Revisionists Are At It Again
Editorial staff

The Mission Viejo blog has covered the Audi redevelopment fiasco of 2003 in previous issues. The information restated in this editorial is not directed at readers who get it but at those who insist on revising history until it matches their fantasies.

The 4-1 vote in favor of the $600,000 Audi redevelopment deal took place on July 7, 2003 (Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean, John Paul Ledesma and Bill Craycraft in favor; Gail Reavis opposed). Three council members who won in November 2002 (Kelley, Ledesma and MacLean) made statements during their campaigns renouncing redevelopment.

Prior to the July 7, 2003, meeting Trish Kelley had twice voted against the Audi deal. In June 2003, she wrote and distributed a two-page explanation of her position against corporate welfare – probably to smooth things over with her PTA friends in the Capo school district who supported the Audi deal. Reavis, Ledesma and Kelley had held their ground in the two previous votes, and redevelopment giveaways in Mission Viejo appeared to be history.

Those who worked toward Kelley’s 2002 victory the previous November were stunned when she brought back the redevelopment item for a third vote, placing it on the council agenda for the July 7 meeting. Here’s what happened.

When then-Mayor John Paul Ledesma learned Kelley intended to revive the item, he should have called her directly to bring her back into the fold. Instead, he called an activist who had served as Kelley’s campaign manager in 2002 saying, essentially, “Go find out why she’s doing this and call me back.” The activist he called had been an outspoken critic of redevelopment and should have been reliable in convincing Kelley not to bring it back.

What happened next is no small matter, as it significantly impacted the Committee for Integrity in Government. Instead of getting information and reporting back to Ledesma as directed, the activist called Kelley and fell in with her. Kelley later bragged that she and her husband used a spreadsheet to craft the revised version of corporate welfare. The activist failed to complete the mission as directed, and Kelley’s decision had been made before he called her.

What caused Kelley to abandon her campaign platform, particularly after she had written a two-page summary of why she didn’t support redevelopment? Here’s the answer: her buddies at Capo Unified School District. David Doomey was a key influence, and Kelley’s PTA friends later claimed they were the ones who changed her mind – they continue to this day to take credit for it. Kelley’s decision was made on behalf of CUSD, not the city and certainly not any activist group. Her first and foremost concern was the school district.

Back then, several activists who were members of Committee for Integrity in Government claimed that CIG had influenced Kelley’s flip by encouraging her to bring back the item. That makes no sense. Those making the claim either don’t know what happened or they’re in denial. Several such activists on July 7, 2003, spoke in favor of redevelopment at the council meeting, which stunned other members of CIG. The club came apart because the majority of the club’s members were appalled by those who not only abandoned the club’s stance against corporate welfare but couldn’t get their story straight.

Some CIG members attempted to keep the club together after “the fall,” but the resentment grew against those members who had abandoned the principles of small government on which the club was founded. A few former CIG members continue to misrepresent the facts in letters to Saddleback Valley News and from the public microphone at council meetings.

Astoundingly, several of the fallen CIG members in 2003 continued to follow Kelley around after she sold out. Her subsequent flips included rezoning commercial property and adding more high-density housing in a built-out city. Kelley abandoned principle and duped a few dim bulbs in the process. Only one former CIG member worked in Kelley’s 2006 reelection campaign, possibly because his views of supporting big government align better with Kelley’s than with those of his former peers.

At the Feb. 5, 2007, council meeting, a former CIG member again made reference to the Audi redevelopment deal, indicating CIG members were involved in the decision-making process. CIG members clearly had no influence in Kelley’s 2003 decision to bring back the Audi deal for a third vote. CIG as a group never supported redevelopment, and the handful of CIG members who fell off the reform wagon in 2003 are speaking for themselves, not the club.