Newport’s unilateral lecturers

Newport Beach has this rather unsavory habit of poking its finger in the eyes of its neighbors. And then, when those neighbors protest, it responds with a Tiffany-plated attitude that seems to suggest that it’s entitled to its wants by virtue of its ZIP Code.

Nevertheless, gold-plated unilateralism doesn’t always buy victory. Remember that Newport Beach tried jamming its air traffic agenda down the city of Irvine’s throat. Irvine responded with a boot up the city’s backside.

After digesting Newport Beach Mayor Don Webb and Councilman Steve Rosansky’s smugly genteel backhand to Costa Mesa’s recent decision to file an application with the Local Agency Formation Commission to annex Banning Ranch to Costa Mesa, it’s clear that old attitudes and habits die hard in the harbor city (“Banning Ranch not an option,” March 12).

Banning Ranch, for the geographically unaware, is the 412 acres of county-controlled oil fields and barren land west of Hoag Hospital that gallops along the Santa Ana River channel between West Coast Highway and Talbert Regional Park. Much of Banning Ranch borders Costa Mesa. In fact, the property is more directly accessible through Costa Mesa than it is through Newport Beach.

Though the property is predominantly within Orange County’s jurisdiction, it’s surrounded by a patently bizarre foot-wide swath that snakes around the property’s border. That 12-inch barrier is Newport Beach territory. So what you have is 412 acres of county land surrounded by a foot-wide Maginot line controlled by Newport Beach. Seeing it on paper is like revisiting your child’s first Etch A Sketch drawing.

That this bit of tapeworm gerrymandering occurred back in 1950 seems to be one of Webb’s principal arguments that Costa Mesa’s annexation application is off base. Time, though, doesn’t make a bad decision OK. It simply makes for an old bad decision.

Much of Webb and Rosansky’s rejoinder was simply patronizing. Costa Mesa must understand, they instructed, that Banning Ranch is virgin land “that has sensitive land-use planning issues in need of resolution.” Of course, this implies that only Newport Beach is of sufficient station and capability to resolve sensitive land-use issues. Though, after 55 years, you’d think they’d have stumbled upon a resolution by now.

Webb and Rosansky then obliquely remind Costa Mesans that, when push comes to shove, no one who owns unincorporated land really wants that land to be in Costa Mesa.

“If anyone in Costa Mesa bothered to ask the Banning Ranch owners if they want to be annexed to Costa Mesa,” the writers lecture, “they would no doubt agree that the future of Banning Ranch lies in Newport Beach.”

That’s clumsy diplomatic speak for “you’re undesirable.”

Still, let’s scope that bit of high-falutin’ chatter for a moment. What makes the Banning Ranch property valuable? Its bluff topography? Sure. Its geographic location overlooking the Santa Ana River and the Pacific Ocean? Absolutely. How about its ZIP Code?

Not so much.

Unlike West Santa Ana Heights, which is bereft of ocean exposure and stands to enjoy higher property values within the Newport Beach ZIP Code, Banning Ranch’s inherent value is in its topography and ocean-view location. Those are top-dollar features irrespective of ZIP Code.

But let’s not be disagreeable. Let’s entertain Webb and Rosansky’s our-ZIP-Code-is-better-than-your-ZIPCode tweak for a moment and plug it into the other equation that defines land value; that is, the land owner’s ability to develop his property to its highest and best use.

By that math, I’d argue Banning Ranch is far more valuable as a part of Costa Mesa. That’s because Costa Mesa is aggressively pursuing the redevelopment and economic revitalization of its Westside, which borders Banning Ranch. In that environment, it seems to me, the owners of Banning Ranch would likely find Costa Mesa to be a more welcoming, accommodating municipality with respect to the land owners’ vision for the Banning Ranch property.

The same can’t be said for Newport Beach. Why? Two things: Greenlight and Greenlight II.