Environmentalists Again Show Initiative : Finance: Measure to acquire wilderness would strap taxpayers with $2 billion in debt.

Brigades of environmentalists have fanned out across Orange County and statewide rummaging for voter signatures that would place another of those rare bond initiatives on the June, 1994, ballot. They would like California taxpayers to strap on an additional $2 billion in debt for the acquisition and preservation of Orange County’s remaining wilderness, as well as other natural lands across the state.

As they mobilize, I am reminded of the impending birthday of my oldest son. He’ll be 7. It’s about this time of year that he dutifully informs me of the “awesome” and “cool” gifts he’s expecting. It is by no means a short list.

Now dreamy wish lists are to be expected from youngsters his age who have a rather dull feel for economics and who marvel that there are machines in the world “that give you free money.”

But the phalanx of environmental advocates out shaking the tall grass for an additional $2 billion in bond debt should know better. To trot out a wish list of choice California nature they wish to acquire by the taxpayers’ wallets ignores the state’s dangerous flirtation with fiscal meltdown.

Moreover, it demonstrates a selfishness that slights every county, city, school district and social welfare recipient about to have their fiscal head handed to them on a platter by cash-poor Sacramento.

As championed by the Planning and Conservation League (PCL) , the Californians for Parks and Wildlife initiative calls for a $2-billion bond sale that will cost state taxpayers roughly $3.5 billion in principal and interest over 20 years. That’s pretty substantial coin for a state so broke it is raiding local coffers of $2.6 billion to fund public education.

Even the California Department of Parks and Recreation, which would dole out this bushel of cash, is somewhat put off by the sheer magnitude of the bond initiative.

The aberrant grounds on which the PCL justifies such a staggering appropriation of debt--”The idea is grab what you can while it’s cheap,” says the PCL’s Lynn Sadler--is an ironic twist to the accusations of greed environmental advocates leveled against economic interests during the 1980s.

Consider that should the initiative pass, Orange County environmental advocates would have nearly $100 million to bankroll an extravagant shopping spree of prime county wilderness. Among the parcels on their shopping list are 189 acres of Laguna Canyon for $25 million, cougar pathways in Coal Canyon costing $11 million, $14 million worth of old oak woodlands in Silverado Canyon and a South Laguna ridgeline priced at $12 million.

Perhaps such a pricey land grab would be a worthy expenditure in better days. But these are not better days.

The dark budget language coming out of the County Hall of Administration still contains warnings of library, jail and medical facility closures; reductions in fire, rescue and refuse collection services; and more lost government jobs.

Moreover, statewide voter sentiment is unmistakably anti-deficit, anti-tax.

No one argues that realistic efforts need to be made to preserve and restore some of Orange County’s and California’s prime natural wilderness. Indeed, in some respects they are. The Irvine Co. has agreed to sell 2,000 acres in Laguna Canyon for $78 million to the city of Laguna Beach. A worthy effort, but one that should be financed by those who will benefit from the resource the most. That does not mean a bond paid for in part by a taxpayer in Hayfork, California.

It is wholly pitiless and out of touch for environmental advocates to ask state taxpayers to underwrite the realization of their fondest dream when the taxpayers themselves are learning to live with less. Instead, they should tap the powerful and rich coffers of the myriad environmental advocacy organizations throughout the nation and pursue a far less grandiose laundry list of real estate acquisitions.

That may not be what they want, but neither will my son receive all that he wants come his seventh birthday. Fortunately, he’s always been happy with what presents he has received and sublimely uninterested in the economic realities that could not deliver his wish list.

There’s a lesson there, I think.