Cypress Election Results: Measure A Goes Down In Flames
Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 26, 2013
The Cypress election was not a very close one. Take a look at my post previewing the race by clicking here.
Not much to say about this one. Take a look at the results:
OC Political 
ocprandemedia said
Chris do you know who the consultant was for the Yes on A campaign?
Chris Emami said
I do not know. Cypress unfortunately is one of the few cities that requires you to come in to City Hall to view campaign finance reports (they are not in digital form). I am sure eventually I will make it over there and break this one down by the numbers.
Matthew Cunningham said
These results give lie to those (such as “conservative watchdog” Larry Gilbert) who claim ballot-box zoning does not reduce our property rights.
met00 said
Amazing what can be accomplished by a pissed off citizens group.
Based on Orange County Register reporting of the last filings by the developer, he had expended in excess of $600,000 on his investment into Measure A. Based on the number of Yes votes received that comes out to in excess of $185.00 per vote (and by the time all the financial filings are completed, it may exceed $200 per vote). While I am sure this isn’t the most expensive campaign ever run in the county, on the cost per vote it has to be way up there near the top. All that money spent, and nothing to show for it but an activated group of citizens who are really, really pissed.
Matthew Cunningham said
Yeah – they can force a property owner to spend a huge sum defending his property rights — and to do so in vain.
How wonderful.
Ryan Cantor said
This property owner knew what the parcel was zoned as when he purchased it. Measure A was just an attempt at a money grab– a windfall captured through an extraordinary abuse of the quiet enjoyment and rights of his neighbors.
Zoning is not incompatible with property rights. Zoning preserves property rights for all of us. What a shame that you’re propagating such a bastardized version of one of our foundational principles.
Private property rights are inalienable, Matt. They are not absolute. There are no kings or queens in this country.
Matthew Cunningham said
Ryan:
I am going to start calling you Straw Man Cantor. You have have a tendency to take issue with things I haven’t said. For example, I have never said “property rights are absolute” or that there are “kings or queens in this country.”
And I must have missed the Federalist Paper in which one of the Framers expounded in the virtues of zoning.
We have elected city councils that ultimately make zoning decisions, which voters can take into consideration when making their choices at election time. It is an undue burden to force a property owner to undertake the expense (campaign spending, carrying costs, opportunity costs) to seek approval in a city-wide vote — in addition to the normal approval of the planning commission, the city council and any other city body with jurisdiction. You are turning the city’s voters into one giant planning commission – but without them being equipped to render the same informed judgment as a real planning commission.
So, in reality, you are abridging the property rights that the property owner would ordinarily enjoy.
Also, it’s not very libertarian of you to support the majority using the government to limit a citizen’s ability to earn wealth.
Ryan Cantor said
You don’t seem to have a shortage of nicknames yourself, Matt. Let’s just stick to the real ones, shall we? I never said you said either of those things. We’re gonna have to get Mr. Eccleston to help you diagram some sentences.
“A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings.” –Thomas Jefferson
SInce you seem to be so big on quotes. It means your property rights end where someone else’s begin.
Anywho, zoning protects the rights of individuals with concern to the tyranny of their neighbors and the government: To prevent those absolutists like yourself who feel justified in swinging fists in the name of property rights irrespective of the location their neighbor’s nose.
The Cypress City Council and their ability to make zoning decisions (or their lack of a planning commission, for that matter. Heads up on that.) has absolutely nothing to do with this case.
The people voted 25 years ago regarding this piece of land based on promises a decade older than that. This particular property owner bought the property for a song knowing full well the restrictions on its use, legitimate restrictions made with the full blessing of our Constitution and the law.
You would seek to disenfranchise 43,000 people in Cypress for the sake of enriching a property owner who damn well knew what he was getting into over two decades ago.
I guess some people get into politics to do the right thing and others do it to make a buck. Which are you, Matt?
Also, Cypress– Matt Cunningham things you’re too stupid to vote on land use. Suck on that for awhile.
Ryan Cantor said
*thinks.
Damn, unfortunately, I deserve that.
Matthew Cunningham said
Let’s try this again, Ryan. You can save your breath making the argument for zoning, because nowhere have I said there should not be zoning.
My position is that ballot-box land-use planning is an unnecessary abridgment of property rights. It is a poor way to make land-use decisions. That does not make me a property rights “absolutist,” so give that particular straw man a rest. He’s probably exhausted.
It is a real stretch to claim the property rights of other Cypress residents would be be violated by approval of this project, or that it is an example of tyranny.
And so what is Cypress doesn’t have a planning commission? i was making a general point, which still stands whether or not Cypress has a PC.
And also, I did not say Cypress residents are stupid (must you resort to dishonest exaggerations, Ryan?). But do you think having a ballot-box zoning is a wise or effective way to make land-use decisions?
You have your opinion, Ryan. It is not a very conservative one, and certainly not a libertarian one. But it is an opinion.
Ryan Cantor said
It wasn’t a dishonest exaggeration, Matt. It’s exactly how you characterized the electorate– too dumb and uneducated to know how to make an informed and correct land use decision. Don’t back off that bold claim now! Own that egg you laid.
I’m generally not interested in having my positions labeled, even less so concerning the ideological continuum. I’m not exactly sure what you’re trying to get at, but I don’t like it.
Protecting the rights of individuals from abuse by corporatists is absolutely conservative.
In fact, it ought to be what defines it. Government’s authority ought to be used to protect the individual liberties of it’s citizens from being trampled by those with the will and means.
It really looks like you think conservatives are only interested in using the government to put more money in the hands of those already well off. In fact– I have yet to see you post about anything defending the rights we all share.
I look forward to your next post extolling the conservative value of making the government perform special tricks and bend over backwards to make someone more rich at my neighbor’s expense.
Like I said, Matt– some folks get into politics to do the right thing; others do it for money.
Matthew Cunningham said
Oh, BS, Ryan. I said no such thing. You’re twisting what I said. That’s dishonest and ought to be below you — your moral preening (“Some folks get into politics to do the right thing”) aside.
I used to enjoy debate with you, but it has degenerated into spending most of the time writing “that is not what I said” and fending off your penchant for the ad hominem.You follow me around the blogosphere like a remora, and I’ve come to believe you are only interested in tweaking me rather than engaging in honest debate.
I’m not suprised you have no concern for “ideological continuum”; as time goes on, I see less and less evidence of a coherent philosophy and more of a reflexive contrarianism – an impulse to oppose whatever you perceive as emanating from what you think is the “the Establishment.”
Think what you want. I’ve been involved in politics far longer than you, and I’ve expended far more energy, time and talent in fighting the good fight and for far longer, to really care about the carping of some glib, lippy newcomer who haunts the comments sections of the local blogosphere.
I don’t enjoy writing this, Ryan. I’d rather have mutually respectful discussions with you. But that would require you to be interested in being mutually respectful.
Ryan Cantor said
Alright chief, let’s take a breather here. The only reason I’m making a comment on this thread is because I went to preschool across the street from this parcel.
The fact of the matter remains, Cypress is better off for rejecting this absurd zoning change. It has little to do with someone being oppressed by a totalitarian regime and everything to do with an attempt at unjust enrichment.
Really, it’s not about you. It’s about the kids I played soccer with at Cawthon elementary and the kids in my wife’s third grade class at Damron elementary who have a vested interest in the community’s future. I would hope you’d make the effort to make it less about yourself and more about the people you propose to disenfranchise through duke rigid interpretation of absolute property rights.
Looking forward to continued discussion.
Matthew Cunningham said
“Make it about myself”? Oh boy. To the extent any conversations in the blogosphere ever becomes about me its because some yahoo tries to make it so. Sheesh.
Dude, I don’t know how to make myself any plainer: I am against ballot-box zoning. Against, Ballot. Box. Zoning.