http://www.ocregister.com/articles/deal-537483-fivepoint-business.html
My little tirade last week about the Irvine City Council meeting focused on the debacle that was the eight-hour, no-decision meeting itself and not the Great Park deal in the works.
That column had been welling up inside of me for 30 years – the lack of respect I’ve seen governmental agencies show the public on numerous occasions. Irvine happened to be a high-profile violator the night I decided to write about it. So many leaders, particularly conservative ones, talk about needing to “run government like a business.” If a business wasted the public’s time like that, it would not be in business very long.
Anyway, on to the deal. The reason it didn’t happen may be summed up in three words: lack of trust.
Yes, there were unanswered questions. But in a deal of this magnitude there are going to be – and will continue to be throughout the life of the deal. No contract of such complexity is bulletproof. But it comes down to this: When the parties are truly partners – as the city and FivePoint Communities profess they want to be – and have the same vision of the finished product, they realize there are going to be road bumps and they trust each other to work through them as they come up.
It takes two guys looking at each other across the table and saying, “Let’s build this thing,” shaking hands and getting it done.
That’s what’s lacking here. It appears there is trust between FivePoint and the minority bloc of Mayor Steven Choi and Councilwoman Christina Shea. They were ready to cut a deal last week. Larry Agran and Beth Krom will never be ready because they simply don’t share the vision for the Great Park with FivePoint. Jeff Lalloway, the deciding vote, says he hopes to be ready to vote for the deal next Tuesday but, frankly, I won’t be surprised if he isn’t. He and FivePoint haven’t been on the same page for some time.
Lalloway will be able to pick holes in the proposed contract forever if he wants. And he will be able to justify it to some degree as protecting the public. But it’s a fine line. At some point, the protector becomes the obfuscator. He knows the majority of the public wants a park, and to deny it one won’t play well. If this deal is denied at the council level and ends up on the ballot next year, the person most hurt by that will be Lalloway. Would he willing to take that hit?
Conversely, would FivePoint be willing to take off the gloves and openly go after him? Based on its own resources and the sports, business and environmental interests the developer can muster to its cause, it has the political and financial ability to mount a serious campaign.
The council meets again in eight days. I’m betting on gridlock followed by a war. Prove me wrong.
