Navigation
Home
News
Nancy's Picks
User Login
User Name:
Password:
log in | create new account
Copyright Nancy Sandoval, 2004. WebDesign by Scott Bailey.
  VotePick:
Vote Picks - New VotePicks
Written By:
Nancy Sandoval



Printer Friendly Version
Introduction
JUNE 8, 2010 PRIMARY ELECTIONS/5 Propostions
BY: NANCY SANDOVAL

YOU DO NOT NEED TO LOG IN. Just click on "VIEW VOTE PICKS" to get to RECOMMENDATIONS.

May 27 MOST RECENT UPDATES MADE TO NANCY'S PICKS

Additionally, I'll be updating with facts and comments, RIGHT UP TO ELECTION DAY.

OTHER PARTIES:
Because of the Liberal Planks in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, I CANNOT make recommendations for their ballot, as their planks stand in OPPOSITON to CONSERVATIVE VALUES and entirely unacceptable. The other parties' planks are also, either too liberal, or not VIABLE. So, I also do not make recommendations for them. The planks of the unviable American Independent Party are acceptable, however, and offer an alternative.

IMPORTANT ELECTION DATES for June 8 Election:

-MAY 24, 2010 - LAST DAY to REGISTER TO VOTE
-JUNE 1, 2010 - LAST DAY to REQUEST VOTE-BY-MAIL

To do either of the above, GO TO WWW.OCVOTE.COM and follow the links.

DO YOU PREFER TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH? Here are some sites that will provide you good information:

www.RobynNordell.com (provides links to do all kinds of research)

www.electionforum.org

FOR A SUMMARY Of PROPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS:
Just Chant:
YES - NO-NO - YES-YES!
YES - NO-NO - YES-YES!
YES - NO-NO - YES-YES!
. . . and, you'll have it right! ! ! (in my opinion!)


Offices:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
GOVERNOR STEVE POIZNER
Regarding the Governor's Repub. race, I am UNenthusiastic about either of the candidates. Neither are solid conservatives w/Whitman being a little more liberal than Poizner.

Whitman is an active member of the New Majority, which is a group of rich Republicans who want the Republican Party to be more MODERATE. They and Whitman want to "broaden the appeal of the Republican Party by . . . lending resources to Republicans who support an inclusive, mainstream approach toward politics".

Fiscally, Whitman and the New Majority are conservative, but on social issues they are very liberal. They side w/ pro-abortion, pro-illegal aliens, and are anti-Prop 8 (the marriage amendment), passed several yrs. ago, but tied up in the courts. The New Majority and its members, contributed and raised more than $10 million for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign and his failed higher tax ballot initiatives.

Many of the attacks on Poizner by Whitman are unfounded or stretched with only a thread of truth. I AM NOT A BIG POIZNER FAN, however. He is merely a little to the "right" of Whitman, which is why I recommend him.

Poizner supports Arizona's recently enacted and very reasonable, illegal immigration reform. Meg Whitman opposes the reform. Both are Pro-Abortion, but, at least Poizner rejects the idea of our tax dollars paying for abortions. Whitman supports public funding of abortions.

I would understand and have no problem w/ good Republicans supporting Whitman, b/c the line between them is weak. However, either Poizner or Whitman would be much better than the ultra-liberal Democratic candidate, Jerry Brown.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SAM AANESTAD
Of the 6 candidates for this office, only 2 are contenders, Sam Aanestad and Abel Maldanado. Sam, a solid conservative in all areas, and is light years better than competitor, Abel Maldonado, who was one of only 6 Republicans who voted with the Democrats to to pass Schwartennegar's highest tax-raising budget in history. (Sam opposed it). In gratitude , Arnie named Maldanado to the vacated Lt. Govenors position, to get the advantage in this election. Sam is a great candidate. Tell all you know to VOTE FOR SAM AANESTAD.
SECRETARY OF STATE DAMON DUNN
OUTSTANDING conservative candidate, strong on all the issues conservatives care about. Additionally, Dunn is intelligent, articulate, energetic, a former church pastor. He is endorsed by California Republican Assembly and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association PAC. Tell all you know to vote DAMON DUNN.
CONTROLLER TONY STRICKLAND
TREASURER MIMI WALTERS
Running unopposed for the Republican nomination and hailing from South OC, Mimi has done a good job in the CA Senate.
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN EASTMAN
John Eastman is an OUTSTANDING candidate and is extremely qualified for this office. Actually, we are blessed to have a man of this caliber even run for this office. He is a CONSTITUTIONAL attorney w/ a long track record in defending our basic freedoms, based on law and the constitution. This includes the defense of Voter-Approved Prop 8 Marriage amendment, before the Supreme Court, which our current Attorney General, liberal Democratic governor candidate, Jerry Brown, refused to defend.

Virtually, every conservative office holder and every conservative organization has endorsed Eastman.

Per known conservative legislator Tom McClintock:
“John Eastman has spent a lifetime fighting for the values that define conservatism and the rule of law. After four years of Jerry Brown, I can think of no one I would rather have as Attorney General than John Eastman.”

MULTI-THUMBS up for EASTMAN!
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER NO RECOMMENDATION
I cannot recommend anyone for this office as no conservative is running. DO NOT VOTE FOR MIKE VILLINES, however. He was one of the few Republicans who voted WITH THE DEMOCRATS for the HIGHEST TAX INCREASE IN CA HISTORY. I will probably vote for Brian Fitzgerald, merely as a vote AGAINST VILLINES, or skip altogether. Too bad we have no good choice here.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION-3RD DISTRICT MICHELLE STEEL
US SENATOR - CALIFORNIA CHUCK DEVORE
A favorite CONSERVATIVE candidate of mine, who served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. I followed his votes while in the State Assembly, and he was right on, each time, scoring 100% from the staunchly conservative, California Republican Assembly for the last 4 years. A former military Lieutenant Colonel, Chuck is very bright, very articulate, and would represent us excellently in the US Senate. He's pro-life, pro-business, pro-Arizona immigration reform, anti-big government, anti-tax and the most Reagan-like candidate we've had in a long time. We need Chuck in Washington to replace off-the-charts, ultra-liberal, obnoxious Barbara Boxer. He would be the best of the 3 to debate Boxer.

About his opponents, Tom Campbell paints himself as a conservative. He is not. In fact, of the 3 Republicans, Campbell is the most liberal. Newbie, Carly Fiorina, is pro-life, generally conservative, but unproven. If she were to win, however, I would gladly support her in the General Election. If Tom Campbell were to win the nomination, I would RELUCTANTLY support him, even. THE BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE HERE IS TO SEND BARBARA BOXER HOME IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION, AS THE LOSER.
US REPRESENTATIVE-40TH DISTRICT ED ROYCE
US REPRESENTATIVE-42ND DISTRICT PHIL LIBERATORE
Originally, I had supported Gary Miller who, in the past, has been a solid conservative, but who had some financial dealings that are being investigated. More negatives have come to light in the campaign, which have caused me to pull my early recommendation.

In researching all the others, PHIL LIBERATORE has come out on top. My research shows he is very conservative, well-qualified, and, according to all I have talked that know him well, he is a man of intergrity, probably what is needed most in a politician. Many known Christian conservatives have come out to endorse him. The 42nd deserves FRESH energy. Vote LIBERATORE!
US REPRESENTATIVE-44TH DISTRICT CHRIS RIGGS
Chris Riggs is a solid Christian conservative and supports all the core issues that conservatives care about. But why support a newbie over incumbent Republican, Ken Calvert? Well, there are lots of integrity issues surrounding Calvert, many say, bordering on corruption having to do with public funded EARMARKS, that have richly benefitted Calvert, personally. One charge is in litigation currently. Calvert was one of three U.S. Representatives featured on the Fox News Documentary “Porked: Earmarks for Profit” in 2008. Go to: www.RiggsforCongress, to view. (Sorry, my site doesn't link it) Accordingly, I could not, in good conscience recommend him. Please tell all you know to vote Chris Riggs in the 44th District.
US REPRESENTATIVE-46TH DISTRICT DANA ROHRABACHER
US REPRESENTATIVE-47TH DISTRICT VAN TRAN
Van Tran is our best chance to unseat liberal ObamaCare supporter, Loretta Sanchez.
US REPRESENTATIVE-48TH DISTRICT JOHN CAMPBELL
US REPRESENTATIVE - 49TH DISTRICT DARRELL ISSA
CA STATE ASSEMBLY-67TH DISTRICT JAMES SILVA
CA STATE ASSEMBLY-68TH DISTRICT ALLAN MANSOOR
I am very confident to recommend conservative ALLAN MANSOOR for the 68th Assembly District. Mansoor is a former Orange County Deputy Sheriff and has been mayor of Costa Mesa since 2005.
CA STATE ASSEMBLY-69TH DISTRICT ROBERT HAMMOND
My reseach has found Robert Hammond to be a solid conservative in all areas, with strong beliefs in limiting government, pro-business, and a pro-lifer. He is a former US Marine.
CA STATE ASSEMBLY-70TH DISTRICT DON WAGNER
Don is running to replace a favorite conservative, CHUCK DEVORE, who is running for the US Senate. Don Wagner is cut from the same fabric as Chuck. Like DeVore, he is a staunch conservative, both fiscally and socially, solid in all areas that conservatives value. An attorney, Don currently serves as president of the So. Orange County Community College District where he has been elected for 3 terms, keeping the district one of the most fiscally stable in CA.

Note on Wagner's opponent: Steven Choi rented an apt. in the 70th District, claiming that it was his primary residence when, in fact, his primary residence is in a different district. Because of this, he is being investigated by the elections board.
CA STATE ASSEMBLY-71st DISTRICT JEFF MILLER
CA STATE ASSEMBLY-72ND DISTRICT CHRIS NORBY
CA STATE ASSEMBLY-73RD DISTRICT DIANE HARKEY
71st-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE MARK BUCHER, TONY BEALL, MARK DOBRILOVIC, TODD SPITZER, JACK ANDERSON, MARCIA GILCHRIST
60th-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITEE DESARE FERRARO, CAROL GIBBS, RAY GRANGOFF, RICHARD WHITTIER, MICHAEL JOHNSON
67th-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE KRISTINE ALONZO, SCOTT BAUGH, VALERIE DICKERSON, MATT HARPER, JERRY JACKSON, JUDY AHERNS
68th-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE JON AIKEN, KERMIT MARSH, WENDY LEECE, JEFF MATHERS, MARK McCURDY, ED ROYCE, SR.
69th-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE CUONG CAO, SCOTT CARPENTER, TERRY CONTRERAS, BRETT FRANKLIN, LUPE MORENO, TIM WHITACRE
70th-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE MEGAN BARTH, ALLAN BARTLETT, TOM FUENTES, MARY YOUNG, DICK NICHOLS, SCOTT VOIGTS
Scott Voights is one of the most hard-working and dedicated Christian conservative I know. Voters in the 70th, Scott deserves your vote.
73rd-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE CRAIG ALEXANDER, ALICE ANDERSON, CHANDRA CHELL, ANGELO LOMBARDO, MIKE MUNZING, NANCY PADBERG
NOTE on Craig Alexander: My friend and often political consultant, CRAIG ALEXANDER, is running for this office. He is a rock-solid conservative and Christian and deserves to be re-elected to serve on this committee.
72nd-REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE MARILYN DAVENPORT, MICHAEL NUTTO, RICK RIOS, PAT SHUFF, ZONYA TOWNSEND, BRUCE WHITAKER
REGARDING THE FOLLOWING JUDICAL OFFICES:
Actually, 50 Judges are up for Reelection (6 yr. terms), but only 5 are on the Ballot, w/ only 2 in Competitive Races. The reason the other 45 are not on the ballot is b/c they are sitting judges and they are running unopposed. The 5 on the ballot are candidates that are NEW, never having been elected. They are all running for Judgeships where the sitting judge for that office chose not to run for re-election. Of the 5, 3 have no competitors, however, write-ins are eligible. This leaves only 2 where there are competitors for the office.
JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT-NO 39 RUNNING UNOPPOSED-NO RECOMMENDATION
CHERI PHAM is unopposed and will be elected barring a write-in candidate getting more voteS. NOT!

THIS OFFICE SHOULD BE UNDER "NON-PARTISAN"
NONPARTISAN OFFICES:
JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT-NO 2 SCOTT STEINER
While running unopposed, Scott Steiner is a good candidate.
JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT-NO13 NICK DOURBETAS
While running unopposed, my research has found Nick Dourbetas to be a good candidate.
JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT- NO 16 ANDY MANSSOURIAN
Strong, conservative candidate for judge.
JUDGE-SUPERIOR COURT- NO 50 JULIAN BAILEY
Julian Bailey is the best candidate for this judgeship.
SUPERINTENDENT of PUBLIC INSTRUCTION DIANE LENNING
This office has mostly been held by liberal Democrats. Diane, a Republican, may have a chance to change that. Highly qualified, Diane campaigns very hard for this state-wide, relatively obscure, office. She has been endorsed by the conservative grass-roots California Republican Assembly (CRA) and Congressman Dana Rohrbacher of OC's 46th District.
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT of SCHOOLS RUNNING UNOPPOSED-NO RECOMMENDATION
William Habermehl is unopposed.
OC BOARD of EDUCATION OFFICE NO. 2 - ALEXANDRA CORONADO, OFFICE NO. 5 - NO RECOMMENDATION
COUNTY SUPERVISOR-5th DISTRICT PATRICIA BATES
While running unopposed, incumbent Pat Bates has been a solid conservative.
COUNTY SUPERVISOR-2nd DISTRICT JOHN MOORLACH
Though running unopposed, John is a favorite candidate of mine, ALWAYS standing up for conservative values, regardless of flack or arrows that comes his way, especially from the public employee unions. He has been a consistent conservative, first, as OC Tax Collector (after disgraced Robert Citron) and lately, as an OC Supervisor. Like DeVore, he is the kind of conservative we want in office.
COUNTY SUPERVISOR-4th DISTRICT SHAWN NELSON
Shawn is a very strong conservative for this 4th district "special election" that was vacated by Chris Norby, when Norby moved to the State Assembly last election. A person of strong character is needed (like John Moorlach) to stand up to the attacks of the Public Employees Unions. If Shawn wins, it will continue a conservative majority of the OC Board of Supervisors.


Shawn's main competition in this 6-way race is Lorri Galloway, a UNION-BACKED DEMOCRAT, and Harry Sidhu, who has told the Unions he would vote to drop the county's lawsuit against the unions, a lawsuit that conservatives and Nelson believe should go forward in the fiscal interest of OC. Accordingly, Sidhu is getting union donations. The 4th Supervisory District needs a person of strong commitment. Vote SHAWN NELSON!

BTW, if no candidate receives 50% in this race (and all non-partisan races, for that matter), there will be a runoff on the 2 highest vote getters.
OC ASSESSOR CLAUDE PARRISH
OC AUDITOR-CONTROLLER NO RECOMMENDATION-RUNNING UNOPPOSED
Incumbent, David Sundstrom is unopposed.
OC CLERK/RECORDER HUGH HGUYEN
Running against incumbent, Tom Daly, Hugh Hguyen is a conservative endorsed by the California Republican Assembly.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY TONY RACKAUCAS
Rackaucas is unopposed.
OC PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR JOHN WILLIAMS
OC SHERIFF/CORONER CRAIG HUNTER
Their are 3 well qualified candidates for this office and it has been hard to make a choice. But, my choice is CRAIG HUNTER.

Since she was appointed sheriff, Sandra Hutchens has done a good job of stablizing the dept. after the Corona mess. But I think she, perhaps, is not as in touch with the environment of OC as the other two. An example of was her abrupt CCW (concealed weapons) policy change and the big flap that followed, critics citing she was violating 2nd amendment rights.

Originally, I was a supporter of Bill Hunt, based on him being one of the first to see the flaws in disgraced, Mike Corona. Hunt's challenge to Corona in his last election resulted in Hunt being demoted, in apparent retaliation by Corona, which led to Hunt resigning. But Hunt is supported by the OC Deputy Sherriffs unions. Though he stauchly promises to give no favors, union money can sway judgement.

I am recommending the 3rd candidate, CRAIG HUNTER, the Anaheim deputy chief. With 30 yrs. of police experience, he has a strong 2nd amendment stance, displays a calmer, more logical demeanor (than Hunt), and, the BIGGY, Hunter signed a statement NOT to take any union money. With union pensions being a big problem in OC, we need a Sheriff who will NOT be influenced by union money. HUNTER is the guy.
OC TREASURER/TAX COLLECTOR DAVID LANG
There are 3 (of 4) good candidates running for this office. Because of that, conservatives are split on their recommendations. I am recommending CPA, David Lang, mainly because, as an elected trustee on the South Orange County Community District for 14 yrs, he and the other trustees (including 70th Assembly candidate, Trustee Don Wagner) have done an excellent job in keeping the district one of the most financially stable in CA. Often times that meant standing strong against the unions.
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CITY COUNCIL NEIL BLAIS
IRVINE CITY COUNCIL JEFF LALLOWAY
TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL JIM PALMER


Propositions:
PROP 13 SEISMIC RETROFITTING of EXISTING BUILDINGS Yes
BACKGROUND: Currently, property taxes are assessed when a property is purchased, and except for a small annual increase, remain the same, for the same owner. However, new contruction to the structure causes a reassessment, increasing property taxes beyond the small increase.

Prop 13 would allow for an exclusion for improvements without a property tax increase, IF the improvements are to reinforce masonry buildings/structures to upgrade earthquake/seismic safety. Earthquake building upgrades are what CA should want to encourage, not penalize w/ a higher tax. A good idea! Vote YES!

PROP 14 Election-Change to Open Primaries Strong No
NO, NO, NO! An absolutely TERRIBLE idea!!! Californians defeated Proposition 62 in 2004, a similar measure, by 54-46%, and WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN.

PROP 14 attempts to change CA's Primary Election to an "OPEN" primary, allowing voters to choose ANY candidate, regardless of the party affiliation in a primary. The 2 candidates receiving the most votes would appear on the General Election ballot. This COULD result in 2 candidates from the SAME party being on a ballot. It is an attempt to slide our state even more liberal than it is. A TERRIBLE idea in 2004 and a TERRIBLE idea in 2010. NO to ALL Open Primararies every time. NO on PROP 14!
PROP 15 CA FAIR ELECTION ACT No
Proposition 15 was initially sponsored by Loni Hancock, a Democratic state senator from Berkeley. It repeals ban on PUBLIC funding of political campaigns. Under Prop 15, candidates for CA Secretary of State would qualify for state provided campaign funds, if they agree to spending limits and other provisions. The funds, proponents say would be paid for by fees charged to lobbyist. This is a pilot program that would start with Sec. of State office first.

This prop is loaded with potential abuse. First, if enough fees are not raised from lobbyist, or the fees get thrown out in court, guess who pays? Us TAXPAYERS! CA absolutely CANNOT AFFORD to take on any more obligations. Also, it was written with a trick, to allow expansion to other offices, WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL. Plus, it is possible to take the PUBLIC CAMPAIGN funds and still raise unlimited special interest funds. No on Prop 15.
PROP 16 VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS Yes
Sorry for the length of comments on this one, but it is complicated with good and bad on both sides.

With all the expensive advertising on PROP 16 for so many months, one has to question WHO is paying, and WHY?

The WHO, is PG&E, the biggest Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) in the state. And the WHY, is that PG&E knows that cash-strapped cities and counties are looking for ways to bring in more revenue. These entities may look to start their own Publicly-Owned Utilities (POU). This, however, would result in taking away revenue from PG&E. Hence, the big campaign for Prop 16 by them.

PG&E (or IOU’s, in general) cannot stop cities and counties from going into the electric business, so they proposed with this initiative to make it MORE DIFFICULT. Prop 16 requires voter approval to start a POU, taking it out of the hands of county and city officials. Then, to make it even MORE difficult, PG&E tacked on the requirement for a 2/3 SUPER-MAJORITY, virtually securing a defeat.

Question? Is it a good idea for a city or county to start their own POU? I don't think so. Becoming one is expensive and could be a future financial burden, if not run efficiently or properly. Does government ever run things anything efficiently and properly?

EXAMPLE: Los Angeles has the Dept. of Water & Power (DWP), which is a POU. Even though the city owns the DWP, city and DWP officials are constantly at odds. The DWP IS FAT WITH HIGH PAY OFFICIALS and the city can't seem to do anything about it. While LA's POU should be adding income, DWP has recently refused to give the city the funds it promised, unless the city approves an electric rate increase. What a mess LA's POU is!

A final point, most cities have a 2/3 vote requirement before they can raise taxes. But, if a city owned the utility, it could be a "back door" to raising taxes without voter approval, i.e., just raise electric rates, instead.

CONCLUSION: Even though this prop was put on the ballot to benefit PG&E and other Investor-Owned Utilities, I think cities and counties should not easily go into the electric business. This prop would discourage city and county officials from even thinking about it. I believe, that’s probably a good idea. Yes on Prop 16.
PROP 17 AUTO INSURANCE/DRIVER'S HISTORY Yes
When you look at your auto insurance bill, you may notice that you receive certain discounts for various factors, like your driving safety record, the number of miles you drive, the number of years you have been driving, and loyalty. These discounts aren't just given to you because your insurer likes you. It is the result of previously passed Prop 103, which REQUIRES them to offer the discounts.

Prop 17 would amend old Prop 103 to allow insurers to offer a "continuity" discount to NEW customers, who switch from another insurer, as long as that coverage has been CONTINUOUS.

The negative: Prop 17 will INCREASE premiums to drivers who do NOT have a history of continuous insurance coverage. Those in the military, however, would be exempt from this increase if they cancel insurance when serving overseas or in another state. Currently, they lose the discount.

With Prop 17, 80% of drivers could be eligible for reduced auto premiums. A good thing! I say, YES on 17.
MISSION VIEJO-MEASURE D Yes
Measure D was put on the ballot by some very fine Citizens, who love Mission Viejo, but don't trust the MC City Council to make good choices to preserve the Master Plan as originally set down by the MV Company when the city was planned out.

If you prefer our city to stay with the original MV Master Plan, and would like to have a "say" in making major zoning changes in Mission Viejo, then I recommend a YES vote.

But, some say this measure would be micro-managing our city or would be "ballot-zoning" and would slow up the zoning process. Read the measure in your ballot, OR the summary below. If YOU think this, vote NO.

HOWEVER, DO NOT BELIEVE ALL THE MISINFORMATION (or lies) THAT ARE BEING DISSEMINATED TO SCARE VOTERS.(see below for more on this)

BACKGROUND: Measure D came out of some zoning changes that have been passed, over the years, that citizens of Mission Viejo have opposed because the changes disrupted the Mission Viejo's original Master Plan. The most recent concern came when the MV City Council considered the sale and rezoning of Costa Del Sol Golf Course with a portion of the land going to build a senior care facility. (Due to the ecomomy the builder w/drew his request, however.)

The measure requires additional steps be taken to make zoning/land use changes. These steps could include additional hearings/review, for minor changes. Or, it may require a city-wide vote, for “major” changes. Examples of major changes would be replacing COMMERCIAL zoning with high density RESIDENTIAL zoning, or visa versa. Or, if a property is zoned for open space/recreation (such as the Casta Del Sol Golf Course), then voters would have to approve the change before houses or stores could be built on this property. The costs for the election would be paid for by the developers of the project.

Update 5-30-2010 There has been much MISINFORMATION and downright lies being disseminated on this measure. The following are some of the "Misinformation" followed by the TRUTH on this measure.

1) "Stick taxpayers with the bill for unlimited special elections."

WRONG. Section 4.1 of Measure D says that developers will pay the entire cost of any special election they request.

2) "Drain funds away from schools, roads, parks and public safety."

WRONG. As there are no additional costs to the city or school districts as a result of Measure D, no funds will be diverted. In fact, to the extent commercial properties remain commercial, there will be more taxes paid to the city.

3)"Let developers build high-density, low-income housing without an election."

WRONG. They are misunderstanding Section 6.1 of Measure D. That section simply says that Measure D, like all other city laws, cannot override State law, especially the State Housing Code. Whatever laws applied before, apply in exactly the same way after Measure D is enacted. Nothing whatsoever will change. Section 6.1 is part of Measure D to make it harder for people to challenge Measure D as being passed to override State law, which it cannot do.

4) "Create Blight and vacant storefronts."

WRONG. It is hard to see how passing a law that will stabilize zoning would do any thing of the kind. Really, this is an attempt to scare people with an idea plucked from thin air.

5)"Cause budget deficits and make cuts in city services inevitable."

WRONG. As stated above, there will be no increases in city spending as a result of Measure D, and the city may even see an increase in collected sales tax if existing commercial properties are saved from being converted to residential.

6) "Prevent hospital, school church and business improvements."

WRONG. Measure D does not prevent landowners from expanding their operations as long as they don't need to change the zoning. If, for example, a shopping center wanted to expand and tear down nearby houses to do so, then Measure D would come into effect, and a vote of the people would be required.

7) "Drop Property values and halt job creation."

WRONG. Under the "old" system where City Councils made the final decisions, about 1,000 jobs were lost when properties that were supposed to be commercial got converted to residential. Measure D would make sure that the people would decide which was more important: jobs or housing. Also, to the extent that Measure D reduces the number of new houses built, existing houses will be worth more because of supply vs. demand.

8) "Unleash an endless parade of "special" elections/"

WRONG. There have been less than six zoning change in the past 15 years in Mission Viejo that would likely have triggered Measure D if it had been law. That's hardly "endless." Also, Mission Viejo is mostly built out, and few vacant parcels remain where zoning would become an issue, especially when developers know that they need to do more than "convince" three council members.

9) "Do nothing to protect Casta Del Sol Golf Course or any other open space."

WRONG. Look at section 3.1i and 3.1j. They were designed especially so that a vote of the citizens of Mission Viejo would be needed to build anything else at Casta Del Sol Golf Course. We know from the Judge's decision and city documents that construction is possible on parts of the golf course.

10) "Make you pay more for something you already have - the right to vote."

WRONG. We don't have any way to stop bad land-use decisions made by City Councilpersons until they come up for election, by which time it is too late to do anything about whatever project they approved. Also, future elections required by Measure D will be paid for by developers, not taxpayers.