My focus on the prior post on the first “hit piece “ to arrive in Mission Viejo mailboxes dealt with attitude. The cover of today’s’ mailer reads “councilmen Ledesma, MacLean and Kelley have betrayed our Republican values.” The inside text has two themes. “Let Us Down On Taxes” and “Let Us Down On Spending”Let me post the three charges as stated in the second allegation.
Delayed construction of our Senior Center costing Mission Viejo taxpayers over $5 million dollars in excessive building costs!
Voted to award a costly city ambulance contract to the Medix Corporation–even though they were NOT the lowest bidder. They add a footnote which reads. MacLean received a $1,500 campaign donation from Medix after his vote.
Voted to give a $2 million dollar taxpayer subsidy to the Audi Car Dealership.
After this entry is another footnote which reads: After his vote, MacLean accepted thousands of campaign contributions from car dealers.
Although I am very familiar with all three of these allegations, my fingerprints are not on this mailer or any other. As such it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the charges. Let the accused council members weigh in with their reaction and responses to the charges. I also encourage the author of the mailer to add any additional facts they feel appropriate in case they are questioned by our readers.
Larry,
To your points:
1. Senior Center:
A. If a conservative like yourself is FOR smaller government – why would you be FOR expanding a government building? Could you be for the senior center EXPANSION due to certain demographics that trump your political view?
B. Is there any additional conditions about the Senior Center Funding that has been left out of the mailer your refer to? In other words – were triggers on funding that “private groups” failed to meet, etc?
2. Ambulance service:
A. Why did the Council pass over the lowest bidder? They can do so on certain conditions – did they meet those?
B. What is illegal or unethical about taking and reporting campaign contributions AFTER a vote? The rules for conflict of interest apply PRIOR to a vote or action of a Council.
3. The City of Mission Viejo has the authority to use certain funds for re-development of the city.
A.The car dealership will generate tax revenues that the empty or failing businesses that existed before the car dealership did – that benefits the city. What’s the problem with that?
B. Didn’t the car dealership accept numerous terms from the city as a condition of getting the city monies?
C. Same question about accepting/received campaign donations AFTER a vote or action by the Council? Under current law – what is wrong with it?
In other words, Larry the mailer you cited is a political hit piece that only sends a small fraction of information out to the voter.
So what? It politics and you’re pretending it’s an investigative report.
Larry, you’re not Mike Wallace.
It’s Sunday – shouldn’t you be on illegal sign patrol?
Dear Voted NO on Proposition 90.
Sorry this reply is late but we just returned from church.
If you are not attending a church, or any other house of worship, perhaps you might consider it!
It’s good for what ail’s you.
For someone as bright as you pretend to be, I don’t understand you. As much as you try to bait me I did not create the mailer which is the topic of my post. That said than why are you questioning me on the three issues as listed?
If I were you I would question the author or send out your own mailer explaining your side of the story.
Mr. X. And I know who you are. You just tipped your hand. Thank you.
The mailer did NOT mention that the senior center was an EXPANSION. Only a few close to the issue would have knowledge of that minor detail. The same comment applies to the OPA with the Audi dealership owners. The average voter in Mission Viejo is not well versed in the redevelopment agency nor the owner participation agreements with the auto dealers.
And NO, I did not provide your 460 contribution data to that PAC. Anyone reading this blog can simply go to http://www.cityofmissionviejo.org than the link to the city clerk where, among other categories are, all of the campaign filing reports for the past two elections where that financial data is readily available for anyone to see.
Thank you Lance, or a Lance supporter, for reminding me of sign patrol. Sorry but my sign patrol is devoted to putting out signs in support of Prop 90 and in opposition to Measure M. Perhaps you have seen them?
Larry
Dear Voted NO on Proposition 90.
Sorry this reply is late but we just returned from church.
If you are not attending a church, or any other house of worship, perhaps you might consider it!
It’s good for what ail’s you.
For someone as bright as you pretend to be, I don’t understand you. As much as you try to bait me I did not create the mailer which is the topic of my post. That said than why are you questioning me on the three issues as listed?
If I were you I would question the author or send out your own mailer explaining your side of the story.
Mr. X. And I know who you are. You just tipped your hand. Thank you.
The mailer did NOT mention that the senior center was an EXPANSION. Only a few close to the issue would have knowledge of that minor detail. The same comment applies to the OPA with the Audi dealership owners. The average voter in Mission Viejo is not well versed in the redevelopment agency nor the owner participation agreements with the auto dealers.
And NO, I did not provide your 460 contribution data to that PAC. Anyone reading this blog can simply go to http://www.cityofmissionviejo.org than the link to the city clerk where, among other categories are, all of the campaign filing reports for the past two elections where that financial data is readily available for anyone to see.
Thank you Lance, or a Lance supporter, for reminding me of sign patrol. Sorry but my sign patrol is devoted to putting out signs in support of Prop 90 and in opposition to Measure M. Perhaps you have seen them?
Larry