Letters to the Editor
2026 – Not the year for Tim Stoaks
In 2018, many residents supported Tim Stoaks for City Council. We are NOT supporting him in this year’s election.
Earlier this year, in March, community leaders interviewed both Stoaks and Walter Stahr. At that time, those participating in the process understood Stoaks to have committed to endorse and support whoever the committee recommended as the preferred candidate. The committee asked pointed questions of both candidates. After careful consideration, it unanimously determined that Walter Stahr was a significantly stronger candidate with a better grasp of the issues and a stronger commitment to making Newport Beach a better city.
So, it came as quite a surprise to both the committee and many residents when, a few days later, Stoaks indicated he would be a candidate. We were astounded at his abrupt about-face and we found his decision deeply disappointing.
In Stoaks’ campaign, he features pictures of himself with prominent Newport residents, which, in our view, can create the impression that they support his candidacy this year. Many of those pictured are deceased and therefore could not have endorsed him in the 2026 election.
Despite being asked by surviving family members of some of these community leaders to stop using their names and images in this way, Stoaks continued to use them. We find that deeply troubling.
Tammy Watt, daughter of Jean Watt, has this to say about it: “Tim Stoaks continues to use the name and image of my late mother Jean Watt, in his campaign this year. It is true that they worked together on the animal shelter but that was a long time ago. He resigned from the board in 2020 and has had no role since then. I am supporting Walter Stahr this year and find it incredibly misleading and disrespectful for Tim to continue to rely on my late mother’s name and reputation.”
Tim also used a picture of himself with Barbara Venezia, who is very much alive. She said: “I have nothing to do with Stoaks. I did not authorize him to use my picture and I do not support his campaign.”
Stoaks has said that he is not raising money. In our view, these actions raise serious questions about his candidacy. Community leaders and residents have repeatedly asked him to redirect his efforts and lend his support to Walter Stahr, showing collaboration in the fight for our much-needed new city leadership. Based on his actions, we question what purpose his candidacy serves.
Other examples of what we consider imprudent positions include Stoaks’ proposal to annex land near the Santa Ana Country Club, with Newport Beach then purchasing the property through eminent domain, using it to develop housing. In our view, such a proposal could carry enormous costs, invite significant litigation and raise serious property-rights concerns. This is not, in our opinion, a prudent, serious plan.
Similarly, his plan to eliminate tolls on two exits of the 73 Toll Road could require the city to address the resulting lost toll revenue and associated bond obligations. We believe that proposal also raises significant financial concerns.
The upcoming fall election is critically important to the future of our city. In our view, Tim Stoaks is NOT a serious candidate for the city or its constituents. We encourage you NOT to waste your vote on Tim Stoaks.
Denys H. Oberman
Newport Beach
Letters to the Editor
Council needs changing
We need to remove five councilmembers: Kleiman, Blom, Weber, Weigand and Stapleton. They can’t seem to think independently and are poor representatives of our city.
Why don’t they all move instead of ruining Newport?
Several of them have ties to the Newport Beach Foundation, which seems like a breeding ground for celebrity wannabes, not intelligent leaders. This is not their kind of town.
Patricia Dreyfus
Newport Beach
Undermining our democracy
I would like to address the City Council’s actions that I believe have undermined democracy in our city.
For those who have not been following this debacle, California law establishes a process through which residents can propose a municipal initiative, publish the required notice and gather signatures in an effort to qualify the measure for an election. This is often done when residents feel that their elected representatives have stopped listening to them. There is a requirement to publish the notice, title and summary in an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation. In this case, the proponents published in the OC Reporter, and the Superior Court subsequently ruled that they had substantially complied with the publication requirements.
The OC Reporter is an adjudicated newspaper of general circulation. The city challenged the publication of the initiative notices there rather than in the Daily Pilot, among other issues raised in the litigation. In my view, that challenge unnecessarily interfered with the initiative process.
The proponents prevailed in court on significant issues. The Superior Court ruled that the proponents had substantially complied with the publication requirements. In a later ruling, the court found that the council had “abused its discretion” by setting the election for 2028 and ordered the three measures placed before voters on November 3, 2026. In an earlier order, the court said the city’s actions “could lead to a finding of obstructionism.” The city continues to challenge the rulings through the appellate process.
Make no mistake, I believe the effect of these actions has been to undermine the initiative process. When a group of elected councilmembers continues challenging adverse court rulings, I believe residents should pay attention.
What else might they unilaterally decide?
Perhaps locating a new police headquarters in Civic Center Park?
I view these initiatives as guardrails on this and future city councils and I sincerely hope they are approved by a landslide.
In the meantime, I’ve had a number of interesting conversations with legal experts about ways to ensure that there are personal consequences for this council’s actions in this matter. I intend to serve an evidence-preservation letter on the city to ensure that relevant records are preserved.
Additionally, I’m preparing a complaint to the State Bar of California regarding Newport Beach City Attorney Aaron Harp’s role in these matters. In my view, his handling of this litigation warrants professional review.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Susan Skinner
Newport Beach
Letters to the Editor
Is curfew for minors really the answer?
I understand why Newport Beach is looking for ways to prevent a repeat of the troubling events of July 4. What happened that day was unacceptable, and the city should absolutely be focused on public safety.
But the proposed 6 p.m. curfew for minors deserves much more scrutiny before it becomes policy.
Is this actually a solution to the problem or a knee-jerk response to one chaotic holiday?
If July 4 is the justification, then let’s look at the data. According to preliminary city booking data, approximately 20% of those arrested over the July 4 holiday weekend were ages 13 to 17.
So what exactly is a 6 p.m. holiday curfew for minors within the designated safety zone intended to accomplish?
It would restrict responsible teenagers within the affected area who have done nothing wrong, including young people who exercise, surf, or simply enjoy our beaches in the evening.
There is an especially important irony the city needs to address: Some of the young people helping keep our beaches safe are themselves minors.
Newport Beach employs lifeguards who are 16 and 17 years old. The ordinance includes an exemption for minors acting within the course and scope of their employment. How will that exemption be implemented in practice for 16- and 17-year-old lifeguards and other working teenagers? How will police distinguish between a teenager who is violating the curfew and one who is traveling to or from work?
And if juveniles accounted for only a minority of the July 4 arrests, why are we subjecting minors within the affected area to an earlier curfew?
There is a better conversation to have. In my view, the council’s 4-3 vote against forming an ad hoc public safety committee was a missed opportunity for further community discussion.
Newport Beach already has a 10 p.m. beach closing time. If nighttime beach activity is genuinely a safety concern, the city should consider a consistent 6 a.m.-to-sunset approach, similar to nearby Crystal Cove, rather than imposing an arbitrary 6 p.m. curfew on minors.
More importantly, the city should focus enforcement where and when the actual problems occur. If large gatherings, illegal fireworks, fights, blocked emergency access and other unlawful behavior are developing in the afternoon, then resources need to be deployed before 6 p.m., not simply impose a curfew and declare the problem solved.
Our young people should not be collectively punished for the actions of a relatively small number of individuals.
Newport Beach can and should take public safety seriously while also treating responsible teenagers with fairness and respect.
Let’s use the lessons of July 4 to develop a data-driven safety strategy, not a symbolic restriction that may do little to address the underlying problem.
Safety should be the priority, not optics! I question whether this curfew will be effective if it simply shifts activity elsewhere rather than addressing the behavior causing the problem. It would be nice if residents would be listened to.
DeAnna Reposa
Corona del Mar
Letters to the Editor
Questions and concerns about the effectiveness of the NBPD Headquarters Advisory Committee
On Wednesday, Sept. 2 at 3 p.m., approximately 30 to 35 Newport Beach residents convened at City Hall, some having left work early, to attend the third meeting of the NBPD Headquarters Advisory Committee. Committee Chair Sara Weber called the meeting to order with the few items on the agenda – approval of the July 21 meeting minutes, public comments, outreach and engagement updates, discussion of the police substation concept and exploration of 12 Corporate Plaza as a possible site option.
Sounds like a substantial meeting, right? The substation discussion started with a simple definition of a substation (small-scale supplementary facility located away from headquarters, not intended to be a full station). Then it was followed up by an overhead slide showing a table listing two pros for a substation, five cons against a substation and a written staff conclusion that the “cons” outweigh the “pros” and recommending that the city not pursue the idea of a substation. Those were the only staff presentation materials regarding the issue.
Next up was the possibility of 12 Corporate Plaza as an option for relocation of NBPD. This option includes three lots and a portion of a fourth lot across from City Hall totaling approximately four acres. According to the presentation, one of the parcels includes a 33,000-sq.-ft. two-story building known as 12 Corporate Plaza and owned by Junkins 12 Corporate Plaza, LLC. The presentation also described common-area parking involving The Irvine Company and indicated that additional parking spaces would need to be accommodated if existing private surface parking were displaced.
Public comments began and resident Walter Stahr asked about conversations with The Irvine Company and whether any entitlement swaps could be considered when discussing this purchase. The three councilmembers on the committee said at the meeting that no recent conversations had occurred with either The Irvine Company or Junkins 12 Corporate Plaza, LLC regarding the possibility of 12 Corporate Plaza as a possible relocation site for NBPD.
What? So if it has not been determined that a “willing seller” exists, why is this possibility even agendized for a public meeting?
Newport Beach residents are an experienced and accomplished group. One resident who owned a space planning firm expressed frustration that discussions have not occurred regarding certain functions possibly housed offsite from police department headquarters in a less expensive location. What followed were responses from Councilmember Michelle Barto and Mayor Pro Tem Noah Blom that I viewed as somewhat dismissive and understood as suggesting that members of the public were not trusting the Police Department’s process.
Earlier in the meeting, Advisory Committee Chair Weber had confirmed the committee had voted 5-0 on July 21 to recommend that the City Council not spend additional resources studying the current Santa Barbara Drive location. But Weber also told the attendees that Santa Barbara has NOT been removed as an option. If Santa Barbara remains an option, why stop spending resources studying it now?
Something is wrong with this committee’s process. I sensed frustration among other attendees over what appeared to be a lack of progress. We have many experienced residents in the room, worthy city staff and resident committee members with backgrounds in construction, development and real estate finance. In this resident’s opinion, the three councilmembers have not demonstrated the project-management experience I believe is needed to quarterback a municipal undertaking of this magnitude.
Arc Balboa Island, a restaurant project associated with Noah Blom and his wife, Marin, has been in the development process since at least 2021. Michelle Barto referenced her experience remodeling a bathroom at her own residence while discussing the disruption involved in renovating the existing Santa Barbara site. So we are talking about a municipal project with preliminary estimates ranging from approximately $150 million to more than $240 million, depending on the option, with no clear path forward.
Kathe Morgan
Newport Beach
