.
.
.
(with permission, reposted from www.orange-needs-parks.org)
“It’s like they traded our cow for a handful of beans – but the beans aren’t magic. We won’t end up with a goose that lays a golden egg. And the beans come with a right of reversion.” 
Remember the story of Jack and the Beanstalk?
Jack takes his cow to market, sells it for a handful of beans.
When he reached home, his mother said, “Back so soon, Jack? Did you get a good price for Milky-White?”
Jack told her how he had exchanged the cow for five beans and before he could finish his account, his mother started to shout and box his ears. “You lazy good-for-nothing boy!” she screamed, “How could you hand over our cow for five old beans? What will we live on now? We shall starve to death, you stupid boy.”
But the beans are magic, Jack climbs the beanstalk, outsmarts the giant who chants “Fe Fi Fo, Fum”, returns home with the goose that lays golden eggs.
The Orange City Council and the developer of Ridgeline Equestrian Estates like to pretend that we are getting a great deal for sacrificing the 51 acres of recreational open space that has been zoned, and used for decades, as recreational open space. You might have learned to swim there, played tennis, or goofed around on the nine hole golf course.
If you read the latest fairy tales that Ridgleine Equestrian Estates are passing out, there’s talk of some fancy new YMCA, parks, trails, creeks, wetlands, you name it.
In the actual development agreement for the 51 acres of recreational open space they want to rezone now, it looks like we are getting a small HOA-controlled horse turnout area with no parking, substandard trails, and half of an arena site.
Until you read the fine print.
See, the City of Orange really doesn’t want to be in the business of operating riding trails and horse arenas. They say they are too broke to operate existing partnerships like the community garden. So the City has negotiated a convoluted agreement where they will refuse to accept all of these new facilities, at which case they go either to a new developer-controlled non-profit or to the new Ridgeline Equestrian Estates HOA, which will be under developer control for years.
And, if the new non-profit to be named later or the Ridgeline Equestrian Estates HOA doesn’t continue to operate these as equestrian facilities for twelve months, then the properties revert to the developer.
We’re not making this up.
Unlike the fairy tales from the developer, this is what is in the actual written agreement.
You can look it up yourself, or just read the section 3.44 in the development agreement in the screen shot below. If the developer-controlled non-profit, or the developer controlled HOA doesn’t operate the new or existing facilities, the land goes back to the developer. And this is the same developer who has already closed the Ridgeline Golf and Tennis club, saying that it cost too much to operate. Stay tuned for our next fairy tale about how the leopard changed his spots.
Mayor Quimby: please explain how someone can “grab” their own land?
Or have you forgotten that this is private property, not public parkland, we’re talking about?
How do you grab land?
Well, in this case, you carefully craft a development agreement, where you “give” the land to the city, they refuse it in favor of giving the land to a non-profit and a HOA that you control.
Then you carefully follow the stipulations of the development agreement, stop maintaining it for twelve months, have it revert back to you, and voila, Land Grab accomplished.
Read the DA you posted. It says the City of Orange gets first right of refusal on the arena.
And you claiming the city is going to refuse it, something you have no evidence for.
And this “Stop the Land Grab” line being used by you and the other NIMBYs is very misleading, because it leads people to believe John Martin is “grabbing” public land, when he is, in fact, only seeking to build on his own property. You neglect to mention the long-standing land use designation for his property if open space/1-acre residential. The zoning change only brings the zoning into compliance with the underlying land use designation.
But to your misinformational point, Quimby, you can’t grab what is already yours.
LOL.
And you claiming the city is going to refuse it, something you have no evidence for..
What, those clauses were just wandering by, tripped and fell into the development agreement, and nobody noticed?
And if the planning and zoning all along was for residential development, why did they need to do both a general plan amendment and a zoning change? Or are you buying the argument that this was all just a clerical error?
Martin knew exactly what the planning and zoning was on the properties he purchased in Orange, when he overpaid at the top of the real estate bubble. He knew that only 20 acres of the total 168 acres that he bought was zoned as residential. Yet, in his arrogance, he assumed that he could also invest in political contributions and consultants to change forty years of carefully crafted land use plans.
Voters have the constitutional right to referend unpopular legislative actions, and they seem well on the way to doing that in Orange, despite the out-of-town goons hired to block them.
Quimby:
It was the city’s idea for the arenas and the trails to become city parks, and the “first right of refusal” clause was a compromise because some of the council members were hesitant to outright commit to the city taking them on as parks. If you had been paying attention to the process while it happened, instead of using opposition talking points, you’d know that.
Takes some time to educate yourself by reading the council minutes of those meetings.
City staff researched the issue of the land use designation and determined that the golf course site had ALWAYS, since the early 1970s, carried the dual land use designation of open space/1-acre residential. Maybe you missed the testimony of OPA residents and Orange councilmembers who were actually around in the early 1970s and involved in crafting the OPA plan. Or you missed the testimony of the man who owned the golf course in the 1970s and 80s.
Or, more likely, you just believe what you want to believe because it is the only way your NIMBY arguments make sense.
The GPA wasn’t necessary, IMHO, but was a good housekeeping the make the matter absolutely clear.
It’s almost as if these City Councils have contests to see who can make the worst deal.
I have never seen anything quite as dumb as this, where the developer gives land to the city, who refuses it, so it is given to agencies controlled by the developer, who can then trigger a reversion of the land to the developer by failing to maintain it.
Anybody who ever argues in favor of redevelopment has to realize that City Councils and their attorneys get pantsed like this every time they play “Let’s Make a Deal.”
The whole follow the money section of this web site is worth reading. http://www.orange-needs-parks.org/follow_the_money
Quimby needs to get his/her facts straight if she wants to comment intelligently on this issue.
The referendum people, led by Tom Davidson, are outright lying to Orange voters to get them to sign their referendum petitions. They’re telling people Martin wants to build homes on a park, which a complete lie. They tell voters this about protecting “open space” on the Sully-Miller site, which has nothing to do with Ridgeline. They are completely separate projects.
Davidson and his crew will say absolutely anything to get people to sign their petitions. Shame on them, and shame on Quimby for repeating their lies.
Everything I’ve seen from them has been very clear that this is about TWO sites, Ridgeline and Sully-Miller.
And show me where they say “build homes on a park?” Just give us a link. I think they try a little harder than that to be accurate.
These are your two gripes?
Vern:
This referendum is about Ridgeline only. There is no project yet at Sully-Miller to referendum. But that doesn’t stop the NIMBYs from duping potential petition signers into thinking this is about both sites.
And I have a neighbor who signed the petition because these NIMBYs told her Martin wanted to “build homes on parkland.”
They may not say that on their website, but that’s what they tell the average Orange citizen. and it is a lie.
Mayor (?) Quimby,
LOL … it’s you who’s living in ‘fairy tale’ land. Yoiu really should check your facts and correct your blog before pushing that “send” button …
The original plan in fact DID have a full (competition) arena, with parking and an adjacent warm-up arena; parking; and stables. … It was the residents of OPA who when asked for their input asked to scale back the equine uses on Ridgeline and leave the competition arena where it is now (Mara Brandman Arena).
The residents wanted less traffic and other impacts than the arena would have created; and, much less than what the old Country Club with tennis and golf created!
Maybe you should return from dream land and listen to the residents … and, perhaps, the OPA Board should do the same and listen to the residents who actually live nearby to Ridgeline?!!?
Do you even live in or nearby to OPA?