The Tujunga Washout

Say goodbye to the Tujunga Wash. Last week, the Los Angeles City Council agreed to reconsider the application of a developer seeking to build a golf course in the dramatic, boulder-strewn canyon in Sunland. Although under no legal obligation to reverse its earlier rejection of the project, the council is staring down the barrel of a $215-million lawsuit in which Foothill Golf Development Group alleges that the city essentially drained the land of value by turning down a proposal to build an 18-hole course last July. It’s sloppy work coming back to haunt the council--and potentially taxpayers.

The Times opposes development of Tujunga Wash--a place unique in Southern California and home to endangered species. But the developer has a strong point: The council performed poorly last year, acting more for political reasons than out of environmental concern when it voted 10 to 4 to reject a project that included a wildlife preserve alongside the golf course. Rather than tinker with the project to make it more palatable--which is well within the city’s power--the council appeared to cave in to pressure from unions that oppose the golf course because of a labor dispute.

No one familiar with the smoke and mirrors at City Hall should be naive enough to think that land-use issues get decided solely on their merits, but the Tujunga Wash vote was shocking in its transparent duplicity. Council opposition to the project grew only after the unions started making a stir. Now the council faces the prospect of being forced by the courts to buy the 350 acres and the possibility of paying damages to the developer for not playing by the rules. Or it can abandon its hollow cry of environmental protection and approve the project--potentially saving taxpayers millions of dollars.

If the council truly believes that the Tujunga Wash is worth preserving, it must either offer the developer a reasonable alternative or hunker down for a costly legal fight. The latter alternative is unwise because it’s not at all clear the city could justify its rejection on anything other than political grounds. It might have been different if the council had made a solid environmental case against the project back in July. Foothill Golf, meantime, will likely complain that no other project makes economic sense, given the high level of investment the company has made. But the profits of a private developer are not the responsibility of taxpayers or of the City Council. Foothill Golf deserves only what every other applicant deserves: A fair hearing in which the fate of a project rides on its merits and on the law.

Foothill Golf didn’t get fair treatment last July and it’s doubtful that opponents of the project will get fair treatment when the golf course comes back before the council. It’s equally unlikely that the council will be in any mood to alter the project to make it better. Why? Because as Councilwoman Laura Chick noted last week, the council is “boxed in,” a predicament it created for itself by not following the prudent course when it could have and should have. With environmental friends like the Los Angeles City Council, who needs enemies?