Pro-Airport Consultant Skews Great Park Facts

Re “The Cost of a Great Park,” Nov. 18:

A minimum respect for honesty demands that the commentary by consultant Kurt R. Sjoberg be clearly identified for what it is--a political advertisement paid for by the pro-airport Airport Working Group. This transparently meretricious piece of sophistry fails to examine even superficially how great parks are created and financed.

No Great Park advocate has ever asserted that such a huge development at the closed El Toro Marine Corps Air Station could be paid for by revenue from existing infrastructure at the 4,700-acre facility--a tiny fraction of the revenue stream needed to build and maintain a park comparable to San Diego’s Balboa Park, San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park or Los Angeles’ Griffith Park. Those of us who dream of a true Great Park know most of the funding must come from private foundations, educational institutions, government grants and user fees--not from tax revenues.

The Airport Working Group wants voters to believe that if the Great Park cannot be entirely financed from existing infrastructure revenues, we, the taxpayers, will be forced to pick up the tab. Nothing could be further from the truth. I invite serious readers to visit the Balboa Park Web site at www.balboapark.org . Balboa Park was conceived in 1868 when city leaders set aside 1,400 acres of land. The present 36 park attractions were developed slowly over the last 132 years. Many of the attractions are free, but most charge admission to cover operating and maintenance expense. San Diegans are justifiably proud of this magnificent park and major tourist attraction kept alive and booming by 85 cultural and recreational civic organizations.

That is the dream we have for the Orange County Great Park--a major cultural and recreational facility that will attract visitors from all over the world.

Dave Blodgett

Member, Airport Site Coalition

Laguna Woods

*

The recent article was so detached that one wonders if life is only about money. Kurt Sjoberg, the hired consultant for George Argyros’ Airport Working Group, had as much feeling for the issue as a robot, but then that was what he was paid to do.

Sjoberg’s statistics are as riddled as Swiss cheese. At least the park will not be developed on the “if you build it they will come” philosophy like an airport. Only someone with available monies can act in that manner. That is what is terrifying about leaving it to the Board of Supervisors. To date they have spent over $40 million of our money ignoring the common voice of dissent from their constituents. No one expects a park to be built out immediately and maybe a great art museum will take 60 years. That is reasonable. It is about zoning change and development, a process that Orange County was never allowed to pursue. Voters will now have that opportunity.

To claim that other California military bases can only earn 15 to 20 cents per square foot per month in rentals, therefore, we should expect the same, isn’t worth the cost of the ink on a lease. Many of these bases can only earn that amount given their location. If Orange County can’t generate 40 to 80 cents, then something is amiss and we would certainly deserve another bankruptcy. Also, to intentionally leave out mention of the educational facilities planned is very convenient. Many universities have expressed interest in the location and the potential for generating income is clearly there.

The park plans may not provide instant gratification, but they will be a wonderful legacy for generations to come. There are many people who love Orange County and have shown a willingness to contribute in the past. Donors don’t often step up to the plate, but pitch in when the plans unfold.

Mary Schwartz

Santa Ana

*

I could not be more angry at The Times for allowing someone as biased as Kurt Sjoberg so much space to spread lies. He is a consultant for a group financed by George Argyros and has a specific agenda. The fact that he was California’s state auditor does not mean he is incapable of distorting the truth. He states that the fiscal impact study done by the BBC Research & Consulting Group is accurate. This consulting group worked into their financial analysis $420 million for land acquisition. This land will be conveyed at no cost to Orange County from the federal government. The study also factored $146 million in remediation costs. The truth is that these costs will be the responsibility of the federal government once the Great Park initiative is passed. This same study Sjoberg says is so accurate also factors in $200 million for a zoo. Nowhere in the Great Park plan is there a plan for a zoo. In fact, this entire study was designed only to prove a point. It is a perfect example of making a series of incorrect assumptions designed to produce a predetermined result.

George Somogyi

Laguna Niguel

*

Sjoberg, who works for a pro-airport coalition, gave a reasoned explanation of the real costs of the Great Park idea. What he didn’t bother to mention is that the real costs of the proposed airport are far higher.

Billions in lost property values will result from the airport. Homes in Lake Forest, Leisure World, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel and many other communities will start selling at Inglewood prices as soon as the big jets start roaring overhead. Home values in all South County communities will fall as traffic congestion, pollution and noise, not to mention the potential for crashes in densely populated communities, drive down prices.

Sjoberg may take the position that whatever is lost in South County values will be made up in increased values for Newport Beach, the people who paid for his biased study. But why should Newport benefit at the expense of the rest of South County? Wasn’t John Wayne built long before most of the homes in Newport? I understand why Newporters want to change the rules to make their already wealthy community even wealthier, but please, not at the expense of your neighbors.

Jim Corbett

San Clemente