The following is from the www.missionviejoca.org web site.
More Spin Against Measure D, by Dale Tyler
The people opposing Measure D fall into two camps: those who are confused about its purpose and likely effects and those who will do and say anything to maintain their own power.
Leading the second group is Frank Ury, a Mission Viejo councilman. He wrote the Argument Against Measure D, published in the voter’s guide. Unfortunately for him, Cathy Schlicht decided to contest some of the claims in his ballot argument. Aided by attorney Brad Morton, Cathy filed for a writ of mandate and asked the judge to review six areas of Frank’s statement. For the judge to remove or change anything, the section had to be false and/or misleading. The judge was not allowed to remove anything else, even is it was only partially true or simple exaggeration of facts or puffery.
The judge removed three passages from Frank’s statement:
“Under State law it CAN NEVER be developed into housing”
. and “forces” Mission Viejo taxpayers to pay for it.
“Businesses wishing to expand their facilities would have to go to a full vote of the people at their own expense”
In each of these cases, Frank knew better but chose to put completely false statements in an official statement. Perhaps he thought that he could get away with this because he is used to being unchallenged when he makes false and misleading statements at council meeting or elsewhere.
Ury even tries to spin the Judge’s decision by claiming the he lost “only three” of 26 issues that were raised. However, court papers show that there were six, not 29 “causes of action,” and he is trying to say only three lies are not too bad. Sorry, Frank, everything you say about Measure D is a lie, and you know it.
At a recent debate held by the Casta Del Sol Republican Club and co-sponsored by the Saddleback Republican Assembly, Frank tried to say that there would be significant job losses caused by Measure D. However, that is untrue. In fact, there have been four conversions of commercial property to residential uses approved by various city councils during the past 15 years, two of which occurred while Frank was on the City Council. Based on the loss of commercial square footage from these four cases, there could have been as many as 1,000 jobs lost in Mission Viejo and a significant amount of sales taxes that will also not be available to help pay for city services. Perhaps the voters of the city would have approved these conversions, but given the opposition to each project by close neighbors, I would expect that none of these changes would have occurred.
Major land-use decisions are too important to be left in the hands of five council members, even if they weren’t receiving campaign contributions from the very developers whose projects they are asked to approve. Only the residents of Mission Viejo can collectively decide if a project is right for our city. Some people might mistakenly say that if we don’t like a specific City Council decision, we can vote out those councilpersons who made the bad decision. Once the zoning is changed on a parcel of land, it can’t be put back. So, the bad councilperson is gone, but the bad land-use decision remains. Measure D will stop that and get the people to approve the change, after the Planning Commission and City Council make sure that the project is the best it can be.
At that same Casta Del Sol event, a flyer was handed out by an opponent of Measure D. It was somewhat amusing to see how many of their 10 points were completely inaccurate.
1) Stick taxpayers with the bill for unlimited “special” elections.
Wrong. Section 4.1 of Measure D says that developers will pay the entire cost of any special election they request.
2) Drain funds away from schools, roads, parks and public safety.
Wrong. As there are no additional costs to the city or school districts as a result of Measure D, no funds will be diverted. In fact, to the extent commercial properties remain commercial, there will be more taxes paid to the city.
3)Let developers build high-density, low-income housing without an election.
Wrong. They are misunderstanding Section 6.1 of Measure D. That section simply says that Measure D, like all other city laws, cannot override State law, especially the State Housing Code. Whatever laws applied before, apply in exactly the same way after Measure D is enacted. Nothing whatsoever will change. Section 6.1 is part of Measure D to make it harder for people to challenge Measure D as being passed to override State law, which it cannot do.
4) Create Blight and vacant storefronts.
Wrong. It is hard to see how passing a law that will stabilize zoning would do any thing of the kind. Really, this is an attempt to scare people with an idea plucked from thin air.
5) Cause budget deficits and make cuts in city services inevitable.
Wrong. As stated above, there will be no increases in city spending as a result of Measure D, and the city may even see an increase in collected sales tax if existing commercial properties are saved from being converted to residential.
6) Prevent hospital, school church and business improvements.
Wrong. Measure D does not prevent landowners from expanding their operations as long as they don’t need to change the zoning. If, for example, a shopping center wanted to expand and tear down nearby houses to do so, then Measure D would come into effect, and a vote of the people would be required.
7) Drop Property values and halt job creation.
Wrong. Under the “old” system where City Councils made the final decisions, about 1,000 jobs were lost when properties that were supposed to be commercial got converted to residential. Measure D would make sure that the people would decide which was more important: jobs or housing. Also, to the extent that Measure D reduces the number of new houses built, existing houses will be worth more because of supply vs. demand.
8) Unleash an endless parade of “special” elections
Wrong. There have been less than six zoning change in the past 15 years in Mission Viejo that would likely have triggered Measure D if it had been law. That’s hardly “endless.” Also, Mission Viejo is mostly built out, and few vacant parcels remain where zoning would become an issue, especially when developers know that they need to do more than “convince” three council members.
9) Do nothing to protect Casta Del Sol Golf Course or any other open space.
Wrong. Look at section 3.1i and 3.1j. They were designed especially so that a vote of the citizens of Mission Viejo would be needed to build anything else at Casta Del Sol Golf Course. We know from the Judge’s decision and city documents that construction is possible on parts of the golf course.
10) Make you pay more for something you already have – the right to vote.
Wrong. We don’t have any way to stop bad land-use decisions made by City Councilpersons until they come up for election, by which time it is too late to do anything about whatever project they approved. Also, future elections required by Measure D will be paid for by developers, not taxpayers.
Please do your research and ask the question: who gains if Measure D passes (the people of Mission Viejo) and who gains if Measure D fails (developers and city councilmembers, among others).
Please vote “Yes” on Measure D.
Good comments by Dale Tyler. Isn’t it amazing what politicians like Ury try to get away with? A letter to the editor in OCR today was about that very subject — politicians who lie.
You have to wonder why he’s been so slow in defending his own measure. And he never addresses the majority of electorate stipulation which is the underlying assumption behind Ury’s arguments clearly. And No I don’t know Mr. Ury. I simply read his argument and analyzed it. Tyler’s omission of the majority of electorate clause is key. The electorate varies in Mission Viejo between 60,000 and 65,000 voters. The last special election saw a large turnout at 14,000 + voters but that is nowhere the majority of even 60,000 voters. Actually it’s not even half of the majority needed. The average turnout for a special election is under 10,000. Therefore simple logic dictates that Measure D would either stagnate business in Mission Viejo, and/or cause it to leave or not consider MV in the first place. I don’t know how you all define “job killer” but I do so logically.
He also doesn’t address that all residential matters will be given over to the state. It’s hard to imagine the state NOT forcing low income housing onto MV. Projects in other words. And they need a big place to put them. And, as Tyler points out, the golf course can be developed.
To little big man (Bob Bruchman), there is no need to respond to circus freaks who are self-destructing. Just get out of their way. The whack jobs opposing Prop. D are scary. Look at them! There’s Wake of the Red Witch Joyce Saltzgiver, the nasty trio of Cody, Butterball and Withrow, plus wide load Wendy — geez! Add to that Dan Avery, and nothing more is needed. Just give them all the face time they want because they scare people to death.
Well if Dale Tyler says it’s true, it must be so. Kat Dancing, sticks and stones may break their bones, but the No on D folks are actually getting the truth about the terrible measure out there over the incredibly biased identifier (“Right to Vote”) that was likely used to get a number of the signatures to qualify it. I also find it funny that Larry has been using Joyce Saltzgiver as an example of why Casta del Sol is for Measure D while you now resort to childish name calling. I wish you Measure D supporters would make up your minds.
Little Big Man, great point on the election requirements. However, the last time I checked, Tyler was not a member of the California bar, so he can’t understand why Measure D will require a majority of the electorate (i.e. all of the registered voters in Mission Viejo) to approve any special election required by the Measure, effectively killing all future development in the City. There’s also the not-so-small matter of the two layers of litigation for every project subject to Measure D should it pass – first, the challenge that will come from the losing side when the Council decides whether a project is subject to Measure D, and second from the losing side after the project fails during the election.
As for his apparently brilliant responses to the points above (at least according to Larry), just a few humble comments:
1) The taxpayers will be on the hook for any special election by a public entity (community college, school, etc.) because while they will be paying for the election, it will be coming out of our pockets.
2) and 5) See #1 – anytime taxpayer money goes to wasteful special elections, it is diverted from other, more important, areas.
4) When a business closes, unless a new business is seeking identical zoning, it will be forced to pay for a special election that will inevitably lose. If a business is looking to locate in Mission Viejo, Lake Forest, or Aliso Viejo, where do you think they will go under Measure D? Anywhere but Mission Viejo.
6) Tyler all but admits that if a zone change is required, it won’t pass under the election requirement. So we better hope that a business that wants to expand is fortunate to have identically-zoned land adjacent to it, or it’s out of luck.
See, I can do it too Dale, but I actually have facts and law to support my claims.
In addition to Newbie’s correct assesment, the electorate of Mission Viejo does have a way to stop what they believe to be bad land use decisions – it is called the referendum process. The voters in many cities including Santa Barbara and Yucaipa have done just that – after approval by their City councils they put a referendum on the ballot which reversed the approval of the City. This existing remedy is far superior to the clunky, ill worded and muddled Measure D.
Secondly, paragraph 6.1 appears to be a direct response to attacks by the State on Yorba Linda’s Measure B “Right to Vote Initiative” which is virtually identical to Measure D with the exception of this paragraph 6.1. The net effect of adding paragraph 6.1, especially with the super majority voting requirement of Measure D, is to exempt low income and subsidized housing from the election requirements of Measure D. Ironically, Measure D effectively exempts the one thing drafters wanted stopped.
Newbie.
Larry Gilbert is not behind the Measure D effort.
And it is true that Joyce was correctly concerned about the possibility that the golf course could end up with some form of housing. In fact the city council placed a Moratorium on that property. If she was not concerned why did she work so hard getting hundreds of signatures from Casta residents opposing any re-use of the Casta course?
What name calling?
From what I was told the text of Measure D was basically copied from the successful Yorba Linda Measure B.
I met Yorba Linda Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Rikel when she spoke at our recent MORR conference. She sent me a copy of her speech that I will be posting. Measure B addressed their citizens concerns on zoning that was ignored by their city council.
Simply stated there are members of our city council whom I simply do not trust.
That is why I recommended a YES vote on June 8th.
Larry,
To be clear, I wasn’t accusing you of name calling. You are, as far as I can tell, above the name calling fray that many bloggers and posters on here stoop to, and I really appreciate that. I was referring to Kat Dancing’s tasteless (and factually devoid) comment on the supporters of the No on Measure D folks, particulalry the shameful attack on Wendy Buckman. I’m all for factual dialogue which is why I posted my responses to Dale’s comments. I am a 10 year lawyer with 6+ years of land use experience, which is where I’m drawing much of my criticism of Measure D from. The electorate requirement and litigation costs should be of particular concern to Mission Viejo residents. Since Measure D is nearly cut-and-pasted from Yorba Linda’s Measure B, I don’t think a lot of critical thinking was put into the potential effects of the measure. At the least, there will undoubtedly be continual litigation over any project subject to Measure D (should it pass) until the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court speaks on its interpretation. That alone is bad for Mission Viejo. I agree with OCGUY that the proponents of Measure D have it backwards. The referendum process allows residents to overturn a specific City Council decision that they deem bad for them and the City. That ensures that the legislative process plays its way out with the City Council first, and that only one particular project is subject to the referendum process. By making Measure D subject to the whole city, before allowing the City Council to make a decision, the proponents are effectively killing all development in the City which is a bad idea.
Newbie. We need to get together for a cup of coffee at Bagels and Brew.
As a citizen lobbyist fighting to protect private property rights I would be interested in hearing of your “multimillion-dollar payment from the government for a temporary taking.”
So, Newbie is Geoff Willis. He is the most confused person I have ever heard speak into a public microphone.
And I agree with the comment that the anti-D folks scare people to death.
Geoffrey Willis is Frank Ury’s butt boy. Willis barks on command and rolls over whenever Frank Ury, known liar, tells him to.
Larry, please get Willis to come out of Ury’s closet and put his name on the lies. All of this will be useful in the November election.
I was waiting for one of you conspiracy theorists to make the false “Newbie is Geoff Willis” accusation. Larry, if you have access to my name, feel free to confirm for the lunatic fringe that I am not, in fact, Geoff Willis. As for your offer for coffee, I would love to sit down and chat with you about all things Mission Viejo and eminent domain (I represent many landowners in condemnation actions against the government’s intrusion into their private property rights). I will disclose that I know Geoff and consider him a close friend, which is why it is absolutely hilarious to read the drivel from you posters on this blog. None of you know why Geoff has decided to run, and apparently you haven’t mastered a third-grade reading level or you would know why he is opposed to Measure D (even if you disagree with him). Your inane, fact-deficient, ad hominem attacks only confirm that Geoff will do a lot of good for our great city, despite your worthless “contributions.” Again Larry, none of this is directed at you unless you also post under the pseduonym of woo hooooo or November Showdown.
Newbie, you said that Dale Tyler is not a member of the California Bar, but even more basic–has it ever been cleared up whether he is a California resident? When this group of “Yes on D” people all campaigned and supported Tyler as the recall candidate in our OTHER special election, it was revealed that Tyler doesn’t even have a California driver’s license–he has an Indiana driver’s license, though he claimed to be a Mission Viejo resident for the past 22 years. Why would we listen to this group who was so off on such a simple issue as whether their candidate is a resident, and why would we believe a guy who has an Indiana driver’s license and Indiana registered cars? (Wasn’t that a lie to run for office in a City when your legal “residence” is another State?) Since you said you are a land use attorney, is a non-resident even allowed to legally author an initiative in a City where he doesn’t legally reside?
Coach.
Why are you going off the thread by mentioning Dale Tylers’ drivers license?
If we permit you to bring in unrelated data the least you can do is be accurate. Be factual.
You posted that comment on May 15th. He now has a CA drivers license. Give up the personal attacks already
Newbie.
I will send you an email and see about a mutually agreeable date and time to discuss property rights.
Did you read my post about Meg’s activity in CO?