Single Page Text Only 11/19/05

by Dale Tyler

Residents should be aware of the deadline for comments regarding the Steadfast/Aliso Ridge Draft Environmental Impact Report. Those wishing to respond must submit their comments by 5 p.m. on Mon., Nov. 21, 2005.

As reported in the blog two weeks ago, the City of Mission Viejo decided that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required to address the expressed concerns of the citizens about Steadfast’s Aliso Ridge project. The plan is proposed for the parcel next to Unisys on Jeronimo Road at Los Alisos Blvd. The scoping meeting was held Feb. 16, 2005, to provide public consultation on the topics that should be addressed by the EIR.

All comments must be received in writing by 5 p.m. on Mon., Nov. 21, by the city to be considered. A copy of the EIR is available at
http://cityofmissionviejo.org/news/index.html There are four parts totaling nearly 1,000 pages. While this document can be overwhelming, it is very important that each person who is concerned about the devastating impacts this project will have on our city must take the time to comment. Your comments should be specific and address at least one concern. For example, one might be concerned about the impacts of traffic, residential development's excessive usage of city resources or other issues. Please take the time to write your comments and send them to Chuck Wilson, Director of Community Development, 200 Civic Center, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. If you have questions, you can email me at the address shown above or contact Chuck Wilson at (949) 470-3053.

Mr. O'Brien pronounces himself "surprised'" at "gun folks" who think the Second Amendment applies to all citizens instead of to "citizen soldiers," which is Mr. O'Brien's opinion ("Shotgun politics,' Patrick O'Brien, letter to the editor, the Register, Nov. 16). I would like to suggest a reading list for Mr. O'Brien, who seems to have missed the history of the Constitution despite his 68 years. He could begin with Robert V. Remini's three-volume biography of Andrew Jackson. There, in chapter 5, he would find that the "militia" consisted of all males between the ages of 17 and 45. The supporters of Jackson, denied the presidency in the "corrupt bargain" that elevated John Quincy Adams to the office, were the militia. This was the beginning of the Democratic Party. It is ironic that their successors are now on the other side. O’Brien could also consult an article in the Duke Law Journal in 1994 that confirms this impression. Why would the right in this amendment be restricted unlike those in the First and Fifth? One possibility is the fact that, in 1793, black slaves were not members of the militia. The militia at the time of the Constitutional Convention and during the 1824 "stolen election" consisted of the voters. Thus, the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment is that anyone eligible to vote is eligible to own a gun. That did not include slaves.

Michael Kennedy, M.D.
Mission Viejo

Supporters of the effort to recall the entire Capistrano Unified School District Board of Trustees say they have a dozen candidates for the seven seats, but they hope that pool grows to 30 or more. The recall group will then select seven to run as its 
endorsed slate.

Candidates cannot officially declare themselves until after the Registrar of Voters verifies if the petitions submitted hold enough valid signatures. That news will come within 30 days after the deadline to collect signatures, which was November 8.

John & Ken support the recall.

 http://www.cusdrecall.com

During the Nov. 7 city council meeting, it was interesting to observe the mayor and her council colleague's production for   support of their gymnasium. Did anyone else miss the cheerleaders, song girls and pompoms? Are skits performed by children not yet in their teens suitable for a city council meeting?

Did anyone else notice that about 50 percent of those in the three-ring circus were not of voting age nor taxpayers?

Wasn't it interesting to see Capistrano USD Trustee Marlene Draper (hopefully, soon to be recalled) making statements that two councilmen questioned? Wasn't it fun to listen to as she tried to continue speaking without ever answering the questions asked of her by the two councilmen?

It was gratifying that we have three council members who are more fiscally responsible than the other two supporting the gymnasium, regardless of whether the proposed cost is $1.5 million or $5 million. Do the mayor and the councilman supporting the gymnasium handle their own financial matters in this way, where costs can vary from $1.5 million to $5 million? It was most interesting to watch as they increased the amount without batting an eye.

Bevery Cruse
Mission Viejo

He’s baaaaaack. After declining the public outreach contract for the Crown Valley Parkway wid ening project, Roger Faubel apparently had second thoughts. He’d sent a letter to the city on Oct. 26 (published in the Nov. 5 blog), withdrawing from the process and leaving $100,000 on the table. By Fri., Nov. 11, Faubel had evidently withdrawn his letter of withdrawal and accepted the contract. The blog’s City of Characters award to Faubel still stands regarding his questionable performance on a no-bid contract in 2002 and his alleged lawbreaking on Aug. 1-2, 2005, in representing the Capistrano USD Trustees, among other foibles. And how is it that the city staff can accept a letter of withdrawal and then reinstate a $100,000 contract without conferring with the council?

Those who watched the Nov. 7 council meeting were treated to City Economics 101 on how to turn loss into profit. First, propose building a facility - a gymnasium, for example. If anyone questions the operating costs of $195,000 a year, create a formula whereby loss magically turns into profit. Call it the Vigilantes Baseball Franchise formula. Councilwoman Trish Kelley announced that a gym could generate income of up to $100,000 a year if the hourly rate for use were quadrupled from $15/hour to $60/hour. One instantly gets a headache trying to follow the calculations. Considering the operating costs of $195,000 and user fees of $60/hour, the gym would have to be rented 3,200 hours a year at the maximum fee to break even. Ms. Kelley from the dais then extrapolated a profit of $100,000/year, which would require 5,000 hours of operation (when the city said its use would be limited to 4,000 hours a year as a joint-use venture with CUSD) and ignore such other costs as insurance, maintenance, administration of scheduling, janitorial services, equipment and materials, utilities, etc. Sign up now for the 2 a.m. games.

A member of the audience joked about the exaggeration that city facilities could or would be operated for profit. He said, “The only real way to make the gym profitable is with pay toilets.”

The city has also missed an opportunity by failing to apply this principle to the sports fields in Melinda Park. Residents have noted the lack of restrooms as the primary cause of well-fertilized bushes. By installing pay bushes, the city could turn the sports fields into profit centers. Just kidding, but the underlying problem is serious and it warrants attention. Neighbors living near Melinda Park and other observers who have reported incidents believe that most of those who are abusing the park aren’t Mission Viejo residents.

To tidy up the defeat of the joint-use gymnasium proposed for the Newhart campus, one should set the record straight. Two council members and several speakers at the public microphone referred to “overwhelming” support for a gym. What overwhelming support? In a city with a population of nearly 100,000 and approximately 60,000 voters, what indication does anyone have of overwhelming support for anything? A showing of 200 residents - most of them children - at a council meeting was more likely an indication of an email campaign involving at least one council member and joined by PTA members and school employees. Children revealed that a Newhart teacher had offered “extra credit” to students for supporting a gym.

The most damaging testimony against a gymnasium at Newhart came from Capo Unified School District Trustee Marlene Draper at the Nov. 7 council meeting. When questioned by two councilmen, Draper explained the reason Newhart doesn’t have a gymnasium is that no one had asked for one. She said a gym at Newhart was not a priority according to input from the parents, administrators and community. While Measure A funds (bond passed by voters in 1999) could have been used for a gym at Newhart, Draper indicated it wasn’t a priority for trustees, who made decisions about school additions and modernization throughout the district.
If “overwhelming support” for a gymnasium exists among the 200 attendees at the Nov. 7 council meeting, the parents, teachers, PTA members and their children now need to go to a CUSD board meeting and demand that the trustees reconcile the difference by building a gymnasium at Newhart. Newhart also lacks numerous programs and amenities that many people consider to be significant. Considering Draper’s comments that a gymnasium hasn’t been a priority, perhaps a new survey is warranted at Newhart to determine if anything has changed … but that’s CUSD’s business.

Along with alleged “overwhelming support,” various speakers also talked about “an overwhelming need” for a city gym. On what basis? Instead of performing a needs analysis, city staff members wrote a laundry list of possible uses for the gym. On the list was everything from children’s clubs to exercise groups. Factor in the “new” cost of $60/hour, and most of the list evaporates. Clubs and interest groups don’t have money to burn. Such city facilities as the Potocki Center, the Emergency Operations Center and various library rooms are unused or under-used for one reason: most groups or individuals either can’t afford or choose not to pay fees they consider excessive. As an additional issue, city staffers are apparently not encouraging use. A resident was recently told by a city staffer that the city isn’t interested in renting such facilities as the EOC room. Other deterrents include insurance and cleanup fees. As an interesting twist, City Hall provides those making queries with a list of meeting rooms in other cities. A CUSD family in north Mission Viejo believed they were among the lucky ones because their teenager had a choice between attending Tesoro High, which is fairly close to their home, and Capo High, which was undesirable for various reasons. There’s a catch. (con’t on page 4)
Families who were given a “choice,” might not have bus service to Tesoro after this school year The parents calculated the cost of driving to Tesoro and realized it’s beyond their means. They called the school district’s bus yard and transportation department and got no direct answers, but they found out the district won’t send two buses into a neighborhood, and one bus won’t deliver students to two different high schools. Other problems the family had experienced with CUSD were compounded when they realized they had no real choice of schools. The mom responded to the latest frustration by joining those gathering signatures for the recall of the trustees. On a single day, she and a friend completed 26 “packets” of signatures. A packet consists of seven signatures for all seven trustees. Multiply that number (49 signatures) times 26 for a total of 1,274 signatures in one day. It wasn’t easy. They set up a table in Aliso Viejo at the Pumpkin Patch on Sun., Oct. 30, and worked from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Don’t mess with a mom.

To Comment on this article please provide the following information, the press “Submit Comment”. You must provide your name to submit a comment.

If you would like your comment considered for publication in a future NewsBlog, check the “Contact Me” box. If your comment is selected for publication, you will be contacted via email or phone.

Name

E-Mail or Phone Number

Comment

Contact Me