Proposals to Reduce Growth in Orange County

As the slow-growth petitions were being circulated during the last few months, we heard the Orange County Board of Supervisors lament the “lack of public awareness,” we heard the Building Industry Assn. declare a need to “educate the public” and we heard development interests predict doom for the local economy.

This response was typically inappropriate and demonstrates insensitivity to public opinion by those who should know better.

Take, for example, the recent rash of development agreements approved for the benefit of land developers hoping to escape the uncertainties of their business. The board approved them during a time when thousands of voters were signing petitions that questioned the fundamental wisdom of the current growth policy. Since the board had the option of rejecting or deferring these agreements, it made its allegiance clear to the public eye.

The same interests warn us that we need developers to solve our traffic woes since we won’t tax ourselves to build more roads. This amounts to an admission that county planning goals and principles have failed to the point of a serious imbalance, because we now need future development to correct the deficiencies of past development.

Of course, the public isn’t interested in funding road improvements in order to create further land-development opportunities.

It is true that there are no longer any easy answers, but it’s also true that Orange County can’t subsist on a growth economy forever. Instead of expending resources on legal challenges to the initiative, the board will hopefully use this opportunity to re-examine the future path of the county. Meanwhile, the Building Industry Assn. continues to educate the public by filing suit to block a vote of the people.

CHRIS KREYMANN

San Juan Capistrano