Real City Survey Is Nov. 4
Staff editorial

How happy are Mission Viejo residents about their council representatives? The only incumbent in the race, Frank Ury, has made a recent city-funded survey the centerpiece of his campaign. The phone survey of 400 residents supposedly found that 99 percent of those living in Mission Viejo are quite happy about how the city is run. And why should anyone believe the survey is valid? Because the survey contractor says so! Among the findings, nearly everyone is very happy with the unfinished Crown Valley Parkway widening project. That alone should tell residents everything they need to know. Ury is now using the alleged results to imply that residents are happy about his performance on the council. To the contrary, another “survey” will be conducted on Nov. 4, and voters seem more likely than not to throw him out.

With six candidates running for two council seats, Ury and Richard Atkinson favor the current council majority’s direction. Cathy Schlicht, Neil Lonsinger and Judy Rackauckas favor change, and Michael Williamson is largely unknown.

Schlicht has been incisive, listing the council majority’s lapses of judgment, failure to represent residents and wasteful spending. Lonsinger concurs with Schlicht. While she’s a proponent of open government, he more often talks about the need to apply principles of business management to city finance. Rackauckas mentions city mismanagement and advocates reform, but her remarks are general. She entered the race talking about Easelgate, the city staff’s infamous lie about costs and other aspects of a photo display during Mission Viejo’s 20th anniversary as a city.

Ury alternately runs on his record and away from it. He runs away by denying what happened or altering facts to make the outcome seem more palatable. Atkinson was recruited by Councilwoman Trish Kelley, who is apparently directing his campaign. Atkinson dutifully praises the council majority’s decisions and aligns with Ury at forums.

Ury and Atkinson are frequently vexed by activists witnessing their false claims and taking issue. Both have been caught in lies at recent forums. If Schlicht didn’t quickly react as a forum participant, members of the audience have spoken up to set the record straight. As an example, Ury claims there’s no real threat that the council will bring in more housing, particularly on the Casta golf course. He casually stated at the Oct. 15 Casta forum that the developer, Sunrise, had merely presented plans to the public, which weren’t popular with residents, and the developer walked away. Ury didn’t mention his own acceptance of a campaign donation from the developer’s lobbyist, Roger Faubel. As another troubling aspect, Sunrise surveyed the property and staked the areas for a housing complex of 350 units. The property is still for sale, and neighbors who live nearby say the stakes are still in the ground.

According to city hall insiders, Ury was the one who brought in the Urban Land Institute to “do a study” of the retail center at La Paz and Marguerite (Stein Mart, CVS, Trader Joe’s, etc.). ULI proceeded – over the objections of the property owners – to recommend that the buildings be razed and then rebuilt with apartments on top. ULI, being completely unfamiliar with the nature of the city or its residents, thought a “vibrant center with nightlife” might be a good way to implement the change that no one wanted. The apartments on top were added because it was “the only way to make the project pencil out” and interest owners with the prospect of making money on the housing element.

A parcel next to the new target store on Jeronimo at Los Alisos is known as the Unisys property, but Unisys only rents, and it’s a relatively short-term lease. The property owner wrote a letter to the city, asking that his property be considered for rezoning “to meet the goal for affordable housing.” Ury allegedly directed money from the owner into a PAC in 2006 to support his choice of council candidates. Other council members as well have accepted campaign donations from the owner, whose intentions are clear.

During the Casta forum, Councilman Frank Ury said, “There’s a difference between campaigning and complaining.” Supposedly, listeners were to conclude that any allegations against him were from cranks firing blanks.

The current council race is more than the usual battle of egos. The council direction has increasingly grated on residents, and the worst is to come if Ury is reelected. The council majority is the real enemy – not the city staff that runs amok without adult supervision. Most residents want to preserve the Master Plan and Mission Viejo’s quality of life. In order to keep The California Promise that drew many residents to the city, residents should vote for Cathy Schlicht and Neil Lonsinger on Nov. 4.

Campaign Update
Editorial staff

With less than three weeks until Election Day, only two council candidates have momentum. Challengers Cathy Schlicht and Neil Lonsinger are increasing their community support while some others are nearly invisible. Incumbent Frank Ury might be planning to stuff mailboxes with slate mailers, but no residents are out campaigning for him.

While yard-sign placement is increasing, it’s nothing like the city race of two years ago. In 2006, 10 candidates ran for office, each with 500 to 1,000 or more signs, and the sign war gravitated to blight on every corner. While Ury had a grand total of three signs in yards last week, this week it’s down to two citywide.

Activists organized a well-attended meet-and-greet party for candidates Neil Lonsinger and Cathy Schlicht at the Casta del Sol Golf Course clubhouse on Oct. 13. Many of those attending said they felt encouraged by Lonsinger and Shlicht’s grassroots support and energy. A political insider observed: “In order for Frank Ury to win reelection, he needs the vote of the uninformed masses. Uninformed voters tend to be influenced by slate mailers and slick brochures. We’ll find out on Nov. 4 if Ury can capture the clueless.”

Is Councilwoman Trish Kelley trying to help Ury get reelected or dump him? Items on the agenda lately should cause most people to vote against any incumbent. The council majority (including Ury) recently approved the $300,000 Rose Parade float contract, voted to liquidate cell tower leases (with a $200,000 commission to Ury’s friend Tony Ingegneri) and doubled council members’ salaries. With this blog’s early publication this week, staff writers are hearing about but unable to confirm that the council will next review restoring its lifetime healthcare benefits. Insiders estimate such a move would cost taxpayers $300,000 per council member who serves 12 years.

Two recent forums have given residents an opportunity to evaluate candidates. The Oct. 15 Casta del Sol forum brought out stark contrast among five contenders (Michael Williamson didn’t participate). Ury attempted to defend his string of unpopular votes, including the Rose Parade float and doubling his pay. Challengers Cathy Schlicht and Neil Lonsinger criticized the council’s irresponsible spending and insensitivity to what residents want and need. When questioned about keeping the Casta golf course, Ury and Atkinson both touted the owner’s right to do “whatever” with the property – chilling remarks to anyone living near the golf course.

During the forum, challenger Richard Atkinson either agreed with Ury or read “answers” from note cards. The more he read, the more obvious it became that he hadn’t written the material. Whose words was Atkinson delivering? Councilwoman Trish Kelley sat on the front row within a few feet of her political fledgling. Those attending said Ury came across as arrogant and untrustworthy, and Atkinson was pompous and misinformed. If applause from the audience was a measure of success, Schlicht and Lonsinger won.

Storefront polling continues as activists and other residents gather signatures on the Right-To-Vote Initiative. Their findings are consistent with those making phone calls to voters on behalf of Schlicht and Lonsinger: Ury has no support, and all comments about him are negative. Another thing becoming clear is that the developer-backed team of Ury and Atkinson isn’t as well-funded as claimed. The two are relying on joint efforts that cut costs. Atkinson early on said he would have a campaign budget of $67,000 – a wild exaggeration – but it may have been written by someone else on his note cards.

Casta Voters Aren’t Buying It
by Larry Gilbert

There were about 54 in attendance at the Mission Viejo's Casta del Sol candidate forum on Tues., Oct. 14. This represents a major decline in resident participation in this free event where you have an opportunity to look in the eyes of the candidates and shake their hands if you wish. After the two-plus hour exchange, I commended Joyce Saltzgiver and her Board for conducting a fair debate and permitting Mission Viejo outsiders to engage in the Q&A that followed the initial questions. Candidate Williamson was the only one to miss this last opportunity to interact with the voters three weeks before the Nov. 4 election.

Let me focus on one issue raised by a Casta resident. The topic: justification of spending $300,000 for a Rose Parade float in the current recession.

Paraphrasing Council Member Ury, who told the audience that this project funding was not coming out of this year’s budget: "We budgeted it last year" when our finances were stronger.

Hello. An illustration. I budgeted for a new Jaguar last year when I had a job. I was laid off this past March. That said, should I go ahead with the purchase?

Amazing for a man with three degrees who simply doesn't get it. Whatever happened to common sense?  Doesn't he read or see the news? Does he not know that we are in a recession and that our residents are feeling the pain in their retirement and savings accounts as well as the decline in their home values?

Politically and economically, the float was a very bad decision compounded by even worse logic. I would say that the Casta voters were not buying the logic, nor should they.

Are They Worth It?
Letter to the Editor

Is our Mission Viejo council worth any more money? Isn’t doubling their salaries at this difficult financial time rather inappropriate? How many residents of Mission Viejo have just had their salaries doubled? Shouldn’t we be cutting salaries of such an incompetent city council?

Was it wise for the council majority to liquidate the cell tower leases against the advice of some of their own Investment Advisory Commissioners? Does Councilwoman Gail Reavis feel lonely of late as she continues to vote against all the harebrained projects of Mayor Kelley and Councilmen Ury and MacLean? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the citizens of Mission Viejo could have the chance to vote out Ms. Kelley and Mr. MacLean as well as Mr. Ury on Nov. 4? Perhaps we could then dispose of the ugly, expensive float and have no more famous projects like Easegate.

Will the “volunteers” who work on the float cost as much or more than the “volunteers” who built the easels? Isn’t it interesting the mayor is publicizing her new candidate for city council? Her candidate allegedly says the city staff endorses him. Isn’t that TOTALLY illegal? Is Mission Viejo to have members of the city council consist of a man with an arrest record for serious anger management issues (causing immediate loss of his job but still on our council) and another man who is willing to break the law to say he has endorsements? Does this seem like a fitting council for any city, much less Mission Viejo?

Beverly Cruse
Mission Viejo

The Buzz

The city staff continues to prop up the Rose Parade with a false pretense of acceptance by residents. On the street, during council meetings, on blogs and during campaign events, residents’ outcry against the float is overwhelming. The city staff is using its Website and other forms of propaganda to promote its $300,000 boondoggle. According to the city’s latest spin, 3,000 people say they want to work on the float. Readers should keep in mind that the city staff fabricated “150 volunteers donating 800 hours toward easel construction.” When investigated by activists, city records showed that a city contractor, Jamey Clark, constructed 100 percent of the easels at $45 an hour.

***

How exactly would the city “engage” 3,000 people to work on a float? Maybe it wouldn’t be a problem after all. When the city held its kickoff event for the project, only 15-20 residents showed up despite widespread publicity and the promise of a free meal. Those who attended the event said city staff members outnumbered residents.

***

Look for an article in the OC Register about alleged crimes committed by Mission Viejo city staffers by involving themselves in the campaign of council challenger Richard Atkinson. Read the article online at
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-committee-atkinson-2196216-candidates-lee

Extremely helpful is Atkinson’s quote that, yes, he did claim he has the endorsement of the city staff, but it was an “error” on his part. Perhaps the “error” is that Atkinson didn’t realize city employees can be indicted for felonies for using their position, title and/or influence to interfere with an election. In the article, Atkinson backtracks, explaining that he happened to meet residents who support him, and “many” of them work for the city. Perhaps Atkinson also doesn’t realize how very few of the city’s 152.3 employees live in Mission Viejo, and none of the top officials live here. If he didn’t meet the “residents who support him who happen to work for the city” in city hall, how exactly did he find them? The D.A. should have questions a lot better than that one.

***

Adding to the city staff’s woes about interfering with an election, Heritage Committee Chair Nancy Cho first told the Register reporter that she invited Atkinson to the city’s committee meeting “because he was a candidate.” Atkinson concurs that she invited him – he didn’t just show up. The OCR states that “Atkinson was introduced as a candidate running for city Council.” Cho’s quote: “There was nothing political that he did at the meeting.” Perhaps when Cho sees her remarks in the Register story she’ll realize just how big a problem she’s created for the city. As a follow up to the story, the FPPC determined the complaints are not within its jurisdiction and should instead be filed with the state Attorney General.

***

To clarify the status of the Mission Viejo Right To Vote Initiative, it’s still in the signature-gathering phase, and the deadline is in December. Volunteers have collected thousands of signatures and expect to exceed the required number well before the deadline.