a plan to place the item on the City Council agenda for the June 28 meeting. If you have any questions, please contact Tony Brine, City Traffic Engineer, 100 Civic Center Drive. Phone: 949.644.3329.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Guest Letter

Cottie Petrie-Norris

State Assembly

74th District

Irresponsible operators with pending licenses for a social rehabilitation facility

Guest Letter Cottie Petrie Norris

Click on photo for a larger image

Courtesy of Cottie Petrie-Norris

Cottie Petrie-Norris

(The letter below is communication from Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris and Newport Beach City Attorney Aaron Harp.)

Thank you for your continued partnership with our office. I am writing in response to your letter dated April 11, 2022. My objective is to clarify a couple of key points and identify opportunities for local enforcement to curtail abuses in residential care facilities in the City of Newport Beach.

When the Legislature enacted Health & Saf. Code, Section 11934.23, subd. (a), the intent was to require that six-bed residential facilities be treated the same “as a family for the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to a residential use of property.” The Legislature determined that, if the rehabilitation program was structured to act like a family unit, then cities and counties must allow it to locate in single-family residential zones and not subject it to local permitting. The Legislature’s intent was to allow standalone facilities whose residents mimicked a family by their cooperative living arrangements, shared expenses and long-term residency.

Aware of the Legislature’s decision regarding six-bed facilities, operators attempt to exploit this family unit exception by acquiring or leasing multiple single-family properties within close proximity and sending residents of those homes to a single treatment facility where services and staff are shared amongst the residents of their various homes. Further, instead of treating up to six persons, they treat multiples of six, and therefore should be viewed in total as “7 bed and over” Integral Facilities that are subject to local ordinances and laws. In previous correspondence, you have recognized that these facilities should be treated as Integral Facilities. As we have seen in the City of Costa Mesa, there is indeed an opportunity to regulate these Integral Facilities under a City Ordinance.

Costa Mesa’s Ordinance has a very strong Integral Facilities definition that clearly states that two or more state licensed 6 bed and under facilities under common ownership and sharing services can be regulated by the City. Their Ordinance has been reviewed and upheld multiple times before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. At each court review the Integral Facilities definition has passed scrutiny, even though the Ordinance has a severability clause that would allow any section of the Ordinance to be struck. My office recommends that Newport Beach also prudently maintain its current Integral Facilities definition and reserve its right to regulate these facilities.

In order to curtail the proliferation of bad operators in the City of Newport Beach, we must take action at both the state and local level. I am continuing to push forward with much needed reforms in state statute and oversight in the recovery industry. Local oversight and enforcement of Integral Facilities must also be part of the solution.

If you would like to discuss this further, please don’t hesitate to contact me or my Chief of Staff Claire Conlon at 949.251.0074.

Cottie Petrie-Norris 

California State Assemblywoman

Guest Letter

Misagh Karimi, M.D.

City of Hope

Most men don’t know the warning signs of prostate cancer

Guest Letter Misagh Karimi

Click on photo for a larger image

Courtesy of City of Hope

Misagh Karimi, M.D., City of Hope

Do you know the signs of prostate cancer?

If you don’t, you’re not alone.

A recent poll of men in the U.K. found that 68 percent could not identify a single symptom of prostate cancer. The poll highlights the need to bring awareness to men in general, and especially here in the U.S., where prostate cancer affects one in eight men. Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in U.S. men, trailing only skin cancers, and men over age 65 and Black men are at greater risk of developing the disease due to a range of factors.

Why is it so important to recognize the signs? Because when prostate cancer is detected at an early stage before it has spread beyond the prostate or the region around it, the treatment success rates are high.

Symptoms of prostate cancer

The prostate lies below the bladder and surrounds the urethra; most prostate cancer signs are connected to urinary symptoms. They include:

–The need to urinate urgently and frequently, especially during the night.

–Difficulty in starting to urinate or having weak urine flow.

–The feeling that the bladder hasn’t emptied.

–Blood in the urine or semen.

Prostate cancer may also cause more generalized symptoms, such as:

–Pain in the lower back or pelvic area.

–Weakness or numbness in the legs or feet.



Tips for early detection

So, men, what should you do?

First, know the warning signs. Worrisome or persistent symptoms should spark a conversation with your primary care physician.

Second, know your family’s health history. Most prostate cancers are not hereditary, but the risk can double if a man’s brother or father has had prostate cancer. The risk is even higher for men who have had several relatives affected by the disease.

Lastly, talk with your doctor about prostate cancer screening options and the recommendations that should go into making your individual decision to get screened.

Advances in the early detection of prostate cancer are opening up more options for treatment and saving men’s lives. What’s more, if you have early-stage, slow-growing prostate cancer, you may be able to take a watch-and-wait approach instead of starting treatment right away. If you have been newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer, there is much reason to feel hopeful and optimistic about your future.

Misagh Karimi, M.D., is the director of clinical operations at City of Hope Newport Beach Fashion Island and a medical oncologist specializing in gastrointestinal and genitourinary cancers.

City of Hope is a leader in prostate cancer research and treatment, successfully treating thousands of people with prostate cancer each year. To make an appointment at any of City of Hope’s four Orange County locations, click here or call:

Newport Beach Fashion Island: 949.763.2204

Newport Beach Lido: 949.999.1400

Irvine Sand Canyon: 949.333.7580

Huntington Beach: 714.252.9415

Letters to the Editor

Anaheim scandal shows why Newport should vote NO on Measure B

Anyone in doubt about how to vote in Newport Beach on Measure B should consider closely the recent revelations about corruption in Anaheim.

The allegations are set forth in a sworn statement, signed by a senior FBI agent and filed on May 16 in state court, quoting recorded conversations between the mayor of Anaheim, Harry Sidhu, and others, as well as emails and texts sent by the mayor from his personal accounts. More details appear in the criminal complaint against Todd Ament, of the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, close colleague of the mayor.

The FBI affidavit shows that, while Sidhu was representing the city in the high-stakes contract negotiation with the Los Angeles Angels for the sale of Anaheim Stadium, he was also sharing confidential city information with the Angels, including at least one document prepared by the city’s lawyers, in violation if the Brown Act.

Why would Mayor Sidhu, who is supposed to represent Anaheim, help the other side, the Angels, in this way? Because Mayor Sidhu, who was elected in 2018 for a four-year term, is involved in an expensive re-election campaign, seeking another four-year term.

In one of the taped conversations, the mayor tells a friend that he hopes and expects to receive a million-dollar donation from a senior Angels official to his re-election campaign. As the FBI agent said in his affidavit, “I believe Sidhu illustrated his intent to solicit campaign contributions, in the amount of $1,000,000…in exchange for performing official acts intended to finalize the stadium sale for the Angels.” To evade contribution limits, the mayor planned to seek the contribution not for his own committee, but rather for a supposedly independent political action committee that would support his re-election efforts.

As I read page after page of shocking, disgusting detail, I was thankful for one key provision in the current charter of Newport Beach, which states that the mayor serves at the pleasure of the city council. If similar conduct was engaged in by the mayor of Newport Beach, rather than Anaheim, the Newport Beach city council could replace the mayor at the next council meeting – without waiting for criminal charges, or for a criminal conviction. In Anaheim, even though three members of the city council have called for the mayor’s resignation, there is no such option.

If Measure B passes, however, the Newport Beach charter will be changed, so that the mayor no longer serves at the pleasure of the council. The only way to remove a mayor, mired in a corruption scandal, at that point would be to wait for a criminal conviction or to mount a recall campaign which would take many months or years to achieve.

Moreover, if Measure B passes, we are going to have expensive, contentious campaigns for mayor here in Newport Beach. The costs of a successful campaign to become Newport Beach mayor could easily exceed a million dollars. Candidates would seek contributions from those interested in seeing local projects or contracts approved, like the sale of Anaheim Stadium. And Newport Beach is a place where hundred-million-dollar developments are quite possible, so there will be high stakes issues akin to the stadium issue in Anaheim.

Proponents of Measure B might say something like “Newport Beach is not Anaheim; we would never see such corruption here.” But this ignores the close parallels between the system in Anaheim, in which a powerful mayor is elected for a four-year term, and can be re-elected, and the changes to our system under Measure B. In fact, Measure B gives even more power to the mayor than exists in Anaheim, power to control the council’s agenda.

Why shouldn’t we expect, at some point, if we pass Measure B, and create a system in which there are expensive direct elections for mayor, that there will be some corruption, or some highly questionable donations, as candidates scramble to become mayor of Newport Beach?

Please vote no on Measure B: protect our current city charter and save us from the expensive elections and the corruptive tendencies of a powerful four-year mayor.

Walter Stahr

Newport Beach

Confused and “insulted” by campaign mailers

When we vote on a measure, it should be because we think it will fix or improve something in our great city. I wanted to try to understand what the real reason or purpose for Measure B is, so I’ve read the materials in print and online. But I remain puzzled over the ongoing sales pitch by proponents of Measure B.

In last week’s Stu News, rather than explain what he believes are the benefits of Measure B to our residents, Councilman Duffield spent his words attacking Jeff Herdman for issues that happened years ago that nobody remembers or cares about. 

In the print mailers supporting Measure B, there are many points made about the details of how the Measure reads but the only “benefit” to residents appears to be a broad reference to better “accountability” although it’s not clear how that will be achieved by having a voter elected Mayor vs a Council-elected Mayor. Aren’t the current Councilmembers (which includes the measures authors) insulted by being told that they apparently are not accountable now or in the past? How has our city managed to survive all these years with no accountability?

And I am certainly insulted by the mailer that says, “Warning – Opponents of Measure B are running a false and misleading campaign. Don’t be fooled by their lies. Opponents are power brokers who do not want you electing the mayor,” signed by Noah Von Blom.

I find these mailers to be misleading because the reduction of the number of districts is buried in the fine print. 

The measure allows 1) an individual two four-year terms as Councilmember and two four-year terms as Mayor for a total of 16 years. That’s too long for one person and dramatically changes the term limit concept in place today. 2) we would go from 7 equal districts to 6 districts plus a more powerful Mayor. The Mayor and one of the Councilmembers will live in the same district causing one district to have two representatives. I don’t see how these facts can be considered “lies” or “false and misleading.” If I’m wrong on these critical points then someone needs to educate me. 

Read for yourself at Please vote No on Measure B. 

Mike Groff

Newport Beach 

That Certain Something

In his 2001 coffee table book entitled The Spirit of Newport, Steven Simon Jr. shares his poetry and paintings celebrating the beauty and charm of Newport Beach. Near the end of his book appears Mr. Simon’s closing poem, “That Certain Something”: 

Daylight the setting sun cannot elude

So this visit shall fittingly conclude

To a city blessed – one can see at first glance

With abundance, beauty, and riviera romance.

Ah, but amid these blessings there’s something more

Not easy to explain but simple to adore.

A place like none other I’ve found

Indeed, a certain spirit does here abound.”

Mr. Simon has it right. There is a certain spirit here. Long time and short time residents feel it –“at first glance” as Mr. Simon says. A magnetism made up of small friendly villages, of friendly residents, of friendly businesses, of friendly surroundings including beach and bay.

But some would have you believe that the “certain spirit” needs changing.

The proponents of Measure B say that we are ready for the Big Time. We need a strong mayor who can vault us into the Big Leagues. We need to copy big cities with a very powerful person who can lead us because nearly seventy years of unrivaled success and the universal envy by other cities apparently isn’t proof positive of that “certain spirit” of which Mr. Simon speaks.

Leave it alone. Our system for the annual election of the mayor has worked well for nearly seventy years. Left alone, it will work well for the next seventy years.

Don’t be fooled by the change agents. Vote NO on the Bad for Newport Measure B. 

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Measure B is not written to better Newport Beach

I have written previously about Measure B because of my great concern for how it will change city government, which in my opinion, is not for the better. It is unfortunate that the plan was not more thoughtfully conceived.

My reaction to the idea of “electing a mayor” was immediate. I knew that it seemed to come out of nowhere and was not conceived with the betterment of Newport Beach government in mind. Its intent seems to promote the political future of its creators as well as the financial future of its benefactors.

For those who think that Newport Beach will benefit from this plan that will replace the current system, I ask you to consider the following question: Would the “elect the mayor” system proposed by Measure B even exist if no one currently on council was able to run for the newly created office?

So unimportant are all the details of the plan other than electing a mayor that the system proposed has changed from its original configuration. On an election brochure this last week, an arrow was drawn from the constituents directly to the mayor representing the flow of power. There was no evidence of a city council existing between the two. It seems that Measure B has already changed, implying that there would be no council, or that the power of the council would meld into that of the constituents as in the diagram.

Was that a printing error or does it illustrate how little anything else matters, as long as there is an elected mayor? In light of this implication, do we really want to give all power in Newport Beach government to one person?

I have lived in Newport Beach a long time and I resent non-residents coming into the city to finance a major change in our government in an effort to make money or build a political career at our expense. Please consider this: The creators of Measure B definitely do not have OUR best interests in mind. 

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Newport Beach: Are you paying attention to Anaheim?

I have been wondering how many people in Newport have been paying attention to what is happening in Anaheim right now. The FBI is investigating Anaheim’s elected mayor for corruption in the sale of Anaheim Stadium and the activities of what is called “the cabal” running Anaheim. So far, the news has not reported exactly who is part of this “cabal” but there is some talk, of course, of the mayor and the head of the chamber of commerce, who is also being investigated. The court has put the sale of the stadium on hold for 60 days and the minority councilmembers who have been trying to ask questions feel vindicated. The full council has now asked for his resignation. 

When too much power is vested in a few, these things happen. I don’t think Newport needs an elected mayor right now given the way Measure B was written by one man and the devil in the details of it being unearthed. 

Linda Watkins

Newport Beach

Do the math: Measure B doesn’t add up

The proposed Measure B has little if anything to do with electing a mayor and more to do with eliminating one council district; eliminating representation for the citizens of Newport Beach and consolidating power in one individual. In the very first sentence of the proposed Measure there is the elimination of one of our current seven council districts. It reads: “The elective officers of the City shall consist of a City Council of six seven members…” 

In 1954 when the City’s charter was adopted the population of the City was 12,120 and there were seven (7) council districts as there are currently. In the latest census the city has a population of 85,780, seven times greater than it was in 1954. Yet what many people don’t realize is that Measure B seeks to reduce the number of council districts from the current number of seven to six. It makes little sense and doesn’t add up. Will it be your council district that is eliminated or your neighbors?

In addition, the Measure further grants a mayor “sole discretion” to set the City Council agendas, in contravention of current City Council Policy embodied in City Council Policy A-1 C as well as the existing City Charter. 

And to be clear, “sole discretion” does not mean that such power would be wielded in a reasonable manner but rather it means power can be exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner thereby giving a mayor expansive power.

Finally, to suggest somehow that the city needs to become a modern city like others in the state is a false narrative. One needs to look no further than Anaheim which finds itself and its directly elected mayor the subject of an FBI investigation. Consolidating power in one individual and eliminating a council district is not the power grab that the residents of Newport Beach need or want.

Vote No on Measure B.

Thomas C. Edwards, former Mayor

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

“Let’s get into the weeds here answering these questions”

One of the most recent posts on Instagram by the primary proponent of Measure B asks, “Where’s the power grab?” As Ben Franklin said, when arguing against a king for these United States, “I am a mortal enemy of arbitrary government and unlimited power.” 

This proponent claims that the ballot question of, “Shall the Newport Beach City Charter be amended to provide for the direct election of the Mayor?” Says it all and doesn’t get any simpler.     

Do you want to elect your Mayor, and should your Mayor be directly accountable to you?

Let’s get into the weeds here in answering these questions…

Measure B itself goes way beyond those two simple questions. The proponent asks where the term “power grab” comes from. Well, it becomes very obvious when you get deeper into the Measure by reading the details. 

First, the “elected mayor” will be given exclusive authority and control of the city council agenda thereby controlling what comes before the council. Second, council districts will be reduced from 7 to 6, creating double representation within the district the Mayor lives in. Third, the city manager will be reduced in roll and authority making it difficult to attract qualified candidates for the position. Fourth, the position will be highly politicized. How? Candidates seeking the position will become very dependent on large, influential donors who hope to gain the favor of the Mayor when it comes to personal or business interests. Fifth, a “yes” vote on Measure B will create the potential for mayors intent on becoming politically powerful to back and raise campaign funds for city council candidates in order to line up consistent majority votes for their political benefit. 

And finally, and perhaps the most significant, is a loss of voice by the community in the business of the City. The Measure states, “The Mayor...shall perform such other duties consistent with the office as may be prescribed by this Charter, or as may be imposed by the City Council.” This wording takes us from having the City Charter define the mayor’s authority to allowing the mayor and three other City Councilmembers to decide, whenever they want, what the mayor’s authority will be. The residents would not have any say. This is the essence of the “power grab”…the authority given the mayor under this wording is both limitless and dangerous for the community.

There is nothing broken or wrong with the mayor’s position the way it is currently functioning. To change this model now is to risk losing the invaluable relationships among the city councilmembers, city staff and residents that have successfully guided Newport Beach for the past 67 years. 

From a sensible and rational position, as well as “What’s best for the City of Newport Beach?,” I urge you to vote “NO” on Measure B. 

Jeff Herdman

Newport Beach City Council, 2016-2020

Newport Beach

Personally, I trust the advice of 11 former Newport Beach Mayors

Thank you for publishing the pro and con arguments on Measure B on Tuesday. 

The argument in favor of Measure B was presented by Councilmember Will O’Neill. He introduced the measure to City Council and did not support any form of hearing, study sessions or resident input. It was a rush to the ballot. I find it interesting that Councilman O’Neill’s term ends, and he is term limited out of running for city council, at the same time he could run for Mayor in 2024 to win another four-year term. Additionally, he could run for re-election in 2028. This is potentially too much power in one member of the City Council for too long a period. 

Having the City Council elect a member of the City Council to serve as Mayor annually is a proven and successful process. The primary duty of the Mayor is to chair the Council’s meetings and do other official duties for the City. This occurs without reducing the authority and independence of the other six councilmembers. If residents vote yes for measure B, the power shifts to the Mayor. Districts will be reduced from 7 to 6 and each councilmember, City Manager and department heads will have to always ask, “What does the Mayor support?” 

What impressed me about the arguments against Measure B is the list of past mayors recommending a no vote. These dedicated past and current officials have 33 years of cumulative experience as council-selected Newport Beach Mayors. This includes current city councilmembers Diane Dixon, (Mayor 2016 & 2019) and Brad Avery (Mayor 2020). They believe the current system provides equal standing for all councilmembers and supports a neutral professional services approach from our City management staff so there is no political alliance to any one councilmember. 

The current structure provides residents with a councilmember representing their area who understands their issues. Each councilmember votes to provide the best policy direction for their district and does not have to seek permission from the Mayor or worry about retaliation if they disagree. Each district gets one vote. A majority vote of four City Councilmembers is required to approve our budget, appointments to committees and boards, and policy issues. 

Residents should not be fooled by statements that an elected Mayor would be more accountable to voters. During a four-year term the Mayor will be in control and removal will take a recall effort or waiting until the next election. I prefer accountability and equal power to all councilmembers at every council meeting. 

I trust the advice of eleven (11) former Newport Beach Mayors who recommended we vote No on B and retain our current council organization of 7 equal members. I believe this will result in better policy and budget decisions for all Newport Beach residents. We need our City Council to be community-based representatives for their district and not requiring the approval of an elected Mayor for every district issue. 

I urge Newport Beach voters to vote No on Measure B. 

Ron Rubino, President 

Eastbluff Homeowners’ Community Association

Newport Beach

Preserve the city charter, vote No on B

It’s vital that voters ‘unbundle’ Proposition B. It reads like a ‘democratic’ idea. I treasure that we can vote and that our votes matter. However, Proposition B isn’t about voting. It’s about consolidating and concentrating power. That’s it pure and simple. 

I’m a conservative who believes power should be limited and, if possible, spread between individuals, agencies, local and state bodies and at the federal level between three branches of government. 

Prop B does just the opposite. It puts power in the hands of one person, a mayor, who would be elected for four (or possibly eight) years. It strips power from the city council, a council of seven elected people who represent all seven areas of our city equally. This proposition concentrates power in the hands of one individual who is given the authority to set the city council’s agenda. 

We’re all familiar with the mudslinging that fills our mailboxes during elections. It takes money to run for office, unfortunately lots of money. Most often this money is provided by special interests. “We do for you so you do for us.”  There are strings. Always. Politicians become beholden to special interests. Follow the money. Campaign purse strings are politically binding. 

Prop B sounds good, “democratic,” but it’s fundamentally the opposite. We have a balanced democratic system in place that spreads power to all councilmembers and their districts. Do not unbalance what works. Preserve the city’s charter and VOTE NO on Proposition B.

Lorian Petry

Corona del Mar

Measure B: The devil is in the details

Jump, I’ll catch you!”

Blue Buoy swim instructor Pete is standing in the pool out a little from the edge. His promise is reassuring to our 4-year-old. Nick trusts Pete and jumps. Pete catches Nick. 

A proponent of Measure B says that anyone who says that Measure B vests total control in the proposed strong mayor is making a false claim, “not just false, but provably false.” 

I disagree and, moreover, Measure B is so deficiently drafted that it only reinforces the notion that Measure B vests total control in the proposed strong mayor. Despite the subpar drafting, the proponent is, in essence, saying “Jump, I’ll catch you!”; trust me that there’s nothing wrong with the Measure as drafted. But let’s look at the precise deficiently drafted language of Measure B to see who is making the false claim.

Here’s the actual language: “…the Mayor will have the sole discretion to set City Council agendas and to change the order of business on the agenda.”

But wait, there’s more.

The proponent says that the “total control” argument is “false” because of a toothless exception which was added (please read it with care): “With the concurrence of at least three members of the City Council at any public meeting, an item MAY be added to a FUTURE City Council agenda.” [Emphasis added.] 

Toothless, indeed, and here’s why:

–The new agenda item “MAY” be added; the deficiently drafted language does not say “WILL” be added. What good is it to the three councilmembers if their important item “MAY” (or presumably “MAY NOT”) be added. In my view, this language is deficiently written and does not reduce the clear total control of the strong mayor.

–The new agenda item may be added to a “FUTURE” agenda. When? This year? Next year? Ever? When the strong mayor decides to strategically add it – which may well be when the issue is no longer topical or of interest to our residents. 

Again, in my view, this language is deficiently written and does not reduce the clear total control of the strong mayor.

The foregoing specific samples are some of the many examples of the unsatisfactorily drafted Measure B. The proponent is saying “Jump! I’ll catch you!”; the proponent states, “No To Cynicism” and is asking for our trust and faith that all will be well. Does this remind you of Ms. Pelosi’s famous words: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it….”

The only problem with the “all will be well” logic is, of course, that Measure B changes the constitution of our City – FOREVER! (or at least until our residents are exposed to another outrageously expensive campaign to undo the damage).

Measure B is poorly drafted; it is Bad for Newport; vote NO on Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Duffy: Why I believe Measure B will be good

Former councilman Jeff Herdman’s recent letters opposing Measure B (voter-elected mayor) deserve a trip down memory lane.

As a former mayor, I support Measure B. 

For the past eight years I’ve witnessed the “selection” of the mayor in a private room at City Hall.

I also served with Jeff Herdman for four years until his defeat in 2020.

The November 2018 city council election was a spirited one. I was behind by a couple hundred votes on election day. 

That’s when Herdman pounced on the opportunity to be “selected” mayor. 

He shopped a “term sheet” with councilmembers hoping to cobble together four votes to become mayor. 

Herdman’s term-sheet included removing Will O’Neill from the Finance Committee, denying Will O’Neill from ever being mayor, making certain staff changes and guaranteeing the mayor pro tem position to the agreeable councilmember.

Over the next two weeks the Registrar of Voters counted the late ballots. I won in a 36-vote landslide dashing Herdman’s hope of being “selected” mayor.

Measure B stops these political shenanigans and lets voters decide our mayor. 

Voters have a way of purging bad behavior. Herdman was defeated in 2020 after a series of scandals.

Please vote Yes on B to elect the mayor.

Duffy Duffield, District 3

Newport Beach City Council

Measure B is a shipwreck…don’t let them steer our city into the rocks

Over 40% of Measure B is supported by donors outside our City and the State! Why? Who are they? What do they want? 

–Measure B gives the mayor primary responsibility for interpreting policies, programs and needs of the City to the people. This measure would allow the mayor to set agenda items and to change the order of business. This measure would let one person decide what should be on the agenda. There are competing interests in this city, and one person should not be in charge of what is discussed. We all want to be heard. Measure B gives an inordinate amount of unchecked power to just ONE person. 

 –The current charter allows the City Councilmembers to hold the mayor accountable. This relationship keeps checks and balances of power. Measure B would remove that protection altogether. The only way to remove a mayor would be through a costly recall process. 

–Measure B invites corruption – where there is money, there is a great potential for exploitation. To install a mayor for four years with the option to run again for another four years gives one person plenty of time to get their hands dirty by doing the bidding of special interests. What could this look like? The mayor could be in discussions with a developer and give them the contract. We could lose valuable bluff tops to a mayor that wants to show favor to a developer vs. what the people want. Newport is wealthy – not only for its money but for its natural resources, including Banning Ranch, Back Bay and the beaches. We want a mayor that will have to listen to all of us and not be influenced by outsiders with money.

–Corruption is already happening and is a sign of what is to come. The campaign in favor of measure B has received over 40% of its funding from donors outside our city, and some are even out of state. Why? Who are these people? And what are their true intentions?

The writing is on the wall or, better yet, on every dollar bill – a vote for measure B hands our beloved city to the fists of autocracy. 

 –Four City Councilmembers – O’Neill, Blom, Duffy and Muldoon overlooked Joy Brenner as Mayor. This dismissive arrogant action against a worthy, hard-working, fellow public servant is not what we need more of. They are the ones who support Measure B. We don’t need a crew of people like that at the helm to steer us into the rocks.

–Measure B is a takeover disguised as a democratic proposition. It is not for the people. It is the opposite. 

Don’t be duped by a measure that outsiders fund. 

I am not paid. I am not a politician. I have no other reason to speak out other than I care about you, and I care about our city and all of its natural beauty. Join me to protect it. This is true democracy. Vote NO on Measure B.

Jennifer Irani

Newport Beach

Is the Laguna Niguel fire a reminder for Newport Beach?

(The letter below was sent to the Mayor of Newport Beach and City Councilmembers.) 

You have seen the horrific damage done by the Coastal Fire. Immediate action is required to protect the health safety and welfare of the residents of Newport Beach.

What you will learn is that the damage in the Coastal Fire (Laguna Niguel) impacted an area that incorporated the latest “state of the art” fire protection planning, area incorporating fuel modification zones, fire access roads, fire retardant building materials, etc. There is no flaw to point to. While the cause is not known at this time, this fire could happen in Newport Beach. Immediate action is required to protect Newport Beach.

–We learned from the Santa Monica fire that Mutual Aide Agreements cannot be relied upon during major wildfire events. During the Santa Monica fire, needed emergency reserves were held back by local governments to protect their jurisdictions.

–We learned from the Santa Monica Fire that major transportation arterials (PCH and Freeway) were closed as a result of the fire, significantly impacting emergency evacuations and access of emergency equipment.

–Human life is valued over structures. Emergency responders and resources are prioritized to ensure all human life is evacuated and protected. Extinguishing the fire and protection of structures comes second.

–The size of the structures matter when protecting the spread of fires during periods of high winds.

–Electric power shutoffs/rolling blackouts are a reality. When this happens during a fire emergency more of our emergency resources will be deployed for traffic/intersection control to facilitate emergency evacuations.

–Southern California and the City of Newport Beach are in a period of drought projected to last years. Water supplies will be limited. Watering of yards will be limited. Vegetation will be drier, adding to the fire risk and vegetation’s percentage of volatile oils.

–Newport Beach, as is all of southern California, is subject to high wind conditions.

–Based on State housing mandates Southern California and Newport Beach are projected to experience a significant increase in population and residential structures. Structures are projected to be large high density infill residential structures.

–Based on State transportation mandates the percentage of the population dependent on mass transit will increase. 

Newport Beach is a major tourist destination. Total population is projected to increase significantly as development within Southern California increases significantly.

Please take immediate steps to address the existing potential fire threats to Newport Beach residents and the public. 

The City is in the process of updating its Housing Element and other impacted General Plan Elements to incorporate State housing mandates. Please ensure the General Plan Update and its Environmental Impact Report fully evaluate the fire risk facing Newport Beach, taking into consideration the State mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment, as well as, existing state regulations allowing increased developments beyond anticipated in the existing General Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report last prepared for the General Plan.

Dave Tanner

Newport Beach

Curbing the effects of inflation, even in Newport

At nearly $5.90 a gallon for regular and more than $6 a gallon for diesel, Newport residents who own a car or a boat know California’s gas prices are the highest in the country. 

Back on March 11, when I first suggested in Stu News Newport’s sister publication, Stu News Laguna, giving all 27 million licensed drivers in the state $250, people laughed at the idea. 

Less than two weeks later, Gov. Newsom announced his plan to give people $400. I’m guessing no one in Newport was laughing then. 

So, here’s my question: Will anyone in Newport, or California for that matter, ever see a check or gas card? If that’s not going to happen, then please tell us.

In an effort to help curb the effects of inflation, even in Newport, maybe the DMV should eliminate the annual vehicle registration fee for 2022-23. 

I wonder how many people will laugh at that idea.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Letters to the Editor

I have questions and they need answers

Question Everything!

Since I was a teenager, I have made this my mantra. Maybe it is a generational thing. The other one that stuck with me is “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” Remember the Jonestown Massacre in 1978? 


Who wrote Measure B, and why?

First, who?

At the Speak Up Newport event on May 11th, Councilmember Noah Blom said that he wrote the measure along with City Manager Grace Leung. The following morning at the Corona del Mar Chamber of Commerce meeting, Councilmember Will O’Neill said that an attorney wrote the measure. 

Did Blom pass the bar while we weren’t looking? 

O’Neill is an attorney; did he write it? 

This seems like a fair question. To my knowledge, it has not yet been answered. In my mind, it goes to motive. 

What is clear is that the text of the measure was not discussed by the full council. At the City Council meeting on 10/12/21, Councilmember Blom asked to bring the matter of a direct elected mayor back to the council at a future meeting for consideration. What was brought to the next meeting was the text of the measure, complete, as you read it today, not for discussion, but for a Yes or No vote. No discussion was allowed. Why?

It is also clear that the author(s) did not seek public opinion on the text of the measure. There was no Study Session or any other public forum to debate the text of the measure, much less the need for the dramatic change. Why was there no discussion with the full council or the public? 

Which leads me to my next question…why was it written at all? 

Was it because the system we have operated under in Newport Beach for over half a century, no longer works? No one seemed to be concerned with the current system of appointing our mayor until this year, when Councilmember Joy Brenner was overlooked for Mayor Pro Tem. The appointment of our newest councilmember, Noah Blom, was blessed by the same four councilmembers who voted “Yes” to put Measure B on the June Ballot. This occurred after the four councilmembers had already voted to put Measure B on the June ballot. So that doesn’t explain why the council majority decided the Charter needed to change.

So why?

If the argument is that “horse trading” (Blom’s words) is taking place among the councilmembers in the process of appointing our mayor, and they themselves are participating in that process, then that brings up a whole other set of questions. 

In a democracy, it is our duty to discuss, and question, the issues and the decisions of those we elect to lead us, and to keep the pressure on until we have the answers. 

People who follow their leaders blindly, may find the decisions made on their behalf aren’t always made with their best interests in mind. We could talk about some of the recent decisions at the state and federal level, but let’s not go down that rabbit hole. Just think Jonestown. 

When we ask questions, we may not always agree with the answers, but the fact that we are paying attention, needs to be apparent to leaders. This helps avoid that nasty word, corruption. 

If we hope to avoid the fate of the city of Anaheim, which is now mired in legal issues, that will last years, cost the city thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars and tarnish the reputation of that city’s government for decades, we need to be asking our council for more transparency. 

So, who wrote Measure B? And why do we need it now?

I think a truthful answer to those questions would be very helpful to the public who are now being asked to vote on this Charter change without any discussion as to its merits. The “Kool-Aid” answer is, it’s simple, you should be able to elect your mayor. I am not looking for the Kool-Aid answer. 

Before you cast your ballot on June 7th, please ask a few questions. Don’t just follow someone else’s “voter guide.” 

And when it comes to Measure B, don’t drink the Kool-Aid. 

Nancy Scarbrough

Newport Beach

The passage of Measure B would significantly change our city’s governance

It has been disheartening to witness the turmoil created by the Measure B initiative. For those of us paying attention, June 7th can’t come quick enough. 

Over the past several months residents and business owners have asked me, in an almost apologetic tone, “What do you think of Measure B?” Often the question comes from long-time residents, including those who have served in our civic and non-profit organizations. A common refrain is often: “Where did this idea come from?” and, “I’m happy with the city as it is.” Others, younger with families and busy lives, are trying to get up to speed with a complex decision that requires going far beyond the tag line: “Wouldn’t you like to elect your mayor?” 

When proposed by one of our councilmembers last fall, Measure B split the council, eventually leading to a 4-3 vote to place it on the ballot. This brought some tension to the dais. I have great respect for all my fellow councilmembers as we continue to conduct council business professionally despite our differences on this issue. 

Our community is divided over Measure B, which is unfortunate given that council has a duty to work toward bringing citizens together. This is a good time to remember that the best council decisions derive from citizen impetus rather than a council led project out of nowhere.

Newport Beach will continue to move forward regardless of the Measure B result. However, the passage of Measure B would significantly change our city’s governance, adding additional risk. Newport would become vulnerable to the vagaries of one person, the elected mayor, who would have near total control of city hall. Even the best of humans make mistakes. Our country’s founders knew this and created checks and balances on power which allowed our nation’s democracy to thrive. We currently have such a system in Newport. It is a council of seven equals who, believe me, have no problem trying to keep each other in check. 

An elected mayor would be the “go to” councilmember for those seeking favor. He or she would operate in a different civic universe than the rest of the council. Indeed, the elected mayor would be the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of city hall. There are many examples of elected mayor cities which have come to grief. The current Anaheim mess is a classic example.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The government you elect is the government you deserve.” For the past 70 years Newport Beach residents have done a fine job of electing seven councilmembers who must work together when making the best decisions for our city. While our councils have had ups and downs, the vast majority of citizens elected to council served their neighbors and community admirably. 

Today our city is a testament to the success of the council-of-equals system. Over the past decades, Newport has gone from strength to strength. No city of our population provides its citizens with a better quality of life. 

We are all thankful to live here, in a beautiful and thriving coastal city. Our aspirational town reflects the optimistic hard work of its residents, businesses and civic leaders. 

We have the city we deserve. Let’s protect it. Vote no on Measure B.     

Brad Avery

Newport Beach Councilmember, District 2

Former mayor 2021 

Where was the discussion? Is this democracy?

In several public forums, I have heard Will O’Neill and Noah Blom publicize that the Newport Beach City Council unanimously voted 7-0 to discuss the changes to the charter that could pave the way for an elected mayor in Newport Beach.

I’ve learned that the council policy to put something on the agenda is a three-step process:

–Any councilmember can request a future agenda item and if two other councilmembers agree it goes on the agenda for a future meeting. Though not a policy but as a manner of courtesy, all councilmembers typically vote yes to put it on the agenda for future discussion. Hence the 7-0 vote to discuss the issue. Why not discuss?

–The agenda language is drafted and presented to the City Attorney.

–In this particular case (and perhaps for the first time) the agenda language was artfully crafted so there would be NO council debate or discussion on the contents of the initiative – the only action permitted was whether the item should be on the June or November ballot. None of the three opponents realized that the language dramatically narrowed the discussion options to NO DISCUSSION allowed.

I still don’t know whether lawyers wrote the language of Measure B or whether Noah Blom wrote the language with approval from the City Manager as he claims, but what I do know is none of the three councilmembers who opposed the initiative had any input into the writing of the initiative.

By now most have heard about a negative situation involving the mayor of Anaheim.

From former Anaheim councilmember Denise Barnes: “We need to clean this up,” Barnes said. She expressed to councilmembers how hard it was to be a taxpayer steward while being blocked from agendizing discussions, especially when it came to stadium negotiations.

“I just go back to the night of December 2020 when we were completely rushed to get that deal done,” added Barnes.

Does anyone else see a correlation between the current issues in Anaheim and how Measure B got on the ballot? Does anyone else have a problem with how it has played out in Newport Beach? Can anyone else recognize how an elected mayor can manipulate the agenda?

Gary Cruz

Newport Beach

Think about it…

Do we really want to create the potential for words like “affidavit, Brown Act violations, collusion, corruption, criminal charges, evasion and scandal” to be associated with our city? This is taking place right now, in real time, in the City of Anaheim. It could, in fact, happen in Newport Beach with a directly elected mayor with even more power and authority than that of the current mayor of Anaheim.

Mayor Harry Sidhu, along with the former Chamber of Commerce president, while representing the city in high stakes contract negotiations with the Los Angeles Angels for the sale of Anaheim Stadium, shared confidential city information with the Angels, including at least one document prepared by the city’s attorney – a violation of the Brown Act. There are actual voice recordings of the mayor and past Chamber president committing collusion regarding the sale of Angel Stadium.

Mayor Sidhu moved to Anaheim for the purpose of running for mayor and got elected thanks to hefty contributions. Now the council is asking for his resignation in light of the federal investigation taking place, and potential charges levied. 

Do we really want to risk something like this happening in our city with the type of directly elected mayor being proposed in Measure B (the textbook definition of a power grab)? When power is taken away from a collective group of officials and representatives, and concentrated in the hands of one politician, it’s a power grab. No other Orange County city has done what Measure B proposes to do: maintain the at-large voting system while taking power away from council representatives and transferring it to a “one-stop shop” elected mayor. 

Measure B is being bankrolled largely by donors from other cities. People support ballot measures in other cities and states to empower themselves, not local voters. These donors clearly expect to have the mayor’s ear, and to have their interests given precedence over those of Newport Beach residents. 

Early on, SPON took a position of opposing Measure B. With the events unfolding as they are in Anaheim, our position is clearly reinforced. 

Measure B proponents want to move us to a system that works better for professional politicians than for residents – exactly the opposite of what our current system is designed to do. Don’t roll the dice and risk all the hard work that has gone into making Newport Beach a uniquely beautiful place to live.  Don’t change a winning formula. 

Say No to Measure B. 

Jeff Herdman

Newport Beach City Councilman, 2016-2020

Did they take the time to read Measure B?

Mr. Clarence (“Clancy”) Hoiles passed away in 1981. Mr. Hoiles was the Chairman of the Board of Freedom Newspapers Inc. which (among other daily newspapers) at the time published The Orange County Register (then known as The Register) (the “Register”). I did not know Mr. Hoiles well, but well enough so that he kindly sponsored my application into a local golf club 44 years ago.

I remember Mr. Hoiles as being reserved and conservative in thought and speech.

I believe Mr. Hoiles would have been surprised by the Register’s recent poorly conceived editorial suggesting that the residents of Newport Beach vote affirmatively for the controversial Measure B. 

Readers of the Register surely must be asking themselves whether the editorial board which reached its ill-advised judgment ever read in its entirety Measure B, analyzed its content, considered its potentially dire consequences and interviewed informed folks opposing the Measure.

In its zeal to write the editorial, one wonders whether the board considered ANY of the following points:

–Why did the proponent abandon the signature gathering effort (i.e., a conventional democratic means of gauging electorate interest and publicly looking at the pluses and minuses)?

–By reducing the council districts from 7 to 6, one district becomes a super district by having the mayor AND another councilmember representing that super district. Moreover, each new district will have at least 2,000 more constituents for whom the councilmember is responsible.

–The measure gives one person the ability to serve a total of 16 consecutive years on council, thereby gutting the 8-year term limit approved by the voters many years ago.

–Tell me one (just one) problem in the City Charter that the measure is trying to solve! Why haven’t any of the pro Measure B councilmembers EVER made the directly elected mayor a centerpiece of their concerns about the City until now? Is this a one-person crusade?

–The measure is on its face fatally defectively drafted, e.g., three other councilmembers “MAY” (not “WILL”) be able to place an item on a “FUTURE” agenda (When? In a month? In a year? Never? When the strong mayor decides to add it to the agenda?). What will the next measure cost our taxpayers to undo the damage of these and other defects in Measure B? And, in light of the defectively drafted measure, think twice if you think “your” councilmember will be able to put anything on the agenda.

–Measure B produces junior, subordinate, diluted, weakened councilmembers to the strong mayor’s will and power. (And, as is well known, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.) Say goodbye to give-and-take, compromise and collaboration among the former co-equal councilmembers. 

–Why would an experienced, highly educated City Manager want to be stripped of duties and under the thumb of a strong mayor? We think our preeminent City Manager will be on the lookout for other City Manager-operated municipality opportunities where the City Manager can, through independence, make a difference and add value.

–Be ready for big money mayor elections – and some (perhaps a significant number) of donations will come from outside Newport Beach, all of which donors will want to curry favor with the all-powerful mayor.

The Register editorial board still has time to right its wrong. I urge the board to reconsider its hasty ill-conceived editorial and I urge a NO vote on Bad for Newport Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

May might be Bicycle Safety Month, but this cyclist isn’t one honoring it

May 21st – Not an uncommon sight on Newport Coast Drive. In front of me, a truck hits its brakes hard, stopping so as to not run over a bicyclist. Truck was turning left; bicyclist was going straight through the intersection. Trouble is that the truck had a green light to turn left. The bicyclist? He ran the red light without a care, in full view of all the cars that were properly stopped. And this was the second red light he ran that I saw; who knows how many other close calls there were. 

Is there any way to stop these idiots? Apparently, there aren’t enough “white bicycles” on the roadside, with flowers and pictures and memories written by loved ones. May is Bicycle Safety Month? 

Yea, sure. 

Matt Clabaugh

Newport Beach

The current system to elect the mayor has worked for 70 years

The proponents of Measure B just sent out a mailer basically calling their opponents a bunch of liars. Their strong language shows that the truth hurts and it’s gotten under their skin. 

Even more revealing is the email they blasted out saying it’s dishonest to draw a parallel between what’s happening in Anaheim and what could happen in Newport Beach if Measure B passes, since Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu was backed by a council majority. “But he didn’t act alone, therefore he’s not too powerful!” is a weird way to make a case for Measure B, but whatever.   

Let’s remember that two months after Sidhu was elected to his first four-year term, “his” majority approved sweeping changes to how the Anaheim city council conducts its business. And six months later, they appointed Sidhu to the team negotiating the sale of Anaheim Stadium to the Angels, over the objections of other councilmembers.

When asked why he wanted to be on the negotiating team, Sidhu responded: “What do you mean why? I’m the mayor. I would like to represent the city council…it is very simple. As the mayor, I represent the city, just like all of you. And I’d like to appoint myself as a council representative to the negotiating team. There must be someone from the council because we have a vision for the city…I think we have done enough discussion.”

Anyone else reminded of when Will O’Neill said he came up with the idea of the elect our mayor campaign because, after serving as mayor for one year then being forced to pass the baton, he realized, “Voters should be choosing the person whose vision matches the city’s majority?” Anyone else see the parallel with the Measure B team’s focus on the importance of getting Newport Beach’s mayor appointed to any number of boards and other interest groups?

If you don’t think a mayoral candidate in Newport Beach would pick a slate of candidates to run with to ensure a council majority, you haven’t been paying attention. All four councilmembers who put Measure B on the ballot ran as part of slates. They appeared together on mailers, were funded by the same sources, got the same endorsements. On the council, they usually vote together and always choose the mayor and mayor pro tem from within their ranks – even though our charter makes clear that the positions are supposed to rotate among all councilmembers and therefore all districts. 

Fast forward to today: Anaheim is engulfed in scandal. The stadium sale is on hold as the FBI investigates whether Sidhu shared confidential information with the buyer in exchange for a massive contribution to his reelection campaign. Councilmembers who’ve been in the minority are talking about how difficult it is to be blocked from putting discussions on the agenda, including about stadium negotiations…about how hard it is to watch the council majority shut down public debate when they don’t agree with the community members who are speaking. 

Of course, we don’t know if a similar scenario would play out in Newport Beach if Measure B passes, but it certainly could. And that’s reason enough to Vote No on B. 

Let’s stick to the system that’s served our city so well for nearly 70 years and make sure it works the ways it’s intended to – with the mayor position rotating among all districts and with all councilmembers having an equal voice in the conduct of the city’s business.   

Gerald A. Giannini

Newport Beach

Elect Our Mayor is the right policy for our city moving forward

My name is Henry Park, the name that was recently used without my permission on a hit piece mailer sent by the No On B campaign. They lied about me and claimed that my donation to help elect our Mayor was “outside money.” Far from it, my wife and I have been raising our family here in Newport Beach for years.

Why would they lie about me? Why would they specifically name me and claim that I’m an “outsider?”

I donated to the Elect Our Mayor initiative because it’s the right policy for our city going forward. The Mayor should be elected by us and accountable to us. Policy should be made solely by the people accountable to us, not by people farther from us. If you agree, then vote yes on B.

I also donated because I wanted to see the truth go out to voters. The lies in mail coming from the No crowd claimed that the initiative created an unaccountable “king” and would require hundreds of thousands of dollars in extra spending every year. None of that is true, and even the Orange County Register called those claims “utter nonsense.”

I didn’t expect the No campaign to turn around and lie about me. But they did and that’s dirty.

It’s the current system, with these current behind-the-scenes politicos, that we need to move beyond. I’m exhibit A of the effect of their rot.

Stop the backroom deals. Stop the pettiness. Shine light and require the Mayor to campaign in the open to us.

I urge everyone to take my cautionary story and vote Yes On B.

Henry Park

Newport Beach

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it

Sometimes you just have to start with a cliché – in this case in reference to Measure B on the Newport Beach ballot…If it ain’t broke don’t fix it! But, some folks with an agenda think direct election of the Mayor for Newport Beach is a great idea. Who are these folks?

Who should be FOR Measure B?

–If you, your spouse, son or daughter is a political consultant: This means full employment! We definitely need more misleading negative campaign expenditures which have been relatively few in Newport Beach. But don’t worry, at least someone is benefiting from this!

–If your family includes entities that need greater influence in city hall. Much easier to influence a mayor whose campaign cost you a lot of money – see above and let him or her use the new “strong mayor” position to control the debate. That is, unless you don’t think lots of money has any effect on policies.

–If you or a family member wants to seek higher office. Or is that too cynical? Again, a new elected mayor will have much more visibility than any councilmember and will be able to be an elected official for up to 16 years. However, I’m guessing we’ll see a number of “one and done” mayors who feel they are ready for Congress or whatever after one term. We have been fortunate that historically, the great majority of our councilmembers have the old-fashioned idea that service to the City alone is an honor and a duty.

–If you want to be mayor of Newport Beach but currently live somewhere else. Given the money that will be involved, you have a lot better chance of succeeding than one of those citizen politicians who’ve lived here for years that we keep getting on our council. And, your purchase of a house here will help the real estate industry.

–If you don’t believe that we already elect our mayor. In fact, we do! Each of our seven councilmembers, although they each represent a district, are elected “at large,” meaning all of us get to vote for each councilmember. Then, the members periodically select the mayor for limited terms. The council is a legislative body where the mayor is only temporarily the first among equals. Measure B would provide a very powerful mayor and reduce the councilmembers’ input and historic collegiality. In other words, equals have to cooperate. With Measure B, the council would only have to decide whether to support or oppose the mayor’s wishes. 

Who should be AGAINST Measure B?

All of the rest of us who recognize that this is an exceptionally well-run city and always has been in comparison to other municipalities. Our councils and city managers have, for the most part, collectively done the right thing without the “leadership” of a strong mayor.

Remember, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Please vote “No.”

Andy Rose

Newport Beach

The writing on Anaheim’s walls could mean trouble ahead for Newport Beach

Does Measure B protect Newport Beach from an Anaheim-similar FBI investigation?

All of us have recently read about the current FBI investigations of Anaheim Mayor Harry Sidhu and other city officials. Mayor Sidhu is alleged to have planned solicitation of $1M from the Angels for his re-election funds and to have shared city information with the Angels during negotiations for the current stadium land sale. 

The FBI investigation (also) reports that Sidhu, his council majority and possible other city officials allegedly hosted “retreats” with his majority bloc to discuss strategy for items coming up before council. This action was in violation of the Brown Act and essentially was a shadow government.

We say to ourselves that this type of reported illicit behavior wouldn’t happen here in Newport Beach. But as we all address risk management in our private lives, just what does Measure B provide Newport Beach residents in the way of “curbs or firewalls” for any future Mayor misconduct? How can we prevent or save our city from any similar public illicit notoriety or possible special interest corruption? 

Currently, the Newport Beach Mayor serves at the pleasure of the city council. If Measure B passes, both council and residents would have to wait until criminal conviction of any Mayor or a very expensive recall election. That’s it – our city would be tied up for months or years and undoubtedly would incur large legal fees. 

Newport Beach is a city resplendent with rich assets, both public and private, in which special interest groups often are interested in potential financial access and influence. While the proponents of Measure B are campaigning hard for a Mayor-centric city government and perhaps ignoring any protective limitations of power, who and what is protecting the rest of us?

Kathe Morgan

Villa Park resident

Measure B still brings in questions

There is only one thing that cities can do to make their government more democratic and that is to elect councilmembers by their constituencies, not at large. Or they could also increase the number of councilmembers elected by their constituencies.

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of cities who directly elect their mayor, also get to vote directly on the councilmember representing them. Now why did Measure B not propose that? The reason is – a more democratic government is not the goal of the proponents of Measure B.

So, how does electing a governor for over 80,000 people make Newport Beach more democratic or more efficient?

One person responding to that many people does not give residents more power. It just gives more power to that one person who is under no obligation to share it with councilmembers (recent flyers make us wonder if there will even be a council).

Many leading citizens are against Measure B. Those who own property in Newport Beach might be concerned with the stability of the city if there is a new system of government put in place which cannot be observed ahead of time in any other city. 

How can we expect that it will function efficiently in a short period of time? Might there be a bit of chaos? Why even gamble with the future of Newport Beach? Make the conservative choice, vote No on uncertainty – VOTE NO ON MEASURE B!

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Was the OC Grand Jury document on deployment and response by fire departments in emergencies flawed?

(The following letter was submitted to the Mayor and City Council challenging the Orange County Grand Jury’s document on deployment and response of resources in a recent report.)

The recently published document by the Orange County grand jury regarding the deployment and response of resources by Orange County fire departments to emergency medical calls for service is both stunning, and concerning in the inaccuracies, opinions and falsehoods presented as fact. The determinations made appear to be based on these failures or research, and lead to what may be a pre-ordained belief, without factual support. Because this document rehashes a 2012 effort of a similar matter, I am disturbed by the need for another review that fails to build on the earlier discussion.

Fundamentally, the local fire department deploys resources designed to respond to and to mitigate the unwanted effects of the environment on life, property and the environment itself. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying that the environment is “everything but me,” referring to himself at the time. Except for specifically law enforcement related matters, unrelated to unwanted fire, this defines the responsibility of fire department emergency response. The two most time sensitive, or emergency responses, include fire suppression and emergency medical/rescue code-three (with lights and siren) response. The fire service is truly a multi-mission operation that serves to address many of the emergency needs of the community. The capability of the local fire department is only limited to the funding and leadership provided by the governing agency decisionmakers.

To fully understand the importance of emergency response it is necessary to carefully consider the concept of time, and the influence of time on the growth of uncontrolled fire and patients in extreme medical conditions i.e., coronary, stroke, blood loss et al. In all these situations the outcome is directly related to timely intervention. The sooner that trained personnel, operating efficiently, arrive at the scene and begin fire suppression or medical treatment the more likely that a desired outcome is probable. There are three components to the total response time of a fire department: call processing time, turnout time and travel time. The only component that cannot be manipulated to a great extent is travel time as rescue personnel can only travel so fast through the city streets to arrive at the scene of an emergency. 

The distribution of fire stations across the land mass of a city like Newport Beach serves to place fire department rescue personnel near potential fires or medical emergencies under static conditions. During times of fire department system stress due to uncontrolled fire i.e., Emerald Bay and Coastal Fire recently, in Orange County and specifically Newport Beach, a rapid and integrated system is employed to shift similar resources into areas of reduced coverage. This was recently demonstrated and reported to the City Council in a timely fashion by the fire chief regarding the Coastal Fire in Laguna Niguel. Rapid intervention serves the people you and your fire department serve. 

Of the two identified time sensitive functions of the fire department, fire suppression and medical/rescue, resource deployment should be considered for the need based on a timely response to the incident, or potential incident. Because the building stock of a community changes slowly over time, the deployment of firefighting resources and staffing at the local firehouse responsible for initial fire suppression efforts should be based on factors related to risk, occupancy type and travel time to all areas of initial responsibility, or first due for the resources staffed at that firehouse. Earlier intervention of fire should equate a smaller fire that is extinguished faster, requiring fewer total resources from neighboring firehouses. This concept should result in a more efficient operation that has fewer fire stations assigned to a fire and committed to a fire outside the first due area.

Because the community will need the firehouses staffed for fire suppression needs, the use of these same firefighting personnel for emergency medical/rescue response was seen as a wise use of taxpayer funds. The report fails to understand the wisdom of this important concept, and in fact fails to consider this altogether. Fire apparatus, fully equipped to perform all the multi-mission functions, and available 24/7 unless committed to a prior emergency is the gold standard of the business. The idea presented to staff a two-person medic unit in place of a “second” engine at the Laguna Woods firehouse fails to consider the multi-mission functions of a fire station that protects a large hospital, a very busy complex of freeways and housing with mature residents who will need additional support under emergency circumstances. That Laguna Woods firehouse is staffed in that fashion because it is the busiest firehouse in a densely developed county of over 3 million residents. Drawing broad conclusions based on a limited, and often false understanding, has resulted in a bad recommendation. 

I found it unusual that Newport Beach in particular, with a somewhat unique deployment of resources only matched by the City of Orange, was not mentioned in the text of this report. This was especially noteworthy as the thesis of the report was focused on resource deployment, city operated ambulance services and the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA). The limited investment by the OC grand jury into the research on this important subject only serves to support the idea that the effort was biased from the start and will provide ample information for those intent on diminishing the value of a future OC grand jury report on a similar subject. 

Paul Matheis

Lake Forest

Letters to the Editor

Direct accountability matters

As a small business owner, I hold myself accountable for the service and quality in my restaurants. As your City Councilmember, you hold me directly accountable for decisions we make and the outcomes of those decisions too.

How do we make those decisions? We set public policy based on agendas set well in advance of a City Council meeting. As it currently stands, we delegate most of the agenda-setting functions to our City Manager. No matter how good a City Manager is (and ours is great), the City Manager is accountable only to the City Council and not directly to the people of the City of Newport Beach.

As City Councilmembers, we can also place items on the agenda if three of us agree that it deserves discussion. That, in fact, is how the Elect Our Mayor initiative will be on your ballots. I asked our City Council to consider the item, all seven City Councilmembers agreed, and then a majority of us voted to put Measure B on the ballot so that you get to choose whether you want to elect the Mayor (or whether you want us to keep choosing amongst ourselves every year).

Once you understand that, you’ll join me in expressing surprise that opponents of Measure B claim that the Mayor would be “too powerful.” No power would shift from City Councilmembers to the Mayor, we would still be able to place items on the agenda. The change would be moving the primary agenda setting option from the unelected City Manager to the directly accountable Mayor.

Direct accountability to voters matters. Learn more at and encourage your friends and neighbors to vote Yes on B.

Noah Blom, District 5

Mayor Pro Tem

Newport Beach City Council

Don’t buy into the slogans

I love my “all natural” ice cream.

I always buy “fat free” margarine.

My juice boxes have “no sugar added.”

The chicken my wife serves is “free range” because they are exposed to the outdoors.

The grandkids’ fruit roll ups are “made with real fruit.”

You get the point. Slogans can be (and often are) misleading.

So, it is with the campaign slogan, “Elect Our Mayor.”

Sounds good, yes? Democracy in action, correct?

Motherhood, apple pie, stars and stripes and “Elect Our Mayor.” 

The proponents repeatedly claim, “It’s That Simple.” I admire simplicity, but sometimes simple answers (or clever catch phrases) gloss over complicated problems and unintended consequences. In this case, “It Clearly Isn’t That Simple.”

Maybe we should first read the words behind the superficial slogan of “Elect Our Mayor.”

Maybe we should consider the significant taxpayer cost of the measure to add a strong mayor’s full-time staff which will inevitably be necessary. (Just ask any city with a strong mayor.)

Maybe we should consider the disenfranchisement of the other weakened councilmembers subordinate and junior to the strong mayor.

Maybe we will lose a preeminent educated and experienced City Manager who is stripped of prior duties and who is under the thumb of a powerful mayor.

Maybe the other weakened councilmembers will not be able to be responsive in the reconfigured districts (reduced from seven to six) with at least 2,000 more constituents to serve for each new district.

Maybe the Mayor’s district (already served by another councilmember) will become a super district with two representatives on Council to the significant detriment of the other five districts with only one representative.

Please think twice about the misleading catch phrase “Elect Our Mayor” and the many unfavorable consequences of the measure.

Vote “No” on the “Bad for Newport” Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

It’s time for Newport Beach to elect their own mayor

Measure B sure has brought out some interesting opposing arguments, often based in falsehoods and fear. Fear and name-calling don’t move the needle for me and I hope they don’t for you.

A recent rebuttal to the No campaign, written by John O’Hara, reflects the thinking that sealed my commitment to the Elect Our Mayor Campaign. 

–The power to select our Mayor should belong with the voters. 

–Term limits, as written in Measure B, are sound and actually better than what we currently have for the City Council in general.

–‘What if’…are we to let ‘what if’ determine how we lead our city? 

Fear is often used as a persuasion technique, particularly in elections. That certainly is the case with the “No Elected Mayor in Newport Beach” campaign. In fact, the campaign’s website says exactly that. As someone who holds sacred the people’s right to vote for their leaders, that statement alone is enough to reject this fear-based campaign that seeks to limit the power of the voter. No and Elected in the same sentence is baffling. 

A recent No on B mailer was filled with inflammatory language like “deceptive and dangerous,” “Pro-Trump Republicans” and “special interest power grab.”

Those words were used to demonize those of us who support Measure B.  Those words also demonstrate a lack of respect for neighbors who support Measure B and the importance of the power resting with the voters. 

“Special Interest Power Grab?” Yes, your interests and mine are special, and the power should rest with us.

It’s time for Newport Beach to have Mayors that go beyond the ceremonial, and it’s time to give the voters the freedom to choose their Mayor. 

Ruth Kobayashi

Newport Beach

Lee Lowrey officially withdraws from City Council race

(Yesterday, May 9, candidate Lee Lowrey officially withdrew from the 2022 Newport Beach City Council race scheduled for November. Lee cited business commitments. He also promised to refund all $30,000 of political contributions that he received.)

Dear supporters of my candidacy for Newport Beach City Council,

Effective (yesterday), I will be ending my campaign for the position of City Councilman (District 4) for the City of Newport Beach. Your support and encouragement for my candidacy has meant everything to me. It has been an overwhelming humbling experience. Coming to my decision has not been an easy one. As I thought about the time necessary to successfully represent the citizens of Newport Beach on the City Council, initially I believed it was a manageable time commitment. It has become evident with the recent changes in economic conditions more time is going to be required to navigate my company with its current workload, as well as more time needed to seize new economic opportunities. To be able to give the 110% that I have promised my customers, employees, investors, and business partners, the additional time I believed I would have had for City Council just isn’t there.

I decided to run for city council first for my love of Newport Beach and my fellow residents. Additionally, I believed my background in business both large and small, my position as your current Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission navigating through the new and complex housing mandates Sacramento is dictating on local municipalities, and my knowledge of John Wayne Airport’s intricacies from my six years of service on the Airport Commission would have made my background a great fit for the City Council. Unfortunately, this will not be the time that I will be able to take my background and experience to the voters.

I would be remiss in not thanking Mayor Kevin Muldoon, Mayor Pro Tem Noah Blom, Councilman Will O’Neill, Councilman Duffy Duffield, Congresswoman Michelle Steel, Sheriff Don Barnes, Orange County Supervisors Don Wagner and Andrew Do, and former GOP Assembly Leader and OCGOP Chairman Scott Baugh for their early support. Also, I want to thank those that donated over $30,000 during the past three weeks. Your donations will be refunded in full.

As the field of candidates begins to take final shape and we get closer to candidate filing, I look forward to listening to all the candidates and their respective policy positions as they seek election. Newport Beach may have some challenges as we look ahead, but we are all beyond blessed to live in this wonderful city we call home.

All the best to you and yours,

Lee M. Lowrey 

Boats landing on the Balboa Peninsula

My husband and I have owned property for over 40 years on the Balboa Peninsula. I read numerous local news sources including major news publications, the Newport City weekly reports, the City Council updates and local internet network sources. I also receive email alerts from the Newport Beach Police Department. 

Lately I have noticed what appears to be a major omission of very serious activities in our local area. Several months ago, a boat approached the Balboa Peninsula and off-loaded numerous people who then raced ashore to waiting cars. On that occasion there were armed police officers and armed agents who arrived in time to surround and contain the people as they attempted to escape into our community. 

I could not find any news explaining the situation. 

Recently, about one week ago, I experienced another similar situation. I saw numerous police cars and ambulances with sirens and lights on racing east on the Peninsula toward the Wedge. There was a group of people hiding on a private property near E St. and they raced toward Balboa Blvd. to head west toward Balboa Village. The police cars returned from the Wedge and apprehended several people. 

Unfortunately, once again I could not find any account in any publication regarding this very serious activity. 

I was frustrated by this lack of a factual account so I reached out to the Police Department and found out that approximately 10 people jumped off a boat near the Wedge. The OCSD Harbor Patrol was on the scene and assisted. U.S Customs and Border Protection resources also responded and detained some of the individuals. 

I feel that keeping local residents in the dark about these potentially dangerous activities is wrong. As a longtime-resident, I believe that we need to know what is happening in our community so we can make appropriate decisions regarding our security as individual property owners and our security as a community. 

The Balboa Peninsula is a water-oriented location and therefore is completely exposed to both the ocean and the bay. We need to work together with our City Council, our Police Department and the various Harbor law enforcement groups and that starts through discussions and education – not through avoidance of the facts. 

Ron and Nancy Arrache

Balboa Peninsula

The acquisition of Banning Ranch is complete

In a victorious moment, a goal that has taken decades to come to fruition, the “darling” of the coastal preservationists, Banning Ranch, acquired $11.5 million from the Coastal Conservancy this last week to complete its acquisition as public land. It had taken many years for preservationists to first gain approval by the Coastal Commission and then secondly acquire the $97 million necessary to purchase the site. 

When I retired in 2008, the Banning Ranch Conservancy became the first charitable group to which I donated time and effort. I was drawn immediately to the cause after listening one evening to a presentation by Suzanne Forster and Dorothy Kraus, and consequentially meeting the President Terry Welsh, all three impressing me greatly with their knowledge of the precious attributes of Banning Ranch and their fervor for preserving it as the largest remaining private coastal parcel between Ventura County and the U.S/Mexico border. Many local citizens from the coastal area volunteered to make this dream come true.

The Banning Ranch Conservancy wants to refresh and repair the coastal resources which have been damaged by decades of oil production for its use as a public space. Eventually it will provide access opportunities such as trails and low-impact overnight accommodations.

Several local political figures have become involved in aiding Banning Ranch Conservancy to meet its goals, Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, Costa Mesa Councilmember Arlis Reynolds, California Director for the Trust of Public Land Guillermo Rodriquez and Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris.

One would be remiss not to mention the generous gift of $50 million donated by Newport Beach philanthropists Frank and Joann Randall in 2019 to the non-profit Trust for Public Land which helped secure an exclusive agreement with the owners of Banning Ranch for the acquisition.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Foley has done more, worked harder and deserves our vote for Supervisor

I have been a homeowner and resident of Newport Beach for nine years. For the past five years, I’ve worked to address the impacts of John Wayne Airport on surrounding communities in Orange County, and I’ve witnessed many elected officials talk about this issue. Katrina Foley is the rare public servant who actually delivered results. As Mayor of Costa Mesa, Katrina gathered 20,000 signatures of residents opposed to the operational expansion at JWA and she delivered those signatures to the Board of Supervisors alongside hundreds of concerned citizens during the 2019 GAIP (General Aviation Improvement Program) process.

At the time, I remember feeling like community members didn’t have a seat at the decision-making table when it came to the airport. That changed in 2021 when we elected Katrina Foley to the Board of Supervisors.

There is no better candidate for District 5 Supervisor than Katrina Foley. During the past year that she’s served as Supervisor, Foley has worked tirelessly on behalf of her constituents and has accrued an impressive number of accomplishments. Here are some highlights:

JWA Fly Friendly Program: As an Airport Commissioner, I witnessed firsthand, Supervisor Foley working collaboratively with residents, JWA staff, the City of Newport Beach and the General Aviation community to develop a Fly Friendly program which will soon begin to bring relief from GA aircraft noise to communities surrounding the airport. The fact that she managed to produce this entire program in a less than a year is an unprecedented feat.

Homelessness: Supervisor Foley tackled the problem of homelessness head-on the day she took office: She conducted an audit of the myriad collection of County homelessness programs and expenditures; directed a survey of homeless citizens to understand the issues they confront; and, she hosted an OC Homelessness Hearing to identify the drivers of homelessness and come up with solutions to solve this intractable social problem plaguing our communities. And it is especially noteworthy that, as Costa Mesa Mayor, she spearheaded the construction of a homelessness shelter. Katrina gets things done.

Sober Living Facilities: For more than a decade, Katrina advocated for regulatory reforms to protect patients and neighborhoods from abusive, profit-mill-style detox and sober living home operators. As Costa Mesa Mayor, she worked to adopt the first regulatory scheme that has been repeatedly upheld by the courts. The County adopted the Costa Mesa ordinance and added more protections in 2019. As Supervisor, Katrina’s office collaborated with Newport Beach to share ordinance details and Newport Beach initiated a code amendment to move an ordinance forward. Supervisor Foley serves on a newly formed ad hoc committee to examine and provide recommendations on residential treatment facilities. Notably, Foley testified before a CA state hearing on sober living facilities stating that by allowing the industry to regulate itself, the state endangers patients and neighborhoods and insisted that the state step up. “To achieve change to our sober living regulations, we need policy change across all levels of government,” she said. Katrina will work to make sure policies change.

This is a small sample of the work Supervisor Foley has done to help solve some of the most difficult problems confronting our communities. She’s smart and ethical, works harder than anyone I’ve ever seen, and she gets results. Please vote for Katrina Foley for District 5 Supervisor so she can continue this important work.

Sue Dvorak

Newport Beach

I just can’t be quiet in my opposition to Measure B

I have a right to keep silent, but I can’t! The most recent presentations by the proponents of Measure B – the proposed change to our City Charter to directly elect the mayor of Newport Beach – causes me to once again speak out. Last week, proponents of Measure B claimed that you need to be mayor to get positions on regional boards. Point of fact...Councilman (Will) O’Neill was just made the Chair of the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency (the Toll Roads), and he is not mayor. He was also not the mayor when his appointment to this Board was made in 2016. 

The proponent further stated that you need to be mayor to be a member of the OCTA Board. The current Board Chair of OCTA, Mark Murphy, was appointed to the Board in 2017 when he was a city councilman in Orange, not mayor. And he wasn’t actually elected mayor until Nov. 2018. The vice-chair, Gene Hernandez, who was just re-appointed to the board, is currently the Mayor Pro tem of Yorba Linda, not the mayor. 

Other than the OCTA, our city councilmembers, not the mayor, represent us on most Orange County agencies important to Newport Beach – 11 of them, in fact. 

Councilman (“Duffy”) Duffield has stated that he could not get the attention of the congressman in D.C. when he visited as a councilmember but could when he was mayor. The fact of the matter is that Newport Beach received the dredging money well after he was no longer mayor. If he thought it was so important to have the mayor present in order to get a meeting in D.C., the mayor should have accompanied him on this trip. 

It should also be noted that the City had previously received $16-$18 million for dredging despite not having an elected mayor. My experience when representing the City in D.C., on two different trips, is that you actually get a lot more accomplished when meeting with staffers as opposed to the actual elected representative. 

Let’s not forget that Measure B has been proposed by the council majority that was responsible for the firing of one of the most effective city managers in the history of our city, Dave Kiff. And, although this proposed Charter Amendment does not explicitly detail the cost in the measure that the City will incur, the experience of other cities that have an elected mayor is that they have expenses in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of the position and the staff that is needed for this newly created office to function. There is no reason to believe that this will not be the case in Newport Beach. 

To the proponents of Measure B I ask, “What didn’t the City get that we needed because we have not had a directly elected mayor?” And, “Why did you abandon the signature gathering process to place this measure on the ballot and resort to going directly to the Council majority for approval?” No public outcry, no demand from constituents, the city is and has been governed well for the past 70 years; the City is financially sound, citizens are not complaining, so where did this come from? 

I have the right to remain silent, but in this case I just can’t. I urge you to vote NO on Measure B. 

Jeff Herdman

Newport Beach City Council, 2016-2020 

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Still the shining city on the hill?

Former Mayor Mike Henn’s talk at the Speak Up Newport Dinner on February 11, 2011 stuck with me. Mayor Henn described Newport as “the Shining City on the Hill.”

Yes, we heard from Mike about the City’s then current and future priorities (including “generational priorities,” which phrase is way beyond my pay grade), but that “Shining City” phrase is what I remember 11 years later.

That simple description bespeaks emotion, inspiration, and aspiration. Mike’s vision sorta made me proud to call Newport “home.”

But as I think of the town which has been a part time or fulltime home going on 68 years, I wonder if the vision is about to change.

Our Council of seven has worked collaboratively for nearly 70 years. They (all seven) debate vigorously, they (all seven) decide troublesome issues, they (all seven) put disagreements behind, they (all seven) move on to the next challenge.

I wonder – for all its perceived pluses – whether the direct election of the mayor plan will affect the thoughtful collaborative judgment by seven (former) equals. I wonder whether the “strong mayor” will overshadow the “lesser” remaining councilmembers and nullify our pre-eminent City Manager. I wonder whether we will still be “the Shining City on the Hill” after June 7.

A last thought as we prepare to cast our absentee ballots: If the direct election of the mayor is so worthwhile on its merits as contended by a proponent, why have so many prominent past and present Newport Beach Councilmembers, Mayors, Citizens of the Year, journalists, influential leaders, commission members, committee members, and committed citizens come out against the measure? 

Maybe these thoughtful folks have looked at the devil in the details – not swayed by a superficial catchphrase.

Please vote “NO” on Measure B. 

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Vote Yes on B, a rebuttal to the naysayers

I have now seen multiple misleading arguments in opposition to Measure B – the Elect Our Mayor initiative in Newport Beach. Here are some of those arguments and why I believe they are misleading. In the end, the voters of Newport Beach get to decide this important issue. Get educated and be sure to vote on June 7, 2022.

Argument 1 – This Is a Power Grab

How is allowing the people of Newport Beach to directly elect their Mayor a “power grab?” A “power grab” by whom? The people? Giving the people the chance to choose their own Mayor is democracy. It is simpler and more accountable government than the present system, which gives the power to appoint the Mayor to the City Council.

Argument 2 – The Proposed Terms for the Mayor Are Too Long.

Long compared to what? Certainly not the current system, where councilmembers can serve for 8 years, sit out a bit, and run again – over and over. Under the proposed measure, a person elected Mayor may only serve a maximum of two terms of four years each (for a maximum of 8 years served as Mayor in a lifetime). These term limits are in line with the limits in most cities. In fact, many cities set the limits at three or four terms of four years. Some cities even have no limits on the number of terms but simply limit successive terms. The proposed terms are not too long and are not unusual.

Argument 3 – Will O’Neill Would Make An Outstanding Mayor But What If the Voters Pick A Bad Mayor?

Most opponents of Measure B openly praise Will O’Neill and believe that he would make an excellent Mayor if Measure B passes and he runs and he is elected by the voters. But, they say, what if the voters of Newport Beach select a bad Mayor? I trust the voters of Newport Beach and believe it is unlikely they will select a bad Mayor. But if they somehow did, it’s worth remembering two important things. First, the proposed elected Mayor would only be one vote of seven, without a veto, and other councilmembers can add items to the policy agenda. Second, if a bad Mayor ever did emerge, the situation could be addressed through a recall process. Or the bad Mayor will not be re-elected. Do not assume that the voters are ignorant or incompetent. Trust the voters. Trust the democratic process. Elect the Mayor.

Argument 4 – The System That Newport Currently Uses Has Been Around a Long Time and Seems to Work So Why Change It?

The naysayers focus so heavily on wanting all the policy power to remain with the unelected City Manager. The Council-Manager system of governance is not democratic and in fact was originally devised to undermine democracy in city governance. The fact that many cities run this way, or that Newport Beach has long been run this way, does not address whether it is the best way to run our city. The origin of the Council-Manager system is enlightening and, in many ways, disturbing. In the early 1900s, when immigrants began to settle in large numbers in cities around the United States, the existing power structure of the cities feared that the immigrant hordes would vote together as a block and vote in one of their own kind. The solution to this “problem” was to develop the Council-Manager system of city governance and prevent the majority of voters from voting in the Mayor they wanted. Instead, voters were limited to electing several councilmembers whose power was diffused and it was up to the council members to select a “professional” city manager. [See 2006 article by Richard C. Schragger in the Yale Law Journal (115 Yale L.J. 2542) entitled “Can Strong Mayors Empower Weak Cities? On the Power of Local Executives in a Federal System”.] The net result is that in the City of Newport Beach, and in all cities that utilize the Council-Manager model, the person with the most power to set, influence and implement policy is the City Manager. The City Manager, however, is unelected by the voters and not directly accountable to the voters. 

A vote of “YES” on Measure B is a vote for democracy, accountability and a better way to run our great city. Please vote YES ON B.

John O’Hara

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Take the power back, vote Yes on B

Last October, I wrote a letter to the editor that called The Elect Our Mayor initiative “The People’s Power Grab.” I encouraged the City Council to let us, the voters, choose the Mayor directly. The City Council would have to give up that power and let us, the voters, take the power back.

And they did! We’ll be getting our ballots soon and will have the chance to vote yes on B to take the power to elect our Mayor directly and make sure that the Mayor is directly accountable to us.

So, I’ve been surprised to see opponents of this measure claim that they are trying to “stop the power grab.” Really? They want to insert themselves between the voters and direct accountability. They want to stop voters from getting power back. 

Any person who wants to become Mayor in the new system would have to go through the gauntlet of public elections. Debates, fundraising and asking for votes. We get the say in that situation. We, the voting public, have the power in that situation. 

I’m voting Yes on B and hope that you’ll join me.

Jeanine Bashore

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

We have inherent rights, and one of those should be voting to elect our mayor

I’ve heard some rather odd rumbling around town that even though the people don’t have the right to directly vote for our Mayor, this system “isn’t broke so we don’t need to fix it.” This suggests that our system was whole and right to begin with. But when the government holds back power away from the people – especially power as basic as selecting our city’s leader – then it’s an inherently broken system from the start. 

It’s time to vote to take back our rightful vote by voting “yes” on Measure B. 

Second to mothering my son, my absolute favorite job was teaching high schoolers about civics. It usually only took a few minutes in the first class to incentivize them to care and then we were off to the races with theories, concrete examples, and debates. Oh debates – the best part of it all because it not only showed what and how they were thinking but showed how much they cared. Our most basic question to answer was: what is the role of government? 

The government – according to the Enlightenment values our country was founded upon – is to bring order and protection to our basic individual rights of life, liberty and opportunity. We as individuals have powers and rights that are inherent in being humans. We release some of our individual powers over to the government because there are some circumstances in which a collective power structure better oversees the intersection of all our rights and powers. 

However, the government doesn’t have the same inherent right to power that the people do; its power comes from the consent of the people only when the individual power of the people can’t reasonably balance our rights with the rights of others. In sum, the people are presumed to have inherent powers and the government receives its limited powers from the consent of the people when necessary. 

Currently, the people of Newport Beach do not have the power to directly elect our mayor. We elect the 7 council members who then vote amongst themselves each year who will be our mayor. 

This is an unnecessary governmental power that should rightfully be in the hands of the people. Who is supporting keeping power in the government instead of with us; a small, politically active (read: few but loud) group with disproportionate influence in local politics whose power would be disrupted if we took our rightful vote back? 

We are a vibrant city that garners attention nationwide. We should have a direct say in who represents us as our mayor. By voting “yes” on Measure B, we are directly voting for our mayor and directly voting for our own inherent rights as the people of Newport Beach. 

Vote to vote, my friends. 

Erin Clark 

Newport Beach

Caution to the potential impact Measure B might have

This morning’s (4/26) Stu News starts with an article by Tom Johnson about Measure B. He opens by saying he likes Will O’Neill and considers him a friend but then goes on to explain why he ultimately is against Measure B. I completely agree with him for all the reasons he outlines and several more. 

It shouldn’t be about whether someone likes O’Neill or not but instead, what is the potential impact this change in electing a mayor would bring to our great city. One person having more power, the potential to give wealthy individuals more control because they will bring big dollars to campaigns, reducing districts from 7 to 6 are all reasons residents should be concerned. 

These reasons and more are why so many former council members, mayors and residents are against B. Vote no on B.

Mike Groff

Newport Beach 

Newport Beach

Lessons from Westminster for Newport

In June, residents in Newport Beach and Westminster, two cities in Orange County, will vote on mirror-image changes to their city charters.

In Newport Beach, voters will consider whether the mayor should be directly elected, for a four-year term, renewable for another four years, with considerable control over city policy. In Westminster, which has long had a system of direct election of the mayor, residents will consider something like the Newport Beach system, in which the five members of the city council would select each year, from among themselves, one person to serve as ceremonial mayor for the next year.

Many residents of Westminster are tired of their strong-mayor system, in which contentious city council meetings often last past midnight. The city council is so busy bickering, as Voice of OC has reported, that the city may well have to declare bankruptcy.

Among the points on the Westminster ballot, in favor of changing to the Newport system, are that it would “STOP potential corruption and abuse of power by politicians who hold the title of mayor for too long,” and “ALIGN Westminster with 26 other cities in Orange County who appoint their mayor annually” and “increase the likelihood that the mayor will have local government experience as a Westminster councilmember before serving as mayor.”

These are all good arguments, reasons why Westminster should change its charter, to provide for a one-year mayor selected by the city council. They are also reasons why Newport Beach should NOT change its charter – should retain its current system in which the city council selects a one-year ceremonial mayor.

It is striking that nobody, not even the current mayor of Westminster, submitted an argument against the proposed change to the Westminster charter to be printed on the ballot. It seems that, in Westminster at least, there is a consensus that a powerful, directly elected mayor is not a good idea.

Of course, larger cities, such as Anaheim, Irvine, and Santa Ana, generally have directly elected mayors. But according to the 2020 census, Newport Beach and Westminster are of similar size: 85,239 people in Newport Beach and 90,911 people in Westminster.

Some might argue that the ethnic composition of Westminster is different than Newport Beach, so that Newport Beach (even if it changes its charter) would not face the problems that Westminster has faced. This is a dubious if not racist argument. People are people. Good government systems draw out the best in people; bad government systems draw out the worst. If Newport Beach changes to the Westminster system, the odds that it will start to see the problems from which Westminster has suffered in recent years.

The current system in Newport Beach has worked well and should not be changed. Surely Newport Beach should learn from Westminster and not rush to change its charter in a way that has not worked there. Please join me in voting NO on Measure B in Newport Beach.

Walter Stahr

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

“Imagine disparaging the form of government that has helped make our city one of the most desirable places to live”

The way Will O’Neill is trying to spin his elected mayor project in letters to Newport Beach HOAs is truly astounding.

Imagine disparaging the form of government that has helped make our city one of the most desirable places to live just because we don’t directly elect our mayor. 

The truth is our current system works better than his proposal ever could. We elect all our council representatives, and they pick someone to serve in the ceremonial role of mayor for one year, then the position rotates. This way all Newport’s villages have equal representation and get equal attention. There’s no opportunity for a politician to spend eight years trying to make headlines as a prelude to running for higher office. 

Just because our form of government isn’t good for Will O’Neill doesn’t mean it isn’t good for Newport Beach.   

Next, while Mr. O’Neill swears up and down that his initiative isn’t a power grab, remember that it would transfer nearly total control of our city government to the elected mayor, and that he plans to run for that office when he’s termed out in 2024. (Conveniently, he has written Measure B to include an exemption from the term limits voters overwhelmingly approved in 1992 to allow someone like himself to run for mayor after being on the council for eight years.) 

Taking power away from all other elected city officials and the city manager, and giving it to one person, is the definition of a power grab.

Here are some questions Mr. O’Neill should answer if he wants voters to be fully informed:

Would he be working so hard to create this new office if he wasn’t eligible to run for it?

Why does he go to such lengths to avoid talking about one of the biggest changes that would result from his initiative: the reduction in the number of council districts from seven to six, leaving each council member with thousands more constituents to represent while the district where the mayor lives would have double representation?

We know the four councilmen supporting this measure committed $215,000 from our budget to put Measure B on the June ballot, but how much would the elected mayor office cost our city annually? And how much will it cost to redistrict the city, just a year after regular ten-year redistricting is completed? Would it be money well spent for residents or just for Will O’Neill?

–Why is Measure B attracting so much money from special interests and out-of-town donors?

–And finally, if Measure B is such a great idea, why didn’t its proponents, Will O’Neill, Noah Blom, Kevin Muldoon and Duffy Duffield, organize forums and panels to explain the details to the public, and why are they turning down almost every invitation to debate those who oppose it? 

Could it be they are hoping people will vote for Measure B because it sounds like a good idea, without reading the fine print? 

Based on what’s happened in the past with Measure Y and other calamities, it’s absolutely possible that they underestimate Newport Beach voters’ commitment to getting the facts and doing what’s best for our city even when politicians try to trick us into doing the opposite.

Gerald A. Giannini

Newport Beach

There are lessons to be learned from history

My wife and I recently returned from a trip to Washington, D.C. We spent a day at Mount Vernon, George Washington’s home.

We learned that no lesser person than the Father of Our Country set an unofficial precedent in 1796 when Washington declined to run for a third 4-year Presidential term.

And on February 27, 1951, Minnesota became the thirty-sixth state to approve the Twenty Second Amendment (thereby ensuring ratification) which sets term limits on Presidential service to two terms. 

Washington’s voluntary decision was an exercise in wise self-restraint and a safeguard against tyrannical  power.

Despite some pluses, the Charter Amendment (which would permit a SIXTEEN YEAR span in office) seems to encourage the retention/extension of power/control beyond reason. And it is inconsistent with the spirit and intent of Newport Beach voters who adopted Charter Section 401 in November 1992. Our voters decided at that time that “no person shall be or remain eligible to hold office as a member of the City Council for more than two (2) consecutive four (4) year terms.”

Perhaps we should learn from the moderation and restraint of our forefathers.

Please vote “NO” on Measure B.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

The change of our City Charter to elect the mayor is bad for Newport Beach

Yesterday I learned that Councilman Will O’Neill, author and proponent of Measure B, the flawed and dangerous directly elected mayor proposal, has mailed a letter to individual Newport Beach residents and voters encouraging their support of Measure B. 

Today I received a copy of that letter and absolutely had to respond. 

He opens his letter with the following questions, “Should you choose who your Mayor is? Or should someone else choose for you?”

Here’s what is ironic about these questions…you already do choose your mayor every time you vote for city council candidates. When you vote, you really should remember that under our 70-year-old system of governance in this city, the mayor comes from those seven people you elect to represent you. So, in essence, you have been directly electing your mayor ever since our city fathers wrote and you approved our City Charter. 

He refers to “that power” to select a mayor being in the hands of the city council. This is simply not so. By electing who represents you on City Council, you are also saying that you would be OK with any of those candidates serving as mayor.

Next, he refers to the political action committee (PAC) that has been formed to oppose this measure, called No Elected Mayor. Initially, that was the name of the PAC, however a more recent name change to No Power Grab - No on B, more appropriately describes the intent of this PAC. 

On the surface, if you were asked if you would like to directly elect your mayor, of course the answer is going to be affirmative. However, in this particular case, it is absolutely critical to look further into this proposed change in our City Charter and system of governance. 

Mr. O’Neill claims that his proposal for a directly elected mayor is straightforward. If you go deeper into it, this measure grants almost complete authority and power to the mayor for determining the future direction of this city. So, what is wrong with that, you ask? Consider the fact that this proposed measure completely opens the door to anyone with enough money to fund a campaign for the office of mayor. Anyone! No short or long-term residency in the city; no experience in governing; no experience with serving on city committees, boards or commissions; no knowledge of the history or culture of our city. Our city will be completely politicized. 

Read a little deeper and you will discover why the above identified PAC chose the title of “No Power Grab.” This measure would give the mayor ultimate authority in determining the agenda of the city council. There are all kinds of ramifications resulting from this level of authority. 

Ben Franklin stated that he is “a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power.” Way back in the 1700s Ben knew the dangers of giving one person too much power and the ability to arbitrarily make decisions.” 

I’ll ask you a few questions now: 

–Are you willing to take the risk involved in this proposed measure and give such authority to one individual? 

–What is wrong with the current system of selecting the mayor from council members who you have already been elected? A mayor with limited authority and power. 

–What problem exists that needs fixing? 

–If approved, wouldn’t we, in fact, be creating the potential for the creation of a whole new batch of problems? 

Just look at the City of Westminster who will be asking voters to actually approve going back to the system that has worked so well here in Newport Beach for 70 years. The directly elected mayor proposal that voters approved in that city has resulted in nothing but corruption. 

On June 7th you will be asked to cast your vote for or against probably the most significant public policy proposal in the history of our city. A No vote will leave things the way they are; a Yes vote is predicted to change the entire face of our city. 

Do you really want to take that risk?

Jeff Herdman, Newport Beach City Council 2016-2020

Balboa Island

Measure B, electing our mayor, is bad for Newport Beach

B is BAD for Newport Beach 

In case people are not paying attention there is a ballot measure on the June ballot that could have major negative implications to the City of Newport Beach. But much of the mischief it creates is hidden in the fine print. The ballot measure is entitled Measure B, which attempts to rest power from the citizens of Newport Beach, the council members and create unfettered power in the hands of one person. 

For decades, Newport has successfully operated under the city council form of government. The City has seven (7) council districts with each council member having equal authority in representing their constituencies and the City of Newport Beach. 

That form of government has created the incredible City of Newport Beach where we all live. But the first thing that Measure B proposes is to eliminate one council district and establish instead just six council districts and thereby weakening the voice of the residents of Newport Beach. 

Eliminates a Council District 

But of graver consequence proposed, Measure B would give the mayor “exclusive authority” to decide what issues are even placed on the City Council agenda. In addition, under Measure B, one of the remaining six (6) council districts would have both a mayor and a council member in one district again creating unequal representation for other council districts and their constituents. 

The full power of the mayor is frightening. 

The Measure also weakens term limits. Currently a council member can only serve two consecutive terms of four (4) years; however, Measure B allows that a council member after serving two terms, could then serve two four-year terms for a total of sixteen years. 

The city does not need career politicians. 

What each one has to ask themselves is why would someone want to amend the charter of the city to allow for the elimination of a council district or why anyone would run for city council if Measure B were successful? The proposed measure grants the mayor exclusive authority to determine what is placed on the City Council Agenda; gives one district two representatives (a councilmember and a mayor) at the expense of the other remaining council districts and their constituents and all while weakening the authority of the council and weakening term limits. 

No Requirement that the Mayor Served on City Council Subject to Forces Outside the City 

Is the answer to this that the Measure is not supported by the residents of Newport Beach but rather forces from outside the city? As recent campaign filings in support of the Measure showed in Mr. Homer Bludau’s recent letter and analysis, 43% of donations in support of Measure B came from people residing outside our city and in some cases from outside the State. 

Forces outside the City controlling Newport may be a very real fear, as Measure B, does not require that a person running for Mayor have previously served as a council member. 

Don’t be misled by the title of Measure B. It has nothing to do with electing a mayor and everything about grabbing and concentrating power, eliminating accountability, and eliminating one of the current seven (7) council districts. Don’t allow our city to be a victim of a power grab by one person or group of people with little interest in our great city. Join me in voting NO on B. B as in bad for the City of Newport Beach.                                                                                      

Thomas C. Edwards, former Mayor Newport Beach 

Newport Beach

Study Session frustrating, leaving me with more questions than answer

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

When is a Study Session not really a study session? Last evening, I attended the City Council Study Session 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 the effect that this closure, if it becomes permanent, will have on the rest of traffic flow in the Heights will be substantial. This one change will engender many others. It was discouraging that more people from other streets did not attend. Have they learned from experience that the Council is going to do what the Council is going to do regardless of their input?

It turns out, with good visuals provided by the City’s Traffic Specialist, that after Tustin 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 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, every other alternate routes’ numbers go up.

The reasons for providing this temporary closure were not clear. A few possibilities provided in passing were that this segment of Tustin was “very unique,” that it was used by “impaired drivers leaving the Mariners’ Mile bars at 10 p.m., not wanting to get pulled over on Riverside,” while one council member kept coming back to the excuse that the reason it might have been closed off was because it was” very narrow.”

It wasn’t until Councilman Avery spoke that Riverside, the alternate thoroughfare, was even mentioned. Equity, impartiality – those concepts were raised. I had many questions about information that was presented. I am sure that others did too.

Which takes me to another concern that I had about this meeting and about Council meetings in general. It is supposed to be a study session, but questions are not allowed after the statement period. When the City Traffic Specialist gave statistics, talking about results of the Tustin study, only council members could ask questions. At this point, as new information was being presented, questions from the audience simply were not allowed. 

It has been brought to my attention that there is nothing in state law that prevents a free-flow discussion with the public on items announced on the agenda. It is frustrating to not allow the audience to ask questions, particularly when the information being discussed is technical in nature. (Rumor has it that the City Council of one neighboring city does allow back-and-forth communication.)

You can try to write council members to get information. Some of them do actually get back to you. But despite the many emails I have sent to the council over the years, there are two on the current council who have never answered or responded to me, not once.

I hope that when we do elect new council members, we select those who have a proven record of interest and commitment to the community, not just to 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

Letters to the Editor

I want to vote to elect my mayor and will vote “yes” on B

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, or 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 leaders.

Ruth Kobayashi

Newport Beach

Was leaning toward voting yes on B, now I’m a definite

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 was attacked. And then my comments were gone from public view. And then I was blocked from even seeing the post.

Take it 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

Guest Letter

Dilruba Haque, M.D.

City of Hope

Four common breast cancer myths to set aside

Guest Letter Dilruba Haque MD

Click on photo for a larger image

Courtesy of City of Hope

Dilruba Haque, M.D., City of Hope

Women in Orange County are generally healthier than most women in California. But did you know Orange County has a higher rate of breast cancer than California counties overall? The exact reasons for that remain unclear, but one way to bring down that number is to educate women about what they can do to reduce their risk of getting the disease. 

Your physician is an excellent resource and should be a primary source of guidance. But despite the best efforts of health care providers, misconceptions about the disease persist.

Let’s take a look at – and correct – some of these myths.

Myth: Breast cancer always shows up as a lump. A lump is the most common symptom, but many women diagnosed with breast cancer don’t show signs. That’s why women are urged to both perform monthly self-exams of their breasts and talk to their doctor about when and how often to be screened for breast cancer. Women noticing worrisome changes to or unusual masses in their breasts should contact their doctor immediately.

Myth: People with a BRCA gene mutation are certain to get breast cancer. All women have BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. They help with cell growth and repair; however, they also can develop mutations associated with breast cancer. But having – or not having – these mutations does not guarantee you will – or will not – develop the disease. So, you may be interested in asking your doctor about genetic testing; having an accurate picture of your genetic markers can be a powerful tool for health care planning.

Myth: Eating gluten causes cancer. This is a myth that arose from the potential link between cancer and inflammation. The rationale goes something like this: If inflammation is linked to cancer and gluten is linked to inflammation, then not eating gluten might help prevent cancer. However, the truth is more nuanced. While gluten may be linked to inflammation, there does not appear to be clear-cut evidence that conclusively shows a gluten-free diet can help fight cancer or reduce the side effects of cancer treatment.

Myth: Men have nothing to be concerned about. While it’s much less common in men than in women, it is estimated that doctors will diagnose more than 2,700 U.S. men this year with breast cancer. As in women, men who feel a lump in their breast or see any other unusual swelling, redness, or nipple discharge should reach out to their doctor without delay.

The best way to treat breast cancer is to stop it in the first place. Understand your risk factors and talk with your doctor about preventive care, including breast cancer screening. If you have been diagnosed with breast cancer, seek care from a physician who specializes in your kind of cancer and can offer you access to the latest breakthroughs in breast cancer research, technology, and treatment.

Dilruba Haque, M.D., is a medical oncologist and hematologist at City of Hope Newport Beach Lido and City of Hope Irvine Sand Canyon who specializes in treating breast cancer. 

Visit to learn more. To make an appointment at any of City of Hope’s four Orange County locations, click here or call:

Newport Beach Fashion Island: 949.763.2204

Newport Beach Lido: 949.999.1400

Irvine Sand Canyon: 949.333.7580

Huntington Beach: 714.252.9415

Letters to the Editor

Grant gets my vote for Council

Over the years I have watched with great interest the consistent hard work and tremendous amount of time Robyn Grant has given to the City of Newport Beach and to various organizations and boards within our City. 

As a little background – Robyn Grant is a USC educated attorney with a specialty in real estate and environmental law and bachelor’s degree from the UCLA. She is also a small business owner and teaches college classes in Business Law and Business Ethics. 

Robyn served two appointments to the Civil Service Board of Newport Beach, as well as appointments to the Library Board of Trustees and the City Arts Commission. Robyn Grant has also served on boards of several nonprofits including Speak Up Newport, Friends of Newport Beach Animal Shelter and Leadership Tomorrow. 

A Newport resident for over thirty-five years, Robyn Grant has worked with the City of Newport Beach in many capacities, collaborating with the community to support local business, increase resident participation in City Council decisions, improve government services, promote community education, and support our first responders.

Robyn Grant understands that the major issues facing Newport Beach such as public safety, crime, homelessness, traffic, etc., do NOT fall neatly within district lines but do require ALL City Council members to work together and to respond to concerned residents regardless of the District designations.

Robyn Grant will listen intently to residents’ concerns. Robyn Grant is consistent on her positions on issues and does not change her position based on money donors who want to control our politicians by promising support and money. Robyn Grant has the integrity and independence of a strong leader and does not flip flop on election measures such as Measure B – Election of a Mayor.

Robyn Grant knows that when she is elected her job is to listen to and carry out the will of ALL the residents of Newport Beach. Please join my husband and me in voting for Robyn Grant for District 4 City Council.

Nancy and Ron Arrache

Balboa Peninsula

Rush to judgment seems in error

Bob Rush describes the many people opposed to the flawed elected mayor proposal as “the same unscrupulous culprits and miscreants of the past.” Why would I take umbrage from a man whose opinions consistently conflict with actual facts, it is well worth pointing out to your readers that these scurrilous opponents to the elected mayor initiative include virtually every past Newport Beach mayor, City Council person and City Manager. One might suppose that these are people who really know what they are talking about and appreciate that the collective wisdom of this group is that this is a very bad proposal for Newport Beach.

I will also point out that the proponent’s website contains no one listed as endorsing this proposal, likely because most people recognize it as the power grab that it is. In contrast, the opponent’s website ( has an exceptionally large list of illustrious people who understand that this proposal effectively creates one man rule in Newport by giving an elected mayor extraordinary powers. 

Please vote No on Measure B.

Susan Skinner

Newport Beach

Thank you to city staff for a wonderful event

Too often we forget to say kudos for a job well done. Saturday’s event, hosted by the City of Newport Beach, which offered shredding, e-waste and free compost was a HUGE success. In addition, you could pick up an under the counter pail from CR&R, smart planning for sure.

Cars started lining up at 7 a.m. and went back for almost a mile. At 10 a.m., when I got there, the line was still long and I waited for about 25 minutes. It was well worth the wait. I utilized 3 out of the 4 services.

The city staff was very pleasant, professional and efficient. I was very impressed. Thank you, Newport Beach, for such a successful event. Most of all a BIG THANK YOU to all of the city staffers and CR&R staffers for a job well done. 

Assemblywoman Marilyn C. Brewer, ret.

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Measure B is about more than being friends with Will O’Neill

I was speaking to a group of people last week about how important it is to vote NO on B when all of a sudden, a person in the audience spoke up and said the following:

“I personally know and love Will O’Neill. I have donated to his campaign, I’m a dedicated follower of his posts, our kids are friends, etc. He does what he says, listens with an open mind, I think he’s great. But when he asked me to help with Measure B, I had to decline and he was very respectful of my choice. I think he would be great for the position that Measure B is creating, but just as I told him, the problem is who comes after him. 

“Will O’Neill would be a great leader for 4 or 8 years, but then who will be next? Someone power hungry, someone with higher ambition, someone without Newport in mind, someone funded by lobbyists. No doubt it will ruin the City.

“Keep the power divided among the council as it has been. Why do I care which councilman runs the meeting and calls himself mayor that year? I’m just happy the power is split and they hold each other accountable (...somewhat). This would change all that and turn the Council to yes men. How truly sad for our beautiful City.”

Very well stated.

As you all know the City of Westminster, population of 93,000, will be voting in the June primary to dissolve their directly elected Mayor position. The residents are fed up with the politics that have resulted from someone having too much control.

Let’s stop this now! I urge everyone to vote NO on B.

Please visit our website at

Lynn Swain

Big Canyon

Newport Beach, it’s time to say “no” again

NO! That’s the only answer to Measure B. Don’t vote before reading the fine print. We residents are in the same situation as in 2014, when we were told Measure Y would “reduce traffic” even though we knew it would have the opposite effect: the data was skewed and the measure would in fact have brought large scale development and traffic to Newport Center. 

This was the catalyst for our formation of Line in the Sand, to educate and protect the public interest.

In the case of Measure B, the only answer, again, is to just say NO. Again, we feel betrayed – not because the idea of an elected mayor is bad in itself – but because when you read and understand the fine print, you see that, as written, the measure would seriously erode democratic representation for the voters and load the power into the hands of one person, the Mayor. 

Some things to think about:

Who’s behind it? The mega dollars behind Measure B are mostly out-of-town dollars except for a $5,000 loan from Will O’Neill. What’s that all about?

Why is it? If Measure B passes, the Mayor would have an incredible amount of power, more than any one representative has ever had in our City. Agenda decisions would be made by the Mayor, and voter representation would be decreased by having one less district. The ability of the City Manager and other Councilmembers to drive Council discussions would be drastically reduced. How could that possibly be a good thing for our city?

What is it? The charter change we are voting on was initiated by one person – Will O’Neill – without review or discussion or community input at the Council meetings. It allows an elected Mayor to buy a seat with mega dollars and capture the bulk of the power in decision-making discussions among the Council. It allows a Mayor to stay in place for eight years even immediately after two four- year terms on the City Council. The big bucks could more easily prevail and the number of districts would be reduced to six. Why would decreasing our representation and lumping it more into one hand be a good thing for our city?

Where is this happening? This is Newport Beach. Our system of leadership through seven equally represented Districts has worked well for many decades even though big money and the cost of elections can have an undue and unfair influence. But – Measure B not only erodes the fairness and representation but allows big money to more likely drive the Mayoral election. Who thinks making matters worse is a good thing for our City?

NO! The only answer to Measure B is just plain no.  If you’re someone who’s frustrated by one-party rule in Sacramento, just wait until you see one-person rule in Newport Beach. That’s what Measure B would result in. 

Dennis Baker, Board President

Line in the Sand

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Working to preserve the special place we call Newport

I read with interest Publisher Tom Johnson’s analysis of the council race involving Robyn Grant. Like Tom, I have watched with interest Robyn’s hard work and admired her accomplishments through the years. She has continuously exhibited qualities of a true leader; her goal has always been to work for the betterment of all the citizens of Newport Beach. Whether it’s working to improve the City’s world class Newport Beach Public Library, helping future leaders of Newport with the Leadership Tomorrow program or participating in the Speak Up Newport program, Robyn has always been there to pitch in and help and, if needed, work with all parties to reach a workable solution to any problem. 

One of her outstanding qualities is her willingness to listen to both sides and make logical and reasoned decisions; she is not an operative of a particular position nor is she dismissive of conflicting views.     

Robyn Grant brings independent leadership qualities that are so crucial and essential to preserving the quality of life of Newport Beach. She will work to provide a voice for all of the citizens of Newport.   

I strongly endorse Robyn Grant for City Council, as she is the candidate to make responsible decisions, not decisions based upon personal power or future personal gain. Please join me in supporting her for Newport Beach City Council in the coming election. Your vote for her will maintain the special place we call Newport Beach. 

Thomas C. Edwards

Former Mayor and Citizen of the Year 

Newport Beach

What changed Lowrey’s decision to run for City Council?

In the final hours of filing, Lee M. Lowrey files papers for the 4th District seat for Newport Beach City Council. This – after months of “I’m not running.” What changed his mind? 

Opportunity…or a long-held desire to be elected?

Lee has had a long burning desire to be elected. Years and years ago, as a young buck, he hung out with a cadre of wanna be’s. This included the Peotter brothers, Jim Righeimer, Matt Harper and Tom Reneicke. They were a band of “Fuentes Flunkies” who aspired to elected office but did little to merit the honor. I know – firsthand – because when I ran for the State Assembly in the mid-nineties, Lee Lowrey was amongst those who were going to challenge me. I know that was a long time ago. That’s how long he has been salivating – and trying – to get elected.

Somehow, there are those who would have you think that serving on the City’s Planning Commission is a springboard to the city council. That is simply not enough. I’m not convinced that having a tract housing developer on the Planning Commission or on the City Council serves our community. 

Lowery is a strong supporter of more private jets at JWA and was working to defeat the “Elect the Mayor” initiative. Oh! Now he’s changed his mind and he’s FOR the initiative. Makes you wonder why? The LA Times listed him as a political fundraiser. 

His tenets, his beliefs go against everything Newport Beach stands for. He supports more private jets at JWA, supports Measure B and wants an elected mayor. What else do you need to know to defeat this man?

Well, yes, there is one more thing. He ran a few years ago in District 5. Now he’s running in District 4. As I said, for many years he has sought an elected position at any cost. The price for Newport Beach is too high. 

Vote NO on Lee Lowrey! Vote NO on Measure B!!

Assemblywoman Marilyn C. Brewer, ret.

Newport Beach

Why does outside money support a directly elected mayor for Newport Beach?

According to campaign records kept by the Newport Beach City Clerk, as of April 1st, 43% of donations to the “Yes” side of Measure B (June Directed Elected Mayor ballot measure) come from people listed as residing outside our City, in some cases, even from outside our State!

If a $5,000 loan from Councilman Will O’Neil is included, 49% of all “Yes” donations come from either the Councilman or from out-of-town donors. In contrast, donations to the “No” side show only one donor from outside of Newport Beach, and that person was an involved resident of Newport Beach for many years. 

It begs the question – why does so much money from donors living outside our City want to see Newport Beach have a directly elected Mayor? What do outside special interests have to gain if Measure B passes? 

Newport Beach does not need its elections decided by money from people who live outside the community. If Measure B passes, this is just a preview of what is to come in the future. Stop the power grab and vote “No” on Measure B in the June primary election. 

Homer Bludau

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Noted architect wonders if the Superior bridge could be better?

(The following is a letter sent to a number of people including Arlene Greer, Chair of the City of Newport Beach Arts Commission, and cc’d to councilmembers Joy Brenner and Will O’Neill, among others, from noted local architect Ron Yeo.)

A friend of mine that lives adjacent to this project (Superior bridge linking Sunset Ridge Park) is losing his sleep because of it. He feels that it is a nice design but could be so much better in order to represent the best that Newport can offer.

The bridge will go from the expanded parking lot to Sunset Ridge Park which is a 10’ wide trail. The bridge path will be 12’ wide.

Letter SNN bridge photo 1

Photos courtesy of Ron Yeo

Proposed Superior bridge to connect Sunset Ridge Park

He feels that any project this important should be reviewed by the Arts Commission. Was that done? If not, do you think that it should it be reviewed?

He feels that by narrowing the bridge center (which lessens the structural load) and widening the ends (making the bridge entry more inviting) would result in a better aesthetic solution. Similar to the LA bridge photo below.

Letter SNN bridge photo 2

LA Bridge

My thinking is that Newport may not have to go over the top in design like Calatrava’s “Turtle Bay Bridge” in Redding, CA.

Letter SNN bridge photo 3

Calatrava’s Turtle Bay Bridge in Redding, Calif.

But the proposed 8-foot-high railing is way out of character. It not only detracts from the beauty of the bridge but makes the walk & bikeway feel like a cage. It also takes away the open view feeling when crossing the bridge.

I feel that the railing should be reduced in height in order to be consistent with the other bridges in Newport.

Letter SNN bridge photo 4

Coast Highway crossing of Bay

Letter SNN bridge photo 5

Arches bridge over Coast Highway

Let me know what you think?

Ron Yeo, FAIA Architect

Corona del Mar

I looked hard at all sides of Measure B – for me, it’s a no

Change can be a good thing and I try to remain open-minded about new ideas. That’s why I took an interest in the directly elected mayor initiative (“Measure B” on the June ballot) when councilman Will O’Neill first introduced it. I did what I usually do to draw my own conclusion: I researched the facts, listened to people I trust and followed the money. 

Here’s what I discovered.

1– If Measure B passes, the mayor would have an incredible amount of power, more than anyone has ever held in our city. He or she would decide what goes on the council’s agenda, and therefore which way attention and money flow. Challenging the mayor’s personal priorities and decisions would require massive effort and coordination on the part of other councilmembers and/or Newport residents and businesses. 

Our city has been successful for many decades thanks to the balance of power on the council. I see no reason to suddenly replace a system that works with one that gives one person the ability to rule like a monarch.

2– Opponents to Measure B include a long list of former mayors and mayors pro tem, former city officials, three current councilmembers and groups from across the political spectrum. 

Closer to home, I’ve had several friends and neighbors tell me they were open to the idea at first but decided to vote no after getting all the details. In fact, I haven’t spoken to a single person who has studied the issue in depth and supports it. 

That speaks volumes to me.

3– As a general rule, I look at the funding behind any candidate or ballot measure before forming an opinion. What shocked me most with Measure B is the amount of money it’s attracting from special interests and individuals from other cities – even other states! The only reason for these outside groups and people to contribute to Measure B is that they believe the change in Newport’s form of government will benefit them – that they’ll have the elected mayor’s ear and be able to influence his or her priorities and decisions. This is more than a red flag for me. 

It makes B a nonstarter. 

I’ve made up my mind to vote NO on B and believe my fellow Newport Beach residents will do the same if they get all the facts, listen to those who know our city best and follow the money.

Susan Rashap

Newport Beach

Vote yes on B and enable all of us to elect our own mayor

This June, the voters in Newport Beach will have an opportunity to approve a charter amendment that would enable all voters and all community members in the city TO DIRECTLY ELECT THEIR OWN MAYOR.

If approved, this means having a Mayor that is directly accountable to all of us – THE COMMUNITY – for the first time ever! 

If that sounds good, then vote YES on Measure B!

Presently in the City, voters elect a councilperson for each district and then this small group of seven people goes into a back room in City Hall and literally picks the Mayor themselves. And each passing year a group of seven councilpersons re-visits the process, and they pass around the mayorship like pinch-pint at a BBQ, regardless of the community’s opinion or that person’s past performance. 

Maintaining this archaic system is the real power-grab! Yep, hard to believe we still allow such an archaic process that promotes and rewards the game of political favors – “make me the chief today and I’ll make you chief tomorrow.”

People opposing Measure B are trying to keep this archaic approach in place. The “opposition” is headed up by some of the same unscrupulous culprits and miscreants of the past.

You know them…many of the city’s well-connected “good ole boys (and girls)” and “insiders.” These are the same folks who gave us a $240 million Taj Mahal. The same ones who aided and abetted and profited from the over proliferation of drug rehabs throughout the City, and many of these folks are ex-councilmen that couldn’t get re-elected in their own districts or even to a second council term – yea those same old insiders! The funniest part is that this cabal has decided to name their campaign “No Elected Mayor: Stop The Power Grab” – what a joke!

You’ll probably hear them claim next that a vote for their side saves the children and brings us clean drinking water too!

The irony is, when you read the actual ballot question you will see just how simple the issue is. But don’t take my word, here’s how an impartial City staffer wrote the ballot question:

….Shall Article IV, City Council, and Article X, Elections, of the Newport Beach City Charter be amended…to provide for the direct election of the Mayor, who would be nominated (and elected) by residents and registered voters of the City of Newport Beach…

In actuality, Measure B will DECENTRALIZE power and put it back in the hands of our voters and community members. If we don’t like the direction a Mayor is taking the City or if a Mayor doesn’t hold to his promises…we can vote that person out too!

The Insiders don’t want you to pick your own Mayor. They believe you aren’t smart enough and can’t be trusted to elect your Mayor.

Reject that cynicism and let’s put the VOTERS and COMMUNITY back in charge of deciding who should be the Mayor of Newport.

Let’s send a message to the Insiders and end THEIR power-grab...Vote Yes on B!

Bob Rush

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

First things first, go all the way to the end and vote No on Measure B

The most important thing voters who love Newport Beach can do when they get their ballots next month is to go all the way to the end and vote No on Measure B. 

This measure, crafted by one councilman and supported by only three of his colleagues, would drastically change the form of government that has served Newport Beach so well for nearly 70 years.

As written, the measure would in essence take us from a democratic system to one-man rule. The elected mayor would have total control over the agenda for city council meetings, meaning he would have total control over what gets discussed and how the future direction of the city gets decided. 

The number of council districts would be reduced from seven to six, and the six representatives would have no voice unless the mayor felt like listening to them. Residents and businesses could find themselves silenced and ignored. The city manager job would become no more than a clerical position. 

It’s easy to imagine a scenario where amazing people who love our city don’t want to run for council, top talent won’t want to apply for jobs with the city (who wants to work for a dictator?), and our incredibly smart and engaged citizenry stops wanting to participate in civic life because one man would be directing and starring in his own show. Hard to imagine anything more antithetical to the spirit of our city than that. 

Another immense privilege the elected mayor would enjoy is that term limits would not apply to him. In 1992, Newport voted overwhelmingly to limit the time a person could spend on the dais to eight years. Yet with this initiative, the person seeking to be our new ruler would get to spend twice that amount of time – 16 years in a row! – on the council. 

Interestingly, when the proponents of this measure are asked what’s wrong with our current form of government, they have no answer. That’s because there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s democratic, it includes checks and balances, and it’s one of the things that has made our city among the most desirable places in the country to live. 

The bottom line is that we have nothing to gain from Measure B, and everything to lose. Please join me in going all the way to the bottom of the ballot and voting NO on B. 

Ralph Wilson Jr.

Newport Beach

Mr. Lowrey’s decision to run in District 4 

I don’t know Mr. Lee Lowrey. From his photograph in a number of recent media publications, he appears to be a pleasant looking fellow.

Over the years, I have attended from time-to-time various community events/meetings including Council study sessions and Council meetings, WAKE UP! Newport meetings, Speak Up Newport meetings, the annual Mayor Receptions, Government Affairs meetings, Police Appreciation Breakfasts, Citizen of the Year events, annual Economic Forecasts, Scholarship Award Dinners, Athletic Award Dinners, Boat Parade Dinner and Auction events, the annual Sandcastle Contests, annual Mayor’s Dinners, the annual Fire/Lifeguard celebrations, Board/Commission meetings, and other civic events/meetings. Those who attend these and other civic events may get a feel for our town. 

Mr. Lowrey could certainly have been a frequent attendee at these events/meetings, but I don’t recall seeing/meeting him (which I’m sure could be my fault). Undoubtedly his attendance has been good as a planning commissioner.

If I am incorrect concerning Mr. Lowrey’s community involvement (other than his important service as a planning commissioner), I apologize.

I am a bit more concerned about reports I have heard that Mr. Lowrey repeatedly stated that he was definitely not going to be a District 4 Council candidate. He has apparently now reneged on that commitment. 

It has also been reported that he was originally leading a campaign against the direct election of the Mayor ballot measure but has changed his mind on that as well.

Are you as curious as I as to why Mr. Lowrey has had a change of heart on these (and perhaps other) matters? Will his commitments/de-commitments portend future decision-making judgments by Mr. Lowrey if he is elected to our Council?

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Characterization of Lowrey didn’t seem fair

Your characterization of Lee Lowrey struck me and my wife as pointedly harsh, especially compared to your recent write-up on candidate Tom Miller who, unlike Lee, has not spent years volunteering on the Planning Commission.

Just my two cents,

Sean Matsler

Newport Beach

Agree that Grant serves District 4 needs better

I support the points made by Tom Johnson in his March 29 Stu News editorial that concludes Robyn Grant is the best candidate to fill the upcoming District 4 City Council vacancy. Like Tom, I am concerned about Lee Lowrey’s lack of community experience and the immediate endorsement of his candidacy by four City Councilmembers who make up the current Council majority. 

This is the same majority that supports Measure B, the “Election of a Mayor,” to be considered by voters in the June primary election. I believe this endorsement is a power grab to maintain a “Gang of 4” council majority and is not in the best interest of our community. 

I agree with Tom that we need the District 4 City Council candidate to have a proven history of accomplishments for our community.

The current council majority is made up of Will O’Neill, Noah Blom, Duffy Duffield and Kevin Muldoon. They want Mr. Lowrey to fill the vacancy when Kevin Muldoon is termed out and are counting on him to fill the void to keep the majority in control. I believe they are providing their support in exchange for his support for Measure B. 

Mr. Lowrey will likely be looking at the council majority to determine how the “gang” wants him to vote and will direct future Political Action Committee donations to candidates and causes they support.

I have met with Robyn Grant on several occasions and found her to be knowledgeable of District 4’s and the entire City’s priorities and concerns. She is very experienced in numerous Newport Beach community organizations and will look at future issues individually to determine what is best for her district and the City as a whole. Her experience and positions on City issues and programs can be found at

We do not need to create a strong Mayor form of government for Newport Beach that deprives local districts of representation, and do not want political party-based offices. We need our City Council to be community-based representatives for their district. I urge Newport Beach voters to support Robyn Grant for District 4 City Council.

Ron Rubino


Guest Letter

Katrina Foley, Second District

Orange County Supervisor

Transitioning to cleaner energy resources is the best way to reduce the financial impacts of rising gas prices 

Guest letter Katrina Foley

Click on photo for a larger image

Courtesy of 2nd District, OC Supervisor

Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley

Gas prices continue to soar for Orange County residents with no end in sight. This week, the average cost per gallon reached an unprecedented $5.97 here in Orange County. There are many reasons prices are going up at the pump – Putin’s war in Ukraine, disruptions in the supply chain due to the pandemic, corporate greed by those raising prices and gouging consumers and California’s 51¢ gas tax. 

This is why I requested that my colleagues at the Orange Board of Supervisors join me to ask the Governor and State Legislature to provide taxpayers with a rebate or suspend the gas tax for one year, so long as that lost revenue is backfilled by the State budget surplus so we can continue to fund much needed infrastructure. 

We ultimately agreed on some issues, but some of my colleagues disagreed with the notion of a tax rebate, citing concerns about those not directly paying the tax should not get a break. Some also disagreed that we should suspend the gas tax for one year, stating that six months was more than enough. 

I strongly disagreed and so do many Republicans and Democrats in the State Capitol, who are advocating for a tax rebate. When the price of gas goes up, the cost of goods and services go up for all of us. The cost to do business goes up. The cost of public transportation goes up. The cost of groceries increases and we are all impacted. The more we can do to give the taxpayers back their money, in times like this, the better. 

While suspending the gas tax or offering an equivalent rebate will not completely solve the scourge of ever-increasing gas prices, it’s vital that we provide respite for Orange County families struggling to pay for gas during this challenging time. 

To truly reduce the burden of increasing prices at the pump and protect our way of life that was threatened by the recent oil spill off our coast, we need long-term planning to wean ourselves from oil and transition toward cheaper, clean energy resources.

In Orange County, we must work with the private sector and energy providers to add new electric, solar powered vehicle charging stations, which will make electric vehicle (EV) ownership more accessible and save families money on gas. Charging an electric vehicle costs less than $10, compared to gas fill-ups that now cost up to $100 or more, but there is still a lack of access at the workplace, in public spaces and at home. The market is telling us that electric vehicles are becoming a better economic option. We must listen.

Every Orange County resident deserves the option to walk or bike to work or school, instead of driving. Many of our streets remain unsafe for cyclists and pedestrians. In 2020 alone, Orange County saw nearly 500 pedestrian injuries and 50 deaths. From 2016 to 2020, over 4,000 bicycle collisions occurred and 75 cyclists died in our County. That is an unacceptable record and we must do better. 

As a former City Councilmember and Mayor of Costa Mesa, I initiated an Active Transportation Plan and, now, as Supervisor and Director on the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), I am working to add miles of new protected bike lanes and walking trails so residents can safely and easily get around. 

Our dirty, under-utilized flood channels remain an untapped resource for this effort, so long as we also invest the public safety resources to patrol these areas.

Bike lanes and walking trails will make our streets safer and increase pedestrian traffic, which reduces crime and benefits small businesses. Providing residents with safe and reliable alternatives to driving will decrease oil dependence, gas expenses and traffic congestion.

Modernizing our public transportation system is essential as our County moves on from oil dependence and toward sustainable technology. At OCTA, we invested in 10 plug-in battery-electric buses and an equal number of hydrogen fuel-cell electric buses in our fleet, with the goal of 100 percent zero-emission technology by 2040. 

These simple and widely popular solutions reduce the impact of sky-high gas costs on Orange County residents – both during this crisis and in the future – and improve the quality of life for our residents.

Katrina Foley, Second District

Orange County Supervisor

Letters to the Editor

After months of denials, Lowrey enters city council race 

Well, after months of denial that he would not be a candidate, Lee Lowrey has decided to run for Newport Beach city council, or maybe not, today is another day. 

Having failed to be elected in District Five, Lowrey has moved into District Four. Perhaps next time District Three. 

In recent weeks, Lowrey has been negotiating with his controlled Atlas PAC to oppose the “Elect the Mayor” initiative, a blatant effort to evade term limits and concentrate political power in one politician. Apparently, Lee is “flexible” in his political philosophy because now he is suddenly in support of the measure. 

Could it be that he is falling into line as part of the Dave Ellis political machine? Indeed, it was Ellis who gleefully announced Lowrey’s candidacy while at the same time, setting himself up to funnel thousands of dollars outside of the city spending limits in direct mail hit pieces on behalf of Lowrey. 

You remember Ellis and four of his candidates were fined by the Fair Political Practices Commission for violating state campaign finance laws in the 2014 Newport election.

Exactly who is Lee Lowrey? A strong supporter of more private jets at John Wayne Airport and a tract housing developer who spends most of his time in Colorado and Texas. 

He is a business partner of former Costa Mesa mayor Jim Righeimer, who conducted a “reign of terror” in that city, fighting constantly with Costa Mesa police officers and firefighters. In his short tenure, Righeimer turned Costa Mesa from a Republican to Democratic city and damaged public safety services.

Perhaps that is the Lowrey playbook.

Lowrey’s Atlas PAC is a political action committee that funnels dark money to various anti-police candidates, most notably Righeimer, and other political extremists.

Lowrey is nothing more than a tool providing a fourth vote for the political gang that has been running and ruining Newport for the past few years. Just another Dave Ellis minion.

Please vote for Robyn Grant and a Big NO on Measure B. 

Gerald A. Giannini

Newport Beach

As issues gain footholds worldwide, we can’t forget what we’re facing right here at home

I am sure that we have all had a lot on our minds lately with the now monthlong war in Ukraine and the possibility of the resurgence of a sub variant of the Omicron strain making its appearance in LA County. But with all the international and national problems, let’s not lose sight of one very important one here at home – yes, here in Newport Beach. 

My focus was brought back to this local dilemma yesterday as I hammered my new “No on B – Stop the Power Grab” sign in my front yard.

Reflecting again on one person’s attempt to establish a mayoral government structure in Newport Beach, I am reminded of how preposterous a proposal it is. Because the reason for doing so – to establish a more democratic government in Newport Beach – will do just the opposite.

We are not a large cosmopolitan city like San Francisco or Los Angeles. And our population is considerably less than the eight other cities in Orange County which have adopted an “elected mayor” form of government (with the exception of Stanton).

At the council meeting where “Proposal B” was adopted by a vote of 4-3, there were speakers who lined up to speak on both sides of the issue. It seemed like there was an equal number of speakers and letters posted on the City website regarding the issue.

However, unbeknownst to me and most likely many others in the city, people who do not live in Newport Beach can both speak to issues at council meetings and post letters on the website. The city from which they come is not necessarily noted in either case.

That might explain some of the repetitive and very short verbal as well as written responses given by supporters of electing a mayor.

The first person to step forward with this surprising proposal has lived in Newport Beach less than 10 years. And the three other councilmembers who voted with that person rarely vote against him. (In my opinion) Most other long-term residents who have been involved in Newport City government are opposed to this major change in structure.

Why? Because the person who proposed it also wrote it and in doing so made provisions which will actually make the government less democratic. The Mayor would have increased power, the City Manager would have much less as would the city councilmembers who would be reduced by one in number and would not be elected directly by their constituents to balance the increased power of the mayor.

Instead of making this change that would render our city government less democratic by the obvious “power grab” of one person, let’s make Newport Beach more democratic by electing new councilmembers who are independent, not indebted to developers, do not vote as blocks and really do represent the wishes of their constituents.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Concerned that problems lurk with the process of electing our mayor

Some people in Newport Beach have been lulled into thinking that “electing” a mayor makes our city government more democratic. They are balancing “electing” with “appointing” and are attracted by the idea of directly selecting the mayor. If you are familiar with history, however, you know that there have been authoritarian leaders who were initially “elected” to office.

The biggest constraint to achieving a more democratic system with the new mayor proposal is that one person and one person only wrote the whole proposal, with no oversight. One person…think carefully about that. And that one person who wrote it for a city of 85,000 is the one most likely to run and possibly be elected unless we as a city wake up and realize what we are getting into. We are considering the adoption of a proposal that benefits substantially a newly elected mayor who has additional powers that were once delegated to other people.

In our current system, the mayor is selected from among the councilmembers and serves a one-year term. Indirectly, the best candidate usually ends up in the mayor role, selected by his or her peers to lead the city. 

But the mayor proposal is a recipe for disaster, if an unethical mayor is elected because he/she now has the power and duties that once belonged to councilmembers and the city manager and could have been elected by “outside” or “big money.” We have already witnessed the problems that come with “big money’s” influence on our city government. The problems would multiply if that outside influence came to bear on just one person, the one with the most power and influence.

In addition to rewriting the role of mayor, the new initiative eliminates one councilmember, meaning that councilmembers will have larger constituencies. Larger constituencies translate to less individual attention. To be more democratic, you would have to increase the number of councilmembers instead of decreasing that number.

So please be very careful of what you wish for.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Times and party preferences seem to be changing in the OC, but the sentiment towards supporting Ukraine is united

Nothing can arouse bipartisanship more than war, particularly this war. In a sharply divided America, the degree of approval for President Biden after his State of the Union speech soared to a rate of 78% from a dismal range preceding the Russian invasion of the Ukraine. 

Because of the bravery of the Ukrainian army, the fierce independence and presence of President Zelensky, and the vivid photos on television and in the newspapers of the citizens struggling to escape the violence, Americans’
public support for the Ukrainians is astoundingly strong. Decisions in Congress to send money and supplies to the beleaguered nation receive little opposition as they pass through that legislative body.

How is this war perceived locally in a highly partisan county? Newport Beach is very partisan, perceived for ages as a Republican stronghold along with the rest of Orange County. However, at the County level in the last election, 53.5% voted Democrat versus 44.4% Republican, with 2.1% Independent.   

In the last six local elections, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, Democrats prevailed in only one election, that of 2012. 

According to statistics, in Newport Beach only 22.0% of voters are registered Democrats. However, with the increasing number of voters who are registering Independent, the edge that Republicans have continually held is diminishing.

Do these statistics seem to matter right now when it comes to the tragedy taking place in the Ukraine? Apparently not so far. President Biden and the majority of Congress are in agreement to the extent to which the United States can participate in the war. Also, there is widespread support for Ukrainians in Southern California resulting in rallies, protests and vigils in the Southland. Much of this support is the result of the general public being in shock over the invasion of a sovereign nation and the fact that thousands of expatriates live here.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Candidate Tom Miller puts his money and weight behind stopping Elect Our Mayor initiative

If you like people who are transparent, have integrity and put their money where their mouth is, look no further than Tom Miller, candidate for Newport Beach City Council District 1. 

Case in point: Tom has just made a generous $25,000 donation to stop the disastrous “Elect Our Mayor” initiative (Measure B) placed on the ballot by councilmembers O’Neill, Blom, Muldoon and Duffield. 

Tom knows this measure would NOT be good for our city, and that its proponents’ arguments are nothing but lies: the measure would NOT strengthen term limits – it would drastically weaken them; it would NOT place power back in the hands of voters – it would concentrate it in the hands of one politician who for all intents and purposes would run the city single-handedly.

Over the past eight years, we’ve seen too many backroom deals and machinations on our city council. It’s often been a source of frustration and embarrassment for us residents. If Measure B passes, it will get much worse. As written, the measure would give the elected mayor the powers of a king. The rest of us – regular citizens, other councilmembers and city staff – would be subject to that king’s whims, no matter how outrageous. We’d be powerless and voiceless. 

Does that sound to you like a system that would work for Newport Beach? Me neither! That’s why I’ll be voting NO on Measure B in June. 

Tom Miller wants to get us back to a place where our city council is made up of ethical citizens who have equal power and whose only motive is to do what’s best for our city. People who will focus on their constituents, not their political ambitions. People who will act independently and fearlessly, and always step up to do what’s right – starting by defeating the flawed Measure B. 

Lynn Swain

Newport Beach

Past Mayor joins others in support of candidate Robyn Grant

This is an important time in our city, with four Council seats on the ballot, we have the opportunity to elect a majority of the Newport Beach City Council and positively influence how our city is governed for the next four to eight years. Robyn Grant is a good friend and philanthropic colleague running for Newport Beach City Council in the November 2022 state-wide election.

Robyn is a thirty-five-year resident of Newport Beach and spent many years serving as an appointee to the Civil Service Board, Library Board of Trustees, and City Arts Commission, as well as the Boards of Speak Up Newport, Leadership Tomorrow and the Friends of Newport Beach Animal Shelter.

Robyn is a “never stop” worker who understands how our city functions and what is important to our quality of life. She is a trained lawyer with a keen ability to listen to community needs and craft workable solutions to issues.

Robyn has community-wide support including dozens of former Newport Beach Mayors, Commissioners, and Board and Committee members, the Newport Beach Fire Management Association, nationally recognized financial strategist David Bahnsen of The Bahnsen Group and neighborhood leaders from throughout the city.

I personally support Robyn and trust her to make decisions based on facts and good judgement – not for any personal gain or political ambition.

When you see “Grant for City Council 2022,” join me to support her, endorse her, contribute to her campaign, and most important, vote for Robyn Grant For Newport Beach City Council.

Rush Hill (Former Mayor, 2014)

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

The time has come to reel in electric bike concerns

Electric bikes have become the “new” and “cool” thing to ride. As this has happened, and more people rent, own, and ride electric bikes, many beach communities have been experiencing issues concerning safety. We have all seen it at one time or another where someone on an electric bike speeds carelessly along weaving in and out of pedestrian traffic on the boardwalk.

About a year ago, Manhattan Beach took some steps to promote safety. They tried educating the public about electric bike safety through social media. When that wasn’t enough, they began enforcing the rules. Under their city ordinance, only bikes that are propelled by human power are allowed on the bike path. Electric bikes are allowed on the bike path, but people have to pedal and cannot use the electric power.

Earlier this year, after evaluating the concerns and complaints of residents regarding the speed of electric bicyclists and offering educational opportunities, San Clemente’s city council enacted a ban prohibiting electric bikes from beaches and beach trails within the city limits.

What about Newport Beach? What is our city doing about this? It appears not enough. Newport seems to be focused on education. Ambassadors have been hired to walk along the boardwalk and inform bicyclists who are speeding to slow down. But people only reduce speed until they are out of sight!

I know at city council meetings in the past, discussions around placing speed bumps were brought up as a possible solution. But this isn’t enough. As residents of the city have said before, and I will say again, we need rules around electric bikes and enforcement of these rules. Otherwise, I feel there will come a day – probably sooner than later – where someone will be seriously injured or even killed and the city of Newport Beach will end up all over the news for not properly responding to the numerous concerns of local residents over the years regarding this issue.

Electric bikes are becoming very common. Police need to handle the problem with enforcement of the rules that exist. If this is not possible, then I do believe and support a decision to ban electric bikes from the boardwalk and to implement similar restrictions like those that are now in place in Manhattan Beach and in San Clemente.

Manju Lal

Newport Beach

Bring back Coco’s

I was not too surprised to read that Fig and Olive is closing down. 

As a longtime resident of Corona del Mar, I would love to see a return of the very popular Coco’s restaurant that originally was in that location. I realize it might not fit the “image” of Fashion Island/Newport Center, but I can guarantee it will be busy!!!

Karen Carlson

Corona del Mar

Letters to the Editor

It’s still a small town

Fond memories of a small town. Al Forgit Hardware. Wil Wright’s Ice Cream. Vincent’s Drugstore near Richard’s Market. The Jolly Roger. Bumper cars and the carousel. Flight of the Snowbirds. 1953 Boy Scout National Jamboree. Water skiing in the Back Bay. The Stuft Shirt. Bal Week. The Rendezvous Ballroom. The Villages – small and vibrant then, small and vibrant now.

But some would have us believe that we may have outgrown the memories.

We are larger now, they say. We need to emulate bigger cities now, they say.

We need a strong mayor (who may serve on the dais for a total of sixteen [16] years) to lead us. The collective wisdom of seven Council folks which has served us pretty well for nearly seventy years can’t work because we are bigger now.

There are certainly pros and cons to the elect the mayor discussion, but many would argue that we were a small town then, we are a small town now, and, God willing, we will remain a small town into the distant future. 

Please vote “No” on the direct election of the mayor Charter Amendment on June 7.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

Keep politics out of Newport Beach

I encourage voters in Newport Beach to study the Elect Our Mayor measure arguments and rebuttals as well as the No to the Power Grab arguments and rebuttals. Both sides have websites with valuable information. 

The current city council form of government has been in place for over 6 decades and has worked very well. In large part what has made it work is the checks and balances that are built in and the separation of power. You only must look to the state of California to see what can happen if one party has too much power. KEEP THE CURRENT CITY COUNCIL SYSTEM IN PLACE. It works!

Sadly, politics and voting blocks are already in the Newport Beach City Council. This is how the Elect Our Mayor initiative got on the ballot overriding the conventional required number of signatures on a petition to place it on the ballot. This is also how Councilmember Joy Brenner was denied her turn to serve as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem. 

An elected mayor will reduce the representation of residents. Each district will grow and the district that the mayor represents will have two votes instead on one. An elected mayor will have greater control over the agenda of the city council.

Most politicians have powerful people behind the scenes. Many times, these people are also wealthy. One wealthy donor can easily fund the election of one person. It is much more difficult to control the election of seven people.

You may have strong positive feelings about the presumed mayoral candidate and are confident he (or she) will do a good job but what about the next election? What if two candidates from the party you support “split the vote” and the candidate from a party you don’t support wins the election?

Knowledge is power. Reach out to representatives of both sides to have open informational meetings and discussion. Don’t just look at the surface of the issue.

I am confident that informed voters will say NO TO THE POWER GRAB!

Gary Cruz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Traffic in the Heights is a huge concern, what can be done?

 I am writing not only for myself but also on behalf of other concerned neighbors in Newport Heights. Traffic flow in the Heights area is going to be adversely affected in the future with the new development being planned on Pacific Coast Highway, as well as the proposed closure of Tustin Avenue.

We would certainly not deny our neighbors on Tustin the possibility of fixing their unique traffic problem, but at the same time we hope that the city will address the problems of increased traffic flow on other streets in the Heights, particularly ones that run parallel to Tustin which will absorb more of the changes.

When you are not beginning to structure traffic flow with a clean slate, but moreover attempting to make traffic changes in an area which is over 50 years old, making a change in one area can impact the surrounding streets in unpleasant ways. We understand the problem on Tustin but ask that the city understands other problems as well.

We were told that counters were erected to gauge traffic flow in the area. 
Unfortunately, those counters will not be able to gauge the increased traffic in the Heights that will be the result of the developments planned for PCH. Nor should the counters have been used during the holidays which would inaccurately gauge traffic flow.

I have lived in the Heights for almost 50 years. When I retired, I began walking around the neighborhood for exercise. The Heights attracts many strollers because of its unique charm. Unfortunately, the narrow streets and lack of sidewalks, in addition to motorists’ bad habits of rolling through stops and speeding and most recently the addition of motorized bikes which completely ignore any traffic rules, all make walking there a “risky business.”

The busiest street in the neighborhood is Riverside. Already speedy motorists, and impaired visibility caused by the hill make it a hazardous area for residents as well as visitors. When I am walking, I never take Riverside Avenue for those reasons. Nor as a resident on that street would I be happy about an increase of traffic noise due to an increased number of motorists.

The city surely has some remedies in its “toolbox” such as traffic calming measures that could be applied that would make the Heights a safer area for all residents.

Thank you.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

In schools, children plus masks equals the wrong answer

This letter is not going to say anything new or inspiring. It is not going to make you want to change the world. I am going to likely repeat the same thing that 100 other moms or grandmothers have written to you in the past week. I am hoping and praying you have received that many letters and more. I am tired of sitting back and complaining about what has been going on the past two years (especially the past few months) and not doing anything. 

Vaccines have not done the job many have hoped they would. I get that and am not angry about it. What many of us see though – is that people are making trillions of dollars off of COVID testing, COVID vaccines and masks! It would appear that they are making “children need to be wearing masks, as many are not vaccinated” (those were Gavin Newsom’s words last week)... Now they are going to force parents to get their children vaccinated so they don’t have to wear masks. Do it our way…or else. Wear the masks or get the vaccine. I have heard the debate that children must be vaccinated already for school for other things. Yes, but those vaccines were made because the diseases were killing children. 

I am a grandmother to three. The idea that children have to be home schooled in order to not be forced to do things we don’t want to do is awful. More and more people are moving out of California because of these mandates (and many other reasons, saved for another day). 

This issue is the last straw for me. My grand babies deserve to breathe. That is all I want you to take away from my letter. I have tears in my eyes and am wanting just for you to hear me grand babies deserve to breathe. 

Ronnie Cancellieri

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Upset about heavy equipment parked on Jamboree

I live on Balboa and am very angry that you have closed the street on Jamboree between Bayside and Pacific Coast Highway. There are 2 lanes there and for almost 2 weeks you have used the area to park tractors. Our city streets are for public use not parking lots! I can understand if you were to start construction within a few days but this has been 2 weeks! Furthermore, use one lane and keep the other lane open!! 

Furthermore, using the Balboa streets to house your equipment for the undergrounding equipment is ridiculous! Tractors, loose pipes, etc. have been left on Garnet and other streets for months sitting as a storage area and taking up valuable parking. It is also a city lawsuit waiting to happen with loose yellow pipes piled haphazardly in the street. Please tell your public works manager to use the storage area on PCH and Dover instead of our streets. 

Martha Kerstner

Newport Beach

Editor’s note: Construction work began on or around Sunday, Feb. 6 in the northbound lanes of Jamboree Road, between Bayside Drive and E. Coast Highway to replace a large, nearly 100-year-old water main that serves the entire city.

The work requires nightly closures and will last some eight weeks. Unfortunately, because of the size and amount of equipment required to complete the project, much of it needs to remain on site for efficiency purposes.

Questions or further concerns can be directed to Alfred Castanon at 949.644.3314 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or Michael Sinacori at 949.644.3342 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. from the City›s Public Works Department.

Letters to the Editor

Stop making dredging so difficult

It’s unfortunate that the city council recently threw a monkey wrench into our harbor dredging plan. Whether intentional or not, they voted 6-1 (Duffield voting no) to slow down and potentially kill our harbor dredging project.

I grew up on the harbor and have a business on the bay. I’ve seen the results of benign neglect of the harbor. The main channel hasn’t been dredged since 1936. Charter boats can’t use it at low tide. Large boats have to wait offshore for high tide. Residential docks can’t be dredged due to the cost of trucking the material to distant landfills.

The City’s dredging plan solves both problems. It buries and caps the dredge material in a deep sub-marine pit between Lido and Bay Islands. It’s a safe solution used in Long Beach, Port Hueneme, Humboldt Bay, Boston Harbor, Baltimore Harbor, New Bedford and Chesapeake Bay.

The federal, state and local agencies are on board. We’ve received nearly $16 million from Washington DC to pay for it.

An alternative plan has been proposed by some Lido Island residents that dumps the dredge material at Lower Castaways parking lot at PCH and Dover. The parking lot can’t accommodate all the material, so they propose dumping the remainder on the face of the Castaways cliff and the uplands park near the Veterans Memorial flag and statue. They propose to encapsulate the dredge material with a concrete cap.

The city council’s recent action calls for a “Third Party Review” of both plans that evaluates the city approved plan of burying the dredge material under 20 feet of water in a deep hole capped by four feet of dirt versus dumping it all at Lower Castaways and Castaways Park.

This “Third Party Review” is a waste of time and jeopardizes our federal funding by delaying the project.

Here’s an excellent explanation of the approved project by Councilman Duffield:

Gary Hill

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

What’s the deal with these green trash cans for condos?

All condos I’m aware of have a HOA which contracts to have the lawn and shrubs cut and then remove all the debris.

My inner patio clippings might fill 3 trash bags in a year. 

I know it is a Sacramento law so it should never be questioned and so that seems to be where any thoughtful explanation ends. 

Are we just supposed to warehouse a green trash can for life? I might be missing the obvious, but can you find out why the numerous condo owners in NPB, let alone the state are required to have a green trash can. I have no idea what I’m supposed to do with the green trash can in my already cramped garage: store golf clubs and Christmas wrapping paper in it? Are they thinking about outlawing sink disposals?

Bob Moosmann

Newport Beach

Mask mandate expires tomorrow

Beginning (tomorrow) Wednesday, everyone who lives in Newport and is fully vaccinated and boosted can finally shop indoors again without face coverings. The only glitch is this: Unvaccinated people still will be required to wear masks indoors. Unless the unprotected are wearing something like a bright orange patch complete with the letters U.V. printed on them, how will anyone know who is and isn’t vaxxed? 

To date, millions of Californians have refused to roll up their sleeves and take the jab. Because I doubt any of them will wear an orange patch, I suggest that, once the mask mandate is lifted, authorities immediately begin to fine unvaccinated/unmasked indoor shoppers. How much should they be? Start at $250 for the first violation, followed by $500 for a second violation. A third violation would cost $1,000 and a fourth $2,000 plus 5 days in jail. 

Like a toll road payment, if a ticketed shopper fails to pay his or her fine within five days of it being issued, a 20 percent late fee automatically will be added to the total amount due. In my opinion, if the reluctants won’t get jabbed in the arm, then jab them where it really will make a difference – in their pocketbooks. 

This year marks the third year in our war against COVID. Now that three vaccines are readily available, the vast majority of hospitalizations and deaths occur among the unvaccinated. I, for one, don’t want to spend another day wondering if an unmasked shopper passing me in Pavilions on Bayside or Nordstrom at Fashion Island is vaccinated or not. Starting tomorrow, I’m guessing fully vaxxed and boosted shoppers will feel the same way.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Letters to the Editor

Elect Our Mayor “severely weakens term limits”

I would like to address the flawed elected mayor proposal that was put on the June 2022 ballot by Mr. O’Neill, Mr. Blom, Mr. Muldoon and Mr. Duffield. Specifically, I would like to call out the ballot argument by Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Blom implying that the elected mayor proposal strengthens term limits when it actually severely weakens them. As with many things in politics, you have to listen very carefully to hear what is NOT being said in addition to what IS being said.

In 1992, voters approved term limits allowing only 2 terms or 8 years on council but this proposal effectively erases those term limits. You would not know that from the ballot argument written by Mr. O’Neill and Mr. Blom, which states, “This measure also places the strictest term limits in our city on the position of Mayor.”

What the ballot argument doesn’t say is that the elected mayor is allowed to serve 8 years on council before running for mayor. In fact, the initiative specifically calls that out as being allowed. That means that one person can serve 8 years as a councilmember and another 8 years as mayor for a total of 16 consecutive years on council under this proposal. Most of us think that is far too long for one person to be in power.

These changes and other even more concerning changes are probably the reason why the Lincoln Club of Orange County is totally opposed to this proposal as are almost all former mayors, former councilmembers and former city managers from Newport Beach. 

Please vote no on this proposal in the June 2022 election. The changes put in place by this measure can only be unwound by another vote of the people, so what we will get with this initiative will be with us for a very long time. 

More information and a list of people publicly opposed can be found at

Susan Skinner

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Now’s the time to move ahead and dredge, delays could damage the process

Lower Newport Bay’s main channel (the harbor) has not been dredged to its required 25-foot “design depth” since 1938. Our harbor is the primary economic, recreational and water quality resource asset in Newport Beach.

We haven’t had the money or political will to dredge the harbor’s main channel to its federally required design depth, until now.

As part of the U.S. system of waterways, Newport Harbor’s dredging is ultimately the responsibility of the federal government. But we are in competition for federal funds with the nation’s major ports and naval bases.

Finally, after decades of lobbying, we are receiving nearly $16 million in dredging funds thanks to the hard work of Representatives Michelle Steel and Ken Calvert.

With funding in the bank, it’s now the city’s job to deliver a dredging plan that passes regulatory muster with the multitude of agencies that must approve the project. As the former Harbor Master, I can attest to the fact that the actual dredging will take less time than the permitting process.

Yet, we are at an inflection point in this critical process. Dozens of Harbor Commission and City Council meetings with robust public input have resulted in a certified Environmental Impact Report. It lays out a plan to bury and cap nominally contaminated dredge material (sand) in a hole between Lido and Bay Islands. It’s the same process used across the U.S. since the 1980s to decommission landfills. 

At last week’s City Council meeting the Council majority agreed to allow an open-end third-party review of the City’s approved dredge project and one advanced by well-intentioned Lido Island residents. This 11th hour review is a bad idea. It jeopardizes the federal funding and scheduling of the multi-million dollar dredging project for Newport Harbor.

A delay for an independent third-party review could set this whole project back years by putting a halt to all the momentum the process has at this time. This in turn could make the cost rise substantially if the City could get it back on track with the Federal & State governments’ dredging contractor.

Our window to dredge is open now. Confusing state, local and federal agencies will close it.

Dennis Durgan, Chairman

Newport Harbor Foundation

(former Newport Beach Harbor Master)

 Letters to the Editor

Stop trying to fix what’s not broken

Mr. Stahr makes sense with his NOT making our mayor an elective office…the present way of choosing the mayor is NOT broken, so stop trying to “fix it”…you all saw how (Katrina) Foley got elected…we don’t need a result like that!

Dorothy McDonald

Newport Beach

Are we over COVID yet?

Letter writer Lynn Lorenz made some very good points last week. While much of her focus was on local statistics, my view is broader. Let me explain.

Are we over COVID? Sadly, the answer is no. My hope is by Memorial weekend, when my son gets married, my answer will be different; but for now, I’ll stick with no. Here’s why:

Two years ago, then-President Trump said 15 people had contracted the virus. His expectation was it would quickly disappear. 

A month later, Mr. Trump was talking about the possibility of 100,000 infections. Today, nearly 500,000 people, coast to coast, test positive for COVID daily. 

I don’t know if those original 15 people lived or died, but I do know this: More than 2,000 people pass away each day from the virus, the vast majority of whom are unvaccinated.

Take for example DJ Ferguson. He is married and the father of two young children. He also desperately needs a heart transplant, but the hospital won’t perform the surgery. Why? Because the 31 year old refuses to get vaccinated. 

I hope Mr. Ferguson changes his mind, but I doubt he will. So, when he dies, his children probably will think their father is a hero (for now). Sadly, my guess is when they turn 20, they will think their dad was foolish.

As we enter the third year of the war on COVID, I believe there is more hope than pessimism on the horizon. To the tens of millions of Americans who are fully vaxxed, I say thanks and stay vigilant. 

To the millions of others who refuse to roll up their sleeves I say this: Don’t end up a statistic like young DJ Ferguson. The sooner you get vaccinated, the sooner we can end this war.

I think Newport’s Lynn Lorenz would agree. 

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Letters to the Editor

As the virus settles following a holiday increase, difficult to tell what the future holds

I appreciate that StuNews presents the weekly coronavirus statistics for Orange County. Often, I do not check them unless an unusual statistic is evident. 

Last week I was very surprised to see that there were 756(!) new cases in Newport Beach, a number not out of line with the rest of the county. Yesterday the local paper confirmed that there were 709 confirmed cases among students and teachers in Newport-Mesa School District. That is a remarkable figure, but not in a good way. We must remember that Costa Mesa stats must be included and that there were 1,806 new cases in Costa Mesa. So given those figures, it becomes apparent that 27% of the new cases last week occurred in our schools!

First of all, all of those numbers are noticeably high. Part of that reason is that our schools are now open. As a former teacher, I could go on and on about that issue alone, but my focus is centered on the latest surge that we are experiencing, high numbers overall, and the future of the virus. 

It used to be friends of friends who got COVID, but few people that you knew. But now it has come down to cases of COVID in your own circle of friends, even in your family. And yet the vaccination rate of Orange County has not changed from many months ago. Don’t fool yourself that Newport Beach is way above the county average because it is not. Rates in Newport Beach hover around 70%, about the same as the rest of Orange County, lower than some cities like those in Irvine which are in the 90th percentile, slightly lower or above other Orange County cities. One area in Newport, Newport Coast was in the high 70s, last time I looked.

I know exactly the excuse that people are giving now, Omicron is a much milder variant, like the flu or a cold. First of all, if you are not vaccinated, it will be much different for you, particularly in the higher age ranges. Still however, if you are a senior and you are vaccinated and “boostered,” you will most likely survive with flulike symptoms. It is the unvaccinated who are flooding our hospitals.

We have all heard very recently the theory that Omicron marks a downward trajectory in the evolution of the virus. This information came from health officials in San Francisco and UCLA just this last week. These sources say that the pandemic could become an endemic because of the mild nature of this variant compared to others.

However, another source, the World Health Director General, says that the virus will not become endemic like the flu as long as global vaccinations are so low. Remember how Omicron came out of South Africa in November and spread like wildfire?

The theory is that until we approach herd immunity in the world, variants could crop up anywhere, and there is no certainty about what their characteristics will be.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

It seems apparent that the Council does not listen to residents

I am writing in response to Amy Senk’s article a couple weeks ago where she questioned whether or not the City Council is even listening to the residents of Newport Beach. 

Despite a valiant effort by some of my neighbors, the parking permit pilot, which was originally championed by the previous Council for the Peninsula, died supposedly due to lack of resident support. As a result, the parking in summer on the Peninsula continues to get worse. Did they really listen to the residents? 

This past year, Balboa Village lost its ability to use the local parking meter funds (approved by previous Council) to help maintain the condition of the Village and despite many residents and business owners presenting at the Council meeting, only Diane Dixon and Joy Brenner supported the residents’ view of the need for this localized support. I was one who corresponded with Council and presented, but it was clear that the majority of Council had already decided what THEY wanted. 

The Elect the Mayor proposal was hustled through Council rather than getting residents input and signatures which would have been the expected process. 

And most recently, the significant resident outcry about Councilman Blom’s attitude in general, and specifically his arrogance about drinking wine at Council meetings, a majority of Council still voted him in as Mayor Pro Tem. That was a slap in the face. 

Over the 20 years I have lived in NB, I generally thought of the various Councils as people who cared about the city and did their best to support the residents and their views. Now, I am really questioning whether many of the Councilmembers even care about what the residents think. 

Hopefully some resident-oriented individuals will run in the next election. 

Mike Groff 

Newport Beach

Is the fix in with Team Newport? Only time will tell

Is Council candidate Robyn Grant about to get shafted by Team Newport? Robyn Grant is a very well-respected candidate for NB City Council in District 4 but she may not get a chance to run if Team Newport pulls a fast one with redistricting next month. 

Redistricting occurs every 10 years and the changes are usually minimal. However, unethical politicians can use redistricting to eliminate potential opponents and many of us fear that Team Newport is preparing to change the districts such that District 4 no longer contains Robyn’s neighborhood, thus eliminating her from the election in one fell swoop. 

Here’s what happened that makes me think the fix is in: Councilmembers Diane Dixon, Brad Avery and Will O’Neill are the redistricting committee, usually a pretty boring job. The city consultant recommended a plan to keep the districts pretty much the same, which has been the norm in past redistricting. They voted unanimously to do so, which would normally be the end of it and the City Council would rubber stamp the recommendation. 

However, just before the meeting closed, Mr. O’Neill asked to bring ALL the maps to the council for discussion, a very unusual request. Why do that if you are all in agreement about the redistricting map, unless you are planning to have the full council change that decision and eliminate a powerful opponent? Remember that this is the same Team Newport who fired City Manager Dave Kiff in a truly underhanded way and recently voted to pass over Joy Brenner for mayor. 

There is some chatter that they may even change the districts enough to bump Joy out of her district. In Friday’s StuNews, Mr. O’Neill promised that there were no plans to redistrict Robyn’s candidacy away. Let’s just hope that Team Newport is not as unethical as I fear they are.

Susan Skinner

Newport Beach

Guest Letter

John (Jeb) Brown, M.D.

Chair of the Robotics Committee


Hoag performs 20,000th robotic-assisted surgery

Hospital among only 10 nationally to reach this milestone, improving patient outcomes, reducing pain, easing recoveries, and lowering health-care costs along the way.

Robotic-assisted surgery first became available in the late 1990s, with a handful of specially trained surgeons venturing into a futuristic field that held significant promise for patient care.

Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian recently crossed the threshold of our 20,000th robotic-assisted surgery. Only 10 other medical centers in the United States have reached this milestone. Today, Hoag performs the highest volume of robotic surgical procedures of any hospital in California and is 18th in volume nationally. Hoag ranks 15th in the country in the volume of gynecologic and gynecologic oncology procedures, and was also the first hospital in California to be designated a Center of Excellence in Robotic Surgery by the Surgical Review Corporation.

Guest Letter Hoag Robotics

Click on photo for a larger image

Courtesy of Hoag Hospital

 Hoag Robotics Support Staff

We have been able to achieve this milestone due to the vision shared by Hoag’s executive leadership and surgeons. We performed the first gynecologic robotic surgery in August 2006 and our President and CEO Robert T. Braithwaite made it clear at that time that he shared our desire to use robotic surgery to improve the care of our patients. Hoag’s administration subsequently dedicated the resources for us to build a world-class program.

The data shows that, in many procedures, minimally invasive surgery is better for patients than open surgery. It is associated with less pain, decreased blood loss and fewer complications. Robotic-assisted surgery has extended the boundaries of minimally invasive surgery, allowing us to offer these procedures to patients who previously had no option except to undergo open surgery.

Hysterectomy is a good example of a procedure that has been improved significantly by robotic surgery. In the past, the traditional open surgery patient was in the hospital for three to four days and recovery took six to eight weeks. Today, approximately 80% of patients undergoing a robotic hysterectomy at Hoag go home the same day. Some only take over-the-counter medications for pain relief and many return to near-normal activity in three to four weeks. This has profoundly transformed the care of our patients.

Hoag’s robotic-assisted surgery program would not be where it is today without the support and dedication of the almost 70 nurses and surgical technicians who staff our operating room. We have grown from five surgeons in three specialties to 47 surgeons in 12 specialties:


–Gynecologic Oncology



–Urologic Oncology

–Cardiovascular Surgery

–Thoracic Surgery

–Colorectal Surgery

–Head & Neck Surgery

–Bariatric Surgery

–Hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) Surgery

–General Surgery

Hoag’s commitment to the robotic surgery program has allowed us to join an elite group of institutions in the country. Beyond reaching the 20,000-procedure milestone, the recent delivery of the da Vinci® SP Robot to our Newport Beach campus represents the ninth robot at our Newport Beach and Irvine campuses. However, it’s the tremendous health care benefits our robotic surgery program brings to our patients that gives us the greatest pride.

Letters to the Editor

Should Newport Beach City Council support the successful acquisition of Banning Ranch?

This week the Costa Mesa City Council passed a resolution to endorse the purchase of Banning Ranch to remain as open space. They cite 17 solid reasons that Costa Mesa should support the acquisition of Banning Ranch for open space. Among the reasons for their resolution, which can be found here (Text of Resolution), they reference the need to provide open park space for residents of their city and neighboring cities, the importance of maintaining the largest undeveloped private piece of land on the California coast between Ventura and the Mexico border, and the need to protect federal and state listed species and rare plants and animals. They further recognize that by restoring and reintroducing tidal flow to the degraded salt marshes within Banning Ranch this would address and mitigate anticipated sea-level rise along the coast. 

The Trust for Public Lands (TPL) has worked tirelessly for four years to negotiate the purchase of Banning Ranch with the property owner and to raise funds for the purchase. Environmental groups such as Still Protecting Our Newport (SPON) and Orange Coast River Park have supported the Banning Ranch Conservancy’s decades long efforts to save Banning Ranch from development of its wetlands, coastal bluffs and coastal open space for the enjoyment of the residents of Orange County and throughout California.   

TPL has raised $83 million toward the purchase price of $97 million. The momentum for this was initiated by a $50 million gift from Newport Beach residents Frank and Joann Randall. 

Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris was able to secure an additional $8 million from the state.

TPL and the Banning Ranch Conservancy are so close that it appears to be possible that this goal could be achieved by the deadline of June 2022. TPL has applied for grants that would cover a large portion of the $14 million delta. The approval of those grants will hopefully be revealed in the coming months. 

Costa Mesa is the first city in Orange County to approve a resolution supporting Banning Ranch which would help secure the additional grants needed to complete the purchase.   

My question is, why hasn’t Newport Beach done the same? 

Banning Ranch is within our “Sphere of Influence”; our General Plan Vision Statement affirms that “We preserve our open space resources. We maintain access to and visibility of our beaches, parks, preserves, harbor and estuaries.”

All Newport Beach residents would benefit from an open space park for recreation and relaxation. 

Shouldn’t we encourage our City Council to be the second city in Orange County to pass a Resolution in support of the acquisition and preservation of Banning Ranch as open space for the enjoyment of our residents and all of Orange County?   

We really owe this to the next generation; our children and grandchildren deserve to have open recreational space. And what a great way to support our coastal residents! 

Nancy Scarbrough

Newport Beach

There’s no Joy in boys town

There was a letter in this morning’s paper that so inspired me that, with “a little help from my friends,” to quote a Beatles’ song, I want to put an assortment of thoughts on the table regarding mayors and city government in Newport Beach. 

First of all, the author of the letter, Lenard Davis, told the story of how the first woman to be elected mayor in Orange County came about in 1954, in Newport Beach before Newport Beach was a charter city. And guess what? She was elected mayor on “a platform to get rid of the corruption in City Hall.” 

Do you see where this is going?

Lenard Davis was, in turn, responding to a letter written by Janet Clarke who was “bemoaning the ol’ boys’ network” which passed over Joy Brenner recently for both mayor and mayor pro tempore. We know that many residents thought that the choice was extremely unfair and that the talents of Joy are far superior to the newly elected mayor pro-tempore, not to mention her greater experience in office.

Well, those who support Joy, who are many, and those who are opposed to electing a mayor, who are many as well, may be able to turn a loss into a gain (if necessary) by talking Joy into running for mayor. Hopefully, the idea of electing a mayor will not come to fruition and that Joy will get her rightful opportunity to serve as mayor and mayor pro tempore when she gets re-elected to Council.

Many of us believe that Joy was not selected for the two positions of leadership because of her failure “to play ball.” Most of the good ol’ boys, however, will be termed out by then and we hope that voters elect councilmembers who serve the community rather than themselves.

Getting back to electing a mayor, there are so many reasons not to and they have been well expressed. The most obvious reason is that as far as anyone knows, despite Will O’Neill seemingly expressing at one time or another that his proposal was “carefully vetted,” no one seems to know the particulars. So, at this point, unless told otherwise, we can only assume that Will is the author. Shouldn’t that be something that we need to know for certain before voting on the proposal to elect a mayor?

The measure that has been placed on the June ballot by the Council in a 4-3 vote is exactly what Will posted on Stu News on September 3rd. This measure is a major change to the Charter, amending eight different sections, deleting roughly 123 existing words and adding roughly 647 new ones! You could compare those major changes to the mere four words in just one section that could change the city to “district” voting but that would have meant that the elected mayor would have to share too much power with the Council.

Pretty presumptuous isn’t it for a man who “rode into town” just a little over eight years ago!

For further information about the charter proposal to elect a mayor, you can refer to

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Assemblywoman applauds Hoag-Providence separation

Earlier this week, the announcement was made that Hoag Memorial Hospital Presbyterian and Providence Health were ending their long affiliation. Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris published the following statement on her social media sites.

Today is a great day for reproductive freedom! I want to make sure that you saw the news that Hoag Hospital has reached an agreement to end its 10-year affiliation with Providence Health. 

The separation of Hoag from Providence frees Hoag patients from religious restrictions on healthcare and expands access to vital reproductive healthcare services. I have been a staunch advocate for this separation and I will continue fighting to protect reproductive healthcare, here in Orange County and all across California. 

In May 2020, Hoag took legal action to dissolve its relationship with the Providence St. Joseph Health system. For years, community advocates like you raised the alarm that the affiliation between Hoag Memorial Presbyterian and Providence St. Joseph’s Health System imposed religious restrictions on healthcare, including women’s reproductive healthcare, LGBTQ care and end-of-life care. Vital services, including abortion care, miscarriage management, tubal ligation and contraception have been denied to Hoag patients, in direct violation of two Consent Decrees the parties signed in 2013 and 2014. Hoag doctors have detailed numerous instances in which they said Providence applied the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care to Hoag limiting care.

Over the past year, I have worked with Hoag’s doctors and leadership to resolve this issue, as well as former Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Rob Bonta, to ensure they thoroughly investigated this matter and pushed for an expedited hearing to dissolve the affiliation. 

As part of the settlement agreement, the Attorney General’s Office noted Hoag will expand its reproductive and women’s healthcare offerings, including creation of a program focusing on family planning, contraception and management of high-risk pregnancies and pregnancy termination in Hoag hospital-owned facilities. 

This is a big victory – and it would not have been possible without your engagement and advocacy. With reproductive freedom under assault across the country and here in our own backyard, (yesterday’s) announcement is a powerful testament to your advocacy and hard work. 

As always, please do not hesitate to reach out to me or my team if you have any questions or are in need of assistance with state-related issues.

Yours faithfully, 

Cottie Petrie-Norris

Assemblywoman, District 74

This Council is not listening to their constituents and that’s wrong

It is evident that some members on City Council require a basic lesson on how Represented Democracy is supposed to function. Some Councilmembers have a misguided idea of their role on the elected Council. Councilmembers are elected to formulate policy and to carry out the will of the citizens, and to listen to residents’ concerns. Their votes and actions should not be based on their own self-importance! Why does the City Council ignore residents’ concerns? Many times, Council’s actions consider public comment as an annoyance. They are not interested in what active citizens have to say. Why?

A prime example of the pompous working by Council (Will O’Neill) was the appointment of Noah Blom, as Mayor Pro Tem. There was a complete disregard and disrespect of the electorate that spoke to the Council on this subject. It was blatantly obvious that the deed was a fait accompli! This is democracy at its low point. 

The picture now becomes vividly clear as to the type of “game” that Will O’Neill is attempting to foist on the citizens of Newport Beach. His game plan of taking control requires a stable of minions, such as Blom, to do his bidding. Perhaps changing the approved/suggested council districts are next? This is not how democracy is to function and has no place in Newport Beach. 

Lynn Swain

Big Canyon

Letters to the Editor

Blom had a chance 

Noah Blom has a lot more time left on the city council and Joy Brenner has served with distinction for several years. It’s a shame that Noah Blom could not bring himself to do the honorable and gentlemanly thing, and the right thing, by backing Joy Brenner for Mayor Pro Tem. 

Barbara Peckenpaugh 

Newport Beach

There’s lots of discussion going on in and around the City…What does it all mean?

Fall has been an eventful and stressful period for City Council and the residents of Newport Beach. First came the vote on the charter amendment to Elect the Mayor and, secondly, the decision over the selection of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem. Both events elicited a considerable number of opinions expressed in the local news sources and on the City’s Public Portal.

The City Council’s two votes were a mirror reflection of each other, both ending in a tally of 4-3. For the selection of leaders there is no “redo,” while the election of the mayoral issue will be decided by the votes of the residents in 2022.

Regarding the expression of opinion on these two issues, I learned something interesting which may not be new to those who are active in city government. In previous years when I attended council meetings the letters of the residents were often printed in a packet that one could pick up at the entrance to the evening meeting. Not so now. 

When I talked to the City Clerk about the printing of my letter, she said that because of the vast number of opinion letters, the letters were printed only on the Public Portal the day of the meeting and were accessible to the public as well as the Council.

My first wish was that the Council would read those letters carefully, because I learned a lot when I perused those of the October 26th meeting. The first surprising thing that I learned was that you don’t have to live in the city to express your written opinion on the Portal, nor do you have to be to speak at City Council meetings. I thought back to those Council meetings where I saw myriad people line up to express opinions. I wonder now how many did not live in Newport Beach.

The same is true of the Portal. Councilmember Diane Dixon came to the same conclusion as I after scanning those letters when she stated at the beginning of her prepared speech at the October 26th meeting, that the letters written in favor of the election of the mayor consisted of formulaic letters written over and over, while the letters in opposition were written, for the most part, with thoughtful ideas which contained deep knowledge of the subject matter. (Her speech is available on YouTube.)

I found upon reading the support letters that many did follow formulaic structures. There were about 3 or 4 letter formats which were repeated over and over, sometimes as many as 25 times. There were also at least 25 copies of a preprinted petition and a final batch of letters with gargantuan type designed perhaps to take up space.

Many of the letters from both sides were very short; there were some long
detailed and thoughtful letters however, written in opposition to electing the mayor.
    In conclusion, I would say that the letters and speeches showed that this topic is very much on people’s minds. But when it comes to voting, only the residents’ opinions will count.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

In honor of my friend “Al” who also had questions about “Elect our Mayor”

My friend of over forty (40) years passed away shortly after Christmas. I will call my friend “Al”. Al was elderly. Ill health for several years. Smart guy – one of the smartest I’ve known. Longtime Newport resident. We talked about all things Newport. Mostly by phone as Al’s health declined.

Several of our discussions involved the upcoming June 7 primary in which the direct election of the Newport Beach Mayor will be on the ballot.

At first, Al and I agreed that “Elect Our Mayor” had a nice ring – yes, democracy in action.

But as our discussions continued this fall and as we studied the issues, chinks in the armor of the catchphrase “Elect Our Mayor” began to appear. 

Al asked:

–A desire to obtain/retain power? Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely?

–Why was the signature gathering effort terminated, i.e., a conventional democratic means of gauging electorate interest and publicly looking at the pluses and minuses?

–What problem are we trying to solve, i.e., if it ain’t broke, …? 

–It’s great for the Mayor’s “District,” but maybe not-so-great for the other Districts.

Isn’t it possible that after serving eight (8) years as a councilmember, the successful mayor candidate may be able to add on another eight (8) years as mayor for a total of sixteen (16) years on the council?

–Have we in the past provided one person with the right in that person’s “sole discretion” to (i) set City Council agendas and (ii) change the order of business on the agendas?

–Will the other Council folks be able to continue to add value or will the consolidation of authority result in less effective leadership for our other Districts?

–Is a “strong mayor” model best for our City where it is possible that he/she may lack appropriate training, education, and experience in municipal administration and finance? Is it possible that this model may tend to result in ill-advised decisions on hiring/firing of key positions? Will we be able to attract/retain accomplished municipal executives under this model?

–Is it an improvement to have one person’s judgment in place of the collective wisdom of seven?

Perhaps with additional study/research and changes to the text of this measure, some of the ideas expressed may be worthwhile.

But as we turn the page to the chapter entitled “2022,” my late friend, Al, has raised a number of legitimate questions about the “Elect Our Mayor” campaign. I am inclined to agree with Al that the City Charter on this issue has served us well for nearly seventy (70) years. The changes as presently proposed are not needed. I urge a “NO” vote on June 7.

Paul K. Watkins

Newport Beach

It seems as though Council doesn’t hear or care what residents think

Amy Senk’s observation about the manner in which the City Council seems to ignore residents’ concerns strikes a familiar note with me. In Council meetings it often appears as if there is a magic screen between the Council and the audience preventing the Council from hearing what is being said by the speakers in the crowd. 

An interactive atmosphere at meetings where there is an exchange of ideas between the audience and the Councilmembers would be much more conducive to a setting in which residents feel like their opinions are valued or at least acknowledged.

In the same vein, an acknowledgement of correspondence from residents would be appreciated. I have frequently sent emails to Councilmembers and at least half of the members have never acknowledged one of my emails. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Council were reminded of their job description as some seem to have lost sight of just what that is. By the same token, I appreciate those who do answer mail even if I don’t always like their answers. 

The issue of whether members serve the city at large first or the residents from their district, seems to be confusing to some. Representation, in reality, should be a balance between what the councilmember’s district wants, what the residents of the city at large want and what the councilmember thinks is best for the city. At no time should the desires of outside entities take precedence over the desires of the city’s stakeholders. 

When the Council makes a decision, such as the appointment of Noah Blom as Mayor Pro Tem, which ignores the wishes of both the residents of the district
as well as the city at large, it is a breach of trust with the community. And as one recent writer to Stu News acknowledged, the honorable thing to do would have been for Mr. Blom to refuse to take the appointment.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Who really won? 

As far as I am concerned Joy is my mayor. She sets the best example of what it is to be a leader. These men, Duffy, Muldoon, O’Neil and Blom can never do what she does and will never have the respect she has. They can steal the title and manipulate the system but they can’t earn our respect. They do not deserve it.

Jennifer Irani

Newport Beach

Brenner’s omission lends to hints of inequities and gender bias

I was one of many residents who either attended or watched the December 14 City Council meeting. That evening, many NB residents made public comments highly supportive of the election of Joy Brenner – as well as the spoken endorsements of both members Dixon and Mayor Avery. NB social media sites were also highly active in their support of Joy. It was also acknowledged that evening that CdM has not had Mayor/Mayor Pro Tem representation since 2012.

As a fairly new resident of Newport Beach (District 5), I have become interested in observing and supporting the success of our city. But it was difficult to watch when member Duffield nominated Blom with the remaining male majority falling quickly in line.

What many residents are still reacting to is the inequity and gender bias of that election. Ms. Brenner has been an active, committed and highly involved NB citizen – but who has not been voted in as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem during her elected term. Mr. Blom, a freshman Council member, has managed to bring bad press to NB with drinking from the dais – as well as other reported personal issues and having little civic involvement.

Council members, Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem are paid City employees who I assume must comply with both Appendix A (City of Newport Beach Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy) and CA Fair Employment and Housing Act. I am unaware of any City Charter provision which addresses selection criteria when council votes for leadership. 

So, what we ended up with that evening is gender bias, discrimination and ignorance of experience worthy of a promotion vote. As a female who worked in our Orange County business community for decades, I was both disturbed and offended. That type of behavior would not be tolerated in any of our respective businesses. Assuming that you all invite residents to become involved in our City, that vote is being seen by many as a political misstep.

Kathe Morgan

Villa Point

Letters to the Editor

My thoughts on Noah Blom being elected to Mayor Pro Tem

I recently witnessed Noah Blom in action at the city council meeting for the remodel of the gas station/mini mart vote.

Two or three times he chose to lecture the residents in attendance on what was best for the city and this project. 

It is my understanding this time is for the residents of the city to express their concerns and thoughts to the council on items that are going on in our city, up for vote or coming up for vote. 

I thought he was arrogant and condescending to the attending residents in the council chambers. 

As far as drinking at the council meeting. Noah Blom was voted to the city council to represent his constituents. It is a privilege to be voted in as a city councilmember. Noah Blom’s job is to represent the community, to engage with the community, encourage community participation and protect our city. 

This is a critical job for the future of Newport Beach. I do not know any responsible employer that allows their employees to drink on the job. Even if it’s not illegal, judges, doctors and a lot of other professional occupations, including councilmembers, should not drink on the job. In this case, it shows how little Noah Blom respects or cares about the residents and their issues that need to be addressed.

This is unacceptable!

Please do not elect Noah Blom as Mayor Pro Tem!!!

Anonymity requested

Corona del Mar

Letters to the Editor

Maybe fingers are being pointed in the wrong direction

Mr. Johnson, concerning your wine investigation, I am always suspicious when I hear “The Pot calling the Kettle Black.” You should be more concerned about council members who come to meetings ill prepared because they haven’t taken the time to read staff reports and then wasting every one’s time having matters explained to them. To me that is a huge problem for an elected official and a huge disgrace. 

Never once has Noah attended a meeting of the council or any other citizen gathering without obtaining the knowledge that might be needed to make knowledgeable decisions. He has participated in Zoom meetings while being on a family vacation and attending his son’s rowing regattas, while some council members just don’t show up during vacations and personal activities. 

Dedication and diligence vs. a glass of wine? New ideas and “thinking out of the box” vs. pettiness and old guard mentality? Maybe the Pot needs to stop looking in trash cans and start seeing what really counts.

John Blom

Newport Beach

Alcohol consumption raises other issues for council

 I feel sympathy for Noah, knowing that he must have felt pressure the night that he gave his speech on personal freedom. I was not surprised, however, after listening to that rather lengthy speech that I personally could not follow, that alcohol was most likely involved. 

The extent to which his drinking is a problem, however, as much as we might feel sympathy for him, is a serious issue for our City Council. 

Also, the evening that his alcohol consumption was revealed is the evening that our Council made one of the most important decisions in its history. So, we really have several issues:

–One of our leaders has admitted to drinking on the dais. The extent to which the Council acknowledges and deals with the gravity of this problem, will reveal the quality of their leadership.

–The fact that he was drinking the night that an important vote was taken should invalidate the results of the vote in which he was involved.

–Not only should this issue be dealt with in a professional manner, but Noah should also, at the very least, not be appointed to a role of leadership on the Council.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Should we be concerned? Concealed consumption sometimes can mask other issues

Regarding certain members of Council imbibing during meetings, I note the following: knowing one or more of Council’s personalities, I am not surprised. What surprises me more than the act is the voiced approval by a number of supposedly rational citizens.   

Concealed alcohol consumption is a clear indication of a deeper affliction of alcoholism. We have a long-time friend who lost his executive position in a major corporation due to alcoholism. 

We were mystified, as for over two decades we saw only consumption of Sprite or 7Up as he was “sensitive to caffeine.” Lo and behold, when the curtain was pulled back, he was caught filling his Sprite can with…you guessed it, with wine! Sound familiar?

The one published supporter said that an operator of a local restaurant could not have an alcohol problem. Are you kidding me? Lots of small businesses are constrained by the albatross of owner alcoholism, especially in restaurants where the wine consumed is a write-off as a business expense. 

Dick Weaver

Castle Rock, CO

Letters to the Editor

Ballot initiative to restore local control

SB9 was passed and signed into law in October. It allows any single-family lot to be subdivided into two lots and then allows a duplex to be built on each of the lots. SB10 was also signed into law in October. With the approval of a future  City Council, SB10 would allow any single-family lot to have a 10-unit apartment built on it. None of these housing units are required, or likely to be, affordable. There are no provisions for infrastructure (water, sewers, streets or public services like police and fire). There are no public hearings and the City is required to approve plans with very few restrictions. You can use your imagination to think what Newport Beach will look like in 5 years....

There is a ballot initiative that would reverse these recent State mandated housing laws like SB9 and SB10 (and several other State housing laws) that threaten our single-family neighborhoods. This initiative would restore the City’s control over our local Land Use and Zoning! The City Council voted to support this initiative at their November 30th Council meeting. 

You can read the text of the initiative here:

This initiative will amend the California Constitution and reverse SB9 and SB10. If enough signatures are gathered, it will appear on the November 2022 ballot as the “Tripartisan Land Use Initiative” (The State Attorney General has the responsibility of assigning the name, so the fact that it is vague was not by the author’s choice.).

Within the State of California, we need to gather 1 million signatures in the next 150 days. Any registered voter in California can sign the petition. There is an active group of concerned citizens who are organizing groups of resident signature gatherers to circulate the petitions. We are looking for volunteers to talk to their neighbors and walk in their neighborhoods to provide information and petitions to their neighbors. If you are interested in helping with this effort, you can sign up at:

You can also email me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and I will make sure that you get petitions, information on SB9 and other state mandates and instructions on how to gather the signatures.   

If we can get enough signatures from friends and neighbors, we can make a significant contribution to getting this on the November 2022 ballot!   

Nancy Scarbrough

Newport Beach

Joy Brenner for Mayor Pro Tem

Let me start by saying that I have confidence that Council knows what is best for the city and each individual Council member will do what they feel is in the best interests of the city. They are the most informed in the city and this important decision belongs with their capable leadership.

About two years ago, I became interested in city government after learning that a local issue was best resolved by the City Council. It started with inquiring whether anything could be done with massive amounts of local construction on Newport Island. The noise, traffic congestion and parking problems were becoming unbearable. I soon learned that was unsolvable but also learned that the growth in Short Term Rentals was exasperating the problem. I knew that, left unchecked, the Island would no longer be the safe, quiet, and peaceful community it once was. Construction issues would come and go, but STR problems would increase.

After reaching out to city staff, I contacted Diane Dixon who is the Council member for Newport Island and Mayor at that time. She helped to direct me to what would be needed to facilitate change. That expanded to addressing the City Council as well as the Planning Commission and city staff. 

What I soon learned was that city staff is capable, sympathetic and helpful. Knowing that working with City Council was imperative, I increased my participation by attending City Council meetings and communicating with City Council members. We received solid support from our district representative, Diane Dixon. We would not have received the needed relief without Mayor Avery, Council members Dixon, ‘Duffy’ Duffield and Joy Brenner, all of whom supported the concerns of the residents. Although she was not our district representative, Council member Brenner went the extra mile to inform, educate and support Newport Island residents’ efforts to address our growing STR issues.

Sure, I was a bit naïve. Naturally, I perceived the function of the Council was to represent the best interests of most residents in the city. No government touches residents quicker and closer than city government. As I observed that city government also represented city business concerns, I understood a balance was needed but I still believed that representing residents should be the primary function of city government.

The actions of Joy Brenner have resonated with me that she shares the same beliefs regarding protecting the rights of citizens. Perhaps more importantly, after observing her service for the city, she truly has the best interests of the city in her vision. She listens to all sides, is respectful to everyone, has an open mind, asks pointed questions, does her homework and casts her votes as an independent. In the years of watching the Council in action, I know of no controversy surrounding her, and her character and integrity are without reproach. 

I have learned about the rotating process of electing the Mayor and how Mayor Pro Tem typically is next in line. It is a good process, especially if time served on the council is taken into consideration. It seems to me that a certain skill set is needed and much of that skill set is ‘on the job’ training. 

I do think the Mayor Brad Avery has done a great job and personally I would give him another year, but I understand the process. I strongly advocate for Joy Brenner to serve as Mayor Pro Tem. She checks all the boxes and a vote for her is in the best interests of the residents in Newport Beach. It is also the right thing to do.

Gary Cruz

Newport Beach

For a lot of reasons, now is not Noah’s time

I am not alone in saying that I am absolutely disgusted by Noah’s behavior and his arrogant, flippant attitude. Would someone mind explaining what “results” Noah has ushered through at council?

He offers no new insights other than to back whatever vote Mr. O’Neill puts forth. He has stated he is not a politician and knows nothing about how our city works.

He can’t do anything for the people on Balboa Island because he has too many conflicts of interests to do them any good, so please explain the “results” Noah has accomplished.

Noah is a renter and not a stakeholder, so therefore he pays NO taxes to our City.

Noah took paycheck protection money that got forgiven. Wasn’t his restaurant open the entire time?

How do ANY of you justify not making Joy Brenner, the senior councilwoman, Mayor Pro Tem next week? Is it because she’s a woman? Shame on you!

Noah will have his turn; it just shouldn’t be now.

If Blom has any integrity being that he’s “cut from another cloth,” he will hand off the Mayor Pro Tem to Joy Brenner. 

I won’t hold my breath!

Lynn Swain

Big Canyon

The question is, who makes the “grade” for the City’s top positions?

Although nothing quite surprises me when it comes to the actions of our City Council, I must say that the latest information that I have learned probably heads the list of inappropriate behavior and backroom politics with no consideration for their effect on the reputation and well-being of the city. I hesitate to use the term “inappropriate behavior” because it pegs me as the schoolteacher that I was and it most likely colors my perception. 

Joy Brenner is articulate, extremely professional, and popular in the community. She deserves an A and an O. 

These attributes seem not to merit the appreciation of a competitive group of members who put their own political future ahead of the well-being of our community. Anything other than her selection as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem is a poor choice because every other member of council has had his/her turn, some several turns. 

Only jealousy of Joy’s excellent standing in the community would motivate one not to champion her selection.

(I believe that there are among the council those who know what is fair to Joy and right for our city, and I hope that they will speak up.)

Secondly, the suggestion that Councilman Blom be considered as Mayor Pro Tem is not only most unfair to Joy Brenner but more importantly, to the city of Newport Beach. He is at the beginning of his first term as Councilman. 

I opposed his candidacy as I had done research on his professional credentials. Before the COVID vaccination was available, Noah Blum’s reputation for flouting safe COVID protocol in his restaurants merited him an F grade by a well-known food critic in an Orange County newspaper…A for food, F for community ethics

Next, Noah replaced an extremely articulate, professional councilmember
whose knowledge and leadership skills on Council are sorely missed by those of us who want to look up to Councilmembers, not down on political jealousies, maneuvering and unprofessional behavior. 

Having heard others whom, I trust speak of Noah’s unprofessional behavior and trying to personally follow the logic of his public speeches and political stances on personal freedom, I can only question the motives of those councilmembers who champion his selection.

I hope that our council will do the right thing: Vote for Joy as Mayor or at the very least, Mayor Pro Tem.

Lynn Lorenz 

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Elected mayor is just not right for Newport Beach for so many reasons

I am a resident of Newport Beach; my family moved here in 1972; and my parents were honored a few years back as “Citizens of the Year” in Newport Beach. 

I am writing to urge you to vote NO on the proposal for direct election of the mayor.

The key argument for the proposed change is that the “people of Newport Beach should elect their mayor.” But it is not quite right to say that the people of Newport Beach do not select their mayor. The citizens elect seven members of the city council and the council members select (each year) one of their number to serve as mayor for a one-year term. Given the small size of the city council, and the four-year terms of the members, and the frequency of second terms, most people who are elected to city council serve as mayor for at least one year. The people thus select their mayor indirectly, by electing a city council whose duties include selecting one of their members to serve as mayor each year.

Many other important positions in our governments are filled in a similar indirect manner. The people do not elect the Speaker of the US House of Representatives; the members of the House select the Speaker every two years. The people do not elect the federal attorney general, or indeed any other member of the Executive Branch; they elect a president (through another indirect mechanism, the Electoral College) who appoints (with the advice and consent of the Senate) the key members of the Executive.

The current system effectively ensures that mayors have experience in our city government. If you look at the men and women who have been mayor since 2001, all but one of them served at least one year as mayor pro tem and another year as city council member before becoming mayor. The only exception was John Heffernan, who was elected as mayor midyear in 2005, after serving eighteen months on the city council, to fill the vacancy created by the mid-year resignation of Steven Bromberg. 

Nothing prohibits the city council members from selecting, in December, a member who has just been elected in November, but they have not done so in more than twenty years, for good reason. There is a de facto requirement of at least two years of city council experience to become mayor of Newport Beach. 

Under the proposed system, there is no guarantee that the person elected mayor will have any prior experience on the city council or indeed in our city government at all. 

If you look at other cities in California, some of them have directly elected mayors (including Los Angeles and San Diego) but far more of them have city councils (like ours) that select a short- term mayor from among their number. The pattern is clear: cities with large populations almost always have a directly elected mayor, and cities with smaller populations almost always have mayors selected by the city council. 

Newport Beach is not a large city; the population according to the 2020 census is only 85,239 people. In a ranking of California cities by population, Newport Beach is (just barely) among the hundred largest cities. 

If you look at cities in Orange County with about the same population as Newport Beach, in other words 80-100,000 people, only one of them, Westminster, elects its mayor directly. Five cities in this population bracket, including Mission Viejo and Lake Forest, both with larger populations than Newport Beach, use the same system as Newport Beach, that is indirect election. 

And there are even larger cities, including Fullerton and Huntington Beach, that use indirect rather than direct elections to choose their mayors.

There is only one city in Orange County with a population smaller than Newport Beach that elects its mayor directly: Stanton. 

The current system of selecting the Newport Beach mayor from among the council members for a one-year term and limiting the mayor’s role to presiding over the council meetings, works well. The system encourages collegiality among the members of the council, for each member either has served or is likely to serve soon as mayor. The system encourages the city staff to treat each member of the council with respect, not to defer to the powerful mayor and to slight the weaker council members. 

To put the point another way, if we shift to the directly elected, more-powerful mayor envisaged by the proposal, the city manager would be demoted to something like chief-of-staff for the mayor. That would impede our ability to attract and retain a talented and dedicated city manager.

The current Newport Beach term limits ensure that no person serves on the city council for more than eight years. The proposed system would allow a person to serve on the city council for eight years and then serve another eight years as mayor. We should not create even the possibility of a single person having that length of tenure, that degree of control, over Newport Beach city government. 

The proposal would make another key change in the city charter; it would give the mayor “sole discretion to set city council agendas” unless three out of the six other members of the city council vote to place an item on the agenda. It might appear that this is not much of a change, because at present the support of three council members is required to put an item on the agenda. In practice, however, this is a major change, because it gives the mayor sole power to set the agenda unless three of his colleagues disagree—something not likely to happen often. Moreover, under the current system, a council member can often get an item on the agenda indirectly, through the city manager. The proposed system would take away the power the city manager currently has to put items on the agenda—another diminution of her role. 

The current system for selecting the mayor of Newport Beach has been in place for more than seventy years and has worked well. The advocates of the change have not pointed to any problem in the current system that needs to be fixed. They simply say that “the people should elect the mayor” without noticing that there are many other mayors who are not directly elected. Why does Newport Beach need a directly elected mayor when so many other cities do so well with indirectly selected mayors?

The proponents of the changes to the charter have not cited any social science evidence that directly elected mayors “do better” than indirectly elected mayors. 

It may be tempting for the city council, at the forthcoming meeting on October 26, to say “some people favor the proposal, some oppose the proposal, let us put the issue on the ballot and let the people decide.” That would be a mistake. We elect the city council to make some difficult decisions for us, including decisions on whether to place measures on the ballot. Not every measure that attracts some support (and I would note that we do not know how many people have signed the petition in favor of the change) deserves a place on the ballot. We already know enough to know that this measure would harm, rather than help, Newport Beach.

For all these reasons, I urge you to vote NO on the proposed city charter change. 

Walter B. Stahr 

Newport Beach

Electing a mayor or not electing a mayor, it’s about what’s best for Newport Beach

On Tuesday Oct. 26, the Newport Beach City Council will be voting on the possibility of putting an elect the mayor (directly) initiative on the June or November 2022 ballot. This idea has apparently been crafted by Councilmember Will O’Neill, as he is the only councilmember openly promoting it. On its face it sounds swell. Who doesn’t want to elect the mayor? 

However, the plan, as currently written and without any citizen or council involvement, is a clear consolidation of power. Currently seven councilmembers share an equal vote in our council/manager form of government. This proposal, in its current form, would give an elected mayor extra power over the rest of the council and preclude future councilmembers from serving in the largely ceremonial post as mayor.

In the 2020 election, Mr. O’Neill got a record number of votes to retain his seat on the council. He is very popular, especially with young folks and those that get their news from a mobile device. My guess is that if this is passed on the 2022 ballot, come 2024 when Mr. O’Neill is termed out on council, he would run for mayor. The folks that supported his Elect Our Mayor idea would be happy and likely vote for him as mayor. Maybe he even gets elected to a second term for a total of 16 years on council. Eventually he would be termed out and we would be voting for a new mayor.

Also, in the last election Tito Ortiz got the most votes ever in the Huntington Beach City Council election. A popular person like Mr. Ortiz, or any zealot with a following and financial support could move to town and get elected mayor. Come to think about it, that’s how Team Newport was created! That person could have four and possibly eight years to destroy the city for the special interests that got them elected. One person should not have that much power in our city.

The idea of an elected mayor in Newport Beach is not about how popular Will O’Neill is. It’s about what’s best for Newport Beach. Seven councilmembers with an equal vote works.

Please attend the City Council meeting on October 26th and let your voice be heard.

Charles Klobe

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Council can lead by giving voters the choice

On Tuesday night, the City Council has a pretty simple question to answer. Do they trust voters to make a decision about electing the mayor? 

Only the voters can change the charter. Only voters can choose whether they want to elect their mayor. And so, it’s time for the same people who rely on voters to occupy their positions on the city council to trust the voters again with this important decision.

Without question, we want to Elect Our Mayor. Many people agree with that basic statement and agree that the system proposed makes a whole lot of sense. Some people have disagreed with that basic statement. But we won’t know how many are on either side without an election. 

No one on the City Council could possibly speak for the “community” by voting against giving the community the choice.

In an era when governments across the board are taking away choices, Newport Beach’s City Council can be the light shining through as one that gives its residents the ability to take the power of electing the mayor back. 

We encourage the City Council to support voter choice by placing the Elect Our Mayor initiative on the ballot.

Michelle and John Somers

Newport Beach

The people’s power grab

Only the City Council currently has the power to select the mayor. We, the voters, don’t choose the mayor. We choose the city councilmembers who might become mayor. But we don’t choose the mayor directly.

Next week, the City Council can vote to do something pretty courageous. It can offer the people of Newport Beach the chance to take back power. To take back the ability to choose our mayor.

It would place the power in the hands of the entire city, not just a few. Maybe the community will want that power. Maybe not. We won’t know unless the issue is placed on the ballot.

Some opponents of this measure don’t even want to find out whether the people want this power to choose and are asking the City Council to insert themselves yet again between the voting public and choosing the mayor. Some opponents have even claimed that this is a power grab by a handful of people, which just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Any person who wants to become mayor in the new system would have to go through the gauntlet of public elections. Debates, fundraising and asking for votes. We get the say in that situation. We, the voting public, have the power in that situation. 

Let’s take that power back. Let’s Elect Our Mayor

Jeanine Bashore

Newport Beach

Tabling mayor decision for comprehensive study would allow for informed discussion

Over the years, I have had the privilege of participating in a number of the most significant political lawsuits emerging from our county. They range from restructuring how votes are recounted (Supervisor, now Assemblywoman Janet Nguyen) to First Amendment issues (Senator Pat Bates) to question of home rule in the appointment of individuals to vacant government positions (Supervisor/Senator Bill Campbell and Assemblyman/Supervisor/District Attorney Todd Spitzer). Then there are the numerous recounts and other political challenges that I have been involved in.

I bring these matters up not to toot my own horn but to establish that political and election law are one of the few areas where I actually do know what I am talking about. Furthermore, it is not my purpose here to advocate either for or against the proposal. My intent is to simply point out some significant flaws in how this matter is being processed and what might be done to make it a more coherent matter for voters to understand and determine.

Section 400 of the current and proposed charters defines the city council as the mayor and the members. The section goes on to state that any changes proposed or made that are “contrary to the intent and context of other such provisions” are invalid. The direct election of a mayor would allow for one person to serve on the city council, in one capacity or another, for a total of 16 years. This is directly in contradiction to the intent and context of the term limit provision passed by the voters.

Furthermore, the initiative envisions a process whereby the elected mayor will ascend from the ranks of the City Council. However, it does nothing to prevent an individual from being elected mayor for two terms and then running for city council, thus, again, circumventing the intention of the voters.

By any standard, the language is vague and ambitious, and perhaps contradictory, and thus subject to challenge.

At Section 404(b) of the proposed initiative, all power regarding agenda items and, essentially, all issues to be determined by the city government, are in the hands of the elected mayor. Thus, individual members of the City Council, and by extension their district constituents, are prevented from bringing issues to the council that might only impact a specific district, again barring voters access to the legislative process. This subjects both city policy and even the ability to raise city issues to the subjective, arbitrary and capricious whims of the elected mayor.

With regard to the nominating process, Section 1004 requires that a specific number of signatures be gathered on a nominating petition. Unlike City Council candidates who are required to secure signatures from the district that they want to represent, there is nothing in the mayoral requirements that discusses where the signatures must come from. As such, an individual can secure the entirety of the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot from a single district, or specific portion of that district. This provision again denies the average voter his due process rights since he has no say in who is nominated.

Reducing the number of districts from seven to six further disenfranchises voters and dilutes their votes, in direct violation of the California Voting Rights Act. As an aside, I have litigated several voting rights actions and, frankly, the bar for making the argument regarding disenfranchisement, and thus forcing all districts to be redrawn, is quite low.

Additionally, there is no analysis of how these substantive changes in our city charter will fiscally impact the city and its operations. This omission is in direct contradiction to the mandates of California Elections Code Section 9005. Additionally, the proposed initiative does not provide an impartial analysis by either the City Attorney or the City Manager as prescribed in California Elections Code Section 9008. It is impossible for the City Council, much less the general public, to make an informed decision as to whether or not the question should even be on the ballot until they are fully informed as to the potential consequences that will be realized.

The City Council is seeking to make substantive changes to how our city operates and how we choose the people who will represent us. This should not be a rash rush to an end that may not be justified or necessary.

It is respectfully requested that the City Council table this proposal for 90 days so that significant public input can be secured, a comprehensive study of the impact and ramifications of the issues presented can be conducted and, then, with an understanding of where we are potentially going, the City Council and the public can have an informed discussion about whether or not it makes sense to directly elect our mayor.

Phillip B Greer

Newport Beach

Undermining term limits is one of the many objectional things that this Elect Our Mayor proposal does

Barbara Eusey’s letter in Tuesday’s Stu News practically defines ‘people unclear on the concept’ when she claims that the elected mayor proposal “doesn’t change city council term limits.” 

In fact, undermining term limits is one of the many objectional things that this proposal does. In 1992, 83% of Newport voters passed an initiative enacting a two-term limit for our City Council. The elected mayor proposal would allow a politician to serve eight years as a city councilmember and then another eight years as an elected mayor, for a total of 16 consecutive years.   

How is that not changing our term limit requirement? The odd thing about this initiative is that a city councilmember can run for mayor, but a mayor cannot subsequently run for City Council. The logic of this is completely obtuse, but since the whole proposal is poorly thought out, I guess I’m not surprised. 

I certainly do agree with Ms. Eusey that everyone should read this initiative thoroughly because anyone who wants good governance will immediately recognize that this proposal is fatally flawed and should not be supported.

Lynn Swain

Big Canyon

Letters to the Editor

Today is Pearl Harbor Day

Early on the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese fighter pilots attacked U.S. forces at Pearl Harbor. It wasn’t just the beginning of World War II for America, it was, as President Roosevelt solemnly told Congress the next day, “a date which will live in infamy.”

The war lasted more than four years. In the end, 407,316 U.S. troops fought and died so that future generations, like mine, could live in peace and freedom. Ironically, Col. Edward Shames, the last remaining officer of the historic WW II parachute infantry regiment, known as Easy Company, died a few days ago at age 99. So did Bob Dole. On Sunday, the 1996 Republican nominee for president, passed away at age 98. I’m sure Shames, this proud member of the Band of Brothers, and Dole, the former U.S. Senator, would have wanted us to remember Pearl Harbor Day.

Today, we are fighting several wars simultaneously. First, the war on international terrorism; second, the war against COVID; and third, the war against each other. After fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years, we owe it to the more than 7,000 U.S. troops who died there to continue guarding against threats to America. The same is true when it comes to the memory of the more than 750,000 moms, dads, brothers and sisters, who have been felled by the coronavirus. If you ask me, the sooner tens of millions of our neighbors get vaccinated, the sooner we can resume our pre-pandemic lives. 

And then there is the war Americans are fighting on street corners and in Congress. Except for places like Charlottesville, where Neo-Nazis marched in 2017, and the steps of the U.S. Capitol, where rioters tried to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power last January, today’s war is mostly vile, disgusting words. My fear is, if left unchecked, these words easily could escalate to hand-to-hand combat here at home. And that, my friends, is not what Col. Shames, Bob Dole – or the millions of U.S. soldiers who marched off to war in the 1940s – fought to protect.

Yes, Dec. 7, 1941 was a date which will live in infamy. For the sake of our nation’s future, I hope and pray we never see another one.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach   

A father’s eyes see no wrong

Mr. John Blom claims his son “thinks out of the box.” If a father will not hold his son accountable then why would his son accept responsibility for his poor choices? 

Unfortunately, Noah Blom chose to drink on the dais at a City Council meeting. He made that decision all on his own. He is mature enough to know what is expected of him. And he still made a poor choice. 

I’m all for new ideas and innovative ways to solve problems but Noah Blom’s behavior does not convince me he is capable of that. For every minute we have wasted on Noah Blom’s poor choices the Council could have spent on useful and meaningful issues. That is a form of theft. Time is valuable. Instead of contributing he has taken valuable time from all of us.

Jennifer Irani

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

The question remains, WHY?

Now that Newport Beach City Councilman Will O’Neill has gotten his wish and convinced three of his council buddies to vote and put the “Elect Our Mayor” initiative on a June ballot for voters to decide if Newport Beach needs a full time Mayor, and all the new expenses that it brings, it begs the question…WHY?

Let me be perfectly clear here. It isn’t like we had incompetent City Managers over the years…NO. Or incompetent City Councilmembers over the years…NO. Or the City of Newport Beach is in such dire straits that it’s crying out for help…NO.

What we have just witnessed is a blatant political power grab from people who want nothing more than to advance their own political careers at the expense of a city, plain and simple. And if they deny it, as I said at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, “they have peaked in high school.”

I sincerely thank Councilmembers Joy Brenner, Brad Avery and Diane Dixon, who showed their love and respect for the city and its history, by dissenting.

Roy Englebrecht

Newport Beach 

Stu News encourages Letters to the Editor and they should be submitted to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Deadlines for submission are Monday noon, for Tuesday publication and Thursday noon, for Friday publication. Stu News reserves the right to approve and/or edit all letters.

Guest Letter

Robert T. Braithwaite

President & CEO


Philip A. Robinson, MD, FIDSA

Medical Director of Infection Prevention

Principal Investigator of Infectious Disease Research


COVID-19 booster shot eligibility

Guest Letter Robert Braithwaite Guest Letter Robinson

Photos courtesy of Hoag Hospital

(L-R) Robert Braithwaite, Hoag president and CEO and Philip Robinson, M.D., FIDSA

Dear Neighbors,

In our ongoing efforts to protect our community against COVID-19, we are pleased to update you about changes to booster shot eligibility. While we continue to provide booster shots to older adults and high-risk individuals who received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, we are now able to provide booster shots to eligible adults who received the Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines as well.

The Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have authorized booster shots of any available COVID-19 vaccine to eligible individuals who completed primary vaccination with either the Moderna or Johnson & Johnson inoculations, a strategy referred to as “mix and match.” This includes:

–Eligible individuals who received the Moderna vaccine for their primary series at least 6 months ago, and who are 65 years or older, or 18-64 years and at high-risk, can receive a booster vaccine.

–Eligible individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine for their primary vaccine dose at least 2 months ago, and who are 18 years or older, can receive a booster vaccine.

Hoag is offering the Pfizer vaccine at two convenient Hoag locations in Newport Beach and Irvine to eligible individuals ages 12 years and older. For information about appointments and to schedule a visit, go to Our Fly Well Clinic at John Wayne Airport continues to provide the Johnson & Johnson dose to eligible adults as well. 

“Third doses” are recommended at least four weeks after a second dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for people with weakened immune systems. This is not considered a booster. Instead, it is part of the recommended immunization schedule for people whose compromised immune systems inhibit them from generating a robust immune response after just two shots. 

Talk with your doctor if you believe this applies to you.

If you would like to receive the Moderna vaccine, visit Vaccine Finder to view available locations near you.

We continue to applaud our medical workers who have guided us from a pandemic to an endemic situation. We are deeply grateful for their skill, professionalism and enduring dedication. 

We are also grateful to each of our community members who have received the vaccine and helped to slow the spread of the disease. Your actions continue to protect yourself, your family and our community. If you have not yet received your first dose of the vaccine, now is the time to take action. 

As we have from the very beginning, Hoag is here to be your source of information, care and protection from COVID-19. As this situation evolves, we will continue to reach out and update our community about ways in which you can protect yourselves and those around you. 

Thank you for your continued support.


Robert T. Braithwaite

President and Chief Executive Officer

Philip A. Robinson, MD, FIDSA

Medical Director of Infection Prevention

Principal Investigator of Infectious Disease Research

Letters to the Editor

Trust the voters to Elect Our Mayor

I respect the difficult decision it must take to run for City Council. Fundraising, knocking on doors, going to debate after debate and taking a beating sometimes on social media. So even when I disagree with the candidate, I respect the effort.

None of that effort exists, though, to become Mayor of Newport Beach. Once a person becomes a City Councilmember, they become one of only seven people eligible to become Mayor. 

Voters are trusted to choose City Councilmembers. We should be trusted to Elect Our Mayor. 

The initiative to do that is exactly right. Voters get to choose. Candidates would have to convince us, not just a few of their colleagues. 

Accountability, transparency and trust will all be improved if we can Elect Our Mayor.

Brandi Bagley

Corona del Mar 

Don’t like the idea of the Elect The Mayor proposal being possibly agendized by council

It was rumored that a sizable number of proponents were going to attend Tuesday’s, Oct. 12th City Council meeting to support Councilmember Will O’Neill’s Elect a Mayor plan. However, the supporters never materialized, leaving instead an audience primarily of opponents. It was not unusually large, but sufficient in size to chasten the council members for considering putting the mayoral plan on the discussion calendar for a future date. (O’Neill [reportedly] had abandoned the route of gathering signatures when he realized that doing so was a lengthy and expensive process.)

Not one person in the audience spoke in favor of electing a mayor. Instead, in measured and intelligent speeches, seven community leaders spoke against the proposal citing the fact that electing a mayor should be one vetted by the whole community not just the council before going on the ballot. This, said one speaker, would allow for more careful consideration of the proposal. 

The failure of the proposal to meet the term limits of the city charter, thus allowing the mayor to serve 16 uninterrupted years in leadership instead of eight years, sets an unbelievably long period of control by one person. This long period of leadership coupled with the expanded power that the new proposal would give the mayor in relationship to the council could easily lead to authoritarian rule. 

When it came time to vote, it appeared that Mr. O’Neill had already persuaded the council to support bringing the proposal up for discussion at a future date. My observations of the council members’ faces and gestures indicated to me that they were not overly enthusiastic about their votes or their role. In fact, not one council person commented or spoke to issues brought forth by the audience. 

Giving the council the benefit of the doubt, perhaps they thought that putting the plan on a future agenda would allow them to discuss the proposal at length. Unfortunately, this has not been a successful route in the past for opponents of an issue because public discussion will occur in only one meeting consisting of comments to the council. It excludes the public from any meaningful discussion regarding whether this major attempt to restructure our city government should even make it as far as the ballot.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

No shortcuts should be used in getting the ballot initiative Elect Our Mayor on the ballot

I am opposed to Councilman Will O’Neill’s initiative to Elect Our Mayor in Newport Beach but that’s only my opinion and some people feel differently. Perhaps our citizens should make sure they fully understand all the underlying facts involved in electing the mayor, but most importantly how Will O’Neill is trying to circumvent the system to get this item airlifted onto a future ballot in the next few weeks. 

Has anyone on the council asked for a thorough financial analysis of what impact this move will have on our city? Adding another layer of government, staffing this layer, adding in retirement costs and benefits all need to be analyzed with costs being projected out over several years. 

Also, this initiative would create a second class of councilmember with less ability to represent his/her constituents because of redistricting which creates a larger number of people to represent and diminishes the importance of neighborhoods, villages and businesses within each district.   

Newport Beach voters approved a term limit of eight years for councilpersons, including the mayor, for a very good reason. Councilman O’Neill’s initiative would allow a councilperson who has served his eight years to then run for mayor, where he could potentially also serve two terms, i.e., another eight years! The councilmembers have term limits, but the proposed elected mayor will serve without term limits.

Mr. O’Neill had 180 days from the date his amendment was certified to obtain 9,000 signatures to put this on the ballot for our citizens to vote on. Apparently, he’s finding that’s not such an easy task. 

I can confirm that it’s not, from my experience getting signatures for the Museum House initiative. It’s a very difficult labor-intensive task but a large group of residents prevailed, and all worked hard together to get it done. It was a community effort.

Mr. O’Neill has now decided to circumvent the system by trying to “persuade” a majority of our City Council to vote yes to put his initiative on the ballot, instead of him getting the necessary 9,000 signatures required. Is that legal? Yes. But does it reflect the will of the people? I don’t think so.   

Whether or not this proposed agenda item appears on the ballot will depend on four votes being received from our City Council. It is also rumored that Will O’Neil has ensured this “on the fence” councilmember that if he votes in favor of this proposed initiative being on a future agenda, he can be assured that his goals for the harbor will be met. 

Mr. O’Neill has a way of getting what he wants with little or no resistance from councilmembers, but please I am pleading with you our elected city councilmembers, to put this item on the ballot only after a thorough and complete public vetting of the reasons for and against this important change to our form of government. Do not let this item be thrown into your laps, our elected City Council in exchange for future favors. 

Why don’t we bring all of this to the community in the form of a series of Study Sessions, or just an old fashion Town Hall. Why not really listen to the community on this issue, rather than basing your decision on one person’s idea of what our form of government should be – without any debate on the issues that are of critical importance to how our city is governed. This decision should not be based on promises and favors. 

In my mind, this should not happen this way. Will O’Neill is trying to arrange things to facilitate long-term control of our city without the messy process of debates and give and take and consent of the people. Yes, democracy is messy but it’s better than the alternative (per Winston Churchill).

Please let’s do this for the people and by the people!

Lynn Swain

Big Canyon

Letters to the Editor

New mayor initiative “would have stricter term limits,” just read between the lines

I’ll say it up front: I want to be able to Elect Our Mayor. I also like term limits. So, when people dissenting from the initiative claimed that the term limits were going to be changed, I took another look. 

The proposed initiative doesn’t change city council term limits. In fact, the proposal says specifically: “This section is not intended to change the limit on consecutive terms for a member of the city council enacted by voters in November 1992.”

Subsequently, in the “Implementation” language, it says: “The enactment of this measure shall not be interpreted or applied to reset or extend the limit on consecutive terms applicable to any person holding office as a member of the city council at the time this measure is approved by voters.”

Any fair reading of the Elect Our Mayor initiative would conclude that 1) the city council term limits remain the same and 2) the current city councilmembers aren’t gaming the system with this change.

The proposed new position of a directly elected mayor would have stricter term limits than city council. The proposed new position would have lifetime term limits, which the city council positions don’t have.

I encourage people to read the language for themselves. It’s amazing what a little education can do to counter false narratives.

Barbara Eusey 

Balboa Island 

What should be done with our pier area? Here are some ideas

My first question is: How is the pier structure holding up? Has an engineer given it a physical and, if not, should this be done to determine this structure’s viability? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. It doesn’t make sense or dollars to destroy something that still has plenty of life left. 

Should the building at the end be torn down? Probably. Should it be replaced? If so, why? Aren’t there enough restaurants and stores already? 

Also, what is wrong with the Plaza? As a resident who frequents it regularly, I like the design. Could it use a little refurbishing? Yes, and so could the public bathrooms. 

Would all this work cost $20 million? Not even close. This area, as pointed out by resident George Leslie, is already brimming with visitors, so there will probably be minimal financial gain for our city. 

If you are planning long term, how about investing in electric police and lifeguard vehicles? We all know this area has abundant sunlight. How about installing solar on city property where feasible? 

We all love the look of green grass, but it uses so much water to maintain it and this area is often in a drought. Today, there are pleasing options that require no water. 

I believe that Newport Beach can be a leader in these areas as it has in the past, rather than behind the curve.

Victor Paglia

Newport Beach

We know who trusts the voters

On Tuesday [tonight], the Newport Beach City Council gets to decide whether voters will have a choice. It’s a vote to let the people choose whether we want to directly Elect Our Mayor or leave it in the hands of the City Council to choose this important decision.

This is, of course, the same City Council comprised of people who ran for election and trusted us to make decisions whether they would be good at their current positions.

It’s the same City Council that voted to place a Charter amendment to add the Harbor Commission to the charter in 2020, which passed by 11%.

It’s the same City Council that voted to place a Charter amendment to require voter approval prior to certain debt obligations in 2018, which passed by 60 percentage points.

It’s the same City Council that voted to place a Charter amendment to require five of seven votes of the City Council to propose taxes in 2016, which was passed by 62%.

When voters ask to be trusted – to be involved in the process – we mean it. The only city councilmember who opposed two of the last three charter amendments lost a re-election bid by 20 percentage points. Voters clearly reward those who trust the voters.

Let’s move forward together here. Let’s Elect Our Mayor.

Nanette Vodra

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Initiative gives too much power to elected mayor

City Councilman Will O’Neill has announced that he is collecting signatures for a voter initiative to make the Mayor of Newport Beach an elected position. However, this initiative does much more than just establish an elected mayor. It establishes an elected mayor with immense power and that is just wrong.

Hidden in the initiative is Section 404(b), which states, “Except as provided in Section 405, the Mayor shall have the sole discretion to set City Council agendas and to change the order of business on the agenda.” Section 405 does allow adding items on the agenda if half of the remaining council members agree, but this is quite a high standard to meet and effectively excludes the rest of the council from readily bringing issues forward. Instead, the initiative will give the mayor near total control of what may be brought in front of the council. If an unpopular issue is to be discussed and a crowd is expected for an agenda item at 8 p.m., the mayor can arbitrarily move the item to an earlier hour and bypass all that pesky input.

Now imagine if the mayor is beholden to special interests. If those special interests do or don’t want something inconvenient to their purposes on the agenda, the mayor can make that happen. As an example, many of us feel that Team Newport’s campaign consultant Dave Ellis exerts that power over his successful candidates. Remember the Museum House condo approved by the City Council over the objections of literally thousands of residents? The developer told me that Mr. Ellis was a consultant on the project because “that is how it is done.”

If a majority of the City Council supported this initiative, they could vote to put it on the ballot, but this has not occurred. Mr. O’Neill’s efforts to gather signatures appears to be a solitary quest unsupported by his fellow council members. Maybe they feel, as I do, that we should not give that much power to one person. The residents of Newport Beach deserve to have their elected City Councilpersons have an equal say in the running of our city. Electing an abnormally powerful mayor is exactly the wrong thing to do and I sincerely hope that citizens think twice before signing this misguided initiative.

Susan Skinner

Newport Beach

Electing our mayor enhances accountability

The basic function of the Newport Beach City Council is setting public policy. The sole ability for the City Council to accomplish this basic function is through agendas set well in advance of a meeting pursuant to “The Brown Act.” In other words, the only way for a Council to actually accomplish its core responsibility is through the meeting agenda. 

But as it currently stands, the Council has delegated that authority to the City Manager. No matter how good a City Manager is (and ours is great), the City Manager is accountable only to the City Council and not directly to the people of the City of Newport Beach.

The Elect Our Mayor initiative would ensure that the power to hold public policy makers accountable rests in the hands of the people. 

As proposed, a directly elected mayor would be able to set the agenda and be directly accountable to both the people and the City Council too. Plus, City Council members themselves could place items on the agenda if three members voted to do so (similar to the current policy). 

If a mayor didn’t want to place an item on the agenda and three other Council Members couldn’t be found to want an item on the agenda, why in the world would that item be worthy of staff time and consideration?

This process is helpfully discussed on the website under the FAQ section. Which is why I was a puzzled when I read Susan Skinner’s comment that the agenda-setting function was “hidden” in the initiative language. It wasn’t even hidden from Will O’Neill’s original op-ed published in the Newport Beach Indy and Stu News Newport

But more to the point, Dr. Skinner’s main concern appears to be that a mayor could move items around on the agenda to avoid frustrated crowds. This may surprise Dr. Skinner, but the mayor currently has the “discretion to change the order of business” as part of our city’s agenda-setting policy. 

Though uncommonly used, the most common use of that discretion is not to avoid crowds, but instead is used to ensure that a crowd doesn’t need to sit through an entire agenda if their item is at the back of the calendar. 

I encourage residents to read more about the Elect Our Mayor petition at the website where concerns are helpfully answered. If you would like to sign up to volunteer or find out where petitions are available to sign, please visit our site for that too:

Noah Blom 

Newport Beach City Council, District 5

Newport Beach

Elected mayor, just a bad idea

An elected mayor? This is just a bad idea, and it is not what is best for Newport Beach; rather, it is what’s best for a few power-hungry individuals. If we could be guaranteed that persons who would run for mayor were completely honest, transparent, had impeccable integrity, and would always be elected by a well-informed citizenry, then I’d be all for it. But what are the chances of that happening now and in the future? And why would the people of Newport Beach change our City Charter to support something that is riddled with so many potential problems?

Take for instance that section of this proposal that gives the elected mayor sole discretion on the agenda for each council meeting, and to change the order of business on the agenda at his/her discretion. And consider how difficult it would be for a particular council member to get an item on the agenda that has been asked for by his/her constituents with the requirement that half of the council must agree to agendize. This clearly shoots holes in the concept of “representation.” 

Eight years is just too long, as well. And when you add to this the ability to have complete control over each council meeting agenda…you are giving absolute power to the mayor. Look to neighboring cities to see how well that has worked out! It just isn’t necessary. There is nothing wrong with our current system. 

Although my tenure on council was cut short, and I was not able to experience the honor of being mayor, one of the attractive features of serving on council is the potential of being selected to serve as mayor. This is a current feature of our City Charter that serves to attract people to run for city council. 

The current proposal would eliminate that feature. Moreover, who would really want to experience the frustration of serving on a council where the City Charter provides the mayor with absolute authority and power, and places an individual council member in the position of not being able to represent the constituents of his or her district? 

Here are a few other reasons for not supporting this initiative:

–Do we really want carpetbaggers moving to our city, establishing the required residency, and then running for mayor? Individuals who have no longevity in or a history of service to our city?

–A mayoral bid is going to be expensive, and the influence of campaign donors would likely be concentrated behind a single person or group in the City. Ordinary citizen concerns could be less a consideration if the elected mayor has an allegiance to a donor or group making large donations in order to insure re-election, and to elections beyond that of Newport Beach Mayor. 

–Our City would have to go through redistricting (from 7 to 6), with each district having one council representative except for the district that the newly elected mayor lives in. Could this be a potential problem? Double representation?

If this idea of an elected mayor is such a good idea for Newport Beach, then why isn’t the current council not approving this as an item on the ballot for the next election and foregoing the signature gathering process? Why is it just the effort of only one current council member? Again, this is just a bad overall idea!

Jeff Herdman

Former City Council Member (2016-2020)

Newport Beach

More power checks needed for elected mayor

I am in total agreement with Susan Skinner, a lifelong and highly respected member of Newport Beach, who has an excellent understanding of everything that pertains to Newport Beach and to city government.

I was so surprised to learn that all of a sudden out of nowhere comes the idea from seemingly one single City Council member to make the mayoral position of Newport Beach an elected office. And although it has not been stated, nor do we know for certain, it is most likely that this new position is being created for the person who originated the petition. This seems like an extremely opportunistic move, especially since it does not seem to be supported by other council members.

If the petitioner or another council member, with the exception of one position, were to run, it would mean that he/she would serve for 16 uninterrupted years as a leader.

Also, many of the council members have already had the opportunity to serve as mayor. This is way too long of a period for one person to be in office, particularly if during the last eight years that person serves a stint as a mayor with incredible, nearly unchecked power over the council and the residents of Newport Beach.

The idea of an elected mayor in and of itself is not necessarily a bad idea
as long as there were more power checks on that position and no current council
member could run, meaning that one person could not serve 16 uninterrupted
years. There is no good reason to support at this time what could well be the pursuit of one person.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Guest Letter

Will O’Neill 

City Council member, District 7

Newport Beach’s financial rebound

Guest Letter Will O'Neill

Courtesy City of NB

Will O’Neill

I will never forget our city’s March 12, 2020 Finance Committee meeting. The Minutes state that our Finance Director “reported COVID-19 has changed the budget strategy.” That turned out to be an understatement.

Our city’s Finance Committee and City Council took swift action. We had three months left in our 2019/20 fiscal year and reduced our general fund budget’s expectation from $231.4 million to $217.9 million. This revenue reduction needed expenditure reduction too, which we quickly adopted.

The pandemic hit right as we were ramping up our budget planning for our 2020/2021 fiscal year too. As “two weeks to flatten the curve” stretched longer, we drastically reduced our budget expectations. 

Fortunately, our budget relies heavily on property taxes. This fairly consistent revenue source does not yo-yo like other taxes thanks to the stability built into the system by Prop 13. Sales tax and the hotel bed tax (“TOT”) are the most reactive to system shocks. A city like Anaheim, for example, was always going to take a harder fiscal hit due to its reliance on tourism at Disneyland and the convention center. 

Despite approximately half our budget relying on the consistent revenue source, we still reduced our revenue expectations from $231.4 million to $199.6 million; a nearly 14 percent reduction.

Which meant that we needed to close the revenue and expenditure gap. Giving credit to our City Manager and Finance Director, the Finance Committee recommended that the City Council adopt a “tiered” short-term budget reduction strategy that required quarterly review to move up or down the tiers depending on city revenues.

We prioritized public safety and never defunded any portion of our police, fire, or lifeguard departments.

We had also accumulated surplus funds from fiscal years 2018/19 and 2019/20 of $24.1 million (typically used to pay for one-time neighborhood enhancements and pay down long-term liabilities) in addition to the $52.6 million reserve to ward against this kind of “black swan” event. Thanks to this accumulation, we needed to use only a small fraction of the reserve to balance our budget, which we re-filled before the 20/21 fiscal year was out.

Throughout the 20/21 fiscal year, we carefully monitored our tax and fee collection. As the economy lifted up, so too did our sales taxes and TOT. The stronger-than-expected revenues allowed us to put $15.9 million back into the city’s capital program and roll back some of the service cuts.

Yesterday (Oct. 14), the city’s Finance Committee met to discuss how we ended the 2020/21 fiscal year. The tone was markedly different than our meeting from nearly nineteen months ago.

Our expenditures remained well below the pre-COVID budget figures and solidly below our revised budget, resulting in savings of $7 million. With better-than-expected revenues, too, our budget surplus coming out of the unstable fiscal year 2020/21 is projected to be an eye-popping $31 million.

Now, a few caveats must be explained. First, this is really three years of accumulated budget surplus. Only $7 million of that is from this past year, while the remaining $24 million is from prior years’ surpluses that we held as a backstop to the pandemic economy. Second, we did not rely on any of this money to balance our 2021/22 budget. Third, this is one-time money. Which means that as a matter of policy we should not use this to add recurring costs to our city.

Instead, we can and should use this money to further pay down long-term liabilities (pension obligations and future facilities replacement costs) and fund our future investments in capital improvement projects and neighborhood enhancements. This approach will remain consistent with our City Council policies.

I thank everyone in our community whose resilience through this past year has placed us and our business community in better footing going forward. I thank our City Council and Finance Committee for their efforts to monitor and adopt proactive and reactive budgeting processes. And, I thank our City Manager and staff for their diligence throughout last year.

We are indeed a resilient city built on firm foundations of community bonds. #NewportStrong

Will O’Neill is the Chair of the Newport Beach Finance Committee, a current City Council Member, and was Mayor of Newport Beach in 2020.

Guest Letter

Will O’Neill

Elect Our Mayor

Guest Letter Will O'Neill

Click on photo for a larger image

Courtesy of the City of Newport Beach

Former Mayor and current City Councilmember Will O’Neill

Are you aware that you don’t elect your Mayor?

Would you like to?

I have asked those two simple questions a lot lately. While I have received different responses to the first question, the answer to the second question has been a resounding and universal “yes.”

Which, of course, makes sense. Voters, not politicians, should choose who is Mayor of Newport Beach. 

As it currently stands, we elect our City Council members who then choose amongst themselves who will fill the role as Mayor for a year. While residents can voice their opinion, the Mayor is chosen by a simple majority of seven people in a city with more than 87,000 residents.

This current system is, at best, a minor league system for a major league city.

Changing our system to a directly elected Mayor requires amending our City Charter. To that end, I will be filing an intention to start a petition process today at City Hall. Once approved, petitions will be available for signatures.

If passed, voters would start directly electing our Mayor at the general election in 2024 for a four-year term with a two-term limit. The Mayor would have a vote on the City Council along with six City Council members (whose method of being elected is not changed). The Mayor would set the City Council agendas with an ability for Council members to add agenda items, too. Term limits for current City Council members would not be reset.

Putting this commonsense measure on the ballot in 2022 will require over 9,000 signatures. I will be rolling out endorsements in the coming weeks and asking friends, colleagues and our residents to pitch in because the end result is worth the effort.

We ought to have candidates for Mayor talking to all Newport Beach about their priorities to win office and be accountable to all of us. We deserve a strong, united voice in good times and in crisis.

So, would you like to directly elect our Mayor? If so, join the cause. 

Learn more and sign up at or email the campaign at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The following is the draft language of the Charter Amendment being filed today, September 3, 2021, by Newport Beach City Councilmember Will O’Neill.

Initiative proposed pursuant to Article 3 of Chapter 3 of Division 9 of the California Elections Code, to amend the Charter of the City of Newport Beach


The Charter of the City of Newport Beach is hereby amended as follows, with text to be inserted indicated in underline type, text to be deleted indicated in strikethrough type, and text in standard type represents the current Charter and is not amended by this initiative.

Section 400. Elective Officers.

The elective officers of the City shall consist of a City Council of six seven members and a Mayor. The term “City Council,” “legislative body,” or other similar terms as used in this Charter or any other provision of law shall be deemed to refer to the collective body composed of the Mayor and City Council members unless such other provision of this Charter or other provision of law expressly provides to the contrary or unless such interpretation would be clearly contrary to the intent and context of such other provision.

(a) Candidates for City Council shall be nominated from and by the electors of each of the six seven districts referred to in Article X of this Charter and one shall be elected from each of such districts by the voters of the City at large at the times and in the manner provided in this Charter. Ties in voting among candidates for City Council office shall be settled by the casting of lots.

Alternatively, and successively, two four four-year terms (Districts 2 and 5) shall be filled at one the general municipal election occurring in each even-numbered year that is evenly divisible by four and four three four-year terms (Districts 1, 3, 4, and 6) shall be filled at the next such general municipal election occurring in each even-numbered year that is not evenly divisible by four, consistent with the sequence of terms of Council members existing on the effective date of this amendment.

The term of office shall be four years. The term of each City Council member shall commence on the date of the City Council meeting, following his or her election, at which the council receives the certification of election results from the City Clerk.

(b) Candidates for Mayor shall be nominated from and by the electors of the City and elected by the voters of the City at-large at the times and in the manner provided in this Charter. Ties in voting among candidates for Mayor shall be settled by the casting of lots.

The office of Mayor shall be filled at the general municipal election occurring in each even-numbered year that is evenly divisible by four. 

The term of office shall be four years. The term of Mayor shall commence on the date of the City Council meeting, following his or her election, at which the Council receives the certification of election results from the City Clerk.

Section 401. Eligibility.

(a) No person shall be eligible to hold office as a member of the City Council unless he or she is, and shall have been for at least thirty (30) days immediately preceding his or her nomination or appointment, a registered elector of the district from which he or she is nominated or appointed, and for at least thirty (30) days immediately preceding his or her election or appointment, a registered elector of the City. No person shall be eligible to hold office as a member of the City Council for a term of office that immediately follows a term to which the person was elected Mayor.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 400, no person shall be or remain eligible to hold office as a member of the City Council for more than two (2) consecutive four (4) year terms. Members of the City Council who have served one or more terms prior to their current term shall be entitled to complete such term, but shall not be eligible for re-election except as provided below. Members of the City Council who are serving their first term as of the effective date of this amendment shall be eligible to hold office during a second four-year term when the current term expires.

This section is not intended to change the limit on consecutive terms for a member of the City Council enacted by voters in November 1992 prevent persons from serving more than two (2) consecutive terms, and shall not be construed to render ineligible any person who would not, by virtue of his or her election, serve more than two consecutive terms.

(b) No person shall be eligible to hold the office of Mayor unless he or she is, and shall have been for at least thirty (30) days immediately preceding his or her nomination or appointment, a registered elector of the City, and for at least thirty (30) days immediately preceding his or her election or appointment, a registered elector of the City.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 400, no person shall be or remain eligible to hold the office of Mayor for more than two (2) four (4) year terms. 

This section is intended to prevent persons from serving more than two (2) terms in the office of Mayor, and shall not be construed to render ineligible any person who may have served as a member of the City Council.

Section 403. Vacancies.

A vacancy in the City Council from whatever cause arising, shall be filled by appointment by the City Council of a qualified person from the district in which the vacancy has occurred, such appointee to hold office until the first Tuesday following the next general municipal election and until his or her successor qualifies. At the next general municipal election following any vacancy, a Councilmember shall be elected from the district in which the vacancy exists to serve for the remainder of the unexpired term.

A vacancy in the office of Mayor from whatever cause arising, shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by a special election called by the City Council to be held not less than 88 days nor more than 103 days after the effective date of the vacancy, except the special election may be conducted within 180 days of the effective date of the vacancy in order to consolidate with the City’s general municipal election. An election shall not be ordered, and the office of Mayor shall remain vacant, if the term expires within the timeframe for holding a special election.

If a member of the City Council or the Mayor absents himself or herself from all regular meetings of the City Council for a period of sixty days consecutively from and after the last regular City Council meeting attended by such member, unless by permission of the City Council expressed in its official minutes, or is convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, or ceases to be a qualified elector of his or her district, his or her office shall become vacant and shall be so declared by the City Council.

In the event the City Council shall fail to fill a vacancy by appointment within thirty days after such office shall have been so declared vacant, it shall forthwith cause an election to be held to fill such vacancy from the proper district. 

Section 404. The Mayor. Mayor Pro Tempore.

On the date of any meeting of the City Council at which time the Council receives the certification of the results of any general or special municipal election at which any member of Council is elected, the City Council shall, after swearing and qualifying any newly elected member, elect one of its members as its presiding officer, who shall have the title of Mayor. 

(a) The Mayor shall preside at meetings and be a voting member of the City Council, and shall have a voice and vote in all its proceedings.

(b) Except as provided in Section 405, the Mayor shall have sole discretion to set City Council agendas and to change the order of business on the agendas.

(c) The Mayor shall have the primary but not exclusive responsibility for interpreting the policies, programs and needs of the City government to the people, and, as occasion requires, the Mayor may inform the people of any change in policy or program. 

(d) The Mayor shall be the official head of the City for ceremonial purposes, and shall perform such other duties consistent with the office as may be prescribed by this Charter or as may be imposed by the City Council. The Mayor shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council.

(e) The City Council shall at the same time the Mayor is elected also designate one of its members as Mayor Pro Tempore, who shall serve in such capacity at the pleasure of the City Council. The Mayor Pro Tempore shall perform the duties of the Mayor during the Mayor’s absence or disability.

Section 405. Powers Vested in the City Council.

All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter. With the concurrence of at least three members of the City Council at any public meeting, an item may be added to a future City Council agenda.

Section 410. Quorum. Proceedings.

A majority of the members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum to do business but a less number may adjourn from time to time. For purposes of quorum, the Mayor shall be counted as a member of the City Council. In the absence of all the members of the Council from any regular meeting or adjourned regular meeting, the City Clerk may declare the same adjourned to a stated day and hour. Notice of a meeting adjourned by less than a quorum or by the Clerk shall be given by the Clerk or may be waived by consent in the same manner as specified in this Charter for the giving or waiving of notice of special meetings of the City Council; but need not specify the matters to be acted upon. The City Council shall judge the qualifications of its members as set forth by the Charter. It shall judge all election returns. It may establish rules for the conduct of its proceedings and evict or prosecute any member or other person for disorderly conduct at any of its meetings.

Each member of the City Council and the Mayor shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations in any investigation or proceeding pending before the City Council. The City Council shall have the power and authority to compel the attendance of witnesses, to examine them under oath and to compel the production of evidence before it. Subpoenas shall be issued in the name of the City and be attested by the City Clerk. Disobedience of such subpoenas, or the refusal to testify (upon other than constitutional grounds), shall constitute a misdemeanor, and shall be punishable in the same manner as violations of this Charter are punishable.

At the demand of any member, the City Clerk shall call the roll and shall cause the ayes and nays taken on an issue which is the subject of the demand to be entered in the minutes of the meeting.

Section 1004. Voters Signing Nomination Petitions.

The voters signing any petition for the nomination of any person to the office of Councilmember shall be residents and registered voters of the district from which such person is to be nominated.

The voters signing any petition for the nomination of any person to the office of Mayor shall be residents and registered voters of the City.

Section 1005. Districts.

The City is hereby divided into six seven districts, the names and respective boundaries of which shall be as established by ordinance. No ordinance changing and redefining the boundaries of any district shall be enacted within six months prior to any regular Councilmanic election.

Following the national census and each tenth year thereafter the City Council shall appoint a committee to study and report to the City Council on the advisability of redistricting the City. Upon receipt of any such committee report, and at any other time deemed necessary or desirable in order that the district boundaries be fair and logical, the City Council may by ordinance change and redefine the boundaries of any or all of the six seven districts herein established. The boundaries so defined shall be established in such manner that the districts shall, as nearly as practicable, constitute natural areas of contiguous and compact territory and provide fair representation on the City Council. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 401, no redistricting shall disqualify any Councilmember from serving as Councilmember from the district from which he or her was nominated or appointed for the remainder of his or her term, if elected, or until the next general municipal election, if appointed. Any territory hereafter annexed to or consolidated with the City shall, at the time of such annexation or consolidation, be added by ordinance of the City Council to an adjacent district or districts.


A. The members of the City Council in office at the time these Charter provisions take effect shall continue in office until the expiration of their respective terms and until their successors are elected and qualified.

B. The City Council shall, no later than six (6) months prior to the next general municipal election held after the year in which these Charter provisions take effect, adopt an ordinance to establish the respective boundaries of the six (6) council districts.

C. The enactment of this measure shall not be interpreted or applied to reset or extend the limit on consecutive terms applicable to any person holding office as a member of the City Council at the time this measure is approved by voters.

D. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ballot measure is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ballot measure. The voters hereby declare that they would have passed this ballot measure, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Letters to the Editor

I vote for a vote for a directly elected Mayor

I have been fortunate to see our City government up close as a parent advocate in our school district, as a Newport Beach Foundation Distinguished Citizen graduate, and as a current Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commissioner. 

This is an incredible City. We rely heavily on volunteers and altruism to make our community, villages, and neighborhoods better places for us all.

2020 was rough for everyone, but the silver linings were there. For example, I saw for the first time a citywide interest in public policy. A desire to improve our city led a lot of people to learn more about how our City Council works and interacts with our residents and regional governments.

One consistent surprise I heard from friends was: “why are we not allowed or able to directly elect our Mayor?”

That’s a fair question without a great answer. This is a city full of smart, dedicated people who should be trusted to choose their Mayor.

I agree fully with Will O’Neill’s comment that Newport Beach is a major league city with a minor league system for choosing its Mayor.

Let’s Elect Our Mayor.

Kate Malouf

Newport Beach 

Does neighboring City’s results say it’s wrong?

Me thinks Councilmember Will O’Neill wants to be the Larry Agran of Newport Beach. Check with Irvine and see how elected mayor has worked out for them.

Dennis Baker

Newport Beach

Thanks to the school district for doing the right thing

So glad someone had the balls and guts to stand up for our flag. Seems like there is more pandering to fringe factions at the expense of core values these days. Hail NMUSD!

Angela Cortright

Newport Beach

Take it from an insider, the City needs an elected Mayor

I have a unique perspective on why we need to support the Elect Our Mayor campaign. 

As a Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner, I know that we can pretty well chart the growing international appeal of our City by simply looking out on the water. I would have loved to have seen John Wayne atop The Wild Goose in the 1960s when Newport Beach was still a growing city with the recently shuttered buffalo ranch. Today, we see mega-yachts from around the world passing by residents and tourists on Duffy boats and SUPs.

While our city has maintained much of its charm through village atmospheres, there is no question that we are a modern city with complex issues.

In our Harbor alone, we interact with the California Coastal Commission, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Orange County Sheriffs, the California Air Resources Board and so many more governmental agencies.

This doesn’t even account for Caltrans on PCH, the FAA at the airport, Housing & Community Development for the state’s housing mandates, etc.

Oftentimes we need help from these agencies. Sometimes in the form of regulatory easing. Sometimes in funding support.

For example, we are indebted to former Mayor Duffy Duffield for his repeated efforts in Washington, D.C., seeking dredging money. He will be the first to tell you that the efforts were helped greatly by his relationships forged through years of work.

But frankly, it shouldn’t have been that hard to get the dredging money. Our city is a piggybank for Washington and Sacramento politicians. We remain a donor community in both politics and taxes. And because we have a rotating Mayor system, there is no longevity of relationships between our City’s leadership and governmental agencies that affect our daily lives.

A system that worked in the 60s is no longer appropriate in today’s world. With more and more cities moving to a directly elected mayor in Orange County, it’s time that we do the same. 

I’m supporting the Elect Our Mayor campaign and hope that you will too.

Gary Williams Jr. 

Newport Beach Harbor Commissioner

Newport Beach

What I like about Newport Beach?

Hold on to your hats, folks. For those who happen to read some of my letters, and heaven knows, they are many in number, you might be surprised at my topic for today – What I like about Newport Beach?

There may be those who think that I am a misanthrope, critical and unyielding. But that is only half the story. There is a side to me that is not political, and like most people, that is my happier, friendlier side.

Maybe I feel guilty sometimes for living in such a beautiful place, while many are fighting for survival. But admit it, I must: Newport Beach is a beautiful place to live. And I am so lucky that I do live here.

I love to walk around my neighborhood in the Heights and see the unique quality of each house, no two alike. I love the fact that I have great neighbors. Although I have lived here more than 40 years, I have never heard so much as one complaint or unkind word from a neighbor. We don’t all socialize together, but we are respectful of each other’s boundaries. 

I love that many people walk their dogs down my street because there is less traffic. And people are so much friendlier when they are outdoors, especially when they are walking a pet. (Otherwise, Newport Beach reminds me a bit of France, where it is an unspoken rule not to smile at strangers.) So, I can live with that; but maybe everyone should go out and get a dog, so we see more smiles.

The natural beauty of Newport Beach is enhanced by some of the architectural structures. When I am unhappy or lonely, like during the dark days of COVID, I head straight to Fashion Island, which is the equivalent of going to Disneyland when I was a child. I love to shop, if only window shop. They have built so many fountains, outdoor seating areas and beautiful vistas that Fashion Island is becoming a big tourist draw. 

Newport is also getting more and more good restaurants with the accent on quality dining. Competition is responsible for that, competition and Newport’s natural attributes like great weather, transcendent views and outdoor dining. 

We have several newspapers and e-papers that serve the area. And because I love to write, I appreciate the availability of those sources. I appreciate Tom Johnson and his literary family. I can visualize Tom shaking his head or rolling his eyes when he reads some of my letters. Perhaps a laugh or two might follow some of the things I have written over the last few years. But he prints exactly what people write and we are lucky to have that opportunity to express our thoughts. 

So, despite the difficult years of the pandemic, and the divisiveness that those years have brought, let’s take time to appreciate how lucky we are to be in such a spectacular place and let’s do everything we can to keep it that way.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letter to the Editor

Mandates, mandates, mandates

In response to (a previous) letter, I would like to say that yes, I am in favor of mandates. In the very beginning of the pandemic, as far back as the spring of 2020, I was pestering our City Council in Newport Beach to put mask mandates in place. 

It never ceases to amaze me that a noisy minority has been trying to steer our country toward a course of no mandates, one that has proven disastrous to many. In response, my first impulse is to say that a national mandate is the best way to respond to this seemingly insurmountable problem.

But while I think that a national mandate for vaccinations and masks is and always has been the best solution and that we may ultimately get there, it doesn’t seem to be happening at the pace that we would want. And in the meantime, many more innocent lives will be lost.

Those who are adamantly opposed to vaccinations and masks are not listening to science and common sense but moreover to some political leaders and other spokespeople, among which are conspiracy theorists, who protest against being inoculated. 

Because it is probably impossible both physically and politically at this point to pull off a blanket public mandate, I think that the mandates will need to be put in place layer-by-layer. And that has already started to happen. Recent polls show that two out of three people in the country support their state or local government to have mask mandates for public buildings (Washington Post).

The federal administration is starting out by requiring nursing homes that receive federal Medicare or Medicaid funding to mandate vaccinations for all staff members. And legal action is going to be taken through the Department of Defense against governors that attempt to prevent school districts in their states from enacting mask mandates.

Even closer to home is the courageous response of the Newport-Mesa School Board President this week, to a strong and noisy contingent of parents who showed up to protest mask mandates in local schools: “I know some people don’t agree with certain things, but I think we need to keep our eyes focused on what we want and that’s to keep schools open.”

Among private companies, more and more are requiring vaccination and mask mandates as well as tests. I walked by the Apple Store yesterday which limits the number of occupants in their buildings as well as requires masks. The most surprising group of all to require vaccinations to play is the NFL. So, things are beginning to happen if not at the pace that many would like. Unfortunately, the more time that passes, the more opportunity there is for the coronavirus to mutate and come up with a strain that will be impervious to the current vaccine. So, until mandates speed up, we are basically being held hostage by the coronavirus as well as the defiantly unvaccinated among us.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letter to the Editor

It’s easy when you agree, how about when you don’t?

Ms. Lorenz likes mandates on things she agrees with. Would she be agreeable to mandates on things she doesn’t? I think not. A lot of us prefer to not have a biased media and politicians with their own agenda make all our decisions for us. Freedom of choice is truly the American way.

Jerry Piersall

Costa Mesa

Letters to the Editor

Unvaccinated are a concern for all of us

I want to thank Lynn Lorenz for her August 10 letter entitled, “Mandates are the call needed now for the new COVID strain.” While she focused several of her comments about CHOC admissions and schools reopening, my perspective is a little broader. Here are my thoughts about vaccination mandates:

I wish I could stop worrying about the unvaccinated, but I can’t. When it is easier to persuade half the nation to see a proctologist than it is to convince them to get a COVID shot, something is terribly wrong in America. 

At first, I thought corporate incentives, like discounts at malls or half-price tickets to baseball games, would encourage millions of unvaccinated to roll up their sleeves. It worked for some but not that many. 

Next, I turned my attention to the most vocal of opponents – Republicans who still support Donald Trump. I believed the Number One GOP influencer could and should go public with a series of public service ads. If I’m not mistaken, the former president did one. 

To be certain, on any given day you can see more PSAs to save sick and hungry animals than you can commercials to convince the unvaccinated to get their shots. Which brings me to today. 

Unless we quickly inoculate tens of millions of reluctant Americans, the Delta variant is destined to mutate into another, more deadly virus. Those of us who have been vaccinated have done our part in the war against COVID. In my opinion, we simply can’t wait any longer for 100 million of our neighbors to eventually do theirs.

With this last thought in mind, it’s time to admit the obvious: We need a national directive requiring people to roll up their sleeves. If they do, we can win the fight against the virus. If they don’t, then here is what they should expect: First, they will be refused entry to their local grocery store; second, they cannot buy gasoline at their local gas station; and third, their bank no longer will cash their checks or cover their online purchases. In other words, the unvaccinated will be cut off from life’s necessities. 

In the aftermath of the attack on Pearl Harbor, my parents and two older brothers did what every other patriotic family was expected to do. They turned out the lights during the night and rationed their groceries, all with a sense of pride knowing they were doing their part during WWII.

Literary license aside, today we are facing WWIII. If you ever suffer a heart attack or a broken leg, who would you call? Certainly not Mayor Brad Avery or Rep. Michelle Steel. Why anyone would take the word of a politician over a physician is beyond me, but isn’t this what’s happening now? 

I’m guessing letter writer Lynn Lorenz would agree we need an all-hands-on-deck response to the war against COVID. Americans have risen to the challenge before and must do it again now. I am tired of worrying about the unvaccinated.

Aren’t you?

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach

Concerned stakeholders deserve a seat at the table to help craft Mariners’ Mile plan

(The following is a letter from Patrick Gormley addressed to the members of the Newport Beach City Council discussing the recent approval of 2510 W. Coast Highway.)

Those who live in Newport Beach share a common interest – to sustain and preserve the character and charm of our unique neighborhoods, villages and beachfront community. It follows that we clearly deserve to have a say about major development issues that will affect us all and impact our safety and quality of life. In this case, this means having input to a Mariners’ Mile “Village” design that is in harmony with our community’s character and core values without adversely impacting the surrounding area.

As our representatives, City Council should listen to the people who live here and want to preserve and enhance their quality of life, and not simply acquiesce to the financial interest of the developers. We need to formalize community consensus in the form of a clear vision consistent with the City’s General Plan to guide the responsible development of Newport Beach in general, and Mariners’ Mile corridor in this instance. Mariners’ Mile has been studied, evaluated, discussed and debated for decades – and still no official consensus has emerged.

However, there is agreement about the need for an overall strategy of responsible development to avoid the chaotic and piecemeal “Santa Monicazation” of our City. The Planning Commission wisely acknowledged the need for a Mariners’ Mile Master Plan on February 18, 2021, during the hearing for 2510 West Coast Highway. Also, during the April 27, 2021, City Council Review Session, Mayor Brad Avery stated, “We could do a better job from the very beginning of the planning process.” 

We agree.

The process of City-sponsored outreach workshops that resulted in the development of Lido Marina Village and Lido Village are good examples of what is possible when the City, developers and stakeholders work together. This proven model can be successfully duplicated for Mariners’ Mile. This idea was presented by community members during the last City Council meeting.

Developer Initiative and Continuing Concerns

On July 27, 2021, during the City Council Review Session, the developer was complimented by the City Council, the Planning Department and members of the Newport Beach community for the architectural redesign and orientation of 2510 W. Coast Highway to resemble Lido House and Lido Marina Village. The developer’s attorney said the changes were made in response to the Council and community comments made at the April 27, 2021, City Council Review Session.

The redesign of the project blends into the expected Mariners’ Mile village atmosphere, but many important concerns remain unanswered. However, despite the important remaining unresolved questions concerning high density, traffic and views, the Council approved the project as presented. 

The project is at cross purposes with Newport Beach’s quality of life by overriding scenic corridor, safety, noise, pollution, and Coastal Commission mandates and the Green Light Initiative. Many of us feel that this decision was wrong and sets a bad precedent for the future of Newport Beach.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of the area knows that there are valid significant concerns about increased traffic resulting from the addition of 36 residential dwelling units and a 5,096-square-foot office in a space bounded by high traffic and limited access to Pacific Coast Highway and the stunted and awkward Avon Street that was never designed for the type of traffic congestion and street parking problems that will inevitably follow from this development. The lion’s share of the resulting traffic will be shunted directly to the adjacent 100 percent family residential area. 

This development cries out for the need of a formal traffic study. To do otherwise is irresponsible and thus the City Council’s decision should be revisited.

The Path Forward 

The exchange of ideas and conversations during the July 27th City Council Session (excerpted below) shows a clear path forward. The public discussion between City Council members and the City Planning Department outlined ideas about the time and effort that would be required to develop a community consensus on a Master Plan for Mariners’ Mile.

Mayor Brad Avery asked James Campbell, Director, Community Development: “To enable us to look at the whole thing, the whole project now, the whole site, if you will of all the Moshayedis’ properties, what latitude do we have to go in to create a village with less density, less height and all the rest of it?”

James Campbell’s response: “What would have to happen there, we would have the community come together and develop a different vision for Mariners’ Mile and then start the process to update the General Plan and then the zoning that would follow. The City has always moved forward with projects consistent with the General Plan. We have never stopped the process of a project consistent with the General Plan. If the community wants to change the vision clearly (they need to use) the amendment process.”

Councilmember Joy Brenner asked James Campbell: “Can the City require the Mariners’ Mile Master Plan be in place before further development occurs there?”

James Campbell’s response: “I think it would involve developing that plan and approving that plan and then holding all development proposals at bay while that process goes forward. That would likely involve some sort of moratorium. I suppose the Council could consider that, but previous councils have not considered any type of moratorium when we’ve been doing significant master plan development.”

Joy Brenner: “How long will it take to get a master plan approved for Mariners’ Mile?”

James Campbell: “That is hard to say. I would likely envision needing at least a year to come up with something like that. Several years ago, the city did endeavor to put forward what we call the Revitalization Plan. Some preliminary work has been done. That project was tabled. It was not adopted by the City Council at that time. We can use that as a starting point for going forward.”

Councilmember Diane Dixon: “I am disappointed and sorry to hear that there has been only one community meeting in February. We as a community have a very informed and active community of interested parties whatever the issue. I think one meeting with the community is really not enough. Our residents deserve and demand more. The outcomes can still be a positive outcome for all concerned. I think it tarnishes this whole process, there was not enough community involvement and that disappoints me.”

These and similar exchanges indicate an emerging consensus of next steps that should be taken:

1. All property development proposals in this corridor should be considered in light of a logical strategy for development, including road safety, road widening and other infrastructure projects.

2. City Council should require a traffic and safety study of the area at Tustin Ave., Avon, Riverside, W. Coast Highway and the surrounding neighborhoods.

3. City Planning Department should immediately develop a comprehensive master plan for Mariners’ Mile “Village.” 

4. City Planning Department should form a Mariners’ Mile Steering Committee composed of stakeholders to responsibly plan the future of Mariners’ Mile as a Newport style “Village” – e.g., CalTrans, property owners, local merchants and residents.

5. Community Outreach Workshops should be offered for future development proposals along Mariners’ Mile. Each community outreach workshop should include the criteria used and underlying details showing compliance with governing laws and regulations in support of the City Staff’s findings and recommendations.

6. In cases of a single developer planning the development of multiple parcels in a single area (as in the present case), an analysis of the total land use and scope of all proposed development projects should be considered in total. This would show how the whole project fits together – identifying benefits and potential adverse impacts upon the community’s ecosystem, including quality of life, health, safety and cost of city services, especially police and fire.

Now is the time for the City Council, the Planning Department, the developer and community stakeholders to work together to assure the above steps are started immediately.

Patrick Gormley

Newport Beach

As numbers increase, masks appear to be the answer 

The big press had some somewhat definitive news for Los Angeles and Orange County yesterday (Aug. 12). The good news is that both Los Angeles and Orange County have similar vaccination rates, with Orange County’s being slightly higher (64.2 to 63.1 percent) and while they are not stellar, they are moving in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the other telling statistic is the test positivity rate, and that shows LA County’s going down impressively to 4.4 percent while Orange County’s is rising to 8.9 percent.

Although these statistics are for the neediest areas of the county, professionals anticipate that the positivity rate will rise in every ZIP code in Orange County. And usually, more positivity means more community spread. The Orange County deputy health officer said improvements are particularly needed in San Clemente, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. Officials are also concerned about the trajectory of COVID-19 hospitalizations in Orange County, California’s third most populous county, where 90 percent of COVID-19 hospital patients are not vaccinated.

I have been complaining about Orange County’s, particularly the coastal cities’, resistance to mask wearing now for well over a year. Limited mask wearing as well as vaccination hesitancy are responsible for the comparatively disappointing test positivity rate for the county.

In Los Angeles, the lowered test positivity rate is the direct result of the Los Angeles County health officials’ requirement for masks in indoor public settings. Los Angeles is one of the few counties in Southern California to do this. If Orange County were to follow suit, the rate would go down here as well.
       Recently one of my cousins used the “Patrick Henry response” on one of my Facebook posts where I talked about the importance of mask wearing. The problem with his “give me liberty or give me death” response to donning masks, is that he might be taking some other innocent victims down with him.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

It’s time for City Council to step up

This last Tuesday the City Council approved the 2510 West Coast Highway project in the Mariners’ Mile area. The project has 36 apartments, three of which are affordable and 33 which are market rate. The City of Newport Beach has a state-mandated requirement to plan for 1,918 additional low and very low-income apartments during the next housing cycle. You’ve probably heard it referred to as RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation). A housing cycle is eight years. The 1,918 number does not include a few projects that are in the pipeline or are already planned from the last housing cycle.   

We can lop off 1,000 units if we can develop 1,000 new Accessory Dwelling Units (granny flats), either by homeowners building new ones or by bringing some of the hundreds we have existing in the City into compliance with current building codes. 

That leaves 918 low and very low-income apartments needed to meet our RHNA allocation. Any sixth grader can do the math, 918 units minus three units in the 2510 West Coast Highway project, leaves 915 units. Meanwhile, we have added another 33 market rate units to get the three affordable units.    

The formula that is used for the Housing Element gets complicated. There are Density Bonuses that developers get based on a sliding scale, so the more affordable units they include in their projects, the more units they can build at market rate, but in the simplest terms, we need to add 10,000+ apartments. By the way, for context, we currently have about 45,000 residential units in Newport Beach. That’s nearly impossible to imagine! 

The State does allow cities to have an “Inclusionary Ordinance.” Many cities around us have them. An Inclusionary Ordinance requires a developer to include a certain percentage of affordable units in their project. This is less profitable than including 5 percent or 10 percent but is still common. For example, a 30 percent Inclusionary Ordinance would mean that in a project with 100 apartments, a developer would be required to include 30 affordable units and 70 units would be allowed at market rate. The rent charged for the market rate apartments helps to offset the loss that the developer has on the reduced rate affordable units. 

I think everyone can see that we need to have some amount of affordable housing in our city for our seniors, or our young adult children, as well as our restaurant, hospitality and health care workers who are not yet able to afford housing in our city. It is to our benefit to let these folks live near the places they work. 

But that’s not my point. My point is, that the City Council could develop and approve an Inclusionary Ordinance in pretty short order, maybe within a few months. Instead, they spent a lot of time in the City Council meeting this week, saying that they were helpless and blaming it on the State for the new housing laws that tied their hands. It is true that there are a lot of recent housing laws that restrict or remove a City’s right to control its zoning. However, given that there is SOMETHING, ANYTHING, that they can do to help reduce the overall massive numbers of residential units that are required to comply with our RHNA allocation, you would think that they would get to work on an Inclusionary Ordinance immediately. Instead, the Council majority has kicked the can down the road for a year. I think it’s time they get to work on this instead of muttering about being handcuffed and helpless. 

Nancy Scarbrough

Newport Beach 

Speed bumps are the answer

Congratulations to city officials for finally addressing the issue of speeding cars in the Baycrest neighborhood. Speed bumps have been placed in three areas of the neighborhood. On my morning dog walk I cross Santiago Drive and Tradewinds on my way to the Back Bay entrance. In the past it was usual to see cars exceeding 45 miles per hour in a 25-mph zone…I can attest that this no longer occurs. The speed bumps are to be commended. 

Now let’s get more in place. 

Jim Padden

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Newport Beach residents should be extremely concerned about State Senate bills that will alter our neighborhoods

State legislators are attempting to address housing shortfalls by introducing bills that usurp local decision-making authority and that could be very detrimental to communities. 

Senate Bills SB 9 and SB 10 have passed the California State Senate and will be heard in the Assembly as early as next week. These bills will mean the end of single-family zoned neighborhoods throughout California. They permit developers and real estate investors to build (with ADUs) six units of market-rate housing (SB 9) or 14 units (SB 10), and no affordable housing is required. 

Taxpayers will bear the costs of increased demand on schools, parks, water, sewers, power grids and public safety personnel.

SB 9 is mandatory, so unless you act NOW, you will lose your right to object to the structure being built next door to you, after SB 9 is passed.

I urge you to read these state bills ASAP and if you don’t want them to pass, please contact your state assembly representative and your local council members NOW.

California Cities for Local Control, a grassroots organization, believes that bringing like-minded elected officials together around a common mission establishes a strong unified statement to our state legislators and all those involved in state bill making process. More information is available at the website

City Councilmember Joy Brenner is recommending two sites for more information, and

I personally don’t want other state representatives, that don’t live here, making decisions that tie the hands of our local city council members.

Beverley “BJ” Johnson

Corona del Mar

A thank you for protecting our streets

I want to thank the city and Newport Beach Police Department for their program to stop the street racing and loud cars with modified exhaust systems. Newport Coast Drive and San Joaquin Hills Road have become the racetrack of choice for these knuckleheads. They belong at the Auto Club Speedway in Fontana, not on our city streets.

Dave Ellis

Newport Coast

Mandates are the call needed now for new COVID strain

Children are increasingly getting infected by COVID, the highly infectious Delta strain. CHOC confirmed 219 positive coronavirus tests compared to 48 in June. 44 children with COVID were hospitalized during those two months.

Mandates will prevent this. Once again, the concern for whether to re-open schools will be a big issue because children under 12 cannot be vaccinated and the Delta strain is much more infectious than the strain last year. Mandates will prevent this.
      Evidence has shown that unvaccinated people are the most likely not to wear a mask and social distance. Mandates will prevent this. COVID-infected patients are taking up much hospital space and equipment that should be available to patients with other grave health issues. Important surgeries are being delayed.

Opening and closing businesses takes a huge toll on the economy. Mandates will prevent these practices from occurring.

The number of cases of coronavirus has been increasing rapidly since July because of the strength of the Delta strain. Mandates will prevent more deaths and protect the economy.

While indoor masking and quarantine and isolation of cases and close contacts are effective strategies for reducing transmission, the quickest way to slow the spread is to increase vaccination coverage. For children this is not immediately possible, meaning that masks and the other strategies must protect them. The majority of adults in Newport Beach have chosen vaccinations.

Vaccinations of adults is the mandate of choice and should eventually eliminate the need for masking in schools and elsewhere, but time is of the essence.

Lynn Lorenz

Newport Beach

Letters to the Editor

Coalition to Protect Mariner’s Mile is pro-development, we just want the right projects

The Coalition to Protect Mariner’s Mile is “pro-development” and continues to support projects that are compatible with the abutting communities of Newport Heights, Bayshores, Cliff Haven and Lido Isle. We envision transforming Mariner’s Mile into a thriving economically productive destination where residents and visitors can work, play, dine and shop in a relaxing and friendly environment. 

The health, safety, welfare and livability of the community are the primary importance to the residents of Newport Beach. We envision a “walkable” family-friendly corridor that serves a purpose for everyone. We believe that we are better off if our decisions about our future revolve not around the car, but around the human being.

We will continue to promote slowing traffic, enhancing safety, widening sidewalks and bike lanes, while implementing a variety of changes that encourage pedestrian activity with the overall connectivity of future developments along Mariner’s Mile. 

The 2510 W. Pacific Coast Highway Project that was originally presented to the City Council would take advantage of the State’s density bonus laws, while forfeiting the foundation of the City’s 2006 General Plan and Newport’s current municipal codes. 

Both Mr. Bob Olson (Lido House) and Mr. Rick Caruso (Palisades Village), have been able to create a vision and deliver a quality product, and we believe development along Mariner’s Mile can follow suit.

Our guiding principle continues to be to Enhance Our Community’s Quality of Life and Do No Harm. The 2510 W. PCH Project, in its current state, unfortunately creates more harm than good. 

The City Council hearing for this project is currently scheduled for July 27 at the City Hall. We encourage ALL concerned residents to come and let your voices be heard.

Sue Leal

Newport Heights

Buck Johns’ demands could lead to OC Grand Jury actions

Thank you for Sara Hall’s comprehensive article about Buck Johns’ continuing quest to buy and control park land in the Back Bay.

Your readers might be interested to know that the narrative that the land was taken from Mr. Johns by eminent domain is completely fictional. The land in question was sold to the Irvine Company prior to Mr. Johns’ purchase of the adjacent property in 1977 and was subsequently donated to the county as a park in a so-called “irrevocable dedication” in 1990.

There is a fence encircling the property that completely closes out public use of the land and Mr. Johns is fighting hard to keep this illegal fence in place to maintain control of the land. The letter from his lawyer demanding this right is legally ridiculous but gave the county an opportunity to grant a politically influential Republican his wish. 

This is special privilege, otherwise known as political corruption, at its most flagrant. None of us would be given the opportunity to purchase 1/3 acre of bay view property for $13,000. No one without insider connections would be allowed to fence in county land for their private use.   

I will be submitting a complaint about this whole sordid episode to the OC Grand Jury in the hope that an ethical higher authority can right this wrong and I sincerely hope that county officials will be held responsible for their actions.

Susan Skinner MD

Newport Beach

City needs to work together to find common consensus on 2510 W. Coast Highway

The future of Mariner’s Mile will be determined within the framework of the interaction of the impossible State affordable housing requirements (between) the developers, City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, Caltrans, business and property owners, local merchants and residents. 

Our community is stronger together, especially when stakeholders, developers and the City work together to support each other based upon a common consensus, understanding and purpose.

Working separately and apart, the result will be high-density development along a high-speed crosstown freeway that nobody truly wants. Community stakeholders are asking the City to lay out all the Mariner’s Mile proposed infrastructure and pending development projects together so we can study and understand how everything ties together. 

As elected representatives, the City Council has the responsibility to independently assess the facts before significant investments are made by developers, the City and the Newport Beach community.

The City Council and City Attorney must push back on all development projects using Affordable Housing Laws that are inconsistent with both the City of Newport Beach’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the specific application is deemed complete.

On April 30, 2021, I sent the enclosed email to the City Council in the hope the Council would act to facilitate a win-win environment and outcome where the City, developer and community stakeholders work together with the common purpose to enhance our community’s quality of life, safety, health and welfare. 

During this City Council hearing, the Coalition to Protect Mariner’s Mile asked the City Council to sponsor a community outreach workshop to build a community-wide consensus prior to any decision on 2510 West Coast Highway. The purpose of the workshop would be for the City to explain land use controls, staff’s findings and recommendations, and to answer questions from the public.

The presentation must include (1) the detail bases of the City’s determination and justification for the project’s Coastal Development Permit, and (2) the details of any finding that supports a recommendation to approve where the development project is inconsistent with both the City of Newport Beach’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation, as specified in any element of the general plan as it existed on the date the specific application is deemed complete.

An unusually large number of correspondence (was) sent to the City Council prior to the April 27th City Council review and the presentations by community stakeholders during the hearing were overwhelmingly against the proposed 2510 West Coast Highway Development Project’s high density, enormous, oversized structure for the lot, and the incompatibility of the design and configuration. At the meeting, other than the developer’s team, not a single comment was in favor of the proposed development.

Unfortunately, since April 27th not a single step has been taken to build a community consensus. While the developer has redesigned the outward appearance of the building, the essential character, size and high density of the project with its potential adverse impact upon the surrounding communities remain. 

To illustrate, community issues and concerns yet to be addressed:

–Scenic corridor views along Mariner’s Mile cannot be taken for granted. At the hearing the community asked for story poles to be erected for all to assess whether the project will forever block resident and tourist scenic coastal corridor views from parks and the Newport Bay. 

–An indispensable general plan goal is to enhance vitality for residents and visitors, yet traffic conflicts among vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians continue to plague traveling conditions along the Mariner’s Mile portion of Orange County’s Pacific Coast Highway according to a published transportation study. Serious life-threatening and life-ending accidents on West Coast Highway along Mariner’s Mile are increasing and effective traffic calming measures are required. 

–A traffic safety and circulation analysis of the impact of the project upon the surrounding communities of Newport Heights, Cliff Haven, Bayshores and Lido Island that includes safeguards for children traveling on bicycles to various activities such as schools, junior lifeguards and sea scouts.

2510 West Coast Highway sets a precedent for the design, character, size and density of future projects being proposed along Mariner’s Mile. Until material facts are disclosed to community stakeholders in a City Council-sponsored community outreach workshop that includes the criteria used and underlying details showing compliance with governing laws and regulations in support of the City staff’s findings and recommendations, the City Council cannot make an informed decision whether to approve or disapprove the project.

Patrick Gormley 

Newport Beach

Letter to the Editor

Board of Supervisors accused of Brown Act violations regarding Buck Johns’ property discussion

(The following letter was sent to Orange County Board of Supervisor Chairman Andrew Do and the other members of the Board of Supervisors. The letter is in reference to County property that abuts Buck Johns’ property in the Upper Back Bay.)

This letter is to call your attention to multiple Brown Act violations that occurred during the Orange County Board of Supervisors’ meeting on July 13, 2021.

It appears that during this meeting, the Board voted on action regarding pending litigation threatened by Mr. Buck Johns regarding parcel APN 439-051-14. Mr. Johns’ attorney had demanded that the illegal fence he had erected surrounding this public property be allowed to stay or he would initiate litigation. In a letter addressed to Mr. Johns on July 14, 2021, OC Chief Real Estate Officer Thomas Miller states that “county staff has had the opportunity to discuss the Subject Property with the Board of Supervisors and has received direction with regard to this matter.” Since this is a decision by the Board of Supervisors, one must conclude that this was discussed during the July 13, 2021, board meeting, although nothing is stated regarding this on the agenda.

Working on the assumption that this was discussed by the Board (since making a decision that is NOT discussed at a Board meeting is a major violation of the Brown Act), the only item on the agenda that might refer to this is item SCS6, “CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION - SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2). Number of Cases: One Case.” County Counsel may have mistakenly assumed that notice, which provides no indication of what anticipated litigation might be discussed, complied with the “safe harbor” provisions of Govt Code Sec. 54954.5(c). It does not.

Assuming that this was regarding the Buck Johns threat of litigation, the correct code would have been Govt Code section 54956.9(d)(2)(e)(5). As Govt Code Sec. 54954.5(c) explains, the safe harbor description in that case requires additional information, and as the California Court of Appeals has recently decided, it requires the letter threatening litigation to be included in the agenda packet posted for public review. 

Govt Code section 54956.9(e)(5) describes a subclass of anticipated litigation defined in pertinent part as:

“(5) A statement threatening litigation made by a person outside an open and public meeting on a specific matter within the responsibility of the legislative body so long as the official or employee of the local agency receiving knowledge of the threat makes a contemporaneous or other record of the statement prior to the meeting, which record shall be available for public inspection pursuant to Section 54957.5.” [emphasis added]

I also refer the county to Fowler v. City of Lafayette, 46 Cal. App. 5th 360, which includes an extensive discussion of closed sessions addressing threatened litigation. According to Fowler v. City of Lafayette: 

“On its face, section 54956.9, subdivision (e)(2) appears to apply to events that might themselves give rise to litigation, such as “an accident” or “disaster,” or a “transactional occurrence that might result in litigation.” But even assuming this language could be stretched to include a threat of litigation based on a pending application, we must bear in mind the well-established rule of statutory construction that “‘“[a] specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern in respect to that subject, as against a general provision, although the latter, standing alone, would be broad enough to include the subject to which the more particular provision relates.”’”(Miller v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 883, 895 [89 Cal.Rptr.2d 834, 986 P.2d 170]; accord, Elliott v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 355, 365 [105 Cal.Rptr.3d 760].) Subdivision (e)(5) of section 54956.9 specifically addresses a public agency’s obligations when a person has threatened litigation outside a public meeting.”

In other words, the general provision cannot be used if a more specific code provision exists. Clearly, the correct code section is (e)(5), but this is not what was used for the closed session. Fowler v. City of Lafayette also goes on to address the need to make the record of the statement threatening litigation available for public inspection. The court found [emphasis added]: 

“Where litigation has been threatened outside a public meeting, it may be discussed in closed session under section 54956.9, subdivision (e)(5) only if a record of the threat is made before the meeting, which record must be made available for public inspection pursuant to section 54957.5. (§ 54956.9, subd. (e)(5).) The clear import of section 54957.5 is that agendas and other writings that the legislative body receives in connection with a meeting should be available to the public upon request. Mostly, these are documents relating to agenda items for the open session of the meeting (e.g., § 54957.5, subd. (b)(1)), but section 54956.9, subdivision (e)(5) requires the same for documented threats associated with an agenda item for the closed session as well. The only reasonable inference is that a record of a litigation threat to be discussed in closed session must be included in the agenda packet made available upon request before a meeting. (See Citizens for a Green San Mateo v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1572, 1596 & fn. 5[173 Cal.Rptr.3d 47] [ § 54957.5 requires agenda packet to be made available to the public].)’

“We reiterate that the Brown Act is intended to “facilitate public participation in all phases of local government decision making” (Golightly v. Molina, supra. 229 Cal.App.4th at p. 1511), and that we must construe it liberally to accomplish its purpose (Olson. Supra. 33 Cal.App.5th at p. 525). Members of the public are entitled to rely on the agenda and packet made available upon request (see § 54957.5, subd. (a))”

The Board of Supervisors’ agenda packet for July 13, 2021, failed to provide the public with a copy of the letter threatening litigation that was be discussed in closed session, in violation of the Brown Act as construed by the California Court of Appeals in the Fowler decision, let alone disclose that a specific letter had even been received. The failure to provide proper notice in advance of a regularly scheduled meeting is a violation of Govt Code Sec. 54954.2.

The failure to provide any of the additional information required in this instance by Sec. 54954.5 prevents the County from claiming “substantial compliance” with the “safe harbor” noticing option. 

Additionally, the Board is required to report the results of any vote or decision, including who voted for and against the decision. This did not occur, another violation of the Brown Act, in this case Sec. 54953(c). 

Through these failures, the County deprived the public of its California Constitutional right (Article I, Sec. 3) to present views to the Board that may differ from those of the County Counsel with whom the Board was about to meet in private.

That seems particularly important in this case, since at a previous meeting the Board was presented with 1,321 signed paper petitions requesting Mr. Johns’ private fence be removed from public park land. The failure to properly agendize the Board’s discussion of the letter from Mr. Johns’ attorney denied those petitioners their opportunity to respond to the letter prior to the Board making a decision about it. 

It should be noted that a letter from one of us (Susan Skinner) regarding the threatened litigation was emailed to the Clerk of the Board, County Counsel and individual supervisors two days prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. This letter should have been included in the comments regarding this item but was not. Had the item been noticed properly, the letter would have been specifically identified as being associated with that agenda item and thus included in the board packet. Since the letter contained a rebuttal to Mr. Johns’ legally ridiculous arguments, the outcome of the subsequent vote might have been different had this letter been included in the board deliberations.

Not only was the public denied their chance to comment, but the absence of a proper announcement deprived the press of an opportunity to properly cover an evolving story. Paragraph 11 of a July 23, 2021, article by Stu News reporter Sara Hall recounts this frustration:

“An added closed session item on the board’s Tuesday agenda noted a conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated or significant exposure to litigation, but the county representatives did not disclose any information on whether the matter could possibly be related to the Upper Newport Bay property. Stu News Newport could not confirm what the anticipated litigation was related to prior to publication.” 

Note that ten days after the closed session the press could not verify if the “direction” from the Board referred to in Mr. Miller’s July 14 letter was given at the July 13 closed session, let alone which Supervisors voted for or against giving him the direction he describes.

This is not the open government contemplated by the Brown Act and the California Constitution.

I therefore request that this action be considered void and this agenda item be reconsidered using the correct Govt Code subsections, that the letter threatening litigation be included in the agenda, that a safe harbor description of the item be included in the agenda and that a full report out of any vote taken occur at the end of the closed session. 

As provided by Govt Code section 54960.1, you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to cure and correct the challenged action or inform me of your decision not to do so. 

I will add that this entire episode reeks of special privilege, which is another way of saying political corruption. I will be submitting a complaint about this issue to the Orange County Grand Jury and advise County Counsel to retain records regarding the potential sale to Mr. Johns and subsequent county actions. 

Susan Skinner MD

Newport Beach

Jim Mosher

Newport Beach

CC:  Leon Page, County Council

Guest Letter

Robert T. Braithwaite

President & CEO


Philip A. Robinson, MD, FIDSA

Medical Director of Infection Prevention

Principal Investigator of Infectious Disease Research


Community needs to remain vigilant against new spread of COVID-19

Guest Letter Robert Braithwaite Guest Letter Robinson

Click on photos for larger images

Photos courtesy of Hoag Hospital

(L-R) Robert Braithwaite, Hoag president and CEO and Philip Robinson, MD, FIDSA

Dear Neighbors,

As we continue to enjoy the reopening of businesses and the reunions of friends and families, we want to remind you of the importance of remaining vigilant against the spread of COVID-19. If you have not yet received your COVID-19 vaccine, please do not wait any longer.

After a promising downward trend in cases, the highly transmissible Delta variant is clearly gaining a foothold in our community. The California Department of Public Health found that the variant accounted for 36 percent of COVID cases in June, up from less than 6 percent in May. 

Nationally, Delta is now the predominant strain of COVID-19, and hospital cases – both locally and statewide – are ticking back up again. This is not the trend we want to see, and it is up to all of us to prevent a resurgence. 

The most important thing you can do to protect yourself, your family and your community from this highly contagious strain of COVID-19 is to get vaccinated. Almost all the hospitalized cases that we are seeing at Hoag involve patients who did not receive the vaccine. This includes pregnant women, whose COVID illness complicated the course of their pregnancies and their deliveries, and otherwise healthy individuals who have had to cancel summer travel plans and long-awaited wedding celebrations due to an unexpected hospitalization. 

COVID-19 vaccines are readily available at pharmacies, urgent care clinics and doctors’ offices throughout the community. Appointments can be scheduled at two convenient Hoag locations in Newport Beach and Irvine, and no appointments are needed to be vaccinated at our community clinics at the Irvine Spectrum Center and the Hoag Fly Well Clinic at John Wayne Airport. Learn more by visiting

Being vaccinated not only protects you and those around you, but it also helps limit the virus’s reach in our community, which reduces the chances that new variants will emerge. Misconceptions seem to be as difficult to root out as the disease itself. To lay a few myths to rest, please know:

–Healthy young people can and do get severely ill from COVID-19 and would benefit from the vaccine. Everyone 12 years of age and older is eligible to be vaccinated.

–There is no evidence that any vaccines including COVID-19 cause infertility.

–The vaccine does not alter a person’s DNA or leave lasting traces of the virus’s DNA in a person’s body.

–The vaccine does not give you COVID-19.

Other ways you can help prevent a resurgence of COVID-19 and other viruses are to stay home and away from others if you are feeling sick and to continue to practice good hand hygiene. Resuming your regular medical check-ups, treating chronic conditions and staying on top of your other vaccines are important ways to maintain your overall health, and we want to remind you that Hoag is here for you.

Thank you for your continued support and trust in us. We believe that the worst is behind us, but we ask that you remain vigilant – and get vaccinated – to protect your health and the health of all those around you.


Robert T. Braithwaite

President & Chief Executive Officer

Philip A. Robinson, MD, FIDSA

Medical Director of Infection Prevention

Principal Investigator of Infectious Disease Research

Letters to the Editor

Novice boaters ruining the harbor

Please, City of NB, get on the job! In a continuing drift that started a few years ago when the city replaced the Sheriff’s Department, conditions on the bay are worsening. Amidst the boaters ignoring “no wake” zones there are fallen SUPers, numerous and dangerous violations of navigation rules, abrasive arguments between seasoned sailors and the newly entitled, and all too often the distinctive waft of weed coinciding with idiocy at the helm. 

Making matters worse are the Harbor Patrol boats racing through the bay to imagined emergencies. Yes, I’ve watched through binoculars as the speeding sirens make their strategic turns around corners and suddenly, huh, nothing to see here folks, move along. 

Property damage to docks and boats and shoreline from wake turbulence is at an all-time high. Just try to get Swift Slip to do a repair, they’re three months out if they even answer your call. 

Multiple calls and photos to the City of NB, Harbor Patrol, and/or lifeguards are met with indifference. The Sheriff rightly says it’s not their jurisdiction anymore. I’ve lived my life on the bay, and this is not a typical seasonal trend, it’s a gathering storm. 

Please, City of NB, bring back the bay.

Matt Clabaugh

Newport Beach

The “other side” of the undergrounding story that’s “not being told”

An archaic 1913 Municipal Act, meant as a vehicle for beneficial community development in the pre-World War One era has silently morphed into a stealth, “under the radar” strategy to levy tens of millions of dollars in property taxes without the normal rigid safeguards and procedures for voter approval. 

The City of Newport Beach has mastered the use of this Municipal Act specifically to underground utilities over the past 20+ years. The strategy is to divvy up each project as a small Assessment District affecting several hundred property owners at a time without attracting too much unwanted attention. To date, per the data available on the City’s website, it has been accomplished over 60 times. Due to its impact on a small number of properties at any one time, it gets scant attention from the public at large and protests by the scattered opposition are ignored by the City or drowned out in the cacophony of absurdities spouted on Nextdoor.

One such project, Assessment District 124, is scheduled for a so-called vote on July 27. Unlike the others, this is an unusually large $32,815,700 project affecting 966 properties on Balboa Island. The average cost (a property tax euphemistically called an assessment) amounts to a staggering $34,000 per parcel, if paid as a lump sum. However, if paid over 20 years the total payment could be as high as $54,000 depending on the bond interest rate in 2023 or 2024, a fact that is cleverly hidden in the fine print. 

Now to the upcoming so-called vote on July 27: the ballots, mailed out around June 10, are 100 percent by mail; the ballot roster, of questionable accuracy, is managed by a contractor hired by the City who may have follow-up contracts awarded, if AD124 is approved. The City does not seem to recognize a conflict of interest here. Four weeks after the mailing, by happenstance or by design, a significant number of voters have not yet received their ballots and may not even be aware of the huge tax assessment about to befall them. This has been a recurring pattern on past such ballots – as little as 70 percent voter participation in many cases – leading to passage with way less than 50 percent of affected property owners approving. 

Furthermore, the City has no methodology for checking signatures on the mail-in ballots, relying solely on the penalty of perjury. The vote, by design and I am told by statute, is a matter of public record subjecting participants to intimidation and peer pressure.

The City has provided several informational attachments along with the ballots. Missing in the attachments are the customary pleadings, for and against the initiative from each of the two camps, so that the voters can make an informed choice. No opposing view has been provided with the ballots. 

There have been no hearings or informational meetings held by the City on this huge four-years-long project. We have been told by the City that this obvious lack of transparency and ballot integrity is sanctioned by the archaic Municipal Act of 1913. But the City continues to present itself as an independent, honest arbiter in an unpleasant feud of its own making, between dueling neighbors.

It is high time for the City to step in and protect the residents. But will it do so? Highly unlikely given the creative approach (having property owners seemingly opt into higher taxes voluntarily) provides them with a convenient and healthy subsidy to what are in essence city and utility infrastructure projects.

Jamshed Dastur

Balboa Island

Letters to the Editor

The passing of UCLA’s Terry Donahue

As a proud USC graduate, it was beyond excruciating watching the Bruins beat the Trojans five times under Terry Donahue. Despite the cross-town rivalry, I have to say he really was a terrific coach. Here’s an 8-clap salute to UCLA’s former coach.

Denny Freidenrich

Laguna Beach 

With no Ham radio communication connection, is the City prepared to handle a major disaster?

Stu News Newport received the letter below from a member of the Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service program, who wished to remain anonymous, while questioning the City’s decisions relating to potential disaster communication.

We forwarded those concerns on to the City and provide their response further below.

I am hoping you can let the public know that the Newport Beach Police Department canceled its Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) program in May 2021. The NB Fire Department canceled its CERT Comm emergency communicators program in 2017.

This leaves the City of NB with no official Ham radio communications within the city, or to surrounding cities for Mutual Aid in the case of a major disaster.

The City had spent a great deal of money on repeaters, as well as antennas on the NBPD HQ and antennas on the City Hall, which connect to the new and expensive Emergency Operations Center in the basement. 

The response we have gotten is that the City prefers to use a new internet-based emergency comms system, which will be useless if the internet goes down as it did on 9/11. We are not sure how much this new system cost, or why it was installed in the first place since Ham radio is the “gold standard” in emergencies.

Taxpayers paid for the repeaters, the antennas and the new EOC, and yet, we do not have use of any of it. Worse yet, the residents and visitors of Newport Beach are exposed to the danger of not being able to communicate with each other or with first responders since the repeaters were turned off! 

Can you please shed the light of public awareness on this bad decision, and help us to get these two groups restored so that residents and visitors can once again be safe? 

RACES member & concerned resident 

Newport Beach

Technological advances in communication systems no longer justify old system 

As COVID-19 restrictions were being lifted at the beginning of the year, which would allow the Newport Beach Police Department to invite back volunteers to our various programs, we did a needs assessment. On March 19, 2021, the Newport Beach Police Department officially ended their RACES (Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Services) Program. Prior to sending out our formal notice, the lieutenant managing the program personally contacted and thanked each RA