Foothills Sentry January 2020

Foothills Sentry Page 8 January 2020 Circulation … 43,400 • Published on the first Tuesday of each month and distributed to residences, businesses, libraries and civic centers. 714-532-4406 Fax: 714-532-6755 foothillssentry.com 1107 E. Chapman Ave., #207 Orange, CA 92866 ©Foothills Sentry 2020 Publisher/Editor Anita Bennyhoff 1969-2013 Editor Tina Richards editor@foothillssentry.com Sports Editor Cliff Robbins sportseditor@att.net Graphic Design Jackie Steward graphics@foothillssentry.com 714-588-1748 Advertising Sales Andie Mills advertising@foothillssentry.com 714-926-9299 Office Manager Kathy Eidson officemanager@foothillssentry.com "Letters" continued from page 7 violated the precepts of good taste and morality by calling out the citizens of Orange, and posting outlandish lies in a failed effort to sway Orange residents. I would also like to thank Milan LLC for the deceptive, disrespectful, and distorted mailers that we were all subjected to. I would like to thank Councilman Mike Alvarez for showing us all that we were “spoiled crybabies” who not only needed his direction, but were also not deserving of the respect he so desperately thinks he is en- titled to. To all of these people, I say “thank you.” We could not have done it without your hateful, disrespectful, and deceitful mail- ers, posts and comments. John Reina Orange Dear Editor: I’m a resident of Orange, and I oppose the Milan Capital devel- opment, even though I do not live in OPA. I was approached by a volunteer collecting signatures to put a ref- erendum on the ballot that would overturn the city council’s deci- sion to approve the development. This volunteer said they wanted to demonstrate there was support for denying approval throughout the City of Orange - that this was not just an OPA issue. It is clear the EIR is flawed. Additionally, there are no spe- cifics regarding mitigation or re- mediation. I am especially con- cerned about methane mitigation, and evacuation in the event of a fire or flood. Please keep reporting on this story. It’s critical, in view of the misleading mailers I received from Milan. Robin Reichelt Orange Dear Editor: Congratulations to all those who worked so very hard to gath- er enough signatures to referend the project at Sully-Miller. It is a daunting task to walk the city seeking voters’ signatures. Now that that is done, what is next for OPA and the surround- ing neighborhoods? Your work is really just starting. I am pretty sure that those who signed the pe- titions are not waiting to write a check for the major attorney bills coming down the pike. Those who signed are now waiting to see whatever they were promised to come to fruition. One thing is for sure: because OPA would not negotiate, the arena site will be up for grabs. Hopefully, those who signed the referendum will be waiting with checkbook in hand to help OPA find a suitable arena site that an equestrian neighborhood needs. Next, what happens with Ridgeline? I’m sure that the folks living around that piece of scorched earth can’t wait to see what’s coming their way. Since the city will not own it, if the ref- erendum seekers get their way, any number of activities could go on there. And then, Sully-Miller. What will happen there? We have all been told the scare tactics that this developer could sell to someone willing to build low-cost, high- density housing. What we may not know is our “dear friends” in Sacramento have passed a bill that allows for just that … and be- cause housing is so scarce in Cal- ifornia, these projects are put on the fast track with no EIR needed and no referendum can be sought. I hope this is clearly understood. We need sensible people to work something out. Nobody will be completely happy, but there must be some common ground. For those who want nothing: your idealism is overwhelming, but your idealism may bring our neighborhoods something not one single person wants. Then what? Traffic like we’ve never seen, gobs of “project” houses, no open space, no OPA arena, no new trails, no extension of Santiago Oaks Park, no Ridgeline. Hope- fully this isn’t what you wished for, and most hopefully, this is not what we end up with. Tom Davidson Orange Park Acres Dear Editor: A big thanks to the Orange vot- ers who signed the Sully-Miller referendum petition, all 13,192 of you! There were 180 volunteers circulating the referendum peti- tion at grocery stores, in public places and door-to-door in No- vember. We delivered the signa- tures to the city clerk on Dec. 4. By the time the 30-day signa- ture-gathering project was over, a really cool relationship had developed between the gatherers and the citizens. Over that time, people were learning and waking up to the realization that our city council had just bailed out Milan, the landowner, and their action would have negative ramifica- tions to our city in the future. By the third week, people started to notice that Milan was spending tons of money trying to prevent people from signing the petition. Many people expressed appreciation for our dedication and hard work, in spite of the weather. I would like to thank the cou- ple who answered their door af- ter dark. I had been knocking on doors since 9:30 that morning, and had eaten only a peanut butter sandwich all day. I was starving, and they invited me in for a won- derful dinner. What a treat. Then there were the nice folks entertaining for the UCLA - USC football game. When they an- swered their door, they actually muted the television so that ev- eryone in the room could hear what I had to say. Thank you to the five people who got up from the game and signed my petition. Out of the blue, there was this wonderful woman who signed, and then insisted she personally take me to all the neighbors on her cul-de-sac and vouched that I was on the good side. A half an hour later she found me and said, “Get in my car, I want to take you to get signatures from my parents and their neighbors, and I’ll bring you right back here.” I hopped in, and came back with even more signatures. What a day. I was just one of the many vol- unteers out there getting signa- tures. There are so many stories of people going out of their way to help us and cheering us on. I was honored to meet so many kind people. This referendum was record-breaking in every way, thanks to the generosity of so many. David Hillman Orange Dear Editor: What happens when elected of- ficials don’t listen? If I learned nothing else from the recent Santiago Creek ref- erendum drive, it’s how Orange City Council members keep mak- ing the same mistakes. Several city council members erroneously stated that only a small number of Orange Park Acres residents oppose the large housing development proposed for the already congested San- tiago Canyon and Cannon inter- section. The referendum drive proved them wrong. In 2014, then-Councilman Fred Whitaker announced that Mabury Ranch favored an even larger de- velopment at that intersection. A petition opposing it proved him wrong; the majority in Mabury Ranch signed it. The recent ref- erendum drive proved the same - more than 200 Mabury Ranch signatures were collected. We need elected officials who don’t believe what they’re told to believe. We need representatives who are willing to get out in the community - just like the petition circulators - and learn for them- selves why the citizens of Orange do not want a large development at this already clogged intersec- tion. Stephanie Lesinski Mabury Ranch Over board Dear Editor: I was at the Dec. 19 OUSD Board meeting. Much has been said about the inappropriate be- havior of the teachers, but the behavior of the OCCA (Orange County Classical Academy) sup- porters hasn’t been shared with the public. When my friends and I arrived at the meeting, every seat was saved with an OCCA sign. This was approximately an hour before the meeting was to begin. I moved three signs and we sat down. The OCCA supporters were very rude to us, but we stayed in our seats. The district uses blue cards for the public to fill out if they want to speak. One of OCCA’s repre- sentatives took all of the cards and put them in his back pocket. Approximately four hours into the meeting, some chairs behind us opened up, and we instructed a staff member to sit down. An elderly gentleman was quite rude and wouldn’t let her sit down. He called her the b-word. I’ve been to many school board meetings in my 25 years of teach- ing, and for the first time I felt un- welcome inside my own district’s boardroom. The only support I felt came from the many teachers there to oppose the OCCA char- ter. Unfortunately, due to the lan- guage and actions of four of the school board members, I have no confidence that they support the teachers of OUSD. Michelle Kauten Orange Dear Editor: I am the proud parent of a VPHS class of 2018 graduate and a current seventh grader at Cerro Villa Middle School. I have long been undecided on the general question of charter schools. I have read of charter schools that are phenomenal suc- cesses, and also have read of high failure rates. I believe that every charter school application has to be assessed on its own merits and the value that it provides. My objections to this charter are: (1) Public monies should not be used to fund parochial/re- ligious schools. (2) The OCCA sponsors’ extensive history of damaging school districts. There is absolutely a place in our community for good paro- chial K-12 education. If a fam- ily wishes their children to learn math, English, science or history in an environment that reinforces the values taught at home, that’s great – they should go for it. But this type of environment should be at private schools only and not paid for on the public dime. I suggest that OCCA is, at its core, a religious school masquer- ading as a public charter only to obtain public funding. Simply stripping its application, mar- keting and presentations of any overtly religious language does not change that fact. OCCA has stated its intention of using materials originated with Hillsdale College and its Barney Charter Initiative. Hillsdale College is a Chris- tian liberal arts college. It is not a public institution, a state school or a historic land grant college. Hillsdale’s values cannot reason- ably be expected to be separated from the curricula it provides to school start-ups. There are other “classical” academies in Southern California that all use the same “classical” curriculum, but all are private religious schools. My second point is that the school board be wary of the two gentlemen who are the sponsors of this charter school. Between the two, they have brought con- troversy, lawsuits, and embarrass- ing national attention to Westmin- ster Unified, Capistrano Unified, Los Alamitos Unified and, most notably, Orange Unified. One of them believes science is a mere policy debate, and suggested that science teachers should “teach the controversy” rather than actu- al straight science. The other was at the center of the expensive and embarrassing 2001 OUSD board recall. Allowing these men a foothold into OUSD is like inviting an arsonist in the backdoor of your home and handing him a five- gallon can of gas on the way in. By California law, districts are required to accept charter schools unless they are materially lack- ing in their petitions and support- ing materials. This one has been lacking from the start, but, unfor- tunately, certain members of our school board have been eager to support it without any critical as- sessment. It is one more instance of some members of our school board doing more to diminish the district rather than build it up. JJ Meis Orange Dear Editor: I attended the OUSD board meeting on Dec. 19 when the OCCA received permission to move ahead. I want to let you know that the four board mem- bers who voted for the charter are the same four members who consistently choose to go against what is good for the students and staff of OUSD. They have special interests and receive financial gains for voting against their own staff/students. The members of the charter school behaved horribly and ac- tually lied during the meeting. Members of the charter were there to ask for favor from the OUSD Board, yet made rude comments, interrupted the proceedings and made fun of board members. Although I am Christian, I fol- low the rules when it comes to not indoctrinating students with my religious beliefs. And, I trust that other doctrines are not be- ing taught to our children. That is what a private, separate school is for. Not one that is intermingled with a public school. During the meeting, the mem- bers of the charter also spoke negatively against our union. I grew up in Detroit in the 1960s and 70s, and was frightened of union activities. When I came to OUSD, I slowly learned about the union and its activities and ben- efits to employees. I learned how to make our voices, opinions and concerns heard -- and we have seen positive changes within our district. That is the union at work. I am disappointed that our board members voted against OUSD staff and students. Thank you to Kathy Moffat, Kris Erickson and Andrea Yama- saki for standing up for OUSD. I appreciate it. Lauri Flaugher Former OUSD employee Dear Editor: As a parent of four children in Orange Unified School District, I have seen our district gain some amazing momentum over the last two years with new construction, innovative school programs, and increased community involve- ment. While we have two highly suc- cessful charter schools (El Ran- cho and Santiago) that add to this success, all charter schools are not created equal. Data shows charter schools are inherently risky and can be a costly and potentially disruptive experiment for our stu- dents and district finances. A highly qualified, expert staff at OUSD spent countless hours analyzing the Orange County Classical Academy charter school petition, producing an exten- sive report detailing significant deficiencies in the school’s pro- posed curriculum, budget, and implementation plans. Based on its careful analysis and findings, district staff recommended the OUSD Board of Education deny it. Nonetheless, Trustee Rick