February 27, 2000
When opponents of a proposed El Toro airport introduced Measure F, which would require a two-thirds countywide vote to build airports or jails and hazardous waste dumps near neighborhoods, the Register editorialized against it. It was an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink initiative, we argued, that threw jails and toxic waste sites into the mix to build support for an anti-airport measure.
We still aren't keen on the measure as public policy, but a number of events since then have caused us to rethink our position. Our basic argument was - and still is - that typically one of government's duties is to site needed infrastructure projects. Measure F will make it harder to fulfill that duty.
Sheriff Mike Carona and District Attorney Tony Rackauckas came out against Measure F, for instance, because they fear that its passage will hobble court-ordered efforts to expand jail capacity. And whereas a two-thirds vote is an important requirement in protecting citizens against excessive taxation, we worried about applying such a hurdle to project approvals, especially if it creates the climate in which residents expect to vote on a broader spectrum of projects, public and private.
But Measure F cannot be considered outside of the context of the county's plans to convert the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station into a commercial airport. Although there are sound arguments for transforming a closed military airport into a commercial airport, given the limitations of John Wayne Airport, there are problems with the heavy-handed way the county has sought to impose the airport on south county residents.
In essence, we've come to wonder whether inserting the voters into the planning process on certain limited instances could be any worse than relying on the decisions of a board majority that has been acting with increasing irresponsibility. We question whether the county government really has a grasp of market demand as it attempts to play airport developer.
We wonder why the three pro-airport supervisors - Cynthia Coad, Jim Silva, Charles Smith - appear so unconcerned by the divisiveness of their plan. Furthermore, since the time that Measure F was introduced, Ms. Coad and Messrs. Silva and Smith have showed a disturbing willingness to build the airport at any cost, even if it means doing things that are harmful to the interests of the county.
Two particular examples have affected our leanings. First, the pro-airport trio approved a Project Labor Agreement that hands a virtual monopoly of public works projects to union contractors - even though the vast majority of county contractors are open shop. The clear reason for approving an agreement that will hike construction costs to taxpayers and coerce people into joining unions is to shore up airport support among the unions.
The airport would have used union labor anyway - but the PLA hands over 85 percent of all county projects for the next five years to unions for a transparently political reason. And the timing of the decision - just before the March 7 election - is open to question, given how long it will be before construction of the airport would proceed. Second, these supervisors have hemmed and hawed over a hard-fought jail expansion compromise supported by the sheriff and DA, as well as by officials representing residents who live near the Musick jail.
Why not jump at a rare opportunity to solve a problem that the supervisors are under court order to fix? Because it would take away the best argument against F - that the measure will not allow law enforcement to create new jail space - right in the thick of the campaign. It's true that the anti-airport side also had political reasons for supporting the proposed deal, and thereby defanging the pro-airport jail argument. But it's the supervisors' responsibility to solve the jail crisis.
They should have pursued the compromise opportunity when it presented itself rather than view it solely in the context of their plan to build an El Toro airport.
A similar deal is unlikely to occur after the election. If Measure F passes, Irvine and Lake Forest residents won't have to settle for any expansion because they will argue that the jail plan would have to face two-thirds voter approval. If F doesn't pass, the county can move forward with a bigger jail - but it will certainly face long and costly battles.
In the ideal world, our solution for El Toro should prevail: County government establishes some general land-use parameters, then sells the former base to the highest bidder. The land could be privately developed into a commercial airport, in which case the private developers would have to be more sensitive to community concerns and to economic projections before building it.
Or the 4,700 acres could be turned into one or more planned communities - based on market needs rather than on the sorts of wish lists developed by officials promoting the alternative Millennium Plan. Unfortunately, the pressing question for voters on March 7 is not whether the county should sell the land.
And it's not a straightforward up-or-down vote on the airport, either. Instead, voters are asked to OK a flawed land-use planning measure that would stop a poorly conceived, disingenuously promoted and overly divisive government airport project. Or to vote "no" because the measure will make certain future planning decisions more difficult, even if the end result of defeating F would be the construction of the airport.
It's a tough choice. But here are some points to consider: 4By putting the brakes on a deeply flawed airport planning process, the measure might be the incentive county officials need to invite the private sector into the process earlier. That's critical because private companies are best able to build what the market demands and better able than the typical political process to ameliorate negative "impacts" of any proposed project, whether we're talking about housing developments, shopping centers or airports.
Measure F doesn't eliminate an airport. Courts will need to determine the measure's validity, and it is not impossible to create a well-crafted plan that would garner the public's OK. But, as in the case of local taxation, a two-thirds vote can reduce division by ensuring that big spending plans can only go forward with widespread support.
Maybe an airport also deserves this high hurdle. 4At this point, the measure is the only realistic way to chasten the pro-airport supervisors, to force them to put an end to a troubled planning process. It is the best hope for forcing them back to the drawing board to come up with a plan for the property that is more acceptable to more people and that includes the private sector at the earliest stages.
As we've argued before, Measure F is problematic. And, some form of airport still might make sense for the base. But, on balance, Measure F is less flawed than the alternative of letting the airport plan proceed on its current flight path.
That's why we're urging Orange Countians to vote "yes" on Measure F.
