Getting "Lost," Going Rogue and Putting Jobs First
By JEFF MILLER, Published in Orange County Register, 2/13/2010

I may be a couple seasons behind in keeping up with the TV drama "Lost," but when you serve in the Legislature, you really get a sense of what it's like to be one of the show's characters.  What my colleagues may lack in tattered wardrobes, makeshift housing and a 360-degree ocean view, we more than make up for in uneasy alliances, ominous plotlines, recurring disbelief and one overwhelming and inescapable question: How did we get here?

Where is here?  It's a mysterious place of billion-dollar deficits, millions of job losses and thousands of excuses leading to a single inevitable conclusion.  If Sacramento does not change its ways, things will only get worse.  And no, neither the Congress nor the Obama Administration is flying in anytime soon to whisk us away to safety.

The first step to any recovery is to admit you have a problem.  And California state government has a problem.  We spend too much, tax too highly and regulate too often.  Like any binge, it was fun for some while it lasted, and now the bill is coming due.  Buying a round of drinks for friends is one thing, but buying a round for everyone you've ever met every day for a decade will surely put you into bankruptcy.  This is where we are today.

A leading concern for my Republican colleagues is the Democrats' obsession with - and only with - balancing the budget.  In the abstract, this is a laudable goal.  But it will do nothing to deal with the fact that this simply cannot go on.  Our fiscal condition is not in peril because the budget is out of balance - in fact, it is just the reverse.

For months now, many leading figures in the Capitol have looked at our massive budget deficit the way a losing gambler looks at a six-figure IOU held by a Vegas casino: As something to desperately pay off, lest the pit boss decline your marker (or worse). 

The problem with this desperate short-term approach is that even if successful, it virtually guarantees it will happen again ... and again.

Some of my colleagues express serious doubts about our future direction, others an evident frustration about the daily drumbeat of how we are going to make do with less, rather than spend and appropriate more - summed up by a sort of "I didn't sign up for this" expression of discontent with the job.

While the atmosphere in the Capitol may be dour, I do not share the ennui that has embraced the building.  In fact, the real winners in this debate will be the ones who energetically and enthusiastically offer real solutions and a better vision of California's future.

If we do not shrink government, reduce the business burden and create new opportunities for California, it will not matter how many tough choices we make, or how often we pledge to make them.  The only solution is to create an opportunity environment that is centered on job creation and private sector strength.  We've tried the other way, and this is where it got us.

The Legislature and Governor must commit to a "Jobs First" focus in which small businesses and larger employers - not big government - are empowered and encouraged to expand facilities, invest in new equipment and create the new employment that is an indispensable part of any economic recovery.

Of course, the screams of the others' opposition will be loud and long.  But they must not drown out what we all know to be true or halt the momentum that is emerging across the country.  Even the President's State of the Union address offered that his number one priority this year is job creation.  It will be disappointing if my Democrat colleagues choose this policy choice to go rogue and decline to follow the White House's lead.

What else will it take?  Rather than the usual partisan sword-fighting, banker's hours and three-day work weeks, this should be a year of unprecedented cooperation in the Capitol.  It may be a long, lost art, but even the surviving passengers of Oceanic Flight 815 have employed it in times of maximum duress and shared circumstance. 

We are all on this island together, swimming is not an option and there is no alternate reality that will explain it all to us.

Get Ready To Vote

On March 1, proponents of the Mission Viejo Right-To-Vote Initiative submitted the ballot argument in favor of the initiative. The signature drive ran from August 2008 to January 2009, qualifying for the next General Election, June 8, 2010. The Right-To-Vote Initiative does not yet have a “letter,” and it is referred to as “Measure X” below.

Argument In Favor Of Measure X

Do you want to preserve Mission Viejo as a great place to raise a family and a safe place to live? Measure X will preserve our special way of life.

Elected officials at all levels of government have failed us! In Mission Viejo, “campaign donations” from special interests have caused council members to forget who they work for. A developer can get a zone change – against the will of residents – by lining up three council votes. Voters need a safeguard, and Measure X will stop this sellout.

Measure X will return power to the people, giving voters the final word on rezoning and other Major land-use changes. This includes such life-changing rezoning as commercial (sales tax-generating) to high-density housing or Open Space to any other use. It doesn’t include little things like a home remodel or addition.

Mission Viejo as a Master Planned community has a specific use for every parcel and balance between such elements as housing, open space and business. Over the years, various city councils subverted the Master Plan by approving more and more high-density housing, at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods and over the futile protests of neighbors.

Measure X empowers voters to overrule bad council decisions, such as allowing apartments on top of stores or converting a golf course to assisted living. Projects will still go through existing review processes of the Planning Commission and council to ensure that all standards are met. After the council approves a project, we the people will decide if we want the proposed project.

Yorba Linda’s citizens passed a law nearly identical to Measure X, and it’s working well.

Take back control of Major land-use changes and stop bad council decisions by voting yes on Measure X.

More information http://www.missionviejorighttovote.com

Streets or Tennis Courts?

Mission Viejo residents’ debate about spending priorities continues on the blogs. The Mission Viejo Dispatch published Allan Pilger’s Feb. 27 letter about the city’s deteriorating streets. Read his post at http://missionviejodispatch.com/?p=15137 . Dispatch readers may have been surprised to see suggestions from city hall saying residents are responsible for reporting streets in need of repair. A commissioner went a step further, indicating poor street conditions are ongoing because no resident has reported locations.

The discussion was renewed on a county blog, OrangeJuiceBlog.com, when Larry Gilbert posted an article about the city’s Capital Improvement Project to rebuild and expand the city-owned semi-private tennis club at Marguerite Parkway and Casta Drive. Read Gilbert’s post at http://orangejuiceblog.com/2010/03/should-mission-viejo-taxpayers-subsidize-outside-team-tennis/ . Several residents’ comments again called for repairing streets instead of spending $4 million on a tennis facility.

Does the city have so little money that residents can’t have decent roads as well as new facilities? Throughout the campaign to recall ex-councilman Lance MacLean, city hall insisted the city is in excellent financial shape with “discretionary” reserves exceeding $30 million. For those who describe community watchdogs as tightwads, here’s a surprise statement: the city should now go hog wild and spend some of its $30 million bringing streets and slopes up to standards.

Blogs have helped to raise residents’ awareness that many Mission Viejo streets need resurfacing. Streets need more than Band-Aids, patchwork or pouring tar into gaping cracks. Ignoring the damage becomes more costly in the long run.

From one of Larry’s OrangeJuiceBlog posts last week, “After months of local watchdog pressure, the city of Mission Viejo has ratchet’d up our street maintenance, including Olympiad Road a few hundred feet from our home today. The big issue for me is the cost of delayed repairs which might end up costing you seven times the cost of a periodic slurry seal.”

Here’s city hall’s phone number to report the need for street repairs: (949) 470-8405.

Orly Is In, Quang Is Out

Dr. Orly Taitz, a dentist with an office in Mission Viejo, distributed an email on March 6, announcing her candidacy to become California’s Secretary of State. She’ll face Damon Dunn on the Republican ticket in the June 8 Primary Election.

In her press release, Dr. Taitz says her platform includes making sure all political candidates are providing genuine vital records before they appear on the ballot. She says she will also work on the issue of creating a welcoming environment for national and international corporations to create jobs, cut red tape, limit overregulation and overtaxation in California. Taitz has championed the eligibility issue of President Barack Obama.

Taitz also says she is challenging her opponent’s eligibility to run in the Primary Election. She states he has not met requirements to appear on the Republican ticket because he changed his party affiliation 10 months ago. She says the legal requirement is to be registered as a party member for at least a year before running as that party’s candidate.

Mission Viejo resident Quang X. Pham has dropped out of the 47th Congressional District race. He announced on March 5 that he’s suspending his campaign. The news broke on OC Weekly and was picked up by OrangeJuiceBlog.com. Pham says he won’t compete in the Primary Election to challenge incumbent Loretta Sanchez.

http://orangejuiceblog.com/2010/03/quang-x-pham-drops-out-of-47th-cd-race/#comments

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/breaking-news/if-congresswoman-loretta-sanch/#more

CUSD Update

The group wanting to recall two Capo school district trustees received word on March 1 that the Registrar of Voters approved the petitions. Trustees Ken Lopez-Maddox and Mike Winsten are targets of the recall.

The recall group calls itself Parents for Local Control. Early opponents of the recall include the Orange County Republican Party, Saddleback Republican Assembly and California Republican Assembly. After the three organizations indicated the recall effort is being backed by the teachers’ union, the recall group denied that the union is involved.

Organizers of the recall say they will gather 30,000 signatures per trustee before May 1. Approximately 22,000 valid signatures per trustee are required to qualify the recall for the ballot. Only signatures of registered voters who live in the Capo district will count toward the required number.

May 1 is the deadline to qualify for the November ballot. Recall organizers initially said they would either gather the needed signatures by May 1 or stop the signature-gathering process. While they would have 150 days to gather signatures, they first said they would stop rather than try to qualify for a special election. Their current position on a special election isn’t clear. Recall organizers also stated they will rely entirely on volunteer signature-gatherers.

Capo residents say they had not seen anyone at storefronts gathering signatures as of March 5.

The CUSD Board of Trustees held a special meeting on March 1 to discuss hiring a permanent superintendent and to approve contingency plans if teachers walk out because of stalled contract negotiations. The staff report regarding the walkout indicates a goal of keeping all schools open, and the superintendent is authorized to hire interim help if needed.

The Buzz

Anyone needing a revelation about personalities in city hall can read comments from the city manager and a city commissioner at http://missionviejodispatch.com/?p=15137 . The commissioner who makes abrasive and condescending remarks is Councilwoman Trish Kelley’s appointee to the planning commission. Each time he comments on the blog, he ratchets up hostility and demonstrates why he shouldn’t be on a commission.

***

Mission Viejo’s representative in Sacramento, Assemblyman Jeff Miller, sent an excellent analysis to the OC Register. From his Feb. 11 letter about the massive budget deficit: “We spend too much, tax too highly and regulate too often. Like any binge, it was fun for some while it lasted, and now the bill is coming due. Buying a round of drinks for friends is one thing, but buying a round for everyone you've ever met every day for a decade will surely put you into bankruptcy. This is where we are today.” To read the rest of his letter, click here

***

When residents said they’d like traffic improvements on thoroughfares, someone in city hall took a wrong turn. Instead of improving traffic flow on Crown Valley Parkway, the city staff stalled traffic for more than three years and then placed junk on the medians. The latest exhibit of pictures on the stone outhouses (pillars) includes children’s paintings. The idea likely capitalizes on a notion that those who would criticize children are mean-spirited. On the other hand, anyone who would foist a bad idea on taxpayers and then hide behind children is severely misguided.

***

In supporting Mission Viejo’s Right-To-Vote Initiative on the June Primary ballot, five residents submitted a ballot argument favoring the initiative. Showing his loyalty to developers and other outsiders, Councilman Frank Ury volunteered to write the argument against the measure. In his personal attack against the initiative’s supporters, Ury claims they “conned” residents into signing the petition with false information. According to Ury, initiative supporters said the Casta del Sol Golf Course was in danger of being developed for housing. Apparently, residents are delusional if they think they remember Sunrise Development’s proposal to build an assisted living complex with 350 HOUSING UNITS on the golf course.

***

If the Casta del Sol Golf Course wasn’t the subject of a developer’s housing proposal, why did the council approve a moratorium on housing development and then extend it when no other housing proposal was being discussed?