Dealing With El Toro Land-Swap Plan

* We would like to thank the Department of the Interior for recognizing the importance of northern Santa Ana Mountains’ native habitats, and taking the first step in securing their protection. Secretary Bruce Babbitt urged trading up to 800 acres of El Toro Marine base property for equivalent-value, as-yet-to-be determined properties centered on Fremont Canyon.

While spectacular Fremont Canyon requires protection for its native habitats, none of the properties proposed for the swap includes natural lands threatened by proposed giant developments or the eastern toll road.

Estimates of land values have been approximately $100,000 an acre for the El Toro Marine base, and $5,000 to $10,000 an acre for northern Santa Ana Mountains canyons. If the Irvine Co. wants to acquire 800 acres at El Toro, then the Department of Interior should receive approximately 8,000 acres of land in the northern Santa Ana Mountains, not 2,000 acres.

The northern Santa Ana Mountains must be administered for the protection of their unique native habitats, not as landscaping or urban parks for Orange developments.

Fremont Canyon is important habitat, but its acquisition alone does not protect the northern Santa Ana Mountains, nor does it do justice to the opportunity the El Toro Marine base represents for protecting natural lands.

The rest of the El Toro base must be acquired by the U.S. Forest Service and/or the Interior Department. Proceeds from the subsequent sale of the runway area to interested parties should then be used to finance the acquisition of the remaining Santa Ana Mountains watersheds.

CONSTANCE SPENGER

President, Friends of the Tecate Cypress

Fullerton

* I implore you to disregard the comments of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach) regarding the land-swap arrangement between the Interior Department and the Irvine Co. In a statement reported by The Times, the congressman classifies the land that would be acquired by the Interior Department as “worthless.’

The word worthless is an imprecise term, and as such is subject to interpretation. One might also say the same for the word priceless. I describe the land currently held by the Irvine Co. and bordering the Cleveland National Forest as “priceless.” This land is untouched by development and provides sanctuary for a most delicate wilderness, and therefore constitutes a treasure well worth protecting.

I hold the position that the land-swap arrangement is an equitable one and I commend you for your vision in pursuing it.

GREGORY C. HOGUE

Lake Forest

* It sure is interesting that Dana Rohrabacher, from Huntington Beach, has such keen interest in El Toro and the land outside the 2,000 acres Measure A set aside for the (George Argyro’s International) El Toro Airport. Dana’s concern is absolutely touching, almost as much as the concern of North County for the quality of life in Lake Forest and Irvine.

At least the Irvine Co. resides in the South County. The proponents of Measure A would seem a whole lot more altruistic if they were not pushing so hard to cash in on their purported concern that Orange County really needed another local airport.

DEREK QUINN

Laguna Niguel

* The U.S. Department of the Interior’s proposed land swap with the Irvine Co. is one of the most alarming examples of trading something for nothing since the Dutch allegedly bought the island of Manhattan from Native Americans for a fistful of wampum.

Now, if each parcel of land were of equal value, this might be a good deal for U.S. taxpayers, the current owners of the El Toro Marine base. But each parcel is not of equal value. The federal government will receive land that is basically useless for any sort of economic development, whereas the Irvine Co. will be getting 800 acres of prime Orange County real estate. In short, the proposed land swap would be an economic windfall for the Irvine Co. courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.

Instead of trading one parcel for another, as though the values involved were roughly equivalent, both parcels should be purchased on the open market. By letting the market determine the value of these parcels, each party will be assured of receiving the highest real estate dollar for what they currently own.

At the very least, U.S. taxpayers are entitled to an independent appraisal of the value of each land parcel before any ink is put to paper on this land swap. Otherwise, this “mutually advantageous” land swap might well become a land swindle of historic proportions.

MARK P. PETRACCA

Irvine