Dennis Does Real Estate

From his June 18 insider newsletter (“The Week That Was”), City Manager Dennis Wilberg comments:

“I was invited to speak to the Orange County Association of Realtors this week, and there were 60 people in attendance. At the Association’s request, I provided a general city overview, showed a short Mission Viejo video, answered questions, and provided a folder with City promotional materials. They were very positive about our community.”

It should come as no surprise that Wilberg is chummy with some of the city’s real estate agents. In the June 8 defeat of Measure D, a Realtors’ Political Action Committee spent a fortune to convince Mission Viejo voters to vote against voting. City Hall – not voters – will continue to have the final word on major rezoning decisions involving parcels of more than two acres.

Wilberg has been accused of using his official position and taxpayer dollars to interfere with city politics, and that’s illegal. As an example, he was videotaped on July 8, 2009, as he harassed activists in front of the library during the MacLean recall signature drive. As a likely consequence of his activity, the former council majority of Lance MacLean, Frank Ury and Trish Kelley approved a new clause in Wilberg’s contract during the Feb. 1 council meeting, on the eve of the recall election. The clause gives Wilberg a pass, and he cannot be fired if he is convicted of a felony unless it involves “moral turpitude.” According to the Encarta Dictionary, turpitude means extreme immorality or wickedness.

And why wouldn’t real estate agents be “positive about our community” as Wilberg states in his newsletter? Several agents, including Terry Yapp and Tony Mazeika, carried the banner to oppose Measure D. The false claims in the anti-D mailers scared some voters into thinking that the hospital couldn’t add an oncology wing and a school couldn’t add an auditorium. Shame on the culprits for blatant lies.

In contrast, ethical real estate agents came forward and supported Measure D. They asked voters to do the same. The Measure would have had no effect on a property owner’s expansion or remodel unless the land use changed (e.g., from commercial to housing). Both the hospital and school district already have the appropriate zoning to add on, remodel or expand their facilities, including an oncology wing for the hospital or an auditorium for a school.

In a slumping real estate market, are some real estate agents so desperate they want more high-density housing in a built-out city? New apartment and condo projects will add inventory, and current homeowners will put single-family homes on the market when they see the high-density projects coming to their neighborhoods.

Street Repair Update

During the June 21 meeting, the council will discuss the 2010 Residential Resurfacing Slurry Seal Project, which involves a significant number of deteriorating city streets. The issue is Item 11 on the council agenda, which can be found at http://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/sirepub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=1543&doctype=agenda

The action recommended by the city staff is to “approve the bid specifications and authorize staff to advertise for construction bids for the 2010 Residential Slurry Seal Project.” The estimated cost is $425,000.

Some of the residents who surveyed street conditions believe the city’s current proposal to slurry-seal a large portion of damaged streets is inadequate. The list of streets that will receive a slurry seal begins on page 69 of one of the supporting documents for Item 11:
http://dms.cityofmissionviejo.org/sirepub/cache/2/m0xshu55pi4zv4452yweni55/224324606202010124347 45.PDF

At least 20 streets on the list were surveyed by residents and judged to be in need of a serious level of repair, which would be an asphalt overlay. Many streets in this category of the residents’ survey are in fair to poor condition. Specific damage includes areas of “alligatoring” and horizontal cracks that extend the entire width of the street. Several of the streets that will receive only a slurry coat have cracks in front of virtually every house.

Damage beneath a slurry coat can quickly resurface, offsetting any temporary cosmetic benefit. Some streets in areas treated last year with only a slurry seal are already cracking. One of the watchdogs commented about the ineffective treatment: “When damage is covered up with a slurry coat, the repair is superficial. Depending on the quality and thickness of the slurry, it can have the same effect as putting a coat of black paint over the damage.”

Nearly 80 percent of the damaged streets on the watchdogs’ list were outside the areas to be treated this year. The choice was deliberate to avoid listing streets that would soon be treated. The presumption was that damage would be adequately repaired instead of covered up.

CUSD and the Strike
Letter to the Editor

The stage was set for a showdown nearly one year ago. Being unsuccessful in freezing teachers’ pay raises, known as step in column, the reform platform board of trustees for the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD) was forced to lay off a couple hundred low-seniority teachers, as well as classified and administration staff. The State had reduced funding to all school districts, a cut that amounted to $25,000,000 for CUSD.

As of June 2009, the two-year contract with the Capistrano Unified Educators Association (CUEA) had ended. Seeing the inevitability that additional cuts would come to CUSD, the board pushed for immediate negotiations with CUEA, knowing that for each month negotiations might be delayed the salaries would require an additional one-half percent reduction in order to offset a second round of cuts imposed by the State. Those cuts came this year as an additional $33,000,000 reduction to CUSD.

Though the board is barred from participation, it directed the negotiation team to propose a 10% overall cut in salary and benefits, to be taken as CUEA saw fit. “Any layoff of teachers and resultant increases to class size would be unacceptable” was the quote most used by the seven-member board.

Hopes for a quick resolution faded as meeting dates offered by CUEA were extended by several weeks of inactivity. Six months into negotiations (early by most complex negotiation protocols), the call for “fact finding” was initiated whereby an “impartial” appointee assesses the financial situation and then issues a report that addresses findings with possible suggestions. The report confirmed that CUSD needed a 10.3% cut from the employee package to remain solvent.

Mediations started, but they too stalled when CUEA refused to continue participation. Nine months had passed since negotiations began while the State’s economy continued to worsen. Frustrated, but now given the legal ability to impose a reduction due to CUEA’s nonparticipation, the board elected to impose a 10.1% reduction in salary and benefits that included a combined 3.7% salary reduction, benefit caps and furlough days. The 10.1% reduction was to be spread over 15 months for an overall 8.1% annual pay cut. The cuts were neither temporary nor permanent but to be tied to the State’s ability to reinstate funding back to schools at historic levels.

CUEA conceded the fact that at least a 10% cut was required; however, they touted that since no specific date was given as to when teacher’s pay would be reinstated, then the cuts were permanent. Strike posturing began almost immediately, and the mantra associated with strike chants built upon the word “permanent,” even though the word was never part of the imposed language.

Though pre-strike rhetoric against the board was disseminated on a daily basis, the board honored the precondition to remain quiet about their reasons or viewpoints in order not to violate fair practice laws by negotiating in public. CUSD offered a date to meet with CUEA to resolve the remaining issues and to set language for a new contract in order to avoid a strike. CUEA set that very same day to strike. Three school days later, after CUSD became a national news story, the strike ended. A three-year contract was accepted in concept that included the originally proposed percentage cut to the salary/benefit package that is to expire at an unspecified date if and when the State reinstates funding to historic levels.

Larry Christensen
CUSD Board Trustee

Christensen’s letter was first published as a guest column in the June 2010 edition of Trabuco Canyon News.

CUSD Update

Blog readers have been asking about the outcome of a signature drive to recall two Capo school district trustees, Mike Winsten and Ken Lopez-Maddox. The signature drive began March 1.

Pete Espinosa, who appears to be a spokesman for the recall of Winsten and Lopez-Maddox, indicated the signatures were given to the Registrar of Voters on May 14. According to Espinosa’s letter to the RoV, the recall group (Parents for Local Control) submitted 32,982 signatures to recall Winsten and 32,803 signatures to recall Lopez-Maddox. The RoV has 31 business days (until June 28) to verify nearly 66,000 signatures.

To qualify for the November ballot, approximately 22,000 valid signatures are needed for each trustee. Approximately 67 percent would have to be valid – a relatively low percentage.

Observers who followed the process said they knew of only two instances in which anyone saw signature gatherers working at storefronts. In March, two signature gatherers were working in front of Trader Joe’s in Mission Viejo, and in April, two were at a storefront in Dana Point. Parents said teachers had petitions in their classrooms and were asking parents who visited the school to sign the petitions.

A CUSD constituent commented, “The signature drive was unusual. They got nearly 33,000 signatures per trustee in record time, yet no one saw them do it. If they assigned each of their union members a quota of 20 signatures per trustee, that would have been one way. However, their press releases claimed that 80 percent of the signatures were gathered by parents. They said they used no paid signature gatherers, and that alone is unusual. Before the signature drive began, their press releases said they had thousands of volunteers. After it began, the press releases said they had hundreds of volunteers. Having several hundred volunteers each get 100 signatures is still a tall order. If I knew anyone who got signatures, I would ask how they did it.”

As another topic in CUSD, the board of trustees introduced the district’s new superintendent, Dr. Joe Farley, with the following comment from Anna Bryson, who serves as board president:

“Welcome to Dr. Joe Farley. Our school board’s search for a permanent leader, which ranged across the United States and reviewed over 40 candidates, has come to a happy conclusion. Close to home, in the Anaheim Union School District, we found a Superintendent of exceptional integrity, who had walked a district through a $200-million bond issue that had been mishandled. His personal commitment led to five years of consistent growth in excellence in every level of education in the Anaheim district.”

The rest of the statement can be found at http://capistranoinsider.typepad.com/beyond_the_blackboard/2010/06/another-column-brysons-first.html

The Buzz

Bumper sticker that should be standard fare in Mission Viejo: If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.

***

Kudos to Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht for shining a light on the council majority’s self-enrichment. Under her comments for the June 21 council meeting, she is proposing the Elimination of Lifetime Healthcare Benefits for the Remaining Eligible Council Members. With council majority members Trish Kelley and Frank Ury treating the benefits as a political football, perhaps they’ll flip again, “giving up” their benefits long enough for Kelley to run for reelection on November 2. Of course, a council majority could reinstate the benefits immediately after the election. For additional information, read Brad Morton’s article, http://missionviejodispatch.com/?p=16871

***

The Orange County Register is continuing to congratulate itself for fooling the majority of Mission Viejo voters on June 8. The June 20 OCR editorial, “Primary results: We know our voters,” was likely written by Brian Calle, an acquaintance of Frank Ury. With another lie, the author states, “The measure would have been a blow to property rights as it would have required a majority vote by residents before virtually any development or enhancement to any property in the city.” That’s false. Did the OCR author of this hoax ever read the text of the Measure? If OCR wants to congratulate itself for anything, it should be the ability to misinform its readers.

***

Check out Larry Gilbert’s June 18 post on Orange Juice the premier county blog, http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/06/supreme-court-ruling-on-employee-texting Gilbert explains that the Supreme Court “rejected a broad right of privacy for workers and said a supervisor may read through a public employee’s text messages if he or she suspects work rules are being violated.” Gilbert adds a reference to Mission Viejo. “This Court ruling reminds me of a Mission Viejo citizen request to access our city manager’s cell phone during the 2010 recall of mayor Lance MacLean. That request was denied. I am suggesting that this unnamed resident, whom I personally know, should make a second request based on yesterday’s court decision.”

***

TEA Partiers will reunite on July 4th in Mission Viejo. Organizers say they’re ready to rally on Independence Day. Watch this blog, the Mission Viejo Dispatch and OrangeJuiceBlog.com for announcements about time and location.