Giant RV
I was excited to be part of the Feb. 13 article on Giant RV’s continuing land search in Orange County. As the article stated, we have been actively searching for freeway adjacent property for some time. But I wanted to clarify some points about our search.
Giant RV is not focused specifically on buying property in the Anaheim area. Our focus is on finding a location in Orange County. We have been working with many of the local cities, all of which have been very responsive to our needs.
While many cities would enjoy the benefits of Giant RV opening a facility in their neighborhood, there are few that have the available space we need.
During the interview we also spoke in general of current market values for freeway adjacent properties in Orange County, not our “willingness” to pay $10 million to $14 million for them.
Giant RV does have ambitious plans for Orange County and we are very grateful to all of the Orange County cities currently assisting us in our efforts.
Mellanie Ingle
Giant RV
Montclair
The Angels
Re your Feb. 13 Comment:
Anaheim is a backwater in a bigger media market.
The Angels don’t belong to Anaheim. Angel fans are from Orange County, L.A. County, the Inland Empire and northern San Diego County. Anaheim represents less than 5% of the fan base. Who wants to be identified with Anaheim?
Arte Moreno has a right to be mad. He has been a good owner,for the team, for the fans and for baseball.
Why shouldn’t he be upset when the city of Anaheim acts like a petulant child who has not gotten the attention it thinks it deserves? It is the city of Anaheim that must make amends regardless of the language of the lease.
Everyone else in Orange County cares about having a winning team and an enjoyable facility in which to see their team play. Moreno provides both, and in the end that is what matters most.
William R. Mitchell
Cummins & White LLP
Newport Beach
Eminent Domain
An enormous amount of attention has been paid to the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in the case of Kelo vs. City of New London.
In this case, several property owners in the city of New London, Conn., appealed the city’s decision to claim eminent domain over their homes in order to make way for a commercial development.
On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments have the right to seize private property via the use of eminent domain, in order to turn that property over to another private party for the purpose of promoting economic development.
Essentially, the court ruled that local government is free to decide that if they don’t like how you’re using your property, they can take it, and give it to someone who they feel will use it for a more worthwhile purpose.
Many elected officials decried the Supreme Court’s decision, but few have done anything about it.
However, this is not the case in the city of Anaheim. Thanks to the leadership of Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, the city council voted 5-0 to place a measure on the November ballot that would limit the city’s use of eminent domain.
In 2004, the Anaheim city council implemented a policy that prevented the city from using eminent domain for private development. The ballot measure would make this policy part of the city charter, meaning that it would take another vote of the people to reverse it.
Joining Anaheim in their pro-property rights stance is Dana Point, whose City Council also voted to place a similar measure on the November ballot.
How many other Orange County cities will follow the actions of Anaheim and Dana Point?
Matt Petteruto
(Petteruto is public affairs director of the Apartment Association of Orange County and secretary of the Orange County
Taxpayers Association.)
