Hunter watching the city council meeting
After ten too many years, the dog park finally passed in Mission Viejo by 3 to 2 on December 3rd. As an agenda item, a park for people with dogs is an up and down vote; it’s a 3 meeting item at the most. But that isn’t how we do things in Mission Viejo, No, sir.
You see, we have Brad Morton and the Mortonettes in Mission Viejo, and they never rest until they have delayed a project for so long either people lose interest or the project ends up costing the city a good ten times more than it should.
I’m kind of embarrassed our residents are going to other cities for a dog park. That cost increase, there’s a reason for it. It’s not because we want gold-seated toilets or something. — Anna T. Boyce
And along with stalling, Brad Morton and the Mortonettes employ lies. “Dog Parks are noisy,” “dogs will get off the leash and cause chaos,” “dog parks are smelly,” “a dog will bite someone,” and my personal favorite:
The dog owners are asking for a facility that will cost over $2 million. It’s an entitlement not in our master plan and it should not be paid for by taxpayers. —Harry Lensik
First of all, there has only been an estimate prepared and the range was from $600,000 to $850,000; there haven’t been any bids so no one knows how much or little it will cost. The $2 million figure is a doubling down of Larry Gilbert’s fantastical $1 million of a couple years ago. The $1 million didn’t scare anyone, you see, so they doubled down. It’s what the crazies do. The problem is that fear doesn’t work as a long-term strategy. And that is the only weapon Brad Morton and the Mortonettes have in their armory.
Besides, Harry’s lie is stupid. We’re not talking about entitlements here, we’re talking about investing in an amenity that will add value to taxpayers lives and value to the homes in the surrounding area without touching a single penny of taxpayer money. Fees paid to the city by developers will fund the project. Currently Mission Viejo has $9 million in developer fees that must be used for parks and recreation. The park for people with dogs will only use about nine percent of those funds.
But what about “The Master Plan.” Oh my God, The Master Plan is under attack again…not The Master Plan…the crazies never bothered to learn the definition of ”plan” I guess. Plans change because whatever the future holds is hidden. Who knew?
When you go to a park for people with dogs, you meet…wait for it…other people. You see, your dog is pretty busy sniffing butts so you strike up a conversation with the other people — they do after all speak your language or at least a vastly similar one. And, of course, that means you’re getting to know the people in your town which always makes for a stronger community.
Fear and the lies we tell to spread it is the purview of the cowardly.
And sure enough after a few speakers the crazies scurried rat-like from the City Council Chamber leaving behind the two Mortonettes on the dias. And if you’re upset about the ultimate cost, you don’t need to look any farther than those two if you’re looking to place blame. They represent the group that lied to the residents surrounding the only other viable spot in Mission Viejo; they lied too well, the residents threatened to sue the city and the rest of us got stuck with the more expensive spot. That location was only going to cost $250,000, and that amount was due to the group’s stall tactics for seven years.
At the end, the two Mortonettes put up illogical objections. Schlicht weighted in with a statement about how there are rattlesnakes in the area. “No, schlicht, Cathy? Rattlesnakes? Who knew?” There are some very inexpensive and common sensical things you can do to protect against rattlesnakes. I made that point and to prove me wrong Schlicht claimed she had a dog that died of a rattlesnake bite. Some people should never have kids and some people should never be allowed anywhere near dogs.
Reardon said she’d like “dog areas” whatever those are, and whatever they are it shows a stunning amount of ignorance about what sorts of exercise dogs need to be happy and healthy and how much room that requires. She doesn’t want to spend so much money, but has no alternatives to offer. Her best argument boiled down to how not everyone who has a dog will use the park or even wants the park. Let’s just ignore the insultingly obvious logical problem and take her statement on face value. Doing so let’s us respond with a snappy “So?”.
Hard as this is to believe, there are people with baseball mitts in their garage that don’t play catch, there are families with kids who don’t play soccer, and I’m pretty sure there’s at least two guitars in Mission Viejo that never are caressed by fingers.
I don’t kiss my dog on the lips, but I do sleep with it every night — Councilman Dave Leckness
Councilman Leckness’ statement is charmingly honest. We need more of that in Mission Viejo.
Like the library, the community center, the recreation centers, the tennis center, and the animal shelter, this new investment in Mission Viejo will pay off far more in dividends to our community than it ever cost us in dollars. And that is, after all, the role of government.
Great article Dan – good job!
How much did they pay for that float? How long did that thing last? People love their dogs and their dog parks. It’s a no brainer, it keeps them out public parks not meant for dogs and is overall better for everyone.
To give credit to Brother Larry Gilbert, who opposed the dog park – he was also on the front lines fighting that float.
See, these are the kind of articles that are missing in hyper-local news (although this particular one has been seen)
An entitlement? Really? All I can say is that I underestimate the butt hurt Nov 6th caused for a lot of people.
I’m so darn excited about this new Mission Viejo amenity where people can gather with their dogs. So many years, so many lies but thanks to Susan Sellers, she never gave up. Way to go Susan.
Indeed, Dorrie. In fact the entire Sellers family deserve our thanks. They had to put up with a ton of undeserved and vicious emails, personal attacks, etc. just for standing up for something they believed in.
You’re right, Mimi. One of my favorite comments that night came from the lady who said one of the bennies of the dog park would be that it would take the off-leash dogs OUT of the people parks! I hadn’t even considered that point. How many early morning joggers would sprint to vote yes on a proposal that accomplished that?
Exactly! People sometimes get so caught up in the cost they don’t see the long term benefit for the community. People who own pets have every right to ask for the City to accommodate their furry friends, they pay taxes and usually things like Dog parks benefits more than just those who own dogs. It can actually help with dogs that are barking by giving them healthy outlets, socialization for dogs, community building for residents, etc. It can also bring up property value, there are people who own dogs who might consider moving to a city with a dog park. Almost 40% of each American household OWNS at least one dog, this is a pretty big part of the population!
People can also look forward to less dog waste in their people parks (I hope, it galls me that people can’t clean up after the dogs)
So many reasons and yes, there are drawbacks, with anything there are drawbacks. It’s called life.
Brilliant!
The Forces of Good triumph over the Forces of Evil. Thank you, Susan Sellers, for your determination, perseverance, and hard work in getting this very important project approved.
Agree with you Mimi who asked for a float anyway. Reardon and Schlict were grasping for words but nothing of substance came out.
Rattlers indeed ! Great article and kudos to Susan for her efforts all along and rallying the troops! Can’t wait to bring my dogs to the park!!
Thanks for all the nice responses, folks. I can’t wait to meet you all at the dog park. I’ll be the one with Hunter.
Everyone who spoke in favor of our new dog park at the council meeting gave informed, thoughtful comments. I expected Rhonda to vote the way she did but her reasons had no substance. With 70 people in the chambers, all in support of the park, Rhonda wanted us to know that she spoke with people who did not have time to attend the meeting but voiced an objection to the park. Really! So Rhonda felt more influenced by people who did not have time to attend the meeting than by those who have worked more than 9 years to bring a dog park to Mission Viejo. I don’t get it! Great job Susan Sellers and family. Thank you for your willingness to hang in there. Thank you Dan for this masterful blog.
Is there any way of finding out the cost of the float? I’d really like to know.
Congratulations go out to Susan and her family for the persistence and stamina to see this through!, my dog Emma and my family thank you and applaud your tireless efforts to make MV an even greater city!
Can we get a motion to pass that says any savings under $2MM will be distributed in cash to the first 100 patrons of the dog park? #entitlement
OK all you dog park supporters — Susan is already buzzing with fundraising ideas to help support additional amenities for the park. When the emails go out requesting support PLEASE offer your time, contacts, a few dollars or whatever else you might have at your disposal! Susan and her family have done so much to get approval for this park — all of us dog owners really owe them not only our gratitude but our continuing support!
Vern. Stay clear of Dan’s Kool Aid fountain. Larry Gilbert did NOT oppose a dog park. In fact Larry and Joe Holtzman drove the city and found an existing park called Barbadanes that could easily have served as an interim dog park. We observed dog owners walking their pets around this park some of whom were off their leashes. There is a dog poop dispenser and a drinking fountain with a lower spigot for dog water bowls . How did they get there? Why was that provided? With probalb ymore parks in MV than every city of our size we could easily have converted part of one or more to meet this request.
In addition Cathy Schlicht and I toured almost 10 existing dog parks well over a year ago.
We traveled as far north as Fullerton and Garden Grove. What Dan fails to mention is that the dog park project has already cost the taxpayers over $250,000. The additional $860,000 estimate is only for a bare bones Phase One. Staff has refused to answer mayor pro tem Reardon’s question on their estimate of the finished Capital Improvement project. But simply go ahead and vote for it without knowing the total cost? I want it, I want it was the mentality of the supporters.
Some other minor (but relevant) facts for your readers. We built our animal shelter back in 1993/1994 BEFORE we built either our new city hall or library. I pointed tha tout in my 1994 camapaign . At that time we had large areas that could have been used for a low cost dog park rather than having to cut off the top of a mountain to create this new dog park. Mountain? Not exactly but when it is expected to cost around one half million to cut and fill that is a “force fit” not a “natural fit” for this project.
Cathy Schlicht has just concluded her first 4 year term. Where was the mandate and outrage when her predecessors were on our council, most of whom served 2 or 3 four year terms. Perhaps I missed him but I don’t recall ever seeing Dan Avery at Mission Viejo council meetings that I attended with a push for the dog park until the past few years. Susan Withrow, Sherri Butterfield, John Paul Ledesma, Bill Craycraft, Gail Reavis, etc. all preceded Cathy Schlicht. I was Trish Kelley’s campaign manager when we won in the 2002 campaign. After taking office in Jan Trish placed creating a dog park on the Agenda back in April or May of 2003. Yet for the next 6 years, before Cathy Schlicht took her seat on the council, Trish’s peers would not support a dog park. Dan ., We have the videos of those meetings. I do not recall seeing you in any of them. And with our huge reserves, as you often point out, money was never an issue. We blew over $300,000 just for a 2 minute widow to the world during the recession called a Rose Parade float on our 20th birthday. Big deal. We are not a destination city, had no housing projects to promote, but I’ve addressed that story on the Juice too many times. It’s called priorities. Don’t be pointing fingers at Cathy or myself for the delay. Be happy that you got your Christmas present . But no. Not Dan. Yes, go ahead and beat up on Cathy who has one vote.
Folks. Dan is rather upset. His candidate, Cathys’ challenger, Wendy Buchnum, whose campaign outspent Cathy’s by 2 to 3 to one, with special interest developer contributions and an $8,000 I.E. realtor and firefighter union funded hit piece, still lost. Suck it up Dan. Cathy will be sitting in that chair for the next 4 years. Get used to it.
Funny. It sounds to me like Dan is in an insufferably good mood. Over the dog park, at least. But thanks for the extra details, Juice Brother!
*”The world is going to the dogs”…….finally!
Ron & Anna . Thanks for the heads up on this blog story.
Hey Larry, don’t you read your e-mail? I told you Dan was writing this, and that you were welcome to respond. Last week. Before he even wrote it.
Cathy Schlicht is worried about dogs getting bitten by rattlesnakes? Give me a break!!!
Brother Vern. While you surely did give me a heads up on a “pending” dog park post by Dan Avery I am not scanning the blog to see when or if he followed through or its content. Ron Winship sent me an email notification. I had no intention of debating the issue but upon reading his post felt it appropriate to share the related history that was not included by Dan. Selective reporting can mislead readers. Arguing that dog owners have waited a decade for this park when Cathy has just completed four years on the council warranted further inquiry by the author, not an attack by Dan and the pro dog park advocates. I might also point out, and the Winships can confirm, that both of our Cavalier King Charles pets died in the past two years. The Winships’ interacted with both of them while they were alive. I only mention this as some have said that I am a dog hater. Enolugh said. That’s a wrap.