Sooner or later you knew it was coming. In yesterday’s Mission Viejo mail I received a mailer whose cover page reads “Lance MacLean and John Paul Ledesma lied to us.” It goes on to say “It’s Time For Mission Viejo Residents To Fight Back.”
Mission Viejo recently conducted a “push poll” survey of residents, drafted by incumbents, which resulted in a favorable opinion of our city. Councilmembers MacLean and Trish Kelley, who along with John Paul Ledesma, each of whom is up for re-election, refer to that survey as part of their message as to why they need to be re-elected.
At times it is useful to look back at history. Four years ago the City of Mission Viejo was in great shape. One of the safest cities in America under 100,000 in population, money in the bank, great parks with programs for our children, wonderful library with more bricks than books, etc.Yet in spite of the surface picture was the attitude of former councilmembers Susan Withrow and Sherri Butterfield, each of whom were soundly trounced in their bid for re-election. Mind you we are speaking of a sitting mayor and mayor pro-tem. OC Register editorial writer Steve Greenhut called the Nov 2002 election the Revolution in Mission Viejo. And he was right. There is something to be said about how elected officials deal with members of the public. Some forget that they are public servants and are to listen to, not rule over, us, the people who put them into office in the first place.
In the hit piece is a perfect illustration that is worth noting. the subject is part of an email sent by Lance MacLean to a property owner last July. I have a copy of that email that has been in my files for over a year so I am very familiar with the background. Let me simply quote from inside of yesterday’s mailer.
“MacLean responds to local homeowners:”
“You and most of your neighbors are so uninformed that it is pathetic.” The mailer states that this comment is from an email sent by Lance to a Mission Viejo homeowner on July 18, 2005. Will the sky fall. Who knows. Does this illustrate the kind of attitude we should expect from our city council members. Absolutely not.
PS: I had zero forknowledge of this mailer nor did I provide the email referenced therein. If you have not figured it out yet most of my time and efforts are focused on stopping the renewal of Measure M and speaking out in favor of Prop 90 to protect our homes, businesses and farms.As always the Orange Juice bloggers appreciate your feedback.
Larry
So, Larry —
Are you comfortable taking one sentence without any background or context to it and making conclusions from it?
I could read the sentence you provided and imagine a scenario where that statement would be perfectly appropriate.
For example:
MacLean said “You and most of your neighbors are so uninformed that it is pathetic” in response to his concern that others did not communicate well with these neighbors during some process and thus they are uniformed.
In other words, he is pissed at those that should have informed the neighbors and not at the residents.
He could have said, “It is pathetic that you have been left in the dark about this condition”
Larry, it seems that fairness is a one-way street with you and your Mission Viejo “mafia” buds.
As long as everyone agrees with you then all is well. But stand-by when someone doesn’t agree.
Good evening “voted for measure M.”
There are times when every member of our current city council disagrees with me even though I helped every one of them get elected. That’s their call. Disagreement is healthy so long as you are making policy decisions based on a fair review of all factors. However once elected, unlike some of your challengers, you have a minor disadvantage. It’s called your voting record. You don’t have to support our issues and by the same token we are not obligated to support you down the road.
Let me restate my post. I had zero to do with the hit piece that I referenced. My Mafia buds? Are you claiming that I along with some residents have Mafia connections?
I have a copy of the referenced mailer in front of me. From your post I believe that you also received a copy? Before making allegations that I took one sentence out of it’s content perhaps you can enlighten the readers as to what part of that exchange I failed to cover. Although additional charges appear in the mailer nothing else regarding the email from Lance is printed. There are other allegations in the mailer but my point was to illustrate how a successful city can still engage in it’s own form of Term Limits by throwing out incumbents who do in fact break campaign promises or simply go astray or let the job go to their heads.
And to your last comment. Let me say that several elected officials and candidates disagree with my position on Measure M. That has not kept me from assisting them in their campaigns. They acknowledge our simply having a difference of views on this huge issue. My sense is that they are beginnng to see that my arguments for opposing the extension have merit.
Stay tuned. Another “hit piece” from the same PAC arrived in today’s mail. I will post it’s contents later and look forward to your criticism.
Larry
PS: As to Measure M. Have you noticed the large red on white No on M signs in your city? If not let me know and we will oblige.
Good evening “voted for measure M.”
There are times when every member of our current city council disagrees with me even though I helped every one of them get elected. That’s their call. Disagreement is healthy so long as you are making policy decisions based on a fair review of all factors. However once elected, unlike some of your challengers, you have a minor disadvantage. It’s called your voting record. You don’t have to support our issues and by the same token we are not obligated to support you down the road.
Let me restate my post. I had zero to do with the hit piece that I referenced. My Mafia buds? Are you claiming that I along with some residents have Mafia connections?
I have a copy of the referenced mailer in front of me. From your post I believe that you also received a copy? Before making allegations that I took one sentence out of it’s content perhaps you can enlighten the readers as to what part of that exchange I failed to cover. Although additional charges appear in the mailer nothing else regarding the email from Lance is printed. There are other allegations in the mailer but my point was to illustrate how a successful city can still engage in it’s own form of Term Limits by throwing out incumbents who do in fact break campaign promises or simply go astray or let the job go to their heads.
And to your last comment. Let me say that several elected officials and candidates disagree with my position on Measure M. That has not kept me from assisting them in their campaigns. They acknowledge our simply having a difference of views on this huge issue. My sense is that they are beginnng to see that my arguments for opposing the extension have merit.
Stay tuned. Another “hit piece” from the same PAC arrived in today’s mail. I will post it’s contents later and look forward to your criticism.
Larry
PS: As to Measure M. Have you noticed the large red on white No on M signs in your city? If not let me know and we will oblige.