Through My Eyes

Ron Davis

File this under the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t category. A

Huntington Beach City Council, tired of being criticized for an apparent

lack of progress with the revitalization of the Downtown area, responded

by enacting a controversial ordinance subjecting a very narrow area of

the Downtown to the ugly power of eminent domain. After years of limited

progress in a specific Downtown area, had they not done something, much

of the community would have skewered them for their inaction, as we have

on the Huntington Center mall.

So they acted.

In the same way a match to gunpowder reacts with gunpowder, another

segment of the community exploded in protest, vehemently objecting to the

taking of their property merely to be given to another developer. It was

called ‘Un-American,’ a violation of ‘basic property rights.’

In my view, both sides had legitimate arguments.

Being a Downtown guy and having seen the positive benefits of

redevelopment in the area, I had sympathy for a council trying to finish

the job. On the other hand, I also had sympathy for those who objected to

the taking of their property and giving it to another developer, based on

someone else’s subjective belief of what’s in the best interest of the

city. A classic conflict between the interest of the many vs. individual

rights.

I had to see a doctor to get the splinters removed from my backside

from so much fence-sitting on this one.

Both sides have claimed that the other side was at fault for the lack

of progress Downtown. It was a classic chicken-and-egg, finger-pointing

contest. I’ve tried to figure out who the culprit was, but to no avail.

(I haven’t figured out the chicken-and-egg thing, either.)

The opponents of eminent domain succeeded in gathering sufficient

signatures to place the issue on a future ballot. But before the item

could be placed on the ballot, the City Council reconsidered its prior

decision.

Opponents stood before the council and requested -- no, demanded --

that the council reverse itself and withdraw the use of eminent domain

Downtown and save the city taxpayers the cost of an election.

The council responded by changing its collective mind and doing

exactly that.

But I was shocked. After the council delivered exactly what the

opponents demanded, capitulation on eminent domain, some of the opponents

complained that the council’s reversal on the subject wasn’t good enough.

Get this -- having asked the council to scuttle eminent domain, and

having their wish granted, some of the truly disgruntled objected and

criticized the reversal, claiming the City Council had deprived them of

their ultimate victory at the ballot box.

Say What?

Worse yet, they decried the action of the council as depriving them of

an opportunity to embarrass the council at what they imagined would have

been a crushing loss delivered at the hands of the electorate -- in

essence, the deprivation of the opportunity to punish the City Council.

This kind of attitude makes the worst possible statement about some of

us. It implies that those members of the council deserved punishment for

their previous actions. The apparent premise seems to be that there was

but one obvious ‘right’ decision on the subject -- theirs - and that the

City Council should be roasted at the stake for having the audacity to

hold a contrary view.

If the council’s initial decision was verifiably absurd -- like making

decisions predicated on the earth being flat, which science can verify as

inaccurate and absurd -- then I might buy into that attitude. But

questions concerning serving the greater good, can never be

scientifically determined and will always be the subject of a continuing

debate. That anyone, including our City Council, ought to be punished for

having the audacity to view the greater good differently from others is

shameful.

There was simply no ultimate right answer on this issue, only value

judgments and difficult decisions, which will continue to be debated.

Having different views of the world ought to be at least tolerated, if

not appreciated. Having the guts to change one’s mind from time to time

should never be suppressed with punishment, but encouraged through

celebration.

In my view, this was one of those events.

* RON DAVIS is a private attorney who lives in Huntington Beach. He

can be reached by e-mail at o7 [email protected] .