City to Buy Steadfast Property?
by Dale Tyler

Just when one thinks our city government can't come up with anything worse than what they have done in the recent past, they surprise even this writer. What was originally a city that was supposed to be a model of limited government has turned into a bureaucratic monster employing more than 140 people and intruding into every aspect of its citizens’ lives and pocketbooks.

In the past couple of years, the city has rezoned potentially productive commercial property into high-density residential areas. More recently, the City Council voted 5-0 to rezone three additional commercial parcels to high-density (30 units/acre) residential. One of these is located on Mission Viejo Country Club property off Oso Parkway.

The city of Mission Viejo is now apparently planning to become low-income landlords. On the Feb. 4, 2008, City Council Agenda, an item was added at the last moment (late Friday afternoon) to the closed-session calendar. It reads in part: CS1. Section 54956.8 (Conference with Real Property Negotiator). Property: An approximate 10.5 acre parcel of real property identified as Assessor Parcel No. 809 541 11, Parcel Map No. 81-159 generally situated easterly of the intersection of Jeronimo Road and Los Alisos Boulevard in the City of Mission Viejo co-owned by The Steadfast Companies with Target Corporation. {...} Potential acquisition and/or disposition of real property interests for long term affordable ownership housing and the price and terms of payment therefore related to the above-listed Property and alternatively acquisition of Target’s ownership interest in the site. {...} and (4) City or Agency financing.

A city hall insider has disclosed that this item was placed on the closed-session agenda to direct staff to negotiate with Target to purchase the so-called Steadfast part of Target's property using Community Development Agency (CDA) money, currently estimated at $4 million, and other money that we will talk about later in this article.

What reason could the city have for purchasing this land? The most likely possibility is to build a large number of low-income units, up to 305, on the Steadfast property. Some people, such as low-income housing advocates MacLean and Ury, would like the city to contain as much low-income housing as possible, both for the obvious socialist reasons and to help make their developer contributors happy. One of these, UDR, which purchased the former Kmart property on east Los Alisos near the toll road, wants desperately to rid itself of the requirement to build 15 percent low-income housing in its project. UDR would prefer to offer the city some money, called “in-lieu fees,” to have the city build the low-income units elsewhere. Of course, UDR will also be writing checks to MacLean, Ury and others.

Then there is Councilwoman Trish Kelley, who realizes she made a mistake by supporting the rezoning of the Country Club property. It has recently been the subject of purchase negotiations with another developer, who will want to build hundreds of high-density condos or apartments on that site. Kelley claims to be against these types of developments but then authorizes three anyway. What Kelley does not seem to realize is that no matter what she does at the Steadfast property, there will still be hundreds of new residential units built in an area that is already overburdened with too many students and too much traffic, not to mention the crime that occurs in such high-density developments. One hopes that Kelley will realize that making the Steadfast property into a low-income project will only hurt the surrounding neighbors, break promises made to them when the city approved only 152 units with a maximum of 15 percent low-income and do nothing to help the Country Club property.

We will have to see what Reavis and Ledesma do in this case. While MacLean and Ury are already bought and paid for, perhaps Kelley will join Reavis and Ledesma to tell the city bureaucrats to stop this foolishness.

It is not the role of government to be a landlord or developer of residential or commercial property. Cities should only own land that is used for community recreation, like parks, and buildings used for city business, like City Hall and the City Library. If we get into developing properties for other purposes, we will be putting ourselves at risk of becoming slumlords, like the infamous projects of Chicago and New York. You can be sure that the “poverty pimps” will be in court insisting that we build all of the low-income units they think we need. If we stay out of the housing business, we are obligated to do nothing but zone an area for housing and let private developers build the low-income units as part of larger projects at no cost to the city.

We need to make it clear to the City Council and staff that Mission Viejo stands for limited government and not this kind of foolishness. Be sure to email the city at cityadmin@cityofmissionviejo.org and communitydev@cityofmissionviejo.org to express your concerns. You could also go to the council meeting on Mon., Feb. 4, but since this is a closed-session item, your comments will only be heard during the general Public Comments section of the meeting.