Advertisement

3 questions: Where Costa Mesa City Council, Orange County Board of Supervisors and State Assembly candidates stand on the issues

Share

Costa Mesa City Council

One incumbent and eight challengers are running for two spots on the five-member council. The Daily Pilot asked each candidate the same three questions:

1) Based on the decisions of this most recent council, do you think this city is headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?

Advertisement

2) What is your stance on the proposed city charter?

3) What do you think is the single most important issue facing voters this election?

Their responses, in random order and edited for clarity and space, are below:

*

Tony Capitelli

1) Neither. The political hostility in this city has created an environment where we are no longer working toward solutions. I believe Costa Mesans are tired of the hostility coming from both sides, and are looking for elected leaders who are willing to work together to solve problems. As a member of a Costa Mesa street team on homelessness, I’ve seen residents, churches and small businesses work together toward solving one of our most important issues. This is the kind of collaborative approach and fresh perspective that I will bring to the City Council.

2)I support the proposed charter because I am a believer in local control. However, I also sympathize with the concerns many Costa Mesans have about the charter. To alleviate these concerns, I would suggest that residents have two options: 1) Voters can elect a new council this November; and 2) The charter can later be amended. I would also encourage Costa Mesa voters to avoid getting distracted by these kind of hot-button political issues. There are far more important issues regarding the quality of life for all Costa Mesa residents that we should be talking about instead.

3) We need a plan for dealing with various segments of our population, including low-income residents and residents experiencing and at risk of homelessness. The solution starts with housing: supportive and transitional housing, rapid rehousing and affordable housing. All of these models are led by private organizations and result in taxpayer savings. We then need to better address mental health and work collaboratively with the Police Department, churches and nonprofit organizations to address crime and addiction in our motels. These solutions are compassionate and effective ways to deal with these issues without pushing the problem off to neighboring cities.

*

Rita Simpson

1) I believe, based on the decisions of our current City Council, that it is moving our city in the right direction. Council members have established pension, charter and Fairview Park committees to research and advise. They enabled Costa Mesa to have an estimated $14-million surplus instead of a deficit. They put the charter on the Nov. 4 ballot to give Costa Mesans a vote for “home rule,” to have power to make municipal decisions. They have hired additional police. Also, our current City Council increased infrastructure investment, upgrading sidewalks, resurfacing roads and installing median dividers for traffic-calming accident prevention.

2) The California constitution gives its cities the power to become charter cities. My stance on our proposed Costa Mesa city charter, created by our citizen committee, is that “home rule” allows our City Council and Costa Mesans to conduct and control our municipal affairs instead of being controlled by Sacramento. Our proposed city charter also limits the powers of our City Council and gives power to our citizens. I believe the five most important sections of our charter are: maintain budget reserves, citizen voter approval, civic openness in negotiations, prevailing-wage options and outsourcing review.

3) This is not an election about one single issue; this is an election about staying the course in improving our city. I am very grateful and proud of the changes in our great city. We must continue to control our reoccurring employee costs and invest in our infrastructure. We must not go back to the years when we delayed the tough decisions and spent far too much of our reserve funds on retroactive pension payments. Most importantly, we must continue to carefully guide our current public safety services.

*

Jim Righeimer

1) When I was elected four years ago, the city was facing a $23-million deficit. Since then, we have turned the deficit into a $13-million surplus and invested more than $40 million on our streets, sidewalks and parks. The city has never looked better. It is true the council had to make tough decisions to get the city’s finances in order, reinvest in infrastructure and clean up crime-generating problem motels. It has paid off. Blighted areas are being improved. The Westside is undergoing a renaissance with new families and businesses moving in. That is the right direction.

2) Becoming a home-rule city like our neighbors, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Irvine, will allow Costa Mesa to free itself from the clutches of Sacramento politicians and special interests. With its own charter, our city can see immediate savings for services and get more bang for the buck with many city projects. If passed, we can see at least a $5 million savings per year without laying off one city employee. Under home rule, if we do not like what the council is doing, we can change that at the ballot box. We cannot change Sacramento.

3) The single most important issue facing voters is whether we want to continue moving forward and improving Costa Mesa or stop the momentum dead in its tracks. Over the past few years, we have achieved some tremendous accomplishments: investing more than $40 million in infrastructure; turning a $23-million deficit into a $13-million dollar surplus; and negotiating a mutually beneficial contract with our fire and municipal employees, which saved the city millions going forward while also maintaining a competitive pay structure. Costa Mesa is on the right track. Let’s keep it moving forward!

*

Jay Humphrey

1) I believe the council is headed in the wrong direction. Council members have decreased the safety of our communities and made fiscal priorities that fund the rebuilding of medians before the repairing of vital fire stations. Their decisions have also led to increased housing density in areas that will cause us to lose jobs in our city and ramp up traffic.

2) I am against this charter. It is essentially the same as the one we defeated in 2012 by 60% to 40%. It provides no protections to the residents of Costa Mesa. The U.S. Constitution has the Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from the excess actions of their government. Why does this charter (the constitution of the city) have no such protections?

3) The multiple high-density housing projects being approved are focused on rental properties, while the public clearly wants more ownership properties to bring the balance between ownership and rental properties back into balance. These projects are generating more traffic than the general plan allows at full build-out, and the overlay zones are being administered in a manner that is inconsistent with the intent of the resident/business task force that developed those zones. This is allowing even higher densities through the use of exceptions. The effect of these ill-considered approvals will have negative impacts on Costa Mesa into the far future.

*

Lee Ramos

1) The right direction. Previous councils ignored crumbling infrastructure while spending millions of precious city reserves. They increased pension benefits by 50% and were afraid to make tough budgetary choices. Poor management by previous councils failed Costa Mesa. Our current council has reduced spending and rebuilt reserves. It has invested in new police cars, a new dispatch system and new Fire Department rescue vehicles. Our most recent council has paved a quarter of our streets, installed drought-resistant landscaping and restored forlorn parks. Civic improvement and investment is everywhere you look, and I support that.

2) I’m a moderate conservative and I believe in representative democracy. I support local control by Costa Mesa voters, not external manipulation by state legislators so easily influenced by Sacramento lobbyists. State legislators have no stake in our future. Local voters do. This citizen-drafted charter allows the city to directly manage its municipal affairs while following state law on important matters like elections and council compensation. Let’s join charter cities like Newport Beach by voting yes on Measure O and keep control local with the voters of Costa Mesa.

3) To choose effective leadership for our rising, popular and celebrated city. We have an awesome city staff of fabulous firefighters, brave law enforcement officers and other professional and dedicated employees. The council members must instruct and inspire the city’s CEO while holding him and his staff accountable to Costa Mesans. Voters expect every dollar to be spent wisely as if it was their own. We need safe streets, support for our youth, and a supportive business climate to grow our tax base.

*

Christopher Bunyan

1)The city has been headed in the wrong direction for quite some time because of the decisions of the council majority: stifling public comment at council meetings; chiding speakers who criticize the council majority; the 60th anniversary debacle; Righeimer suing the police association; the city employee association suing the city; lessening the amount of affordable housing in Costa Mesa, which increases homelessness; escalating drug rehab homes; and the desecration of Fairview Park. The council majority lacks a vision on equality, crime, traffic, quality of living and unifying the city.

2) I oppose the charter. Charter cities such as Bell, Compton, San Bernardino, Stockton and Vallejo all went bankrupt. Section 806 gives absolute power to the council majority. It is power that has no checks and balances. Taxpayers’ money has been wasted on the unnecessary charter. The charter will do nothing to cure the unfunded pension liability that the city faces. It will save little money related to prevailing wages. Outsourcing can be done without a charter. Costa Mesa would lose millions of dollars in state funding.

3) The high-density housing sweeping the city has the most detrimental effect of any current issue. The traffic congestion on the 55 Freeway (Eastside suffers from the cut-through traffic) and surface streets has not been resolved. Increasing density equates to adding population, which would cause more demand for athletic fields, overcrowd our schools and increase noise, air and light pollution. Parking is becoming an issue in Costa Mesa. High-density developments have shorter driveways and smaller garages, which will force vehicle parking onto the streets. Costa Mesa is built-out, and the council majority wishes to serve the interests of developers over residents.

*

Katrina Foley

1) In the four short years since I left the City Council, Costa Mesa government has derailed. Crime is up. Police personnel were cut by nearly 30%, a new fire station near South Coast Plaza is scheduled to close, and legal fees skyrocketed to nearly $175,000 monthly.

2) The proposed charter takes control away from Costa Mesa citizens. It grants unbridled power to three politicians who have squandered our tax dollars on legal fees, enriched developers and crippled our police force. They want freedom from the rule of law, not freedom from “Sacramento.” This charter is an even worse power grab than the 2012 version. This charter empowers three politicians to concoct laws benefiting special-interest groups (developers and contractors). This charter exposes us to fraud and corruption. This charter would cost millions in state funding for street improvements and public buildings. We would lose money, not save money.

3) Whether Costa Mesa continues to be a quaint, comfortable, coastal suburban community with a hometown feel for families, or whether it transforms into an overdeveloped congested apartment community.

*

Al Melone

1) As to trying to contain costs, in the past year, the right direction. Employees must make more concessions, especially regarding paying a larger portion of their pension costs. As to all these new high-density projects, very much the wrong direction. Too many variances. These projects will add more traffic and noise and create parking problems. We need to retain that sleepy, small-town feel in our city that most of us cherish. We need a new general plan and new zoning rules consistent with it.

2) The Charter Committee met 16 times, and the final vote was 10 to 1 to put the final draft on the ballot, suggesting an overwhelming consensus. The charter’s biggest opponents are the employee associations. This is consistent with their purpose in life, which is to get the best deal they can for their members. And in their zeal they have raised red flags that are largely unwarranted. My focus is on what is best for our citizens at large. I concede that this charter is not perfect, but on balance I favor it.

3) The issue of over development. I have a fear that I will wake up one morning, maybe 10 years from now, and feel I am again living in Los Angeles. Rather than concoct new ways of raising needed revenues, such as all these new projects, we need to learn to live within our means. With the riches of South Coast Plaza, we should be able to do so. Most new projects bring in more people, more traffic, more noise and parking problems. We don’t need any of that.

**

Orange County Board of Supervisors District 2

State Assemblyman Allan Mansoor and former state Board of Equalization member Michelle Steele are running for county supervisor. The Daily Pilot asked each candidate the same three questions:

1) What do you think is the most important function of the Orange County Board of Supervisors?

2) What issue do you plan to address first on behalf of District 2 constituents, specifically?

3) What is one decision that the current board has made that you disagreed with and how would you have handled the situation differently?

Their responses, edited for space and clarity, are below:

*

Allan Mansoor

1) The function of the supervisors is to serve the people we seek to represent, not use it as a springboard to Congress via moving here from Los Angeles. Oversight and accountability to the taxpayers regarding how county funds are spent is crucial. Also, an open-door policy with the people I seek to represent and open discussion of the issues. I have earned the endorsement of trusted leaders like outgoing Supervisor John Moorlach because of my true advocacy on behalf of taxpayers. I have also led by example and refused all pay raises in the Legislature.

2) I will work to get the board and Orange County Transportation Authority to proactively reject toll lanes. My opponent is backed by proponents of toll lanes, while I have been an outspoken voice against this triple taxation. It’s not enough to say you’re against toll lanes, as using Measure M funds to widen bridges will enable toll lanes. We have enough funds right now for two free lanes on the 405 if you take into account the $500 million in documented waste on the 10 and 110 toll lanes. Make no mistake, their goal is toll lanes on all “freeways.”

3) The board recently voted to give pay increases to offset employee pension contributions. This defeats the purpose, is not reform and treats employee groups differently. With the recent decision by a judge in the Stockton bankruptcy case saying that existing pensions can be cut, we all have a vested interest in needed reform. My opponent refused to tell the press how she would have voted on that contract. How can you seek to represent the people when you play both sides and don’t tell them what your position is on the most important fiscal issue facing our county?

*

Michelle Steel

1) I firmly believe that the most important function of the board as a whole, as well as its individual members, is to ensure that the county government serves the residents with as much efficiency, fairness and transparency as possible. It is a role that I am familiar with while serving the residents of District 3 of the Board of Equalization, including all of Orange County. As residents, we depend on the board to ensure that the bureaucracy is following all the rules, operating at the lowest possible cost and delivering the highest level of service.

2) I want to make sure that Measure M funds will not go toward building toll lanes on the 405. With the recent news that the state is willing to ignore the wishes of the voters of our community, we need to be prepared to stop actions by those in Sacramento who have an agenda of their own. That will require a unified board working with Orange County legislators on both sides of the aisle, to communicate clearly with Caltrans and the governor. I am prepared and determined to lead this effort on behalf of our neighbors in District 2.

3) We call Orange County our home because there are many things we do right here. And although we can learn a lot from the past, I am focused on the future. I am committed to working with the entire board to have a balanced budget, transparency throughout county government, and a positive environment for small businesses. Furthermore, I want to ensure that the county is on a path to stronger financial footing so that quality public safety services remain in place, we continue investment in infrastructure, and we aggressively paying down our unfunded pension liability.

**

State Assembly District 74

Newport Beach Councilman Keith Curry and Huntington Beach Mayor Matthew Harper are running for state Assembly. The Daily Pilot asked each candidate the same three questions:

1) What makes you more qualified than your opponent to make a difference in Sacramento as a conservative?

2) If you are elected, what will be your first action as a legislator?

3) What is one issue that has been ignored in the state Legislature that you think deserves more attention?

Their responses, in random order and edited for space and clarity, are below:

*

Keith Curry

1) I’ve had a lifetime of experience as a business owner, job creator and educator. For 24 years, I was a consultant charged with finding solutions to financial problems and working with all parties to reach consensus. The Orange County Register noted my ability to build consensus, and the lack of that ability by my opponent, when making its endorsement. My opponent is running to be an obstructionist.

2) I have said my first act will be to repeal the authorization to sell the Costa Mesa fairgrounds; this land should remain public. My second will be to protect Proposition 13 and to allow the Proposition 30 sales and income tax increases to sunset.

3) The negative impact of state laws and regulations on job creation and retention in California. We are forcing our children to move out of state.

*

Matthew Harper

1) Prior to serving on the City Council and as mayor, I was on the Huntington Beach Union High School District board. I believe California can do much better in educating our children, and I will challenge the bureaucracy to improve our schools, reduce class size and achieve better performance. I have pledged to protect Proposition 13 and vote against new taxes. Jon Coupal has said that I have a “proven record as a taxfighter,” and I am the only candidate endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. PAC. I’ve been praised as a good steward of taxpayer resources.

2) I will seek the repeal of AB32 and SB375. If not repealed, these laws are going to cause major sticker shock in expenses for all Californians, especially with the price of gasoline. In the pursuit of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, these laws seek radical changes to the way we as Californians live, work and travel. Emission reduction targets are designed to shape Sustainable Communities Plans that incentivize packing and stacking housing by putting housing, stores, jobs and transit closer together. We don’t need these distortions of the free market to change the landscape of our local cities.

3) I respect our surf heritage and will defend our beach bonfire rings. While the state Assembly unanimously voted to protect our beach bonfire rings from the overreach of the AQMD, the state Senate allowed this bill to die in committee. I have the experience, qualifications and energy to get the job done. I supported AB1102 from the start, and my opponent was against it. My opponent voted to remove the beach bonfire rings in Balboa Beach and Corona del Mar State Beach, making his opposition to Newport Beach’s bonfire rings very clear. I will fight for our beach tradition 100%.

Advertisement