Mission Viejo Council Approves OCTA Tax
by Dale Tyler

On May 15, 2006, the Mission Viejo City Council approved on a 4-1 vote (MacLean, Kelley, Ury and Reavis for; Ledesma against) a 30-year half-cent sales tax proposal made by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The new tax, currently scheduled to be on the November 2006 ballot, is intended to raise funds for OCTA operations and various road, freeway and transit projects. The final text of the proposed law, presently known as the “Measure M Extension” was not available when our city council voted to support the new tax. Yet, four supposedly fiscally conservative council members voted to impose a new tax on Mission Viejo residents without even having a final document specifying how the tax was to be spent.

In 1990, after a couple of failed attempts, Orange County voters approved a temporary, 20-year, half-cent sales tax that was to be used to relieve congestion on Orange County roads and freeways. Unfortunately, OCTA had different ideas than most Orange County residents about what they should do to relieve congestion. They built carpool lanes and tried to build a light-rail system called “Centerline” that would have actually made traffic worse in the area in which it was scheduled to be constructed according to their own studies. This same agency is asking city councils around the county to approve its new plan to spend more than $11 billion from 2010 to 2040. Why should we believe OCTA would do a better job than they have done over the past 16 years?

OCTA continues to plan for too much transit and, despite the overwhelming rejection of the Centerline boondoggle, they include almost $1.3 billion for new “high-tech transit,” which are code words for light rail in their new proposal. At the April 24 OCTA meeting, the OC Business Council presented a gushing report that was, of course, in favor of the new tax. Part of that presentation, as I understand it, contained references to a replacement for Centerline. OCTA still has not learned their lesson.

Less than 1 percent of the person-miles per day are carried in Orange County by bus and Metrolink. Yet, OCTA insists on allocating about 25 percent to transit. This is far too high. A better number might be 5 percent, solely for buses. Arguably, the bus service serves some of those who have no cars, but very few people in south Orange County can use the buses because of the poorly designed and constantly changing routes. Metrolink, on the other hand, is used by people who average $70K in household income. We subsidize Metrolink operations and capital costs for people who make enough money to pay the entire cost themselves. Why should we pay for part of the ticket for someone who chooses to work in L.A.?

Finally, OCTA make much of their freeway improvements. Yet, most of the total lane miles built since 1990 have been exclusive carpool lanes, one of the most widely hated inventions of bureaucrats since taxes. Study after study shows that carpool lanes increase congestion and would be better used as general purpose lanes at all times. While OCTA will tell you this is a federal mandate, when you ask the federal government, they deny that they mandate carpool lanes to be eligible for federal matching funding. Ask the OCTA to provide you the name of a person in a federal agency who will point to the provision in law that requires carpool lanes. They can’t do it. These lanes are another example of social engineering by OCTA, just like Centerline. Also, much of the money for carpool lanes was spent on the almost unused flying ramps that allow carpools only to go from the carpool lanes on one freeway to another, such as the 55 and 405 interchange. These ramps cost much more per person-mile carried than regular ramps would, which begs the question, why build expensive ramps for only a few drivers? The answer, according to OCTA, is to reduce congestion. However, additional general purpose ramp lanes would do this job far more effectively.

The OCTA is putting signs up around Mission Viejo, including on Crown Valley, saying “Paid for by Measure M.” Yet, on Crown Valley, they are paying only $300,000 of over $9 million in cost. Of that $300,000, more than $100,000 was used to buy the signs and have a nice ceremony for our city council.

Over the coming months, leading up to the November elections, we will be publishing more information on why the new half-cent sales tax is a bad idea and presenting some new ideas about how to pay for and manage transportation on Orange County.

Council Fails to Listen to Residents
Letter to the editor

Our residents spent more than two years petitioning and pleading with the city council regarding the pitfalls associated with rezoning the parcel at Jeronimo and Los Alisos. Shortly after the zone change from commercial to residential, the city became involved in litigation that would have not occurred if not for the zone change.

The future for affordable housing does not rest with new high-density units in a built-out city. It rests with the resale market. Current law needs to be changed to include the resale market and to give full credit – not partial credit – to cities for apartment and condominium conversions.

Each developer who buys commercial property purchases the property under the legal maxim “Let the buyer beware.” There are no guarantees concerning rezoning in any city. When council members talk about property rights, these rights are subject to the zoning under which the property was purchased and designated.

The consequences of not listening to our residents are always painful. A point to ponder: how much cost will the city have to absorb to learn this important lesson?

James Edward Woodin
Mission Viejo

Trust But Verify Learning
Letter to the editor

The letter in the Orange County Register from Mitch Anderson ["Grading the graduates,” Letters, May 16) presents an interesting question. Mr. Anderson opposes the exit exam because only students who fail their classes also fail the test. He wants to rely on teachers to determine if students pass and qualify for graduation.

What happens if teachers lower standards to pass poor students, even illiterate students, so they can clear their classrooms for the next class moving up? He doesn't seem to consider that question. The exit exam was devised to deal with just that scenario. If teachers were not under pressure to move the failing students along by passing them, there would have been no reason for the exit exam.

Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify." The exit exam was devised for that purpose. Mr. Anderson prefers "Trust but I don't want to know if they're cheating."

Michael Kennedy, M.D.
Mission Viejo

Council meeting summary, May 15
Editorial staff

The May 15 council meeting was short. Most of those in the audience came for the entertainment feature or the presentations. For a change, the entertainment feature was the musical number, not the contention on the dais.

A public hearing to continue the moratorium on marijuana dispensaries in the city was opened and closed without any public or council member comment. It passed 5-0.

The only item of real interest on the agenda was the Renewed Measure M Transportation Investment Plan. The council has the authority to decide whether or not to approve placing the item on the November ballot, and voters would decide if the tax should be extended for 30 years. The current 20-year half-cent sales tax, which voters passed in 1990, expires in 2011. Eighteen of the 34 Orange County cities must approve the plan if it is to appear on the ballot. Eight cities have approved.

Two residents spoke against extending the sales tax. One said too much Measure M money has gone to mass transit instead of improving the infrastructure. She said, “We need more pavement, not more social engineering.” She also mentioned that Measure M tax dollars are being spent to sell the sales-tax extension to the voters.

A second resident reminded council members of their responsibility to represent the best interests of Mission Viejo residents and not the desires of the Orange County Transportation Authority. He questioned why 25 percent of expenditures in Orange County are going toward 2 1/2 percent of the population using mass transit.

No residents spoke in favor of the ballot measure, but two speakers promoted Measure M – a representative of the Orange Co. Business Council and Lake Forest Councilman Peter Herzog. Herzog is also a member of the League of California Cities Measure M Super Committee.

The council voted 4-1 (Councilman John Paul Ledesma dissenting) to approve the plan to put the extension on the November ballot. Ledesma acknowledged road improvements funded by Measure M, but he took issue with the mass-transit portion, and he added that the tax was supposed to be temporary.

Wake Up and Vote in November
Staff editorial

Mission Viejo is being sued, and five council members are acting as if it’s someone else’s fault. During the May 8 Town Hall Meeting, residents asked specific questions about the lawsuit without getting answers. Questions to the council were often deflected to the assistant city attorney, who said he was unaware of precedents, regardless of the topic. Did this guy actually pass the bar exam?

Perhaps residents should have asked who made the decisions leading to the lawsuit. To get the whole story, they needed to ask what the city should have done to prevent the lawsuit. In both cases, the council majority – past and present – screwed up royally.

In 2004 the city’s Planning Commission was progressing toward a housing plan that should have met state affordable housing requirements without any new housing construction in this built-out city. The state requires the city to have a plan. Property must be designated that could be used for affordable housing if the property owner decided to build such housing.

Two deliberate acts of the council majority compromised the 2004 Planning Commission's completion of the required plan. First, the council majority of Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean and Bill Craycraft voted not to extend term limits of Planning Commissioners Norman Murray and Jack Anderson. Murray was a tremendous asset to the commission, and Anderson was working on the affordable housing plan. Both were prevented from serving beyond 2004.

By January 2005 the newest councilman, Frank Ury, had replaced Craycraft. The stunningly childish behavior of three council members – Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean and Frank Ury – set the wheels in motion to bring about the lawsuit. These three council members formed the majority to vote against reappointing Planning Commissioners Bo Klein and Dorothy Wedel. Klein, along with Anderson, was developing the affordable housing plan, and Wedel had consistently defended the city’s Master Plan against rezoning and overcrowding.

Kelley quietly spread the word in 2004 she was knocking Klein off the commission because he supported the reelection bid of Gail Reavis, Kelley’s archrival. Kelley may have struck a deal with Ury to get his vote against Klein. MacLean had been a staunch supporter of Steadfast and affordable apartments, and Klein (and Anderson, Murray and Wedel) had rejected Steadfast’s plans. Thus, progress toward the city’s affordable housing plan was scrapped soon after January 2005 when Kelley, MacLean and Ury dismantled the best Planning Commission in the city's history. Kelley’s vindictive behavior of voting against Klein and Wedel’s reappointments had an impact that was probably beyond her comprehension.

In the final battle, it was developer cash against the residents’ opposition to more housing. Two developers – UDR/Pacific and Steadfast – made “campaign donations” to council members. Kelley said from the dais before the vote, “I have never taken money from a developer.” A short time after the vote, Steadfast attended Kelley’s fundraiser, and others who attended said Steadfast was a major donor. Perhaps Ms. Kelley “forgot” she was having a fundraiser after the 5-0 council vote. Meanwhile, she babbles about character words, including integrity and honesty.

The council majority allowed the developers to put a token number of affordable units into their plans. The plaintiff in the lawsuit, The Pacific Law Center, singled out Steadfast’s one-bedroom units as discriminatory against low-income families.

For a wide range of reasons, the council should not have changed the city’s Master Plan and rezoned commercial parcels to residential. Residents spoke against overcrowding and presented a petition signed by nearly 3,000 people in opposition to any rezoning.

When council members refuse to represent the residents, fail to act responsibly and cause the city to be sued, they are unfit to serve. Council Members Kelley, MacLean and Ury have claimed criticism of their actions is personal attack. The lawsuit, misrepresentation of residents and failure to protect the city are not personal matters. Council members are destroying the nature of Mission Viejo – its foundation and quality of life. This reason alone is cause to vote them out at the first opportunity.

The Buzz Column, May 16, 2006

Fun With Chalk is being celebrated this weekend, May 20-21, at the Norman P. Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way (off LaPaz Road), 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Free admission and free parking. Festival-goers can enjoy the street-painting, fine art exhibit, music, food and art workshops.

***

The May 15 council meeting wasn’t one of the calmest after all – it just had a long fuse. Copies of abrasive emails between a resident and Mayor Lance MacLean appeared the next day. During public comments about Measure M, the resident was cut short on his three minutes of speaking time. The timer apparently was started while he was handing the city clerk copies of papers. In the resident’s email to the mayor, he demanded an explanation. The Buzz can help. If the mayor agrees with the person who is speaking, time limits are suspended until someone in the audience starts yelling about it.

***

A closed mouth gathers no feet. Councilwoman Trish Kelley is saying less and less at each council meeting. This is an improvement over recent meetings when she and MacLean lavished compliments on each other. The technique is reminiscent of Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow’s performances before they were deposed in November 2002, commenting on each other’s brilliance, sweetness and gift for public speaking.

***

Councilman Frank Ury spoke at the May 15 council meeting regarding a position for Mission Viejo on the Orange County Transportation Authority’s board of directors. Ury watchers have long suspected he’s maneuvering to get the position for himself. His quote: “The largest city in South County should be represented on the OCTA board.” Translation: the largest ego in South County is impatient to move up the ladder. Being on the OCTA board would enable Ury to move among county bigwigs and contractors who vie for multimillion-dollar projects.

***

An announcement in the Casta del Sol “Courier” heralded MacLean’s May 17 talk at the Casta Republican Club. The fawning over MacLean in the announcement was balanced by written questions from the audience. The mayor was fairly hammered on affordable housing, unpopular zone changes, accepting campaign donations from developers and why the city doesn’t pay down the debt if it’s rolling in the dough. As an example of MacLean’s “forthrightness,” he said he didn’t know how much money Steadfast had given him.

***

On May 18 Mission Viejo resident Jim Woodin was elected as president of the Saddleback Republican Assembly. Current SRA President Phil Steinhauer has served two terms and will remain on the club’s board of directors as past-president.