I am shocked to find these names on Kris Murray's host committee:
Scott Baugh
Shawn Nelson
Janet Nguyen
Todd Spitzer
Do these folks not follow the news? Are they unaware of her voting record and lies to the Anaheim public?
If you believe they should pull their endorsements, please e-mail/call them individually with your thoughts at:
Scott Baugh:
contact@ocgop.org
Shawn Nelson:
Audra.Fishel@ocgov.com
Janet Nguyen:
714-834-3110
Todd Spitzer:
Todd.Spitzer@ocgov.com
Last night council members Kris Murray, Gail Eastman, Lucille Kring, and Jordan Brandman voted to GIVEAWAY $158 million of future Anaheim tax revenue. See highlights from last nights public comments below:
Q: What is it?
A: Hotelier Bill O’Connell is asking taxpayers to underwrite his hotel, with $158 million in subsidy that was intended for the General Fund, to pay for Police, Fire, libraries, parks and other essential City services. His claim is that the City needs more 4-star hotel rooms to attract upscale visitors, and those more expensive rooms cost more money.
Bill O'Connell
Q: Seems reasonable-so why doesn’t this deal work?
A: If bankers are lending for the 3 star hotels currently about to break ground, but won’t lend on 4 star hotels, they may be telling us there isn’t a market for those high end lodgings. Why should we as taxpayers give money for an investment bankers won’t lend on?
O’Connell says even with the subsidy he will not be able to break ground for at least a year or two. A leading hotel expert argues that by waiting an additional year no subsidy would be needed, as the lending market will be friendlier.
Jack Corgell, a Professor at Cornell University of Hotel Administration stated, “The value of waiting an extra year could be substantial to the city, why would you do this now? What’s the urgency?” In addition, one of Orange County’s top hotel real estate consultants, Alan Reay, stated ,“The hotel market has recovered, and revenues continue to climb. Lenders have already stepped back into the market.”
Q: Why doesn’t the developer wait a year and secure traditional financing?
A: By waiting a year he wouldn’t benefit from free tax money, which makes the deal more lucrative for him and his investors. The developer appears to owe more than the land is worth. Many of us find ourselves “upside down” on our homes, why should one developer expect us to bail out his bad investment?
Q: Didn’t anyone stand up against the original giveaway?
Yes, Mayor Tom Tait and (former) Mayor Pro-Tem Lorri Galloway voted NO. City Manager Bob Wingenroth also opposed the deal, after having served years as Anaheim’s Finance Director, he could see this was a loser for our General Fund. Bob Wingenroth has now left the City of Anaheim, taking a six-figure cut in pay, rather than remain in this environment at City Hall.
Q: Why did the Mayor vote NO?
A: It isn’t fair. Mayor Tom Tait stated, “I’m in business, if I had a competitor, who didn’t have to pay taxes, I wouldn’t like that because it is a huge competitive advantage.”
In addition, Mayor Tom Tait rejected the argument that without subsidy the land would sit empty and unproductive, stating that, “…if you don’t build it, something will be built there, and all that tax revenue would come to the city.” Indeed we already see other sites being developed without taxpayers underwriting the costs.
Q: Why did Murray, Eastman, and Sidhu vote YES?
A: First, they claimed there was no cost to the city. Which is false. The $158 million is our money, collected from visitors who pay the tax, and then diverted to the developer instead of remaining in the General Fund.
If the hotel was built without the subsidy, all that revenue would be kept, funding police, fire, libraries, parks, and community services. Those costs are skyrocketing, since the same Council majority approved one of the most generous union deals in recent memory last summer-again over the objections of Mayor Tait, meaning we will have to increase General Fund revenues just to maintain the same level of service. Knowing we need to either increase funds or cut spending, the only expense the Council majority cut from the budget was the line item for Mayor Tait’s staff!
Plus, the Council claimed it was all about jobs. But the developer does not have an agreement to use local labor, so our taxes are likely to fund jobs for some other town’s workers. These jobs are not right away either. Construction on the first tower won’t start till 2015. The final tower won’t be completed until 2022. The permanent jobs they boast about are mostly in the hospitality industry, offering low pay and no benefits, so taxpayers end up subsidizing O’Connell twice when we also have to build affordable housing projects for his workers, or offer social services to cover their cost of living.
Lastly, the special interests behind this deal spent tens of thousands in campaign money to help elect the current Council majority. Money from the developer, Disney, OC Taxpayers Association, OC Business Council, and former Mayor Curt Pringle (also the lobbyist for the developer) helped boost Eastman, Murray, and Brandman into office.
Gail Eastman and Bill O'Connell
Q: So why is the developer back, didn’t we do this last year?
A: After the initial giveaway, a lawsuit was filed by community members and in December 2012 a Superior Court Judge ruled the Council meeting violated California’s Open Meeting laws, and voided the deal.
Q: Besides the lawsuit, how did the community respond to the initial giveaway?
A: Residents were outraged and over 10,000 Anaheim voters signed an Initiative that would allow residents to vote on any future subsidies. Unfortunately, the Council majority (Murray, Eastman, and Sidhu) voted NO on allowing residents to decide on the fair use of our tax dollars.
A: What can I do now to help stop this $158 million giveaway from being reinstated?
1. Send a quick e-mail to the City Council at sray@anaheim.net or call 714-765-5247
2. Show up at 5 p.m. at Anaheim City Hall Tuesday (May 14th) and voice your opposition during public comments. While we are all frustrated with our leaders, let’s be respectful during the meeting. There will probably be a long line to speak on this issue, be patient and we will all be heard.
3. Support candidates who oppose this misuse of public funds during the next election in 2014.
Q: Where can I learn more?
A: The Save Anaheim blog was created to share information with residents, especially info that we feel the media and papers are not reporting on. Check the site often for updates at
http://saveanaheim.com/blog/?tag=%24158+million+Giveaway
Voice of OC is another blog doing good investigative reporting.
http://www.voiceofoc.org/search/?t=article&s=start_time&sd=desc&q=gardenwalk+hotel
The OC Register
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/council-380779-city-public.html
Check back daily for updates on the upcoming reinstatement of the $158 million GardenWalk Hotel GIVEAWAY scheduled for this Tuesday, May 14th.
Next Tuesday, May 14th the city council majority led by Kris Murray is going to try and reinstate this outrageous giveaway. Please take the next 6 minutes to view the video below from the initial council vote in January 2012.
Check back daily for updates on the upcoming reinstatement of the $158 million GardenWalk Hotel GIVEAWAY scheduled for this Tuesday, April 30th.
I find it appalling that the OC Register printed Kris Murray's lies in the editorial section but no follow-up article on Mayor Tait's response at city council. So, the Save Anaheim PAC will be running this full page ad in tomorrows Anaheim Bulletin. Here is a preview:
Kris Murray
From the New Anaheim blog:
Last week’s big story in Orange County politics was the meltdown at Anaheim’s City Council meeting — normally taciturn Mayor Tom Tait waited until the end of the meeting to clean Councilwoman Kris Murray’s clock. The You Tube video is here.
Tait’s specific target was Murray’s OC Register guest column from 24 April: Let process play out on Anaheim’s elections (outside Paywall here). On apparently bad legal advice (sources she won’t reveal), or with deliberate intent to deceive (surprising few), Murray misstated a number of facts regarding the noticing of a future election to decide on District-based versus City-wide (at large) Council representation for the city. She accused Tait of violating “state law”. Per the union-funded Voice of OC,
…after the meeting, Murray declined to identify the sources of her legal opinions. She declined to comment further on the matter. ACLU attorney Bardis Vakili sided with Tait and said Murray’s reading of the law is incorrect.
Tait’s response was in today’s Register Commentary section: Anaheim elections (outside Paywall here). It’s also important, and concerning, that the Register’s not run even one story on this drama which could drastically impact the future of the OC’s most well-known, nationally famous tourist and convention destination.
Read the full story here:
http://newanaheim.com/2013/05/05/anaheim-councilwoman-kris-murray-needs-to-go/#more-769
From The Voice of OC:
In her Register article, Murray referred to Assembly Bill 1344, which requires two public hearings before a city charter is placed on the ballot for adoption. It was passed last year after it came to light that Bell leaders were able, without the knowledge of the vast majority of city residents, to push through a city charter that included pay raises for city officials now facing public corruption charges, according to ACLU attorney Bardis Vakili.
In her article, Murray argued that Tait's proposal, an amendment to the city's charter, would have violated the provision. According to the article, the law requires “extensive public noticing and a minimum of two hearings before the council may consider and approve initiatives changing the city's charter.”
Under Murray's reading of the law, Tait's proposal to amend the city charter would have been illegal if passed because it was only the first public hearing.
However, Tait said, Murray is wrong because the law requires only two public hearings when adopting a new city charter, not amending an existing one. As a charter city, Anaheim already had a city charter in place when council members considered Tait's proposal.
To support his reasoning, Tait, a state-licensed attorney, pointed to the language of the law, which uses the word “adopt,” not “amend.”
The law reads in part: “Prior to approving the submission to the voters of a proposal to adopt a charter, the governing body shall hold at least two public hearings on the matter of the proposal of a charter and the content of the proposed charter.”
Tait said Santa Ana, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach city councils all placed city charter amendments on the ballot last November without conducting two public hearings. According to Murray's interpretation, “all three of those city attorneys are wrong then, and they broke the law,” he said.
Murray claims she received two different legal opinions on her piece, which she said was solicited by the Register in response to an ACLU editorial favoring council districts. The law, she said, “will apply if there are substantive changes recommended by a council.” She said city attorneys up and down the state will be advising as much.
“I believe that changing how we're governed after 150 years forevermore is a substantive change,” Murray said. “I stand by my editorial.”
In a brief interview with a Voice of OC reporter after the meeting, Murray declined to identify the sources of her legal opinions. She declined to comment further on the matter.
ACLU attorney Bardis Vakili sided with Tait and said Murray's reading of the law is incorrect.
“The law requires significant noticing for adopting a new charter, but for amendments to a charter, it has to be proposed 88 days before the election on which it's going to be voted. And the mayor's August 8 [2012] proposal comported with that requirement,” Vakili said.
Read the full story here:
http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_e84ce028-b267-11e2-a206-0019bb2963f4.html
A few days ago an article appeared in The OC Register written by Kris Murray regarding districting. In the article, Kris Murray falsely claimed that "if the council had approved the ballot initiative proposed last year by Mayor Tait to divide Anaheim into single-member districts, it would have been a violation of state law."
Kris Murray
The truth is that CA government code 34458 only applies to adopting a new charter not amending the charter as the initiative brought forth by Mayor Tait would have done. The City of Bell didn't amend their charter they adopted a new one.
(b) Prior to approving the submission to the voters of a proposal to adopt a charter, the governing body shall hold at least two public hearings on the matter of the proposal of a charter and the content of the proposed charter.
Murray went on to state "In the wake of the city of Bell corruption scandal, state law was changed requiring charter cities, like Anaheim, to engage their citizenry in a broad public process before any changes to the charter can be put before voters. Assembly Bill 1344 became effective Jan. 1, 2012, and requires extensive public noticing and a minimum of two hearings before the council may consider and approve initiatives changing the city's charter. None of these steps occurred before Mayor Tait's ballot initiative was agendized for council consideration last September."
The law again specifically speaks to adopting a charter not amending it. Therefore the public hearings would not be necessary. The law only requires that 88 days have passed before the election when proposing changes to the charter.
Former Anaheim City Attorney Cristina Talley, who wrote the staff report regarding Mayor Tait's initiative, also made no mention of any potential conflicts. Click here to read the staff report:
From The Voice of OC:
The Anaheim committee charged with studying whether to change the City Council electoral system from an at-large format to council districts could not reach consensus on that issue Thursday and indicated it will recommend the question go before voters.
Committee members did, however, agree on increasing the size of the City Council. They recommend changing the five-member council to either seven seats or nine seats. Under both recommendations, one seat would be reserved for the mayor.
Curt Pringle - speaking to his faithful followers
The 10 voting members of the Citizens Advisory Committee are scheduled to consider final approval of the recommendations at its May 9 meeting. It is then up to the City Council to decide on whether to implement the committee's proposals.
The proposal to put the question of at-large or district elections to a citywide vote wasfirst offered by Mayor Tom Tait last August before the committee was formed. The council majority at the time, however, voted against Tait's proposal, arguing that the city's electoral system needed to be studied by an advisory committee in order to make an informed decision.
Now in many respects, the City Council is back to where it started on the issue.
Read the full article here:
http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_north/article_7e51c6a2-a952-11e2-90f1-0019bb2963f4.html
From The OC Weekly:
There were more empty seats and less acrimony inside the Council Chambers of Anaheim City Hall last Thursday evening. Long the scene of political turmoil over the course of last year during council meetings, the mood was lighter as the location played host for the second-to-last gathering of the citizens advisory committee, group established after the former council majority passed a resolution during a special post-riot meeting on August 8, 2012 that tasked it with studying and making recommendations on the city's electoral system. The move countered Mayor Tom Tait's failed proposal at the time to put the question of six council districts on last November's ballot and was seen as a delay tactic by critics
Read the full story here:
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/04/vic_real_anaheim.php
Here are some comments folks left on an OC Register story that ran awhile back:
..and guess who got that contract? Hill international is the employer of Steven Albert Chavez Lodge, in fact lodge is the Hill staffer responsible for first coping this project, and therefore in line for the 1% finders fee written into his employment contract. I have the docs if anyone wants them.
That doesnt sound very transparent...my city gets 3 bids and lists them on the Council meeting agenda, and chooses the lowest bidder, that way everyone can see whats going on and make remarks at the city council meeting if they want.
The very expensive light rail system here in Phoenix has been a HUGE failure. Nobody pays to ride, as there is an "honor system" in place. The homeless occupy most seats. There have been many incidents of fights etc AND many, many accidents. Only a trackless system should be considered.
All the money is coming from federal and county funds so far. So even if you don't live in Anaheim, you're paying for this.
What dolts. Obviously, they have no memory of the streetcars in Los Angeles, and how they jammed up traffic. And that was on streets wider than Katella! It will be the height of stupidity if the council tries to suck up to the "resort district" in this manner.
319 million dollars for a 3.2 mile trip. One word. Ridiculous. Serves no purpose whatsoever. Add a few more ART buses, there's no need for that kind of expenditure.
Well they can't solve the gang problem so build a street car system so the gangs don't have to use the bike paths.....
Tom Tait- lone voice in the wilderness of fiscal sanity.
That man could be the future of the Republican Party. He certainly could be the best mayor we've ever had. The way he has handled crises in this city is admirable, to say the least. The GOP needs to turn its head back to OC and see what one of its own is doing.
Maybe the voters should have paid close attention to who was running for council and who was backing them before they voted this past November 6th. The City Council will still only have two sane voices looking out for the citizen-taxpayers after this election. This City is in BIG Financial trouble, folks. This is only the beginning
Once again the city council of anaheim has failed. where is all of the money going to come from? are those people arrogent enough to believe the citizens will pass a bond to pay for it? a lot of buses and other forms of transportation could be purchased for 9.6 mil. many of the city streets are still in dire need of repair and 9.6 mil has just been flushed.No, you are missing the point, Jim- "...guess who got that contract? Hill international is the employer of Steven Albert Chavez Lodge, in fact lodge is the Hill staffer responsible for first coping this project, and therefore in line for the 1% finders fee written into his employment contract." This is taxpayer money and cronyism runs rampant with it.
Read the full article here:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/million-377705-project-city.html
SOAR claims that "Anaheim residents and neighborhoods and residents are the biggest beneficiary of tax revenue generate by visitors to the Resort District."
From www.soaranaheim.com - click to enlarge
The truth is that over 50% of the TOT revenue generate goes back to the Resort to pay off debt obligations. Now they want to suck $158 million in future TOT revenue to help former Mayor Curt Pringle's client Bill O'Connell build two luxury hotels at the failed GardenWalk mall. A move OC Supervisor Shawn Nelson opposes:
Click below to view video:
From the OC Register (Save Anaheim comments in bold):
ANAHEIM – A developer may wait up to two years to begin construction on a pair of luxury hotels at a Disney-area mall with the final project slated to wrap up by mid-2022 -- seven years behind schedule.
Bill O'Connel as the Master of the House
The Anaheim Planning Commission is scheduled Monday to consider whether to split two proposed GardenWalk hotels into separate phases. If approved, construction of the first hotel wouldn't begin until May 2015, while work on the second hotel would be pushed back to November 2019. Why is the planning commission even considering this when the developer has no financing or subsidy deal in place?
A developer plans to build hotels at the Anaheim GardenWalk property, seen in 2010.
Concurrent construction of the hotels was initially scheduled to begin this May and completed by November 2015.
The postponement is needed "because current economic conditions have made securing financing for the construction of the hotels extremely difficult," wrote Ajesh Patel, manager of GarenWalk Hotel LLC, in a letter delivered in February to Anaheim's planning department. Funny, Larry Lake was able to secure financing without taxpayer funded subsidies. Also, where is the study that shows financing is still difficult to obtain? Are we just to take Mr. Patel's word on it?
Patel said his company remains committed to the project, but that it would be "impossible" to meet the current schedule.
An Orange County Superior Court judge ruled last December that the Anaheim City Council violated the state's open-meetings law when it approved a tax subsidy of up to $158 million for the developer of the GardenWalk hotels.
The deal was advertised only as a "discussion" item on the council's agenda in January 2012. Opponents called the plan a "giveaway," while supporters said it was needed as a way to lure high-spending tourists wanting to stay in four- to five-star quality hotels.
A proposed subsidy plan is expected to come back before the City Council later this month, according to a planning commission report.
The Planning Commission meeting is set for 5 p.m. Monday at Anaheim City Hall, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
From The Orange Juice Blog:
Curt Pringle
This morning’s Orange County Register features a fine investigative piece by new reporter Keegan Kyle reporting that the Anaheim Police Department may not only have one of the more dismal records in the State for solving crime, but they appear to have created an accountability system that covers over those numbers when reporting to the City Council and the public.
So much for that transparency they claim is good enough that it makes civilian oversight unnecessary.The investigative piece spreads over the entire first half of the Register’s Local section, and frankly justifies every nickel I pay for my subscription.
Read the full story here:
From The OC Register:
ANAHEIM – Anaheim's former mayor took a public swipe against his successor's effort to establish an independent, civilian-based review board to oversee the police department.
Curt Pringle
In a robocall blasted to about 70,000 Anaheim households last weekend, Curt Pringle said that the city was "at a crossroads" and accused Mayor Tom Tait of "pursuing a terrible plan" to create a commission comprised of residents charged with reviewing policies and allegations of misconduct within the Anaheim Police Department.
"I don't believe these civilian oversight boards enhance the ability to protect the citizenry and only create a political layer on top of another political layer," Pringle, a lobbyist who served two terms as Anaheim's mayor from 2002 to 2010, said of his reason for recording the message sponsored by the Anaheim Police Association.
"You have an elected city council who should know what's happening in their city when it comes to police issues," Pringle said. "You don't need activists or politically connected people on a police review board."
Tait said he found Pringle's remarks to be "deeply disappointing."
Establishing guidelines
Tait raised the idea of creating a citizen review board in the wake of two officer-involved shootings last July, which sparked several days of civil unrest. There have been at least 37 police-involved shootings in Anaheim over the past decade, 21 of which were fatal, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
City Manager Bob Wingenroth is in the process of drafting an ordinance outlining the duties of the proposed civilian panel and how its members would be appointed. It's unclear when the proposal will come before the City Council.
"Aside from being untruthful, Mr. Pringle's comments only hurt our effort to bring the city together and heal from the events of this past summer," Tait said. "Transparency is good for any organization and it is essential for building trust, which is the foundation of effective law enforcement and community policing."
The Anaheim Police Association has issued two robocalls expressing its strong opposition to the oversight panel. The union, which represents about 350 Anaheim police officers, spent about $25,000 to record and deliver the latest telephone message.
For now, Anaheim Police Department conducts internal reviews of complaints, while the Orange County District Attorney's Office investigates criminal culpability in police-involved shootings, said Kerry Condon, president of the Anaheim Police Association. Additionally, the Office of Independent Review -- a panel of retired law enforcement officials and attorneys -- conduct annual audits of the police department's actions.
Citizen involvement
Condon said he believes those measures are sufficient and said that "no good change" can come from a citizen review board.
"Those types of things are usually implemented in police departments that have serious problems like corruption and an inability to control officers," Condon said. "Anaheim does not fall into that category in any way, in my opinion."
About 20 police agencies across California have a civilian oversight committee, according to the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, an Indianapolis-based nonprofit group working to improve accountability of police departments.
"The benefit is having a police commission is that you have citizens who are not involved in any way in law enforcement to provide another layer of oversight for internal controls," said Richard Tefank, executive director of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, a five-member civilian panel established during the 1920s to oversee the LAPD.
"Internal department reviews are fine, but the District Attorney's Office only determines whether any crimes are committed," Tefank said. "A citizen-based panel can recommend policies to the City Council and then determine whether an officer violated those policies, which is a whole different role
From The Orange Juice Blog:
There are times when perception usurps reality, and nowhere is that more true than in law enforcement. It’s the perception of danger that prompts an officer to take the life of an unarmed suspect, and it is ONLY the perception of danger that the officer is held accountable for in the typical District Attorney investigation of an officer-involved shooting.
Kerry Condon
I truly believe the vast majority of law enforcement professionals are decent men and women who show up for work day after day wanting to do a good job. Unlike Robo-Call Pringle, I wouldn’t be so brazen as to presume to speak for the majority of Anaheim residents. I can only say that most people I personally speak with seem to appreciate the very difficult position the Police find themselves in. The general sentiment (as I see it) is that the public wants to work alongside the Anaheim Police Department to reduce the crime affecting all of us, and we want a true partnership in which we understand and trust one another. But that partnership only with two-way communication, and that communication is something we lack right now.
Why are there twice as many shooting victims at the hands of Police over the last two years than officers killed in the line of duty in the entire history of the Police department?It sends a mixed message to claim that officers do not want to shoot young men on the street, and then claim that the system we have in place works just fine. If the system worked fine,
Plainly, something is NOT working. The current system of self-examination for law enforcement is clearly unable to address whatever unique set of circumstances make Anaheim officers so much more fearful on duty than their counterparts in nearby cities. We need to get to the bottom of that fear and distrust before anyone else gets hurt. This must stop. To claim the system works is to say the death rate is acceptable, and it is not.
Read the full story here:
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/04/the-dangerous-lies-of-anaheim-polices-kerry-condon/
SOAR's fundraiser on Tuesday, April 2nd was hit with a group of protestors.
Kris Murray, Lucille Kring, Lucy Dunn, and Lord Pringle.
From The OC Politics Blog:
Once again, the OC Register’s failed its own Affliction Test and missed easily researched facts that the proposed end points of Anaheim’s $319 million streetcar debacle are already served by the 11 year-old Anaheim Resort Transit (ART) system, a public-private partnership operating shuttle buses between Disneyland’s Main Gate and dozens of hotels and other tourists stops throughout the Anaheim Resort District. ART also serves attractions and shopping areas in Orange, Buena Park, Santa Ana and the Garden Grove hotels which focus on Disney guests and conventioneers.
Kris Murray
Register writer Marroquin might have discovered this for his 3/27 story via some simple research on this Blog or by sticking his head out a window. ART operates 18 routes daily with over 60 buses of different capacities to match their varying passenger loads (they also operated small electric buses a few years ago, and still may). ART’s been successful and grown rapidly, per this 2012 Register story, by adding stops at non-Disney attractions like Knott’s Berry Farm, Discovery Science Center, MainPlace and GardenWalk.
A simple shuttle bus system like ART does not operate on a “fixed guideway” like the steel rails embedded in the roadway a streetcar uses. Buses don’t need a dedicated overhead high-voltage power supply infrastructure as discussed below. This means buses are far less expensive to operate and much more flexible as they’re easily rerouted when new requirements emerge or usage patterns change (temporarily or permanently), AND there’s little infrastructure costs other than bus stops, signage, seating and perhaps shelters. Buses are less expensive to buy than streetcars and far easier to maintain by ordinary mechanics.
Read the full story here:
