Putting Lake Forest Last

Yesterday we discussed the perceived betrayal by Council members Voigts, Robinson, and Hamilton who voted to stop looking for alternatives and stay with the County knowing that this meant bad service and high kill rates for the people of Lake Forest who elected them to represent our best interests. Instead Robinson pleaded that we stay with the County so that our efforts could have a larger impact, rather than worry about the welfare of the thousands of pet owners who live in the City.

Bear in mind, the date by which the County requested a firm answer is April 1, 2016 – 4 months away. So there was plenty of time to do further investigations and then, if they failed, ultimately go with the County knowing that we did everything we could. After all, this week’s City Council meeting and the staff report were merely Step 1 in a process. We looked at city-owned land only, knowing that by using city-owned land we could keep the costs down. According to the staff report, none of the three city-owned properties could legally be used for an animal shelter, and therefore if the Council was to proceed, we needed a different model. Other possibilities included

• · Contracting with Laguna Beach, who have no room to add Lake Forest, but who might consider a $1,000,000 addition to their shelter and a JPA going forward to operate a shelter for both cities. The $1,000,000 is what the County will extort from us to allow them to keep killing animals and providing bad service, so why not explore whether that same amount could buy us a better deal. Wouldn’t that be the fiscally responsible thing to do?
• · Contracting with a nonprofit group in a different City, which is a model used by other cities (e.g., Newport Beach, Costa Mesa).
• · Developing our own service by using leased space, avoiding the construction costs, and providing the service for Lake Forest only. With $1,000,000 seed money we could do a heck of a lot in reducing the animal intake in the first place, probably reducing it by 50% within 5 years with trap-neuter-release programs, education, fostering programs, etc.

But my colleagues were “hot to trot”. Barely had the public comment section of the meeting concluded than Voigts was making a motion to stay with the County and Hamilton was seconding him even before he finished stammering. Why? There are several possibilities – Reactionary Philosophy, Disdain for the City, and Desire for County support. Let’s look at each one –

REACTIONARY PHILOSOPHY

Though Voigts-Robinson-Hamilton drape themselves in the clothing of a conservative, my analysis of their voting behavior indicates that they are reactionaries, not conservatives. Reactionaries are basically for no change. You can pick them out from their mantra “stay the course” and by their constant references to “El Toro”. I will have a much larger discussion later this month on the issue of the reactionary behavior of my colleagues, but for now here are a few examples –

• · When I proposed looking at the street sweeping contract with a view toward saving $200,000, they said “no change”
• · When Adam Nick and I asked for staff to explore alternatives to using OCSD, they said “no change”
• · When I asked them to look more closely at the budget and possibly cut $2,000,000 in fat, they said “no change”.
• · When I asked them to use vacant City Hall space to provide better service to seniors in need, they said “no change.”

You get the point. I could (and will at a later date) give a dozen more examples in which the so-called “Gang of 3” sticks firmly to a reactionary stance. A true conservative would say “Let’s see if we can save $200,000 by tweaking the street sweeping program”, or “I’m willing to look at the costs of alternative services” but only a reactionary would say “no change” time after time.

Accepting for a moment my premise that the guys are reactionaries, it makes sense why they don’t want to change providers. This is simply one in a long number of decisions to make no change. It also explains why it took the City 25 years to get our first dog park, while we are still the only City in the County with no senior center, no civic center, etc. Reactionaries are uncomfortable with change and resist it at all costs. In this case, the cost is the well-being of the citizens of Lake Forest who own pets, and that’s more than half of us.

DISDAIN FOR THE CITY

My colleagues are quick with a kind word about the City, but what does their behavior reveal? Just as they clothe themselves in the guise of a conservative while acting like a reactionary, they are effusive in their praise of the City but act in a very different way. Here are but a few examples –

• · I have (for years) been trying to get the City to spend more money on our people and businesses, because right now, out of the $40,000,000 we spend every year, about 2% goes to our own people and businesses. I’ve written about this extensively over the years, so this is not news. What is news is that every attempt by me to get my colleagues to support this position has met with failure.
• · I tried to get the Council to adopt a policy of providing a preference to any Lake Forest person or business applying for a contract, a policy used by half the cities in the County. My colleagues said no. Even worse, Andy Hamilton went so far as to oppose favoring the use of local resources in a badly written piece in the OC Register a few weeks ago.
• · Dwight Robinson worked with staff to develop a workshop and the bottom line is that almost all the participants who attended were from other cities, and the staff was teaching them how to get contracts with our City. Is there any more possible negative outcome you can have?
• · Dwight Robinson can’t even attend all the meetings he is supposed to attend here at our Council or in the committees he’s assigned to, but he maneuvered to get a post on the AQMD. While I have no criticism of anyone who serves on the AQMD, you would think that he’d take on additional responsibilities once he was fulfilling his other commitments. Where does he get the time for ASQMD when he misses 10% of his own Council meetings in addition to missing his OCFA meetings?
• · Scott Voigts constantly drones on about “my boss Don Wagner”. While it’s true that Voigts works for Wagner, when he’s sitting in the City Hall his boss is “the people of Lake Forest.” I’ve told him this several times. But the fact that he sits at the dais and constantly talks about “my boss Don Wagner” gives you an insight into where his mind is.

Once again, hopefully you get the point, and once again I could give a dozen more examples (which I will in the future). These guys say what a wonderful City we have, but when you look at their actions, it looks like their heads are elsewhere. This helps explain why they can knowingly choose to stay with the County even though they know this will dis-advantage the citizens of Lake Forest.

COURTING THE COUNTY

• · Why did Scott Voigts run for election in 2010 on a campaign platform that condemned the County’s plan to expand Musick Jail and turn parts of it into a maximum security jail, and no sooner did he get in office than he became a staunch advocate for Musick Jail, and remains so to this date.
• · Why does Scott Voigts continually lie and tell people that Lake Forest “is one of the safest cities in the US” when we are not even one of the safest cities in Southern California?
• · Why did “The Gang of 3” unanimously vote to accept the $900,000+ increase in the Police contract (with no increased level of service) without exploring any possible alternatives?
• · Why did “The Gang of 3” refuse to establish a public safety committee to look at how well the County performs its service in the City, especially when the crime rate has been up 30% and more this year?
• · Why are the County services (police and animal care which come to about 40% of entire operating expense) exempted from the competitive bid process that applies to almost everyone else?

There are several answers, but the main reason is that County officials provide a source of endorsements and contributions to “The Gang of 3”, and this is even more important if any of them have higher aspirations, such as running for the Board of Supervisors or higher office. It’ been known for some time that each of them covets higher office, and you can’t get there by pissing off the County.

SUMMARY

My colleagues, Council members Voigts, Robinson, and Hamilton recently voted to stop looking for alternatives to using the County as the provider of animal care services (OCAC). They did this to help the County knowing that the decision would put Lake Forest residents at a disadvantage. They did this, knowing that we are the only City in South Orange County that isn’t using OCAC or isn’t actively seeking an alternative. They did this, knowing that continuing with OCAC insures a high kill rate, bad service, and terrible care, even if they do build a new shelter. They did this, knowing that the City would have to pay as much as $1,000,000 to the County as a fee to continue using them, a practice not used by any County in the State. They did this, knowing that we had at least 4 more months before we had to commit to using the County. This article has tried to explain this incredible vote, by looking at their voting behavior and trying to understand how they view their roles.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Jim Gardner is on the City Council for Lake Forest. You can check him out on LinkedIn and/or Facebook and you can share your thoughts about the City at Lake Forest Town Square on Facebook. His comments are not meant to reflect official City Policy.

Dr. Gardner has office hours every Tuesday from 4 pm to 6 pm at the City Hall. In addition, he holds a Town Hall meeting every quarter. The next meeting will be on Dec 12 at 2 pm at the Foothill Ranch Public Library.

7