Mayor Scott Voigts, at the city's Mercedes Benz of Foothill Ranch dealership, delivered a joke about keeping his wife from the temptation of one of the vehicles, and then gave the state of the city address to a group largely comprised of Chamber of Commerce members.
After the boy scouts, national anthem, and introduction of various Chamber members and others, Voigts wheeled on to the stage.
He focused on development and streets, paying particular attention to the new 89-acre sports park that he says, hopefully, will open in summer of 2014; grading is supposed to be completed next month. He also talked about the 4,000 homes that will become part of Lake Forest and the developer money that has allowed the city to prosper.
Also getting kudos from the mayor were street projects that included the completion of the Alton Parkway gap, and synchronization of more than five dozen lights, particularly among the east-west arterials—and that additional synchronization will take place for some of the major north-south arterials as well.
Voigts also said more than 180 businesses have opened in Lake Forest in the past year.
The event was hosted by the Lake Forest Chamber of Commerce.
Watch the video to see photos from the event and hear highlights of the mayor's speech.
Mayor Voigts forgot to add that this same developer money has allowed his campaign "to prosper" and also fueled the campaigns of fellow council members, particularly Peter Herzog. He has accepted thousands of dollars from developers, as had Herzog, and then they voted on proposals that will earn these developers millions. What do we get for it? - More than 12,000 new people, all of whom will compete for the limited resources we currently have in our libraries, Post Office, DMV and courts (did you read that now we have to go to Newport Beach for our traffic tickets because Laguna Hills is too crowded?) - More than 20,000 new cars, trucks, and vans on our streets, in our City where the #1 problem is traffic and where we currently have enough problems without 20,000 more vehicles every day. - An increase of 15% in our population in a City that already ranks poorly in crime rate (we are one of the highest in South Orange County) and in our ability to solve crimes (we are among the lowest in the % of crimes solved). Crime specialists will tell you that there is a high positive correlation between city size and crime rate, so an increase of 15% (which is an enormous amount in a small period) can only bode poorly for the crime in the near future. There are many things to be thankful for in Lake Forest, but prosperity from developer money is limited to the campaign coffers of Voigts and Herzog.
I appreciate your comments, Jim. And you are correct in your assessment from what I can tell. But why do you neglect to mention ALL the Council members who benefited from developer monies and only name 2? It gives the appearance that you are berating some while passing over others.
It appears that three of the recent Commission appointments had one or more of these types of “Social Relationships and Transactions.” Employment of the appointed applicant by multiple City Council members, Election endorsements by the appointed applicants during election campaigns, Multiple friendships with the appointed applicant(s), Good working relationship(s) with the appointed applicant(s), and Family relationships of the appointed applicant to an alleged lobbyist, who provided material support (such as mailers) to the winning Candidates running for City Council. The Commission applicants should also be required to make similar disclosures….and not just those revealed in newspaper articles. Nondisclosure of these types of “Social Relationships and Transactions” is in violation of the City’s Ethics Code, and “may compromise, or give the appearance of compromising, objectivity, independence, and honesty.”
Good question. I had a hard time writing the comment. Here's my rationale for what did/did not appear. Voigts and Herzog - obvious. They are the worst offenders. Rudolph, Tettemer, Dixon - they're not on now (and they never took as much as the other two). McCullough - as far as I can tell, she never accepted DEVELOPER money. She does take money from other "vested interests", as I've pointed out on several occasions, but she's clean on this. Robinson - was the most difficult one to deal with. He's accepted developer money, although it pales in comparison with Voigts and Herzog. But (and this was critical in my thinking), the 4,000 homes and developer money that Voigts talked about was prior to Robinson's tenure. So he got a pass THIS TIME. Nick - also wasn't there for the 4,000 homes. And as far as I can tell he never accepted money from a developer. His campaign was almost wholly self-funded. He benefited from developer money used to attack Rudolph and Anderson, and to promote he and Robinson. I'm also not sure yet that he knew where this money came from at the time. Quite frankly it was difficult to trace it (believe me, I know because I did). So I gave him a pass here. Moving forward, now that he knows, I expect him to recuse himself from any vote concerning these developers (Adam - I hope you're reading this!) I hope that explains it. I consider myself an equal opportunity critic and supporter and try hard not to play favorites.
Please read my 5-part series "Follow the Money" which appeared in the Fall 2012. It explains in some detail the legality of the campaign contribution issue as well as related issues such as the City's Code of Ethics. Briefly, no laws are being broken because the people who write the laws (the politicians) allow a loophole so that campaign contributions are exempted. But the action of accepting campaign contributions, hiding this information from the public when these people are asking for contracts/concessions, then voting for the contract/concession does, IMHO, violate the Code of Ethics which requires the council members to “Safeguard ability to make independent, objective, fair and impartial judgments by scrupulously avoiding financial and social relationships and transactions that may compromise, or give the appearance of compromising, objectivity, independence, and honesty.” I want to stress the part that says "or give the appearance..." It may not be technically illegal due to the loophole, but it doesn't pass the "stink test" IMO. What do you think? As far as I am concerned, council members can still accept the money. All I ask is (1) they reveal this at the council meeting and (2) they recuse themselves from voting.
Good point. Our recent steps forward (Alton, Sports Park) were all part of long standing (I would say too long) efforts of the previous councils, for which prior members Dixon, Rudolph, and Tettemer should share in the credit. On the other matter, I would appreciate some more info. You say that there were "financial and social relationships" between City Council members and applicants for the Commission which were not revealed prior to the vote. Can you be more specific? As far as I recall, the relationship between Voigts and Brower was veted at the meeting, and again, as far as I can recall, no other "relationships" were veted. Personally I don't care if someone is a friend or not, but if the Code of Ethics calls for it, then the council should abide by its code. And if this goes beyond simple friendship (working for their campaign, working for their company, contributing to their campaign), then these things certainly should have been revealed and the council member involved certainly should not have voted. If there is evidence that they did, perhaps we need an independent Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the council.
Yes, there is more coming. I have a new 4-part series inspired by the recent controversy about the Trumark and Brookfield shenanigans, but the bottom line throughout is that nothing illegal is being done.
"During last November’s elections, two developers steered nearly $50,000 in contributions to the local GOP, which in turn funded the campaigns of two new council candidates by funding attack mailers against other Republicans, one a longtime planning commissioner" http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_south/lake_forest/article_68a2b6fe-709f-11e2-abee-001a4bcf887a.html Home OC South Lake Forest .Lake Forest Leaders Doubt Transparency of Housing Vote StoryComments (5)ShareShare Print Create a hardcopy of this page Font Size: Default font size Larger font size .Posted: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:32 pm | Updated: 8:25 pm, Wed Mar 6, 2013. Lake Forest Leaders Doubt Transparency of Housing Vote By NICK GERDA Voice of OC | 5 comments "Two Lake Forest City Council members on opposing sides of a controversial plan to transform an aging auto mall into a lucrative housing development are questioning whether the public was adequately informed about a vote that helped pave the way for the project" http://www.voiceofoc.org/oc_south/lake_forest/article_36be09c0-85dc-11e2-8ade-001a4bcf887a.html My question pertaining to the last blogged article is why those Council people who were concerned whether the Feb. 5th vote was appropriate (since it was apparently agendized as a 'discussion item' and not an 'actionable' item) did not protest before the vote or take action to rescind it afterwards?
According to the information that I read, one of the developers gave $8000 to Voights and Robinson in direct contributions. I'm not sure how that is broken down. But we all know that Robinson is the new kid on the block and that Voights is now the Mayor with a little more time and clout on the Council. And wasn't Robinson one of those who voted to strike down the independent review of the developer feasibility studies on Feb 5th - which was a vote favorable to the developer, without public disclosure prior to the vote that he received this direct contribution? Little Councilmen grow up to be big councilmen eventually. So, sorry. I don't quite understand your thought process here. Or maybe I just need another cup of morning coffee.
I can't be responsible for what you read elsewhere. Robinson (and Nick) got a "pass" from me in my comment because he wasn't part of the decision making process that Voigts referred to when he talked about the 4,000 homes that were approved as part of the Opportunity Study. Robinson did vote to favor Trumark and Brookfield in the Feb 5 council meeting as you suggest. He was joined by Voigts and Nick. In 2012 Robinson received the following contributions related to this vote - Foothill Village - 8/14/2012 - $500 Richard Goacher - 8/10/2012 - $2500 BIA of SC - 8/24/2012 - $1000 In 2011, Voigts received the following from these developers or companies/people associated with them in one way or another - Brookfield - 10/12/2011 - $250 Richard Goacher - 9/16/2011 - $2800 My comment in response to this article was confined to the 4,000 homes that Voigts referred to in his State of the City address. It wasn't a general comment about council members taking money from developers, in which case the list would have been longer. So maybe you need one less cup of coffee, not one more.
Again, thanks for the info.
Projects go through many stages to get final approval. The Brookfield/Trumark project is in that process, moving from stage to stage. From what was said at the council meeting - Last year, in the normal course of events, the City would have sent the developer's report out for independent review, but at the developer's request it was postponed. Months later the developers said - let's go to the next step quickly because of the delays - let's not bother with the independent review. Councilwoman McCullough outlined this in detail, the point being that the delay was at the request of the developers. Councilman Herzog felt they should have to do what everyone else did, and not skip a step since they were behind (at their request) While a lot of the discussion was about the $, you're right that the money was not the main issue IMO. It was the delay. The $ had already been given to the City by the developers and the City had already selected a company to do the review. By voting to favor the developers and exempt them from the normal process, and by having accepted money from these developers in the recent past, it looks like corruption. Voigts and Robinson should have revealed the relationship and recused themselves from the vote IMO. Of equal importance is the question of what more homes will do to a city already in trouble with traffic and committed to 4,000 new homes. That's the real question, never asked by anyone.
Enjoy your wet Friday.
I'm not complaining. You often catch really good things and your comments often help me do a better job. This comment was a difficult one to write and I did several versions, some of them with the names of other council members and some without. But when I looked at the two versions I thought I should confine myself to the topic raised by Voigts (the 4,000 homes) and not get into the more general issue of taking developer money or the even more general issue of taking "vested interest" money. There was no attempt to hide Robinson or Nick from scrutiny nor to pick on Voigts or Herzog. I just wanted to stick to the facts as I saw them. An additional consideration was space. These comments have to fit into 1500 characters and the limited version (the one printed) did that, while the more general one was far too long and would have had to be in 2 parts and also would wander off the topic.
Thanks, I just read the link you provided, and understand. It will be interesting to see how everything proceeds with the development.
I will go back and review the video. But from what I recall Dwight Robinson made a much bigger issue of the money ($12000) than he did the time delay. I may be wrong. But when I listened to him during that meeting he seemed to really hone in on the money aspect and that really stuck in my mind. "By voting to favor the developers and exempt them from the normal process, and by having accepted money from these developers in the recent past, it looks like corruption. Voigts and Robinson should have revealed the relationship and recused themselves from the vote IMO." But it's not just that. The agendized item was for 'discussion only' and there was not public indication that a vote would occur, as VOC (to their credit) pointed out. So I agree there is a BIG questionmark as to whether the public received adequate notice here. There are BIG parallels in the process that occurred in Anaheim with their Council and developer relationship and what happened in Lake Forest. A jusge overturned Anaheim. Plus, a legal expert in government and constitutional affairs chimed in and believed the Lake Forest Council may have been out of line by taking it to vote on Feb 5. (see #2 VOC article linked above^) But maybe we should divert from this sub-topic since it was not discussed by Voights at the State of the City address. It's better to stay focused.
You are corrrect. If you were at the meeting or viewed the video, a lot of the discussion centered around the money. Hence I said that IMO the real issue was the delay, because from the amount of chatter you'd think it was the money. But, as I said, the money was already paid, was only $12,500 per developer, and in the scope of things was small potatoes to multi-million dollar projects. I think the real issue was the delay, which promised to be several months, and the possibility that something might emerge from the independent study that furthered delays. It's only my opinion. I like the idea of Robinson and Nick to streamline business for people and to make the process quicker and cheaper for people. I support the idea. In this case, however, a good idea is tarnished because of the influence of money.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Oh, thanks for the clarfication. I always like to know your opinion, as I value it. But for the relevance of this discussion the crux of the matter really surrounds what those Council members thought when they actually voted on the matter on Feb 5. And it seemed that MONEY was the primary sticking point, as voiced by Mr. Robinson. Not delay. Now, IMO, that makes a material difference since $12000 was chump change compared to the price of the entire project. And isn't it better to ENSURE that the feasiblity studies data is shown to be accurate and complete, confirmed by an INDEPENDENT sourse, than to get halfway finished with the project and discovering a material error in the studies that may result in additional monies and/or time needed to complete the project in an acceptable manner? "Streamling business" is a great general ideal & objective, but isn't it crucial to ensure the data that the project is based upon is accurate and complete, as confirmed by a agency or company that is independent of the developer(s) that conducted the original study and is in charge of the development operation? Otherwise, if the data is flawed and/or inaccurate, don't you see the possible ramifications that the City could face here? Yes, the "influence of money" is an important aspect of all this. I agree. But so is the accuracy of the planning process. Vital!
I don't think the issue is (a) money or (b) delay or... The issue IMO is whether or not shortcuts should be taken in the planning process to accommodate anyone, and if so, under what conditions. In this case the normal planning process was shortened for the convenience of the developers (who caused the problem in the first place), and at stake is the wellbeing of our entire city when you consider the impact of EVEN MORE homes than the 4,000 which have already been slated in. That is bad enough. Throw in the facts that (a) these developers had "primed the pump" with some big bucks in contributions to city council members, (b) the city council members kept this private from the public at the meetings, and (c) the city council members did not recuse themselves from the vote and (d) voted in favor of the people who gave them the money. In the light of these issues, whether or not the developers or council members were more or less concerned with money or time seems irrelevant, or at best, only a minor consideration.
So I must assume that since you seem to view the developers with a suspicious eye that you would not be opposed to an independent review of the developer's feasibility studies as an added means to provide us with a greater amount of certainty that the studies data is accurate and complete. Oh, you didn't respond. Do you think the Feb 5 agenda item on the independent review should have received a vote when it was a "discussion only" item? The VOC addressed that in the linked #2 article? Do you have an opinion?