New Bad Majority Replaced Old Bad Majority
Editorial staff

The city of Mission Viejo recently lost its legal battle over affordable housing with the Public Law Center, and the cost will be ongoing. In addition to paying its own legal fees, the city will probably be ordered to pay the litigant’s fees. A greater cost will be further decline of neighborhoods and quality of life in Mission Viejo.

The lawsuit resulted from inaction and incompetence on the part of the city council. Years ago, the “old bad majority” of Butterfield, Withrow and Craycraft approved apartment projects in the south part of town and allowed developers to wriggle out of agreements to include affordable units. The city was built out prior to the approvals, and no more dwellings of any kind should have been built. However, developer cash trumped the objections of residents, including more than 7,000 who signed a petition against the housing projects.

Among the activists who gathered petition signatures back then was Trish Kelley. After winning a council seat in 2002, Kelley abruptly switched sides to get on the gravy train. She was in a position to accept campaign contributions from housing developers, and that’s precisely what she did. Kelley publicly stated during a council meeting that she had not taken such money. However, she voted almost immediately thereafter in favor of the developer and accepted developer checks, making this so-called “woman of character” merely another political character.

The council had years to remedy the mistakes and corruption of the old bad majority, which the new bad majority had lambasted while campaigning against them. All current council members have accepted campaign money from developers and voted on behalf of outsiders over residents’ objections.

In contrast with the council majority, ethical city leaders comprised the Planning Commission while the council ran amok. Dr. Michael Kennedy, Hon. Norman Murray, Jack Anderson, Bo Klein and Dorothy Wedel served in 2003-2005. They demonstrated remarkable knowledge, wisdom and foresight in rejecting all proposals for additional housing of any kind. Among other accomplishments, they came up with a workable plan within state guidelines to meet affordable housing goals without destroying commercial zoning or turning established neighborhoods into future slums.

Kennedy resigned as a planning commissioner in 2004, and Anderson and Murray’s service ended in 2004 when Kelley, MacLean and Craycraft voted against extending their terms. When Councilmembers John Paul Ledesma and Gail Reavis nominated Commissioners Klein and Wedel to serve another term beginning in 2005, the other three councilmembers (MacLean, Kelley and Ury) voted them down in what appeared to be a violation of the Brown Act. Damage to the city and its residents has been irreparable.

The former planning commissioners were a stellar group of ethical public servants who had no motivation beyond protecting quality of life and preserving the Master Plan. The commission had become the city’s first line of defense against developer invasions as well as bad ideas from city staff members. The city’s best-ever Planning Commission that began in 2002 was replaced with a rubberstamp majority in 2005-2006. Not one person on the 2007 commission seems to know which way is up. The major “accomplishments” of the current commission include decisions that overturned the Master Plan with more high-density welfare housing. The majority also approved compromising the character of an established neighborhood by allowing the conversion of a small home into a six-bedroom boardinghouse – a decision the council overturned.

Approximately 100 residents attended the April 30 Planning Commission hearing on the city’s wireless master plan. For some newcomers to public meetings, seeing the Planning Commission in action was revealing with regard to incompetent commissioners, inept city staff members and the corrupt process by which the city aligns with such contractors as the wireless master planner.

Many city activists who led the 2002 revolution against the bad old majority of Butterfield, Withrow and Craycraft may have thought they’d won the war. Despite the appearance of change in 2002, the bad new majority (MacLean, Kelley and Ury) has resumed the practice of riding roughshod over the residents in the same condescending manner as the old regime.

Voters need to complete the job they started in 2002 with the ousting of Butterfield and Withrow (Craycraft didn’t run for reelection when his term ended in 2004). New leadership is emerging, particularly in neighborhoods hardest hit by bad council decisions. When things get bad enough, good people rise up to fight back. The city election of 2008 will be another major battle, and the outcome could hinge on voters realizing MacLean and Ury have morphed into Butterfield, Withrow and Craycraft.