Irvine Co. Stays Mum on Gypsum Canyon Bill : Land: Observers say the developer stands to win whether or not the governor vetoes bill that would clear way for condemnation of the property for a jail.

Through months of debate in both houses of the state Legislature, the Irvine Co. has remained conspicuously silent over a piece of legislation that could determine the fate of 2,500 acres of its land.

Neither press inquiries nor probing by elected officials have been able to coax a public statement out of the company regarding a bill by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) that could clear the way for the County Board of Supervisors to condemn the company’s property in Gypsum Canyon for a jail.

But now, with the bill sitting on Gov. Pete Wilson’s desk, both sides in the debate are wondering whether the company will end its silence and join a growing lobbying effort to woo the governor. Already, state, county and local officials on both sides of the bill have begun aggressively making their case with Wilson’s staff.

However, officials have been left to wonder about the Irvine Co.’s position.

“I’ve been asked a million times about the Irvine Co.,” Umberg said Wednesday. “They’ve taken no position on the bill, and they’ve told me that if they decide to take a position, they will give me a call. I’m taking them at their word.”

The company’s position is under special scrutiny largely because Wilson has a number of ties to the developer. Several top corporate executives, including owner Donald L. Bren, are personally close to Wilson and have contributed to his campaigns. Bren, for instance, hosted a 1989 fund-raiser at his home that raised $86,200 for Wilson’s gubernatorial race.

But Irvine Co. executives say they will not be drawn into the fray over the Umberg bill.

“I can certainly understand why people are speculating,” said company spokesman Mike Stockstill. “But our position has been that we were going to be neutral about this, and we’ve become more adamant about that as the process has gone along.”

If signed into law, the bill would allow three members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors to condemn land for a jail to relieve overcrowding; state law normally requires four votes, but only three members of the five-member board support the Gypsum Canyon jail.

Even if Wilson signed Umberg’s bill, the county would be faced with the question of how to pay for the property if it condemned it. But the political logjam would be broken, ending a stalemate that has tied up the issue for more than four years.

Outsiders speculate that the Irvine Co.’s neutrality also reflects the fact that it stands to win no matter how the Umberg bill is resolved. If Wilson signs the bill and the county manages to find the money to condemn the property, the company would be compensated without ever having to build a house.

If Wilson vetoes the bill, the company would almost surely be able to proceed with its plans to build Mountain Park, a nearly 8,000-unit housing development slated for Gypsum Canyon.

Either way, the company stands to make millions.

Most important for the Irvine Co., political and development industry observers outside the firm said, is for the tussle over Gypsum Canyon finally to end.

“They’re really in a great position,” said one local political observer who asked not to be identified. “They’re going to get paid or they’re going to get houses. How can they lose?”

Stockstill declined to respond to that comment and others like it. “I think we’ll just stand by what we’ve said,” he said. “We’re just going to stay silent.”

That makes the Irvine Co. just about the only neutral party in the Gypsum Canyon debate, however, as local city council members, county supervisors, Sheriff Brad Gates, Dist. Atty. Michael R. Capizzi and members of the county’s legislative delegation have all peppered Wilson’s office with letters, telegrams and phone calls in recent days.

Wednesday, for instance, Board of Supervisors Chairman Gaddi H. Vasquez and Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder fired off their statements to the governor. The two board members lined up on opposite sides of the question, as they have for years.

In his letter, Vasquez urged Wilson to veto the bill, saying that it would infringe on individual property rights and on the ability of local governments to control their own affairs.

“I’ve always believed that the power of government to seize property under the laws of eminent domain should be as stringent as possible,” Vasquez wrote. “This legislation relaxes those standards and sets a dangerous precedent.”

In an interview, Vasquez elaborated. Other local governments that were deadlocked over land issues--whether they involved jails, airports, landfills or other controversial projects--would be tempted to turn to Sacramento for relief, he said.

Vasquez’s views have been echoed in letters and cables sent by four Orange County state senators, including Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach), and by city council members in Anaheim, Yorba Linda and Corona. All cast the Umberg bill as an assault on private property rights, and all cite the danger of establishing a new precedent.

Supporters of the bill, by contrast, view it as a law enforcement question, and their lobbying efforts have centered around trying to persuade Wilson that rejecting the measure would jeopardize community safety in and around Orange County.

“This bill would also remove a major stumbling block which has prevented us from moving ahead to do what the people of Orange County want,” Wieder said in her letter. “That is to ensure and maintain the safety of all Orange County residents.”

Sheriff Gates and Santa Ana Mayor Daniel H. Young also highlighted public safety questions in their letters.

“The lack of sufficient jail space in our county, and the inability of our Board of Supervisors to expedite the building of a new county jail, has severely impeded our Police Department’s ability to provide adequate levels of police service,” Young wrote. “Because over 30,000 prisoners a year are being released prematurely into our communities, the quality of life of all our common constituents is in jeopardy without a new county jail.”

With Wilson left to choose between property rights and public safety--and with the Irvine Co. sitting the debate out--few officials dared predict what the governor would decide.

Wilson does not have to take action on the bill until Sept. 23, according to Umberg’s staff. That deadline would be extended if the Legislature recesses before that date, as is expected. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill, it automatically becomes law.

“It really is his lone decision at this point,” said Anaheim Mayor Fred Hunter, who opposes the jail.