|
Mission Viejo as Battleground
by Dale Tyler
The municipal election of November 7, 2006, will be remembered in Mission Viejo as one of the most contentious and polarizing in recent memory. All three incumbents were reelected, although the vote counts were lower than they received in 2002. Perhaps the voters were not that interested or maybe they were tired of the negative campaigning.
In the interest of full disclosure, I supported Ferrall, Woodin and Ledesma in this election. I was responsible for printing signs that urged voters to not support Kelley and MacLean, since I believe that their attempt to raise taxes in 2004, despite their promise in 2002 not to do so, should have disqualified them for reelection.
During the last eight years, each succeeding election has been nastier than the one before it. Various factions around the city battled for control and eventually replaced the gang of four who were responsible for so many failed policies and the city's descent into debt. In the process, new council members were elected, among them Frank Ury, who has become the focal point for a group who, while calling other's opinions hateful and mean, refused to take responsibility for their own actions.
An example of this is the sign fiasco. It has been my experience that there is always talk of people taking signs down that do not belong to them. I personally have witnessed signs that were uprooted, others that were torn to shreds and still others that vanished minutes after being erected, with other signs nearby untouched. It seems that this kind of bad behavior is often done by those whose anger surpasses their own ethical standards. In general, those people who make the most noise about sign theft or damage are the most likely to be doing it themselves as they rationalize their actions as “getting even” or an “eye for an eye.”
In this election the supporters of Greenwood, Barker and McCusker accused at least two people of moving or touching their signs. In one case, they called 911 to report the moving of a sign. Of course, this was a huge waste of city resources, and one should hope no actual police emergency suffered a delayed response because of this foolishness. It turns out that the supporters of Greenwood had taken to placing Greenwood signs directly in front of their opponent's signs. While not illegal, it is certainly not at all in the spirit of fair play. So, when the person whose sign was blocked moved the offending Greenwood sign to a place nearby that did not block the original sign, Greenwood's supporters called 911. In another case, a Greenwood supporter accused someone else of “stealing a sign.” However, no sign was removed and, thus, no theft occurred. Again, the Greenwood supporters involved the police.
[Picture deleted - see original story]
Candidates should expect to be criticized for positions that they take and be prepared to defend those positions in public debates. Candidates who cannot accept that others may genuinely disagree with their positions should find another hobby.
However, involving a candidate's family or employer crosses the line of civil discourse unless the involvement bears on the campaign, such as getting a job for a family member with a city supplier or coercing suppliers of one's employer to contribute to a campaign fund. Unfortunately, the Greenwood, Barker and McClusker supporters failed to play fair. After the 911 sign incident, one of those supporters emailed the employer of the one who moved the sign to ”inform” them of the incident. In my view, this matter was unrelated to the employment of the candidate and was inappropriate. One may disagree with a candidate’s actions or positions quite strongly, but threatening their outside job seems unfair.
It has been said that the two subjects one cannot discuss in polite company are politics and religion. To some people, if someone criticizes a political candidate they support, that criticism is a direct attack on them. They invest so much of themselves into the campaign and the candidate, that anyone who says the slightest thing opposing their favorite candidate must be lying or deceitful or hateful. Yet, their own actions are seen to be as pure and the “right” thing to do, no matter what the cost. In a broader sense, this is one way wars begin.
I suppose everyone, including myself, minimizes the faults of those we support in politics, while focusing on the failings of our opponents. However, we need to be careful that we do not become so wrapped up in the events of the moment that we fail to recognize our own responsibility to keep an open mind, objectively evaluating the things we hear about our favorites and when the election is over to put the “sharp knives” away until the next election. The Greenwood supporters have been angry since the 2004 election and will likely stay that way indefinitely, much to their detriment.
To them and others who accuse everyone else of lying or whatever: The NewsBlog will continue to critically examine the failings and successes of our City Council, Planning Commission and city staff to keep the citizens of Mission Viejo informed. We will offer fact and opinion, some of which will offend someone, I am sure. Just remember that if your favorite is being criticized, there may actually be a sound basis for the criticism, and it may not be a lie or hateful or whatever excuse you wish to make for someone disagreeing with you. We welcome well-reasoned, rational discussion of the issues and believe that through this forum the people of Mission Viejo will gain more power over their city government.
|
