Streets Update

Mission Viejo drivers are noticing an increase in patchwork on some streets that have deep cracks and crumbling asphalt. Ambar (one of the worst in the city), near Alicia and Olympiad, was recently treated for deep and wide cracks. Ambar received attention because community watchdogs and other residents reported the need.

The city has stated it has no employees to inspect streets, and residents are responsible for reporting damage.

When residents email or call city hall to report damage, they should ask if their street will be overlaid or merely patched. If the entire length of the street has a network of deep cracks, patchwork isn’t practical. Patches and runners of tar along cracks last only a few months before the underlying damage resurfaces.

Last week, a community watchdog delivered a report to the city manager that detailed more than 150 streets in need of immediate repair. The list, 12 pages long, was compiled by Mission Viejo residents. Some streets have a network of deep and wide cracks throughout the entire length of street. All streets on the list are located south of Jeronimo Road, and none of them are scheduled to be repaired during the current Fiscal Year. One third of streets on the list aren’t due to be resurfaced for three or four years.

New additions to the list include an area near Fieldcrest and Felipe. Specific streets are Misty Ridge, Fieldcrest, Fairgreen and Aprico. According to the city’s resurfacing schedule, the area is not due for attention until Financial Year 2012-2013.

Streets north of Jeronimo in poor condition number at least 50 and have been reported separately to city hall. Some are in an area to be resurfaced this year (bordered on the north by the city boundary, south by Alicia, east by Marguerite Parkway and west by Trabuco).

Two residents who have been surveying streets in Mission Viejo compared street conditions when they were in Santa Ana last week. County bloggers have noted that Santa Ana’s streets are among the worst in the county. The Mission Viejo residents said they didn’t find many streets in poor condition, and most of the arterials they drove on are good.

From their report, “From descriptions on county blogs about Santa Ana streets, we were expecting roads to be worn down to dirt. Some of the side streets were constructed with concrete, and they are cracked and obviously very old. Our tour was limited to the southeast and central parts of town, and we drove for miles on streets in good condition. They have some bad ones, but not as bad as we were expecting. Mission Viejo is a relatively new city, and it shouldn’t have streets in poor condition, but it does.”

More Spin Against Measure D
by Dale Tyler

The people opposing Measure D fall into two camps: those who are confused about its purpose and likely effects and those who will do and say anything to maintain their own power.

Leading the second group is Frank Ury, a Mission Viejo councilman. He wrote the Argument Against Measure D, published in the voter's guide. Unfortunately for him, Cathy Schlicht decided to contest some of the claims in his ballot argument. Aided by attorney Brad Morton, Cathy filed for a writ of mandate and asked the judge to review six areas of Frank's statement. For the judge to remove or change anything, the section had to be false and/or misleading. The judge was not allowed to remove anything else, even if it was only partially true or simple exaggeration of facts or puffery.

The judge removed three passages from Frank's statement:

1. “Under State law it CAN NEVER be developed into housing”
2. … and “forces” Mission Viejo taxpayers to pay for it.
3. “Businesses wishing to expand their facilities would have to go to a full vote of the people at their own expense”

In each of these cases, Frank knew better but chose to put completely false statements in an official statement. Perhaps he thought that he could get away with this because he is used to being unchallenged when he makes false and misleading statements at council meetings or elsewhere.

Ury even tries to spin the Judge's decision by claiming the he lost “only three” of 26 issues that were raised. However, court papers show that there were six, not 29 “causes of action,” and he is trying to say only three lies are not too bad. Sorry, Frank, everything you say about Measure D is a lie, and you know it.

At a recent debate held by the Casta Del Sol Republican Club and co-sponsored by the Saddleback Republican Assembly, Frank tried to say that there would be significant job losses caused by Measure D. However, that is untrue. In fact, there have been four conversions of commercial property to residential uses approved by various city councils during the past 15 years, two of which occurred while Frank was on the City Council. Based on the loss of commercial square footage from these four cases, there could have been as many as 1,000 jobs lost in Mission Viejo and a significant amount of sales taxes that will also not be available to help pay for city services. Perhaps the voters of the city would have approved these conversions, but given the opposition to each project by close neighbors, I would expect that none of these changes would have occurred.

Major land-use decisions are too important to be left in the hands of five council members, even if they weren't receiving campaign contributions from the very developers whose projects they are asked to approve. Only the residents of Mission Viejo can collectively decide if a project is right for our city. Some people might mistakenly say that if we don't like a specific City Council decision, we can vote out those councilpersons who made the bad decision. Once the zoning is changed on a parcel of land, it can't be put back. So, the bad councilperson is gone, but the bad land-use decision remains. Measure D will stop that and get the people to approve the change, after the Planning Commission and City Council make sure that the project is the best it can be.

At that same Casta Del Sol event, a flyer was handed out by an opponent of Measure D. It was somewhat amusing to see how many of their 10 points were completely inaccurate.

1) Stick taxpayers with the bill for unlimited “special” elections.
Wrong. Section 4.1 of Measure D says that developers will pay the entire cost of any special election they request.

2) Drain funds away from schools, roads, parks and public safety.
Wrong. As there are no additional costs to the city or school districts as a result of Measure D, no funds will be diverted. In fact, to the extent commercial properties remain commercial, there will be more taxes paid to the city.

3)Let developers build high-density, low-income housing without an election.
Wrong. They are misunderstanding Section 6.1 of Measure D. That section simply says that Measure D, like all other city laws, cannot override State law, especially the State Housing Code. Whatever laws applied before, apply in exactly the same way after Measure D is enacted. Nothing whatsoever will change. Section 6.1 is part of Measure D to make it harder for people to challenge Measure D as being passed to override State law, which it cannot do.

4) Create Blight and vacant storefronts.
Wrong. It is hard to see how passing a law that will stabilize zoning would do any thing of the kind. Really, this is an attempt to scare people with an idea plucked from thin air.

5) Cause budget deficits and make cuts in city services inevitable.
Wrong. As stated above, there will be no increases in city spending as a result of Measure D, and the city may even see an increase in collected sales tax if existing commercial properties are saved from being converted to residential.

6) Prevent hospital, school church and business improvements.
Wrong. Measure D does not prevent landowners from expanding their operations as long as they don't need to change the zoning. If, for example, a shopping center wanted to expand and tear down nearby houses to do so, then Measure D would come into effect, and a vote of the people would be required.

7) Drop Property values and halt job creation.
Wrong. Under the “old” system where City Councils made the final decisions, about 1,000 jobs were lost when properties that were supposed to be commercial got converted to residential. Measure D would make sure that the people would decide which was more important: jobs or housing. Also, to the extent that Measure D reduces the number of new houses built, existing houses will be worth more because of supply vs. demand.

8) Unleash an endless parade of “special” elections
Wrong. There have been less than six zoning change in the past 15 years in Mission Viejo that would likely have triggered Measure D if it had been law. That's hardly “endless.” Also, Mission Viejo is mostly built out, and few vacant parcels remain where zoning would become an issue, especially when developers know that they need to do more than “convince” three council members.

9) Do nothing to protect Casta Del Sol Golf Course or any other open space.
Wrong. Look at section 3.1i and 3.1j. They were designed especially so that a vote of the citizens of Mission Viejo would be needed to build anything else at Casta Del Sol Golf Course. We know from the Judge’s decision and city documents that construction is possible on parts of the golf course.

10) Make you pay more for something you already have – the right to vote.
Wrong. We don't have any way to stop bad land-use decisions made by City Councilpersons until they come up for election, by which time it is too late to do anything about whatever project they approved. Also, future elections required by Measure D will be paid for by developers, not taxpayers.

Please do your research and ask the question: who gains if Measure D passes (the people of Mission Viejo) and who gains if Measure D fails (developers and city councilmembers, among others).

Please vote “Yes” on Measure D.

Council Majority Won’t Listen
Letter to the editor

Did Mission Viejo residents see the ad in the April 30 Saddleback Valley News against Mission Viejo’s Right To Vote Initiative (Measure D)? Everything in the ad is an outright lie!

Developers and lobbyists are determined to ruin our well-planned city by bringing in more apartments for their own financial gain. They looped in a few Mission Viejo residents to put their names on ads against Measure D. Those who speak at council meetings against Measure D are led by the two councilwomen we threw out of office years ago: Sherri Butterfield and Susan Withrow.

Susan and Sherri were trounced in the 2002 election after they ruined the area along Crown Valley by rezoning commercial property and bringing in hundreds of apartments. The former council majority ignored 7,000 signatures of residents who objected to more apartments.

I am voting YES on Measure D on June 8, and I am fed up with council members – past and present – who refuse to listen to Mission Viejo residents.

Elizabeth Mimm
Mission Viejo

Editor’s note: Mrs. Mimm sent her letter to Saddleback Valley News in a timely manner for the May 7 edition, and it wasn’t published. SVN on May 7 had another anti-Measure D ad, paid for by a Realtor group.

MV Republicans Set Goals
Press Release

Mission Viejo, CA, May 9, 2010 – The Mission Viejo Republican Club (MVRC) steering group met on May 3 to discuss the organization’s progress since its inception two months ago. The group set a goal of having 100 charter members by the end of May.

Last month, MVRC members participated in the April 15 Mission Viejo Tea Party on the corners of La Paz and Marguerite. A crowd of 600 to 700 “Tea Partiers” lined the streets, holding protest signs and waving American flags. Club members attending said it was a patriotic tribute to American freedoms as well as a tax protest. MVRC supported the event’s sponsor, Saddleback Republican Assembly.

During May, MVRC is organizing precinct walks in Mission Viejo to “Get Out The Vote” (GOTV) for the June 8 Primary Election. A member of the new group, Joe Zambito, said he’s eager to get started. Zambito said, “I wondered how all of us would work together for competing candidates in the Primary. As it turns out, many of us are gravitating toward the same favorites.”

Zambito added, “With all the campaign literature arriving in the mail, voters are aware of the election, but I like the idea of person-to-person campaigning. I know our volunteers will be a big help in getting out the vote.”

For additional information, contact Frank Fossati, publicity coordinator, Mission Viejo Republican Club, at: frank.fossati@cox.net

The Buzz

A comment in last week’s Buzz column about the April 23-24 Fun With Chalk festival questioned the irrelevant activities alongside it. A Buzz reader responded, “I got a good laugh about the paper chain Trish Kelley was carrying around at the festival on Sunday afternoon. I saw her walking with about 20 people in front of the community center. When they were walking along the Oso Creek trail, they picked up a few more people. They had enough that they were blocking foot traffic on the trail, and someone complained that 35 people were blocking the trail. Then I read the city spin that 1,000 people were walking the chain around. It made me laugh out loud.”

***

Still needing help: Buzz readers are invited to support the wives of deployed Marines by contributing to gift baskets for the May 29 Camp Pendleton Appreciation Luncheon. Anyone wanting to help can donate items for a basket, money to support the effort or creating a gift basket. Suggested items include bath and hair products, gift certificates, jewelry, movie tickets and gift cards that can be redeemed at restaurants on the base. Please email cam.fam@cox.net for additional information. Please respond this week.

***

The Mission Viejo Chapter of ACT for America will hold its monthly meeting on Mon., May 10. Doors open at 6:45 p.m., and the meeting starts at 7:30. Guest speaker will be Mano Bakh, who will speak for approximately 50 minutes, followed by Q & A. The meeting location is the Norm Murray Community Center, 24932 Veterans Way, Mission Viejo. Chapter leader Bruce Mayall sent the announcement, adding that the meeting is free and open to the public, but a $5 donation will be appreciated to help cover costs.

***

In the Commentary section of the Or. Co. Register on May 9, Steve Greenhut’s column is titled, “Referendum on unions in OC.” Greenhut describes votes by the OC Board of Supervisors in 2001 and 2004 that gave retroactive pension increases to deputy sheriffs and county workers. Currently, the supervisors are pursuing a lawsuit to roll back the 2001 retroactive increase. The deputies union, AOCDS, has jumped into a Primary Election contest in the Fourth District, supporting a candidate, Harry Sidhu, who wants to drop the lawsuit. Sidhu’s opponent in the race for supervisor is Shawn Nelson.

***

In the Feb. 2 special election to recall Lance MacLean from the city council, AOCDS threw in more than $100,000 to oppose the recall. Working behind the scenes to prop up MacLean was Councilman Frank Ury. The common tie to the money is Ury’s financial backer, John Lewis, a lobbyist who resides in Orange. The AOCDS mailers supporting Sidhu use the same format, style and syntax as those opposing the recall. Lewis is Sidhu’s campaign consultant.

***

Despite outcry among some voters that all politicians should be thrown out of office, a few good men (and women) deserve to be reelected because they’re doing a good job. The OC GOP Central Committee is one such example. Mission Viejo Republicans have the option of keeping all six of them (Todd Spitzer, Jack Anderson, Marcia Gilcrest, Mark Bucher, Tony Beall and John Williams). Two challengers also have impressive credentials and a long history of activism for the GOP. These challengers are Jon Fleischman of Rancho Santa Margarita and Mark Dobrilovic of Mission Viejo.