|
 |
||||||||
|
Last week’s NewsBlog included a summary of campaign promises made and ignored by council members. Following is an account of how things went awry for the council’s “great new team,” beginning with the 2002 defeat of Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow. On Nov. 5, 2002, election winners John Paul Ledesma, Trish Kelley and Lance MacLean, along with Gail Reavis, were drinking champagne together. Their jubilant supporters expected City Manager Dan Joseph would be fired as the first order of business. MacLean had proposed during his campaign selling Dan’s $6,000 desk on eBay, and Ledesma had revealed his distrust for Dan. On Nov. 21, Ledesma and MacLean attended a political meeting, where both spoke briefly. Ledesma described the first 100 days after an election as a crucial time to move the platform forward. MacLean countered, “What’s the rush?” By the end of November 2002, following one-on-one meetings between MacLean and Dan Joseph, MacLean was quietly telling people he was the city’s unofficial mayor, although it was Ledesma’s turn to serve as mayor. MacLean viewed himself as the bridge connecting Council Members Craycraft, Reavis, Ledesma, Kelley and the city staff. Before long, MacLean ironically became chummy with the two council women he defeated, along with their earlier-deposed sidekick, Roger Faubel (knocked off the council by Reavis in 2000). In December 2002, Dale Tyler wrote an editorial in a private newsletter distributed only to members of Citizens for Integrity in Government, of which MacLean was a member. The article called for firing Dan Joseph and other housecleaning at City Hall. Tyler’s opinion piece reached L.A. Times reporter Dave McKibben, a friend of Dan Joseph. McKibben lambasted Tyler in the Times for attempting to direct the council. Kelley instantly distanced herself from the CIG, saying she wasn’t anyone’s puppet. To the contrary, she appeared to be falling under the spell of Dan Joseph. Susan and Sherri had taken heat for their “progressive” (politically correct term for liberal) views, monument building and self-aggrandizement. Both women seemed dependent on Dan to furnish the ideas if not the words they delivered from the dais. Out with the old, in with the new: inept council members continued believing Dan would prevent and/or cover their mistakes. By January 2003, Ledesma was pressuring Kelley to help him fire Dan Joseph. Reavis had previously clashed with Dan, including a blowup in City Hall witnessed by Sheriff’s Dept. employees when he stormed into her office. Kelley balked at Ledesma’s pressure, saying, “Dan has never done anything to me personally.” MacLean also objected to firing Dan and said the comment about selling Dan’s desk on eBay had been a joke. He neglected to finish the sentence … on the voters. A second schism of significance came with the May 2003 Audi dealer’s request for a city subsidy in the form of Redevelopment Agency funds. On one side of the tug-of-war were CIG members and others who opposed corporate welfare. Those supporting a subsidy for Audi included outside interests – politicians, lobbyists and school district personnel -- all of whom had a political or family connection with Audi’s owner. Audi lost the first two rounds, with Reavis, Ledesma and Kelley voting against and Craycraft and MacLean voting for the subsidy. As a surprise move, Kelley in June brought the issue back for a third vote after outsiders continued leaning on her. When Ledesma learned Kelley was bringing back the Audi deal, he called a certain anti-redevelopment activist and said, “Go find out what’s wrong with her.” The activist dutifully called Kelley but surprised Ledesma by suddenly embracing corporate welfare to support her proposal. Kelley, with the blessing of the activist, proposed giving Audi $300,000 as an incentive to sell cars in Mission Viejo. Several other former anti-redevelopment activists joined in, saying the deal “saved” the city a pile of money by giving Audi dealer less than the amount he requested. With zero dollars on the table after Audi proposals were twice defeated, giving the Audi dealer any amount was unnecessary. One cannot subtract $300,000 from zero without red ink. What happened next is based on speculation and rumor, particularly regarding closed-session negotiations. It may have occurred as follows: upon hearing Kelley’s proposal, Reavis added stipulations she believed would be deal-breakers and suggested offering Audi $600,000 in an agreement she thought Audi would turn down. Regardless, Kelley believed the proposal had unanimous council support. She may have hoped all five council members would get a pass from residents if they voted together. In open session in July, Reavis said she had discovered that the deal-breaking terms and conditions she had proposed had been removed from the contract offered to Audi. She cast the dissenting vote in the 4-1 approval of the $600,000 subsidy to Audi. Kelley was incensed at Reavis’ public refusal of support and later sent out emails, defending the originally proposed gift to Audi as “only” $300,000 – as if it were the amount and not the principle that mattered. As a side trip, the Committee for Integrity in Government developed a schism of its own, with several former anti-redevelopment members spinning Kelley’s Audi deal as beneficial to the city. Their inconsistency might otherwise have been overlooked by fellow CIG members. However, in public comments and letters to newspapers as well, the CIG spinners claimed it was a CIG decision to support the Audi deal, although it hadn’t previously been discussed by the club. About a third of the club’s members walked away, giving a variety of reasons for their departure. Somewhere along the line, one should mention the council voted 3-2 (Ledesma, Reavis, Kelley voting for, Craycraft and MacLean against) to fire Dan Joseph in October 2003. While the city could have bought out his contract in January 2003 for around $75,000, he and his spouse (City Clerk Ivy Joseph) agreed to leave in October for $647,700. Despite the passage of weeks and months, Kelley remained angry at Reavis over the Audi vote. Instead of working together for things they both believed in, competition developed over everything from ideas to supporters. By the end of 2003, Kelley announced she would not permit Reavis to take a turn at being mayor in 2004. Kelley promoted herself for mayor, saying Reavis was unqualified. Considering the title of mayor is passed around among those elected, everyone on the council is qualified to take a turn. It was Reavis’ turn. While Kelley lacked support to become mayor, she found favor among Reavis’ enemies, Susan and Sherri. The deposed pair had no common views with Kelley except their distaste for Reavis. During the week prior to Kelley’s attempted takeover of the center seat, she tried to get residents to endorse her for mayor from the public microphone. The friends of Susan and Sherri seized the opportunity to lash out at Reavis. Following the odd assortment of public speakers, Kelley read a prepared statement saying she wouldn’t accept the title of mayor. The date was January 6, 2004, and the worst was yet to come. To be continued next week. |
||||||||
|
UDR/Pacific’s housing project on Los Alisos Blvd & 241. I supported the zone change because it was the right thing to do for several reasons. The major factors are: 1) Community sentiment 2) Zoning 3) Location 4) Benefit to the city of Mission Viejo 5) Variances 6) Safety concerns (with or without merit) 7) City history with other zone changes 1. Community Sentiment To me, this is a huge consideration when looking at what is best for the city and making sure that we are meeting citizen’s expectations and desires – after all I represent them. Do you know how many residents adjacent to the development objected? The answer is none -- not one objection from a neighbor. That is really significant. People were ambivalent or, in the case of the shopping center owner, supportive of the project. By the way, that shopping center still has a 30,000-square-foot pad that has never been developed. Any guess as to why? I should also point out that while Palmia backs to Los Alisos, that community has no direct access to that road. As Palmia residents demonstrated during the anti-airport days, they are not passive citizens and they are very willing to get involved in issues that affect them. In this case, the homeowners association was happy to give approval, and they probably were just happy that some kind of industrial use was not going into that location. Let me give an example. In 2001, the property owner made a request to the city for a two-year extension on an entitlement for a gas station at Los Alisos Blvd. and the 241. For a variety of reasons -- traffic noise from trucks being one of them -- the Palmia residents sent approximately 150-plus (if I remember correctly) written comments in opposition, and dozens of residents showed up at the council meeting to oppose the extension of the entitlement. (Note: there was no application for a gas station and none exists at that location today.) What’s hot in the industrial market right now are buildings in the 5,000 – 8,000-square-foot range with office in the front and a warehouse in the back. I guarantee that if some kind of complex of light-industrial buildings with loading docks were being proposed, the Palmia residents would have opposed to the project. The opposition that existed was from residents outside of the area, not in the area. In fact, I think one of them told me that he shops at the adjacent Vons because there are never any lines. 2) Zoning The zoning that was approved is consistent with the zoning of the three residential complexes directly adjacent to the site on Los Alisos Blvd. Granted, the number of dwelling units per net buildable area is higher than the other condominiums but, I think, less than the apartments directly next door. When Mission Viejo was incorporated, that area on Los Alisos was zoned residential. It was in the 1991 that it was rezoned to commercial. The original Mission Viejo Master Plan as reflected in the General Plan is consistent with the action that was taken. Some people mention the interesting but illogical notion that it should stay commercial because the Mission Viejo Company swapped Painted Trails from commercial to residential zoning in exchange for changing the zoning on Los Alisos. Just because the council made bad choices back in the early ‘90s does not mean we should perpetuate the bad decision. Two wrongs do not make a right: it was wrong to rezone then, and it would be wrong not to revert to the original zoning. 3) Location, location, location I have visited the site many times, and the site has several challenges. Some people suggest that it could be retail, but Los Alisos does not carry much traffic, and it just loops back into Melinda in Mission Viejo. There is little reason for traffic to be generated by people who do not live in the area. The city has contacted at least five “big box” retailers, and all said that the site was too small, and the topology is such that one cannot see the site from the 241. Where the 241 is adjacent to the former Kmart site, it is a bridge, and there is a concrete protective barrier at the outer edge of the toll road. To get signage for a retail site, the signs would have to be 80-90 feet above ground level, and Mission Viejo does not allow pole signs. Even if you were to stick the signage on top of the theoretical store’s roof if they were 80-90 feet in the air. I can guarantee that the neighboring residents would disagree with doing that. I would hardly think that sticking the poles for the signs in the earthen dam on the other side of the toll road would be a good work around. Look at the retail in the area. The adjacent shopping center is not doing well, and they still have a 30,000 square-foot pad that is undeveloped. Do you think it could be because the demand for that location is low? Back in 2001, the city granted (on a 2-3 vote) an extension of an entitlement at Los Alisos and the 241 for a gas station. Why was the gas station not built right at the Los Alisos exit of the 241? Do you think the reason might be that the traffic counts are low? Some say that we could leave it commercial and, eventually, something would be built. If something were to be built, it would probably not be retail. If it were industrial, the neighbors would probably oppose the project. All that is left would be office space. Again, this would be a tough location for a small office building or complex, and it would not be the highest and best use of the property. 4) Benefit to the city of Mission Viejo Much is said about the benefit to city government, and we are not going to be getting sales tax revenue out of residential units. That is true. (For those who are not aware, the city government receives 1 percent of every sales taxable dollar that is spent.) First, I reject the premise of the statement, namely, that the city government is synonymous with the community of individuals who live within the jurisdiction of the public corporation known as the city of Mission Viejo. Before I go off on that tangent, let me get back to revenue for the city government. Does anyone really think that the people who will reside on the former Kmart site will not ever shop in Mission Viejo? Conversely, if retail were built at that location, does anyone think it would not take sales from other retail sales in the city? My point is that with tax revenue, it is not going to be a zero net sum when comparing these two different uses. Do not forget that the site is too small for a big-box anchor store. The other city tax income to consider is property tax. Of all the property tax that is paid, about 15 percent goes to our general fund. If we are looking at highest and best use of the property, that means we are looking at the most profitable type of building to develop, which translates into property value. How many square feet of industrial or office space would have to be built to come up with the same gross real estate value? I do not know the answer, and I am not going to do a fine analysis here, but it is common knowledge that on a square-footage basis, industrial and commercial sells for a lot less than residential. Residential will provide the highest property tax revenue to the government. Yes, any other building would also have to pay property taxes. Another consideration is that in the condominium complex, they will maintain their own street -- not the city government. I would also point out that with the increase in property values, I doubt residential is a “drain” on the city government like it was in past years. 5) Variances When it comes to variances, the only variance being requested in the final proposal was the set back along the back of the property. We are talking about land that is under a bridge and next to a dam – I do not see a problem here. Another related concern (albeit not a variance) was the 188 units number that was mentioned. That number comes from an estimate that our city staff made in 2000 for the number of units that might be built on that site. It was just an estimate, not some ordinance or General Plan amendment. Since staff in the same correspondence estimated that we could have more than 750 units at the Steadfast site, does that mean we should stick to that estimate, too? No. 6) Safety Since the project in question is adjacent to the base of an earthen dam, we would be remiss in our duties if we did not take a look at this issue. Yes, being next to a dam raises a possibility of risk, so we have to determine what is a reasonable and probable scenario. It is reasonable to expect earthquakes in California, but I do not think it is probable that the dam will break. In this particular instance, I am, of course, relying on the expert engineers who work for or have contracted with the Santa Margarita Water District. I do not have any reason to believe they are incompetent or dishonest. What if they are wrong? That is why we have safety measures. First, at the bottom of the reservoir is a 48” drainpipe that can be opened if needed. If the dam breaks, there are channels that would guide the water into a drainpipe that is 84”-plus in diameter under the westerly portion of the Kmart site. In fact, the Santa Margarita Water District has an easement on the property. If one looks at an artist’s rendering of the project, the main entrance, much of the extra parking and the major portion of the open space are all on the western part of the project. Underneath is the big pipe, and the water district has to retain rights to access that property and, of course, the pipe below. Is a disaster possible? Yes, but the likelihood is so miniscule that it is not a reasonable concern. It is not as if this is the only reservoir or dam in the city. 7) City history with other zone changes I know many people first got involved in city issues as a result of the zone change that allowed the apartments to be built near Crown Valley Parkway and Puerta Real, but this is not like that issue. In the case of the former Kmart site, we are talking about for-sale units being built next to an apartment complex, unlike the apartment issue where they were being built next to single-family homes. With the apartment issue, the area was downgraded, and the neighboring residents were defrauded because they were expecting office buildings to be built at those locations. In the case of the former Kmart site, the area is getting upgraded, and no one was defrauded. The two sites are completely different in terms of zoning history, constraints of the sites and the areas they are in. The only similarity is the fact that a zone change was made, and that is it. John Paul “J.P.” Ledesma, Councilman, City of Mission Viejo |
||||||||
|
Strategy in dealing with State Mandated low-income housing The issues associated with zoning changes, low-income housing, the community development agency’s 20 percent set-aside for low-income housing and the Regional Needs Housing Assessment (RNHA) are all separate issues that often converge, as we have seen in the case at the old Kmart site. The RNHA is a number of low-income housing units that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) tells cities like Mission Viejo that need to be built in the city in a given period of time. We are currently dealing with the numbers from the year 2000 allocation, and the next cycle in terms of the RNHA allocation is supposed to be in 2008. SCAG is an agency which, in conjunction with the state department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) develops the housing projections and needs analysis using a rather mysterious formula. This is just a little background to help explain what is involved here. Of course, this is to be weighed with what is best for the city and my own opinion of some of these issues. From my perspective and strong conviction, the ideal would be to let the free enterprise system sort it out. To put it in the vernacular, the whole system is a mess, and we would be better off scrapping this whole government-defined and marginally mandated low-income housing insanity. I do not see any benefit in the government artificially controlling real estate by having new construction forced to restrict units to allow for “affordability.” Yes, I do believe in zoning and for people or organizations being accountable for the impacts that they have on another person’s or organization’s wealth. With these beliefs I have not lost sight that some serious reform needs to be made at the state level, nor have I forgotten that I need to make decisions based upon the reality of the way things are versus the way I think they should be. What is best for the collection of citizens who live in Mission Viejo is what I am interested in promoting and responsible for supporting public policy that furthers that end. Yes, I oppose zone changes, but practicality, history of a parcel’s zoning, community sentiment and common sense have to prevail over a belief that is based on an ideal, emotion or bad experiences with one similarity but vastly different facts. As someone who was a resident back in the days of “Beautiful Mission Viejo,” “The California Promise” and “It’s so nice to have Mission Viejo around the house,” not to mention the novelty of underground electrical and phone utilities in a suburban setting, I have a strong desire to preserve what made Mission Viejo such a desirable place to live. Actually, a desirable place to live is an understatement. Mission Viejo was much more profoundly sold; Mission Viejo is more than a place to live, it is a place to be a part of. To preserve Mission Viejo, the greatest challenge is to educate the newer residents of this city and to get them to be an active part of the community. What we know as The California Promise is at a major crossroads. In the effort to preserve the ideals of Mission Viejo, to maintain and improve what we have, to navigate through the planning ideologies that are the antithesis to what we know as The California Promise, we need to think strategically and choose our battles wisely. The people who want to preserve the character of Mission Viejo have to ask themselves some difficult questions, such as: does it make sense to dig in your heels and consume much of your political capital on the wrong fight (i.e. the former Kmart site), does losing credibility increase or decrease your effectiveness, if you expend your political capital on the wrong fight will that help or hinder garnering public support, will losing credibility help or hinder your ability to oppose projects that are actually objectionable? What I would like to do is get a group of people who are concerned about the character and value of Mission Viejo together and focus on goals that make sense. I realize we cannot change state law, bring about a major change in the RNHA allocation, tell these “public interest” groups that threaten legal action to go burn in the Inferno, but we can certainly take reasonable and wise steps to move in the best possible direction. John Paul “J.P.” Ledesma, Councilman, City of Mission Viejo |
||||||||
|
Steadfast’s Draft EIR is no best seller Residents shouldn’t waste their money buying a copy of Steadfast’s Aliso Ridge Mixed-Use Development Draft Environmental Impact Report, released September 2005. Original text can be found in residents’ comments, which are recorded in detail. The report’s remaining content, however, gives the appearance of boilerplate text, which is largely non-responsive to residents’ specific concerns. The two-inch-thick report is available at the reference desk of the Mission Viejo library. The library copy is for reference only and may not be checked out. If copies have previously been for sale at city hall following the EIR’s September release, none were in stock last week. Anyone wanting to purchase the Draft EIR should call the city’s planning department, (949) 470-3053, regarding availability. The EIR’s lead consultant is EDAW, 2737 Campus Drive, Irvine, CA 92612. EDAW’s contact person is Thomas Ryan, (949) 660-8044. The city last spring required Steadfast to prepare an EIR to determine if the project would have a significant impact on air quality, geology and soils, noise, public services, transportation and traffic. Steadfast’s project, now a joint venture with Target, consists of up to 144 townhomes (with up to 15 percent of affordable housing) on 10 acres of the 23.4-acre parcel located at Jeronimo Road and Los Alisos Blvd. The remaining 13.4 acres would be used for a Target store – a 140,791 sq. ft. retail building with 100,000 sq. ft. of surface parking. A 6-foot-high block wall would separate the retail portion of the parcel from the adjacent property leased by Unysis. Approval of the proposed mixed-use project would require a General Plan amendment to allow R-30 zoning (residential planned development of up to 30 units per acre) on the 10-acre portion. The 10-acre portion would also require a zone change from business park to residential use. As part of the proposed project, a Conditional Use Permit would be processed for sale of alcohol on the commercial portion of the property. After nearly two years of presentations and proposals from Steadfast, residents should not be surprised at the developer’s latest assault / insult. Questions, details, arguments and issues raised by residents are largely dismissed with three words: no significant impact. Comments on the Draft EIR must be received by the planning department before 5 p.m. on October 26 to be included in the Final EIR. Address comments to Chuck Wilson, 200 Civic Center, Mission Viejo, 92691, or call (949) 470-3053. MV NewsBlog Staff Editorial |
||||||||
|
Fiscal responsibility is an obligation of all Mission Viejo Council Members and Mission Viejo citizens. With the State of California turning down the grant request for a city gym, I know there will be an organized lobbying effort by some folks to get the city of Mission Viejo to pony up approximately $2 million for a gym. Until just recently, this item was not even on the radar screen for city improvements. The following obligations are staring us in the face and would appear to be far more important than a gym:
When you examine these numbers, I am sure they all can be questioned -- but, has anybody truly looked at our potential obligations staring us in the face? Just where will this money come from? This is the story of the ant and the grasshopper -- it is time for a reality check. The Capistrano Unified School District has proved to be less than fiscally responsible. Building a $30 million administration building while housing the children in poorly maintained, unhealthy portables is just one of the reasons that a recall vote is going to be held. It is not the time to get into any "joint-agreements" with an administration going out the door. The proposed gym at Newhart Intermediate School is well down this list of real obligations. It is time to fix the real infrastructure problems in Mission Viejo instead of building another "edifice to an ego.” Joe Holtzman |
||||||||
|
After I looked over the proposed FY2005-2007 budget, I have come to the conclusion that what is good enough for the State of California is good enough for Mission Viejo. In November, the citizens of California will approve limiting spending by the state to increases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) multiplied by the increase in population. Given that there will be no significant increases in population in Mission Viejo over the next two years, this would mean a maximum spending increase of 2.9 percent in 2005-2006 and 2.4 percent in 2006-2007 (based on the President’s Council of Economic Advisor's Projections). Instead, we are looking at a General Fund Operating Budget increase of 9 percent in 2005-2006 and 4 percent more (12.8 percent total) in 2006-2007. (See page XXV of the proposed budget for details). It is very important to understand that these inflated amounts become the baseline for future budget increases. When one reviews the 300-plus-page budget document and supporting materials, it is clear that this budget places emphasis on the wrong things and grows the bureaucracy by a great deal more than is warranted. For example, after seeing a 10 percent increase in spending on police services in 2004-2005, the city proposes adding two more officers and the associated vehicles and other costs. Mission Viejo has been rated one of the safest small cities in the United States, and there appear to no problems that would require more police, such as gangs, many more people or large new commercial areas. The officers we employ are generally doing a fine job but can hardly be overwhelmed by the lack of crimes we see in our city. Yet, somehow, we need more and more and more ... . Another foolish expenditure is more Information Technology (IT) and computer support. I work in the computer industry, and it appears that our city has gone slightly crazy over the years adopting new technologies that only tangentially benefit Mission Viejo citizens. If some city workers need more modern computers, then replace the very few that might be needed and defer other modernization for a few more years. I see no reason whatsoever to increase spending in this area. Another troubling thing is that in the areas where the “rubber meets the road,” namely programs that directly benefit citizens, we see far smaller increases and in some cases decreases compared to spending for should be called “bureaucratic overhead.” As for the claimed reductions in capital spending that appear to offset the general fund and other spending, remember that capital expenditures are one-time events and do not become the baseline for future years’ spending. Also, capital projects can and are easily slipped into the budget at the whim of the city council. This makes the capital budget a very poor estimate -- some would call it a fantasy -- of actual spending. Our city has a very poor track record of spending to plan, with most capital projects actually costing from 1.5 to 2 times the budgeted amount. Look at the city hall, the library or the Sierra Recreation Center for examples of poor spending controls. We need to hold the council members who claim to be fiscal conservatives to account for their continued endorsement of budgets that should really be “dead on arrival.” Our city was created as a “contract city” to make city government less expensive. Unfortunately, out-of-control budgets are dooming the ideals we all voted for when the city was founded. We must limit spending increases to 2.5 percent per year or less. Dale Tyler |
||||||||
|
At both the Sept. 19 and Oct. 3 Mission Viejo council meetings, I presented public comments about the city’s general account. This account indicates that 56 percent to 57percent of our assets are invested in government agency issues. The general account is required to be invested in such government issues as treasuries, government agencies, commercial paper, government money market funds, tax allocation notes and California agency funds with maturities of five years or less. Probably due to low interest rates in the past several years, the account has gravitated to agencies such as Farm Credit Banks and Freddie Mac issues instead of treasury issues because of the interest rate differential. Such treasury issues as bills, notes or bonds are direct treasury obligations of the federal treasury and cannot be rescheduled. Agency issues are obligations of various federal agencies and are subject to those agencies or Congress. With the federal debt issues and our overheated housing market and rising interest rates, perhaps a change would be in order to a preponderance of treasury securities with fewer agency issues in the portfolio. As agency bonds mature, the funds could go into treasury securities to take advantage of rising rates. It would be better to err on the side of an abundance of caution than to err on the side of James Edward Woodin |
||||||||
|
A recorded phone message made by a high school principal opposing the recall of Capo school district trustees created quite a stir. Constituents are justified in asking about the ethical aspects of the call. I'm amazed at some of the remarks made by the CUSD trustees who are arguing against the recall effort. One of them commented about those who started the recall, asking, "Who are these people?" I hope someone told the trustee "these people" are the CUSD children's parents -- the ones you've been antagonizing when you should have been listening to them. Additionally, parents are now being accused by CUSD board members as representing special interest. In this case, the special interest is their children. A telling sign that elected officials are out of touch is when they don't recognize those who elected them. I applaud parents for fighting back against bureaucrats who aren't putting children and education first. When parents, constituents and taxpayers become "the little people" to elected officials, it's time for them to go. Elizabeth Mimm |
||||||||
|
The Mission Viejo City Council added an item to our future Capitol Improvement Listing (CIP) at the request of Vice Mayor Lance MacLean. In my CIP archives, which are extensive, a joint use gymnasium was NEVER under consideration but that's old news today. In promoting this project, citizens were told that the Capistrano School District and the City would each apply for state Grants for a joint use gymnasium to be located at the Newhart Middle School. To fund this proposed $3 million dollar project we each applied for a Grant. Although Capo's application was approved, our request for $1.5 million in matching money was denied. Residents of our city expect the Mission Viejo city council to act responsibly as it relates to the prioritizing and spending of our revenue. This project will be discussed at the Oct 17th council meeting. In spite of the denial of the Grant application my sense is that one of several proposals will be floated to promote the joint use Agreement.
I have another suggestion. At the Oct 7th Saddleback Valley YMCA Community Leader's Breakfast, I met with three members of their Board to suggest a new PARTNERSHIP with the city. My request was to have joint use of their 3/4 size basketball gymnasium. Although it may not be regulation size it surely can meet the needs for any practice or pick up games and is already in existence. We have been looking for a way to have a more user friendly citizen access to the Y facilities. I plan to make this suggestion at the Oct 17th city council meeting. Perhaps the state was sending us a message. We need to act responsibly. There is a major difference between needs and wants. This project should never have moved to the front of the line. Take note: The 2006 General Election is now on the horizon. Let us be vigilant on the actions taken by this council, whose majority is up for reelection next November. Larry Gilbert, 28302 San Marcos, MV 92692 |
||||||||