BETWEEN THE LINES -- Byron de Arakal

It occurs to me that even the most willing brain, having for months

wrested with the tangle of detail spilling from the dust cloud enveloping

the Home Ranch project debate, staggers away from this beast with ringing

in the ears and a scorching thirst for a frosty martini and mindless

entertainment. Which is why I’m fixing to plug a pair of fresh batteries

into the remote, uncork the Boodles and toss out a few prayers for a

“Gilligan’s Island” marathon. Nevertheless, at some point on the

space-time continuum, one has to pick a corner on this thing. And best as

I can tell, Home Ranch is worthy of the city’s nod.

Now, I have a fair number of friends and acquaintances who have a dog

in this hunt, most of whom believe that allowing the development of Home

Ranch will transform our fair town into something resembling downtown

Calcutta, that we’ll be the bond servants of the Segerstrom plutocracy.

Which is why I’m pretty sure that my taking the side of the Segerstroms

on this deal will earn some scowls and cold shoulders.

But I don’t believe either will be the reality.

That sentiment aside, we should pause for some boiler plate here. The

schematic on Home Ranch is this. Roughly 200 new townhomes and

single-family residences will occupy land east of Susan Street and north

of South Coast Drive. Nearly 800,000 square feet of commercial office

buildings will rise adjacent to the Los Angeles Times building and on

land behind the Segerstrom family home. The remaining property will be

gobbled up by a 308,000-square-foot Ikea furniture store (known as the

“Ikea Dome” in our household).

And what will all of this mean for the fair city of Costa Mesa?

Home Ranch foes warn of hellish gridlock at many of the city’s major

intersections. They sound the alarm that the roughly 20,000 automobile

trips made to the project each day will shower the city in a curtain of

ozone and carbon monoxide and obscure little particles known as PM10s.

They say the project will throw the city’s balance between jobs and

housing horribly off kilter, creating thousands more paychecks with no

place to live within the city.

Others, most of them longtime residents, rail against the development

as simply incompatible with the tranquil and placid bedroom community

they once knew and are fighting desperately to recapture.

Often their arguments have been compelling. But I’ve never found them

convincing to the extent the city should pass on such a ripe opportunity

to expand the fiscal foundation on which the city’s future depends.

And here’s why. Nearly all of the traffic that the project will visit

upon our town’s streets and intersections will be, according to the

city’s staff and other sources, nullified to the point of insignificance.

In part, that’s because the Segerstroms have agreed to pay nearly $8.5

million up front for roadway improvements. The project’s opponents insist

that won’t be enough. But in matters as complex and important as these

where one is attempting to predict the future -- and that’s the best we

can do -- I’m inclined to side with the experts.

On the air quality and jobs-housing balance front, the city’s staff

and the Segerstroms concede that the project does have effects that can’t

be easily solved. These are, nevertheless, regional pickles that demand

the collective cooperation of every city in Orange County.

It strikes me as shortsighted and patently foolish that Costa Mesa

should unilaterally tackle these thorny regional problems by sacrificing

its long-term fiscal health on the altar of regional environmentalism and

economic equality. I mean, would we not still suffer from the air-quality

effects and jobs-housing imbalance were the “Ikea Dome” built in, say,

south Santa Ana or east Fountain Valley? How about Huntington Beach?

Surely we would. Except in that case, we’d be without the roughly $31

million in revenues the project is expected to pour into city coffers

over the next 20 years, $5 million of which the Segerstroms have

guaranteed.

Now all of this will inevitably lead to the charge that we are

answering the siren call of the capitalist pigs and the sacred dollar.

But I’m not sure that’s any more misguided than answering the siren call

of provincialism in a futile crusade to recapture some halcyon era long

since passed.

Indeed, this city’s leadership has an obligation to look at the big

picture. In the near term, there are the fiscal challenges and revenue

shortfalls likely to be foisted upon us as Sacramento wrestles with a

staggering $14-billion budget deficit. We should expect some of that cash

dearth will trickle down to our doorstep.

Farther out, this city’s population will surely grow over the next

generation. Its vital infrastructure -- much of it approaching the end of

its useful design life -- will require repair and replacement. If you

understand these essentials, its easier to embrace thoroughly vetted and

mitigated developments as a means of expanding our tax base.

Of those, Home Ranch is clearly the biggest and most important. It

deserves this city’s support.

* Byron de Arakal is a writer and communications consultant. He

resides in Costa Mesa. His column appears on Wednesdays. Readers can

reach him with news tips and comments via e-mail at o7

[email protected] .