Multiplying Divisions

A thread of alarm winds through an otherwise buoyant report on how people are feeling in Orange County nowadays. UC Irvine’s recent annual survey confirms divisions that separate people by geography, ethnicity and income. To have two societies within one geographical entity threatens its cohesion for the long term.

This new polling supports a concern already getting considerable discussion: that the county is dividing into haves in the south versus have nots in the north. Bridging the divide is an important challenge for the next century, if the notion of one county is to continue. The El Toro issue remains an incendiary wild card.

Any survey that reports a 32% jump in quality of life ratings since 1993 is obviously ringing with positives. Ninety-two percent of those polled said things are going “very” or “somewhat” well. Consumer confidence, fueled by the stock market growth and by the explosion of the region as a high-tech center, has never been higher.

People are mostly satisfied with the schools, and the old transportation concerns have been eased. This is so especially in the south, with the arrival of improvements made possible by Measure M, the half-cent sales tax. It has led to improvements along the Santa Ana Freeway and at the El Toro “Y” interchange, especially.

The phenomenon of two counties within a county was addressed most notably by the urban planner Joel Kotkin in a research project done several years ago for the Orange County Business Council and some other organizations. The latest UC Irvine survey picks up on this theme: the separation of the county into the older, urban and more minority north and the wealthier and white south.

For many residents, there is a feeling of being left behind by the economic engine, and that affordable housing is not available. The tradition of conservative politics remains, and the survey found Latinos less interested in politics than whites, registering but not necessarily participating in elections. Still, the potential power of new voters is significant, especially in view of recent victories by Democrats in Congress and the Legislature. The county has strong pockets of community and faith-based activism to fuel the debate over the role of government and voluntarism.

The most significant observation of the UC Irvine survey comes in the conclusion offered by Mark Baldassare, who conducted it. That is, that the county lacks “a blueprint” for addressing the division.

That brings us to the bitter El Toro base reuse question, which has the potential to impart an even deeper sense of separation. A breakup of the county along north and south lines over a planned airport seems an unlikely outcome, but it is useful to remember that Orange County was created over a century ago out of a concern that the region had developed its own local needs and identity.

If people are feeling very differently about things, there is further reason for concern arising from the structure of the Board of Supervisors and its ineptitude as a unifying body.

Supervisors represent enclaves of voters in a way that does not reward statesmanship on important regional issues. The current chairman, Charles V. Smith, acknowledged during flight tests that airplanes are loud, but has seemed indifferent to the psychological distress that a large number of county residents feel. A partner on the three-member pro-airport majority, Jim Silva, laments a runway plan that leaves westerly takeoffs over populated areas a possibility, but acts as if he has no power to demand something people might be able to live with.

Other issues await county leadership, but the high number of signatures leading to a ballot measure for next March suggests a groundswell of sentiment that people aren’t getting satisfaction from politicians. That’s so even in a county where quality of life is considered high.