Time To Say Goodbye
Guest Editorial

Yes, it’s time to say goodbye to our incumbent city council members who have demonstrated that they, like many, many politicians, serve their backers (the backers with money) instead of the voters who elected them.

As is demonstrated every day, these officials make decisions, assumingly for our benefit, that are “in our face.” Those decisions “give” to a small percentage of citizens beyond what we authorize them to do.

The purpose of our governing city is to assure us that we have the ability to pursue some of our “wants” within the confines of being fair to all taxpayers “needs.” There is a large difference between “wants” and “needs.” Our governing city’s responsibility is to provide a mechanism for its population to use in the pursuit of their “wants.” It is not the purpose of the city to provide those “wants,” unless of course the “want” happens to be related to maintenance of security, education, parks and roads. The city’s job is to “promote the general welfare – not provide it.”

We should be wary enough about city operations to insist they do what is right for us citizens in light of our existing facilities and the “actual real need” for future facilities.

A prime example of this is the planned renovation of the Marguerite Tennis Center. How a 255-member tennis club could convince the city council that the city should pay for the addition of one more tennis court (at the cost of $3.7 million) is beyond belief. It is beyond belief because from past experience we can always expect to overrun a project of this magnitude anywhere from 50 to 100 percent. Kind of how the city of Bell’s city council members let themselves be swayed into approval of funds that should never have been spent.

And did you know?…….. that quite a few Mission Viejo residents are completely unaware that the city wants to spend $3.7 million on an additional tennis court. We have to inform them.

Our city council seems to have been swayed by their own backers to spend this money regardless of its actual need. When MacLean was removed from office, he stated publicly that this renovation was “desperately needed.” When members of the public requested that the city council explain the reason for the desperately needed additional court, there was no answer. We wonder why. And how they can justify spending money on an unnecessary project in the face of reducing city workforce and city service is beyond belief.

Through the years of planning this renovation, three members of the city council always voted for it…..you know them as the MUKs….MacLean, Ury, and Kelley. Kelley is up for re-election and MacLean is trying to get back in. Ury is still in place. Ury also reminds us that the money is in the budget. So What! Budgets can be modified, especially when there is a high chance of reduced income from the state and property taxes. In the words of the people against Measure D….”.we should save money by waiting for the November elections to vote out anyone we didn’t want in office.” Well, November is almost here and we have the opportunity to correct what we unfortunately created when we voted the MUKs in. Note that Leckness is also running for re-election and has so far sided with the MUKs.

We have always said that the cost of the additional tennis court should be funded with private funds. A good example of this process has recently surfaced regarding the dog park that dog owners “want.” Organizers of the effort to bring a dog park to the city said their drive was to show the community that proponents aren’t looking for handouts from the city. Yes, they believe rightly that it’s the city’s job to promote the general welfare – not provide it.

Thank you dog owners! It’s now the task of the tennis players to step forward and fund their “want.” The city should promote such action.

Until then we do not need to keep our incumbents in place to continue their effort to get themselves re-elected. Think about this, think about the city of Bell, think about our state’s representatives, and think about our nation’s representatives. We have to change our representatives starting at the grassroots level…….and that is Mission Viejo.

Thank you, thinkers.
Voters United