The Legacy of Measure F

Even though Measure F has been struck down in court, the initiative will have a lasting effect both on how Orange County handles the El Toro airport question and on relations between the county government and its citizens. In its March vote, the public sent a clear message that it had no confidence in how public officials were carrying out their responsibilities to plan for El Toro. None of that has been changed by the court action Dec. 1.

The county’s planning of runways is a case in point, part of a long-standing credibility problem that fueled the resident revolt. This, like everything in the El Toro orbit, remains a live issue. Even when a Federal Aviation Administration official wrote to Supervisor Tom Wilson recently to dismiss the concerns of its own consultant about the county’s flight plans, the nation’s airline pilots quickly responded that their long-standing doubts about the proposed takeoff and landing pattern remained.

But as much as this debate is about continuing specific concerns, it is also about the enduring big questions. The county today still stands with two basic ones unanswered by a procession of initiatives and lawsuits. First, should there be an aviation or non-aviation plan for the base? Second, what should the county reasonably be expected to contribute to carrying future aviation demand in the region?

As it now stands, all the planning and conflict have left the county with no realistic aviation scenario to fulfill whatever might be its fair share, and too little discussion of the cost or feasibility of the non-aviation alternatives, either the Millennium Plan or the Great Park proposed by Irvine. While the battle over the airport goes on, those questions are unlikely to be addressed adequately.

Remember Measure S

The county is still stuck on the consequences of Measure A and should remember airport foes’ failed repair effort two years later, Measure S. All of the sense of inevitability about the airport flows from the rezoning of the base that occurred back in 1994 when Measure A narrowly passed. In his recent Measure F ruling, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge S. James Otero recognized the importance of that initiative as a place for the surrounding populace to focus remedial efforts. Unfortunately, the opinion offered no insight into how the El Toro planning process became skewed when Measure A passed. What happened then goes to the heart of the community’s current disenfranchisement.

Measure A sealed the fate of the base before full consideration could be given to the best reuse under federal guidelines. The public campaign for Measure A was in part conducted as a way to preserve the aviation option while considering future uses. If that had been the actual result, alternatives to an airport might have received due consideration.

But even though the measure passed narrowly, the result was interpreted by the county as a mandate to go ahead not just with an airport, but with a major international facility. Readers unfamiliar with El Toro history who saw the judge’s opinion might have inferred that Measure A had been a strong or clear statement of countywide intent, which then was met with recalcitrance by Irvine and Lake Forest. In fact, the upshot of Measure A was to disenfranchise all the communities that ought to have standing under federal base reuse guidelines. They were never permitted any meaningful discussion of reuse alternatives, and their status as outsiders was sealed when the Local Redevelopment Authority was shifted only to the Board of Supervisors.

We opposed Measure A and since have said it needed to be fixed to allow the county to look clearly at all good options. But we also opposed a proposed remedy in 1996, Measure S, because it would have shut off any aviation use rather than returning the county from the inevitability of a big airport to square one. Measure S was not a very well run campaign, either, and although public opinion has reached critical mass on the airport issue since that time, a successful campaign to address the inadequacies of Measure A is by no means assured. Also, the larger community must understand that a new initiative, a fourth, necessarily will keep citizens on a schedule of voting every few years on El Toro.

Get Communities Involved

The El Toro airport proposal is now a plan with a history, and the community has had a great deal of time to reflect on the process. We have argued that it is time now, when opinions on the current planning process have hardened so, for a more fundamental restructuring of the base reuse planning process to include the affected communities more directly. It is hard to envision after seven years that the same planning team, the Board of Supervisors’ majority and the consultants who designed an airport as if it were a gerrymandered political district, will be able to propose much of anything that can win community acceptance.

For the county and region, El Toro stands as a case study in how not to address regional aviation needs for the future. Every parochial sentiment and partisan interest was allowed to hold sway. The El Toro impasse now has come home to roost at John Wayne Airport, where the clock is expiring on an agreement on flight and passenger caps. The county has begun turning its attention to that airport’s future, but there is still a long way to go to resolve important differences.

Meanwhile, the region searches for better ways to meet its needs rather than having each municipal and subregional interest fight turf battles. For El Toro, Measure F has gone down, but its enduring lessons must be learned.