Sale Is Anything but ‘Voodoo Economics’

Re your editorial “Supervisors Correct to Sell Seized Land” (Jan. 13): Your editorial, which is generally accurate, contains one significant flaw. You describe the potential purchase of Rancho del Rio by the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Department as “voodoo economics.”

Specifically, you raise the question: “If the county is trying to make up some of its budgetary shortfall by selling the ranch, why should the county then turn around and buy the land?” You end with the statement: “If the county government wants to replenish its coffers in tight times, it really has no business being in the real estate market itself regarding this bidding for a ranch.”

The problem is that The Times’ editorial staff has ventured an opinion concerning an issue that it obviously does not fully understand.

The situation is: The county general fund is seriously under-funded and cannot afford to hold onto the land. Harbors, Beaches and Parks, which is a legally separate entity from the County of Orange, can spend its funds only on park-related activities. It can afford to hold the land as an investment in the future.

The result, if Harbors, Beaches and Parks purchases the property from the general fund, would be that the department would own very desirable property (as you have described it), with great future potential, and the general fund would obtain some cash relief by selling the land at fair-market value.

Under the circumstances, the Board of Supervisors’ direction is both astute and prudent. It is anything but “voodoo economics.”

You might find it useful to investigate the causes and effects of the situation in which government finds itself faced with adequate funding in some areas and severely inadequate funding in others, with little discretion to balance these out.

R. A. SCOTT, Director, Orange County General Services Agency