Eminent Domain Is Buying Ill Will : Land-use: Some say Laguna Beach has stepped too far in its efforts for open space.

When a city flexes its legislative muscle, forcing a property owner to sell land to the government, it’s usually to make way for a school, road or other public construction project.

Not so in this quaint, seaside community where city officials’ greatest concern is the feverish residential development raging at its borders. Here, the City Council recently began using eminent domain--the government’s authority to purchase land from unwilling sellers--to prevent anyone from ever building on it.

To that end, Laguna Beach is in the process of buying up about 500 acres of privately owned, canyon countryside from three different owners, apparently the first city in Orange County to use eminent domain as a tool for preserving open space.

With $10 million of state money at its disposal to acquire natural parkland, the city has set its sights on padding the “greenbelt,” a natural buffer of rugged terrain that isolates the village community from its neighbors.

Alarmed by the massive, 20,000-home Aliso Viejo development springing up next door and a 3,200-home Irvine Co. project proposed for Laguna Canyon, environmentalists believe that the small-town atmosphere of Laguna Beach is under siege.

“When people see what happens out there,” City Manager Kenneth C. Frank said, referring to the 6,600-acre Aliso Viejo development, “they’re going to thank God for all this open space.” The development is expected to house 50,000 residents by 2005.

While environmentalists countywide have applauded the city’s unusual efforts to stem the tide of development enveloping Orange County, others have criticized the practice as a backdoor approach to promoting slow-growth policies.

John DeWitt, a San Gabriel Valley oil dealer who was recently forced to sell 200 acres and a small home in picturesque Laguna Canyon, is one such critic. DeWitt offered to sell for $2.5 million, but the city appraised his land at $1 million. Since the two sides have been unable to reach an agreement, the fair market value will be determined in court. Meanwhile, the city put down a $1-million deposit and officially took possession of the property last month.

Laguna Beach officials have invited the public to a May 6 hike across DeWitt’s former property for a firsthand look at the city’s new purchase.

“They’re gloating over it already,” said a bitter DeWitt.”I have dealt with a lot of regulators, environmental and others, but I have never had this experience in my life.”

DeWitt, who bought the property off Laguna Canyon Road 15 years ago as an investment, calls $1 million for the land a “gift.” He co-owns the land with Alice Platz of Arizona.

“Everyone in the city is saying that we’ll get paid what it’s worth, but they’re not willing to pay what my partner and I think it’s worth,” DeWitt said. “They (officials) call Laguna Canyon the Yosemite of Laguna, but I think it’s more the pull-up-the-drawbridge approach. We got ours and now no one else is going to get theirs.”

City Manager Frank disagrees. “We have had a long history of negotiating the sale with the owners and not having to use eminent domain,” he said. “But this time they (the owners) were basing their selling price on zoning that isn’t and won’t ever be on that property.”

Besides the DeWitt property, the city recently used eminent domain to take nine acres off Laguna Canyon Road owned by Leisure World developer Ross Cortese. The city has also begun proceedings to acquire 235 acres in Hobo Canyon in South Laguna.

Unlike affluent Laguna Beach, many cities cannot afford to buy open space. They extract what open areas they can from developers in exchange for permission to build in other areas.

Laguna Beach however, was awarded $10 million last year through Proposition 70, a $776-million bond issue for parkland and wildlife protection. Last year, the city spent $4 million on nearly 471 acres in Laguna Beach Heights, then set about identifying open areas along Laguna Canyon Road for purchase.

The Constitution gives government the authority to take property under private ownership for public use provided that the owner is given just compensation. However, there is some debate over whether open space justifies the taking of private property.

“It’s a question of open space being regarded as a critical enough public purpose worthy of resorting to eminent domain,” said Irvine Mayor Larry Agran. “It certainly is.”

Adds slow-growth activist Tom Rogers: “I’m trying to think who else in the world would care about such a thing. With many of the other cities, the reverse is true: They’re trying to give away open space to the developers.”

Yet opponents describe Laguna’s use of eminent domain as stripping a property owner of his rights for no good reason.

“You’re talking about a situation where, arguably, there is no public use benefit except aesthetics,” said Daniel R. Wildish, an Orange attorney. “It may be a situation where they are really, in a backdoor way, trying to enact slow-growth or no-growth policies.”

Sandy Lucas, president of the Laguna Canyon Homeowners Assn., is one of the few who sees both sides. Lucas generally supports the city’s use of eminent domain to acquire open space but believes that DeWitt was treated unfairly. After negotiating with the association, Lucas said, DeWitt had offered to give the city about 170 acres along the ridgeline in exchange for permission to develop the lower portion of his land.

“We could have had it for free. Instead, we paid $1 million,” Lucas said. “I think if we don’t start making a way for open space and green areas, we’re not going to have anything left. But people have rights, too.”