Vote No Or You Will Go
Staff editorial

At the Sept. 17 council meeting, one resident at the public microphone warned council members, “Vote no or you will go,” regarding the Wireless Master Plan. He indicated residents can replace council members who don’t heed the pleas of their constituents. He added, “There’s something sleazy and underhanded about the wireless plan. Why aren’t we more informed?”

The meeting offered more contention than usual. Animosity between council members has been building lately, especially between Ury and Reavis, who are both up for reelection in 2008. Ury has acted sullen and quiet after being bypassed as mayor in January of this year. Reavis has been more diplomatic than usual, overly polite at times and going along rather than offering resistance to bad ideas – the quality that got her elected.

Following are various comments or summaries of comments by public speakers:

1. “The city gave ATS $200,000 to create a Wireless Master Plan. Don’t permit cherry-picking of parks – protecting only some of them while others become targets for cell towers.”
2. “I don’t see any indication of signal strength in this report. Tell me the page number where I can find this information. Also, the report doesn’t account for different frequencies – global or limited.”
3. San Clemente resident Joe Thompson, the sole defender of ATS and the Wireless Master Plan, whose employer is Team Mobile: “I represent the silent majority.”
4. “The cell towers (RF waves) might be the asbestos of our generation.”
5. “RF is the same as your microwave. Would you operate your microwave with the door open?”
6. Referring to the ATS consultant who discounted health risks, “After hearing from the science professor you brought in (for an earlier meeting), what listeners concluded is that studies are inconclusive.”
7. Regarding the $14,000 P.R. contract to Paul Glaab to engender a positive outcome for the cell tower plan, “The positive outcome in this case would be for the council to listen to the residents. You can terminate the contract without cause – that’s what the contract states.”

Interesting comments coming from the council and city staff:

1. Council Members Kelley, MacLean and Ury, as well as the city attorney, all referred to the Wireless Master Plan as “just a study.” MacLean: “Residents are victims of terminology.”
2. Ury: “This is the way the process is supposed to work. We balance the needs of the community with the needs of the community.”
3. Ury: “I sat down with a resident [who is concerned about cell towers in parks], and we’re going to remove the exclusion regarding private sites.” (We’ll give ATS an even better deal, putting cell towers on private property, and we’ll blame the concerned resident for bringing this upon the community.)
4. Ledesma (objecting to the plan): “We’re giving ATS a monopoly for towers on city property and now allowing him to compete with private property.”
5. Reavis (objecting to the exclusion of only a few parks instead of all parks): “We’re all in or we’re all out.” “I’m voting against it because it’s a flawed document and it’s unclear. I don’t agree we should receive and file.”
6. MacLean: “We’re going to lose our rights. Decisions will be taken over by the state.”
7. MacLean wouldn’t let it go when Reavis voted against the plan. He became agitated and hostile. He talked over her and then engaged in a tag-team attack with Ury against Reavis.
8. Ury to Reavis: “You’re not being articulate about what the heartburn is.” Ury usurped control of the meeting at one point, directing the city attorney to speak, but he got no response.
9. Ury: “I think it comes down to trust. I think the community doesn’t trust some of the things we’re thinking about.”

Finally, Ury gets it. This council cannot be trusted with any decision, and particularly an important one involving health and safety risks, property values, aesthetics and misuse of city parks.

Council Members with Deaf Ears
Letter to the editor

Part of the Sept. 17 city council meeting telecast regarding cellular towers was like a cross between “Comedy Central” and “Ripley's Believe It Or Not.”

One councilman's zealotry in favor of the ATS cellular tower master plan and the way he flew in the face of the mayor and others who questioned any aspect of the plan was amazing. His fervent push for approval of this master plan and blatant disregard for the overwhelming objections by the citizens against this plan are nearly beyond belief. Such vigor as a proponent of ATS and their plan makes it not difficult to believe that he could be on the ATS payroll. That he was not the only council member to have a deaf ear and closed mind to wishes of constituents is sad and regrettable.

In recent years I have become only an infrequent, passive and casual observer of certain council members' occasional questionable performance and shenanigans. But watching certain council members' myopic fervor for this ATS “study” (as a particular council member tries to mislabel it), coupled with other multiple misguided and unpopular pet projects – e.g., bed tax, joint-use (“special interest”) gymnasium, support of SCE overhead high-tension power lines (or failure to support the burying of those lines) and Steadfast's low-income housing – tends to motivate me to get active again if only to ensure that they are defeated in the next election. 

This council meeting left me disgusted and wondering how delightful it must be to live in a town where the city fathers actually seek input from the citizens, or even just listen and respond to their wishes. Too bad that in our town the prevailing pattern of certain council members seems to typically favor corporate interests (who make significant campaign contributions) contrary to the expressed interests of our citizens, pushing pet projects, or otherwise generally dismissing out of hand their constituents' wishes because “they as elected council members somehow know better than we what is good for us.”

Can this city endure another term of council members like he who sits at the right hand of the mayor and his like-minded colleagues? Once again, it is time for "out with the old, in with the new."

Don Wilder
Mission Viejo

Who's the Better Achiever?
Letter to the editor

The Democrats (Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge) complain about how the Iraqi government is not matching the Democrats' 18-point-program demands. What is so interesting is the Democrats' much-publicized program of bills they would pass when they took control of Congress in January of this year.

Now, let's look at each group's achievement. The Iraqi government's achievements come out to 44 percent. The Democrats' achievement for the same eight months rates 14 percent!

Which one has achieved more?

Beverly Cruse
Mission Viejo

Editor’s Note: Normally we try to focus on local issues that relate to Mission Viejo. However, I thought this letter pointing out the hypocrisy of our federal government was instructive. It nicely illustrates that some of our so-called leaders are much more effective in telling others how to behave than actually fulfilling their campaign promises. Kind of like some folks in our own city council?

Take a Look at Our Justice System
Letter to the editor

Because it just might be an interesting civics lesson, or if you contributed money to see it this far, I am passing along the following information:

Oral argument in the Capo for Representation recall case will be Oct. 23, 2007, at 1:00 p.m., at the Court of Appeal building on Spurgeon Street. The judges will be Sills, Rylaarsdam and Moore.

What Neal Kelley, our illustrious Registrar of Voters did, still amazes me. CUSD officials were visiting the Registrar's office during the recall signature count. Obviously, undue influence was a major factor in invalidating more than 35 percent or our signatures.

Please come and see if our justice system is any better than our political system. I will be attending come hell or high water!

Becky Bauer
CUSD Parent

CUSD Update
Is old-regime trustee switching sides?

What happened during the Aug. 13 closed-session process of selecting a new interim superintendent? Some Capistrano school district constituents allege Brown Act violations occurred after one of the old-regime trustees voted with the three new trustees on a critical vote.

Did holdover Trustee Duane Stiff side with the new reform trio who wanted to hire Woodrow Carter? If speculation about this is correct, the vote to hire Carter was 4-3 (Marlene Draper, Sheila Benecke and Mike Darnold dissenting). A second vote, 7-0, may have been taken to give an appearance the old regime is still in control.

Benecke evidently told some CUSD constituents before the Aug. 13 meeting that she favored rehiring Charles McCulley, who served as interim superintendent following the resignation of former superintendent James Fleming. The word spread that McCulley, known for his “let’s move on” attitude, would likely get the job. CUSD residents who have read the grand jury transcripts remarked that McCulley came across during his testimony as uninformed about district finances and overly reliant on Fleming’s old lieutenants to make decisions. According to insiders, Stiff supported Carter for the new interim post.

Stiff, who rarely comments during board meetings, was assessed by a Mission Viejo activist: “When Stiff spoke up during the Aug. 13 open session, he sounded hoarse. I’d never heard him speak before, so maybe that’s just the way he sounds. Partly because he’s quiet, he doesn’t have a bull’s-eye painted on his forehead in the current CUSD recall effort, which targets only Draper and Benecke. If Stiff had any political smarts, he would realize how much power he’d have as the swing vote. Both sides would end up courting him instead of one or the other trying to bury him.”

When the board came out of the Aug. 13 closed session, President Benecke didn’t report the vote tally, nor did she say the board had decided on Carter. The reform trustees made a motion to hold a meeting on Aug. 17 to finalize the contract. Is it true that old-guard trustees (Draper, Benecke and/or Darnold) spent the next three days trying to derail the hiring of Carter?

As another topic, last week’s opening of the district’s new $152-million high school in San Juan Capistrano emphasized a number of questions that haven’t been answered. The underlying real-estate deal smells about the same as the methane-belching landfill next to the school. The land belonged to the state (U.C. Regents) until it was purchased in 1999 by developer Dennis Gage. He bought 256 acres for around $3 million and then offered to give a portion of it to the city of San Juan Capistrano for a park. After the city turned it down, the developer sold the portion – 52 acres – to the school district in 2003 for approximately $53 million, and CUSD also paid the developer to grade his property for a housing development. Is the D.A. not curious about the price going from $11,000-plus per acre to zero when it was offered to the city and from zero to more than $1 million per acre when the district bought it? Another question that hasn’t been answered is how or why the developer received an offer of $53 million for property that wasn’t on the market.

With the developer making a fortune on the school site alone – and millions more to come from his housing development – did he share the wealth with any of the deal-makers at CUSD? Perhaps this was a point of reference when the D.A. in May said more charges are possible.

The Buzz column, Sept. 21

The Buzz reported in 2006 that a developer was proposing a new housing project on what is currently the Casta del Sol golf course. The proposal seemed off the table, but it’s back. Some residents received a mailer from Sunrise Senior Living on Sept. 22, describing a luxury retirement community and expansive park being proposed on what is now the golf course. There’s no time like the present to push it through. The current city council just loves more housing, more traffic, more congestion and more developer cash in their campaign accounts.

***

A speaker at the Sept. 17 council meeting made an amusing comment from the public microphone. First, he mentioned he’s lived in Mission Viejo for 29 years, and he’s not running for city council. After stating his problem – a power outage in his neighborhood on Sept. 3 – he said he waited 12-16 hours before calling anyone. Then, he called city hall to ask why the power was off. He seemed surprised that no one at city hall returned his call and suggested they consider adding voice mail.

***

A couple things were aired following the public comment about the power outage. The city manager mentioned a problem that utility companies are having with underground lines and vaults filling with water, causing extended delays in getting the power back on. The speaker also asked what it would take to get city hall’s attention when residents are experiencing an emergency. He got no answer, which emphasizes the blog’s position that residents need to fend for themselves rather than rely on the city in the event of a disaster. At the end of the meeting, the mayor talked about “preparedness.” The blog’s challenge to the city continues: tell everyone about the city’s emergency plan. Announce it in the City Outlook newsletter, even if it means omitting a page or two of Outlook drivel.

***

The Sept. 21 issue of Saddleback Valley News contained news on the front page instead of the usual large picture and “human interest” story. Unfortunately, the news item about the city’s Wireless Master Plan wasn’t accurate. For openers, residents’ opposition to the plan was 100 percent. The only public speaker supporting the plan lives in San Clemente and works for a cell phone company. Councilman Frank Ury comes across in the article as being responsive to residents’ demands by suggesting the elimination of some parks from the contract. Residents demanded the elimination of all parks and canceling the contract with ATS as well.

***

Council members have indicated to the blog’s publisher they don’t like getting negative reviews. It’s quite easy to avoid being criticized by following a few suggestions: 1) be honest, 2) keep your campaign promises, 3) do your homework and read the packet before coming to the meeting, 4) represent your constituents and not outsiders or the city staff, 5) protect homeowners’ rights and property, and 6) do the right (moral and responsible) thing in the best interest of Mission Viejo residents. One former council member is often mentioned as a good example: the late Norm Murray. Norm was eventually defeated for reelection, probably because he was dedicated to doing the right thing rather than being popular.