In a biting report aimed at efforts to build one of America's largest urban parks, the Orange County Grand Jury suggests the ambitious plan could founder if left in the hands of Irvine city leaders.
The Orange County Great Park, which would take shape at the former El Toro Marine base, has gained national attention for its ambitious scope, and landscape artists from around the world recently competed for the right to design it.
In its report, the grand jury recommends that either an elected board chosen from across the county take over development of the 1,300-acre park or that the county sue to get the property back from Irvine. The land was turned over to the city after Orange County voters killed plans for an international airport in 2002 and replaced it with park zoning.
Without a way to ensure countywide participation in the development, jurors concluded, the park has become merely the "Irvine Great Park."
The 11-page report, to be publicly released Monday, decries the Irvine City Council's move in April to assume authority over the park and the $401 million in development fees and assessments to build it.
Even the jurors' title for their report takes a shot at Irvine: "The Orange County Great Park: Whose Park Is It?" The subtitle then quotes Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Mayor Beth Krom said she was disappointed with the report's conclusions given Irvine's commitment to building the regional facility. She said she would have been happy to share the park's successes with jurors but wasn't interviewed.
"I'm always disappointed when things are done for political motivations instead of the public interest," said Krom, who said she had not seen the report.
The report said that a three-member majority voting bloc on the Irvine City Council controls the fate of the park, not the nine-member independent body created by the city in 2003 to fulfill its promise of countywide control over the base. Irvine officials had promised Orange County residents that the park would be governed by an independent board to which the city would lease the land and provide the money for development.
Moving the park in-house creates a potential conflict, jurors said, between the interests of the city and the interests of the park. For example, they said, if the city was asked to build a swimming facility at the park, City Council members could balk because they wouldn't want to compete with the city's aquatic complex.
