Dog Park – Right Idea, Wrong Place
by Dale Tyler

At the recent October 5, 2009, the City Council approved a dog park costing at least $258,000 at Oso Viejo Park by a 3-2 vote (Schlicht, Ledesma – NO). The entire council favored the dog park, but the location caused two of the council pause. At that meeting and all subsequent meetings there has been a significant community outcry against locating a dog park at that location. Neighbors immediately adjacent to the site have been overwhelmingly opposed as well as a number of users of the existing soccer field and trails at Oso Viejo Park who feel their use of the park will be restricted by the dog park.

In fact, locating a dog park at this location is contrary to the guidelines set out in the siting report. It stated that a dog park should not be located near a) residences; b) schools and c) existing youth sports fields, but Oso Viejo Park is immediately adjacent to all three prohibited uses. Yet, this item was introduced by Lance MacLean on October 5. What made this even more remarkable is that there was to be a public meeting about possible dog park locations the following week. Why all the hurry to get a dog park approved and sited?

One only need look to another agenda item for the October 5 meeting. Item #16, the certification of the petition to Recall Lance Maclean. Over 13,900 signatures were gathered demanding the recall and the item was to certify the petition. It passed 4-1 (MacLean – NO). Was MacLean looking to divert attention and possibly persuade dog park supporters to give him their vote? Whatever his intent, it seems to have backfired, as neighbors around Oso Viejo Park who were excluded from the siting process by various means, including a failure to provide proper notice of the dog park to be located mere feet from their homes are now quite angry with MacLean and the city. It just shows how out of touch MacLean, the city staff and the dog park committee were with the real needs of the community.

Lets talk about the $258K cost approved as well. Similar parks in other cities have been built for less money. Also because of the Mission Viejo “project inflation” policy, this park's cost will exceed $500K. Almost every project of any size planned and built by the city in the past 10 years exceeded 200% of the initially proposed costs. This is because the council and staff, nervous about public approval of new projects, low-ball items to get them passed, then raises the cost by adding extras frills and other expensive elements to what is already a “gold-plated” project. Consider the $500K toilet recently built in a city park. The toilet and structure cost more than many houses in the city. This dog park will suffer the same fate.

I think a modest, reasonably priced dog park would be a great addition to our city. While I am unsure about the proper cost of a properly sited park, in this location all that is needed is some chain link fencing with a double gated “airlock” to prevent escapes of non-leashed dogs as new dogs enter. My guess is less than 50K would be enough for this project. Given about 1,300 lineal feet of fencing and a few gates, plus running a drinking water line into the park area, that $50K seems more than generous. Projects don't have to be fancy to be useful, despite what the city staff may think. They need to learn that providing a useful facility is more important than making a shrine to their design skills and trying to win awards from other city staff.

However, as mentioned earlier, Oso Viejo Parks is the wrong place for the dog park. It is too close to the homes around it, too close to the middle school and to close to the sports fields. The only thing it has going for it is somewhat available parking. There are at least two other city owned sites that would be suitable. The first is at Lower Curtis Park, located at the city limits on Olympiad near LaPaz. This area is currently used as a storage facility for dirt and other debris. It is lower than the street and faces Ladera Ranch, so any noise would be directed away from the homes on the other side of Olympiad. There is no school nearby and the adjacent sports fields at Curtis Park are physically separated by a very steep embankment. The only problem is parking and disabled access. However, a small parking lot could be built at the bottom of the access road and there is street parking on Olympiad. The cost of the parking lot and paving the access road could raise the cost above that of the “fake” $258K proposed for Oso Viejo Park location, but I would estimate that an aggressive bid for doing the needed work at Lower Curtis Park would come in less than $400K, not counting the cost of removing the trash that has been illegally dumped there for years by city contractors and staff.

The other possible site is near the City Animal Shelter. That site is even better than Lower Curtis, with a small parking lot already in place and no adjacent homes, schools or youth parks. The parking lot is small and would likely have to be expanded to serve the needs of the new dog park and the existing animal shelter. Our City Animal Shelter is largely staffed by local volunteers that do a wonderful job of caring for animals abandoned by their owners or found running loose, possibly injured, in our city. These fine people give of themselves to help the animals get well and find new homes. The people of Mission Viejo owe the Animal Shelter volunteers a heartfelt “Thank You” for the work they do. Unfortunately, some of the city staff and a few self-appointed leaders of the Animal Shelter have taken a “I am Master of all I Survey” position and oppose a dog park near the animal shelter. Reasons given for this position are that animals injured at the dog park might be brought to the shelter for assistance, inadequate parking and possible upset to the animals housed at the Animal Shelter. The first seems quite disingenuous by the self-appointed leaders, given the stated intent to care for animals. I would have thought that having a place nearby for animals and their owners to recreate would be pleasing to the so-called leaders at the shelter. In fact, having a dog park next door would provide a place for the shelter animals to become socialized and a way for pet owners to get tips from volunteers on animal care. It might even be a source for more shelter volunteers as people see the fine work being done at the shelter.

Parking would likely need to be expanded to serve both the dog park and the shelter. This would raise the cost to something like the figure for Lower Curtis, but since an access road is already in place, the costs might be lower. If the city staff and so-called leaders of the Animal Shelter could somehow put aside their proprietary “we can't put a dog park near our shining facility” attitude and consider the needs of the community as a whole, they would see that either the Lower Curtis or the Animal Shelter locations make sense, with the Animal Shelter location being better due to opportunities for socialization with sheltered dogs, immediate help for injured animals, tips to dog owners from knowledgeable shelter volunteers and exposure to the animal shelter's facility and volunteers, possibly resulting in more volunteers and help for the Animal Shelter.

Finally, let me say that I never have and never will advocate for the Animal Shelter to be turned over to the County of Orange. I have been critical of the costs in constructing the shelter and additions over the years, because like every project in the city, gold-plated extras were added by Council, staff and the so-called leaders of the Animal Shelter. We could have had a facility that we could all have been proud of for much less than the citizens of Mission Viejo have spent to date on the Animal Shelter and because of that savings an even larger facility could have been built, if needed over time. The so-called leaders of the Animal Shelter have undermined public support for the very project they claim to hold dear by their greedy attitude. Nonetheless, there are many people who unselfishly volunteer their time to care for the animals and these people's work engender the support of the community.

Public Comments Reveal Quirks

The Nov. 2 city council meeting took more strange turns than usual. Several citizens made public comments at the beginning of the meeting in defense of Councilman Lance MacLean, whose recall election is scheduled for Feb. 2.

David Allen began with the standard MacLean mantra: MacLean is innocent, and he isn’t the only one who did it.

Two others from MacLean’s team read from similarly formatted, word-processed papers, each with multiple pages and large type.

Former councilwoman Sharon Cody said the effort to recall Lance MacLean isn’t about Lance MacLean. She said it’s a plot by a “small group” of people who want to control the city. She didn’t explain how her theory relates to key reasons MacLean is being recalled: his uncontrolled anger, assault and battery, voting lifetime medical benefits for council members and doubling council members’ salaries, pushing for a $400,000 Rose Parade float, deficit spending, failure to manage projects, calling residents “racists” and so on.

The third speaker, Joyce Saltzgiver, gave a confused account of Sunrise Development’s attempt to build housing on the Casta del Sol Golf Course. She said, “Dale Tyler claims he saved the golf course.” To the contrary, Tyler has never made any such claim. Saltzgiver’s confusion seems to stem from information in Tyler’s flyer announcing his candidacy to replace MacLean in the recall election.

Tyler’s Mission Viejo Right-To-Vote Initiative would give voters (not three council members) the final say on major zone changes. The initiative will be on the June 2010 ballot. The Casta golf course has not been “saved” by anyone, and the property is still at risk of being developed. In 2008, Sunrise lined up three council votes (MacLean, Ury and Kelley) and staked the golf course for housing. After Sunrise abruptly withdrew its plan to purchase the golf course in August 2008, community watchdogs discovered that Sunrise was in such deep financial trouble it wouldn’t be buying or building anything. By November 2008, the company was facing bankruptcy.

Saltzgiver next said her “committee” saved the golf course. If Saltzgiver wants to take credit for preventing the sale of the golf course to a housing developer, then she should explain how her committee brought down the housing market and the global economy (or whatever caused Sunrise to tank). If voters approve Tyler’s initiative – which they will likely do – developers will no longer be able to get their property rezoned by buying three council votes.

Voters get it. Tyler’s Right-To-Vote qualified for the ballot with thousands of signatures to spare. MacLean’s recall also qualified with flying colors. The “small group” wanting to recall MacLean includes more than 50 proponents who initiated the process, more than 100 people who gathered signatures and approximately 14,000 Mission Viejo voters who signed the petition.

Residents Report Phone Survey

Mission Viejo residents informed this blog that they’d been polled by a councilman’s campaign on Nov. 1. Given the number of people who reported receiving calls, blog staffers estimate the sample size was quite large.

The survey callers identified themselves as working for Central Research Co. of New York. Following are questions in the survey:

1. How interested are you in the recall?
2. How would you vote?
3. How do you regard these: (favorable to unfavorable on a four-point scale): Rick Sandzimer, OC Fire Authority, OC Sheriff’s Dept., Connie Lee, Trish Kelley, Larry Gilbert, Anna Boyce, Dale Tyler, Dennis Wilberg, Lance MacLean, Cathy Schlicht, Frank Ury and Dave Leckness.
4. What is the biggest problem in Mission Viejo?
5. How has MacLean performed on the job?
6. Who would you vote for as the recall replacement: Rick Sandzimier, Connie Lee, Larry Gilbert, Anna Boyce, Dale Tyler or Dave Leckness?
7. What is your reaction to the recall grounds? (The caller read all eight points from the recall document.)
8. What is your reaction to MacLean's rebuttal? (The caller read MacLean’s statement from the recall document.)
9. fter hearing MacLean's rebuttal, what is your reaction to the grounds of the recall?

Additional residents said they received phone calls on Nov. 2 with slightly different questions. New topics included the cost of the recall, estimated at $275,000, and a question of how the cost changed the resident’s opinion of the recall.

Of the recall replacements in the survey, Connie Lee and Larry Gilbert have said they’re not running for office. Dale Tyler and Dave Leckness have taken the first step toward becoming candidates by “pulling papers” at city hall.

Who is doing the survey? Blog staffers agree, MacLean is likely in back of it. If he can hang on for another term, he stands to get $270,000 worth of lifetime medical benefits.

Councilmembers Trish Kelley and Frank Ury are in the same boat with MacLean regarding benefits. If Dale Tyler is elected in the recall election, he says he’ll lead the charge to end the lifetime medical benefits for council members and roll back the raise they gave themselves in 2008. If Kelley and Ury believe MacLean will be gone with the recall, they could be interested in a poll to determine which challenger is popular enough to replace MacLean.

A resident who received a call from the pollster on Nov. 1 said, “If I had known for sure that the survey was to benefit MacLean, I would have given a phony answer to each question.”

A resident who received a call on Nov. 2 said, “The person calling made a big deal of telling me the city has plenty of money in reserves. Then she asked me if I still favored a recall that will cost the city $275,000. I said if the city is in such good financial shape, we can afford the recall and I support it.”

The Buzz

After Councilman Lance MacLean created a phony dog park project to draw dog-park promoters into his anti-recall campaign on Oct. 5, will the sham end during the Nov. 16 council meeting? Residents who live near the targeted site, Oso Viejo Park, had to mobilize their neighborhood, take time off work and make other sacrifices to fight off the unwanted project. They endured insults from MacLean, and they got an attorney to protect their rights. Will one of the three council members who caused the problem (MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley – MUK) now pretend to be the hero by making a motion to end it? The council majority’s word of the month should be “Busted.”

***

One of the dog park supporters indicated on a Web site that MacLean contacted her prior to putting the dog park on the Oct. 5 agenda. Apparently, he told her to gather her group together and plan to support his “effort.” Meanwhile, homeowners who live near Oso Viejo Park were blindsided. Some who made public comments during the meeting said they didn’t know about the plan to put a dog park next to their homes until they read it in the newspaper.

***

A color coding system emerged during the Oct. 5, Oct. 21 and Nov. 2 council meetings. Dog park supporters who wanted a dog park in Oso Viejo Park wore blue at the Oct. 5 and Oct. 21 meetings. Neighbors surrounding the Oso Viejo Park wore green at the Oct. 5, Oct. 21 and Nov. 2 meetings. Red-faced supporters of MacLean wore red at the Nov. 2 meeting. Perhaps the city staff can now turn the concept into a government project and order 10,000 taxpayer-provided T-shirts (in various colors and imprinted with the city staff’s dead tree insignia) to demonstrate “the public is engaged” at city hall.

***

Is it true that proponents of the MacLean recall want to “cut and slash” city services, programs and facilities, as a MacLean shill said during the Nov. 2 council meeting? Supporters of the recall say absolutely not. Many proponents have publicly advocated goals of balance (including a balanced budget) and focus on basics (e.g., infrastructure and essential services). The objective is to rearrange priorities. MacLean has become a champion of self-service and catering to his special-interest campaign donors who live outside Mission Viejo. Recall proponents say the city should put residents first.

***

A central theme of MacLean’s anti-recall campaign is admission of guilt but saying he didn’t act alone. For example, it took three council votes to bestow lifetime medical benefits for three terms of part-time service. MacLean is being recalled because he’s the worst offender, and his mental problems and violent temper are a liability to the city. As a practical matter, gathering valid signatures was a success for one council member, whereas recalling three would require 27,900 signatures with a minimum of 9,300 registered voters signing three times. As another practical aspect, it isn’t easy finding three competent, ethical replacements who are willing to serve. An essential element of improving representation is to stop electing officials by default.