Another Nasty Campaign in Store
Staff editorial

One challenger for Mission Viejo City Council appeared to kick off her campaign at the Feb. 18 council meeting. Diane Greenwood, who ran unsuccessfully in 2006, is back. Her issue is Electro Magnetic Field (EMF) levels near the power lines in north Mission Viejo, but her claim of danger from power lines is failing to get traction. Two EMF consultants presented reports at the Feb. 18 council meeting. The report based on meaningful measurements concluded the power lines are performing as anticipated, and EMF readings are within the anticipated range.

Are the power lines in Mission Viejo unsightly? Yes. Are they within the jurisdiction of the city council? No. The California Public Utilities Commission rules on power lines, and the CPUC made its decision on the new lines known as the Viejo System Project in 2004. A group of Mission Viejo residents formed No Overhead Powerlines by Edison (N.O.P.E.) more than four years ago, but their sole accomplishment was getting Frank Ury elected to the city council in 2004.

If Ury ever gave a rip about power lines or EMF, he chose to do nothing during the past 3 1/2 years. The only quick response from Ury was the speed with which he spit in everyone’s face after he won a council seat in 2004. With his reelection campaign gearing up, he again needs a few strong folks to carry him around on their shoulders. In return for their labor, he’ll wear a N.O.P.E. T-shirt.

If Mission Viejo residents are concerned about EMF dangers in their homes, they should take EMF measurements and determine the source of any high readings. If sources are found within their home, they can take remedial steps. Despite the clamor over EMF, no one has claimed a high EMF reading in a home as a result of the Viejo System Project. If residents are concerned about EMF under the lines, they should not get under the lines.

In 2006, Diane Greenwood ran the most negative campaign anyone can remember. Her personal attacks were unparalleled, and her lies were widely known. She got caught in a whopper when she interviewed with the Fire Authority for their endorsement, and the firemen were angry. Equally troubling, Greenwood benefited from a $5,000 donation made by an owner of the Unisys site who wants his property rezoned for high-density residential use. He appeared to make a deal to get the agreement of Greenwood and her cohort candidates (Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justin McCusker) to support rezoning his property if they won. Fortunately for anyone who is concerned about overcrowding, too many cars and a domino-effect of apartment-building, they lost.

Greenwood and her campaign supporters who frequently speak at council meetings are already throwing stink bombs. Councilman Lance MacLean has been rightly criticized for flipping on his campaign promises of 2002. Additionally, he admitted assaulting a co-worker at UCI, and he apologized publicly. But Greenwood and her camp piled on by adding lies, claiming that MacLean was caught stealing her campaign signs in 2006. This false information has been posted elsewhere on blogs by two Mission Viejo residents who gave only Greenwood’s version.

Here’s the whole truth regarding Greenwood’s signs. In addition to posting signs with his own name, MacLean printed a batch of negative signs against Greenwood and Barker. Greenwood and her camp reacted by obscuring the negative signs – placing her signs directly in front of MacLean’s, one inch away. Greenwood’s tactics were dirty but not illegal. When MacLean moved Greenwood’s sign from in front of his – placing it a foot away, Greenwood called 911 and claimed he had “stolen” her sign. As a problem for her claim, the sign was still there – obviously not stolen. According to Greenwood, MacLean committed a crime by moving her sign from directly in front of his. The police disagreed, saying no crime had been committed. Greenwood should either have been fined for calling 911, or she should have been billed for the cost of two police cars being sent to the scene to sort out her childish prank.

Never mind that Greenwood’s unethical behavior created the problem. MacLean was maligned by the Greenwood camp, and they continue lying about it to this day.

Greenwood has since added another twist to her story after being criticized for calling 911. She now says she felt “threatened” because MacLean raised his voice during their street-corner exchange. Anyone who has seen Greenwood in action should find her claim laughable.

This blog’s writers and contributors are not fans of MacLean. Their criticisms are based on MacLean’s real behavior and voting record, which are bad enough. But before residents work themselves into a frenzy calling for MacLean’s resignation, they should consider who the current council majority might choose to replace him. MacLean was elected in 2002 when more than 14,000 voters thought it couldn’t get worse than Susan Withrow and Sherri Butterfield. MacLean was reelected in 2006 when voters narrowly decided that the closest challenger – Diane Greenwood – was even worse than MacLean.

The crowds showing up to protest the power lines have greatly diminished from the 400-plus who attended the rallies orchestrated by N.O.P.E. in 2004. By contrast, very few came to the council meeting on Feb. 18 after the N.O.P.E. group tried again to rally the same people. Perhaps it’s a good sign that Mission Viejo residents have wised up to Greenwood’s real mission.

Those who are sincerely concerned about EMF might believe their interests will be served by jumping on Greenwood’s bandwagon. Her bandwagon is headed toward city hall, where inmates already run the asylum. The only worse scenario than having MacLean or Greenwood on the council is the possibility they could both be on the council in November. If Greenwood can fool enough of the people enough of the time, it could happen.