May 7, 2000
The overwhelming passage of Measure F - the initiative requiring a two-thirds countywide vote on jails, toxic waste sites or airports - has forced the county to soften its no-holds-barred approach to building an airport at the closed El Toro facility.
That progress could be undermined if the county gets the wrong message from a court ruling on Thursday that allows it to move forward with airport-related spending.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge S. James Otero called Measure F's spending restrictions 'unconstitutionally vague,' but made it clear that his ruling - a temporary stay until June 23 - does not affect the heart of the initiative, the two-thirds vote requirement on various projects. 'The judge was very careful in saying I'm not letting anybody build an airport,' anti-airport activist Len Kranser told us.
Measure F had allowed the county to spend money to develop the Environmental Impact Report for the airport, but restricted it from spending on lobbying and public relations efforts to promote the airport plan.
After initially boasting that the measure would have no impact on the airport plan, the pro-airport board majority eventually curtailed most El Toro-related spending, fearing that they would be held personally liable for any decisions that conflicted with the new law.
Judge Otero's ruling is just the first round in a potentially long legal battle, but it will have ill effects if the board majority now views Measure F as vulnerable, and begins to move forward with the same airport plan in the same divisive way.
Some airport foes doubt that the board's recent tack - holding hearings, discussing alternatives to the current El Toro airport plan, offering olive branches to south county leaders - stems from any serious reconsideration of the airport plan.
Nonetheless, any softening of approach is welcome. And anything that causes the board to abandon its new way is a setback.
Some airport supporters have declared Measure F all but dead in the wake of Thursday's ruling. They are playing up this early decision for maximum political advantage.
Yet it's clear that the ruling deals with only one limited aspect of the initiative. And whether Measure F stands or falls, the county voted overwhelmingly for it. So the supervisors would do well to look at what message county voters were sending.
The old 'cram an airport down their throats' approach no longer works. The board needs to pay less attention to the courtroom and more attention to what's best for the entire county.
