Residents Not Getting Money’s Worth : * In Both Short and Long Term, San Juan Is Stumbling on Land Bought With Bonds

The residents of San Juan Capistrano own the 31.3-acre Swanner Ranch property; they bought it for $6.95 million with money from the Save Open Space Bond the voters passed in 1990.

Residents won’t find out for several years how the property might best be used and how much money it could earn. There’s no good explanation for why this planning process will take that long; the city ought to have had a better idea by now how the property taxpayers bought would be used.

But in the meantime, the city has the immediate uses of the property to think about. And that’s where the problem has occurred. The City Council broke faith with its constituents this month when it voted 3 to 2 to let a former councilman have the exclusive right to negotiate a contract to set up an equestrian center on the property.

It did that rather than seek proposals for the short-term use of the ranch until a long-term plan is formulated. The rent? Nothing. The length of the contract? “Temporary,” said city officials. They defined that to mean three to five years, which is awfully long to be “temporary.”

The former councilman is Jerry V. Harris, who was appointed to the council in 1991 and lost a bid to be elected to the post last year. Harris, a stable owner, plans to install a ranch, rodeo ring and bed-and-breakfast inn on the property. Rather than pay rent, he will maintain the ranch, cut down abandoned citrus groves and prepare the land for equestrian uses, according to his proposal.

Harris acknowledged suggesting the deal to the council. He claimed his main purpose was to let the public gain access to the land, and said he might never see a profit on an investment he estimated at hundreds of thousands of dollars.

He may be right, but the public deserves better.

To their credit, council members Jeff Vasquez and Carolyn Nash criticized the deal. Vasquez complained that it was a classic example of a former insider taking advantage of his relationships with the council.

And Nash correctly pointed out that the open space purchase was a significant investment for the public. She raised good questions about allowing someone right in without further deliberation on a matter of such obvious public importance.

Maybe there’s someone out there with a deal more favorable to the public. Why not formally invite one and all to submit proposals? This deal sounds too much like a favor to a former colleague and an illustration of an “old-boy network” at work.