Commentary: Measure Y would allow for proper city planning

In his commentary “Measure Y is unwise and unneeded,” (Oct. 13), Byron De Arakal fails to make a persuasive case against Measure Y. Here’s why it will benefit the city.

Measure Y recognizes that the public will have to live with the results of over-development for at least a generation. It returns a measure of control to the voters, even when a City Council wants to take the bit in its teeth and run wild.

De Arakal has it backward when he expresses concern that higher tax rates will be needed to make up for a supposed loss of new development. First, there is plenty of room for new development under the General Plan that has served the city well for years.

Further, after the first five years or so, all residential development eats up more tax money in the form of services than the property tax revenue it generates. And the higher the residential density, the greater the deficit.

This is because the cost of services continues to rise while Proposition 13 holds down increases in property assessments and tax revenue. In the medium and long terms, only uses that generate retail sales tax or hotel room tax (Transient Occupancy Tax) bring more money to city coffers than they eat up in services. De Arakal, who says he has worked in land development, should know this.

The kinds of developments recently fostered by the City Council majority are largely high-density apartments and condominiums — the very type of development that creates the greatest long-term deficit between property tax revenue and the cost of services. Moreover, the councilmen’s actions displace local businesses that generate sales tax and hotel room tax.

Here’s why Measure Y is needed. State law does not provide a practical remedy for an out-of-control city council other than the initiative process used for Measure Y. De Arakal’s suggestion of recall and referendum is not realistic.

Recalling a council member is a drastic measure. It is difficult to do — rightly so —and should be reserved for serious violations of public duty such as proven conflict of interest, fraud or bribery. Bad policies are not enough.

The referendum process cannot be lawfully applied to a project approval, because a project approval is not a legislative matter and, under the California Constitution, only a legislative matter is subject to referendum. In contrast, Measure Y applies only when a council-approved project depends on a legislative action adopted by the City Council — an amendment to the General Plan, a Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance or an Overlay Zone — and meets any of the threshold criteria.

De Arakal asserts that Measure Y would impede the ability of the city to grant variances. Not so. Measure Y does not touch on or affect variances, because a variance does not change the zoning ordinance.

In regard to De Arakal’s concern about public expense, the cost of adding a Measure Y public vote to a general election ballot is fairly minor, and if a developer wants a special election under Measure Y, the developer pays the cost.

Good city planning balances land uses with an efficient traffic circulation system, with control of noise and air pollution, with open space, and other values. The City Council majority has ignored good planning practices, but Measure Y affords the public an opportunity to restore balance to the community, in order to preserve and protect the health, safety and quality of life of the people.

Costa Mesa resident ELEANOR EGAN is a retired city attorney and former Costa Mesa planning commissioner.