Opinion: From Golf Course to Battleground: Fear vs. Facts
““The ground they defend was never theirs—but the noise they make is.” — unkown
In major civic debates, the truth often struggles to be heard over the noise of misinformation. In the case of the proposed redevelopment of Oak Creek Golf Club into the Spectrum District Village, that noise didn’t build gradually—it was there from the start.From the outset, much of the opposition to the project has been shaped by concerns rooted in emotion and confusion—often fueled by misinformation or misinterpretations of planning documents and land use law. Rather than engage with the planning process or the legal realities of land use, opponents chose a familiar path: mischaracterize the land as “preserved,” cast routine planning as a betrayal or backroom deal, and try to manufacture outrage before the public could see the full proposal. The water hazards on the golf course? The opposition describes them as precious lakes. The privately owned golf course is labeled a wildlife refuge. And of course, traffic concerns make a predictable appearance—ignoring Irvine’s long-standing track record of pre-planned infrastructure and responsive development. Yet for those opposed to growth, Irvine’s managed trajectory is irrelevant. Especially after they became homeowners, every new housing project is treated as a threat—“turning Irvine into L.A.”
It’s a strategy as old as community activism itself—organize early, shape the narrative, and aim to influence public perception before facts and full context are widely available. Get the message out early. Stir emotions. Flood City Council meetings with angry voices. Claim the moral high ground—and claim to speak for the majority. Threaten political consequences. Call for immediate stoppage. Even threaten legal action. In fact, at each meeting so far, opponents have demanded the City revoke its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that allows continued evaluation of the Irvine Company’s proposal.
Take, for example, the July 2025 letter sent to the City by the Chatten-Brown law firm on behalf of a group calling itself Save Irvine Open Space and the Orange Tree Master Homeowner Association, led by Rolf Parkes, a former police officer. Its tone is urgent, its claims sweeping. It insists the City has no authority to proceed without a public vote, citing the 1988 Resolution 88-1. But reading that resolution makes clear: the golf course was never protected. It was designated as potential open space but never went through the legal process of agreement, dedication, or transfer of ownership to the public. It remains privately owned by the Irvine Company. The City Attorney has explained that the Oak Creek golf course is not subject to the protections and required electoral processes in Resolution 88 – 1. It’s also worth noting that in 1988, the Oak Creek parcel wasn’t a golf course—it was open space. The golf course wasn’t built until 1996. The letter’s true goal isn’t legal clarity. It’s to elicit fear in an attempt to stop the proposal from being considered immediately, if not—delay. Fear did not meet with success as again the call to recind the MOU failed. Delay invites doubt, and doubt discourages action. Legal pressure, even without merit, is an age-old strategy to slow things down in a last ditch effort to apear to remain relevant for a little longer. A frequently cited voice in this debate is John LeBlanc, a former Irvine Company employee, whose recent testimony portrays Oak Creek Golf Club as land already “paid for” and implicitly protected under past development agreements. While his background offers historical insight, it cannot substitute for the documented legal process outlined in Resolution 88-1. That resolution requires formal agreement, dedication, and recorded transfer of ownership—none of which occurred at Oak Creek. LeBlanc’s interpretation, while persuasive to some—particularly those committed to a specific outcome—cannot override the clear language of the law or decades of precedent in how the City and the Irvine Company have executed land preservation.The Shifting Story of 88-1
Facts inform; fear mobilizes. In this debate, emotion-driven narratives have often overshadowed evidence-based discussion, clouding the public’s ability to assess the proposal on its merits. So we get slogans, accusations, legal letters, demands for ballot measures, calls for recalls, and now demands to take the land by eminent domain. The irony? Some who claim the City is rushing the process are now in a rush to shut it down before it has the opportunity to be fully vetted by the City and the public in a process that typically takes 12–18 months. Yes, the same people that claimed at the outset that it was a sneaky, backroom deal that was being snuck by the public.
This is not how democracy works. Civic engagement requires honesty, patience, and participation in process—not attempts to hijack it to shut things down with threats and misinformation. We should welcome scrutiny, debate, and even protest. But we must also call out tactics of delay for what they are: a substitute for an argument that can’t win on the merits. Let’s be clear: the Oak Creek site is not protected open space, it is privately owned by the Irvine Company. The proposed plan will be reviewed, revised, and negotiated over the next 12 to 18 months. The public has been invited into the process from the very beginning. Those who truly care about open space should be open to supporting the 2025 ballot initiative—a measure that would secure lands like Turtle Rock, Quail Hill, Gateway Preserve, the potential newly acquired open space transferred by the Irvine Company to the City and more. That’s the real protection. That’s the real opportunity to show support for open space. For more on that check out the article [Oak Creek Golf Course Isn’t Public—But We Can Protect What Is ]. Fear is easy—and often the first tactic used to generate opposition. Progress is harder, but Irvine’s managed growth strategy is exactly what has made it one of the most sought-after cities to live in. The future of Irvine requires a continued commitment to the processes and partnerships that have guided our success as a City from the very beginning. Piece 4 of “Irvine at the Crossroads” – a multi-part series unpacking truth, growth, and open space in our city. Next up: Piece 5: “The Myth of Decline: Irvine’s Growth Is Smart, Not Reckless” – publishing Friday, August 1st.References:
Resolution No. 88-1 – Phased Dedication and Compensating Development Opportunities Programs (City of Irvine, 1988)Outlines the process by which designated private land could become protected open space—only through mutual agreement and transfer of ownership. City Attorney’s Memo on Oak Creek and Resolution 88 – 1 (City of Irvine, May 2024) Confirms Oak Creek Golf Club is not legally protected and that a public vote is not required to change its use. Chatten-Brown legal Letter (July 17, 2025) The letter submitted by Save Irvine Open Space attempting to halt consideration of the project through legal pressure. City of Irvine Municipal Code – Prohibition of Eminent Domain Irvine law generally prohibits the use of eminent domain My Comment & Engagement Policy If you engage with my content and provide the references to why you believe what you believe (just put the internet address to cut and paste), you can expect a reply. If you just express your opion, that is most likely ok too, but personal attacks, and failing to engage with the content likely be ignored. I put the work in so that both my reader and I can grow in our understanding of civic matters in Irvine.
Continue Following the Oak Creek Debate
Explore Irvine Watchdog’s continuing coverage of the Oak Creek Golf Course closing, the Oak Park development proposal, and the proposed Nature Park.
15 Comments
Steve D
July 28, 2025 at 12:32 pmWhile this maybe your opinion, you should really be much more careful in getting your facts straight and details….it undermines your credibility as a “wannabe” journalist. First, could have have chosen a more infalmatory picture? I doubt there will be a civil war with cannons at the golf course.
Some your facts that are not correct:
1. The name of the law firm is not “Chatten-Brown”. A simple look at the letterhead would reveal that and a simple Google search would have confirmed that. The firm that appears on the letterhead is actually quite well respected in citizen-side land use law. I’ll put them up against your knowledge of land-use law and thorough research of the documents in question (we will get to that later).
2. The former TIC employee name is not John. I leave that for your to research, since you are so good at that.
3. You casually omit the fact that after 88-1 was approved by the voters that there was a MOU signed by both the City and TIC. Are you too lazy to read that and connect it appropriately or is it easy to omit that to actually present the facts since they don’t support your position? It is diengenous to call out others for being short-sided on research when your research fall woefully short. While 88-1 does spell out certain things, it is rather vague. However, the MOU dated 9/26/1988 fills in the details and outlines the implementation of 88-1, specifically page A-5 (as noted on the page), under section “o” titled “Preservation Area in Planning Area 12”. “Golf Course is a permitted use in the preservation area in Planning Area 12 subject to the City’s approval of such us and PROVIDED THE LANDOWNER CONVEYS AN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT, LIMITING ITS USE TO A GOLF COURSE and customary and appurtenant facilities, TO THE CITY. CONVEYANCE OF SUCH AN EASEMENT SATISFIES ANY DEDICATION REQUIREMENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ACTION PROGRAM.” I read that are what should have happened to fulfill the requirement of the dedication part of the 88-1. To be clear an easement doesn’t mean transfer of ownership of the land. It should be noted that in the Irvine Municpal Zoning Ordinance this parcel/area is covered and referred to as a golf couse (9-12-7-B2). You simply can not present 88-1 as be all/end all of the facts without including the MOU surrounding its implementation. That is misleading at best.
3a. This is not public land, but everything I read in the base documents shows a clear trade off between TIC, the city, and the residents at the time. TIC got increase density in other developments, the city got open spaces, and the residents of the center city got an open space that was agreed to operated a golf course open to the public. People can debate if this is true open space, but it is open space (free of housing, industrial, commercial) that attracts wildlife, acts as a noise buffer, and provides recreational activitities for young/old residents (of Irvine and surrounding communities).
4. As for people wanted to save the golf course, save the open space, or not want housing. I think they all have valid reasons. Some might be more emotional than others, some might be more grounded in facts, and some might have legitimate concerns about the impact on every day life. Just as those who would rather see housing have valid points in support or removing the golf course.
OPINION: If this was voted upon once, there is no reason it can’t be re-affirmed via a vote, if the council is not strong enough to ask the orginal MOU from 1988 be enforced. However, that vote should be “honest” with the residents of Irvine and very specifically tell us what we are voting for. You can’t have a vote to re-affirm 88-1 and bury “removing the preservation status” from the city center open space/golf course parcels in the language of the ballot measure.
Crit
July 29, 2025 at 3:16 pmThanks for your thoughtful reply, Steve. I’m glad to address your points directly, since discussion like this—when grounded—is what civic engagement should look like.
1. The Law Firm Name: You’re right that the full name is Chatten-Brown, Carstens & Minteer. The shorthand “Chatten-Brown” is a common reference to the principal attorney (as is often done with firms like “Latham” or “Gibson Dunn”), but I’ll note the full name in the next update for clarity.
2. The Former Employee’s Name: You’re also correct that I mistakenly referred to the speaker as John LeBlanc; his full name is Michael LeBlanc, as given in the meeting record. That error will also be corrected. It doesn’t change the substance of his argument—but getting names right matters.
3. The 1988 MOU: This is where clarification is needed. The MOU does not confer public ownership or record an easement for the Oak Creek parcel. Section “O” of the MOU outlines what would be required if the land were to be counted as a dedicated preservation area: namely, the conveyance of an open space easement. But there is no recorded easement in the County Recorder’s database tied to this parcel. That’s a material absence. The MOU outlines a path forward—but it is conditional, not automatic.
In fact, Section 5 of Resolution 88‑1 specifies that the City is responsible for recording and enforcing any dedications. If the required easement had been conveyed, it would be discoverable in the public record. It’s not.
4. The Trade-Off Argument: You suggest there was a trade—Irvine Company gets increased density elsewhere, and the public gets Oak Creek as open space. If there’s documentation of a binding agreement linking these concessions to the golf course, I’d welcome seeing it. But again, without recorded easements or ownership transfer, this “agreement” remains informal or aspirational—not a legally binding preservation to my average voters eyes.
5. Public Sentiment and Voting: I agree wholeheartedly that people on all sides can have valid concerns and that clear, direct language in any ballot measure is essential. My goal has always been to separate emotion from fact so we can engage meaningfully. You’ve helped that effort by raising important questions.
As for your opinion section, which is where the core of what you are attempting to reframe is—let’s unpack it:
That assumes the original vote granted permanent protection to Oak Creek, which it did not. Resolution 88‑1 laid out a process—not a blanket protection—and that process included formal agreement, dedication, and public ownership. Those steps were never completed for Oak Creek. So there’s nothing to “reaffirm” by vote—because the land never reached the protected status that would require one.
This frames enforcement as a matter of political will—but what’s missing is legal standing. The 1988 MOU requires an easement to be conveyed in order to satisfy the dedication requirements for Planning Area 12. No such easement is recorded. If it wasn’t conveyed, there is nothing to enforce. Blaming the Council for not enforcing an action that never legally occurred is misguided.
This mischaracterizes the proposed 2025 ballot measure. The initiative isn’t about re-affirming 88‑1 or removing protections—it’s about finally granting them to thousands of acres of actual, publicly owned land that currently lacks permanent protection. That includes places like Turtle Rock Open Space, Gateway Preserve, and Quail Hill Community Park—none of which were secured under 88‑1, and all of which deserve to be. Any actual open space activist would look to add that to their list of accomplishments, which is telling.
The narrative that rezoning a private golf course equals “removing preservation status” is misleading. Oak Creek was once open space, then developed into a golf course, which is a private recreational business. It was never legally preserved—and calling it “open space” today confuses the public and attempts to rewrites history.
If this debate is truly about protecting open space, then the 2025 measure is the opportunity of a generation. If it’s just about blocking housing at Oak Creek—then let’s call it what it is.
Now, my opinion—especially for those aligned with the anti-growth effort:
Your group’s “shotgun strategy” is unraveling. When every argument is thrown at the wall—regardless of consistency or credibility—it starts to look like exactly what it is: a reactive coalition stitched together by frustration, not facts. Assertions without proof, accusations without evidence, and a refusal to concede even basic points signal weakness, not strength.
Here’s the crux: if you truly believe Oak Creek Golf Course isn’t owned outright by the Irvine Company, then prove it. But so far, you haven’t. Instead, you villainize them—while conveniently ignoring that Resolution 88-1 clearly states it is the City’s responsibility to record and monitor any open space dedications. Blaming the developer for what the law assigns to the City shows not just a misunderstanding of the process, but a disregard for how Irvine has historically worked—through cooperation, not conspiracy.
And now you want to challenge my credibility? Your group speculates about my motives, my status, even my qualifications. Here’s the truth: I’m a resident and a student who cares deeply about civic transparency and telling the public what they deserve—the truth, even when it’s inconvenient. When you level baseless attacks, you don’t undermine me. You reveal something about yourselves. My friends, colleagues, and those who know my work understand my intentions, and there are A LOT of them, constantly growing in number. When they hear your claims, your credibility is what suffers.
I want better public discourse. I want us to spend less time in performative outrage and more time solving problems. That starts with engaging in good faith—giving and taking points based on evidence, not just preferred outcomes. Herding a crowd of angry residents to the microphone with a goal of appearing to be a majority, issuing political threats, and waving legal threats around like weapons doesn’t advance the conversation—it hijacks it.
So if your cause is just—tighten it up. Lead with clarity, not volume. Offer facts, not slogans. Prove what you claim. And most importantly: respect the public process that has served Irvine well for over 50 years.
Happy to keep this conversation going—thanks again for your engagement.
[email protected]
July 28, 2025 at 8:24 pmCritt your entire opinion ignores the most important part of Resolution 88-1: Oak Creek was supposed to be protected after the Irvine Company completed 75% of its building obligations. The City was required to record an easement from TIC to preserve it—but never did.
“After the construction of at least 75% of the compensating development, the Irvine Company shall grant the City an open space easement on the designated preservation areas…”
— Resolution 88-1, Section 5
And it wasn’t just a promise—it was a condition of development approval:
“The City shall not approve any tentative tract map or issue any building permit… until a development agreement… is executed… and contains provisions for the dedication of permanent open space easements to the City.”
— Resolution 88-1, Section 4
The Irvine Company signed a Development Agreement with the City that included a promise to permanently preserve certain open space areas—including Oak Creek—by granting an easement to the City.
The Development Agreement above triggered approvals—but the City failed to enforce the key condition: recording the easement to protect Oak Creek in perpetuity.
So yes, the land was meant to be permanently preserved. The Irvine Company got their housing and retail approvals—and the public got nothing. The public is owed that land and nothing can be built on it.
We are not in the business of misinformation, however; your opinion piece is just that opinion without correlating facts. As usual I will not play your game so no responses from me If you really care about the law do better Critt you’re on the lying side here.
[email protected]
July 28, 2025 at 8:27 pmCritt your entire opinion ignores the most important part of Resolution 88-1: Oak Creek was supposed to be protected after the Irvine Company completed 75% of its building obligations. The City was required to record an easement from TIC to preserve it—but never did.
“After the construction of at least 75% of the compensating development, the Irvine Company shall grant the City an open space easement on the designated preservation areas…”
— Resolution 88-1, Section 5
And it wasn’t just a promise—it was a condition of development approval:
“The City shall not approve any tentative tract map or issue any building permit… until a development agreement… is executed… and contains provisions for the dedication of permanent open space easements to the City.”
— Resolution 88-1, Section 4
The Irvine Company signed a Development Agreement with the City that included a promise to permanently preserve certain open space areas—including Oak Creek—by granting an easement to the City.
The Development Agreement above triggered approvals—but the City failed to enforce the key condition: recording the easement to protect Oak Creek in perpetuity.
So yes, the land was meant to be permanently preserved. The Irvine Company got their housing and retail approvals—and the public got nothing. The public is owed that land and nothing can be built on it.
We are not in the business of misinformation, however; your opinion piece is just that opinion without correlating facts. As usual I will not play your game so no responses from me If you really care about the law do better Critt you’re on the side of lies.
Crit
July 29, 2025 at 3:41 pmThanks for the passion—but this is just another rerun. I’ve addressed each of these claims in detail, multiple times: Section 5 describes what should happen after certain conditions are met—not what did. No easement was recorded. No dedication was completed. That’s not opinion—it’s a verifiable public record.
Reframing intention as fulfillment doesn’t make it so. The law deals in what’s documented, not what’s assumed.
You may not like the facts, but ignoring them doesn’t put you on the side of truth.
Christina Shea
July 28, 2025 at 8:38 pmCrit
You clearly are working for the Irvine Company
How much are you being compensated ?
We have had residents over the years working for our developer partners, and with politcal operatives
which you appear to be, clearly one
I am shocked by the nonsense you are posting here.
Defending the City attorney that has been working with the Irvine Company attorneys to create “loop holes” and misinformation about the 1992 court determination that two other later more recent court findings nullified their argument.
Funny he didn’t share this with the Council but our independent attorney brought this forward
They tried to give all of us a reason to violate the 1988 voter approved Initiative but there are no loop holes
So it took 36 years for the City Attorney to declare oh
My gosh we have a problem with the voter approved initiative?
Talk about stupid
I find your recent involvement and your very prominent
visibility supporting the Irvine Company strange and very questionable!
Since you have no history in this City, that I am aware
But I love the dog park !
Crit
July 29, 2025 at 4:16 pmChristina,
I want to begin by acknowledging the years you spent serving this city. I even had the honor of meeting you at a Council meeting not long ago—and yes, I meant that hug. I appreciated what I believed was a shared value: that public service requires clarity, honesty, and care with our words.
That’s why I was disappointed to read your comment.
Accusing me of being a paid operative for the Irvine Company—without a shred of evidence—undermines not just my character but the integrity of public discourse itself. You know as well as anyone that when former elected officials make baseless claims, they carry weight. And when that weight is used to smear residents who speak up in good faith, we all lose something.
I’m not being paid by anyone. I’m a student, a resident, and someone who believes that Irvine deserves the truth—especially on complex issues like this one. I read documents carefully. I check sources. I listen to those who disagree. I’ve never claimed perfection, but I have claimed—and held to—transparency.
If you disagree with my conclusions, I welcome that. But let’s raise the bar: critique arguments, not identities. Bring evidence, not innuendo.
Public trust is fragile. And when our leaders—past or present—choose to erode it for the sake of politics or frustration, we teach the next generation that facts don’t matter and civility is optional. I don’t believe that’s who we are—or who we should be.
Now, since you raised substantive points about the City Attorney and Resolution 88-1, I want to respond to those directly—because while we may disagree, facts deserve clarity.
1. Creating loopholes argument
➤ There is no evidence of collusion. The City Attorney’s memo was a public document, reviewed in open session, and supported by case law. Reasonable people can disagree with legal interpretations, but accusing collusion without evidence does a disservice to everyone.
2. Promoting misinformation
➤ Resolution 88‑1 was not a blanket protection. It outlined a phased process for land to become protected through dedication and transfer to public ownership. Oak Creek never completed that process. That’s not a loophole—it’s the structure of the resolution itself.
3. Vague references to legal cases
➤ If there are specific case names or rulings being referenced, I’d be happy to review them. So far, no one citing these decisions has produced them publicly. As you know, legal precedent depends on the facts of each case—and in this case, the facts show that Oak Creek remains private land.
4. The You Don’t Matter Argument
➤ Everyone starts somewhere. Being newer to civic engagement shouldn’t disqualify someone from caring, learning, and participating. That spirit is what democracy is built on. I think I matter. I think everyone matters.
And for the record—I love the dog park too. That’s why I show up every two weeks to keep the issue in front of the City Council. That’s why I speak up. Not for profit, not for politics. For the community—because after losing mine to religious extremism, it has given me, and my dogs, so much. You’ve had a long and impactful role in shaping Irvine. I hope we can agree that mentoring the next wave of civic voices—rather than dismissing them—is one of the most powerful legacies a public servant can leave.
Respectfully,
—Crit Van Tuyl
Detective86
July 28, 2025 at 11:15 pmI need to clarify many things that was posted by Crit with regards to most everything he’s posted in the matter of initiative 88 – one that sets the Oak Creek golf course as protected open space. This was an initiative that was drafted by the Irvine city Council in 1988 where by Mayor Agron signed an agreement with the Irvine company where a vice president also signed on the document. It was an initiative to Mark and Matt proposed open space protected land and was voted upon by the public overwhelmingly. This open space included all of the Oak Creek golf course and other land to the west and to the north and west of Orange tree Avenue on Irvine Center, Drive. The deal was for the City of Irvine to allow building permits to be unrestricted to build the oak Creek village, and upon completion of 75% of the construction. The Irvine Company was to tender the designated open space with an easement to the City of Irvine. Construction ended in 1995, and no easement was ever tendered to the City of Irvine. Crit pointed out in the July 22, 2025 city Council meeting that there has been no land dedication to confirm the easement and the transfer of the easement to the City of Irvine. We have the Irvine save our open space committee would like to thank Chrt for pointing this out to the city Council as a matter of fact. This is very true, and the other fact that connects to it is that the Irvine company is delinquent in its payment of the easement to the City. So we thank Crit for pointing out that the Irvine Company is in default at this time. I pointed this out to Mayor Agron at the same meeting, and Ipointed out that it would be difficult to have a vote of the public when the Irvine company is in default in completing its agreement in initiative 88 – one. It doesn’t seem justified that the city in its initial ballot proposal wanted to exclude the golf course from future open space, when the Irvine Company is currently in default.
Your City Attorney had originally made a legal opinion that there was a loophole in the law of initiative 88 – one. The orange tree Master association hired an attorney firm, not the one that Crit pointed out, but the firm of Carstens, Black, and Minteer. You’ll have to ask Chris why he referred to us hiring a firm known as Chattrn and Brown, which is not true Fact.
The letter from the Carstens law group pointed out that the city attorney clearly use the wrong legal president informing his opinion that there was a “loophole“ initiative 88 – one. The city attorney is clearly not a land use Attorney and unfamiliar with all of the intricacies involved in land use. Fact the city attorney realizes his mistake and is correcting it. The city council has in fact ordered the city attorney to contact Mr. Carstens to be more familiar with the law and the case law involved in all the issues with initiative 88 – one.
Law means that the initiative 88 – one is valid and is a agreement without loophole and is the law of the land so to speak. The city attorney realizes that and so does the city Council. The initiative requires that if open space land is to be converted to residential use, it has to be done so only by public vote in agreeing to that. The city realizes that and has in fact asked one of our board members to propose a ballot measure to be used in November. The city attorney is also going to write a ballot measure, and the city Council will look at each of them and make a decision on if a ballot will be used in which one. Important to note is that the city council if it chooses to do so does not need to do a ballot, but just can keep things as they are since initiative 88–1 is the current law of the land and can remain as protected open space. The city Council does have a fiduciary duty to obtain the easement, and that has to be figured out in the near future. It can’t simply be given away, and they can’t ask the citizens to give it away without full disclosure that the Irvine company is in default With their agreement for the easement in initiative 88 – one.
I know that Crit makes it appear that he knows what he’s talking about, but he really doesn’t understand the law and the land use law. this is becoming more clear with each council meeting when we bring forth the fax and the legal law.
Now there is the issue of ordinance 24–13 where the City of Irvine has begun negotiations with the Irvine company for future open land space that would not include the driving range area of Oak Creek golf course. This is not protected open space. However, when the city designated the land where the Irvine Company could build residential homes it’s specified exactly where they could do that, but it did not include the driving range. it appears that someone in the City when they drew up the map to be used for ordinance 24–13 overdrew the boundaries to include the driving range. It’s a simple matter of reading the ordinance and looking at the map. They are not the same. what this means is the driving range is still zoned for recreational use only. It only takes a pair of eyes to read the ordinance and then look at the map. They need to change the error in the map to mirror with the language is in the ordinance.
The Irvine company has been threatening to build 5100 homes on the driving range area relying on the map area that is an error to build upon. They cannot do so at this time since it is clearly not in focus area two of ordinance 24–13. People should not be in fear of Irvine companies threats at this time.
If anyone chooses to do so you can always read the letter that we have posted on the save Irvine open space website. We are accepting donations if anyone is interested in saving open space. This is the only open space in the center of the city. The Irvine Company wants to trade it for avocado Orchards up in Northwood near Northwood high school. Hardly the same and it would leave the heart of the city without any open space at all. The Irvine company does retain ownership of the Oak Creek golf course, but they cannot build residence homes on it without a vote of the public allowing that to happen.
We hope we win this battle, and I do thank Crit t for pointing out at the last council meeting of this fact.. There has not been a land dedication to award the City of Irvine it’s easement which they have paid for to the Irvine company. Currently the Irvine company is in default of that easement.
I hope this clarifies everything that is taking place with the Oak Creek golf course and initiative 88 – one as it relates to the law that applies to it.
Crit
July 29, 2025 at 4:40 pmThanks, Detective. I appreciate the recognition for pointing out the absence of any recorded easement or land dedication—which remains the central fact in this discussion. As I’ve noted repeatedly, if the legal process outlined in Resolution 88-1 had been completed, this debate would be moot. But it wasn’t.
Many of the points you’ve raised—about ownership, recording obligations, easement enforcement, the development agreement, and the role of the City Attorney—have already been addressed in detail across the article and replies. I’d encourage readers to explore those for clarity. I’ll also restate that any easement the claimants argue should have been recorded would have been the responsibility of the City, as clearly stated in Section 5 of Resolution 88-1—not the Irvine Company.
That said, I agree with one thing: this should all be about facts. I remain committed to that, even when the facts are inconvenient for one side’s narrative.
Let’s keep the focus on the record, not just the rhetoric.
P.S. The claim that Oak Creek is being “traded for avocado orchards” is misleading. The proposed plan includes 320+ acres of recorded, publicly owned open space—including new regional parkland and ecological preserves. It’s a significant increase in real, permanent open space protection, not a downgrade. It also shows that the only thing that is important to those claiming to champion open space are in fact focused on the Golf Course.
Jimmytime
July 29, 2025 at 1:21 pmWell, we definitely know the author has hit on some truth here when the NIMBYs start accusations of “working for the Irvine Company”! That appears to be their go-to argument whenever something does not fit their narrative. If you don’t agree with them, then you must be working for the company.
Irvine residents have a real opportunity here to work hand in hand with the city council and enact meaningful change that will benefit residents throughout the city. Instead, we are getting a very loud minority arguing over their golf course and now hiring lawyers to sue the city. We are better than this and we should be able to work together for our future.
Crit
July 29, 2025 at 4:44 pmI could not agree more. Irvine deserves better.
Max
July 29, 2025 at 11:54 pmJimmytime,
I agree that constructive dialogue is essential. However, I think it’s important to note that many people don’t fully understand what’s going on or the long-term implications of these proposals. Personally, I’ve never held a golf club in my hands, and I know many others who oppose this idea feel the same way. People can only truly express their opinions once the votes are counted, and that’s when we’ll know what the majority of people really want. That said, I will tell you that Crit is the only neighbor in Orangetree who is pushing for this project.
The concerns some people have are not just about preserving the golf course — the course could potentially be converted into a park in the future. It’s more about giving away a central piece of Irvine and trading it for land that doesn’t seem to align with the needs of the community. Instead of transforming that piece of land for more development, just think — why doesn’t The Irvine Company consider bringing more affordable housing on the land they’re planning to swap? We could even plant a few avocado trees on the golf course and turn it into a park.
Max
July 30, 2025 at 12:24 amAnother long article from the same author…
I copied and pasted this article into ChatGPT to get an outside perspective—and here’s what it told me:
It’s highly likely that Crit’s article was written with the help of AI—either partially or fully. Here are several indicators that suggest AI assistance:
1. Highly Structured Flow
The article follows a clean, formal outline: introduction → claim → examples → rebuttals → conclusion → references.
AI writing tools are especially good at mimicking persuasive editorial structure like this.
2. Repetitive Rhetorical Devices
Phrases like “facts over fear,” “strategy is clear,” and “never concede, never acknowledge the facts” are rhetorical flourishes that AI often repeats to reinforce themes.
There’s consistent use of parallel sentence structures, which is typical of AI-generated or heavily edited content.
3. High Volume, Low Specificity
While the article includes real names and events, some of the legal and historical interpretations are vague or generalized—another AI trait. It sounds knowledgeable without necessarily proving every point with concrete documentation.
4. Overuse of Straw Man Arguments
The article repeatedly characterizes opponents as misinformed or emotional without fairly engaging with their strongest arguments. AI often simplifies opposition views when asked to write in a persuasive or opinionated tone.
5. Tone Consistency and Lack of Personal Voice
There’s no unique or idiosyncratic writing style—it’s professionally sterile, which is often the result of AI or a human editing AI output to sound “polished.”
Bottom Line:
It’s not 100% provable without inside knowledge, but the article strongly resembles AI-assisted writing—either drafted by AI and edited by a person, or written by a person using AI tools to refine arguments, improve tone, and generate structure.
Look, there’s nothing wrong with using AI tools. I also use AI. But if we’re going to use them, maybe we should be honest about it and better yet, ask an UNBIASED AI what it thinks about the actual issue.
Let’s not use it to silence community voices with polished talking points.
Let’s use it to clarify, not manipulate the conversation.
One more thought.
Crit, is there anything that would make you stop supporting housing development on Oak Creek?
If the answer is “no,” then it’s not really about facts—it’s about loyalty to a predetermined outcome.
Here’s a better question for all of us:
If you agree the land doesn’t have to stay a golf course, but also doesn’t have to become high-density housing—what would you want to see there?
Open space? A nature preserve? Public park? Something creative that benefits the whole city long-term?
We should be talking about options, not just reacting to the one plan on the table. And if AI is going to help shape the narrative, let’s also use unbiased AI to explore—not just what serves one development agenda.
Steve D
July 30, 2025 at 4:24 pmCrit, you humor me with your assumptions again. I am NOT associated with the people, group, or other that is trying to save the space. Never have cared for one of the people involved, so its not my my thing. I don’t think I (or they) ever said that City of Irvine owns it, it is TIC owned land. They were never supposed to turn over that land, they were supposed to grant an easement to either operate initially as agriculture OR a golf course. Something they wilfully agreed to in the MOU. You say the city should have filed an easement and it is their responsibility. For in large part, it is the land owner that needs to convey the easement. Otherwise, we’d have people filing easements all over the place and that would be a mess. Again, you refuse to acknowledge that all of this was laid out in the MOU agreed to after 88-1 was passed. The way I read it is that both the city and TIC as part of 88-1 negotiated in good faith with each other, but both the city and TIC failed in the easement process. I think the city proceeded as if the easement was granted. Shame on both TIC and Irvine for failing to follow through. Yet, seems reasonable for today’s public to ask that it be followed.
Compensated development is discussed in both the actual 88-1 MOU and corresponding MOU from September 1988. I correlate compensated development with my use of the word trade off.
You ask for openess, public discourse, good faith. That can’t happen until everyone (including yourself) understand the whole body of work (88-1, MOU from 9-88, muicipal zoning).
As for a vote, I suspect we will see something along the lines of “competing” ballot measures. Something we often see in the proposition process on state ballots when there are similar measures. The one with the highest vote total wins, even if both are a majority. It’s a common tactic in California by groups to confuse the electorate. Some measures go as far as to write something to address competing measures. It would be unfortunate and IMO, dishonest, to do that in this case. While my kids would be upset over the loss of the course (yes, that influences my opinion), it should be a straight-forward ballot question to the voters as to keeping the open space (need to mention golf course) or making it high/medium density housing.
BTW, you still got that law firm name wrong…..
Dee Fox
August 4, 2025 at 8:03 pmCALIFORNIA CASES TO SUPPORT CLAIM
SAVE OPEN SPACE v. CITY of MORGAN HILL
• Situation: City tried to rezone voter‑designated open space for development.
• City Attorney’s Claim: The original measure was policy guidance, not binding.
• Court Outcome: Ruled against the city, and Judge stated the voter intent was clear and that undoing it was a violation of the public trust.
FRIENDS of SIERRA MADRE v. CITY of SIERRA MADRE
• Situation: Voters had approved a measure effectively limiting growth.
• City Attorney’s Claim: The measure was not properly drafted and therefore council can vote to amend it.
• Court Outcome: State Supreme Court said the voters clearly intended a restriction, and cannot be punished for the City’s lack of knowledge in drafting a legal document.
DeVITA v. COUNTY of NAPA
• Situation: Napa voters approved a measure requiring voter approval for rezoning agricultural lands.
• City Attorney’s Claim: The measure was not legally binding – advisory only.
• Court Outcome: Upheld it as binding – long term preservation was the core voter intent.
BOTTOMLINE . . .
The City Attorney’s logic may look good on paper but it is politically and legally vulnerable. In California, when courts hear the “advisory” excuse, they look for the voters intent and how long the land has been preserved. The Oak Creek Golf Course has been preserved since 1988, and voter intent was clear then, and it is now. The City risks losing the public’s trust should it decide to waste taxpayer funds by putting it on the ballot. The Irvine City Council needs to reject The Irvine Company’s proposal, or every other initiative with TIC name on it will be up for debate. This is a sneaky tactic and needs to be shut down! Let TIC try and sue the city. History is on the side of the residents, and the city council needs to have some backbone and stand up to The Irvine Company!
Comments are closed.