Over the past two weeks we’ve received more letters on the upcoming Measure C vote than we can possibly run in the paper each week. The opinions are obviously important to the debate, so we have posted those that we couldn’t get into the printed editions recently.
ONE MILLION PLUS
—Tom Lindell, San Clemente
So you want to sell your home for $1 million or more. Many San Clementeans have purchased their homes in the 1970’s, the 1980’s, the 1990,s and early 2000’s. These homes have in many cases doubled, tripled, quadrupled and more in value. What does it take financially to purchase a million dollar plus home? Well it takes a net worth of at least $2 to 4 million dollars or and annual income of $350,000 plus dollars considering 10 percent down and today’s going interest rates.
What is the sport of choice for persons or families in this financial category? The sport of choice is golf and in particular private country club golf. The Pacific Golf and Country Club is the only private country club in San Clemente. Having the choice of a private country club increases the choices for all the citizens of San Clemente and potential buyers of property in our great city.
Newport Beach has Newport Country Club and Big Canyon Country Club. Laguna Beach and Laguna Niguel have El Niguel Country Club. Mission Viejo has Mission Viejo Country Club. Dove Canyon has Dove Canyon Country Club. Coto de Caza has Coto de Caza Country Club. San Juan Capistrano has Marbella Country Club. And San Clemente proudly has Pacific Golf and Country Club. The private clubs offer the camaraderie of a private club for families that high-end home shoppers seek.
The Pacific Golf Course Development will add to our community with a completely redesigned user friendly championship golf course designed by Gary Player. It will make this club sustainable from a financial standpoint. The clubhouse will be refurbished with the addition of a pool and full-scale work out facility.
The benefits to the city are many, over $12 million dollars to Vista Hermosa Park and Aquatic Center, $150,000 to the new Senior Center and Fire Station, $150,000 to Casa Romantica, availability for a reclaimed water reservoir, public hiking trails through this private property, removal of all Pampas grass from the golf course and San Mateo Creek which will assist in its natural flow and thereby provide for better the surfing conditions at Trestles.
The dissenters of this project are a small group of club members who do not want the course reduced to 18 holes. They have no solution to sustain it as 27 holes and have used traffic and open space as a ruse to attempt to defeat this project in the wild hope that some golf course operator will come along and buy the property. There are just two things wrong with that idea: first, the property is not for sale even if the project is denied; and second, golf course operators looked at the property prior to the current owner and opted not to buy it then.
The city planning commission and the city council both approved this project after months of studying all aspects of the plan including open space and traffic. Let our elected officials do the work they were elected to do. Don’t base your decision to vote for the project on a referendum of half-truths and innuendos. Please make an informed decision and vote Yes on C on February 5, it is a good solution for the club and a great benefit for San Clemente.
OUT OF BALANCE
—Don Orsino, San Clemente
The enemies of open space are trying very hard to overturn the balance in the city of San Clemente that was established in building Rancho San Clemente. RSC was designed to keep three components in balance: housing, commercial buildings, and open space. Now a Los Angeles developer is trying to destroy that balance by placing 224 houses and condos on land that was originally designated as permanent open space. That would create an unbroken wall of houses and condos all the way from Rancho San Clemente to Talega.
This L.A. developer likes to talk about his rights. Fair enough, but what about the rights of families that bought in Rancho San Clemente with the understanding that there would be a balance in their community between housing, business, and open space? That balance is in danger of being destroyed by these enemies of open space.
With a housing stock that already supports a population of 70,000, what we don’t need is any more houses. Remember, there will be at least 135 more homes put on the 9 acres of land across from the Sports Park at Vista Hermosa and La Pata and 313 new houses at Marblehead. That’s plenty of new housing stock for San Clemente. We certainly don’t need 224 more houses and condos, especially ones built on the open space of Pacific Golf Course.
What San Clemente needs is to preserve every acre of open space it has for its residents. Throwing away 51 acres of prime open space and replacing it with concrete and asphalt simply makes no sense.
Together, we can put an end to this nonsense on February 5 by: Voting No on more Traffic; Voting No on the loss of Open Space; Voting No on the destruction of the balance between houses, business, and open space; Voting No on Measure C.
THE ONE THAT GOT AWAY
—Lily Wakeman, San Clemente
A Superior Court Judge recently found 12 of 13 challenged statements in the No on C ballot arguments false and misleading. Unfortunately, the one claim he misunderstood and let fly (despite the City Attorney saying this claim was false and/or misleading) is that the City has allocated the money needed for the proposed La Pata/Vista Hermosa Sports Park. Don’t believe it. In a December 19, 2007 letter to local Congressman Calvert seeking federal funding (a hail Mary pass, most likely), the City recently said this about the status of the park: “The City is now facing a $13 million funding gap for Phase I of the park. Because of this funding shortfall, the City has scaled back the project, eliminating one of the three pools and artificial turf for the sports fields, among other features, and [this shortfall] has forced us to place Phase II on hold pending a funding source.” It is shameful that Measure C foes are willing to mislead voters on the important question of park funding just to further their personal agenda.
Measure C provides $12.6 Million in park funding. This is eight times more per unit than other development is required to pay. If you don’t care about parks, or schools, or the fire station/senior center, or natural habitat and accessible open space, or clean water, or respecting a private property owner’s right to propose a reasonable plan to fix a real problem, then it makes sense to be against Measure C. But if you do care about those things, if you are a voter that looks for balance and fairness, then make sure you get the facts and vote “Yes” on Measure C.
IF IT COULD BE SO SIMPLE
—Mary Jo Doherty, San Clemente
Am I missing something? On the one hand , we have the City Council voting to put the city-owned parcel of land on the corner of La Pata and Vista Hermosa for sale to help raise funds for the completion of the Sports' Park across the street. The high density development of this property will create quite a bit of traffic as well as having a negative impact on our already crowded schools. However, there is very little opposition to this decision, although wouldn't it be wiser to hold on to this parcel for future additional park space and/or additional sports fields as the need arises in the community, as it more than likely will?
On the other hand, we have a developer right down the road who, in exchange for the right to develop 9 holes of a 27 hole privately-owned golf course, has offered to give the city millions of dollars to help pay for the completion of the park as well as other needed projects in the city, i.e. the Senior Center. To this proposal there was major opposition as we all know, forcing this matter to be placed on the ballot.
Development of this privately held property will engender much less traffic as well as having much less impact on the schools since the housing would primarily be for seniors. It seems the property which should be open space isn't and the other is (private) open space and shouldn't have to be. Perhaps they could switch zoning designations??? If only it could be that simple.
Speaking of Open Space, where are the petitions, where is the outcry to preserve the precious public open space we have? The proposed Toll Road route cuts through almost the entire length of the O'Neill Conservancy, pristine land which was set aside to mitigate the development of the “Back Country.” The proposed route also divides San Onofre State Park which is visited by thousands of people yearly. As we are all aware of, it also boasts a premiere surfing mecca which attracts so much publicity and so many visitors as well as hosting world-famous surfing competitions. How can the toll road not affect these jewels?
Such a huge outcry for changing the use of a small section of private open space (there are 18 other holes which can't be built on for many reasons) and no organized opposition against the desecration of the precious public open space we should be protecting.
FIGHT WITH DOLLARS
—Randy Ortiz, San Clemente
If there is going to be a fight against developers, it needs to be done with dollars. Pacific Golf Course is a target because it is not profitable enough to offset the would-be revenues gained by builders. Let's face it, San Clemente has no room for three low-mid level golf courses, let alone one that is tucked back in the hills. However, marketing the land to a group that might consider redesigning the course and converting it to a private/semi-private course might be the solution.
FOR FUNDS, VOTE YES
—Larry and Brenda Thomas, San Clemente
While I am the president of the Costa Mesa Rotary Club, I am a resident of San Clemente and my San Juan Capistrano business has many San Clemente customers.
For several years now I have watched the issue of what to do with our failed Pacific Golf and Country Club unfold. I have listened to both sides, while playing golf at Pacific. My goal has been to make an informed judgment.
The old-timers who think the club should stay 27 holes have cloaked themselves in issues like “open space” and “traffic congestion.” They have dragged many good people into this mess by being less than honest, appealing to emotions rather than reason, and spending money on a campaign that is a waste of resources on both sides. These disgruntled Pacific Club members think that if Measure C is defeated, the people who own the land will magically cause the bankrupt Country Club to stay open, with 27 holes, and their lives will go on.
If you truly study Measure C, its details, opponents, and proponents, you will see that if this Measure fails everyone loses. The Country Club will close which will put 80 employees out of work and San Clemente will lose a valuable resource (not to mention the tax revenue generated). Many worthy City projects will not receive funding and it will take years to make up the lost funds through tax revenue sources. Residents who want to live in a modern golf villa (including seniors) will have to look elsewhere to find their paradise (and spend their money). Open space guaranteed available on the property by the developer, including the continuation of trails through the new development, will go away as the property, being private, will be locked. The 27 holes will go to seed and the owners will simply sit still and let the property appreciate. Their debt on the property is a small fraction of its value, so the owners will not be in a hurry to “unload” it (a common theme heard from the disgruntled Pacific members behind the opposition).
So, if you live in San Clemente and would like to have funds for the Sports Park, Aquatic Center, Senior Center, a fine golf village, a new championship golf course, more open space, access to trails, and lots of additional tax revenue… vote YES on Measure C.
MAN IN THE STREET QUESTIONS ON MEASURE C
—Tom Barnes, San Clemente
The following is a Q & A between a typical “man/woman in the street” and someone who has knowledge about Measure C.
Question: What is this Measure C all about?
Answer: The short answer is: open space & development
Q: Which is which?
A: “Yes on C” is a vote for development and “No on C” is a vote for open space.
Q: Is that it.
A:In a nutshell, Yes.
Q: What open space and what development?
A:The open space is 80 acres of the Pacific Golf Course and the development is the 224 houses and condos the owner wants to put on it.
Q: What’s wrong with that? It’s his property isn’t it?
A: Just because you own a piece of property it does not mean you can do anything you want with it.
Q: Why not?
A: If I buy the lot next to your house would you like it if I put a sewage treatment plant on it?
Q: That wouldn’t seem right but wouldn’t you have to get a zoning change or something?
A: Exactly. That is what the developer did. He got a zoning change so he could build his houses on land zoned as open space.
Q: What’s wrong with that?
A: A lot is wrong with that.
Q: Such as?
A: Remember you thought it was not right that I bought the lot next to your house and put a sewage treatment plant on it.
Q: Yes. That seemed pretty unfair as I was already living there with the expectation that I would be safe from that kind of thing going in next door. But how is this the same?
A: The people who bought in Rancho San Clemente back in 1985, bought there with the expectation that the land behind their development would be open space. It was zoned that way in the master plan. That was the deal.
Q: How come there is a golf course on it? That is not exactly open space, is it?
A: Correct. By some quirk of the law, the city allowed the golf course to go on to open space because of its recreational function.
Q: That doesn’t seem quite fair.
A: It wasn’t, but many who lived there accepted the golf course as being “like” open space, even if it was not exactly open space.
Q: Anyone oppose it?
A: Some grumbling about it but that was about it. If they knew houses were going to go on the open space there would have been a lot more opposition.
Q: Anyone else oppose it?
A: The Audubon Society thought about opposing it.
Q: Why didn’t they?
A: Scott Thomas, Conservation Director of the Audubon Society gave this answer: “We were asked many years ago, when the golf course was being developed to consider opposing its construction on the basis that it was an inappropriate use of open space. We did not pursue the issue, in part, because the city of San Clemente was convinced that the golf course would be the only remaining open space surrounded by homes and commercial development.”
Q: What homes and commercial development was he talking about?
A: Rancho San Clemente is a planned community that has a combination of homes, commercial businesses, and open space.
Q: So they are taking away the open space part and making it houses. How does that fit in with the idea of a planned community?
A: It doesn’t.
Q: How much of the open space are they going to take away and put houses on?
A: 80 acres of it.
Q: I heard somewhere it was only 51 acres. Is that right?
A: Only!
Q: Well, you know what I mean!
A: The total housing development will be on 80 acres; the 51 acres is the concrete and asphalt part. Twenty nine acres will be the rest of the housing project, the land between the houses but within the project.
Q: Will all of the golf course be taken for houses?
A: 18 of the holes on the golf course will remain but 9 holes consisting of the 80 acres will become houses and condos.
Q: How can that be? You told me the land was zoned open space?
A: It was, but the city re-zoned the land so the developer could build the houses.
Q: What did the city get for changing the zoning?
A: $11.5 million dollars that would go toward projects like Phase II of the Vista Hermosa Sports park and some money went to the Senior Center and other projects.
Q: Worthy causes!
A: Yes, but at what cost?
Q: When did they do this? And did anyone oppose it?
A: The City Council voted 3-2 to rezone it from open space to residential housing in June of 2007. It was a hotly contested issue. The Council had voted 3-2 against the proposal 60 days earlier but gave the developer time to revise it.
Q: So that was the end of it, right?
A: Not quite. After this vote a group of volunteers begin circulating petitions to call for a referendum on the issue.
Q: What is a referendum and how does it work?
A: In California the referendum along with the initiative and the recall were passed under Republican Progressive Governor Hiram Johnson. Basically it gives the people the right to circulate petitions to get on the ballot an item that a legislative body passed that they oppose.
Q: Kind of like direct democracy! Right?
A: Exactly.
Q: So what happened with these volunteers and their petitions?
A: They collected 8423 signatures in 19 days.
Q: That seems like a lot!
A: It is.
Q: After they collected the signatures what happened?
A: They turned them in to the City Clerk who forwarded them to the County Registrar of Voters to see if there were enough valid signatures of registered voters to qualify the issue for the ballot.
Q: Were there?
A: Yes. They only needed 3,800 signatures and their total far exceeded that figure.
Q: What happened next?
A: The City Council set the referendum date.
Q: Why did they pick February 5, 2008?
A: They had four choices of dates and they chose the one the developer wanted because he was willing to pay for the extra cost associated with the referendum for that date.
Q: How did the other side feel about the City Council choosing the developers date?
A: Some were angry because they wanted it to be with the general election when the election for new City Council would occur.
Q: Why should it matter when the election takes place?
A: Those who oppose the developer wanted the greatest number of voters to participate;
this takes place in general elections, not primaries, or special presidential primaries.
Q: That seems reasonable but why did the City Council go along with the developer’s date?
A: The majority of the City Council supports the developer.
Q: I heard the City Council was going to remain neutral in this fight between the Yes of C and No on C factions. Is that true?
A: That’s what their words say, but their actions have been otherwise.
Q: Do you have any other proof of that besides the election date?
A: The lawsuit.
Q: I heard something about a lawsuit. What is that all about?
A: Ballot Arguments and Rebuttals.
Q: You mean the stuff that comes in the mail with the sample ballot.
A: That’s right.
Q: How does that work? Who decides what to include and who writes the stuff?
A: Each side submits an Argument limited to 300 words. After reading the other sides Argument each side submits a Rebuttal limited to 250 words. These are printed and sent out in the sample ballot along with an impartial analysis by the city attorney.
Q: That seems straightforward, how did the lawsuit come about?
A: One of the “Yes on C group,” the President of the Membership of Pacific Country Club, sued the “No on C “ Argument and Rebuttal.
Q: Why?
A: He did not like the language in the No on C Argument and Rebuttal.
Q: Can you sue over that?
A: You can sue over anything; they say you can sue a ham sandwich.
Q: Who won?
A: The Lawyers.
Q: Funny!! What happened in the case?
A: The “Yes on C” group got 30 words eliminated from the “No on C” Argument and Rebuttal.
Q: Is that a lot?
A: They thought so and declared victory.
Q: What did the No on C group say?
A: They also declared victory.
Q: On what basis?
A: The 30 words that were taken out were inconsequential and the substance of their statements was not changed. Also, the judge added 47 words to clarify their statements and to replace the 30 words that were eliminated.
Q: You mean they ended up with more words than what they started with?
A: Yes.
Q: How many?
A: They ended up with 567 words and started with 550; a net gain of 17 words. They contend that this strengthened their statements.
Q: How many words did the Yes on C side try to eliminate?
A: 236 out of the 550 or 43 percent of the total words.
Q: That seems like a lot!
A: It would have been, if granted.
Q: How much did all of this cost?
A: The Yes on C group had to pay for their attorney and other attorneys joined in their suit. The No on C had to pay for their attorney. And the City of San Clemente had to pay their Attorney.
Q: Why the City?
A: Partly because the City Clerk was sued and the City Attorney had to defend her. However, the majority of the City Council carried this further and joined in the lawsuit with the “Yes on C” group, running up additional legal expenses to the city.
Q: Why would they do that? I heard they said they would be neutral in this battle between the two groups on each side of measure C.
A: They may have said that but that is not how they acted. They joined forces with the “Yes on C” group.
Q: Did taxpayers money pay for this?
A: Yes. Attorneys do not work for free.
Q: How much did it cost?
A: The city is not saying.
Q: What about the “Yes on C” Argument and Rebuttal, did it have the same kind of language in it as the “No on C”.
A: Yes.
Q: Why didn’t the “No on C” group file a suit or counter suit?
A: They believe this is a political fight and should be fought in the political arena, not the courts. They are not litigious although they believed that if they would have filed suit the judge would have thrown out just as many words from the “Yes on C” statements as he did with the “No on C “ statements. He also may have added more clarifying words to replace the ones he eliminated which could have strengthened the “Yes of C” cause.
Q: So this whole lawsuit was much ado about nothing.
A: That’s about it.
Q: What were these 30 words that were taken out?
A: Permanent, Never, To be developed into homes/condos, away Permanent, 3,200,
11,700, agreed, for his development costs, The Los Angeles developer’s ballot statement,
3,200, the developer’s, 1,000, forest habitat, natural terrain.
Q: That’s it?
A: That’s it.
Q: What happens to the ballot statements?
A: They have been printed up and distributed to the voters with the editing changes made by the judge.
Q: What happens now?
A: Both sides will make their arguments to the people. They will distribute flyers, talk to people, and try to persuade people to vote for their side on February 5—election day.
Q: What is the reason why the “Yes on C” people want the development?
A: It is hard to say, most of their campaign literature is based on character assassination but they do indicate that they want the developers money for various projects.
Q: Who are they assassinating?
A: The “No on C” supporters.
Q: What do the “No on C” supporters argue?
A: Open space should not be used for development and more development means more traffic on Pico and adjoining streets.
Q: Any other arguments?
A: Some of the No on C supporters are trying to save the Pine Forest.
Q: What Pine Forest?
A: There is a 6.36 acre Pine Forest on the golf course that has 572 mature pine trees and over 200 seedlings on it.
Q: What is going to happen to it?
A: It will be bulldozed to make way for the houses and condos.
Q: I thought cities were trying to preserve urban forests; aren’t they are good for the environment?
A: Yes and Yes. But not San Clemente; it is trying to get rid of its urban forest.
Q: How can the city justify that?
A: It calls the pine forest “ornamental plantings.”
Q: What?
A: Ornamental plantings like topiary bushes.
Q: Which is it?
A: You will have to decide. Drive over to the golf course and take a look or go to the web site of the “No on C group”— http://savesclopenspace.com/— and look at the pictures of the pine forest.
Q: So the people, not the courts or the politicians will decide the issue?
A: Yes, that is the American democratic way. Study the facts and vote on Measure C on February 5.
OPEN SPACE
—Mary Ann Comes, San Clemente
Last week I read an article in the paper about San Juan Capistrano looking into purchasing more open space in their city. I found it very interesting to find San Juan Capistrano and San Clemente going in completely opposite parallels. In the early 1990’s San Juan Capistrano purchased several acres to preserve for open space. Last year, the citizens voted down the San Juan Golf Course from selling a portion of the property to a senior citizen development. This year the city is looking into purchasing more open space to preserve San Juan’s rural atmosphere. Our City can’t wait to get their hands on the money that the Pacific Golf Course developer promises them if Measure C passes. They also can’t wait to place several acres zoned for residential homes or apartments on the corner of LaPata and Vista Hermosa on the market. If the city gets their way, there will be no open space left in San Clemente. I guess we can always go to San Juan Capistrano to see open space. Once we lose it, it’s gone forever.
NOT TRULY GREEN
—James Shapiro, San Clemente
Ask any true environmental crusader how many battles they’ve fought to save a golf course (the answer will be zero). The motivation of the leaders against Measure C is not green, it’s NIMBY (or “not in my back nine” for country club members like Mann and Hopp).
Measure C results in a the purchase of 26 acres of private property that is now zoned residential that was recently designated Critical Habitat for the federally-protected California gnatcatcher and preserves it as open space forever. Measure C’s permanent protection of this parcel as natural open space should not be minimized. Opponents claim that the land cannot be developed anyway because of landslides so saving it as open space is an empty promise. The Opponents seem conveniently unaware that many landslide areas have been repaired in the past. Measure C will also lead to restoring acreage on Pacific to coastal sage scrub and wetland habitat. A “Yes” vote on Measure C leads to new treatment of runoff from the business park that now drains to Trestles, and it eliminates invasive non-native plants that spread into the San Mateo campground and nearby creek. True, it will remove the non-native pine trees planted between two fairways 20 years ago, but more than twice as many native trees will be planted in their place. Our use of recycled water for irrigation gets a big boost from Measure C in the form of a reservoir plus hundreds of thousands for the City’s recycled water facilities. Measure C is balanced and fair. It benefits the community in many more ways than it impacts the community, it deserves our support. Vote “Yes” on Measure C February 5th.
ANOTHER YES ON C
—Dick Danielson, San Clemente
Seldom does the electorate of a community have the opportunity to impact their entire community as positively as with a Yes vote on Measure C. Those conscientious members of our City Council, City Planning Commission and many meetings of concerned San Clemente Citizens have favorably addressed every facet of this measure. Benefits for Youth Organizations, Educators, Senior Groups, Fire and Safety Members, Parks and Recreation Members and numerous Sports Facilities are assured with the passage of this measure. Conversely, these needed benefits and facilities would in time become City taxpayers responsibility. Those of us who treasure our city’s environment, abundant clean water, safe traffic corridors and our beautiful beaches can find reason to support this vital issue. Please join your neighbors and vote Yes on Measure C.
USING OUR LOVE
—Don Preihs, San Clemente
Why are the pro development "Yes on C" group using our love of Firefighters to try and fool the voting public? In this paper, and in a deluge of recently mailed political flyers, the developer-sponsored “Yes on C” folk are saying that a vote their way will achieve “...much needed funding for a new fire station/senior center...” The slash between “fire station” and “senior center” had me intrigued, so I looked into it. It turns out that the only connection between a fire station and the onerous housing/condo development at Pacific is that the proposed fire station, to be built on city land and paid for with city funds will share a common wall with the downtown senior center. In fact, the City Attorney’s “Impartial Analysis of Measure C” makes no mention of any funding whatsoever for a fire station in his description of the related “development agreement.” It seems to me that this false and misleading statement, and the use of firefighter-related terms five times in their “Sample Ballot” hyperbole does not do fair service to the truth, and to those who protect us with their lives. It’s as if our respect for firefighters is being abused for political gain, sadly. I'll be voting No on Measure C to save open space and stop more traffic congestion.
PAYING TO GET HIS WAY
—Jim Smith, San Clemente
LA developer Michael Rosenfeld, who owns Pacific Golf, is running out of time in his ploy to get residents to give up open space so he can pocket millions. Let’s look at some recent examples of the tactics he’s used and why you should vote “no” on Measure C. In June, he hired blockers from out of town to intimidate San Clemente residents trying to sign our petition. That backfired when KOCE-TV ran a special news report with the details. The public outcry helped our Save Open Space group get over 8,400 voters to sign in just 19 days. The result is you get to decide on this important issue with Measure C.
In August, he provided food and drinks for Pacific members and then bussed them to the City Council meeting to show support. Councilmembers [Steve] Knoblock, [Jim] Dahl and [Mayor Joe] Anderson said they were impressed by the turnout. All were clueless to the fact that most Pacific members don’t even live in San Clemente.
In October and again this month, Rosenfeld hired a Houston, Texas, “push polling” firm to call thousands of San Clemente residents. If you’re not aware, push polling is a dirty trick used by pollsters to get publicity. The callers are trained to push the respondent toward the goal of agreeing with the point of whoever hired them. In one example, a resident dared to disagree with the Rosenfeld pollster and was called back by a supervisor who said, “Did you really mean to say you would favor ‘open space’ over $12 million?” I’ve yet to see the phony data but expect it any day.
Now he’s got color ads, glossy fliers/signs and lots of bogus promises. The fliers always have beach scenes and shameless use of firefighters. All are designed to fool you since there is never a mention of what he really wants to do: build 224 homes/condos on open space and fatten his wallet by tens of millions.
In case you hadn’t noticed a pattern, Michael Rosenfeld pays everybody so he can get his way. Even the letters you see in this paper supporting the Pacific Golf development are usually from people on his payroll. That’s how he operates; it may work up in Los Angeles, but not here.
We are all volunteers interested in protecting open space and limiting traffic congestion. No one gets paid. We encourage you to vote “no” on Measure “C.” If you want more information, please visit our Web site: www.savesclopenspace.com.
MEASURE C
—Rick Carrigan, San Clemente
In following the City Council meetings on this subject and the ensuing referendum, it has become very clear to me that the opposition leader is synthetic. Synthetic in gaining the required signatures by emphasizing only save out open space, prevent more traffic congestion on Pico and a wild swing at preventing outsiders from influencing city government. Outsiders being ownership of Pacific Golf & Country Club. Synthetic in describing the proposal as only open space rather that private open space, which is a whole other story. This property is not visible to the casual stroller or hiker nor is it visible for drivers unless you actually go on this private property. I can’t use it, you can’t use it unless you are a member of the club or by invitation. This is not a viable argument for those in opposition. Synthetic in describing the offers to the city as bogus and city councilmembers in favor of the project as selling out. (A warning about future elections?) Synthetic by pretending to be protectors of open space rather than disgruntled members of Pacific Golf & Country Club who are fighting needed change to the facilities for their own self-interest. So what are the positives? An improved facility. Much-needed funds for our parks and recreation facilities; senior citizen facilities, it goes on. Millions of dollars worth. And that is not synthetic. Don’t be fooled. Vote “yes” on C, it is the right thing to do.
DON’T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER
—Georgette Korsen, San Clemente
“You can’t judge a book by its cover”. That is an adage that has endured throughout the ages, and is aptly exemplified by the seemingly “environmentally sensitive”, cool colored ads and fliers that are being circulated in our community. They are trying to convince you that by voting for more homes, and more traffic, and its resultant pollution, that it will somehow be a very wonderful thing for our city. They are counting heavily on people making a “one glance” decision on this issue. These blue and green ads and signs are designed by slick professionals that are very good, and very tricky in obscuring and confusing the real issue, thereby granting the developer what he has paid so much money to ensure; that he can replace open space, grass and trees, with homes, concrete and more traffic.
Promoters of this project want you to focus on the enticements that the developer is willing to put up. It is a viewpoint reflective of “the ends justifying the means”, and suggests that everything is ultimately for sale. I believe that this kind of thinking is a slippery slope. If we trade away land that was designated long ago as open space--given in exchange for homes that have already been built, we are compromising our environmental well-being and the safeguards that were laid down by prior City Councils. Please join with me and VOTE NO on C!
VOTE NO ON MEASURE C
—Paul Carlton, San Clemente
I want to echo the excellent article by Steve Netherby [Soapbox, Vol. 3, Issue 1) asking San Clemente residents to vote NO on Measure C.
I really dislike the idea that dedicated open space can be bought by a carpetbagger from Los Angeles. San Clemente voters please consider the current housing and credit crunch that we are in. It is quite likely that this project may not get off the ground for years and the city will not get its $11 million bribe from the developer for years. In any case the developer will make many more millions than what he will paying as a bribe. By that time our City Council and our citizens will have found an honest way to finance our Sports Park and a new Senior Center.
Other cities, San Juan Capistrano for instance, are not only protecting open space, but they are buying additional open space. No designated open space should be up for sale to the highest bidder. Only that undeveloped land now designated for building should be built on. The traffic situation in San Clemente is overly crowded now. More houses means more traffic. We, the citizens, must fight any attempt to take away San Clemente's open space. The developer's claim that this development will protect the natural habitat and provide clean water and beaches is pure nonsense. Two hundred and forty one new homes are not protecting the natural habitat and not providing for more clean water and beaches.
FINAL PUSH FOR VOTES
—Richard Boyer, San Clemente
As the February 5 special election approaches, Measure C backers are making their final push, trying to convince San Clemente residents to "balance" their interests against our quality of life. Why does an out-of-town developer have such a keen interest in coming in and balancing our quality of life? Why is an out-of-town developer spending so much money to mass-mail slick brochures, run a website and open an office in San Clemente to promote his balanced plan for us?
Consider a clever scheme that goes something like this: A developer buys a golf course. The developer approaches the local municipality and explains that the golf course is a business in distress, its future uncertain. The developer offers to share a portion of the profits if the city will change its rules to allow him to - surprise! - develop a housing project on the back nine. Otherwise, the developer warns, everyone who works at the golf course could soon become unemployed, and the course might become a weedlot.
Oh, and one more thing. If a member of the community succeeds in leading a grassroots effort that puts the developer’s get-rich-quick plan on the ballot, send out another slick flyer that personally attacks that citizen and accuses him and his 8,400-plus pro-democracy supporters of… “Lying” because they’re “concerned about their golf game!”
Could it be that all it will take for an out-of-town developer to grab a huge windfall is to finesse the bumpkins of San Clemente? Don't let it happen. Mark your calendar. Go to your polling place on February 5th and and vote no to more cars on Pico… no, no, no on C!
NETHERBY EXAGGERATES ON C
—David Kelsen, San Clemente
Thanks Steve, for proving my point [Soapbox Guest Opinion, “Vote No on Measure C,” by Steve Netherby, Vol. 3, Issue 1]. I always thought integrity and getting the facts straight were important attributes of being a writer, but the exaggeration, grand-standing and deception continues from the “Save The Best Nine Holes at Pacific” camp. “Morph into Crown Valley on Steroids” is a personal favorite. Here’s more:
Assertion: 80 acres. Fact: 50.5 acres. Assertion: A 700-tree pine forest. Fact: 500 potted plants that were given in exchange for a membership at the club. Assertion: “Dawn to dusk din,” like putting a logging chain in your dryer. (Ah, the dramatic prose of a creative miscreant) Fact: The nearest Talega residence is over a half-mile away from the club. Assertion: The L.A. developer is trying to hoodwink us. Fact: You are hoodwinking us, Steve.
The proposed development site does not reside on the hills in Camp Pendleton, nor the reserve, so your “pink sunrises” and “golden sunsets” are safe. Yes on Measure C will impose a deed restriction on the property, and the correlating 26-acre parcel, which, by the way, is unimproved, natural habitat (as opposed to 1/4 of an environmentally disturbed, landscaped golf course), thereby ensuring that these open spaces remain “open space” in perpetuity, resulting in a net plus of open space for the city. A tax-free, cost-free water tank will be installed to treat run-off from Rancho San Clemente, resulting in cleaner water. The water tank and pampas grass abatement called for in the development agreement will result in cleaner beaches. Funds will also be directed toward the widening of Pico, which is not necessary for this project but will come in handy down the road (pun intended). This is an emotional and important issue for the city of San Clemente. The physical impact is minimal, yet the fiscal impact is hugely beneficial. Let’s get personal, on one side you have a man who has been honest and kept his word at every turn, on the other a group who continues to lie and use tabloid tactics to raise your ire and rile you up. If you’re actually following this circus, I want you to decide who you’d choose to do business with in an ongoing basis: the guy who’s been straight with you, or the group who will say anything to get your support.
Yes on Measure C.
PRETTY POSTCARD
—Cindy Holmes, San Clemente
Did your household receive the letter-size postcard in the mail recently that was decorated in pretty holiday red and green? Did it make you see even more red? Well, it should have, if you were one of the many San Clemente residents who signed a petition last summer calling for an election on the Pacific housing project.
Last summer a petition was circulated asking voters to decide if the City Council’s approval of the Pacific Golf Club housing project should be overturned. The pretty postcard states in bold headlines that you signed the petition to vote no on Measure C. That is not entirely true. You signed to put it to the vote of the people. Of course, you may not have even known you were doing that because you were told other stories that sounded more appealing.
Last summer you were told to sign the petition in order to reduce traffic on Pico. Again, what you were told was not entirely true. The amount of extra traffic generated by this small housing development is practically inconsequential and it was grossly overstated, complete with pictures of rush hour traffic at the high school, which has nothing to do with a small housing development largely for seniors and retirees.
Last summer you were told to sign the petition in order to save San Clemente open space. Again, what you were told was not entirely true. (Are you seeing a pattern yet?) The small parcel of land in question is privately owned by the golf club and is not public open space. The golf club would reduce its 27 holes of golf to 18 to make room for the housing project on the golf club’s private property.
On February 5 you will be asked to vote on the merits of Measure C, which would allow this small housing development in exchange for contributions to the city of over $21 million. The money would be used for an aquatic center, senior center, a new fire station and so much more. The city would also benefit from additional annual revenue to the general fund by this project.
Before you vote on February 5, please get all the facts about Measure C. This project is good for the whole city. It was approved by the City Council and is only being brought up for a vote because of the petition from last summer. A petition launched with lies and innuendoes by a few golf club members who don’t want to lose nine holes of their golf course but couldn’t get your attention with honesty.
On February 5, please vote “yes” on Measure C.
MEASURE ‘C’ FULL OF BOGEYS
—Sam La Sala, San Clemente
If the Measure C argument written by the Pacific Golf Club were a round of golf, it would be full of bogeys.
Bogey 1: Preservation of 26 acres of natural habitat next to Rancho San Clemente and Broadmoor. This one's a wedge shot with a lot of spin. Most of this land has steep, unstable canyon walls and is subject to landslides. Presently, the entire 26 acres is zoned for one home. Mother nature has forever determined that this land will remain undeveloped.
Bogey 2: Increased water supply for drinking and firefighting. This shot off the tee landed in the water hazard. Are the toilet flushes, showers, washings (clothes and dishes), spas, pools and landscape watering for 224 residences going to increase the water supply? As for firefighting? The proposed site adjoins dry brush land and is downwind during Santa Ana conditions.
Bogey 3: Traffic relief; funds major traffic improvements at San Clemente High School. This is an imbedded lie in a mud bank. The widening of Pico, the addition of more turning lanes and a stop signal to ease traffic at the high school is funded by the city of San Clemente and the Capistrano Valley Unified School District.
Bogey 4: Improved classrooms for our children. This fairway shot landed in the bunker. The student population in our already overcrowded schools will increase with the construction of 224 more residences.
Bogey 5: New downtown fire station. This shot landed on the adjoining fairway. Where in the City Attorney’s impartial analysis of Measure C does it say anything about a new downtown fire station?
Bogey 6: New community sports park and aquatics center. This hooked shot went in the gallery. Ouch! The city has funding for Phase I of this project and is proposing a City Financial Committee to explore how the city can use its own resources to finish the sports park and other community projects. Residents of San Clemente, the Pacific Golf Club is teeing off. Fore! And, vote “no” on Measure C.
CORRUPT CONGRESSMAN
—Steve Netherby, San Clemente
Sincere thanks to scandal-stained Rep. Ken Calvert for handing us yet another reason why he should be soundly defeated for re-election in 2008 [“The Orange Grove: Foothill-South at a dead end for now,” OC Register, December 20]. Kudos as well to his Orange Grove tantrum for spotlighting Reps. Susan Davis and Loretta Sanchez’s excellent block on the ill-conceived southern extension of the Foothill-South Toll Road.
Tagged as one of the “22 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (in part for allegedly profiteering from road-building earmarks he pushed through Congress), Calvert would push six lanes of concrete through the irreplaceable open space of Donna O’Neill Land Conservancy, San Onofre State Park and the Trestles Beach wetland. My hat is off to Davis and Sanchez for standing up to Calvert and for Orange County’s open-space treasures.
CALVERT’S TOLL ROAD CLAIMS SELF-SERVING
—Pete van Nuys, San Clemente
Recently, toll road lovers have been on the defensive, whining about Democrats’ maneuvers to thwart 241 south. Chief among them is Congressman Ken Calvert, whose hand wringing over the fate of his beloved toll way is just self-serving political yammer. He was the guy who fetched $120 million in federal-loan guarantees to back up TCA’s failing financials. Why should such a project, a model of fiscal conservatism, need loan guarantees? Because, as OCTA surveys show, only 29 percent of Orange County drivers ever use a toll way, and of those, 12 percent drive them once a week or less.
That’s pathetic for an agency that’s had cement on the ground for over 10 years, hardly the “much-needed transportation project” Calvert claims. But he has to defend the 241 because the toll roads have iconic status. Republicans regard them as a jewel in their crown of “public/private partnering.” Left-wingers regard them as evil destroyers of the environment. And Calvert is stuck in the middle with his political future on their eroding sands.
If Calvert actually gave a hoot about motorists he’d apply his political muscle to Interstate 5 and stop trying to pump up TCA’s underused roads. Since 1993 TCA’s, non -compete agreements have trumped all other agencies’ transportation planning. By seating city council members on their boards TCA has insinuated its interests into every south county agenda—arterial roads have been neglected and freeway improvements postponed to ensure priority completion of the toll ways. But the public is waking up. For analysis of the toll ways’ impact, insight into their financials, and an alternative to TCA’s failed experiment, visit: www.abolishtca.com.
NO ON C
—Robert and Pamela Baker, San Clemente
The Los Angeles developer and his "minions" accuse Charles Mann of lying. The definition of a liar: one who deliberately and intentionally gives false information with the explicit intent of deceiving. Charles Mann did not lie. Do not be deceived; the Los Angeles developer attempted to force the court to find misleading information on the "No on Measure C" ballot so that he could accuse Charles Mann and the Save San Clemente Open Space group of lying. However, with minor changes to the original ballot, the "No on Measure C" ballot is now certified by the Orange County Superior Court. San Clemente voters can be assured of accurate information before placing their vote on February 5, 2008.
The opportunity to vote on this vital issue is only possible because Charles Mann refused to accept the city council's vote approving the LA developer's proposed project and his ardent desire to do what is best for the City of San Clemente. He has worked countless volunteer (unpaid) hours trying to protect Open Space in San Clemente since three members of the city council did not do so. Fortunately, his work has paid off; a lot of people in San Clemente agree with him, as is evidenced by the number of signatures gathered for the necessary referendum.
On the other hand, Tom McGilligan and many members of Pacific Golf Course have taken very unsportsman-like actions and tactics in order to support their own special interest. They live in fear that their golf course is going to close, because they choose to believe the out-of-town-millionaire developer. They came to our city council meetings (at least a third of them are not even San Clemente residents), took San Clementeans' seats, trying to sway our city council! They have yet to justify this development for any other reason than their own selfish interest. There is no defensible argument for building on land zoned Open Space.
Post a Comment
