Who’s Representing Whom in Developer Agreements?

Re Development Agreements for the Irvine Co.:

As my wife and I were driving through Laguna Canyon a few weeks ago, she burst into tears. She had just found out about the Irvine Co.’s plans to build more than 3,200 homes and 77 acres of commercial property in the canyon. It was as if she was watching a loved one die.

Now we support the slow growth initiative and oppose attempts by the county and the Irvine Co. to avoid being subject to the will of the people through the use of legally questionable “development agreements.” We take these positions for several reasons:

* My wife will stop crying and hopefully cease to wonder why everything that is beautiful seems to eventually get destroyed in the name of progress and profits.

* There doesn’t seem to be anything in place right now that will keep us from becoming another Los Angeles. The developers are supporting plans to build new toll “freeways” not because they feel sorry for the motorists, but because they are aware of the enormous profits that can be made once the roads provide access to their new housing developments.

* It is bad planning. Every community has to eventually draw the line somewhere. Through its silence, the public has approved past development projects. But when developments threaten the seashore, mountains, canyons, wildlife and the natural beauty, the public finds itself forced into defining the boundaries of civility in the absence of its government’s inability to do so.

There are other less destructive alternatives ot the traffic problem. It will not solve the housing problem. These homes will be priced in the $300,000 to $400,000 range.

Why is it that so many developers measure progress in terms of quantity and not quality?

MR. and MRS. PETER MC LEOD

Mission Viejo