Archive for January, 2014
Posted by Scott Carpenter on January 31, 2014
Posted by Craig P. Alexander on January 28, 2014
Last night I observed a report over at the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch about 73rd Assembly candidate Jesse Petrilla being arrested in 2001 and his pleading guilty to two felony counts: one count for assault with a firearm and another with a “firearm enhancement” (Petrilla’s Past). I was surprised that he had nothing to say to the Patch reporter when he was contacted about it. Apparently today he did give out a statement – not to the Patch but to some of his friends which Patch reporter Martin Henderson obtained a copy of. It is here: (Petrilla’s statement). Basically in his statement he admits to being arrested but tries to make the situation sound like he was arrested for self defense with all the charges simply being dismissed.
Yet Councilman Petrilla glosses over: 1. that he plead guilty to two felonies and 2. that these two charges were dismissed only after he served all or part of his probation that a judge sentenced him to and the two charges he plead guilty to being reduced to misdemeanors. Mr. Petrilla does not express any remorse for his actions or that he has learned any lessons from this situation. He justifies this conduct by claiming the people he was firing the rifle at were drug dealers who were threatening him. In my opinion if that were true, the police or sheriff’s department and the District Attorney would likely have dismissed the charges – all of them – as self defense. No need to plead guilty in a plea bargain, no probation to serve and no need to have the two convictions reduced to misdemeanors and then dismissed (which I understand is common procedure for expungement of criminal convictions from your record).
According to the Patch reporter – the facts were double checked via Court records and found to be accurate.
Since 2001 has Mr. Petrilla joined the military and served honorably? Yes he has! Plus he and his wife have every right to be happy at the birth of his new son! But if he wants to represent people like myself in the legislature, he should be able to admit the truth about what happened in this past, admit to past mistakes and not try to parse words in a statement to try and wiggle out of admitting the truth of what happened. While I understand people make mistakes in the past – I also believe you need to be open about them (felony convictions are public record and are serious matters) and hopefully to have learned from them – not try to avoid the truth via well crafted statements.
I am no one’s “opposition researcher” and I am not on any candidate’s payroll. I am a voter in the 73rd Assembly District, a believer in the 2nd Amendment (including the right of self defense), a volunteer activist and an attorney by profession. My response to Mr. Petrilla’s “statement” is “WOW” not because I am impressed with his explanation, but because I am shocked that he would issue a statement that glosses over these important facts and try to act like his own plea bargained confession to two felony convictions simply did not happen. He would be better off if he had just stayed silent and not issued this parsed statement that avoids the obvious truth of what happened. In my opinion, Mr. Petrilla’s statement alone renders him unqualified to serve as my representative in the State Assembly.
I will be voting for a different candidate for this office.
Note: it was brought to my attention that I used the term “parole” instead of “probation” to describe part of the sentence the judge gave to Mr. Petrilla. That was my error and I stand corrected. I have changed the description to the correct sentence of probation.
Petrilla’s Past: Felony Assault With A Firearm – an Important Article by Martin Henderson at RSM Patch
Posted by Craig P. Alexander on January 27, 2014
Tonight I read a very disturbing news article by Martin Henderson of the Rancho Santa Margarita Patch (http://ranchosantamargarita.patch.com/) about RSM City Councilman and 73rd Assembly District candidate Jesse Petrilla. According to the article, (Petrilla’s Past) in 2001 Mr. Petrilla pleaded guilty to assault with a firearm and another felony charge with a firearm enhancement. Apparently in 2004 the charges (after he served his probation) were reduced to misdemeanors and dismissed.
According to the article, when contacted by a Patch reporter, Mr. Petrilla apparently had no time to discuss this with the reporter. Given that Mr. Petrilla wishes people like me (who live in the 73rd Assembly District) to vote for him to be my representative in the Assembly in Sacramento, I find this news disturbing, more so when he has “no comment.” I hope he has a better explanation that this for the voters.
Note: it was brought to my attention that I used the term “parole” instead of “probation” to describe part of the sentence the judge gave to Mr. Petrilla. That was my error and I stand corrected. I have changed the description to probation.
Posted by Allen Wilson on January 24, 2014
Diamond Bar Councilman Steve Tye has thrown his hat in the ring as a GOP Candidate for State Assembly in the 55th Assembly District.
Mr. Tye was first elected to the Diamond Bar City Council in November 2005 after losing in a bitter June 2005 Special Election contest to Jack Tanaka for a seat that was vacant due to Bob Huff elevation to the State Assembly in 2004. Mr. Tye has been re-elected in 2009 and as recently in 2013.
On June 25, 2013, OC Political article entitled “55th AD Watch: Another Candidate Dual Run?” inquired at the time whether Councilman Tye was flirting a run for two offices: City Council and State Assembly.
Those inquiries are now put to a rest with confirmation that Mr. Tye is indeed an Assembly candidate.
However, Mr. Tye position on taxes and fees may not sit well with Conservative voters in the GOP safe Assembly District, especially in North Orange County portion of the 55th Assembly District.
On September 21, 2010, the Diamond Bar City Council unanimously approved an increase of user fees for Community Services, Public Works and Community Development Departments to be phased in the next three years tied with CPI (Consumer Price Index) beginning on July 1, 2010.
This contributor spoke to the Diamond Bar City Council on September 21, 2010 with a reminder that an increase of user fees are misguided in an unstable economy and that such user fees are taxes which comes out of someone’s pocket one way or the other.
Councilmember Tye was adamant with a defensive tone, according to September 21, 2010 Council Minutes, by stating:
“…this is not a tax but a user fee.”
“…was a proponent for adding a fee for licensing a cat.”
“…it is appropriate if it costs $100 to issue a permit to have a water heater install in his home that he should pay the $100.”
“…likes the idea of someone plans to add to his home he pays the fees for it.”
“When the City gets closer to recovering those user fees, it will be better for all of the citizens of Diamond Bar.”
The Orange County Register Editorial on September 21, 2010 clarifies during the debate over Proposition 26 proposal to close loopholes regarding fees and the two-thirds vote requirement for approval by the state legislature: “Calling fees what they are: Taxes“.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has been vigorously fighting over the Fire Fee (Tax) that was approved in 2011 along party lines with Democrats support and Republicans opposed in the state legisature and signed into law by Governor Brown.
The $150 Fire Fee (Tax) for Fiscal Years 2011-12 AND 2012-2013 has effected hundreds and thousands of properties under the CalFire’s jurisdiction known as the State Responsibility Area.
So, Mr. Tye says “a fee is not a tax” may not have read the Orange County Register article, has a lack of understanding of why HJTA is fighting a fire fee that is a tax and surely has a lot of explaining to the voters in the 55th Assembly District whom loathe fees AND taxes.
Posted in 55th Assembly District, Brea, California, La Habra, Placentia, State Assembly, Yorba Linda | Tagged: 55th State Assembly, Diamond Bar, Fees, Fire Fee, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Steve Tye, taxes, User Fees | 3 Comments »
Posted by Brenda McCune on January 23, 2014
I hate to quote Rodney King, but it just fits. There are too many important races coming up this year and too much at stake to not take an early look at alignments, tactics and issues.
In my little town of Yorba Linda, we have the usual onslaught, yes, already, of Republican on Republican verbal violence. It makes no sense, and literally everyone loses in such a battle. There is a movement afoot, to recall two council members. There is no allegation of abuse of power, of violation of law, of conflict of interest, sexual or moral misconduct, the gist of this movement is that they did not keep their campaign promises.
Really. Shocking. Whether they did or didn’t, just shocking that such an allegation would arise.
One of the Council Members targeted in the recall is up for re-election in NOVEMBER. Mark my words, the candidates and their supporters who are behind this, will run in November beating the drum of how they are the “real” fiscal conservatives. Please consider the cost of this recall effort. Even if it goes nowhere, the city staff still must count and review the signatures obtained and the application paperwork.
Recalls should be reserved for serious and egregious conduct, not just because you don’t like who’s in office. That is precisely the situation with this one, as well as the last unsuccessful recall effort (that would be the ‘other’ side who tried that last cycle) The current recall literature is couched in terms of high versus low density zoning. This is a perennial issue in Yorba Linda which has existed as a very contentious one for more than two decades.
News Flash: Nobody wants HIGH Density zoning. The proverbial, NOT IN MY BACKYARD attitude prevails. The best spin doctors on this issue, many years ago, used the term, “low income” housing. Which is confusing and lead people to have images of a Harlem style development, also formally known as Section 8 housing. Higher density does not mean Section 8 housing.
The one true statement that appears in the literature from both sides is that it is gonna happen. The part that is not true, is each side attributing ‘fault’ to the other. The real villain in the scenario is Sacramento. The state mandates that the city have some land available for building homes that are “affordable”. Last time I checked that was the theory of housing for a family of four with an income of about $40,000 per year. We can’t be sure where the Sacramento brain trust came up with such an imaginary family, but I can assure you, regardless of what they build in Yorba Linda, it is not likely to be affordable for that family under any circumstances. The theory though, requires that the “density”, or the number of homes per acre, must be raised to more homes per acre than Yorba Linda has had historically, in order to satisfy this State mandate.
If Yorba Linda does not in some way comply, there will be litigation. State of California vs. Yorba Linda, is not a case that I want to see filed anywhere. It is likely to be very costly and the bottom line is, Yorba Linda loses. I suppose there is a tangential argument (Translation of tangential: Ridiculous and unsuccessful) that we Yorba Lindans have a proprietary and constitutional right to all have low density zoning, anywhere and everywhere in our town because that is what we bargained for when we moved in here and paid all this money for our lovely homes.
This has been tried before. The U.S. Supreme Court block busting cases, Kraemer, and it’s progeny, basically said what we all already know, our constitutional rights all have limits. All of them, even the ones related to ownership of property. Keeping people out on the basis on economic impediments is likely to go as well as keeping people out on the basis of race. Likely result of the litigation is the California law will be upheld and Yorba Linda will foot the bill for the whole fiasco. The city’s law firm, and the numerous law clerks who would work on the case would be imminently pleased to have learned so much about constitutional and municipal zoning laws, at our expense. So, if you think High Density will have a negative impact on your property taxes, just wait till City Hall gets our lawyers involved with litigation with the State and see what happens to our city’s otherwise bright financial future.
The city’s coffers are not the piggy bank of politicians to take up and take on ridiculous issues for the purposes of keeping their names in the paper. Look around residents, it has become the status quo. Everytime you see a Yorba Linda politician in the paper or on the news it is usually NOT about an issue that has a close nexus to something that is in the best interests of the city.
Everybody in the race this year is likely to be Republican. Everybody in the race this year is going to be waving the flag of being a “Fiscal Conservative”. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION to the spin, here because in general they are all SAYING THE SAME THING.
We don’t want HIGH Density, but we DON’T want litigation either. We must walk this fine line between getting what we want and placating big brother. Anyone who is telling you something different, anyone who is blaming the other guys and saying it is THEIR fault and THEY broke promises, and I can give you the proverbial “chicken in every pot” (or a half acre for everyone in the case of Yorba Linda), well they are just not being truthful with you.
The bloodsport of politics in the city of Yorba Linda is likely to be as ugly as any year prior. Be informed, tell the people standing in front of your grocery store that you are informed and that there presence is decreasing your property value as much as anything.
The only thing to be gained by any of this posturing is to ruin some candidates and get attention for other candidates. We as citizens encourage this by tolerating and ignoring it. These ugly and contentious races have kept away good candidates and very much work to minimize public participation of those who fear retribution. I don’t know about you, but my intent is to be aware and not support the negativity and histrionic shenanigans of these people. We should all make that known to the candidates as they announce their candidacy in the coming weeks.
Posted by Brenda McCune on January 21, 2014
The OCGOP held it’s monthly meeting last night at the (newly renamed) Hotel Irvine (Fka the Irvine Hyatt). The speakers for the evening were Lucille Kring and Kris Murray. These council members have been under attack for their vote on permitting hotel developers to have a rebate on the Transient Occupancy Tax, (TOT) once and if the hotels are built by the developers. This issue came before the council in 2012 and the council was split 2-3. More important is the May 2013 vote, when the issue was again considered and the vote was 4-1, Mayor Tom Tait being the only vote against the rebate.
The other hot topic of discussion was the ongoing negotiations with the Angels to extend their contract with Anaheim.
We heard over and over again from Kring and Murray that these were “complicated” issues. It seemed to me they had forgotten that their audience for the evening were 1) Grown-up people whom have all presumably stayed at a Hotel at some point in their lives, 2) Live in Orange County and know a few things about the Angels and Arte Moreno and 3) Are all politicians of one ilk or another.
It’s not complicated. It is not new math. It is not brain surgery or rocket science, but here’s the message they delivered.
Kris Murray beat the drum of unity of the City Council, indicating they were all in agreement on this and that and a whole bunch of other things. It is noteworthy, that the Central Committee meeting is open to anyone who wishes to attend, and in general, whomever is speaking is also not a secret. It would seem to behoove good local Republican politicians to know what the goings on are in their county’s Central Committee, particularly when a monthly meeting might be featuring one of their cohorts on their own council. Mayor Tom Tait was a guest speaking at the meeting just a few months ago. He delivered a very different message. His message was that he stood alone fighting the battle of fiscal conservativism on the Anaheim City Council. The 4-1 vote in favor of extending tax rebates (TOT’s) to hotel developers (Tait was the only dissenter) seems to bolster this claim by Mayor Tait.
Ms. Murray went on to discuss the “complicated” issues arising in the negotiations with the Angels over extending their contract with Anaheim. She emphasized the long history of the partnership of the city and the team, (no mention of the protracted litigation over the name just a few years ago) and the huge risk to the city should the Angels decide to up and move to a nearby city that will build them a new stadium, such as happened in Atlanta. She prepared a Power Point but time constraints did not permit her to go through it. She was kind enough to email it to the Central Committee members today for our review. It was interesting in that the Power Point contained one map of the United States that showed the teams that are receiving substantial subsidies from their city. These included four teams, Seattle Mariners, Arizona Diamondbacks, Washington Nationals, and Tampa Bay Rays. Each are purported to be receiving in excess of $300 million dollars in facilities funding. She emphasized that the city “makes” money on the Angels franchise in that it brings people to the area who support local retail and hotels. There are 30 MLB teams, there was no information or statistics on the averages, or any other variations, only the four teams getting subsidy’s of $300 million or more.
Tom Tait, when he recently appeared before the Committee, had argued that the city was not making money on the current deal with the Angels, and that the Angels were in essence being provided “free rent”. The Orange County register in September reported that over the past 16years that the current agreement has been in place, the city made money in nine of those years, and lost money in the past seven, for a net loss of $52,000.00. A sports/business expert interviewed by the Register called it an “irrelevant” loss. Tom Tait’s demeanor on that evening, was emotional, self serving, and desperate to convey to us that he was fighting the good fight and holding the line as a fiscal conservative. From that initial perspective to the message of last night, it is clear to see the emotionality in this divided Council. If Council Members Kring and Murray accomplished anything last night, it was to explain the emotionality and bolster the credibility of Mayor Tom Tait.
Lucille Kring discussed the TOT. This has been widely debated and criticized as the “$158 million dollar give away”. She went on into a lengthy discussion and explanation of the TOT, of the fact that in the ‘90’s some hotels chose to build in Garden Grove instead of Anaheim, because of such tax advantages, and that Garden Grove at that time gave away free land. She failed to note that those Garden Grove hotels have undergone several ownership changes since they were built. No discussion of whether the lack of success of those hotels has to do with the lack of proximity to Disneyland. She also noted that travelers frequently choose to stay in “four star” hotels in beach cities. There was no discussion of what these proposed hotels getting the TOT rebates would be, but one report was that the plan was for a three story structure. If that is what is proposed, that’s not a luxury hotel. She was terribly condescending in her repeated statements that the “city is not writing a check”. Well, maybe not now, but if this is indeed a “rebate”, that is exactly what the city will do. Again, she seemed to forget her audience, and stayed firm on her position that it was just too much for us to understand, and that if only we understood we would see what a great idea it was. She further, had great difficulty in admitting that she campaigned on representations that she would not support such tax breaks fro developers. Only after several questions from the typically forceful Debra Pauley, and then after the same question was restated by Chairman Baugh did Ms. Kring ultimately, finally admit that she “only discussed that with a few people, yes.”. She continued to assert that it was never stated in her “campaign materials”.
As public servants, both of these women serve our community at a substantial sacrifice to themselves, and nowhere could this be more appreciated than by this audience of public servants. However, in taking up the cloak of leadership, credibility, responsibility and message are relevant. Local politics is a blood sport and it appears they have engaged in this battle essentially unarmed. Overall, both Council Members were unconvincing in their message that everything is coming up roses in Anaheim and there is peace and harmony and that campaign promises are alive and well all around the Council Chambers in Anaheim. When Ms. Kring made the statement regarding her “campaign materials”, she turned away from the audience to face Chairman Baugh and spoke very softly. Nevertheless, it garnered an audible sigh from the audience.
There are a number of business people in Anaheim who support the Hotel deal, even though the most vociferous discussion on this TOT vote has been negative. Maybe there is a really good economic policy behind this and maybe it will ultimately be a wonderful outcome and bring business and revenue to the city, but we did not hear anything that sounded like that. There was a recurring excuse from both the speakers that these actions are similar to actions that have been taken before. That “well they did it back then” attitude and theme was as unpersuasive as every other part of the presentation.
Neither one of them appeared to believe in what they were selling. They were well prepared, rehearsed, polished and articulate and said what they came to say, but it was weak and unconvincing to say the least. If they believed in what they were doing, had absolute confidence in the positions they have taken on these issues, then there should have been no reason to sidestep actions contrary to campaign promises or to deny the obvious and well documented division among the council. This is certainly the wrong room to come to and be timid, apologetic,defensive, or untruthful.
In litigation we have a saying for silly or non-meritorious arguments, “That dog don’t hunt”. In the public forum as well as the political gathering last night, not only do these positions and policies “not hunt”, these politicians now and in their re-election bids will continue to be the hunted if they persist on a platform of excuses and half truths.
Posted by Lassie on January 14, 2014
Posted by Allen Wilson on January 13, 2014
Fullerton Mayor Doug Chaffee responds to the acquittal verdict for the Fullerton officers tried in the death of Kelly Thomas:
Today, the jury has spoken and we respect the verdict. I understand and appreciate how difficult this has been for the Thomas family. We appreciate not everyone may agree with the jury’s verdict. But we trust that the community will respect the verdict and the juror’s decisions.
Over the course of the past two and a half years the City of Fullerton has taken the initiative to implement reforms to our police department so it can provide the best possible service to our community. As Fullerton’s new Mayor, I will continue to make certain those efforts continue.
Mayor Chaffee was elected in June of 2012 along with Greg Sebourn and Travis Kieger during the recall election that swept out trio Councilmembers Richard Jones, Pat McKinley and Don Bankhead out of office due to the Kelly Thomas beating and other issues that snarled the Fullerton Police Department.
Note: Travis Kieger was unsuccessful in retaining his seat in November of 2012, which he was replaced by Jan Flory.
Posted by Newsletter Reprint on January 9, 2014
This came over the wire from the Newport-Mesa Tea Party Patriots over the weekend:
Like us on Facebook!YOU ARE WELCOME!
Come to NewportMesa Tea Party’s monthly meeting!
Admission is free (donations appreciated, online or at the meeting)
Find out who will be representing you in Allan Mansoor’s 74th Assembly District seat.
Hear the candidates’ visions for California and where they stand on the important issues facing our state today. Ask them questions – find out which candidate supports your values.Matthew Harper Mayor Matthew Harper was elected to the Huntington Beach City Council by the voters on November 2, 2010. Mayor Matthew Harper also serves on the Board of Directors for the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA).Karina Onofre was born and raised in Santa Ana, the first of four children, to a financially struggling, but hardworking family. Karina Onofre’s parents emigrated from Michoacan, Mexico in their late teens seeking a better life. They immigrated to Santa Ana, California and became legal U.S. Residents under President Ronald Reagan’s immigration reform in 1986.
Keith Curry Keith Curry, mayor of Newport Beach. Curry was appointed to the Newport Beach City Council in 2006 and will be termed out in 2016. He is the director of the Center for Public Policy at Concordia University, where he also teaches public police and leadership courses
Emanuel Patrascu, District Director for Assemblyman Travis Allen, took the lead role in organizing our community to save our beach bonfires. Previously, as a Policy Advisor in the State Senate, he was instrumental in helping craft legislation to deal with California’s water and transportation infrastructure needs. Emanuel served as the President of the Orange County Young Republicans and is serving on the advisory committee for the Orange County Trauma Intervention Program and on the Board of Directors of the Guard a Heart Foundation.
When: Thursday, January 9, 2014
Regular meetings held the 2nd Thursday of each month
Where: Halecrest Park Swim and Tennis Club
3107 Killybrooke Ln Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Time: 6:30pm to 8:30pmRSVP and Become a member:www.newportmesateaparty.com
Copyright © 2014 Newport Mesa Tea Party, All rights reserved.
Posted by Allen Wilson on January 8, 2014
The protracted issue regarding how Anaheim councilmembers are elected has come to an end but with a steep price.
Councilmembers Kris Murray and Gail Eastman has cost the taxpayers of Anaheim at a tune of $2 Million.
The City of Anaheim has already racked up $1.2 Million to defend itself and now must bear the cost of paying the litigants legal bills of over $1 Million, the ACLU and Anaheim Community Activists, who brought the issue to it’s head two years ago.
The Orange County Register reports that Anaheim Mayor Tom Tait says, “the cost of fighting the lengthy lawsuit could have been avoided if the City Council in August 2012 had approved his call for similar ballot measure.”
The two councilmembers joined with then-Councilman Harry Sidhu in 2012 as council majority stubbornly rejected Mayor Tait’s proposal.
The issue centers around Latino activists who echoed the need to change how councilmembers are elected from at-large to districts, because no Latino currently sits on the dais and 52% of the community are Latinos.
The settlement was agreed upon from a case Moreno, et al. vs. City of Anaheim that was slated to go to trail on March 17, 2014 regarding the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA).
The Voice of OC reported that Councilmember Murray called the deal “a win for our citizens, for our residents, for the taxpayers of Anaheim.”
Ironically, the Orange County Register reports that Councilmember Murray says, “I am still opposed to a form of single-member district election. I think this lawsuit and the fees attached to it are unfortunate for this city.”
In the January 8th, 2014 edition of The Anaheim Blog contributor Matthew Cunningham asserts that the ACLU and Jose Moreno are at fault for costing the taxpayers huge legal bills: “The fault lies with the plaintiffs’ stubborn insistence on bypassing the voters in favor of the imposition of single-member districts by judicial fiat.”
Frankly, Mr. Cunningham forgets that Councilmembers Murray and Eastman have an fiduciary duty to protect the city’s assets such as taxpayer funds and settle the issue back in 2012 as suggested by Mayor Tait to let the voters decide how their councilmembers are elected.
Councilmembers Murray and Eastman should realize that the buck stops with them and they have the power by finding a consensus with Mayor Tait instead of fighting against him and the community.
The bottom line is this: consensus is cheap, litigation is expensive.