Untoward Developments on Planning Commission : Members Must Start Representing Public Interests, Not Private Ones

The public is getting a clear glimpse in 1990 of an overall pattern to the way planning has worked at the county-government level in Orange County. It’s a portrait of a system awash in money and political influence. This has been especially apparent in the last few years, a period of rapid growth that indelibly has shaped the character of life in the county for years to come.

Eight months into the year, we now find that a majority of members on the Orange County Planning Commission, a shocking three of the five, currently are under investigation by the district attorney for various allegations of impropriety. While no charges have been filed to date, the record already available from documents and from public statements paints an unflattering picture of how the county’s planning process works.

We have learned, for example, that appointed commissioners and staffers regularly allowed developers to stroke them with gifts and favors, at times in excess of state limits on conflict-of-interest requirements.

We have learned also that developers such as the Mission Viejo Co., obviously encouraged by the favorable results from offering favors, have cynically manipulated the political system by flooding it with money on behalf of candidates and political action committees, measures and initiatives, and recall campaigns.

Never was Orange County’s marriage of planning and politics more evident than last spring, in the midst of a state Assembly campaign. Two planning commissioners, Chairman Steven A. Nordeck and Roger Slates, reportedly solicited campaign contributions at a fund-raiser for a developer running for office, charges they denied.

Yet, in the months since, the public has received no clarification on these disturbing allegations, nor does it have assurances that such politicking by commissioners will stop.

Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi, in the midst of a runoff election campaign, has been slow to present findings from a routine investigation. A number of the people who attended the fund-raiser, including the Assembly candidate, have publicly talked about what happened that night. So did Messrs. Nordeck and Slates break the law, or didn’t they?

Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder held the feet of Slates to the fire for about five minutes, then quickly expressed satisfaction with her appointee’s explanation, pending the results of this long-awaited district attorney’s investigation. Supervisor Don R. Roth, too, sets a loose standard. He asked his appointee to the Planning Commission, C. Douglas Leavenworth, to determine himself whether his votes had favorably affected the Mission Viejo Co. The record already showed a clear pattern of affirmative votes after the commissioner had accepted gifts from the developer in excess of acceptable state limits.

There’s a lax approach throughout county government to questions of ethics and planning; the county seems too often to be asleep at the switch. Sadly, it’s too late to affect much of the important development that already has taken place in the county. But it’s not too late for a course correction this decade.

Planners must look out for the public interest, not expedite matters for developers. Those who don’t get the message should be replaced. The protection of Orange County’s remaining land and resources is too important for any more flabby oversight.