Foothills Sentry August 2020

Foothills Sentry Page 4 August 2020 Guest Commentary By Peter Jacklin The recently quarantined 4th of July holiday inspired me to read the Declaration of Independence once again. Few people read the document beyond the famous “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” words. Deeper into the document, the authors list 27 grievances against the king and the British government. The grievances can be categorized as abuses of power, deafness to the people’s wishes and needs, ignor- ing laws, making public records gathering a fatiguing exercise and abolishing citizen’s representa- tive bodies. These are still with us after 244 years. To place this in perspective, at that time, the king ascended to the throne from a succession of royal British families, created by inter-marriage with European royalty. He reigned until he either abdicated or passed away. He was influenced by aristocrats, advis- ers and courtiers. All of this led to a self-serving and citizen-deaf government. Today, in the City of Orange, we have a succession of the same politicians sitting in office. May- or Mark Murphy has served in various capacities since he was appointed in 1993, giving musi- cal chairs a new meaning. Mayor pro tem Mike Alvarez has been around since 1996. The other three seats have been graced by a carousel of same names – Dumitru, Whitaker, Bilodeau, Cavecche, Steiner, to name a few. To protect and serve Like the old British Empire, these public servants have failed to listen, have acted inconsistent- ly, and have their “Orange Em- pire” in a sorry state. The city has been led by developers; is over- populated; the pension burden is unbearable; the traffic has grown to be monstrous; there are too few parks; affordable housing is non- existent; homeless wander the streets; and, there is absolutely no vision for the city – except build more houses that cost the city more to service than they gener- ate in revenue. Who are the current aristocrats, advisers and courtiers? They in- clude favored real estate develop- ers, real estate brokers, the city’s large corporations, and lobbyists. Our city council can be described as indifferent to the public’s needs, mesmerized by mystical sales propaganda and support- ive of agenda items of favored friends. The council hides behind CO- VID-19 and refuses to allow the public to participate in council meetings. Public comments may be submitted in writing, but they are not read during the council session. This hinders those who prefer to speak from the heart, in real time. Petitioning the govern- ment no longer exists in our city. Out of focus This council has ignored state law and its own municipal ordi- nances that prohibit the growing pile of toxic waste at the Sully- Miller site in East Orange. It abstains from its role as ad- ministrator of state water rights on Santiago Creek. From time to time, and as the situation al- lows, the council has appointed favorites to open council seats, preventing Orange citizens from electing their own representa- tives. And justice for all Council members have ignored long-standing land-use planning documents. They act inconsis- tently in their decision-making, favoring the mighty and wealthy. Is this how a representative government acts for its citizens? Not at all! What can be done? Our founding fathers show the way. The Declaration tells us that it is our right and our duty to “throw off such government” that ignores our grievances and becomes des- potic in nature and presence. This is not an advocacy for an “Orange revolution” in the streets. Luck- ily, this royalty can begin to be thrown off this November, in a democratic manner. Under the new districting pro- visions, four seats on the council are available. For the first time, each seat in the upcoming elec- tion represents district voting, along with the hope of new faces, new and better messages and pol- icies. Change is needed. Change is possible. In the districts, there is a fresh wind favoring change. The mayor’s position remains elected by the city-at-large ev- ery two years. Service as mayor is limited to three terms; Murphy has one more to go. Our current mayor’s policies, beliefs and friends have influenced our city for the better part of his adult life – far too long. The city needs a new vision and direction for the middle of the 21st century. Can Mayor Murphy provide it? We’ll see in the next few months. A fresh wind needs to blow through the mayor’s office as well. Peter Jacklin serves as a direc- tor of the Orange Park Associa- tion. The views presented here do not reflect the views of the Asso- ciation. An opportunity too good to miss Dear Editor: Just HAD to thank you for fea- turing the mural painted by Mor- gan Green of those gorgeous pets in your last issue. Thanks to her, also, for sharing her marvelous talent!! Elizabeth McGee Anaheim Hills Speak up Dear Editor: The election season is upon us. And while the unfortunate cir- cumstances of COVID-19 have shifted our priorities, this pan- demic should, in fact, heighten our readiness to select leaders that will constructively and re- sponsibly lead us through the shadows that still lay ahead. Now, more than ever, we must protect our communities. So, let’s start analyzing at the local level what we need and who those leaders should be. The candidates for the Orange City Council and mayor are now pulling papers and will start campaigning, this time by districts. Just last December, Orange cit- izens successfully won a referen- dum to place the decision before the voters as to whether or not the Sully-Miller property should be rezoned for a housing tract. A resounding public majority had spoken against this dangerous proposition, but our city council pushed it through. Rezoning the Sully-Miller property to residen- tial would lay the groundwork for dismantling adopted community plans that were carefully crafted decades ago to preserve areas des- ignated as open space in Orange. So, the first question we must ask, is which candidates stand behind a “no” vote on the ballot measure pertaining to the Santiago Creek development? Secondly, which candidates will stand behind the enforcement of our zoning codes and commu- nity plans that have been in place for decades? Which candidates value our neighborhoods and the voice of the people? Lastly, we must know: which candidates are supported by developer dollars? We need city leaders who will listen and work for the people. Let’s start finding out who those candidates are. Remember to vote “no” on the Santiago Creek de- velopment on Nov. 3. Lauren McLeary Orange Dear Editor: I am writing in support of the article, “Public opinion not being heard in Orange virtual council meetings.” I am a lifelong resident of the City of Orange, and have personally attended city council meetings until COVID-19 forced them to be held remotely. Now, I watch them live online. After watching the virtual council meetings over the last four months, it became apparent to me that the public’s right to know was, and is, being obstruct- ed. The council does not allow for public comments during the meeting. The city clerk simply reads a list of people who sub- mitted comments for the record. It was only by reading the afore- mentioned article that I learned the public comments, are insert- ed in the public record after the meeting is over and can be found on the city website. What good does that do? I appreciate hearing the con- cerns of my fellow residents in their own voice. In spite of CO- VID-19, other cities and agencies allow for this. Modern technology makes it possible for citizens to participate remotely so that they are seen and heard. Some cities have their city clerk read aloud each of the public comments, or have citizens phone in to state their comments. This is a missed opportunity to tap the pulse of the community. I was particularly taken aback when I read the article “Orange City Council issues, ‘Orange Stands Together’ proclamation”. Apparently, the written proclama- tion closed with a promise that, “The City will engage the com- munity to promote open dialogue about intolerance of racism, im- plicit bias, and discrimination.” So why was the public not heard at the June 9 meeting when 12 comments were submitted about defunding the police? Watching as our City Council ignores public participation, I ap- preciated reading, “2020 – Is this the start of change?” by Adrienne Gladson. She writes that we need residents to run for office who will put in the time, represent all, have good public policy, be trust- worthy and truthful. I am up for that challenge and willing to put in the effort. I also know we must be inclusive by listening to all and be willing to have “uncomfort- able conversations” in a respect- ful manner. I am therefore proud and happy to announce that I will be running for Orange City Coun- cil for District 5. Ana Gutierrez Orange Dear Editor: Driving by the regional parks in East Orange this weekend, I could not help but notice that with the COVID-19 lockdown, the demand for these open spaces and trails is at an all-time high. The parks were jammed to ca- pacity. Everywhere you looked, there were hikers and bikers out to get their fill of the trails and open spaces we have. One can- not help but wonder how many more people could be out enjoy- ing these parks if the additional 120 acres in open space, nature walks, and miles of new trails that were provided in The Trails at Santiago Creek Project that the City approved last October were already in place. Certainly, this space is not only needed, but necessary for the people of the City of Orange. If not for the referendum underway now, perhaps we could be enjoy- ing some of these new trails to- day, when we need them most. They would obviously be a vast improvement over the fenced-off lands that are currently a gravel pit and a field of weeds we call Ridgeline, that would be con- verted into open space under this plan. If you don’t use the trails and parks in Orange County, then I get why you might be ambiva- lent on this subject. But it you do use them, and value the amount of open space in our community, then you should definitely be in support of the Trails at Santiago Creek plan, and vote to confirm this project in the next election. Let’s do something about this on Nov. 3 and claim this land for the people of Orange by defeating the referendum that wants to block this project. Mark Moore The Reserve No spray to play Dear Editor: I was shocked to read that the landscaping contract for our parks was being approved with- out a public hearing. After meet- ing with city council members last summer and presenting or- ganic landscaping options, it’s discouraging to hear that they approved a contract to spray the majority of our parks with known carcinogenic pesticides. I am glad the city continues to keep Santiago Hills Park pesti- cide-free. I am also interested to learn how Killefer and La Veta Parks were chosen to also be pes- ticide-free. I believe it’s important for any parent in Orange to take his or her child to a nontoxic park. So why is the health of children playing at La Veta Park more important than those at, say, Grijalva Park? I would ask the council to re- consider this contract and find the budget to organically maintain all of our parks, or, at the very least, to switch all of our parks to “pes- ticide-free.” We elected the city council to lead our beautiful city in the right direction, and we’re looking to them to help protect our chil- dren. Right now, parks are one of the only approved places our residents can visit. Our request should be a no-brainer. Jessica Barber Orange Net results Dear Editor: My family is adamantly op- posed to the proposed develop- ment of housing units on the property currently known as the Tustin Hills Racquet Club, and vigorously oppose any changes to the land covenants, restrictions, or zoning of this property as has been clearly recognized in all title reports and prior agreements be- tween the developer of the Rac- quet Club facilities, the city, the county, and the citizens affected by its presence. We disagree with the assump- tions raised related to the traffic studies, and demand that a full en- vironmental report be contracted for and supplied by the developer. We disagree that any changes can be made to the title and covenants already approved for this property, as they were clearly negotiated by the original developer of the property, as well as accepted fully by the subsequent property owners. We disagree with the pure land and money grab that the devel- opers are attempting to achieve while having significant negative impact on the current members of the clubs, homeowners adjacent to the club, as well as the com- munity as a whole. We believe it will have a nega- tive impact on property values to build a high-density project with- in the confines of a single-fami- ly community with very strict guidelines related to lot size and type of construction. Past litigation has proven that no changes are allowed that do not fit within the title and cov- enants that exist for the property. Greed should not prevail when this community has tried time and again to negotiate with the prior owner to purchase and retain the facility as it is. But his greed (even knowing the restrictions that ex- ist on the property) is driving the request for zoning changes with- out any consideration for existing agreements or the community. This is a unique community asset that this community will fight for, working to deny their ability to pursue this project. Robert and Nancy Page Lemon Heights