Grounded Again in El Toro

Common ground in the El Toro debate has been a rare commodity. The recent proposal by County Chief Executive Officer Jan Mittermeier to allow the study of non-aviation uses for El Toro Marine Corps Air Station in return for a pledge from South County to refrain from litigation was one of those rare moments when a glimmer of compromise seemed possible.

Alas, last week, the supervisors voted 3 to 2 against allowing a study of alternatives unless South County agreed to abandon legal efforts to block the airport. It was unsurprising that the anti-airport forces said they wouldn’t do that. Chalk up the proposal as a nice thought for defusing El Toro passions.

In fact, the outcome of this vote really was decided last December, when supervisors cast their lot in favor of an international airport. At that time, they made it clear that neither they nor anybody else in county government was taking seriously the idea of alternatives.

That still leaves the county in need of a thorough and independent analysis of other possibilities for El Toro. Moreover, the debate over non-aviation uses is likely to remain a key dividing point. For example, the Orange County Regional Airport Authority, a group of cities supporting the airport, has been clear in its opposition to funding for a competing reuse plan on several grounds. First, in a recent letter to Board Chairman William G. Steiner, the group warned that funding the proposal by the El Toro Reuse Planning Authority (ETRPA) for a competing non-aviation reuse plan would only finance the litigation. And second, it asserted that a non-aviation plan should be implemented only if a fatal flaw were found in the aviation plan.

ETRPA is equally adamant on the other side. It already has filed a lawsuit charging that the preliminary environmental impact report failed to address noise, traffic and pollution. Common sense suggests that those who must live with the airport are unlikely to relinquish their right to sue. They regard their assent as a gesture of signing off on having planes flying overhead.

Steiner, as the swing vote on the board, was in an obvious dilemma last week when he sought both to have the litigation threat removed and to have an alternative study conducted.

It was clear that something had to give. The county can’t have it both ways. From the beginning, alternatives have never fully been aired. So there remains a need for a truly independent evaluation.

If the county is seriously interested in compromise, it must do what now appears highly unlikely. It will have to communicate a willingness to consider alternatives, not just tolerate them. Steiner may be the person on the board in the best position to send that signal.