Hey Irvine Co., How About That Airport?

Funny, but I never saw the Irvine Co. as the shy, retiring type.

Ask the company to speak out on the proposed El Toro international airport, however, and suddenly the cat’s got its tongue.

This is the company that hobnobs with governors. That ordains county supervisors, city council members and state legislators.

More to the point, it’s the company that envisioned, planned, built and named a citythat’s leading the anti-airport fight.

Where’s Poppa when you need him?

It’s not like the company has shied away from hot-potato issues in the past.

When Orange County declared bankruptcy in 1994, Irvine Co. executive Gary Hunt invited then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown to his Corona del Mar home to meet with local political and business leaders who explained the county’s plight. It was Hunt who stepped forward with other business leaders to support a controversial sales-tax increase as a way to help raise money following the bankruptcy.

But now, as the city of Irvine pleads with its corporate creator to join the fight against an airport that it says will undermine its quality of life, the company has fallen silent.

Irvine Mayor Christina Shea says the Irvine Co. has nothing short of a moral imperative to support the city’s position. Aside from its historic relationship with the city, Shea argues the company is morally obliged to protect Irvine’s quality of life.

“They have such clout in this community,” Shea says of the company. “If they partnered with the city, we could defeat the airport hands down. They’re very powerful.”

Barry Hammond, who stepped down this year after 8 1/2 years on the Irvine City Council, agrees. “Absolutely,” he says when I ask if it would matter if the company publicly opposed the airport. “If they came out against the airport, I think it would virtually eliminate the airport there.”

So far, the Irvine Co. has limited its support of the anti-airport movement to criticizing the two countywide initiatives that put the international airport in play. The company also says--literally, on paper--that it’s committed to maintaining the city’s quality of life.

“Unfortunately,” Hunt wrote in a three-page letter to the Irvine council in May, “the opportunity for thoughtful analysis, rational comparison of options and consensus-building was preempted by the initiative process. In short order, two elections polarized the county and politicized the planning process, interfering with everyone’s ability to thoughtfully analyze alternatives and draw reasoned conclusions.”

While lamenting that the two votes “turn[ed] sound planning on its head,” Hunt went on to say the company has chosen “to be a thoughtful and constructive participant in the planning process and leave the ongoing political battle . . . to the voters and their elected leadership.”

The Irvine Co.? Reducing itself to “constructive participant”?

Shea likens the company’s silence to a parent abandoning a child. “They’re part of the fabric of our city,” she says. “They can’t isolate themselves and ignore the fact of this huge intrusion coming into our backyard and say they want more information. There’s plenty of information out there.”

I doubt that appealing to the Irvine Co.’s sentimentality will go anywhere. Does the company “owe” the airport-fighters in Irvine its steadfast support?

I don’t think so. But to me the more interesting point is that it could have joined forces with them but hasn’t.

My theory? The company doesn’t view the airport with the same alarm as does the Irvine City Council. Airport-area development would benefit the company, because it owns developable land around the proposed airport, and although Irvine residents would gripe about an airport, its presence won’t drive out enough people to jeopardize the company’s holdings.

Irvine spokesman Larry Thomas won’t cop to that theory. The company hasn’t concluded anything, he says, because all the airport information isn’t in yet.

The Irvine Co.’s position, Thomas says, “is no different than that of the L.A. Times [editorial page],” which hasn’t given a definitive thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the current airport plan, either.

Granted, but The Times didn’t master-plan the city of Irvine.

Thomas says the Irvine Co. is “very much involved” in monitoring the airport situation and likely will state its position eventually on the airport, “although there’s no specific plan to do so.”

Last week, American Airlines raised anew concerns that its pilots might not embrace the easterly takeoff route from the proposed airport--a route expected to handle six of every 10 departures.

“It’s input like that [from American] that has not been on the table until this point,” Thomas says, “which just makes my point about us not having all the information about the operational characteristics of the airport and what the impact will be.”

OK, OK, but I’m not abandoning my theory. Are you telling me it doesn’t have a fix on what an international airport would mean to its city?

If the company thinks an international airport won’t harm Irvine, say so.

Who wants to watch an 800-pound gorilla sit on its hands?

We want to hear it roar.

*

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers can reach Parsons by calling (714) 966-7821, by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or by e-mail at dana.parsons@latimes.com.