|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Activists Challenge Poll’s Credibility
An online Orange. County. Register article about Mission Viejo’s Rose Parade float contains a poll in which readers can vote [“Mission Viejo float efforts cost more than $360,000,” Wed., Jan. 7]. The article indicates that the float’s cost exceeded the budgeted amount of $300,000, and it’s still rising. The article can be found at: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/mission-viejo-float-2275593-city-parade#slComments
The poll question within the article is: What do you think Mission Viejo got from its investment in a Tournament of Roses float? 1) Nothing, except the bills; 2) A greater sense of community, 3) An improved image and a higher profile.
By midday on Jan. 7, trends were emerging with nearly 100 votes cast. Approximate percentages were 1) Nothing, except bills = 68 percent; 2) A greater sense of community = 24 percent; 3) An improved image and a higher profile = 8 percent.
By late Wednesday night, however, hundreds of votes had poured in for the second choice, “A greater sense of community.” Mission Viejo activists are among those who watched the surge of votes. Two activists called attention to hundreds of votes that were added at approximately 11 p.m. on Wednesday. Repeated surges added only pro-float votes. On Thursday, a similar boost pumped up No. 3, the “image” choice, which had been trailing.
By noon on Saturday, the total was 1,080 votes. As a remarkable phenomenon, the number had changed by less than 10 votes in more than 16 hours. While one could say the poll was growing old, the mysterious surges came to an abrupt halt. Perhaps someone adding votes found better things to do.
An activist saw the numbers increase at a rate and a time of day that pointed to one person doing most of the voting. The activist commented, “Actually, there seemed to be a 'bot voting [to support the float]. I was seeing a constant increase at a steady rate for about an hour late last night [Wednesday], a sure sign that someone is fooling the voting tool. Since it uses cookies, simple tools could be used to perform the automated voting. Since MUK [MacLean, Ury, Kelley] could not win in a fair election, they decided to steal the poll.”
A reader posted on the OC Register discussion board, “Thanks to a tip from a MV resident, we now have an explanation of why the poll ‘numbers’ are jumping 100 at a time.”
Wait a minute. Is MUK or city hall the only plausible connection? What about the Register itself? The writer of the article, Lindsey Baguio, has written favorable articles about the float since the day Councilman Lance MacLean made the motion to proceed. Would a skewed poll favoring the float not vindicate her promo pieces for the float? OC Register team leader Ron Gonzales posted a comment online after a reader challenged the legitimacy of the poll when the “votes” came in batches late at night. Gonzales indicated the Register would determine if automated voting had taken place.
Following the “surge” votes on Wednesday and Thursday, the percentages stood at 1) Nothing, except bills = 20 percent; 2) A greater sense of community = 52 percent; 3) An improved image and a higher profile, 28 percent.
According to storefront polling since Jan. 1, the Rose Parade float has a very a low percentage of supporters while the community at large is disgusted that the city council threw away at least $360,000 for two minutes of TV time. City hall has attempted to counter the negative reaction by pumping press releases into newspapers, generating a dozen articles with color photos. But the PR effort is backfiring. Instead of persuading residents that the float was a terrific idea, each article has made residents more aware of the wasteful project and only heightened their disgust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comments to Board of Trustees
by Kim Lefner
[Presented to the CUSD Board of Trustees at the Jan. 6 special meeting]
Good evening, trustees. Mr. Carter promised to accomplish a number of tasks that. to my knowledge, he’s failed to complete. Following are just a few examples, as well as actions he appears to have taken without Board approval. I ask that you take these into consideration in your evaluation of his performance:
- At the first Finance Subcommittee meeting, Carter promised to implement zero-based budgeting and to establish budgets for the departments. He’s had over a year to implement these basic processes yet has failed to do so. While Carter blames it on the state cuts, the fact is that CUSD had a $12-million deficit long before the state ever announced cuts were coming. Carter’s failure to resolve the previous deficit makes the state’s cuts hit us even harder.
- Carter was notified 9 months ago that CUSD was in violation of Title 5 setbacks and the improper use of public funds to improve and maintain private property at SJHHS.
What steps has Carter taken to resolve the setback violations? What steps has he taken to recover the public money spent to improve that private property? What has Carter done to resolve the fact that we don’t own the outfield portion of the ball field at SJHHS?
- On December 9, the Whispering Hills developer confirmed that Carter’s been negotiating with him to purchase the slope adjacent to the football stadium at San Juan Hills. I can’t find the Board approval authorizing him to do that. Who authorized Carter to negotiate this purchase? How much is he offering to the developer? What has he done to recover the $135,000 of public money CUSD has already spent to stabilize that privately owned slope? Is Carter factoring into the purchase price the improvements made to that slope with our public monies?
- One of Carter’s first actions upon being hired was to cancel the Board-approved contract to study school boundaries. I can’t find where Carter ever received Board approval to cancel that contract. Who granted him the authority to take this action? Why did he not plan for the influx of students in drawing his own boundaries, which resulted in severe overcrowding at schools such as Truman Benedict in San Clemente? What has he done to remediate the damage caused by his re-drawing of boundaries?
These are just a few of the many examples of Carter’s failure to get the job done. I ask that these comments be entered into the meeting minutes in their entirety.
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Spendthrift City
Letter to the editor
The Jan. 4 Register editorial (“The Spendthrift City Award for 2008,” Local, page 5] states that Mission Viejo could win the award for top spendthrift city. All the while the city council majority was planning and replanning and replanning and replanning the costly float for the Rose Parade, do we know it cost $300,000 or was it much more? Isn’t that a high price to pay for young people cannonballing into a huge bucket on a float?
The council’s majority members were apparently so proud of their spending that they doubled their own pay and provided themselves with lifetime healthcare benefits from age 50 after three terms. Since the current mayor and one councilman lost their jobs more than a year ago, isn’t this convenient for them? Isn’t this a very generous use of our tax dollars?
Shouldn’t Mission Viejo win without doubt the title of Spendthrift City of Orange County?
Beverly Cruse
Mission Viejo
|
|
|
|
|
|
More Arrogance from the TCA
by Dale Tyler
The TCA published a full-page advertisement on Tues., Jan. 6, 2009. They claimed that the TCA was “All About Moving Forward.” Yet, their actions directly contradict their noble words. In fact, the TCA acted to stymie alternative plans to develop roadway improvements by threatening to use non-compete agreements to prevent building alternatives to their toll roads. By stubbornly advocating a technically flawed plan, the TCA prevented such other agencies as the OCTA and Caltrans from widening the I-5 and delayed arterial street improvements in San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente for 10 years or more.
We should all be relieved that the Secretary of Commerce decided to uphold the California Coastal Commission’s denial of the TCA's plan to build an extension of the 241 through the San Onofre State Park. While many thought there would be significant environmental impacts that would damage the Park and Trestles, the world-famous surfing beach, there were other reasons to oppose the toll road. Chief among them is that the TCA's plan would do little or nothing to relieve traffic congestion.
As has been noted on this blog (link and link and link), the most significant issue we face in south Orange County is the added homes in the eastern sections, like Ladera Ranch and Rancho Mission Viejo with its planned 14,000 homes and 5 million square feet of commercial space. These people will need to use the I-5 to get there. OCTA has recently realized that the 241 was becoming less viable and begun the planning of an east-west arterial called Cow Camp Road, that will connect Antonio Parkway, La Pata and Ortega Highway to the I-5 near the I-5/CA-73 interchange.
By promoting the 241, the TCA took the focus off the real problem and made some people believe that theirs was the only game in town. Gullible people, including all of the Mission Viejo City Council Members, were led to believe there were no other solutions to the traffic congestion problems than the 241.
We in Mission Viejo have our own TCA snake-oil salesman in the person of Lance MacLean. He did everything possible to browbeat (sometimes literally) his fellow council members into believing that the TCA's plan was perfect and anyone opposed was “misguided.”
Now that the 241 is out of the picture, perhaps the TCA will come to their senses and look at solving the real problems. Sadly, their full-page ad does not lend credence to that view. They spend the entire ad scaremongering, such as “putting the region in jeopardy of not conforming to the federal Clean Air Act” and “35,000 jobs ... are lost.” They also directly lie when they say “the widening of the I-5 has been deemed not feasible by ... the OCTA,” when the recent Major Investment study done by OCTA proposed significant widening of I-5 all the way to the San Diego County line. They also claim that the Secretary of Commerce “did not solve the traffic problem we face.” I disagree. By killing the 241 extension, the Secretary of Commerce made it possible to activate plans that will actually improve traffic in Orange County.
I hope the TCA realizes they can't overcome the opposition to their plans and stops their meddling in Orange County transportation issues. They should fire their expensive planning staff and executive director and then simply collect tolls to pay off the bondholders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Buzz
On Jan. 8, Saddleback Valley USD trustees decided with a 3-2 vote that O’Neill Elementary School will remain open – at least for now. The trustees voted 5-0 to close La Tierra. Residents who rallied to keep O’Neill open discovered that Councilman Lance MacLean didn’t agree with them. When the city weighed in on the issue, MacLean voted against the resolution to keep O’Neill open.
As a new concern for those who live near schools, will the council majority try to rezone former campuses for apartments? The Mission Viejo Right-To-Vote Initiative, when passed, will give voters the final say if a developer wants to rezone a parcel. With rezoning enthusiasts on the council (MUK – MacLean, Ury and Kelley), the initiative is crucially important to homeowners who want to prevent high-density projects from springing up in their neighborhoods.
Attending the Jan. 8 SVUSD meeting were several city council members. MacLean didn’t speak, but perhaps he was present to watch out for the interests of his campaign financiers – housing developers. Speaking out on behalf of residents trying to save their school at the Jan. 8 meeting was Mission Viejo’s newest council member, Cathy Schlicht.
Residents can still sign the Right-To-Vote Initiative, and signature-gatherers are working at storefronts for several more days. Some of the volunteers are now verifying signatures to make sure the initiative will qualify for the ballot. Anyone gathering signatures can call (949) 837-1997 to arrange to get their petitions in. For those who haven’t yet signed the petition, call (949) 837-1997 to connect with a signature gatherer.
Initiative supporters want to thank everyone who signed the petition and worked to make the signature drive a success. They appreciate the tolerance of the community when working in public places and asking each person (again and again) to help by signing the petition.
Those who watched the Jan. 5 council meeting may have been surprised to hear a speaker say the city should enter a float in the Rose Parade every year. Volunteers in the taxpayer-provided festivities may have found the “free” meals, “free” bus rides and “free” parties habit-forming. Despite any talk of private funding for the city staff’s bad ideas, the money – almost all of it on every project – is provided by taxpayers. Even such projects as Tierra Nativa (now called Artes de Vida) are largely funded by taxes, not based on “generous donations” of vendors as misrepresented by city officials.
A city manager’s newsletter states that two city employees attended an art education conference in Burlingame. Is art education now a city function? In case anyone is under the impression that city officials have taste, drive down Crown Valley Parkway and experience the visual blight. The hospital was directed by the city to place metal debris on a corner (“sculpture”), and the city is spending a fortune building pillars. Walls the color of cow dung have been added to delight those stopped in traffic.
The two employees attending the art education meeting were on the program, presenting “Building Creative Community.” Did their presentation include photos of hundreds of custom-made easels trashed on a hillside in April? According to city administrator Keith Rattay, “tens of thousands” of residents visited a display of photos that were allegedly taken by residents. Instead, nearly 100,000 residents completely ignored the pricey display of 500 photos mostly provided by city employees after the project bombed.
City Mis-Manager Dennis Wilberg had to put Lower Curtis Park on ice for awhile, but he hasn’t abandoned his stealth capital improvement project, initiated in 2003. He had to stop after activists challenged his diverting more than $200,000 to a city contractor, Granich Construction, for unauthorized grading. Wilberg sheepishly admitted during a Planning Commission meeting that maybe he shouldn’t have done it, but he never regained the trust of community watchdogs. With examples of Easelgate, Firegate and Floatgate (all orchestrated by Keith Rattaygate), Wilberg demonstrates he can slip costly projects past the MUK council majority if he divides up payments to contractors over a period of months.
For more than six months, homeowners who live near La Paz and Olympiad have been watching mounds of soil, broken concrete and other debris grow in Lower Curtis. Truck drivers have keys to open the gate if it’s locked to gain access to the dumpsite. Wilberg has brushed aside complaints by saying the trucks are coming from the Crown Valley widening project. For openers, Lower Curtis is a park, not a landfill, and no one should be dumping anything in a park. Community members have followed the trucks, recorded company names written on the vehicles and tracked some of the loads from various areas, including other cities.
According to those gathering signatures on the initiative at storefronts, residents have only one question about the prospect of recalling Councilman Lance MacLean: where do they sign?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
