Recall MacLean: From the Front Lines

The effort to recall Councilman Lance MacLean began Feb. 2 when he was served with notice at a council meeting. The recall petition was approved on Mar. 18, and recall proponents have been gathering signatures for more than a week. Following are questions this blog asked those who are gathering signatures to recall MacLean.

What’s the general reaction of residents to the recall?

MacLean has upset a lot of people, and they sign the petition in a heartbeat. We’re finding three categories: 1) residents who know the issues and sign the petition, 2) those who sign the petition after hearing the issues, 3) those who are either not interested or say they don’t have time to sign. Lance’s supporters are such a low percentage that they’re not a category. When we work for four hours, we find two or three Lance supporters out of hundreds of people.

Do Lance’s supporters try to challenge you?

No, they don’t have much to say. If they were to challenge us, we should ask them to name one positive thing MacLean has done for the city. In his written rebuttal against the recall, he takes credit for Mission Viejo being a safe city, but what did he have to do with it? With his assault and battery at UCI, he made Irvine a more dangerous city. According to his neighbors, he’s made his neighborhood a more dangerous place.

What have his neighbors said?

They’re signing the petition and saying he should be recalled. Last week, one of his neighbors told some of the recall proponents that Lance got mad at her kids and chased them with a shovel. We’re constantly getting reports from residents about his bad temper and outbursts.

What are the primary reasons people want to recall Lance?

Top reasons include his assault and battery against a co-worker and his giving himself a pay raise. Residents are angry about his putting cell towers in parks and near homes, and they’re worried that he wants to bring in more housing. Some people mention his idea of suing the school districts, including his statement about filing a “kitchen sink” lawsuit. Yesterday at one of our tables, a resident said, “MacLean has used his power on the council to hurt other people.” That’s a powerful reason to recall him.

Do you think the recall will succeed?

Yes. Absolutely.

Casta Golf Course Questions Continue

Council majority members Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley (MUK) may have thought they calmed the community by spinning the threat of housing on the Casta del Sol Golf Course. They extended a moratorium on zone changes, saying they “saved the golf course” from development when homebuilding is at a virtual standstill. MacLean falsely proclaimed the golf course is no longer for sale.

Residents who signed the Right To Vote petition should watch the April 6 meeting when the council will likely decide how to deal with the initiative. To be continued from the March 16 agenda, the item was titled “Certification of Petition for the Vote on Private and Public Property Land Use Regulation Initiative.” At the last meeting, only Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht supported moving the process forward so that Mission Viejo residents would have the opportunity to vote on the initiative in the 2010 General Election.

The MUK majority members have made clear they oppose the initiative. Among other indications, residents reported that Ury had instructed them not to sign the petition. Kelley has quietly told people the initiative is “unnecessary.” MacLean at the March 16 meeting challenged Schlicht’s support of moving the process forward.

Homeowners living near the golf course continue to ask what will become of the property when the housing market eventually recovers. All three of the council majority members have made statements in support of housing on the golf course. If the MUK majority decides on April 6 to challenge putting the initiative on the ballot, all those who signed the Right-To-Vote petition should sign the petition to recall MacLean as soon as possible.

Councilwoman Interferes in Recall

Councilwoman Trish Kelley has been working behind the scenes to thwart the recall of Councilman Lance MacLean. On March 27, recall supporters learned that Kelley had called a store manager near the area where residents were signing the recall petition. Kelley identified herself to the manager as the former mayor of Mission Viejo and directed him to tell signature gatherers to leave.

Signature gatherers are legally permitted to stand near a store and in most other public places and enjoy their Freedom of Speech, as protected by the First Amendment, as well as state and federal laws. They must obey certain guidelines, and they are to remain at least 10 feet away from entrances and exits to avoid blocking access.

Recall petitioners who were working near the store said they were complying in every way with legal guidelines. They additionally maintained a considerable distance from the store’s main entrance, and they said they had been courteous to everyone. The workers said they could tell the store manager was “stressed out” after receiving the call from Kelley. He didn’t ask the signature gatherers to leave, but he asked how long the signature drive would last. He later said it is the policy of the store to treat everyone equally and not get involved in politics.

Ms. Kelley is on the council’s economic development committee, which has failed to develop a program of attracting businesses to Mission Viejo. One of the city’s key economic development strategies has been to present a business with a certificate if it manages to survive for five years in Mission Viejo.

If city hall isn’t going to help businesses, perhaps it can at least stop harassing them. What Ms. Kelley asked the store manager to do – prevent citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights – was well out of line.

The Buzz column, March 28

All-mail ballots would save the county $200,000 per election, according to Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley. In the Mar. 23 OC Register, references in an editorial and a political column describe the county board of supervisors moving toward an official decision. The supes voted last week in favor of legislation that would allow elections to be done by mail as a cost-cutting measure. The Registrar of Voters supports the idea, saying the financial benefits would also save jobs in his department as the county is cutting back.

***

If all-mail ballots are in, Councilman Lance MacLean’s best arguments against recalling him is out. While most folks supporting a recall think the cost of a special election is not a deterrent, reducing the price would make it more palatable to those who first look at the price tag.

***

The Mission Viejo council received a financial report on March 2 indicating the city is continuing to increase spending while revenue decreases. Deficit spending prevailed during the six-month period ending Dec. 31. For details, check Brad Morton’s blog, http://missionviejodispatch.com/2009/03/02/mv-financials-revenue-down-spending-up Of particular note, the unappropriated discretionary reserve fund fell to $700,000 for the six-month period. While MacLean touts the city’s “$28 million in reserves,” all except $700,000 is allocated, encumbered or already spent. The city received $20,620,582 and spent $25,515,071 in the six-month period. As examples of responsible adult leadership, Rancho Santa Margarita and San Juan Capistrano city councils are responding to the same economic downturn by cutting back.

***

Is MacLean correct that an activist group is attempting a takeover of city hall to reconfigure intersections? While it’s factual that an official committee meets to discuss roundabouts, the purpose is evaluation. Why would a council member criticize residents who are volunteering their time to discuss traffic improvement? Drivers stuck in traffic can consider the merits of thinking outside the box. While roundabouts might not be the answer, creative thinking doesn’t hurt. A former member of the city’s planning commission suggested placing meters at the east end of Crown Valley Parkway in Mission Viejo. Just as meters on freeway ramps control the number of cars entering the freeway, meters could also pace the traffic entering Mission Viejo from points east. Installing meters wouldn’t take three years, which the CVP widening has taken.

***

What’s the latest palm tree count on Crown Valley Parkway? Residents report 50-plus mature palm trees have been installed at an estimated cost of $10,000 each. According to a city official, the project involves 400 additional trees, including palms. A resident suggests changing the name to Crown Valley Porkway to reflect the waste of taxpayer dollars on trees, pillars, “art” objects and a thoroughly mismanaged project.

***

City Hall’s goals for Crown Valley Porkway clash with drivers’ objectives. Drivers think CVP is a thoroughfare that should keep traffic moving. City administrators envision an arboretum where medians become delightful gardens and meditation opportunities for those stopped in traffic. Mayor Frank Ury is so uninformed about CVP that he claimed in his August 2008 campaign literature that the widening project was finished. The city staff is now completing its vision by placing traffic hazards (trees and pillars) in medians and on roadsides, inches from traffic lanes. When drivers accidentally jump the curb, they can park abruptly against a pillar or tree and incur personal injury and major property damage. Taxpayers will next be dinged for “art” objects atop pillars for the alleged enjoyment of drivers.

***

Do the city manager’s job responsibilities include policing what is said on the street? On March 27, City Manager Dennis Wilberg engaged in a conversation with a recall supporter who was gathering signatures at a storefront. The worker is a well-informed follower of city politics. Wilberg observed the worker tell a voter that the city council had considered a proposal from Sunrise to build housing on the golf course. All five council members have admitted to private conversations with the developer, and four of them (three are still on the council – MacLean, Ury and Kelley) accepted campaign donations from the developer’s PR agent. Wilberg corrected the signature-gatherer by stating the developer had never officially presented a proposal to the city. Technically, that’s correct. All the presenting by the developer – including cash to campaign treasuries – took place outside of public view.

***

While Wilberg receives a point for clarifying an issue with a recall supporter, wouldn’t his effort be better spent by correcting misstatements by council members and informing the entire city? As an example, should Wilberg have allowed Ury to proclaim the Crown Valley Parkway project was finished in August 2008? When Wilberg engaged in a storefront debate about a golf course proposal, a recall proponent was standing in back of him, observing that he did succeed in distracting the worker to the point the voter walked away without signing the petition. However, while Wilberg was still talking, two residents came up to the table and took the worker’s attention away from Wilberg by demanding to sign the petition and venting their anger. Wilberg may have realized he wasn’t stop two motived voters from signing, and he quietly walked away.