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.

Trading Votes
Staff editorial

During the final meeting of 2007, the council selected the 2008 mayor. As no surprise, Gail Reavis nominated John Paul Ledesma, who was serving as mayor pro tem. Before the vote was called, Lance MacLean nominated Frank Ury. After a series of votes and an exchange of insults, both Ledesma and Ury were voted down. Trish Kelley, who was no one’s first choice, got the title.

Catfights, mud-slinging and insults are nothing new for this council. The emerging alliance between MacLean and Ury, however, should give viewers pause. In the 2006 November election, Ury earned the wrath of MacLean by vowing to unseat him. Partly through Ury’s influence with Orange County GOP bosses, MacLean was denied the party’s endorsement. Despite all of Ury’s opposition and dirty tricks, MacLean kept his council seat in a close election.

What could have motivated MacLean to nominate Ury for mayor a year later? Council watchers are guessing Ury will return the favor by casting a vote for one of MacLean’s pet projects. With the recent completion of MacLean’s pride and joy – an electronic sign at La Paz and Marguerite – what’s left?

As another opportunity for MacLean to ignore the will of residents, Sunrise continues to move forward with its proposal of high-density housing on the Casta del Sol golf course. But Ury and MacLean have allegedly encouraged Sunrise from the beginning. Both took campaign donations from Sunrise’s P.R. consultant (Roger Faubel) and attended his holiday party a couple months ago. No need to trade votes when MacLean and Ury are on the same side.

Pathetic as it may seem, MacLean hasn’t initiated anything that has actually helped the city or its residents during his five years on the council. He abandoned his 2002 campaign promises before the end of his first year in office. Instead of representing residents, he’s directed taxpayer cash into the pockets of developers, cell-tower providers and lobbyists. His council votes predictably favor of the contractors, developers and city vendors who have contributed to his campaign fundraisers.

The only thing left on MacLean’s wish list is the Lance MacLean City Basketball Gymnasium. With Ury’s vote, it could happen.

Our Illustrious City Council
Letter to the editor

Residents of Mission Viejo can rest assured that we have city council members who are problem solvers – even if they have caused the problem.

Some council members wanted a flashing sign on the corner of La Paz and Marguerite for an “inexpensive” amount of less than $100,000. The majority approved the final cost of at least $143,000. This illustrious council is considering a way to solve the problem of difficulty in reading the message. Put a roundabout at this intersection! Doesn’t that solve the problem? We will be able to drive round and round and round until we can obtain the messages on the flashing board.

As yet, I have not been able to read the sign, whether I was driving toward it on La Paz or turning the corner from La Paz onto Marguerite. Has anyone had better luck reading the sign than I have had? Maybe I should stop in the middle of the intersection to read the sign. Was this the plan of the city council?

Beverly Cruse
Mission Viejo

CUSD Update – Too Soon to Celebrate
Editorial staff

Recall proponents targeting CUSD Trustees Sheila Benecke and Marlene Draper successfully delivered signatures to the Registrar of Voters to meet the Jan. 29 deadline. Workers gathered 66,088 signatures to recall the Fleming-era trustees, and 40,493 (20,493 per trustee) valid ones are needed to trigger a recall election.

It would appear to be a slam dunk. Before any reform-minded constituent breaks out the champagne, consider that approximately 177,000 signatures were gathered in 2005 to recall all seven old-guard trustees. Back then, ROV Neal Kelley managed to disqualify an unprecedented number of signatures – 35 percent – to prevent a recall election.

Information has been published in the OC Register and elsewhere that the 2005 recall effort failed because workers filled in some addresses of those signing the petition. That’s incorrect. The category of filled-in addresses alone (7,000) wouldn’t have derailed the recall. Recall proponents who went to the ROV office to examine why signatures were disqualified found a whole other story. Entire pages of signatures were disqualified for “reasons” that made no sense. As an example, the ROV said everyone who signed a particular page had used the same color ink, so the entire page was disqualified. When circulators (parents, volunteers or paid solicitors) are providing the pen as well as the petition papers, that’s what happens. The same color ink in no way invalidates an entire page of signatures.

The ROV disqualified a high percentage of signatures as “not registered to vote.” Proponents checked the ROV database and found a very high error rate – up to 40 percent – in this category alone. When all ROV errors are added up, the recall should have been on the ballot. For reasons yet to be uncovered, ROV Kelley had the support and protection of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and other high-level officials in keeping the 2005 recall effort off the ballot. Back then, Fleming and his Stepford trustees had the blessing of the county’s power club. Some things have changed.

If anyone thinks a special election (costing the district up to $784,000) is expensive, they should think about the cost of have four Fleming-era spendthrifts on the board and a new superintendent who is apparently not inclined to rein them in. The district is facing a $28-million deficit, and the old guard is still looking for ways to throw money away instead of repairing many deteriorating school buildings.

Residents should be angry, fed up and ready to throw the bums out. Fortunately, most voters will do exactly that at the first opportunity.

The Buzz column

Employment / Unemployment update: Students at UC Irvine report that Councilman Lance MacLean no longer works there, and no one has been hired to replace him in the student government office.

***

A blog reader responded to a question in The Buzz a few weeks ago as to whether or not Councilman Frank Ury got a job with the Building Industry Association. The reader says no. Ury’s WiFi “consulting” business, Viejo Technology Group, seems to be his only gig. It’s a group of one, with Ury as the sole contact.

***

Checking the city Website, when will MacLean and Ury’s bios be updated to show they’re no longer employed at UCI and Intel, respectively? UCI students think MacLean left a couple months ago, and Ury was pushing his WiFi business long before that. It’s not just curiosity about where they work; residents are entitled to know if council members have a conflict of interest.

***

The Buzz can’t find anyone who attended the city’s meeting on Feb. 1 to discuss traffic circles or roundabouts. Perhaps a meeting to which residents are invited could be scheduled at a time other than 8:30 a.m. on a workday. A blog reader sent a remark about traffic circles: “I thought traffic circles or roundabouts were calming devices – intended to slow down traffic. If city hall’s intention is to slow down traffic, I’d say it’s already covered.”

***

The Gateway Center at Alicia and Jeronimo is upgrading its landscape and hardscape, according to an item on Brad Morton’s blog, http://missionviejodispatch.com. That’s the way it should work – property owners remodel and upgrade as they see fit. What doesn’t work is when the city interferes, as it has threatened to do with the retail center at La Paz and Marguerite. Tenants of the latter property have already attended council meetings, telling the city to butt out.

***

Morton’s article indicated Gateway’s owner is discussing its plans with city staff members. Will Gateway be held hostage until it agrees to put the “tree-man’s” clip-art logo on every entrance and building? Can anyone imagine the reaction in a corporate boardroom when real artists and designers look at the city’s new logo straight from a clip-art file?

***

A certain saying applies when government becomes confused about its purpose. Examples are easy to find in Mission Viejo – the Potocki Conference Center, the Vigilantes baseball franchise, Kaleidoscope, selling park space to cell tower providers, hypocritical spewing of character words – just to name a few. The old saying fits: if government is the answer, it must have been a stupid question.