Newport Beach’s elections are a mess. The conflict comes down to a classic power play: NIMBYs want to punish the city council for planning for more housing to comply with state laws, and they’ve teamed up with a developer who stands to benefit from throttling competition.
The story began in 2024 when the city planned for 8,174 new housing units to be built across the city, a serious effort to meet state housing mandates. As Register reporter Erika Ritchie appropriately notes, “The city isn’t expected to be the builder of those units, just have zoning and planning in place for their development.”
But then came an effort funded by real estate developer Ken Picerne to put on the ballot what is now called Measure H, which seeks to override the city’s plans and instead only plan for up to 2,900 units across five areas, subjecting 2,160 of them to income limits, and also tack on density limits.
As we noted in an editorial in January: “The Newport Beach city manager’s office told us that the Picerne Group ‘has 1,460 units entitled in the city of Newport Beach. That doesn’t count any other partnership he has with any other developers.’ If a city approves fewer new units, then those who already have entitlements gain a competitive advantage.”
In addition, the city’s impartial review of the measure warns that if this measure is passed, the hands of the city will be tied and it will be that much harder to comply with state housing laws. “If the city is unable to maintain compliance” with those laws, “it could be subject to administrative or judicial enforcement actions authorized by state law, including limitations on certain local land use authority, court-ordered remedies and monetary penalties.”
The official arguments in support of Measure H are classic NIMBY rhetoric about skyscrapers and traffic. But the worst thing about it is really the irrationality of tying the hands of the city and risking costly state interventions. If voters are mad, it’s better to fight it out on the city council, where changes can more quickly be made if necessary. On its face, Measure H all but guarantees litigation with the state.
Ballot box zoning is also an improper use of voter processes. The practicalities of a free market should decide how much housing gets built in Newport Beach; just because the city plans for more housing doesn’t mean it will all get built.
Hence, we recommend a No on Measure H.
Then there’s the other bundle of ballot measures backed by the Southern California Opportunity Group, owned by Picerne. While they vary on their merits in isolation, given the source we simply view them all as unjustified efforts to punish the council for planning for more housing and angering some NIMBYs. Accordingly, we tip the scales against all of them.
There’s Measure P, which imposes strict lifetime term limits of two terms. Right now the city prohibits council members only from serving two consecutive terms, not multiple non-consecutive terms. Proponents of the measure tout the familiar arguments in support of term limits, including that they improve governance by preventing politicians from entrenching themselves in government. We’re sympathetic to anti-politician sentiments, but it’s not obvious that the city’s existing term limits are insufficient. Voters, through normal elections, can deliver term limits if an elected official or former elected official is sufficiently bad. Vote no.
There’s Measure Q, which would require by-district voting, and is the most reasonable of the measures. Under the city’s current rules, candidates must live in the council district they seek to represent but voters across the city vote for the candidates regardless of where they live. The seven council districts, subject to four-year terms, go up for a citywide vote on alternating election cycles, so voters in the city vote every two years on council races. Measure Q would limit voting for candidates to voters within the individual districts, which would also mean voters would only vote on council races every four years. Ultimately, we’re not convinced there’s actually a problem with the status quo of how elections are done in Newport Beach. We’re also wary of the risks of balkanization and political fiefdoms that can form with districts; the city’s current set-up mitigates those dangers by engaging voters across the city. Vote no.
And there’s Measure R, which uses the concept of “transparency” as a cudgel against the council. This includes creating a “Task Force” to ensure “compliance with rules for meetings, records, and the conduct of City officials and employees.” It would “allow any person to bring an action to enforce the measure’s provisions,” require the recording of some closed-session meetings, and require city officials to maintain daily calendars of their activities. This measure is deliberately tedious and intrusive, not to mention an invitation to more litigation. Vote no.