Thank you Larry, and I think it’s important to explain what we, the public, understood when Kelley motioned to remove the goal “generate revenue from cell tower leases”.

The public was expressing mass opposition to the city’s adoption of the ATS Wireless Master Plan, and outrage that by voting to “accept” the plan, the city was encouraging ATS to market our parks to cell tower companies for $$ and was solidifying their contract with ATS as a “separate entity” or arm of the city, subject to their own legal structure. Ledesma was expressing concern that the city had now given ATS the exclusive rights as a 1 Bid contractor in all future cell lease decisions.

So, what the public was understanding (and believing) from Kelley’s motion, was that she wanted to assure the public that this ATS deal was not about money; that the city’s intentions were good and would be for the public benefit instead of financial gain.

I suppose these intentions related to “better cell phone coverage for city residents” and “better planning and co-locating of antenna sites”.

When the public hears an elected official making a pledge or promise, they expect that this is coming from an honest place. The public feels betrayed when such promises are not kept, and that is why the public starts going around singing, “the Hills are Alive with the Sound of Money”.

It is my hope that Kelley will remain true to her promise, and uphold the trust that MV citizens have placed in her.

(sung to “The Sound of Music”

Council member Kelley made a Motion to amend two of the proposed goals. First relating to potential park sites and here second related to revenue. Trish Kelley’s quote from the city video archives follows:

“Eliminate goal #4..delete that from the study to generate additional revenue for the city of Mission Viejo ..I don’t think that needs to be a goal that we have in our planning document and I would like to call for eliminating that.”

The revenue generation bullet was deleted. I would argue that her Motion was relevent to the council vote that evening yet we now are looking to cash out.
Another brilliant comment came from Bill Curley, our city attorney, who stated “the contract is flexible in the city’s favor.” Really???
Member Ledesma argued that he opposed our giving “exclusive” rights after having paid ATS $200,00 for creating the Plan to market city sites.

I as a resident of Mission Viejo am very disturbed that we are liquidating such valuable assets. These assets take no maintenance, no care, and certainly no administration by any city staffer. Also it would appear that ATS and “The good old boys network” within the industry have conspired to low ball the bid. Instead of seeking more bidders the city acquiesces to ATS to find bidders–totally unacceptable. Is there a conflict here—you bet there is.!!!

Obviously your casual conversation found; in minutes, more interested parties for the purchase of these sites if–God forbid–these valuable assets are liquidated.

It is only financially responsible to publicly submit this opportunity to a valid and public bidding process. It appears that the administration can be held accountable for their lack of fiduciary responsibility.

Grover Cleveland

Instead of liquidating assets, why not spend some time before holding the fire sale on Monday to figure out which city employee embezzled $45 million?

The goal that Kelley was pledging to remove was: Generate revenue for the city.

Kelley’s motion was seconded, and unanimously approved by the council.

If Kelley supports this monetization of cell tower leases on Monday night, she will be presenting herself in a hypocritical and dishonest light. So, I hope she will think carefully before supporting Cellular Tower/Antennas as the new cash cow of the city.

MV residents who own homes in close proximity to city leased cell towers have to accept potential property value loss over the perceived hazards of radiation from these cellular antennas.

How will these residents feel when they learn that the city of Mission Viejo and ATS, are cashing in TWICE on their misfortune? the first time when they earned the lease revenue, and the second time when they cash out on these very same cell tower leases.

(Today I emailed both Councilmembers Kelley and Ledesma to interview them on their opinions of the ATS deal, and neither has responded so far)

http://www.MVcell-out.org