Advertisement

JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

It’s been open season in the Newport-Mesa area for the past year on

developers, what with the effect of Greenlight and the controversy over

the Home Ranch project and the Koll Center. So when a developer initiates

something clearly, substantially and, for the most part, unselfishly in

the public interest, it surely merits equal time.

In the midst of a period of steady growth when it seems that every

commercially desirable open space in this once-pristine area is being

sized up for development, the Irvine Co.’s chairman, Donald Bren,

announced that 11,000 acres of the most beautiful, valuable and

environmentally diverse land on the Irvine Ranch will be reserved in

perpetuity as open space and for recreational use by the public. This

will be added to almost half of the 93,000-acre Irvine Ranch already set

aside for that purpose.

Tom Scott, a natural-resources specialist with the UC system, calls

this gift “a treasure trove of biodiversity.” Michael Pinto, president of

the Laguna Canyon Foundation, wrote in the Los Angeles Times: “This

stunning act of generosity . . . brought forth unashamed tears of joy.”

The whole land package thus protected will be known as the Irvine

Ranch Land Reserve, and it will be under the stewardship of the Nature

Conservancy, to whom Bren has set aside $30 million to improve and

preserve the habitat and provide for public access. All of this was

announced at a bash for several hundred community leaders, where Bren

provided the capstone when he said: “Our vision is to leave more than

half of the ranch in permanent open space, greenbelts and recreation, and

we will accomplish that with this historic action.”

If you wonder how “historic” all this is, go take a look at Anaheim or

Santa Ana or almost any other urban center and recognize that without the

enlightened land management and wilderness protection in the unique piece

of geography we enjoy -- resulting from the determined efforts of both

public and private bodies in this area -- that would be us.

We’ve all had our problems with the Irvine Co. during the transition

of Orange County from an agricultural to a burgeoning commercial,

industrial and residential area. Along with its vision of an idyllic

planned community, there has been arm-twisting and arrogance, and the

company has profited enormously through the development of its land

holdings. But there has always been the long view as well. And it was

from this perspective that Bren made his announcement. When the time came

to turn away from the commercialization of this highly developable 11,000

acres, it was done with real class.

In the resulting press coverage of this action, Larry Thomas, who is

Bren’s senior vice president for public affairs, told the Pilot that

there was no “quid pro quo” involved. The gift, he said, came without

strings.

This comment seemed especially interesting in relation to the debate

over the propriety of Segerstrom & Sons making a $2-million contribution

to Costa Mesa schools, contingent on city approval of the Home Ranch

project. The business unsophisticates like me who raised this question

have been advised rather brusquely to get with it. This, we were told, is

how business is conducted. You give a little in order to get a little --

or a lot.

Last week, I shared a lunch table with Ray Watson, who is vice

chairman of the Irvine Co. Board of Directors. I asked him if this is,

indeed, the way business is conducted, and he allowed as how it was “as

long as the sunlight rule is observed.” Sunlight, he explained, means

that the trade-offs must be on the table in clear public view.

It occurred to me that if this is the only prerequisite to become a

player in a high-stakes business deal, then there is virtually no limit

to the inducements that might be sought or offered. Why, for example,

couldn’t either party have put a new starting pitcher for the Angels into

the Home Ranch mix? The school contribution could stay in place, and

funds set aside to acquire a pitcher would win over the baseball crowd. I

could certainly get behind that.

Watson said patiently that this would be inappropriate because

baseball had no connection with the Home Ranch project. When I argued

that the schools had no real connection with the project, either, he

countered that there were degrees of appropriateness that had to be

assessed in structuring the trade-offs in any business proposal. He

considered schools more appropriate than a pitcher for the Angels, a

dubious position to be sure, but he not only wasn’t brusque but downright

good-natured about all this.

Even armed with this explanation about how business works, I’m very

glad that the Irvine Co. gift came without strings. It would have seemed

ungracious to grouse about trade-offs in this instance.

It has become clear that we have arrived at a stage of development in

Newport-Mesa where increased friction between the developers and groups

such as Greenlight has become the order of the day. That doesn’t have to

mean an impasse if both sides respect the contributions of the other. In

the long run, that might be the greatest benefit of all from the Irvine

Co. gift: the establishment of a role model to bridge this divide.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.

Advertisement