Anti-El Toro measure marches on

Noaki Schwartz

SANTA ANA -- A judge Thursday threw out a last-minute lawsuit filed by

local El Toro airport supporters that tried to stop the initiative aimed

at preventing the airport’s construction.

Orange County Superior Court Judge Richard M. Aronson cited lack of

evidence and time as the main problems with the petition.

The lawsuit was filed less than a week before the initiative was set to

go to the printers in order to appear on the March ballot. Aronson was

asked by the registrar of voters to make his judgment Thursday, or by

Monday at the latest.

“I’m intrigued by some of the issues, but I don’t know enough to say one

way or another,” he said, adding that he was compelled to throw out the

suit rather than make an uninformed decision on its merits.

The lawsuit claimed that the proposed Measure F violates the state’s rule

on single-subject initiatives. The California Constitution does not allow

more than one subject to be submitted to voters under one initiative. The

measure proposes requiring a public vote on the construction of airports,

jails or landfills in residential zones.Attorney Barbara Lichman --

representing the group of Newport Beach pro-airport residents -- claimed

the measure’s supporters didn’t show a connection between airports, jails

and landfills. She also said they pose no more of a health risk than the

construction of an apartment block.

“Anything could fall within the rubric of public safety,” Lichman said.

The initiative’s supporters said that the three issues were linked as

large-scale public development projects. However, Lichman argued that a

landfill is not a development and a jail is often merely one structure.

“They threw in jails and landfills in order to appeal to more people,”

Lichman said, stressing that the real purpose of the initiative was to

stop the development of El Toro.

Despite her arguments, the attempt to torpedo Measure F failed. Because

of the lack of time, the lawyers who filed the lawsuit were unable to

compile any evidence supporting their case.

“I have no idea if airports are important to the health of children and

adults,” Aronson said. “How am I going to decide this issue?”

With only two days and no evidence, there was simply no way to make an

informed decision, he added.

Aronson pointed out that in a recent Supreme Court judgment in which a

statewide initiative was ruled invalid under the single-subject rule, the

court had six weeks to review ample evidence.

That particular measure, Proposition 24, included one provision that

would cut legislator compensation and another that would move the ability

to draw congressional district from the Legislature to the Supreme Court.

“Preelection challenges as a rule are discouraged,” said attorney James

Harrison, representing Jeffrey Metzger, the initiative’s proponent. “I

don’t think any extra time would’ve made any difference.”

Still, after the ruling, Lichman said that she is considering appealing

the decision.