How Not to Build a Dog Park

A dog park in Mission Viejo has been discussed for more than 10 years. While a considerable amount of taxpayer money has been spent studying the subject, there’s no dog park on the horizon. The primary reason has always been that the city staff doesn’t want a dog park, and the staff (not the council) runs the city.

In the late 1990s, community activist Bo Klein began pushing for a dog park. He scouted potential sites, generated interest among dog owners and applied pressure on city hall. As an aside, he accidentally discovered the city’s stealth grading project in Lower Curtis Park while looking for potential dog park sites in 2003.

In 2003-2004, a highly compensated city staffer went on a photo shoot, documenting all the possible dog park sites in town. Richard Howard, a deputy city manager, had been in charge of overseeing the construction of city hall. After the project was finished, he apparently had nothing to do. He presented his photographs during a council meeting, demonstrating that the objective was to look for a site but not find one. The staff decreed there was no suitable place for a dog park in the entire city.

Two years ago, a small group of residents and their children circulated an informal petition and gathered more than 1,000 signatures in support of a dog park. Anyone could sign the petition – adults, children, city residents and non-residents. The group presented the signatures to the city council and aggressively sought action.

In 2009, the dog park supporters got the attention of a lone council member. Lance MacLean had previously shown disdain for a dog park, telling Klein in 2005 that Mission Viejo would NEVER have a dog park. However, dog park enthusiasts in 2009 could provide MacLean with 20 easy votes to keep his seat in the recall election. The spoof to get 20 votes for MacLean cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in staff time and legal fees.

City staffers, being pro-MacLean, accommodated the new non-project by picking a site near the community center, the worst possible choice. In doing so, they defied all the council’s guidelines, placing it in a city park near a school and homes. Neighbors immediately rejected the idea and added leverage with a lawsuit. The city staff next targeted a site on Olympiad Road, farther from homes but still unpopular with neighbors.

The city won’t build a dog park for those who want one, but the city staff has cordially invited the handful of dog park enthusiasts to raise money to build a dog park for the city. To promote fundraising, city employees printed some fancy postcards, available at the library. Eventually, the dog park crowd will catch on, but apparently not yet.

Financial Mismanagement Continues
Letter to the editor

So just who does own Turf Park? The signs indicate the City of Mission Viejo is the owner. The pictures below were taken on 8/18/2010 at Turf Park.

[pictures in main article]

A local "twit" told me the sign was fiction: "YOU know--just like Trish Kelley's ballot statement!"

According to my research, the County of Orange is registered as the landowner.

I would highly suggest you watch the archived city council meeting from August 16, 2010, concerning Turf Park in Mission Viejo. For background, see the Mission Viejo Dispatch, http://missionviejodispatch.com/budget/dead-cats-waist-high-grass-remedied

At the end of the council meeting, Councilwoman Cathy Schlicht brought up the issue of Turf Park and its costs. 

Councilwoman Schlicht forced City Manager Dennis Wilberg to admit that there will be huge cost and schedule overruns on this project. As of the above-noted meeting, Wilberg indicates that there will be another $30,000 spent on top of the city’s settlement of $40,000 – this would mean a 75-percent overrun on costs. Effectively, this project has been totally mismanaged by the city’s administration. Not only was this park rework project poorly planned, but the work was given to some of the city’s favorite contractors--on a cost-plus basis.

This is just another example of our city administration not financially managing a project – just like the Lake Promenade, the Murray Center expansion, the Olympic Start Finish Line, the two recreation center remodels, and so on. Soon to be added to this list will be the Tennis Center rejuvenation. 

These overruns also potentially mean that desperately needed infrastructure repairs in your neighborhood will not be done – due to a lack of funds!! Example – the slopes along Alicia from Marguerite to the I-5 freeway entrance.

Joe Holtzman
Mission Viejo

Vote NO on Measure H

The following OrangeJuiceBlog.com post by Mission Viejo resident Robert Reidel was forwarded by a reader. View the entire article and other comments at http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/08/another-good-capo-lawsuit-defending-measure-h-by-area-elections

Capistrano Unified School District is ONE school district encompassing many cites and unincorporated areas. As bad a shape that the school district is in, it can get worse. Voting yes on H is an example of something we can do that can and would make the state of CUSD worse.

My reasons for advocating NO on Measure H are simple:

1. Measure H will not provide better local control. The entire body of 7 Trustees makes the decisions for all of CUSD, with a simple majority of 4 Trustees making the vote that impacts YOU! This means that easily and often 4 of the 6 Trustees that YOU had no vote for and had no say in will make the decisions/votes that impact YOU and YOUR family. This is NO representation. The 1 Trustee YOU had a vote in can be outvoted to the detriment of YOU and YOUR family each and every time on matters ranging from school district policies, to curriculum, to allocation of financial resources. This is NOT better local control, like the advocates for this measure say.
2. Saving $200,000 [election cost] is a lot of money. However, in context it represents only about 0.03% of CUSD’s annual budget that they’d have to set aside for the election to keep it as is. For CUSD, this amounts to about $1.00 per registered voter per election and about $0.17 for EACH of the Trustees that you would not be able to cast a vote for. Really now. I’ve served in our armed forces, as many others have and do. Personally, it upsets me to think that my fellow Americans would be willing to sell out so cheaply on something as fundamental to our freedom as the right to vote for an elected official for 17 CENTS! Elections cost. That is a cost of doing business that many of our fellow Americans have paid and are paying that price in blood for. This is not a freedom or right that we should relinquish so cheaply! In the interest of saving money, we may as well start increasing the terms of our elected officials or making them lifetime appointments, to get rid of those costly elections. I don’t think so!
3. The group of individuals that have pressed for this change wanted the current Trustees to strip these 6 of 7 votes from us, without even letting us voters, parents and taxpayers decide. What’s that say for the agenda of these folks, when they wanted and tried to effect this change without even letting it come to US to decide! They have attacked the current Trustees for voting down effecting this change on their own, and forcing it to go to the voters. We have the right to decide on this, and I sincerely hope that the majority of my fellow citizens see beyond the rhetoric, and grasp just how bad this can be. When the 1 Trustee YOU voted for is outvoted every single time and on key issues that matter to YOU, YOU are NOT going to feel that you are very well represented or have much in the way of local control.
   
   Also, consider the Trustees this election that you choose to vote for, and where they stand on this matter. I say that because if Measure H is voted down like I pray it will, other Trustees may replace current Trustees, that believe they know better than us and take another vote on this to effect the change on how we elect Trustees (regardless of what we previously voted!).
4. CUSD has Trustees areas. The Trustee areas were designed to spread where the Trustees come from throughout the district; however, since they all impact us, we currently vote for each and every Trustee. By changing it to where you ONLY vote for 1 Trustee, YOUR Trustee, it only follows for that Trustee to put the interests of those that elected him/her first and foremost. This approach may well not work out for all the areas of CUSD. We follow this model of representation at the County, State and Federal levels (and many areas do not fare well by this with winners and losers), but this is a unique model for Local communities. At the County, State, and Federal levels, votes/decisions are often made that disenfranchise other voters/taxpayers, as backroom deals are made and decisions are made on where to spend scarce resources. I do not believe we want this approach for our school district, where the ones that pay the price are students and children. Within CUSD, there is already a gross inequity in facilities across the district that was due to the prior Board. This occurred because too many of us were not watching. Now, everybody is watching, so there is a group that wants to change how we elect Trustees to better facilitate the ability to raid some areas of funds to disproportionately allocate those funds to other areas (the disparity in school facilities across the district and disproportionate funding of facilities across the district proves this).
   
   Shall we then also agree it is appropriate to break cities up into city councilman/councilwoman areas, such that we only vote for ONE? Again, this body makes decisions that impacts the entire community it represents. This is one steep and slippery slope that some would have us step on, with no assurances or checks and balances in place to prevent disenfranchising some of our fellow citizens within our community. This is a bad idea.
   
   When you call an elected official’s office, some of the first questions asked [of you] are: where do you live, are you in their area, are you one of their constituents, etc.. I believe that it follows that elected officials do not care so much about what others think that can’t and won’t be voting for them!
5. Recalling Trustees will be far easier. Whether that is for the good or bad will likely depend on the Trustee, and the reasons. However, Recall elections cost us the taxpayers each and every time. I am not of the opinion that we should make it easier to Recall an elected official. As we have seen, we can find ourselves in a tit-for-tat situation where a motivated group of swing voters can effect a Recall, and we can do that over and over again at taxpayer expense.
6. The advocates for changing how we elect Trustees have said we need to change how we elect Trustees, because CUSD has become too big. Fine. The answer for that is to break up CUSD then, and truly give each individual area the true local control and local representation of their schools. This way, each area maintains control of their funds, and can set appropriate policies for their community. However, if CUSD is broken up, other areas wouldn’t be able to raid them of their fair share of funds. This and other reasons certainly present possibilities on why the advocates behind this agenda have not put this option forward. Their only answer for providing better local control and better representation is to strip 6 of our 7 votes from us, with nothing to ensure we will be better for it, except to tell us to trust their school Board candidate/politician! I do not find this acceptable.

Vote NO on Measure H.

Stop the Union Takeover Attempt in CUSD
by Mike Winsten, Trustee, Capistrano Unified School District

Powerful union leaders and their supporters are campaigning to take control of our school district on Election Day – seeking to replace your existing conservative Reform Trustees with a new pro-union majority, and with their ballot initiative known as Measure H, to literally take away from every voter 6 of our 7 school board votes. Let me explain.

Unions Seeking Control of the Board.
Three of your Reform Trustees are up for reelection in November – the “ABC Reform Trustees” (Ellen Addonizio, Anna Bryson and Larry Christensen). The union is campaigning aggressively to replace each of these well-respected trustees. However, the union didn’t just want to gain three seats – they wanted to gain control of the seven member board in one single election. That is why they spent months and thousands of dollars to place an early recall election on the November ballot for two more of your Reform Trustees – CUSD Trustees Ken Lopez-Maddox and myself.

As a result, if the union succeeds in electing their five pro-union candidates to the Board, they will have effectively taken control of your school district in one election. This is bad. But it gets worse – much worse.

Measure H – Union Seeking To Take Away 6 of Your 7 Votes.
The unions also spent months working to get Measure H on the November ballot – they want to reduce the board’s accountability to voters throughout the entire school district by changing the way your school board representatives are elected in the future.

Today you get 7 votes -- 1 for each of your school board members. If the union’s Measure H passes -- you will lose 6 of your votes. That’s right, they would take away six of your votes! Passage of Measure H would diminish your voice and reduce board accountability – your vote will only influence 1 board member (not 7). You could lose the right to vote for the trustee representing the area where your children attend school – or the area where your Mello Roos taxes are spent (resulting in taxation without representation).

No other Orange County school district elects their school board this way – but dysfunctional L.A. Unified does. Local control by voters would be severely diminished – while union influence would be increased. Keep in mind, unions spend more on politics than anyone else – it is not in the best interest of students or taxpayers to increase their power.

Many prominent elected officials and organizations have come forward to officially oppose Measure H, including:
Pat Bates, Orange County Supervisor, Fifth District
California Republican Assembly
Tony Beall, RSM Mayor Pro Tem and OC Republican Party Central Committee Member, 71st Assembly District
Family Action PAC
Robert Ming, Laguna Niguel City Council Member, Co-Author, Vote SAFE Now Initiative and Author, Voter ID Act
Committee to Reform CUSD
Jack Anderson, Assistant Orange County Sheriff (Retired.), Former Planning and Traffic Commissioner, City of Mission Viejo, and OC Republican Party Central Committee Member, 71st Assembly District
Lincoln Club of Orange County
Craig Alexander, OC Republican Party Central Committee Member, 73rd Assembly District

The CUSD Board Has Implemented Many Positive Reforms.
Over the past three consecutive elections, voters elected each of the seven current members of the CUSD Board of Trustees to restore honesty, integrity and accountability to CUSD – and we’ve accomplished much. 

Bringing reform and positive change is especially difficult in a district which spends approximately 85 percent of its budget on salaries/benefits for public employees – most of whom are represented by powerful union leaders fighting to preserve an unsustainable status quo.

Despite continuous union opposition, we have successfully balanced the budget; stopped deficit spending; refused to increase taxes; reduced bloated administration; reduced union contract expenses by 10.1 percent; enacted strong anti-nepotism policies; created a district-wide facilities assessment; promoted conservative fiscal policies and family values; and fought to keep smaller class sizes.

This year, student achievement in CUSD soared to its highest levels. In fact, this year Capistrano Unified was the State’s highest-achieving large school district!

Help Stop the Union Takeover Attempt.
For the sake of each student and taxpayer in our district, I urge you to:
Re-elect the “ABC Reform Trustees” -- (Addonizio, Bryson & Christensen).
Vote NO on the Recall of Mike Winsten.
Vote NO on the Recall of Ken Lopez Maddox.
Vote NO on the Union’s “Measure H”

Learn more: www.CUSDfacts.com

The Buzz

Forwarded by a reader: “Wasp Spray - a church receptionist was concerned about someone robbing the office on Mondays when they were counting the collection. She asked the police about using pepper spray, and they recommended that she get a can of wasp spray instead. The wasp spray, they told her, can shoot up to 20 feet away and is a lot more accurate. The wasp spray temporarily blinds an attacker until they get to the hospital for an antidote. The receptionist keeps a can on her desk in the office, and it doesn't attract attention like a can of pepper spray would.”

***

Recent campaign donations reported by Voice of OC on Aug. 18: Mission Viejo council incumbents Trish Kelley raised $20,093, and Dave Leckness raised $19,650. Ex-councilman Lance MacLean has raised $8,847. Kelley’s donors include lobbyist Christopher Townsend ($1,500) and Mission Viejo Lexus ($1,000). Leckness’ donors include Christopher Townsend ($1,500) and OC Firefighters Assoc. ($2,500). MacLean’s contributors include waste hauler CR&R executives, OC Auto Dealers Assn., Infiniti of Mission Viejo and the California Association of Realtors.

***

A Mission Viejo resident commented on Councilwoman Kelley’s remark about The Shops: “I read ‘Queen Trish’ doesn’t think Dillard’s is classy enough for The Shops.” The resident described shopping in other cities, where Dillard’s is alongside high-end stores and great restaurants in areas far more upscale than The Shops. The resident’s comment concluded: “Other council members should maintain their independence from the clueless.”

***

If anyone on the council is concerned about appearances, they should direct their attention to Crown Valley Parkway. For months, the pillars have displayed children’s artwork. Perhaps city hall employees think children’s creative work should be immune to a review – thus, no one should criticize the appearance. Children’s art might have immunity to criticism, but it belongs on the refrigerator doors of their parents and grandparents. The current display, however, is an improvement over the ghoulish graphics of a year ago. The permanent piece on the corner near the hospital, “Mr. Peanut Caught in a Rusty Coil” still takes the cake for junk along the road.

***

Sign posted on an electric hand-dryer in a public restroom: “Press button for a brief political announcement.”