Comments on: Text of Mission Viejo’s June 2010 Measure D

By: larrygilbert

larrygilbert — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 02:12:30 +0000

PS: This is the first time I have been to this web site over the past few days. It didn’t take me four days to add the above response. This blog is not one that I frequent.

By: larrygilbert

larrygilbert — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 02:10:26 +0000

How can any serious reader be expected to side with, or trust remarks posted by the Village Idiot who refuses to use his (or her) real name. It’s not worth much time and loses reader acceptance to debate someone who refuses to own up to his comments with hard facts when no one knows who he or she is thereby raising doubts of the authors arguement. Unless you are one of the attorneys or a member of the court staff, you were NOT in the courtroom when the Judge explained why they do permit hyperbole and deciding not to remove some of Frank’s ballot language. HOWEVER, on three points in which Cathy prevailed, he called Frank’s Ballot argument MISLEADING the voters and “stricken by this court.” I don’t blame you for hiding your identity. It’s tough blindly defending a proven liar. That’s assuming its not Mr Ury himself posting the prior comment. Notice the author’s efforts to change the topic. My remarks were based solely on false statements made by Frank Ury to the Central Committee subcomittee. Frank Ury is in the target, not myself. He is one who lied on two points last Wednesday. And lastly be careful quoting scripture.

By: Larry Gilbert's Long Lost Mind

Larry Gilbert's Long Lost Mind — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 18:33:24 +0000

I have to laugh. Larry Gilbert worked for and promoted Measure D, a NIMBY initiative that infringes on property rights. It was supported by his puppet, Cathy Schlicht, and opposed by Frank Ury. Nonetheless, Larry claims Schlicht is a conservative and Ury is not.

Now Larry is trying to change the subject, but claiming Ury is dishonest due to his hyperbole, when Ury’s point is the changes were not significant and didn’t change the thrust of his argument.

This is the same Larry Gilbert who urged support for the MacLean recall, which was run by his friends who were involved in a several illegalities in the course of qualifying the initiative and how they disclosed the financing of it — enough to justify an investigation by the District Attorney.

This is the same Larry Gilbert urging Republicans to supprt Dale Tyler for MV City Council — the same Tyler who had been dishonestly avoiding the car taxes the rest of us pay by registering hhis vehicles out of state.

If you Larry is going to run around accusing his opponents of being dishonest, he should take a look at his friends first.

Or to quote Our Lord:

“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”

By: larrygilbert

larrygilbert — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 22:25:34 +0000

While Greg and I have had follow up discusisons on Measure D my current focus is on the dishonest response by Frank Ury to Cathy Schlicht’s litigation to change his misleading ballot document that our city clerk chose to ignore upon reading Frank’s original text that is NOT shown above. Cathy’s request to the City Clerk to challenge that original text was denied. Here again we have a problem in the FINAL text posted above is AFTER the court mandated changes. Every word in any agreement or ballot measure is critical . What if the word was vote YES and was changed to vote NO?
As I reference Cathy Schlicht’s successful litigation let me give everyone an opportunity to read it themselves. Notice the court use of “misleading” in reference to Frank Ury’s Ballot argument. This is a pattern known by those of us closer to him over the past decade plus.

Superior Court Case # 30-201-003527765, Dept C -27 March 29, 2010. I previously mentioned page 129 starting at line 17 which reads: “THE COURT FINDS THAT THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, THE SECOND SENTENCE, “UNDER STATE LAW”, COMMA, “IT COULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED WITH HOUSING EVER,” EXCLAMATION POINT, IS SUBJECT TO BEING STRICKEN BY THIS COURT AND FOUND TO BE MISLEADING IN THAT THE PETITIONER PRESENTED, AS ITS BURDEN, AND OFFERED THAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD–AND OFFERS AND INDICATES THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT THERE IS EXISITNG STATE LAW THAT PRECLUDES AD INFINITUM, OR WITHOUT AND LIMITATION THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING WITH REGARD TO THAT AREA
WHAT IS AND HAS BEEN SHOWN BY PETITIONER IS THAT THERE IS 4.3 OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY ELEMENT, ALSO THE WATER CODE PROVISIONS, WHICH THE COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE, WHICH WERE ARGUED TO THE COURT, THAT THERE DOES NOT EXIST A SPECIFIC STATUTE OR STATE LAW IDENTIFYING THE PRECLUSION IN THE MANNER THAT IS STATED IN THE LANGUAGE.

Moving ahead to line 12 on page 130: .
..THAT THIS LANGUAGE UNDER STATE LAW CAN NEVER BE DEVELOPED WITH HOUSING EVER IS ONE THAT RAISES OR LOOKS TO THAT INTERPREATION AS A MATTER OF OPINION AS IT REFERENCES A SPECIFIC FACTUAL CONTEXT, WHICH IS IDENTIFICATION OF A SPECIFIC STATE LAW OR ACTUAL PROVISION ,WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. SO THE COURT WILL STRIKE ON THAT BASIS THAT PROVISION.

WITH REGARD TO THE CONTROVERTED ISSUES IN THE BULLET POINTS, THE COURT FINDS THAT BULLET POINT NUMBER TWO, THAT THE TERM, “FORCES MISSION VIEJO TAXPAYERS PAY FOR IT,” THAT THE WORD “FORCES” IS ONE THAT THE COURT LOOKED TO DELETE.THAT IS ONE THAT PETITIONERS ARGUE AND OFFERED AS 6.1 EVIDENCE TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THAT IS A STATEMENT OF A CHANGE OF STATUS QUO AND SUGGESTS AND IN THE COURTS VIEW IS MISLEADING THAT A NEW ACTION WILL OCCUR THAT WILL IMPACT TAXPAYERS.
AND THE USE OF THE TERM —OR THE WORD FORCES, IN THE COURTS VIEW, IS ONE THAT DENOTES A VERY POSITIVE AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH 6.1 AND THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS ARGUED TO THE COURT. SO ONLY THE WORD “FORCES” THE COURT IS DELETING FROM THE ARGUMENT.

By: Greg W

Greg W — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:11:19 +0000

Thanks to OC Political for publishing the text of Measure D, a local measure Mission Viejo residents rejected in 2010. I think the Measure D issues were lost on the Endorsements Committee on Wednesday because there was too little time, and the issues were too complex for a discussion that evening. I was intimately involved with Measure D, and a strong opponent. In a nutshell, Measure D was a ballot-box zoning measure – meaning that it would have taken many of the City’s land use decisions out of the hands of the Council and required a full vote of the residents of Mission Viejo. More problematic, it would have required the applicant for a project to pay for the vote. I engaged in many debates with the Yes on D folks, and I always provided them with this example – my previous church was located in Mission Viejo. They had a school there in temporary buildings and were ultimately going to have to build a permanent school. If Measure D had passed, my chuch would have been required to pay approximately $200,000 to $250,000 just for the election in order to even have the right to ask to build a school. That is unacceptable to me. However, I think the conversation on Wednesday was focused on high density housing, and the actual import of Measure D was lost in the shuffle. City Councils were created so that duly-elected council members would make zoning and other land use decisions on behalf of the residents. If the residents are unhappy with those decisions, they either vote the bums out, or they qualify a referendum to repeal the Council action. Both of these methods are provided for under state law. While the conversation Wednesday about Measure D revolved around the golf course and high-density housing, the real impact of Measure D would have been to restrict the ability of the Council to make a decision on many significant projects in Mission Viejo.

By: larrygilbert

larrygilbert — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 20:45:34 +0000

Without evaluating the Measure, that I did not participate in its creation, let’s simply cut to the chase. Check the trial transcript and Judge Rodriguez’s opinion at page 129 and read lines 17-25. This is one of the areas in which Frank Ury lied to get the OCGOP endorsement stating that “the lawsuit changed only two minor words” (as reported by Chris Nguyen in his article). The bar is very high with respect to the petitioner to prevail. Frank Ury lied and that’s the current issue, not a debate on the merits of the Measure. That debate occured two years ago at the full Central Committee meeting in which two 2010 OC GOP endorsed MV candidates were asked and confirmed their voting in support of Measure D. Don’t deflect Frank Ury’s lack of integrity with this post. From what I recall hearing at the time Measure D was basically taken from an earlier voter approved Measure in Yorba Linda.