County Should Do Wilderness Job Right, Quit Calling People Eco-Freaks

Regarding your story “Suit Seeks to Halt Wilderness Area Plan” (Jan. 4), please allow me to try to correct some things that seem to appear in and distort almost every “developer versus environmentalist” story that appears in the news.

To begin, no one is seeking to stop this development. The lawsuit was brought only to demand that the county and the developer correct several specific, identified errors and omissions that have been repeatedly glossed over or ignored in the approval process. The effect on completion of the project will be minor.

Yet Ernie Schneider, county chief administrative officer, refers to the “anti-development forces” bringing suit. Neither the Audubon Society nor Ray Chandos nor the large segment of county residents concerned about uncontrolled development of all remaining open space fits that category.

This is the county’s favorite way, with the tacit cooperation of the press, of debunking reasoned opposition to the routinely sloppy implementation of its own rules. Joe Citizen tries to say, “Gosh, weren’t you supposed to abide by this rule in that part of the process?” and is greeted with strident cries of, “Omigod! It’s another anti-development, no-growth, tree-hugging, deer-kissing eco-freak!”

That ridiculous perception is strengthened by statements in your story such as: “The opposition . . .--during an emotion-packed, three-hour public hearing--was the most vocal and vehement that some county officials can recall in recent years.” The clear and twisted inference here is that the good county folks were attacked by a ravening horde of earth-firsters.

Well, I bought the tape of that meeting and listened to the whole thing. None of the public input, pro or con, was anything other than polite.

With construction not slated to begin for a year or two, and the economy in a growing recession, this suit cannot be construed to be a “delay tactic,” as described by Schneider. It will be decided in sufficient time to allow the developer to proceed at all speed.

In an apparent attempt to save face on a playground level of concern for self, comments were made by the county that these kinds of suits are seldom won (not true), but if they are, then the changes required are minor (quite true). Well, no kidding. If all that is being asked for is minor changes, then it is hardly surprising, nor supportive of bureaucratic ego, that this should be the outcome.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing, different, uplifting to hear someone from our county government say: “The important thing here is to do the job correctly and arrive at the truth,” rather than offering opinions on who was the “winner” in the matter? Actually, it would be astounding to hear that.

It appears to me that a number of otherwise reasonable people at the county level have either developed a resentment to any public meddling in “their affairs” that clouds their judgment or have fallen victim to belief in a non-existent “no-growth conspiracy” that reduces their thinking processes to “us against them” (with “them” being “us,” the public).

As a final comment, your story repeats the ludicrous rationale offered up as mitigation for ignoring rules in this manner, namely that the project offers “affordable housing.” Aside from the issue that charity does not mitigate lawbreaking, a $250,000 home, with no buyer-qualification procedures and no resale control, hardly merits this high-sounding description.

The only thing affordable about this whole thing was apparently whatever it took the developers to buy the hearts and minds of our county system some time ago.

ROBERT C. HUNT, Santa Ana