ORANGE COUNTY PERSPECTIVE
A Fair Look at Great Park

http://www.latimes.com/editions/orange/la-000097843dec09.story?coll=la%2Deditions%2Dorange

December 9, 2001

For residents confused by the barrage of information, claims and counterclaims by the factions fighting over the future of the abandoned Marine Corps air base at El Toro, the county auditor has added some needed independent analysis to the mix.

For the past two years or so, the South County activists who gathered the signatures to place the Great Park initiative on the March 5 ballot have been locked in a bitter war of words with the Board of Supervisors majority, Newport Beach and others pushing to put a commercial airport on the former air base's 4,700 acres.

They have been expensive words in the form of multicolored slick mailings, public appearances, media ads and publicists who serve as hired guns to hawk positions. For the public on the receiving end, the professed information efforts have produced much more heat than light--and lots of contradictions. Park proponents have been saying their plan can be created without risk to taxpayers for the park space, sports fields, amphitheater, college campuses and cultural venues that would be possible with the new park zoning. Airport proponents say it will take tax dollars to develop the Great Park plan.

A study paid for by airport proponents said it would cost the county $418 million to buy the air base land if it is used for a park. Park supporters say there would be no cost to the county to turn the land into the park instead of an airport.

Park proponents say airport advocates have greatly underestimated the support income that could be derived from leases for industrial buildings and homes. Airport factions say park people have overestimated those revenues.

So whom and what is a voter to believe?

A fair and impartial analysis of the initiative by a third party has been needed. That's what County Auditor-Controller David E. Sundstrom has provided with his report prepared by a national consultant.

The study concludes that local tax funds need not be involved in the park development and that the El Toro land could be given to the county at no cost because it is a public benefit. It also agreed with park proponents that the Navy would still have to pay cleanup costs for park as well as airport use.

One of the key points made in the study is that the ballot initiative does not include any of the specific projects that Irvine city officials have been drumming as part of their park vision. There would be no legal requirement to provide them by the county, or by Irvine if it annexed the park area. The potential losses to the county from a park instead of an airport could include 80,000 jobs and about $6 billion in annual economic activity by 2020, according to the report.

The $187,000 Sundstrom spent for the study was money well spent. It supported some contentions and shot down others. Both sides will take from it what they believe will strengthen their position.

But for voters who have been facing the prospect of casting ballots for or against an airport or park without fully knowing the ramifications of their vote, the auditor's unvarnished report is welcome. It helps clear up the competing claims in the battle for the air base.