Staff Editorial

Mission Viejo residents who kept copies of 2002 and 2004 council campaign literature should look at the candidate profiles. Voters thought they elected five fiscal conservatives who promised to resolve traffic issues, represent the residents and work together for the benefit of the community. Who are the strangers occupying council seats?

Lance MacLean’s 2002 promises: reduce traffic congestion, promote community interests not special interests, reestablish conservative fiscal management, no new taxes, provide strong public safety and revise the competitive bid policy. To give Councilman MacLean an “F” on performance would be deceptive. An “F” implies a score of up to 60 percent. MacLean’s score is closer to zero.

From Patricia "Trish" Kelley's 2002 literature: promote "pin" map web site to locate sex offenders, support sound fiscal management and support transportation for seniors. As with dumbed-down education, set the bar low. Despite limited promises, Kelley flunks fiscal management. After 2 1/2 years in office, Kelley is scheduling meetings with seniors, appearing to mark the beginning of her 2006 campaign "listening tour." Kelley throughout her 2002 campaign promised to bring harmony to the council but instead engaged Council Member Gail Reavis in a civil war. Regarding Kelley's pledge in 2002 to "listen to residents," did residents tell her to bring back a twice-defeated subsidy for an auto dealer? Did they ask her to vote for a zone change as a special favor to a developer?

John Paul Ledesma in 2002 promised public safety, fiscally conservative practices and opposition to tax increases. On paper, he pledged to represent the residents to developers and not represent developers to the residents. In reality, he went along with Kelley’s subsidy to the Audi dealer in 2003, and he recently advocated on behalf of a developer to change zoning and amend the General Plan. He seems to have forgotten who he’s supposed to represent.

Gail Reavis promised in her 2004 reelection campaign to continue being a fiscally conservative watchdog. She promised safer neighborhoods, lower taxes and preserving the city with sensible, quality growth. Since her reelection in November 2004, most of her political battles have been personal. Her detractors have distracted her from serving as the city’s watchdog, and everyone has lost.

Frank Ury’s promises in 2004: fight traffic problems, complete the senior center, put power lines underground and audit city spending. During his first months in office, he brought back a defeated motion to raise spending levels at the Sierra Rec Center (now significantly over budget and yet unfinished), attempted to give his homeowners association a $1M city-funded park on private property and voted on behalf of a developer to bring in more housing and more traffic. As for power lines … the campaign of 2004 is over.

Aesop ended every tale of woe with a moral. In this case, the moral is to stop creating election mantras of “Anyone but Butterfield” and “Anyone but Craycraft.” Activists – even longtime watchdogs – became so rabid in 2002 and 2004 they ultimately encouraged voters to replace bad with worse politicians. The old majority’s trademarks resurfaced with the new majority: overspending, catering to special interest, arrogance, and delusions of adequacy.

With little more than a year to go before the next election, it’s time to start looking in the community for real leadership.