"The zone change is very unpopular..If it goes to the polls, it will lose"

Wrong!

Disney is unable to fool all the people, all the time.

Chip, my friend, that was straight out of Fantasyland.

the developer’s aggressive campaign against the right of voters to weigh in on the matter.

Apparently, refusal to lay down adn supinely obey the will of Disney is now being spun as "campaigning against the right of voters to weigh in on the matter." That is complete, utter, self-evident bosh.

After Disney/SOAR hired circulators to qualify a referendum to overturn the April 24 council vote, the Committee to Protect and Defend Anaheim, primarily funded by SunCal Companies, hired Progressive Campaigns to help gather signatures for a petition thanking Councilmembers Galloway, Hernandez and Kring for standing up to Disney.

In Disney-speak, that equates to "opposing the right of the people to vote."

"...the business community, with major funding from Disney..."

No, it was not the "business community." It was Disney corporation, the Anaheim Chamber and certain Disney-dependent businesses in the resort district. Calling it "the business community" is to give the erroneous impression the Anaheim business community is acting monolithically.

...had already begun an initiative to restrict residential zoning in the Resort area unless approved by a subsequent vote of the people.

The Disney initiative does not "restrict residential zoning in the Resort area." It writes the resort district specific plan in stone -- locks it into place in perpetuity and prevents any property owner from seeking any zoning change without clearing a number of hurdles -- including a city-wide vote. Did Moses bring the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan down from Mt. Sinai? Is it so perfect and inspired that any change in zoning or boundaries -- no matter how small -- forces resort district property owners (many, if not most, of whom lack corporate giant Disney's near-bottomless pockets) to take their case to 133,260 planning commissioners?

If Disney's initiative were being advanced anywhere else by anyone other than Disney, the same coalition singing its virtues would be condemning the evils of ballot-box zoning. And they'd be right.

"SunCal’s defenders openly chastised the firm and its petition gathers..."

What was being chastised were the half-truths and untruths being told by the circulators to Anaheim voters to convince them to sign the initiative. Do you think the circulators came up with the "they want to bring low income/HUD/Section 8 housing and drugs and prostitution to Disneyland" spin on their own?

Every Disney circulator -- no matter which petition firm they worked for -- has been using the same base appeal to the lower instincts for both the initiative and referendum. The common denominator is Disney, the source of the circulators' message.

The pro-resort, pro-referendum camp, unhappy with the performance of the first firm that was collecting the initiative signatures, then hired a different petition gathering firm...

..who by an amazing coincidence used the exact same pitch that the previous firm did for the initiative.

If you’re a developer pushing an unpopular proposal, however – and in this case...

Really? That statement would be disputed by the 18,000 residents who signed the Protect Anahiem petition, not the mention the 2,300 who signed rescission cards, another 2,000 additional rescission card signers that couldn't be turned in once Disney submitted it's signatures.

...you can’t trust citizens with the right to vote.

A curious statement from a Disney supporter, since Disney's ballot-box zoning initiative doesn't apply to Disney. Apparently, the Mouse's enthusiasm for "trusting citizens with the right to vote" only extends to other people's property.

"Prevent Signatures from being collected – That same pro-SunCal group that railed against the first petition firm has now hired that same firm—as blockers! At grocery stores and post offices across Anaheim where referendum petitions are being circulated, “blockers” show up to badger signers and circulators in the hopes of making the scene so uncomfortable that potential signers will simply walk on by… very democratic.

The "blockers" label is pure, grain-alcohol strength spin. Protect Anaheim circulators gathered signatures for a petition thanking Kring, Galloway and Hernandez for the April 24 vote. They went where circulators go to gather signatures -- shopping centers. I'm sure Disney would have preferred to have Anaheim's shopping centers for the sole use of their circulators, but it is a free country.

I actually watched circulators from both sides in action. Protect Anaheim/SunCal circulators would dispute deceptive pitches being made by Disney circulators. Chip, do you think they should stand by while Disney circulators told voters the same blatant lies over and over?

One of our circulators told me how he'd asked several voters who'd signed the Disney referendum if they knew what they were signing. They admitted they didn't. Our circulator gave them the full story and they subsequently filled out rescission cards.

Strange when providing voters with information and alternatives is condemned as "blocking" and "preventing signatures from being collected."

“There are out-of-state, unscrupulous, paid, groups, circulating petitions in Anaheim,” the recorded call [by Hernandez] said.

And which of those statements is untrue, Chip?

The next day, Mayor Pringle recorded a phone message (in his own voice, I’m told), telling voters that only Anaheim residents can circulate the petitions...

Although I'm aware of Curt's call, I haven't seen a transcript. However, your assertion is incorrect. Disney circulators didn't have to be Anaheim residents. If they weren't, they had to have an Anaheim resident with them to witness the signatures being given. I would say the bulk of Disney circulators had witnesses (who diligence ranged from conscientious to totally negligent).

Remove your signature by mail – a mailer was sent out to all Anaheim Voters last week, telling them that they signed the petition by unscrupulous means and that they need to “withdraw” their signature by signing a post card they could return by postage paid mail. This mailing, of course, doesn’t mention that all the referendum does is allows Anaheim residents a right to vote on this issue.

Let me see: signing a referendum after the Disney circulator falsely tells you its to let you vote on a "low income/HUD/Section 8 housing project by Disneyland" that will "bring crime to Anaheim" is championing the right to vote.

But giving people the opportunity to rescind their signature obtained such circumstances is "campaigning against the right to vote."

BTW, Chip -- do you think any of those Disney circulators encouraged the voters they to pitched to examine the CEQA documentation (as thick as a phone book) attached to the referendum petition? I didn't see a single example. In fact, one Disney circulator said he knew I was a "ringer' because I actually looked at the CEQA documentation.

To paraphrase you, if Disney is so certain it is on the right side, why did they arm their circulators with a pitch based on lies and half-truths that appealed to people's prejudices?

If the developer is so certain it is on the right side, why can’t SunCal trust the Anaheim voters to affirm its position? Why is it that the members of the council who voted for this project can’t trust those same voters who elected them to decide on this issue?

Chip, you cannot be serious. SunCal obtained a zoning change through the normal planning process. And you seriously expect SunCal -- or any individual or company that has won a favorable zoning change -- to put it to a citywide vote in order to prove their democratic bona fides?

Tell you what. If you truly believe what you are saying, then call on Disney to put their planned "third gate" to a city-wide vote. Because, as you may not know, the initiative you hail as a sacrament of the people's right to vote doesn't apply to Disney. The Mouse is awfully keen on ballot box zoning in the resort district when it doesn't apply to them, and in fact would give them a de facto veto power over any zoning change sought by other resort district property owners. The "right to vote" is great when it only applies to the other guy.

Kind of like how the pigs in Animal Farm amended their first commandment to read, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Somehow, I think the enthusiasm of Disney and its allies for "letting the people decide" will dissipate when it comes to Disney's third gate.

Personally, I end up signing all referendums and petitions thrown at me if I have the time. I help some guy out trying to earn a buck, and I end up voting on this stuff anyway (the more the merrier). In addition, names on a petition are not public records.

This is exactly the kind of micromanaging ballot initiative people are NOT going to be informed enough to vote on--just like when I vote for judges based on their occupations because NOBODY knows who the candidates are. This is why we have planning commissions, etc., instead of having to vote on each and every order of business that ever comes before a board. It's why we're a republic and not a democracy. We can't all be experts on everything.

Chip ~ I think you're right on.

Although I respect almost everything Jubal has done here, it appears to me that his conflict of interest has converted the Red County/OC Blog into a bully pulpit for his client. It was especially noticable when he made a 1,369 word response to your 771 word post. While much of his response quoted your post, he couldn't just let your post stand on its own.

As a Red County investor I don't know whether you can reign him in (or whether you should), but in my opinion his coverage on this matter is not being helpful--and at worst could damage this blog's long-term credibility.

You actually did a word count? Time to consider the possibility of obsession.

I've detected a pattern in comments from pro-Disney folks. They're unable to deal with the existence of an opposing view point on this issue, and rather than respond to what Jubal writes, they impugn his integrity and credibility. No you have Meddlesome Nobody objecting to Jubal even posting a comment. Why are these Disney folks so angered by a debate on this issue?

I've been reading this blog for a couple of years. I may not always agree with Jubal, but you can't say he squelches opposing views. He posts press release from Democratic politicians and from the OC Democratic Party. During the Measure M battle last year, he recruited anti-Measure M people into his blogpen to post against M, even though he himself supported M. Jubal even added Jeff Flint, the Measure M consultant, to the blogpen and I don't remember cries of "conflict of interest" then.

I notice Flint and Curt Pringle are still listed in the blogpen. They are both pro-Disney and can presumably post pro-Disney commentary at anytime. Just because they choose not to doesn't mean Jubal should have to be quiet on the matter.

Just for the record, I have never stated that Matt can't post on any issue as much as he wants. As he has said before, if you don;t like it, stop reading and start your own blog.

My contention is that he tries to couch his commentary on this issue as if it were obvious "center-right" opinion rather than just representing his client's interests.

I think red peregrine has characterized it as two corporate interests battling it out. That is a much fairer interpretation than any other, especially Matt's Disney can do no right, SunCal can do no wrong commentary.

As far as Measure M, I always acknowledged Measure M for what it was, not the purest conservative position by any stretch, but in the end the best position for Orange County to take, given the lack of other alternatives to fund transportation. I think I was fairer on that point that Matt is on this.

And for that matter, go back and look at how many posts I initiated on the topic of Measure M, versus what I responded to. I see initiating a post versus responding to a comment or post in very different ways...maybe that's my own interpretation of importance, who knows?

On this issue itself, I have said relatively little. I am not a paid consultant to anyone on it. I agree with Mayor's Pringle's position as far as what is best for the long term interests of the city, but my opinion means very little on this debate, I live in Lincoln, California, about 450 miles away.

My contention is that he tries to couch his commentary on this issue as if it were obvious "center-right" opinion rather than just representing his client's interests.

Has someone manufactured a mind-reading device? Because there seem to be an awful lot of people out there claiming the ability to know my mind.

Jeff, I wouldn't be working on this project if I didn't believe in it. I don't "couch" anything. I disclose my relationship with SunCal ad nauseum for the benefit of any readers who still don't know of it. I present that side of the argument to the best of my ability. Your characterization of my "interpretation" is a gross over-simplification. I think Disney is wrong on this issue, but maybe you've noticed I have never denied the legitimacy of referendum as a tool of democracy nor Disney's right to resort to it. Disney has done great good for Anaheim, and still does. But that doesn't mean that what Disney wants must ipso facto be public policy for the City of Anaheim.

And for the record on Measure M last year: I had hoped you (and Jack Mallinkrodt) would post often on the issue so that the blog would become a vigorous "town hall" discussion on the issue. Unfortunately, neither you nor Jack ever posted much about it -- which, come to think of it, is the case with almost every member of the Blogpen at any given time.

I happen to think the people involved in campaigns usually understand the issue involved better than almost anyone else, and can provide valuable contributions to any issue debate. That's why I've always encouraged their participation in this blog.

Frankly, I don't think I would have encountered the level of hostility I have if I were a Disney consultant and I were arguing their position.

Jubal on May 14:

I have thought long and hard about this issue. If I weren't involved in this project I would oppose Disney's ballot box zoning initiative as vehemently as I did its twin, Greenlight. And I'd oppose the referendum, too: Disney lost at the council. The general plan amendment was approved fair-and-square. They should deal it it and stop trying to control how other property owners can do with their property.

Jubal on May 22:

but maybe you've noticed I have never denied the legitimacy of referendum as a tool of democracy nor Disney's right to resort to it.

Matt...with all due respect to our friendship and my respect for your intellect, these two statements are completely at odds with each other.

In my reply to your May 14 post (which you never answered), I wrote (paraphrasing) that there is some merit to your position in opposition to Disney's initiative, if you oppose "right to vote" measures in all circumstances.

However, your May 14 comment about why you oppose the referendum is basically treu for ANY use of the referendum...you lost at the legislative body "fair-and-square" so get over it.

Jeff

P.S.

I don;t think you ever explicitly said what you wanted my role to be in the Measure M debate. However, while I may be naive about the role of blogging in public debate, for me personally, I don't feel comfortable initiating posts about my clients' issues. If my clients' interests are commented on, or others blog about them, I will respond, but I have perhaps naive notions about a blog that advertises itself as a journal of opinion rather than a journal of spiting your clients' paid positions.

Matt...with all due respect to our friendship and my respect for your intellect, these two statements are completely at odds with each other.

Not at all. For example, you can oppose a candidate and wish they would end their candidacy, but that doesn't mean you think their candidacy isn't legitimate.

In my reply to your May 14 post (which you never answered),

And it was an exceptionally loooong comment, dude -- which I will answer when my schedule normalizes.

I don;t think you ever explicitly said what you wanted my role to be in the Measure M debate.

I did, but if you don't remember, no big. You had a busy summer and fall.

I will respond, but I have perhaps naive notions about a blog that advertises itself as a journal of opinion rather than a journal of spiting your clients' paid positions.

Et tu, Jefe? Have I wagged the accusing finger at you because you're a paid Disney consultant and implied you're only commenting at the behest and on behalf of your client? No, because I think you are speaking from conviction and honestly believe your client is correct.

About those word counts: Just cut and paste into Word, then hit tools for "word count."

An easy point to make, without the least bit of obsession.

If the land is zoned for a specific use when purchased by the landowner, why should a simple majority of council members, who may be beholden to a large campaign contributor, be allowed to re-zone that property to the benefit of the campaign contributor but to the detriment of the citizens they are supposed to represent?

We are going through that in the small OC town in which I live. The citizens rose up and said enough already with 3 members of our City Council re-zoning property to benefit an individual, against the expressed wishes (through referendums and petitions) of the majority of residents. Needless to say, we have a new council that is much more responsive to the wishes of the majority on the community, unlike our previous council. While we are still stuck with the gridlock traffic that comes with lack of planning and poor management of development dollars (such as taking "in lieu of" fees rather than actually doing traffic mitigation), at least we can slow the unchecked-development-via-re-zones until our infrastructure has a chance to catch up.

Jubal wrote:

Et tu, Jefe? Have I wagged the accusing finger at you because you're a paid Disney consultant and implied you're only commenting at the behest and on behalf of your client? No, because I think you are speaking from conviction and honestly believe your client is correct.

Matt, I think I have been pretty clear that Disney is not a paying client of mine on any issue, and I have no paying client on the issue in question.

Then accept my apology for getting that wrong. I took a March e-mail from you to mean Disney was one of your clients, but they were not utilizing you on this issue.

Matt...with all due respect to our friendship and my respect for your intellect, these two statements are completely at odds with each other.

Not at all. For example, you can oppose a candidate and wish they would end their candidacy, but that doesn't mean you think their candidacy isn't legitimate.

Let me be more clear. You have stated your "center-right" reason for opposing the SOAR initiative, which I have granted has some basis in conservative ideology...i.e., opposition to ballot-box planning.

But what is your "center-right" reason for opposing the referendum? Your statement quoted above, that you oppose it because Disney lost the Council vote fair-and-square, is not an ideological statement, and applied as you wrote it, would cause you to oppose any and all referenda.

Jeff:

You're building a straw man argument and putting words in my mouth.

I don't believe I am.

My personal opinion is your reasons for opposing the SOAR initiative are also suspect, but I believe that it a fair debate with points on both sides. As I have stated, I think the property rights argument is weak. We don't need to get into all of that again.

However, I don't think you have any conservative public policy basis to oppose the referendum; only your client's interests.

And that in turn changes my opinion of the purpose of this blog.

don't believe I am.

Believe what you like, that is what you are doing. When have I ever tossed the phrase "center-right" in my posts or comments? I haven't made any ideological case regarding the referendum, but while the referendum is a legitimate tool for voters to overturn a council action they disagree with, the SOAR referendum isn't some popular uprising. It is Disney's effort to defeat a land-use decision by the city with which they disagree and control the use of a lot they do not own. The initiative and the referendum are part and parcel of the same effort. Without Disney's money and support, SOAR would be nothing and this referendum would go nowhere.

In the meantime, Jeff, keep tut-tutting and casting all the aspersions and red herrings you like.

I hope when all of this is over....that all those who have been longtime friends will not let this issue drive wedges between them. Whatever you opinion on this issue, and for whatever reason....your friendships are far more valuable then any amount of money or issue.

Looks to me like Flint's doing the wedge-driving here.

Matt, I think I have been pretty clear that Disney is not a paying client of mine on any issue, and I have no paying client on the issue in question.

Hey, Jeff-just so we can all be crys-tal clear, would you answer these questions?:

Do you receive any money from Walt Disney Company or any of it's subsidiaries or entities it controls?

Is the Walt Disney Co. or any of it's subsidiaries or entities it controls employ or retain you for any purpose?

Have they ever?

If so, when?

Did you attempt to get the contract to run the SOAR campaign?

Since you're clearly monitoring this thread and are so big on ethics and disclosure, you won't mind answering, will you?

It says "Politics from the Center Right" on the masthead.

I have never had Disney as a client. They have had me as a client many times. In the score of Disney giving money to Jeff versus Jeff giving money to Disney, the lifetime score is $0 to several thousand dollars.

Disney contacted me about their campaign. I wrote them a memo at their request. They hired someone else. If anything, I should be biased against them for not hiring me, right?

Jeff

I didn't write the masthead.

Thanks, Matt, you have more than adequately answered my questions.

I don't think I have questioned Matt's integrity at all. It may appear that way, but it is not my intent. I have known Matt for the better part of 20 years.

My questions have been about the purpose of existence of this blog, and whether its purpose is to be a journal of conservative (i.e., "center-right") opinion, for Matt to promote his clients' interests, or a mix.

When Matt's clients and conservative opinion are generally aligned, it makes life easy. When they are not so clearly aligned, it makes it a harder call.

It is his decision which of those he wants it to be, and then my decision on whether or not I want to participate as a blog pen member and/or advertiser.

I do not believe any one person in particular is doing the wedge driving here. I just know that there are several people, not just Jeff & Matt, that have been friends for years, on opposite sides of this issue.

It is always sticky when that happens and I just wanted to show my concern because like I said before - no amount of money and no issue should drive apart years of dedicated and loyal friendships.

This issue is going to get more ugly before it gets better....