Foothills Sentry December 2021

Foothills Sentry Page 4 December 2021 JOHNSON MOTORCARS 31 Years of Specializing in the Service and Repair of Mercedes-Benz Gary Johnson 714-997-2567 982 N. Batavia # B13, Orange, CA 92867 gary@johnsonmotorcars.com By Arianna Barrios When we were in the throes of COVID, the state mandated that all indoor businesses and restau- rants must be closed to custom- ers. Orange quickly began find - ing ways to keep our businesses healthy, while protecting the literal health of our residents. A few concepts worked, including “Drive Up, Take Out and Save,” a program spearheaded by the Or- ange Chamber of Commerce that encouraged residents to continue patronizing our restaurants. Another idea to keep our down- town businesses afloat was to temporarily close Glassell Street one block north and south of the Plaza to allow for outdoor dining. Known as “the Paseo,” this temporary street closure meant busses, trucks and other vehicu- lar traffic would have to be redi - rected through the neighborhoods in Old Towne, but we were all in it together to help the downtown businesses and keep our local economy strong. Once indoor dining re-opened, many residents were looking for- ward to the re-opening of Glassell so the air quality, noise and traf- fic impacts would return to pre- COVID levels. Instead, the city council directed staff to consider a “seasonal” Paseo along with a “parklets” idea, which would re- move the parking cut-outs along Glassell downtown and allow restaurants to provide outdoor dining, while re-opening Glassell to through traffic. The parklets idea seems like it might be a good compromise to reduce the impacts of re-routing traffic through quiet neighbor - hoods. But whatever is decided, the process needs to be a public one. This area is the largest Na- tional Historic District in the state, and the impacts of a major change, whether it’s removing parking spaces or closing off a main street through the center of Parklets in the Plaza protect businesses and residents Guest Commentary town, should be analyzed. What are the air quality, noise and traf- fic impacts? What do the local residents think of these changes? Orange residents deserve to have a voice in the process. Earlier this month, the Orange council was informed that Glas- sell had been removed from the county’s Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). Overseen by the Orange County Transporta- tion Authority (OCTA), this plan dictates everything from funding allocations from M2 sales taxes, to traffic flow and volume on our streets, and how that is managed. Given the historic nature of Glas- sell, the Orange Plaza and all the major changes being considered, it is galling to me, personally, that neither the council nor the public was provided the opportunity to weigh in on this issue. While our mayor represents the city on the OCTA Board of Directors, in neither October nor November did he report to his colleagues, or the public, that this change was occurring. This is all made more confusing by the fact that Glassell is scheduled to re- open to through-traffic on Jan. 1, per the council’s direction in Au- gust. Why now? And why with such an utter lack of transpar- ency? Another alarming factoid is that this change was done through OCTA’s “consent” calendar at both the committee and board level, which meant there was no discussion and no notification to the residents and businesses most impacted by the continuation of the Paseo. While removing Glassell from the MPAH will not be an exor- bitant cost to Orange taxpayers, only $12,000 per year, the lack of transparency and denial of the public process is of grave con- cern. Your council should have been informed as part of the de- liberative process. According to public records, the city knew OCTA was recommending this action months ago. There was plenty of time to agendize and discuss the issue, but neither the council nor the public were given that opportunity. There was even council discussion concerning potential conflicts with OCTA in August, so one would think any change should have raised red flags. It’s time that we stop holding the community at arm’s-length from decisions that directly im- pact our neighborhoods. We can find solutions that can satisfy the concerns of both the businesses and residents if we work together. But whether we all agree on the solutions or not, the process needs to be both transpar- ent and inclusive of all Orange residents. Arianna Barrios serves as the Orange City Councilmember for District 1, which includes all of Old Towne. By Melanie Pollak “You’re agreeing to potentially kill our children!” ... “You’re tak- ing away our rights!” ... “Don’t take blood money by feeding our children to the wolves!” ... “You plan to force this vaccine on our kids!” … “Prove that our chil- dren mean more to you than a dollar sign!”… “I don’t give a s@$%!” These are just a few of the phrases screamed out at the Or- ange Unified School District Board meeting on Nov. 18, over a backdrop of adults pounding on windows, blowing noisemakers, shouting over board members, and interrupting with jeers and heckles. Had any of the parents in the room received a call from their child’s teacher or princi- pal describing similar behavior by their child during class or a school presentation, these same parents would’ve likely doled out some harsh punishments. The possibility of a vaccina- tion requirement ordered by the state has drawn strong emotions, both for and against, and the re- sults have been a toxic movement that has taken parental hesitation to hysterical levels, and caused chaos in our once peaceful com- munity. Sadly, this hysteria has been targeted directly at those most accessible, despite their lack of influence in state health depart - ment decisions. The last board meeting was fraught with threats against board members who were accused of having hidden agen- das and complaints that the board seemed to focus much of its time on money and budgets. Perhaps it would be a good time to refresh the public on what Civility must return to OUSD board meetings and the community Guest Commentary a school board actually does and has the power to do. The school board serves as oversight for how our taxpayer dollars are spent; therefore, most of every meeting is dedicated to how and where that money is allocated. Those who have been to previous school board meetings are aware of this. As for any potential state-issued vaccination requirement, the board is legally bound to comply. It can pass a resolution opposing it, but it would merely be words on paper. If the board fails to en- force the state’s requirements, it could lead to a compliance audit at the district’s expense, whereby the district would lose state fund- ing for each student found to be out of compliance. The out-of- area instigators encouraging this frenzy will not make up this fund- ing loss, and it will result in a se- rious lack of educational services and programs for our children. As for the vitriol hurled at the current majority on the board, it is disheartening to hear accusa- tions of hidden agendas levied against parents who have a long history of volunteering in our schools. They are the moms who said “yes” again and again when their children’s teachers, schools, and community needed help. Yet now, these members of our com- munity are accused of nefarious intentions. One of the reasons we elect community members to a local school board is to guard against outside influencers whose inten - tions may not have our best inter- ests at heart, yet it seems that a lot of social media outside influenc - ers have encouraged once ratio- nal people to take behavior usu- ally reserved for the social media comments section live, and these unhinged school board meetings are the results. No one should have to endure people scream- ing threats at them or listen to tirades comparing vaccines to the Holocaust. We are all adults, and if we truly want what is best for our children, we have to start by giving them a strong, healthy community where we can model proper behavior and have a ratio- nal, two-way conversation with- out seeing our neighbors as ene- mies. In the words of Kathy Mof- fat, “You are with your neighbors, and your friends, please be civil.” Melanie Pollak is a 14-year resident of Anaheim Hills, and the mother of two OUSD students. See "OUSD" continued from page 1 Once enacted, OUSD would be compelled, by law, to enforce it. Fighting words Attendees were upset about two resolutions that the board was slated to vote on. Based on their comments, the audience’s perception was that one resolu- tion reflected support for a vac - cine mandate, and that the district would force parents to comply. The other was thought to be a declaration that OUSD would defy the state, not enforce the mandate and let parents decide. That was not the case. The first resolution, presented by Kathy Moffat, restated California’s CO- VID protocols, and the district’s duty to follow them. It focused on problems created by misinforma- tion, and asked the state to double down on its efforts to provide consistent, factual data. The reso- lution also asked that mask man- dates be reconsidered “as soon as warranted” and to consider recov- ery from the virus as a substitute for proof of vaccination. The other, drafted by John Ortega, Rick Ledesma and Angie Rumsey, asked the state to restore local authority to create and im- plement COVID safety plans, and uphold the right of parents to pro- vide informed consent. While the second resolution ad- vocating parental choice played well to the audience, it had no legal teeth. School districts have no legislative authority. School boards cannot modify state laws. Legal constraints Ortega advised that his origi- nal resolution had declared that the district would not enforce a vaccine mandate, but the lawyers took that part out. “We couldn’t say that,” Supt. Gunn Marie Han- sen clarified later. “That would have been illegal.” Moffat summarized her resolu- tion, saying that, “vaccines will continue. My hope is that we come together and, equipped with accurate information, work to- ward a shared solution to protect every child.” OUSD Attorney Tony De- Marco addressed the legal is- sues, “Ten vaccines are already mandated. Additional vaccines may be mandated only if an ex- emption is allowed for medical or personal belief. There are no mandates. Everything is tentative at this point.” “Nobody is voting tonight on a vaccine mandate,” Kris Erickson stressed. “There is no mandate in effect, just a potential future mandate. You’re asking board members to say ‘never.’ We don’t know what’s going to happen. We’re united in our desire to keep schools open. Part of keeping the doors open is to make sure stu- dents are safe.” Orange un-unified Ledesma called Moffat’s reso- lution “unnecessary;” Ortega noted it failed to mention parental choice. Ledesma drew applause when he told the audience not to buy into the personal exemption because "kids not wearing masks are treated like lepers in the class- room.” Andrea Yamasaki suggested that, as the two resolutions were not competing and contained statements agreeable to every- one, both be tabled, and the board work together to draft a single resolution to meet the common goal of doing what is best for stu- dents’ health and safety. Moffat, Yamasaki, Erickson and Ana Page voted to table the resolutions; Ortega, Ledesma and Rumsey dissented. “We kept people here until 12:05 a.m.,” Ortega objected, “and then did not allow a vote to take place. It should be a yes or no vote, a voice for us whether we agree or disagree.” “We are Orange Unified,” Ya - masaki had reminded her col- leagues earlier. “It is important for us to work together.”