COMMENTARY ON LIVABILITY : How to Keep County From Becoming Another Paradise Lost : Diminishing satisfaction of residents is a clear danger signal to public and private institutions alike. But policy-makers can still reverse the trend with a few corrective measures.

When the Orange County Annual Survey last fall looked back over 10 years of trends in residents’ evaluations of the county, some startling results emerged. No doubt that Orange County today still has much to offer--climate, beaches, shopping and recreation--especially relative to other communities. But comparing the grades given by county residents today to those of the early 1980s, the “livability ratings” here have markedly declined.

The reactions of local government, businesses, institutions and residents to the changes underway today will determine whether Orange County continues to be one of the nation’s most desirable communities or becomes just another “Paradise Lost.”

Here are results of questions from the 1991 survey that were repeated from the first Orange County Annual Survey in 1982:

* The quality of life in Orange County is not what it used to be. Residents’ satisfaction with their housing, neighborhoods, jobs and personal finances is down about 10 points on average since 1982. While most still express moderate satisfaction, the number who are “very happy” is far lower than in earlier years. Today, residents must earn $80,000 or more a year to be as content as the average county resident was in 1982.

* Local public services have suffered an even more dramatic decline in ratings. “Excellent” and “good” ratings of public parks, police protection, streets and roads and public schools are down about 15 points on average since 1982. Public schools today receive uniformly low ratings in all county regions and income brackets.

* Traffic frustrations have risen, with the number satisfied with the freeways dropping from 32% to 13%. Six in 10 commuters report daily problems with traffic. However, local residents have stubbornly refused to change their driving habits and the public remains deeply divided about building new freeways. Many are pinning their hopes on a commuter rail system as the solution for Orange County’s congested future.

* Two in three residents today see their cities as growing rapidly, considerably more so than in 1982. Public support for local growth regulations has increased from a minority of 40% to a substantial majority of 57%. Such “slow growth” views, generally stereotyped as a South County trend, are in fact even more prevalent in the rapidly changing Central County.

* Traffic, still considered the county’s most annoying problem, today only receives top billing from one in four residents. In the mid-1980s, traffic was rated the top issue by one in two. Now, public attention is being directed to “urban issues,” such as crime, public schools and immigration.

These trends have emerged after a decade of tumultuous growth and change. Orange County has gained more than 475,000 residents since 1980, and almost all its cities have seen sizable population gains. The county has also become much more racially and ethnically diverse: one in three local residents today is Latino or Asian.

The decline in livability ratings has been exacerbated by state and national economic woes. Funding for roads, schools and public services has not kept pace with growth, because of tax cuts and spending limits. The recession has reduced tax revenues as local consumer spending and employment growth have declined.

The prognosis for Orange County’s symptoms? Declining livability ultimately leads to a middle-class exodus. In this scenario, Orange County residents would move to the Inland Empire (San Bernardino and Riverside counties) and to northern San Diego County, just as dissatisfied Los Angeles residents moved to Orange County in previous decades.

Can Orange County buck the odds and avoid becoming another Paradise Lost? Absolutely. Many corrective measures can be taken, and some are now being tried. Here are a few ways to reverse the trends now underway:

* First, local government can make public services more efficient, through methods such as privatization, public-private partnerships and consolidation of services.

* Next, local governments can work together to provide public services. This would include subregional cost-sharing for public parks, jails, affordable housing and environmental management. Already, neighboring cities in Orange County are discussing cooperative efforts to improve public transit and handle issues such as waste disposal.

* Local governments can also expand their regional cooperation with surrounding Southern California counties. This would give Orange County the wherewithal to tackle problems stretching beyond its borders, such as air pollution and traffic.

* Business and government leaders can increase their efforts to promote job growth. Making sure our local economy is competitive with others should be a high priority. A blue-ribbon “competitiveness council,” fashioned after similar state and federal efforts, could explore options.

* Finally, Orange County employers, charitable agencies and religious organizations must find ways to better enlist grass-roots support for solving community problems. Local rates of voluntarism and charitable giving are dismally low, by national standards. This means our educated, skilled, affluent populace is underutilized. Even a small increase in volunteering would help depleted institutions, such as the public schools, better meet the challenges of growth and social change.

In 1992, we expect that local elections will mark the turn away from the “old” issues of traffic and growth, as public attention moves toward topics like schools, jobs and crime. The rise of these “urban” issues signals a new era for Orange County: This community has grown up. Rather than despairing over future prospects, Orange County should take comfort in the fact that new solutions--and untapped strengths at home--are available to meet the challenges ahead.