Former MV Mayor Gail Reavis
Former MV mayor supports YES on Measure D
Having read her letter in the Mission Viejo Dispatch I contacted former MV Mayor Gail Reavis to discuss her thoughts on the current “Right to Vote” ballot measure in our city. Gail served on our city council between 2000 and 2008 at a time when developers had made multiple presentations on future projects in our city. As such, she is perhaps the best qualified to refute some of the opposition statements on this issue. She actively participated in both Closed and Open Session discussions regarding land use decisions.
The following is from her letter that appeared in todays www.missionviejodispatch.com. The only change is that I have altered one name in that letter.
“I enthusiastically support Measure D . . . as did someone who claims to be a representative of Casta Del Sol who collected 1200 signatures to oppose development on the Casta del Sol Golf Course.
There are two people listed on the No on D flyers. One was the number one heerleader FOR an airport at El Toro. He used most of the same arguments FOR an airport that he is using against D.
Another one is the agent for the assisted living company that wanted to build on the Casta Golf course. If the voters think the developers have just ‘given up’, think again….
Another opponent is the CEO of Mission Hospital. They not only already own all of the land for city blocks in Mission Viejo and have the entitlements to build just about anything they want, they do not pay property taxes. The hospital is owned by a religious group so does not have to pay taxes like the rest of the businesses in the city.
The people in Aegean Hills should worry because the owner of the Unisys property wrote to the city a few years ago asking to have their property REZONED from industrial to high density residential. This negates the ‘chamber’ argument about D being a ‘job killer’. When the Unisys property is converted, we will lose those jobs forever in Mission Viejo.
Also a few years ago, there were two hotel entities that were looking at the property next to the animal shelter. If the city was not seriously interested in selling that property to a private developer, why did they spend thousands of dollars to have it appraised?
The K-mart property: By the way it IS in a flood control area and entitlements to build HAVE been given! The developer has come to Palmia at least twice in recent years to attempt to change the entitlement from owner occupied townhomes to apartments. If Measure D does not pass, there are only three votes keeping them from changing the entitlements.
The property next to Tuesday morning: Not only has the K-Mart developer tried to move his obligation to build 15% affordable to this site, they have suggest that the entire site be made ‘affordable’ to handle Mission Viejo’s housing issue with the state.
The argument about high density low income on the NO argument are specious at best. They already rezoned 5 pieces of property (Master Plan???) to residential or mixed use and each already includes 15% affordable.
The final property in question would be the ‘Michaels’ shopping center. The city commissioned a study from the Urban Land Institute a few years ago and their proposal was to completely renovate and replace that entire shopping center with ‘mixed use’. That would mean shops at street level, and apartments or condos above. The worst suggestion in the study was how they would handle the parking with so many uses at the same site.
If Measure D does not pass, I feel sorry for the citizens of Mission Viejo. They will spend a lifetime wishing they had done something to pass D, and saying ‘gee, I didn’t understand’, will be too late.
The citizen proponents of D have pooled their ‘taxpayer/voter dollars’ to get this on the ballot for you. It is unlikely they will do it again in the future.
However, the NO people have spent tens of thousands of dollars to stop you from having a say in MAJOR changes in land use zoning in our precious MASTER PLANNED community. Right now three people are making life changing decisions for you and me. I for one trust the people and want Measure D to pass.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE D.”
So this is the same Gail that sued the city while she was on the council to retain the lifetime benefits correct? Why should I even listen to her now.
Girl scout leader.
Get your facts straight before jumping into the debate.
A. She did not sue the city.
B. She only served two terms. As such, she would not be entitled to lifetime health care benefits.
Larry,
First off, I hope Ms. Reavis is not disclosing anything discussed in any closed session of the City Council meetings during her time on the Council, or I believe she is guilty of a misdemeanor under the Brown Act.
As someone privy to Council discussions, I can appreciate Ms. Reavis’s additions to the discussion. Unfortunately, she is not giving all of the facts. As related by a Casta del Sol resident who actually attended the meeting where the developer that was considering building on the golf course met with the residents, following the meeting the company NEVER submitted any application to the City to build anything on the property. Whether it was the economy or the outcry when it met with the Casta del Sol residents is irrelevant – we’re nowhere near any decision on whether the golf course can or will ever be anything but a golf course or open space.
I’ve always found the attacks on Mission Hospital a non sequitor since the City benefits from having a world class hospital, regardless of whether it pays any property taxes (by the way it is a NON-PROFIT which is exempt from taxes under the law.)
I have also heard the Unisys argument before, but to my knowledge, they have not formally submitted any application for rezone (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). Should they leave and Measure D pass, any rezone attempt will fail because of the costly election and electorate requirement, meaning nothing will ever be built there, resulting in a loss of jobs.
As for the K-Mart property, if the entitlements already exist for residential, then a change from townhomes to apartments (another residential zone) will not trigger Measure D under the “Yes on D” folks’ interpretation of the measure. Accordingly, this adds nothing to Ms. Reavis’s arguments.
The mixed-use argument has also always confused me. Are the “Yes on D” NIMBYs saying all mixed-use is bad? If so, why? I agree that traffic, noise, odor, etc. considerations must be taken into account, but why is the thought (again, no application to my knowledge has ever even smelled the light of day) of replacing an aging center with a vibrant and new development so bad?
The whole “three people are making life changing decisions for you and me” argument is also fairly weak coming from someone who was at one time one of the individuals she apparently trusts so little. And for the record, this is the way municipal government works – all over the state and the country. We elect Councilmembers to represent our interests. If we don’t like it, we vote them out. If they still make decisions we deem are poor, we have the referendum process on the back end to hold them accountable. That’s the way it’s worked in Mission Viejo since it was formed as a city. And yet it is only now that a small group has felt it necessary to turn over land use decisions to the public at large?
In sum, most of Ms. Reavis’s arguments are based on (hopefully not illegal) speculation and potential future outcomes that may never occur. On the opposite side, the express language of Measure D itself makes it clear that it will have a huge negative impact on business in Mission Viejo if it passes because of the requirement that a majority of the electorate pass any project subject to the measure – a near impossiblity.
Newbie.
As a potential witness in our prior Brown Act litigation against Sherri, Susan and Bill Craycraft, I am very familiar with that law. She can discuss any applicant efforts that were debated in our PC and CC Open Session meetings.
Newbie. Has the ranch built their 13,000 homes off Ortega Hwy?
Has the Great Park construction commenced?
We both know that there is an ongoing recession. That is why Steadfast walked away from their council approved townhouse project next to the new Target on Los Alisos.
Sunrise did make a presentation to the public. The fact that American Golf was receptive to selling the golf course is beyond challenge. The court confirmed that housing could be built on the golf course. It is not the burden on the court as to when that may or may not occur.
Unisys was a customer of mine. I am well aware of their possible restructuring. Whatever they do neither one of us uses a crystal ball to see the future.
As to our current council. Trish Kelley admitted she does not know anything about “trash,” paraphrased.
I do question the decision making skills of our current council majority.
Joyce Saltzgiver met with the developer and immediately said it was OK with her to build housing on the golf course. Casta residents should have put her head on a stick. She retorted, “You folks don’t understand the art of negotiation.”
Joyce is just plain dumb, and the developer and the anti-D shills are making a fool of her. Amost no one is willing to serve on our HOA board. We end up with incompetents who have no business experience and no sense. Sunrise got into a financial mess and backed out. Otherwise, the golf course would be gone.
Wonder which one of the hacks goes by ‘Newbie’. Everything that I discuss on these blogs or anywhere is now and has been in the public domain. Since I read EVERY word of the weekly packages, and have copies of most things, especially contracts and check registers, I could see the wasteful spending of the city.
Since you are misinformed, I have to assume that one of the MUK are still lying about a lawsuit. I did sue Trish, Lance, and the secretary who sued me to start all this. There was no monetary amount, just asking for an investigation, information and clearing my name from the lies that were allowed to be launched against me mere weeks before the 20PER04 election. Your champions settled with her the night before the election without ever investigating the claims being made! But then all you know this, What you do have to be careful of is making false accusations against a member of the public.
No longer being an elected official, slander against me cannot be used without facts and proof. In the case against TK, the judge ruled in their favor because, he said ‘they were Legislative persons and held ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY IN THAT THEY HAD “PRIVILEGE”. AND THAT, PRIVILEGE COVERS COMMUNICATIONS THAT ARE FRAUDULENT, PERJURIOUS, UNETHICAL AND ILLEGAL”.
So there you have it. Your little sweetheart continues to this day with these traits. Not the kind of thing you want to hold up as a model for your scouts. She was unethical and illegal but because she was elected, she skipped.
I was ruled against in the original lawsuit by an employee by MUK not by a court and without an investigation or hearing. But all that’s moot now. I quit politics, but I still read, listen, watch and engage. It is who I have always been.
If it were not for me and hundreds of others being foot soldiers in the fight against an airport, you would be listening to airplanes instead of her shrill voice.
No one ever said that we had a solid offer in hand. I do however have files full of the proposals made on the golf course, Unisys, the animal shelter property, and a whole lot. more
My paperwork is almost as good as Larry’s.
Newbie.
“Trust, but verify” applies here. I would caution anyone challenging Gail Reavis without all of the facts, not input from third parties or hearsay. This is one fight I guarantee you will lose.
Letter from former MV Community Services Commission Chairman on MV Dispatch
Letter: Past Commission Chairman Gallup Urges Yes On D
by MissionViejoDispatch.com on May 28, 2010
It is so important to have a clear voice of truth with facts about Measure D. Thank you Gail!
Measure D may be our last chance to preserve our quality of life in Mission Viejo. We have seen the erosion of lifesyle brought about by past “small zoning changes” that sold out valuable open space to more building.
There is a lot of money to be made building high density housing in Mission Viejo, and it is showing up from the opponents of Measure D.
Vote YES on D
Alan F. Gallup
Past Chairman
Mission Viejo Community Services Commission
One more thing about the ‘insurance’ crack. Yes, I asked a lot of questions when I was in office and I’m sure TK and FU are very glad I did. You see, the ’employees’ get $925/mo for insurance. If they have ‘other’ insurance, they get to take the money. The electeds cannot get money, at least not right away…
They can have the $925/mo put aside into a retirement account which is theirs the minute they leave office. This I believe was as of 2006(?) when the state attorney general ruled that the electeds were employees too. That is in addition to the recently doubled monthly stipend for council members. and the Health savings account of $2500/yr which all employees can use to pay for co-pays, health equipment, pretty glasses etc. for themselves and their whole families.
Something less than the $925 was set aside for my retirement account for two years. As with the Pres, it was in account which I did not manage and could not access until leaving office. Since I left at the time of the market meltdown, there was very little left after taxes. (Just being truthful here). Maybe later I will go into all of the ‘other’ stipends’ that our electeds make while in office. Most of the ‘Boards’ they have appointed themselves to pay a per meeting stipend. i.e. The Toll Roads Boards, the OCFA, SCAG, OCTA, and many many more. Add it up, with their self directed increases, your current city council makes $2,000/mo for a required 2 meetings per month, then there’s all the other stuff they give themselves.
For the record, I received $500/mo until 2006 when some of the insurance money went into a retirement account. No one showed me what the FSA money was for, so it took me a few years to access it. I was sure to tell TK from her election how to access everything. Seems she learned VERY WELL.
No one can accuse me of doing anything to get ‘free’ lifetime health insurance. For the record though, Trish will get free lifetime health insurance if she goes for her last four years and gets reelected….
Frank would be the last person to get this benefit if he runs again in 2012 because WE, the council changed the minimum requirement to 16 years of service, not the 12 that Sherry, Susan. Bill and the old guard gave themselves.
Anything else you want to know, just ask. All of this is public information by the way.
Thank you, Gail and Alan, for speaking up. Both of you are true leaders looking out for the community.
When we tried to keep O’Neill open as our neighborhood school, the school board wouldn’t listen. Then, we proposed a charter school, and all our pleas fell on deaf ears. Now we know why. The “no” on D people have admitted the school district wants to sell the campus and convert the property to high-density housing!
We need the entire city to vote Yes on Measure D. How can anyone not get it?
Dear school parent. If you repeat propaganda often enough the public might cave in instead of reading the fine print. Simply look at the 42nd CD mail with he said vs he said. Which side is being truthful?
I did watch the COX Forum last night where they discussed the YES and NO sides of Measure D. How convenient to preselect whom would speak first instead of a coin toss as requested by Brad Morton representing the YES side. He was told he had to go first giving the NO side representatives, who I imagine watched and listened from a room outside the studio, with the advantage of making statements they knew Brad did not have a chance to refute. Legitimate debates give each side an opportunity to challenge the opposition. That is not the way COX conducted this short program.
as to the MV voters. I WOULD HATE TO BE THE ONE TO SAY “WE TOLD YOU SO.”
Dear O’Neill;
I am so glad you wrote. The parents, and the residents surrounding the two schools should be out trying to get votes FOR measure D. Use your e-mail addresses, and ask them to use theirs. I can only deduce that the reason the Saddleback board decided to oppose D was because it would take a vote of the residents (at the cost of the developer) to rezone these two properties for anything other than a school. Since they need money, it looks like their board has chosen to take you and the voters out of the equation and now (if D loses) it will be only the district, and three people on the city council to decide the fate of these schools.
Another interesting factoid to the NO people is that Butterfield and Withrow tried to close down and sell Montanoso and Sierra in their last year. That was the impetus for Kelley to run. She seems to have forgotten what she originally stood for and drank the Kookaid. Please let everyone at your district know to VOTE YES ON D
Madame Mayor
In 35 years in Mission Viejo, I have never seen this city in a worse situation. City hall has become a fortress against the citizens. They have our tax dollars, and they are using our money to turn the city upside down. They want apartments on every corner. They probably dream of draining the lake to put up apartments. (Hey, no more problem about having to build around the flood plain.)
The city manager is a criminal who has a Get Out Of Jail card so he can’t be fired for the felonies he has committed. Trish Kelly and Frank Ury are self-serving liars. Withrow and Butterfield were bad, but Kelly and Ury are much worse. Joyce Saltzgiver is a patsy who would put her name on anything, including lies. They are using her.
Dennis Wilberg should be prosecuted. Where are the watchdogs these days?
MV Longtimer.
We have a policy on this blog against personal attacks. While Dennis’s new contract in itself is a crime, we shall not bring him into this discussion that is about Measure D from the eyes of a former mayor who cares about, and remains active in, our city.
Please comment on the topic or jump into the debate.
Thank you!
So all the former mayors except foe Reavis are against D and Reavis is threatening legal action if anyone disagrees with her? That in itself suggests the argument on Measure D is long over. By the way, I heard she married for money and was the most corrupt person who ever sat on the council. Just what I haeard but I certainly wouldn’t use her to prop up an argument. Too much baggage to close the sale.
LBM.
As a regular participant on this blog you surely are aware of our policy on personal attacks. To bring former mayor Reavis’s husband into this discussion when he has never been a public figure is about to put you in the penalty box. Knock it off.
My posts are not to be used as your punching bag.
Due to the problems on this website today, I don’t think my reply went through, so try try again.
Thus ‘little big man’ person hides behind a blog name, and I wonder what part of him is ‘little’…..?
Come out from the shadows and debate me openly. The problem with the secretary sueing me was that the city NEVER INVESTIGATED. They provided her with an attorney, and I accepted the ‘free help’ from a friend of Frank Ury’s. That ended the night before the election of 2004 without any investigation or input. So if you agree with guilty until proven innocent, good luck. I hope you run for office and soon.
My husband and I have been married for over 17 years now. Happily married. He is not a ‘rich man’, he is retired.
You wanna talk about rich, maybe when you come out from the shadows, we could talk about the city manager retirement pay or the CALPERS retirement pay for our employees. We would be talking serious money, and money that the taxpayers have guaranteed for their lifetimes
Leave my husband out of this. He worked hard for one company all of his adult life, we count our pennies and live a nice enough retirement because we handle money smarter than the city or the state.
Your last comment about corruption should be directed at Butterfield, Withrow and Craycraft who were found guilty of violations of the Brown Act. Or our last Mayor who was thrown out of office in a recall. The number one gold standard for this city would be Mayor Norman P. Murray. He would be ashamed of what this city has come to and the council playing games with the Master Plan.
I want to stay on the subject of Measure D, while informing you that our current mayor gave $600,000 to one of the car dealerships in the city and has accepted many contributions since that time. I voted no and was hammered by Sacramento politicians who had tried to intercede on their behalf. Maybe if you really cared about this city, you would dig deeper and find out who is ripping the taxpayers off. That would be persons who are currently in charge… Not us peons.
Madame Mayor,
Larry knows which of the “hacks” I am, so feel free to talk with him about my land use ideas and experience. It’s so nice that a former public servant would be so quick to judge me with absolutely no idea who I am or what I stand for.
I think you’re confusing “Girl Scout Leader” (I am not him/her) with “Newbie” (me). I did not say anything about your claims against the City, the councilmembers, City staff, etc. However, since you brought it up, I would note that you did file a claim against the City, Trish Kelley, Lance MacLean, Frank Ury, Kathy Rios, and Peter Thorson under Government Code section 910 (a precursor to a lawsuit) in which you sought $10,025,000 in damages. I know that just slipped your mind, but I thought I’d bring it up for fairness to all sides.
As for the airport, if you were one of the ones on the frontlines to stop an international airport at El Toro, you always will have my thanks.
You didn’t exactly refute my points, but I’d be happy to take a look at any documents you feel support your points. As I lawyer, I enjoy operating in the factual world and the more, the better.
Larry,
As to your comment about the Cox forum, I have it straight from the horse’s mouth (Willis in this case), that he overheard a conversation between Mr. Morton and a Cox representative where Mr. Morton asked if there was a coin toss and he was told yes and he lost, so his side was to go first. Please confirm with Mr. Morton whether this was the case. I also can confirm that Willis was inside the studio listening while Mr. Morton was speaking. Take whatever you want from that, but Geoff obviously had prepared in advance of the forum. Geoff also has authorized me to note that he wanted a debate and he will be happy to debate Mr. Morton on Measure D if it can be arragend prior to the election.
Still chicken to tell us who you are…. As for judgement, I have been judged for nearly 20 years by elected officials who did not know who I am. Starting with everytime I showed up at the Board of Supes, OCRAA, Jan Mittermeier and Courtney Wierciouch asked the then president of the business council to ask me to leave a meeting that I had been invited to. One that I sat quietly at and spoke to no one, they knew I was an airport fighter and did not want witnesses at their meeting. Go back and check the records, the OC news station came to my home to interview me to find out what happened.
Unfortunately, after the secretary sued me and the TK, LM and BC settled with her the night before the election without any investigation, I had a ‘friend’ who was an attorney and also very long time friend and associate of Frank Ury. He sent me the papers with the dollar amount on it. Even though I did not agree, he was doing this as a ‘friend’, and the city had never provided me with any council and refused to investigate or talk to me. They JUDGED me wihout ever getting the facts. Anyway, this friend of Frank’s turned out to be his friend indeed, and amittedly misled us into some decisions. The claim he had me make was the first one in the history of the city (that I ever saw) that was not rejected or refused out of hand. When it would have expired by time, we decided to sue, NOT FOR ANY DOLLAR AMOUNT, AND NOT THE CITY. The lawsuit was against TK, LM and te secretary. Beginning with her false accusations, but tTK and LM because they had abused my right to council and judged me without due process. In the end, the judge ruled that they had ‘legislative immunity’, and that they could say things against myself or anyone else that were illegal, false, perjurious, and a number of other things. In other words, They had immunity because they were elected, I did not even though elected. The secretary got lucky and got covered under their ruling, but she was not elected. Like I said. You run for office and good luck to you.
Don’t worry that this might slip my mind, TK and FU are sure to bring it up often to anyone who will listen. Of course they do get is wrong and say that I sued the city No, I did not sue the city, I sued her! and I would have settled for an apology, not any money. But the judge decided they were above the law. My ‘friend’ the attorney never said one word the day the judge said he would take their arguments under consideration. The CJPIA definitely provided them with better advice than I got. But then they had an open check book. I was at the goodwill of a volunteer. Like I said. You run. If you try to be independent, you’d better have a good lawyer and lots of money. You are on your own.
Little Big Man is a reference to my cultural identity and not to any part of my antaomy. Although that’s about the fourth time on this blog that someone has made that reference. That penis jokes are the first argumentative strategy you folks jump to shows a certain level of style and taste.
Ms. Reavis, you should be aware of how you’re perceived in our community. I am just a normal citizen and voter who comes here from time to time to get this particular perception on what’s going on. My comments are, of course, limited since I’m not really an insider, but if I’ve heard clearly what I have heard, imagine what others with more knowledge are saying.
It seems to me that Newbie, being a lawyer, has a lot more authority to speak on this issue that either Ms. Reavis or Mr. Gilbert who have no direct knowledge of land usage law. Nor do I so I’m not an expert on Measure D. My sole intent was to point out that the pro-Measure D forces don’t seem to have an expert to explain why we need it. The anti D side however does in Attorney Willis, plus they have five former mayors, including Robert Breton. Of course, you will argue that all five of them are in cahoots or something equally as silly.
The endorsement list for the anti Measure D side really looks to be grass roots, plus some very heavy hitters as far as organizations.
I have yet to make up my mind on this issue, but this discussion really hasn’t done much but make me look more favorably on voting No.
Still calling names and still not accepting responsibility for your actions Madame Mayor? Unfortunately, I can’t get any documents from the Orange County Superior Court’s website to verify your claims, but if you have a copy of the petition and the judgment, I’d be happy to review it. My understanding (yes, this comes from Trish Kelley) is that your lawsuit (yes, you didn’t file a lawsuit against the city, you only filed a claim against the city for $10 million) was dismissed as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suit. What that typically means is that the lawsuit is dismissed because it is an improper attempt to stifle someone’s constitutional rights by intimidating them with a lawsuit that will cost them so much in legal fees that they will abandon their protected speech. Again, I deal in facts, so if you have a copy of the complaint and the judgment, I will be happy to look at them and offer my thoughts.
Newbie, et. al.
This post is about Mission Viejo Measure D. I would hope that all sides stay on point and not engage in the politics of distortion and distraction.
And Madame Mayor, there are good and important reasons for many of our commenters to maintain their anonymity, but Newbie’s not “chicken.” Larry Gilbert knows who he is and has had lunch with him. You can contact him that way.
You are correct that my first post would have been better directed at ‘girl scout’. From there on, everything I say is true, and my ‘expert experience’ comes from 8 years on the council. Yes, Bob Breton is an attorney and also spent time on the council. t.The folks against measure D mostly including the major dollars from the real estate Political Action Committee all have a ‘dog’ in this fight.
With five days to go, and all that money being fronted by a major community organizer, there are some very major hitters on the no side. This blog has rules about not being negative about anyone, so I will let it go there. Many people can say that telling the truth is ‘too negative’. If you want to have more information on any NO on D folks we will have to have this conversation ‘off line’. Lets stick to the measure and not the personalities who support or oppose it.
Please do not be an ‘Eric Holder’ and decide an issue or law by what you read in the paper or who whispers in your ear. There is only one way to know if it is what you want, and that is to read the initiative yourself. As I discussed the measure with one city official, they gave me many persons (reasons) they thought it was bad. Until we sat down and that person read it in front of me. Then they said… I agree with the initiative. If saying that you are voting for something is going to cause you personal problems, then don’t say it. Voting is a personal experience and whatever you decide in the voting booth, I hope you will be at peace with it.
Gail
Madame Mayor,
I appreciate your opinions, even if I do not agree with all of them (remember, you have my thanks re the airport). I do agree that everyone should not just simply take the word of either the Yes or No side, but should read the initiative themselves and then ask questions of someone with knowledge of the issues. I have been doing land use litigation for 6+ years and have quite a bit of experience with reading and interpreting statutes and contracts. All of my comments are based solely on my review and analysis of Measure D. In fact, even though Geoff Willis is a close friend and colleague, we disagree on some of the finer points of the measure. However, we both agree that it is not a well-written measure and, particularly the electorate requirement, will do a lot of damage in the future to Mission Viejo businesses. I have said before that I personally do not think redevelopment is a panacea that should move forward at all costs. As Larry can attest, I am opposed to government abuses through the eminent domain process. I am also staunchly opposed to AB 32 (the Global Warming bill) and SB 375 (a transportation-based bill that seeks to wipe out urban sprawl), both of which will decimate California businesses. However, I also do not see why all mixed-use projects are evil which seems to be the opinion of several Yes on D folks. I understand where the concerns came from (particularly the Casta del Sol golf course), but, unfortunately, Measure D cannot stop state-mandated affordable housing.
The intent was never to try and stop affordable housing. In fact, I have had to remind a few builders including the one who owns the newly rezoned K-Mart property that he ‘owes’ the people of Mission Viejo 38 affordable townhomes. Immediately after coming to the city and getting their properties rezoned for residential to include 15% affordable, these same developers came to the city begging to pay the city for the affordable housing so that the city could go buy another property and move their affordable obligation away from them. The property that was suggested to me more than once was the Tuesday Morning property. That was a windfall for the property owner and rezoned for 81 units 15% of which must be affordable. Now the old k-mart property owners what to shove all of the affordables into one property.
I think we did the right thing for the city when we resolved the state lawsuit by providing affordable housing opportunities on 5 properties in the city. They already have these rights or entitlements and Measure D will not stop it. It was never intended to.
However, if and when these same developers try to change their entitlements and shift their responsibility to build affordable anywhere other than their entitlements have granted them, they would have to pay for an election if Measure D passes. That election would be a majority if those voting in that election, not a majority of residents in the city, or even a majority of registered voters in the city.
Please feel free to go back and read from the beginning what I have said. There are developers asking the city for changes and trying to wiggle out of their obligations. The city will be giving the developer for the 1/2 of the Target property rezoned for residential substantial millions to build that affordable housing they were given entitlements for. And, that’s OK, that was what the redevelopment set-aside money was intended for. I would rather it be used for affordable instead of the state taking it from us which is what just happened to all cities recently. I don’t remember the affordable housing advocates picketing the state for your money intended for affordable housing. They were no where to be seen, neither were the RE PAC people there fighting for the affordable mandate.
When I was mayor, it was a top priority to satisfy the state requirement for affordable housing in MV. I was very proud and keep a copy of the letter from the housing agency thanking us for keeping our word and providing those opportunities. It was one of the highlights of being in office. Again, no one is trying to stop affordable housing. We just thought it was a better idea to spread it out throughout the city and the state agreed with us.
On the other hand, the current mayor had said that she does not want any more housing in ‘her’ side of the city. She thinks Capo is too crowded and she does not want any more students going to ‘her’ school.
Good luck with Measure D. Like I said in the beginning, if D fails, I feel sorry for the residents, but they can never say they weren’t given an opportunity.
I have also asked people if they support Measure 16. If they do, they should vote YES on D for the same reason. Does it make sense to you that 16 says you should keep your right to vote, and those opposed to D are saying that the D right to vote initiative is harmful? There is a complete lack of consistency here. If the PAC believed their rhetoric, they would also come out against 16. Instead, they throw tens of thousands of dollars into our little initiative.
What are they afraid of? bark bark
Madame Mayor,
I thank you for the additional information on affordable housing. However, with respect to the electorate requirement, you are incorrect if the judge (and yes, there will be many lawsuits over Measure D) applies basic statutory interpretation principles. I have documented these in a separate post that Larry can refer you to if you’re interested. The long and short of it is that since Measure D uses “electorate” in one area when it talks of voting and “voters” in another, statutory principles require those words to have different meanings. Since electorate means those registered to vote, it is highly likely a judge will require that a majority of registered voters, and not just those voting in the election, to pass any project. You know as well as I do that if that is the case, no project subject to Measure D will ever meet that massive threshold. That is the danger to those businesses projects that will come under Measure D – nothing will ever be able to pass and potential new businesses will be scared off and expansion will cease. In addition, if the measure is read as broadly as a good land use attorney can argue, many projects I believe Measure D supporters never intended would come under the umbrella of the measure and likewise be doomed.
Newbie.
We discussed the electorate and voter wording discrepancy before. I spoke to a successful property rights attorney in LA County who provided the info on Howard Jarvis’s Prop 13 and the other case which I referenced. I can probably find the Case # but have other pressing matters to handle before Tuesday.
Larry, I definitely would like the case and Prop. 13 references. Here’s what I’m guessing is the case – neither the case nor Prop. 13 have two different terms for the same issue that Measure D has – electorate and voters here. The cases I cited to you earlier address what happens when two different terms are used, as they are here; namely, the court will find that they have two different meanings. That’s been the problem with the language all along. If they’d used “electorate” or “voters” in both places, there would be no problem. Using both of them in different places is what will force the court to apply statutory interpretation rules and find two different meanings. Under that scenario, there can only be one outcome – electorate means all of the registered voters, and voters means voters in that election. Take your time on the references, but I’m happy to review them.
Over and out. Like I said in my last post, good luck.
And, I did review one of Newbie’s posts and see that he keeps offerring to review things for us. Can’t see what good that will do other than to save him $.25 per page on public records. Everything that happened is public record. TK surely has copies, but prefers lies and distortions. I have files full of stuff on many subjects, including who supported an airport. That would be OC Tax’s #1 guy who now opposes Measure D. He has never done anything for Mission Viejo, and I do not expect that he actually “Cares’ and is trying to do something good for us now.
Goodbye and good luck.