|1967: running for "new |
district" trustee in
Tustin; rumors flyin'
Oh, Tustin, Tustin, Tustin. Always lookin’ for a deal.
A May 4, 1961, editorial in the Tustin News presents a city and community that is in no hurry to throw in with one merger plan or another. “Let’s see who offers the best deal,” they seem to say:
We have continued to study aspects of junior college districts [proposals] since our last report on the meeting at which Santa Ana College officials addressed themselves to the subject of a merging Santa Ana, Orange and Tustin high school districts into one. Our latest intelligence is that it is still possible for TUHS [Tustin Union High School] district to discuss the possibility and advisability of joining Orange Coast College [instead].That the Allen-Briscoe planners recommended Tustin’s merging with Santa Ana and Orange—and for good reason—doesn’t seem to bother this writer at all (probably Bill Moses).
The writer seems impressed with Orange Coast’s finances:
Instead of bond issues, we hear OCC board is considering an over ride tax, to save bond issue interest and to undertake a “pay as you go” construction policy. This is refreshing news…. The override tax being discussed, we understand, is in the range of 15 to 20 cents per $100 assessed valuation. This is not a bad tab, when you look at other schools’ financial projections.Again, the writer opines that Tustin should be in no hurry to decide:
We believe a few months of study of the junior college districting situation is a program no one could argue with in light of the fact no good will come from TUHS district going the wrong direction. IF we go into any junior college district we should now why we are going there, how much the tax cost will be and future plans for the educational construction facilities.
The Tustin writer, hayseeds clinging to his trousers, evinces some skepticism toward the out of town “experts” who have been brought in, like freakin' outside agitators:
The new JC districting of the county was instigated by one JC administrator who foresaw crushing student population in the years ahead. And this county authorized some out of town education experts to draft a report. It shows Santa Ana, Orange and Tustin as a possibly merged JC district. But this is not mandatory at all, SAC [Santa Ana College] officials have stated in public meetings in Tustin.This next part is interesting, if I understand it:
They pointed out such a merger would have to be a “happy marriage” if the union was to endure, particularly with a multi-million dollar bond issue a necessity to erect a new junior college on a new 100-acre site in North Tustin.
|Typical news item,|
Tustin News 1965
The writer reminds readers that their city need not bend to the will of nasty brainiacs and outsiders; Tustinites have a choice:
It’s obvious TUHS district has a choice. From latest reports, Laguna Beach and Capistrano Beach high schools do not wish to merge into Orange Coast [again, contrary to Allen-Briscoe recommendations]. That would indicate TUHS district would be considered with interest, possibly by the OCC board of trustees.
SAC officials have shown their interest in TUHS. We imagine as much interest exists at OCCC official levels. No reason our local folk cannot find out how OCC officialdom feels about this high school district. Last we heard they like us fine.That’s too folksy for me to understand. WTF.
That was the, or a, Tustinite perspective as of May, 1961. Somehow, by April of 1963, Tustinites are discussing another “JC district” idea entirely, one even more alien to Allen-Briscoe recommendations. They’re contemplating merging with Laguna Beach and Capistrano high school districts!
Tustin’s merging with Orange and Santa Ana makes sense: the city is, after all, only a few miles from Santa Ana College, which is well-established. If a new campus is built for that district, Tustinites would have every right to assume that it would be located in or at least near Tustin. But if Tustin merges with the likes of way-distant Laguna and Capistrano—well by what logic would Tustinites assume that that district would locate its first (or second) campus in or near Tustin?
Things really haven’t turned out well for Tustin. We’ve gone over some of this ground before. But it will be interesting to consider “the Commission’s” account. (I’m referring to the California State Postsecondary Education Commission and its 1977 report, which I discussed yesterday.)
Here, then, are relevant excerpts from the Commission’s Community College Education in Orange County, California: The Challenge of Growth in an Era of Limits. It spells out the trials and tribulations of the City of Tustin from a state bureaucrat's perspective:
|Celebration premature: Tustin News, March 3, 1977|
We respectfully request that you consider the burden imposed upon Tustin residents by assignment to Saddleback Community College located approximately 20 miles south of Tustin when the Rancho Santiago Community College District, with better facilities and curricula and a lower tax rate, is located less than 4 miles west of Tustin.The Community Colleges Chancellor's staff supported de-annexation even though this would reduce the Saddleback District's assessed valuation by 23 percent and its average daily attendance by 18 percent. The staff, however, recommended that the de-annexation vote be district-wide, virtually insuring its defeat because non-Tustin voters faced a hefty tax increase if Tustin joined Rancho Santiago. An impassioned plea from Saddleback, though, convinced the Board of Governors to disapprove the transfer altogether on June 20, 1974.
. . .
Although the Allen-Briscoe report had recommended that the Coast District reach south to include the older communities of Laguna Beach, San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente, these residents were not anxious to join a district which meandered from Seal Beach to southern Orange County. Two developments, however, forced them into a decision.
First, in the early 1960s, the Irvine Company began to gradually develop parcels within its 83,000 acres, thus reversing a 60-year policy, which reserved the land for crops and livestock. The land around UC, Irvine, was certain to become residential and form a solid urban corridor from Tustin south along the Santa Ana freeway and from Costa Mesa to El Toro along the San Diego freeway.
Second, California's Master Plan for Higher Education, whose prestige increased steadily during the 1960s, had recommended that all territory “be brought into junior college districts as rapidly as possible." The Legislature then set September 15, 1967, as the decision deadline. Therefore, some action had to be taken to accommodate the growing numbers of students in the older communities of southern Orange County and in the fledgling suburbs of Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Hills, and Irvine.
|Whimsical board: July 11, 1977|
Since that time, enrollment growth has been dramatic and, at times, overwhelming. … Ultimately, the Saddleback site could support a campus of 12,000 ADA students if enrollment continues to expand.
Since 1967, Saddleback has experienced the striking successes and frustrations characteristic of an extensive district with an influx of relatively affluent, education-minded people....
Likewise, program development could not be comprehensive at Saddleback. Each program has been phased in order to concentrate resources and to bring each division of the college to maturity in sequence. Transfer programs and vocational courses, which do not require elaborate equipment or much space, have been developed first. Indeed, two vocational programs—gerontology and recreation—have received much support because of the special circumstances in the district. Alternately, specialized technical-vocational facilities have been de-emphasized and, if a second campus in the District at Irvine becomes a reality, the bulk of such education will be there.
|From official Tustin website. I guess they|
think they dominate the County
. . .
The Tustin petition … and the projected growth of the City of Irvine … made a major new facility in the north a compelling item on the Saddleback Trustees' agenda. Furthermore, they believed that enrollment estimates fully justified planning for a second campus. In November 1975 the District selected nine sites in the northern area to be considered for the new campus.... In June 1976, the Trustees narrowed these sites down to 1, 2, and 5, and finally selected Site 1 [in Tustin] after receiving an Environmental Impact Report.
The District is now embroiled in negotiations over these potential sites. Site 1 (the Myford-Bryan site) is the nearest to Tustin and therefore has political appeal. Unfortunately, the site is in an undeveloped flood plain, without sewers, water, or electricity. Site 1 is also under Williamson Act contract. [It is somewhat encumbered.] Notice has been given on much land surrounding the site, and this land will be released from Williamson Act "agricultural preserves" in the early 1980s.
Despite these drawbacks, the Saddleback Board approved Site 1 in September 1976, and approached the Irvine Company, owner of all the acceptable sites. For several reasons internal to its policy-making, the Irvine Company has been reluctant to sell Site 1 and, in January 1977, proposed a counter-offer to the Saddleback Trustees. The Irvine Company would sell Site 6 [on Jeffrey/Irvine Center, in Irvine] substantially below market value. Obviously, the District could initiate condemnation proceedings and ultimately obtain Site 1, but the Irvine Company has made such an attractive offer on Site 6 that condemnation would cost the District thousands of extra dollars.
Regardless of this, the Board considered the alternatives in February, 1977 and voted 3-2 to press ahead with Site 1 [in Tustin]. On March 8,1977,a new Board was elected after a campaign which highlighted the second campus issue and, therefore, the negotiations with the Irvine Company are uncertain….
The rigors of selecting a site have slowed the District's planning for the kind of campus, which would be established in the north.... [END of excerpt]
See also Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, and Part 6.
* * *