« Orange Park To Be Named After Steve Ambriz | Main | Ask For Your Money Back »

September 15, 2006

Comments

Juan Pablo Rocks!

JP is certifiable. Doesn't he run every year?

ocwatcher

Please don't take the stance that property owners have rights. You don't have to go to Cuba, just try to build commercial where any City Council wants residential or try to build 3 story residential where they only want two.

Property owners' rights are not absolute. And "conservatives" continue to impose and enforce restrictions on land use all over this wonderful Red County.

At least be honest about it.

Wayland4Orange

First off, let me say that I am a big fan of this Blog and literally tune in almost everyday to see what is going on. Jubal still ranks as one of my favorite writers.

Now to my point. I was one of the candidates who is against the Irvine Project in East Orange. With much respect towards the current council, I don't believe there is anybody who speaks for East Orange. I personally believe that the project is wrong for the city at this time and place. I don't believe that the infrastructure will be able to handle it. I believe our traffic problems will turn Chapman into a virtual parking lot. I also am a big advocate for retaining Property Values and I believe that adding that many homes on a currently flooded market will significantly negatively affect the current Home Prices for the City of Orange. I am very much against the East Orange project and I believe it will affect every citizen in the city of Orange, not just those who live in East Orange.

Now I am very much an advocate for Business Growth, and Corporate rights, but not at the expense of the entire city. Personal Property Rights are one thing, and I believe the city is currently on a very slippery slope of encroaching on individual Property Rights. At the current rate, it won't be long before the city will pass ordinances that will prevent 'unsightly' vehicles from being parked in driveways. At the whim of a few that don't like your car, you may not be able to park it in your own driveway. I am very much an advocate of Personal Property Rights, and believe change is needed to reverse the current course.

I realize that at its basic sense that this is a contradiction in terms. The issue is not Black and white, it is several shades of off white gray and cannot be boiled down to simply "For or Against Property Rights". I don't believe that just because you are against the Irvine Project that you are against Property Rights as a whole.

This is just my opinion and anybody is free to disagree with it. Thank you for covering the Debate, and I hope to see you at the next one.

Sincerely
Jeremy Wayland
City of Orange Council Candidate
www.wayland4orange.com

Thank you for FINALLY pointing out how very USELESS these events are for a a candidate.
Useless Campaign Time-Waster #2:
Well-meaning local organizations who ask that you fill out a detailed 6 page quesionnaire and submit to a 30 minute interview in order to be considered for their precious endorsement. This endorsement provides no volunteers or campaign contributions.
But it is included in their membership newsletter, delivered sometime in mid-November.

The "Visitor's Bureau" addition is an effort by Chambers of Commerce to stay relevant and get City redevelopment funds.

Frank Finn

Jubal,
If you are going to make blanket statements about the positions of candidates, perhaps you should pay closer attention to what they say. Your simplistic assertion regarding our opposition to the exercise of the Irvine Company's property rights vs. our support of "property rights in principle" was way off base. I don't presume to speak for the other Council candidates but I feel I made my point abundantly clear. I do not oppose responsible development of the Irvine Company's property. I only oppose the current plan that will increase the population of Orange by close to 10% without an equal increase in services, highways, schools, and other infrastructure. I also oppose the plan since it does not provide for a balance of commercial development needed to provide jobs for the additional residents or to increase the tax base to support the extra services required. I support the right of a property owner to park their own vehicle in their driveway as long as it is registered, insured, in good repair, is completely within the confines of the property and does not violate any other vehicle or municipal codes. Using your logic, if the Irvine Company plan was to use their land as a toxic waste dump we should be OK with that if we support the rights of property owners. The responsibility of government is to protect the safety and quality of life of its citizens. Nothing is totally black or white. It involves thoughtful debate and compromise and trying to provide the best outcome for the most people. The needs of the citizens of Orange are not served by this development as it stands, and if it is implemented, the quality of life of all Orange residents will be negatively affected.
Frank Finn, Candidate for Orange City Council

Orange Watcher

This was great, all the council candidates and Mayoral candidates got the issue with the Irvine Company and East Orange Development wrong. Of course, with the exception of Mark Murphy, Carolyn Cavecche and Denis Bilodeau. The fact is the City of Orange, spent just shy of 20 years bringing this forward. The City Councils of present and past have been listening to the residents and have been responding to their request. The project was orginally 18,ooo homes with very little in the way of mitigation for the City. However, the current City Council, held tough and got millions and millions in money that The Irvine Company at many times was unwilling to pay. The Orange City Council also very publicly made it clear that they were in charge.
The Council also made sure the public was invovled and able to be heard through numerous meetings, I went 5 myself, and some of the meetings were just specific to 1 issue such as traffic. For example, following the traffic meeting, the council went after even more money to do improvements on Chapman Av, Santiago, Cannon and numerous other streets. This is all work we see being completed now.

So, in short....The candidates need to be educated better, I understand as a challenger, it is easier to bang on the incumbent then it is to research the issue.

Mr. Wayland, for a realtor you came off very poor on property rights and that is shame, you sounded great on nearly everything else.

Mr. Finn, You are so very off on numerous thoughts and ideas. But, with the question regarding how long you've been involved in the city prior to the council race, I will give Kudo's for not lying and giving a straight answer...NEVER!

"And where would we enroll in that course, Mike? Cuba?"

Jubal,

I'm sure you'll proudly proclaim your alligience to property rights in any case.

Like when your nieghbor tells you that he going to build high density low income apartments on his lot.

Maybe the owner of the business down the street wants to put a gentleman's club right by your kids school.

You'll have no problems because your motto is "if you own it you can zone it" to your needs.

Frank Finn

Orange Watcher, thank you for your insightful comments. With those 5 meetings you watched I'm sure you are quite the resident expert on the matter that you claim to be. I appreciate the fact that prior councils did not rubber stamp the original plan for 18,000 homes. I also applaud the hard work they put in trying to get a better deal for the citizens of Orange. My point is that there are still issues that need to be addressed before over 12,000 more residents move into the city.
Since this project appears to be a done deal, it is a moot point. Time will tell if their efforts were successful or not. I suspect you will be one of the most vocal complainers if they were not and the quality of life of those of us in the flat lands declines as I feel it will. My position is that future developments need to include provisions for a balance of commercial and residential growth so that the tax base is sufficient to support the additional services required over the long term and more jobs are provided so we don't produce some 8,000 additional commuters to further grid lock our streets. That tax base is not improved by residential growth alone with only about 11% of property taxes going to the city coffers.
As to the council listening to the residents, perhaps the fact that 2/3 of the candidates are against this project should tell you otherwise, not to mention the law suites and numerous citizens who have been vocally against it. The whole reason I have gotten involved in the political process is that I too have attended a council meeting or two and what I witnessed was a room full of citizens asking to have their property rights respected with a few elitists in opposition. This council, with the exception of Mr. Murphy and Steve Ambriz decided to disregard the overwhelming majority and overturn a statute that had only been in affect a couple of years in order to cater to the small group intent on controlling their neighbors.
Regarding your kudos for my honesty, that is what you will always get from me because I am not a connected politician. I say what I mean and mean what I say. I am not a watcher. I am a doer. Perhaps you should have put it out on the line and joined the race since you seem to have all the right answers.
Frank Finn, Candidate for Orange City Council

Jubal

Jeremy:

You make an interesting point when you write:

Personal Property Rights are one thing, and I believe the city is currently on a very slippery slope of encroaching on individual Property Rights. At the current rate, it won't be long before the city will pass ordinances that will prevent 'unsightly' vehicles from being parked in driveways. At the whim of a few that don't like your car, you may not be able to park it in your own driveway. I am very much an advocate of Personal Property Rights, and believe change is needed to reverse the current course.

I agree with you up to a point: I think it also places one on a slippery slope to start subdividing property rights into different categories such as "Personal Property Rights." Do we only enjoy strong propery rights in our homes? Do our property rights attenuate in inverse proportion to the amount of property we have?

And to be fair, I was perhaps a bit harsh in categorizing you and six of the other candidates as "proclaiming their support for property rights in principle, yet opposing their exercise in practice." I thought you came across as very articulate and knowledgeable. I just think your distinction between Personal Property Rights and (for lack of a better term) Big Landowner Property Rights is a problematic one.

Jubal

First off, let me say that I am a big fan of this Blog and literally tune in almost everyday to see what is going on. Jubal still ranks as one of my favorite writers.

Jeremy,

That statement alone makes you qualified to be an elected official!

Jubal

I support the right of a property owner to park their own vehicle in their driveway as long as it is registered, insured, in good repair, is completely within the confines of the property and does not violate any other vehicle or municipal codes

Frank,

I agree with you 100%. The re-doing of the RV ordinance was a terrible idea. It was a triumph of the subjective aesthetic tastes of a vocal minority over the property rights of every Orange resident.

I should have included that in the post as a balancer, but I was a bit rushed. My apologies for that.

Jubal

Using your logic, if the Irvine Company plan was to use their land as a toxic waste dump we should be OK with that if we support the rights of property owners.

Frank:

Using the the reductio ad absurdum tactic you employed can render the "logic" behind almost any argument absurd.

Contrary to your implied assertion, I am not a property rights absolutist. Even an unalienable right such as property rights cannot override other fundamental rights such as life and liberty. Your county-example of a toxic waste dump is over-the-top, but let's take it in hand.

A toxic waste dump in a populated area obviously poses a severe threat to other citizens' health -- their right to life, in a manner of speaking.

But to equate a toxic waste dump with increased street traffic is absurd.

Frank Finn

Jubal,
I guess since I have seen countless corpses pulled from mangled wrecks and the physical and mental trauma caused to families by the thousands of traffic collisions I have handled over the last 17 years as a traffic officer, I don't look at increased traffic as cavalierly as you do. I also recognize that the reduction of available emergency services that will inevitably be caused by a 10% increase in population without an equivalent investment in fire and police services will only add to that suffering by Orange residents. But since most of us never think it will happen to us, just consider the reduction of the quality of life caused by being stuck in traffic an extra 10 minutes per trip. Figuring 4 weeks off, that's 20 minutes a day, 100 minutes a work week, 4800 minutes or 80 additional hours a year that you spend in your car away from your family, friends or your computer. That is a real reduction in quality of life even if you don't become a statistic. And that doesn't figure in all of the trips to the store, school, sporting events or what have you that most families are involved with.
OK, I'll give you the toxic waste dump was over the top. So how about the original plan for 18,000 residences or the high density apartments, or gentlemen’s club another writer suggested? Would that have been all right with you? Where exactly would you draw the line for what is an acceptable amount of government interference in property rights and what is not? At least the current and prior Council members did make a decision for the entire world to see. How about you?
finnfororange.com

Frank Finn

And by the way Jubal,
What does a candidate have to do to get a link put up on the side bar with the other "2006 Local Government Candidates"?
Frank Finn, Candidate for Orange City Council
finnfororange.com/

Jubal

"What does a candidate have to do to get a link put up on the side bar with the other "2006 Local Government Candidates"? "

Well, Frank, unbelievable as it may sound to you, they find that simply asking is sufficient.

Of course, you can choose to continue with the condescending "I'm a public safety employee and therefore know better than you mere taxpayers" routine and gain yourself zero votes on this blog as you head towards obliteration at the polls in November.

But I'll do you the special favor of placing your link on the blogroll anyway -- because our readers ought to have access the a guy who has all the answers.

Frank Finn

Jubal,
I by no means claim to know all of the answers. I leave that to the Blogmasters and politicians. My only claim is that I am willing to listen to every resident, and those who do or should know the answers, not just the one's who know how to work the system. I will always make an honest effort to consider all sides of an issue and not be caught up in rigid party line ideologies. If you answered my questions and concerns with logical and realistic responses, I might even listen to you. And there is certainly no such thing as a "mere taxpayer".

Jubal

I will always make an honest effort to consider all sides of an issue and not be caught up in rigid party line ideologies.

I've been actively involved in politics for 15 years. In my experience, politicians who eschew "rigid ideologies" generally turn out to be the blow-in-wind types. Because they lack a "rigid ideology" -- otherwise known as a coherent set of guiding philosophical principles -- it is hard to know how they are ultimately going to vote on an issue because they are so busy "listening to all sides" (which often leads to trying to be all things to all people).

If you answered my questions and concerns with logical and realistic responses, I might even listen to you.

Whatever happened to "listening to all sides?"

Good night, Frank. Congrats on the Teamsters endorsement. I'll answer the rest of your comments later.

Jennifer Lipshitz

Hey Ignorant Posters! Alvarez wasn't on the Council when the Irvine Project was voted on...get it right before you lie and speak ill of a good man!! Cavecche is trouble for Orange and SO ARE YOU!!

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories