On September 22nd, Transportation California issued a Press Release addressing the cost born by motorists due to neglected roads in the Nation.
Reading from the Press Release, in which they reference a report from TRIP, it states that “roads are battered and shattered in every urban area of California, and they are costing the state’s motorists hundreds of dollars a year at a time when they can ill afford it” said Transportation California Executive Director Bert Sandman.
For the past year local Mission Viejo citizens have identified over 100 local streets with potholes and cracks, many with weeds growing through those cracks. They notified, and pleaded with, our city council and staff to address this lack of infrastructure maintenance which eventually resulted in work being performed.
Back in the early 90s, to divert infrastructure maintenance of our streets and slopes to use that savings for CIP’s, the council revised our street maintenance cycle from five to seven years. How many of you remember the Fram Oil filter ad “You can pay me now…or pay me later” (as … of having to pay much more (later).”
Back to the TRIP report. The Press Release from Transportation California includes a chart listing Mission Viejo ranked 21st in the nation for worst road conditions. They report 33% of Mission Viejo roads as being in poor condition. Quoting further. “In California, 17 of the 19 largest urban areas exceed the national average of 24 percent of roadways rated poor.”
As the road condition facts are accurate, they list Mission Viejo as an urban area, not just a city of 100,000 residents. That said, there is no question that our roads have been neglected.
This is not simply a case of road appearances. When you factor in the wear and tear and added cost of maintenance of your vehicles due to neglect “the national average for driving on roads that have pavement in poor condition is $402 a year. But its generally more expensive in California: more than $500 annually in most of the state’s urban areas and more than $700 in San Jose, Los Angeles and San Francisco-Oakland, the three highest in the nation.”
Kudos’ to the Mission Viejo citizens who took their own time as volunteers to elevate this issue to those in power who for years have ignored our deteriorating streets and slopes while spending millions on cost overrun projects or a feel good float in the Tournament of Roses parade during the recession.
When questioned about that taxpayer funded $300,000 to $400,000 Rose Parade project, incumbents, acknowledging our being in a recession in 2008, responded stating that we budgeted for this project in the prior year. So it has no impact on this years budget. So as good fiscal conservatives we might as well go forward and spend it rather than cancel it?
In her Candidate Statement council member Trish Kelley claims to have “consistently provided fiscally responsible leadership.” And she wants our votes on November 2nd?
Glad they take the time though to oppose measure H, and campaign with the “reform” board at the local schools while accusing the “union” of doing the same thing. You’re all hypocrites and as long as the money is lining your own pockets or those of your friends, it’s all okay with the Republicans in Mission Viejo or RSM.
You just get angry when your people don’t get endorsed or when you get called out on the hypocrisy!
By the way, there are lots of Republicans in CUSD that don’t support the current board, the OC GOP’s interference into the issue and the constant badgering of our teachers, who also happen to be overwhelmingly Republican.
Whatever.
As I do not recall your adding comments on our blog previously let me share our few simple rules.
As the Juice team writes a broad spectrum of posts on specific topics please stay on the thread. Do not introduce “stuff” that has zero to do with the topic, especially when we have published multiple stories on the CUSD election. That is where you should direct any support or comments in opposition.
While each of us has latitude in what we find objectionable it basically can be summed up to say refrain from personal attacks, use of offensive language, or repetitive remarks that might be considered Spam.
Please, Mission Viejo City Council took it upon themselves to inject their opinion into the debate about Measure H, they make themselves fair game.
You’re kidding right?
Sorry I dared comment on your story, which is public and open to comments and you didn’t like what I had to say.
You failed to address the content, defensive much?
This city council is far more interested in local political drama, partisanship, and taking sides in things they don’t have any businesses in taking sides in that it makes sense the city is falling apart.
Suing CUSD because of buses? Campaigning on school grounds?
I’m just calling them like I see them, and it was the Mission Viejo City Council who injected themselves into the CUSD issue.
Whatever.
Let me type very slowly.
This post is about our streets period. Yes I took liberty to compare council members misguided priorities at the close. This is not about yard signs.
Whatever. Did you read the title of this story? It is not about CUSD.
While comments may have appeared referencing unions they were not from me.
As I drive around Mission Viejo I see literally hundreds of YES on H and other signs for the candidates wishing to remove the incumbents.
Perhaps you can point me to the campaign who has funded these yard signs.
Later today I may check these signs out to see whose campaign ID appears on them. If there is none the only conclussion I can reach is that they are being paid for by a “special interest” group as an IE, better known as an “independent expenditure” where the candidates are not supposed to be aware of or participating in these expenditures.
Excuse me? So you are saying their signs are illegal with NO EVIDENCE what so ever?
Seriously?
There is such a thing as an “in kind” donation, which is legal and completely legal. You really need to think before you type.
Whatever.
Campaign signs are not illegal. You missed my point. When the 460 financial data is published let us each check to see if the challengers in the CUSD election report any expenditures for a bazillion yard signs that are plastered all over our city.
“In kind” contributions are valid. However, who is behind them makes for a good follow up story. Is it the Teachers Union or simply some other special interests that does not wish to have their identity exposed? Traditional supporters give candidates contributions to get their message to the voter in various forms including these signs. As such the candidate himself or herself is in control of them.
Mystery person. While I can’t speak for you I generally know the topics presented in my posts in that there is always someone like yourself who will test me. And that’s OK. It forces each of the Juice authors to be on our game 24/7.
Oh God, you must be back on the Union, union, union rant. Typical. You avoided the topic of questionable choices of the City of Mission Viejo to focus their attention at city issues and bring it back to unions.
I should have known.
And there are plenty of anon people commenting on both sides. Get used to it, it’s an ugly battle and the “reform” board has supporters who are willing to show up at people’s work places, or maybe even their homes, to serve papers. What else will they do.
And I thought the supposed enemies list was bad. The new board has brought a whole new level of chaos to our district, our cities and the cronyism is rampant.
Yeah, I know, UNION.
*”A Nation of Roads….” in 1811 they came up with the first National Highway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Road
“Fixing a hole where the rain comes in….sets my mind to wandering…..where they will go…”
Beatles of course!
How about a “Class Action suit” against the City Council for not repairing the city streets?
Everyone just sends in there tire and undercarriage purchases for last year….and watch
them spit.
rw
Ron & Anna.
Thinking about this post I am remined of some sage advise from one of my political mentors describing what local voters pay attention to. Simply stated. Keep your message short and sweet. Promote no crime and no potholes.
While we exceeded most cities in his first comment we blew it on point number two. We diverted money from our road maintenance to one “special interest” project that remains very powerful to this day. The change was altering our road maintenance cycle from 5 to 7 years.
At the time I added a third issue for voters. Don’t let our cable TV go out.
Whatever,
You obviously have no clue who Larry Gilbert is. While he and I don’t always see eye to eye on every issue, he tirelessly works to make transparency in Mission Viejo city government the norm. He is a thorn in the side of many Councilmembers (for better or worse), and is a regular commenter at City Council meetings. For you to say that he avoids the topic of questionable choices by the City Council is so absurd it hardly needs rebutting – have you even read his previous posts on here?. And yes, there is evidence that the unions are both behind the recall and funding it as well (see Larry’s post about the IEs for signs). In case you missed it, cities regularly comment and even take positions on measures that affect their communities. You have a right to be a supporter of Measure H, but the City Council has an equal right to oppose it. From what I’ve seen and heard, a majority of people oppose the measure, but feel free to gloat in November if it passes, but I suspect we won’t hear from you again after it goes down to defeat.