Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

James V. Lacy

Property rights are fundamental legal rights. Even in Orange County.





     If you watched only the TV ads for this year’s California Primary races, you’d think that it was the Reagan era and conservative ideology ruled the day. I mean, being labeled a liberal today in the Governor’s race is almost akin to having a pox placed on your house.  Sheri Bebitch Jaffe said in some interview in 1992 how surprised she was that Proposition 13 was being brought up by candidates in the 1992 election.  Wow, was she out of it.   Her head must be spinning in this election.

 

     So, if that’s the case – what’s with the City of Orange and the good people of that charming equestrian hamlet known as Orange Park Acres?   The tom toms are beating a new tune calling for the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny a pretty logical land use plan.  Or demand one of the most outrageous private property land grabs and shameful taxpayer-supported schemes I’ve seen in years.  In fact, next Monday, June 7, just a day before conservative Californian’s cast their anti-liberal votes in the California Primary, the Orange Planning Commissioners will be pounded by OPA-posers from every liberal nook and cranny of the county to vote against the Ridgeline Estates project or extort so much land for public use that it would force the city to commit abuses in both taxpayer rights and violations to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Bill of Rights.


     Something very interesting about all this is that conservative Republican activists Fred Whitacre and Red County’s Matt Cunningham are members of that Planning Commission!!! 

     The land use plan for the Ridgeline Estates falls within the Orange Park Acres (OPA) area of the City of Orange in Orange County, CA).  Ridgeline Estates is a plan for 39 one acre equestrian lots plus a lot of benefits including trails and hose arenas.  This is the exact kind of development OPAers embrace! However, as in all real estate, it’s all about location, location, locationRidgeline Estates is planned for the old nine-hole PRIVATE Ridgeline golf course that was sold and shut-down years ago.   While so many of us learned to play golf at Ridgeline, the course was a real money losers – always was.  Yet, OPAers were successful in denying redevelopment of the site for years by claiming that the sacred OPA Specific Plan called for Ridgeline to remain a golf course ‘till death do us part.  (Forget that pesky provision in the OPA Plan allowing it to be sold and developed if the course was no longer economically viable and if the City’s taxpayers refused to cough-up the cash to buy the place for public use). 

 

     Things changed on December 22, 2009, when the OPA Board received a  letter from the Orange City Attorney noting that, after a thorough review of the historical records, the actual land use designation and density for the Ridgeline site was open space AND one-acre lots.  And, that the OPA Plan was not a real Specific Plan – yet was part of the City’s General Plan.  The letter basically stated that the property owner of Ridgeline was proposing a land use that was consistent with both the OPA Plan and the General Plan – and some technical book-keeping was all that was needed to make the two documents consistent.  (NOTE:  even Tin Cup’s Shirley Grindle agreed – and she should know since she was one of the original authors of the OPA Plan!)

 

     In response, the Board of the OPA Property Owners Association is now demanding that City of Orange require a 1:1 mitigation and enact its power of eminent domain – to force the Ridgeline developer to provide 52 acres of new PUBLIC USE land in exchange for the right to develop on the 52 acres of the old Ridgeline course.  THE PROBLEMS IS THAT Ridgeline was a PRIVATE course and was/still is on PRIVATE PROPERTY.  Anyone ever read the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Bill of Rights?   As this blogs political law reporter, I demand that the City of Orange recognize the Constitution of the United States!

     If the City does comply with The OPA Board’s demand, wouldn’t the Council be approving a “take” of Private land for Public use – which would result in payment to the property owner of MILLIONS in taxpayer-supported “just compensation” dollars?  Do the rest of the City of Orange taxpayers get a say in this?  And, why would they vote to build a new city park hidden in OPA?    

 

     The OPA Board of Directors now admits to receiving outside “direct contributions” to fund a new big PR campaign to rally OPA residents (and Orange taxpayers) to oppose the plan for Ridgeline Estates OR demand 52 new acres of land as compensation for the 52-acre old golf course.  Since the OPA Board does NOT publish a public annual report, its finances cannot be publicly reviewed.  So, let’s just try to follow the money! 

 

  • Leading the opposition with the PR consultant is well-known Sierra Club operative Theresa Sears who also happens to be on the OPA Board’s Real Estate Committee and its OPA Community (political) Action Committee. 

 

  • Plus, it’s election time in Orange!  The Orange City Mayor and two other Council seats are open in the 2010 November election.  In just two years, two additional seats will be up.  So what’s the real game?  Is this about a landmark land use abuse or are the liberals trying to stake-out new territory in the heart of the County by controlling Orange candidates? 

 

     In confidential information that is now becoming public, the PR guy who is being paid by Sears has already begun making rounds with Orange candidates.  The message is “fight us and fight against the Sears-Sierra Club machine during 2010 and 2012 race."


     Interestingly, Sears and her team are also the same people supporting annexation of all parts of OPA into the City of Orange (to bring a great number of OPA voters within the boundary of the City of Orange).  Plus, proving that “birds of a feather really do flock together,” guess what San Francisco-based law firm has already been retained by the OPA Board to fight Ridgeline?  You guessed it, none other than our liberal loving, property rights hating friends at Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger – who also represented OPA in their recent fight against the City of Orange General Plan update.  (It all makes sense now – the OPA Plan is really part of the General Plan, which, despite attacks by Sears, was just updated without addressing anything in OPA).

 

     Sears is pissed!  And, Ridgeline is her big retaliation and big move to establish a new liberal voice in Orange.  OC and Orange Conservatives – wake up.  The Game in On!   

One Response to “Property rights are fundamental legal rights. Even in Orange County.”

  1. jaqoe@hotmail.com Says:

    The reality of this issue is that the City of Orange General Plan (GP) requires protection of recreational open space land. To change the zoning of the Ridgeline parcel would convert land that is zoned “Recreational-Open Space” and GP-designated “Open Space,” which are consistent with the historical use of Ridgeline as a private clubhouse and golf course, with swimming and tennis facilities. The 1973 OPA Specific Plan that mentions residential uses is inconsistent with the city’s blueprint for development, the GP and zoning, and therefore cannot be considered as the binding document with regards to land use decisions.

    Given the existing designation of recreational-open space, the developer can create a number of uses within the legal context. They purchased the property with that designation and that is what their property rights stipulate.

    To request a zone change and GP amendment, they are subject to applicable laws as well as a public hearing process that involves neighbors and politicans. Sorry that the developer is not happy with an open democratic process with regards to land use decisions, but that is the law.

    The developer of Ridgeline also owns the adjacent parcel on Santiago Canyon (called “Rio Santiago” for now) where they are proposing more residential uses, some of them at high density. In order to honor the requirement not to destroy some of the last remaining recreational-open space land at Ridgeline, the developer could transfer those uses (perfectly suited to be for-profit with plenty of benefits for the developer and the community) to the Rio Santiago parcel in exchange for the city granting the zone change and general plan amendment turning open space land into high priced mansions.

    The above shrill missive really misses the point. Residents of the City and County of Orange also have rights over land use controls that protect the integrity and values of existing properties. If the developer would work with the community and city, they could build their 39 estates as well as develop Rio Santiago with a mix of residential and open space, make a profit, and keep people happy. If they want to dictate to the city what they want without giving anything back, then their project should be denied.

    Jack Eidt
    Wild Heritage Planners