Now I Get It
Letter to the editor

On July 2 three members of the Mission Viejo City Council voted to spend $143,000 on a new computer-electronic signboard for the Communications Board on the corner of Marguerite and La Paz. This type of signage was once prohibited in Mission Viejo as unaesthetic. But putting that aside, I wondered why the three City Council members decided to focus on only one side of the intersection, neglecting the Service Clubs Board across the way. No accounting for taste and poor governance, I thought.

But then I thought of another way to account for this “oversight.” Having completed only half the job at the intersection, maybe the City Council members are anticipating that members of the community will demand that the Service Clubs Board be redesigned to coordinate with the Communications Board. They will take this to mean that Mission Viejo really must have wanted the electronic board despite all the negative input against it at the City Council meetings and despite the fact that the most effective means of 21st century, local communication takes place via city newspapers and community email. (Note San Clemente’s approach.)

Paula Steinhauer
Mission Viejo

Policy Should Work Both Ways
Letter to the editor

Following is a copy of the letter HOA President Kathy Miramontes sent to Target after her neighborhood was covered with flyers.

Dear Target,

You have a "Target Solicitation Policy," which I read on your website, listed below. HOWEVER, you do not appear to have a problem sending unsavory-looking people into our neighborhood to distribute YOUR solicitation materials. I am the president of an HOA in Mission Viejo, CA. Today, Sunday, and at approximately 9:30 a.m., I heard someone talking outside my window. I opened the window and saw two shaven-head, Hispanic males with natural-colored sacks hanging from their necks. They were going door-to-door distributing flyers in my community. Why does your no-solicitation policy only work for Target and NOT for the communities you wish to retain as customers? This particular flyer was for a Target in Foothill Ranch, CA. I did use that particular Target often, but I will no longer frequent that location.

Our association pays someone to walk our property to pick up your flyers because our homeowners have agreed they do NOT want ANYONE coming into our community distributing trash that winds up on the ground as waste. Why do you not follow your own policy and prevent this from happening to the very people you want to frequent your stores as customers? 

http://sites.target.com/site/en/corporate/page.jsp?contentId=PRD032d001336

I am requesting an apology to my community within 10 days and a promise from Target this will never happen again. If not, I will send out a notice to our homeowners to use other retailers, such as Wal-Mart, rather than Target when making their purchases.  When our homeowners find out Target is costing them money to clean up our property, they will be most happy to discontinue purchasing from their local Target stores.

Please confirm you have received my email with other than a “canned” response.

Thank you,
Kathy Miramontes
Aliso Villas Board of Directors
President
Mission Viejo, CA

CUSD Update – Plea of Insanity Would Cover It
Editorial staff

The arraignment of former CUSD administrators James Fleming and Susan McGill began at 9 a.m. on July 13 in Orange County Superior Court. Both responded “not guilty” to felony charges. Fleming is charged with three counts for allegedly creating lists of enemies. McGill is charged with conspiracy and perjury. Their next court appearance will be on Aug. 10.

The arraignment was originally scheduled for June, but the defense had asked for a delay to July 13 to study findings of the grand jury. Now that Fleming – not the school district – is paying his attorney fees, he might have mixed feelings about drawing out the process.

Those who went to the arraignment said it was short. The blog found an interesting description on an OC Register discussion board, posted by someone who attended:

 http://talk.ocregister.com/showthread.php?t=23726&page=150&pp=15#post535240.

According to the post, Fleming and McGill are looking haggard beyond their years.

Some of those posting on the OCR discussion board are also making their way through the 1,300-page grand jury report. One person found testimony indicating a current high-level (and highly compensated) CUSD employee contributed to the enemies lists by adding notes and personal information.

Community members should expect the next school board meeting (Mon., July 16) to be interesting. Those planning to attend should note public comments will be heard at the beginning of the meeting after presentation of awards and other recognition. The public may also attend the board’s study session from 4 to 5 p.m. regarding capital facilities.

On the agenda for the closed session, CUSD received notice of liability claims. The item lists 17 names for a total of 35 claims. Blog staff members noticed that the same names appear on the lists of enemies. District officials should anticipate legal repercussions, particularly when schoolchildren were named as enemies. It gives new meaning to the old-guard’s tired phrase: it’s all about the children.

They’re On a Roll
Staff editorial

A brief review of 2007’s first half reveals the Mission Viejo City Council’s true nature. The council consistently votes for bigger government, more bureaucracy and more spending on pet projects. Have residents benefited from such council decisions? Usually not. Whenever residents show up at meetings – in large numbers or small – the council almost always votes on behalf of out-of-towners who speak against residents.

January: the construction project at Los Alisos and Jeronimo looks like a strip-mining operation. All five council members last year overturned commercial zoning at this site to build more housing (despite 7,000 signatures against Steadfast’s housing project, which council members passed 5-0).

February: the council voted 5-0 to spend $14,750 on an Urban Land Institute study of the retail center at La Paz and Marguerite, which is private property. In May, the council decided to pursue the “concept,” which includes apartments on top of retail stores. No public input was invited, and storekeepers strongly objected at both the February and May meetings. Nearly all public comments were against the proposed ideas.

March: the council voted 4-1 (Reavis dissenting) to spend $375,220 on a toilet in Melinda Park. This expenditure ironically evolved from residents’ requests that laws be enforced against park users who were relieving themselves in bushes. Council members made no comment when a report surfaced about the high number of vehicles stolen at the mall during the previous summer. The bad news, if released, would have trumped the happy-face stories promoted by the incumbents prior to the November election. What happened to police reports on all the stolen vehicles?

April: the city lost a lawsuit (costing more than $1 million) regarding affordable housing. A combination of incompetence and inaction on the part of all five council members led to the lawsuit. Council members misrepresented the affordable housing mess as “the state made us do this.” The state intervened only after the council deliberately threw away its plan-in-progress. On April 30, more than 100 residents attended a planning commission meeting to object to the city’s Wireless Master Plan, which was previously moved forward by the entire council. Over strong objections from many in the neighborhood, the council also approved the conversion of a single-family home on Calle Hogar to an obvious board-and-care facility.

May: fatal freeway crash near the Oso ramp emphasizes the dangerous traffic backup when city thoroughfares stop during rush hour. Highway patrol records show 2,281 crashes occurred near this site since 1997. (A councilman previously said the backed up traffic isn’t a problem because it will discourage drivers from cutting through Mission Viejo.) On May 7, the council voted to rezone four commercial properties, which could add up to 800 new apartments or welfare housing units. On May 16, the majority of MacLean, Ury and Kelley (MUK) voted to prevent the public from pulling agenda items for discussion during council meetings, thwarting public debate.

June: majority of MUK approved spending more than $143,000 for an electronic message board for the corner of La Paz and Marguerite. During the July 2 meeting, the majority of MUK voted to move forward on the sign with almost no support from the community and strong opposition – approximately 45 public comments, written comments and emails from residents.

This summary glosses over some of the worst problems, but it mentions a few well-known ones. Isn’t it interesting that the council transacted very little business during months leading up to the November 2006 election? Bad news (such as auto thefts) didn’t surface, and the council didn’t mention their fondest dreams (electronic sign, rezoning commercial property, plans to interfere with business owners’ properties at La Paz and Marguerite, the Wireless Master Plan giving a consultant a bonus for placing cell towers in city parks, etc.).

Three council members – Kelley, Ledesma and MacLean – are secure in their seats, despite a close election last November. The other two – Reavis and Ury – won’t face voters until November 2008. Perhaps all of them think they can do whatever they want. Isn’t it pathetic – with no election on the horizon – what these five are prone to do?

The Mission Viejo Company had a unique vision – the city’s Master Plan, which most residents want to preserve. Those with opposing views – Council Members Frank Ury, Lance MacLean, Trish Kelley, John Paul Ledesma and Gail Reavis – have 16 more months to wreak havoc before voters have another chance to remove any of them.

The Buzz column, July 13

This week’s Pants-on-Fire Award goes to Councilman Frank Ury, who has his bio on the Orange County Republican Website. Does anyone remember Ury in 2002 giving his “bullies” speech against Susan Withrow and Sherri Butterfield? Back then, he told his little story about his Hungarian roots as if he had been a Freedom Fighter at the age of two. Those who heard him speak don’t entirely agree on whether or not he was born in Hungary. They do agree “old Frank” moved to California after growing up in the Midwest. “New Frank” now claims in the Website bio he’s a California native. Perhaps the immigrant story from 2002 no longer cuts it with so many other immigrants entering the U.S. from all directions.

***

New Frank’s bio can be found by accessing the list of cities in the Republican Website. New Frank was anointed by the Republican good-ol’-boys club as Mission Viejo’s Republican go-to person. Is that a joke? Ury proclaimed during the 2006 county Republican endorsing meeting that GOP County Chair Scott Baugh directed him to bring a Republican – Justin McCusker – into the 2006 Mission Viejo council race. It was a stunning announcement, considering nine Republicans were already running (including Diane Greenwood, a lifelong Democrat who changed her registration prior to entering the race). By Election Day, Ury had thrown McCusker under the bus and stood on a street corner holding only Greenwood’s sign. As the Republican’s “go-to person,” Ury ended up supporting only the lifelong Democrat from the 10 city council candidates.

***

Many cities on the Republican Website list a council member as the go-to person, and that’s a problem. Ury became Mission Viejo’s “city chair” during his 2004 campaign for city council. Does anyone think Ury split his time between his own campaign and organizing a network of workers for the Republican Party? He did nothing for the party, which is likely the reason Mission Viejo has no Republican get-out-the-vote effort. Ury served as city chair in the 2006 election as well, and the results were disastrous. With good ol’ boys running the county and weakening as many city efforts as possible, Democrats should have a field day. Ury in 2006 tried to organize a precinct walk, and only one person showed up – Bill Barker. Barker later said Ury was enraged at the lack of response. Barker didn’t even get a hot dog from Ury after being promised a barbeque dinner.

***

Email from a Buzz reader: “What’s taking so long with the D.A.’s investigation of CUSD? After the indictments of James Fleming and Susan McGill, the news stories implied others would be charged.” Considering the first indictments (on May 24) came approximately nine months after the D.A. seized computers at CUSD’s offices, this investigation is unfolding slowly. The D.A. has made no official announcement since May 24.

***

Information in The Buzz more often comes from CUSD parents than any official source. Insiders are offering mixed predictions on whether old-guard trustees will be indicted for Brown Act violations. Acting superintendent Suzette Lovely allegedly participated in forming the lists of enemies – a public relations nightmare if not a serious legal problem for her. If she steps down, she could be the fourth superintendent to leave CUSD within a year. Fleming resigned in August 2006. With the pressure of another recall effort on the remaining four old-guard trustees, they could throw in the towel as well.