Big difference between a conservative majority and a Republican majority.

Even if Shea becomes Mayor, there certainly will not be a conservative majority, as Christina is by no means a conservative.

The only thing republican about Christina and Steven Choi is their voter registration. In 2006, they ran on a no-growth, anti-development platform. Steven is constantly trying to add fees to projects to fund libraries. Christina is constantly running left because the democrats have figured out how to be pro-business. Wierd place...

Choi keeps asking for fees (read taxes) to pay for a library with his statue out front. Shea has been one roadblock after roadblock to new developments during her time on council.

Shea's abuse of power and total disregard for privacy of email addresses is very troubling. Compared to Shea/Choi actions Agran/Kang/Krom seem like the second coming of Barry Goldwater!

I'm a DTS in Irvine, and I could care less about partisan politics at city council. What matters to me is not if she's conservative or liberal, but is she a good leader of this city. In all the materials and mailers I have seen, it just seems to be Ms. Shea's co-opting the agenda of the majority, what has she actually accomplished in her time on the council? Where is her leadership on anything, liberal or conservative or (like 99% of issues really are) nonpartisan?

The first and foremost "point of electing a [insert word here] majority" is to get elected. I voted against that factional kneecapping, er, "ethics initiative", but my fellow Irvine Citizens went for it four to one. Let's state that again: FOUR TO ONE.

Mayor Shea, whom I have voted for many times, is making the best of a tough situation. Is she making the best choice? I dunno. But if Mayor Shea wants to continue to be effective (which she is) she needs to respond to that electorate, however wrong-headed it seems to you and me.

Asking her to hew to some South County view of Conservative Correctness would accomplish little other than making her as unelectable as so many other state-wide Conservatives of these past past years.

Some good points above about Christina's politics. Since Allan doesn't appear to be in the house, I'll try to add a bit from my foggy memories of years past.

Christina's "conservative" credentials derive from being the marquee face for the "Family Values Coalition" back in the 90s. If memory serves, that was reaction to the City of Irvine granting benefits to same-sex partners, at Larry Agran's prodding. Ms. Shea had to change her registration to run with the Family Values Coalition. Being a Social Conservative worked great for while, but became a progressively less successful political stance in Irvine (which is odd give the massive growth of Asian churches in Irvine, but that's a digression for a different day)

The Agran faction roared back to prominence by being more vociferous and ferocious in resisting the El Toro Airport. Shea and her faction were every bit as steadfast in opposition, but their perceived political links to the outside pro-airport groups (eg the Lincoln Club) meant that the Agranistas got to steal the thunder. This was how Beth Krom rose to the mayorship.

As for Shea and Choi putting roadbloack to growth: that IS (Burkean) conservative stance here in Irvine.

Irvine was founded on the concept of "managed" growth. An explicit decision was made on the early 60s to slow the growth. If you want to live with the results of unbridled growth, move to Mission Viejo. I am not being flip: that was the explicit plan, and what got Joan Irvine Smith involved in the Irvine Corp in the late 60s (a fascinating story told in Martin Brower's "Irvine Ranch: A Time for People")

Notice that Allan Bartlett, an Irvine native with solid conservative bona fides, complained bitterly here on OCBlog during the last election about too much growth here in Irvine.

So, within Irvine politics, Christina Shea is a Conservative. She first rose politically trying to preserve the pre-existing social order (no tax dollars for gay partners), and has to tried to preserve Irvine's proud tradition of carefully regulated growth. I realize this may seem confusing to an outsider, but we're not called the Republic of Irvine for nothing.

Wish you had posted the entire newsletter as I didn't receive one.

I think part of the problem is that Shea has been fighting an uphill battle. Irvine City council campaigns have spending limits, but the candidates for the council majority (Krom, Kang and Gaido in the last election)I believe received unreported campaign contributions in excess of Irvine’s $390 contribution limit.

Under California law, candidates must pay fair market value for goods and services received by their campaigns. Candidates must also report not only monetary contributions, but any in-kind contribution over $100. Krom, Kang and Gaido, in the last election cycle for example, violated the Political Reform Act of 1974 by failing to pay fair market value for their advertising space and by failing to report in-kind campaign contributions in excess of Irvine’s campaign contribution limit.

In an ideal world, there would be no campaign contribution limits - but instead instant on-line reporting of campaign contributions (both monetary and in-kind). In the current situation, Shea supporters are simply asking for a level playing field - clarification of the slate mailer issue and enforcement of the campaign contribution limits.

tylerh,

You are somewhat correct about the growth in Irvine and I don't have any problem with Allan Bartlett, but I do not believe that Allan, Christina, or anyone really believes that development in Irvine is bad, it is merely political posturing to run against the majority. Furthermore, polling shows that voters hate traffic, but don't hate development. That is why the anti-growth platform didn't work in 2006. People like new development and want their children to be able to buy a home in Irvine, they just don't want the traffic. Also, people realize that traffic is a regional problem, not a city problem.

Even though you use "planning" as a "conservative" view, I believe that a true conservative is pro-property rights (i.e. the right of the owner to do with their property as they wish) and pro-free market. In other words, if there is too much development, then the market won't buy the homes or lease the space and the projects will fail. Please cite which conservative philospher advocates city councils and planning departments limiting growth of the free market and telling property owners that they do not have the right to attempt to develop their property.

The fact of the matter is that Shea and Choi have not had a unique or positive proposal in years. All they do is run against the majority. I believe that if they came up with some positive ideas, they would have a better chance at winning. After all, people in Irvine have a very high satisfaction rating of the City. Running against that is not only bad strategy, it is somehwat hollow.

Anon,

Do you have any basis for your claim of the majority violating campaign finance law? Is there any evidence? Or are you just making things up and posting them anonymously on a blog (very brave!).

"clarification of the slate mailer issue" - What isn't clear? Shea's people have whined for years because they don't understand the law. Slate mailers are legal, they operate all up and down the state, and Shea et al advertise in them too. If you want clarification, I can explain it to you or anyone else at my normal hourly rate, or give you a referral if you prefer.

Todd,

Yes I have a basis for the claim. Yes, there is evidence. No, I don't have to make things up.

It's simple math really. You take the amount of space on the slate mailers taken by each of the candidates and the issues (in this case the phony Yes on Measure M! committee). Each is required to pay their pro rata share.

Campaign filings show that the candidates didn't pay their pro rata share.

And Todd, I have counsel.

Todd,

Yes I have a basis for the claim. Yes, there is evidence. No, I don't have to make things up.

It's simple math really. You take the amount of space on the slate mailers taken by each of the candidates and the issues (in this case the phony Yes on Measure M! committee). Each is required to pay their pro rata share.

Campaign filings show that the candidates didn't pay their pro rata share.

And Todd, I have counsel.

The issue is not nearly that simple, the owners of slates have final editorial decision over how the ads appear. Also, I've never measured all the mailers (doubt I've even seen 90% of them), nor reviewed to see percentages.

I don't accept your saying it anonymously on a blog any more credible than your original totally baseless claim of the majority secretly accepting donations. Nice to see how thats morphed into something entirely different & convoluted.

If you want to talk about campaign financing violations, what about all the republican IEs? Really no coordination, no misreporting?

Todd,

I haven't morphed anything. I simply stated that Christina Shea and her supporters want to level the playing field - have everyone play by the same rules.

Your statement "the issue is not nearly that simple, the owners of slate mailers have . . ."

- well that's where you're wrong.

As I said before under California law, candidates must pay fair market value for goods and services received by their campaigns. Candidates must also report not only monetary contributions, but any in-kind contribution over $100.

It's not slate mailers per se that are illegal and it's not independent expenditures that are illegal - what is illegal is not paying the proportionate share and failing to report the in-kind contribution.

The measurement of the area promoting each candidate or issue is easily measured. Checking the campaign contribution reports and seeing that each candidate or issue paid in proportion to their representation is also very straight-forward. As I said before it's simple math.

Take a little time and check it out. I have.

I have checked it out. Show me where "California law" says that, or even that the facts you're alleging are true. As I've said before, posting it anonymously on a blog doesn't make it true. If you want me to even both to read what you say, you better back it up with something.

"you're wrong." I'm wrong about the owners have final editorial decision? Check out CA Elec Code 84305.5 or the statement on each and every slate mailer.

Like the post that started all this says, Christina & Choi have never stood for any real values, just opposition. This is the reason they don't perform well, the reason why people they run with don't get elected.

Also, if we want a level playing field, OK, no IEs should participate either. No Lincoln Club mailers, no "Ethical people in Irvine," no "Irvine Citizen." The candidates could run solely on they money they raise. Ohh wait, no one in the community actually supports Shea & Choi, so they can't raise money and need these "independent" expenditures to even put on the semblance of a campaign.

Todd

Last post on this issue.

Your statement "Ohh wati, no one in the community actually supports Shea & Choi . . ."

Now your just talking nonsense or alternatively revealing how little you care for the voters of Irvine.

More than 20,000 Irvine Citizens support Shea and Choi. That's a fact.

(Source: Website Orange County Registrar of Voters/Past Elections)

Nov. 7, 2006
CITY OF IRVINE
Member, City Council

Number To Vote For: 2

Completed Precincts: 125 of 125

Vote Count Percentage

CHRISTINA L. SHEA 21,190 27.6%

Nov. 2, 2004

CITY OF IRVINE

Member, City Council

Number To Vote For: 3

Vote Count Percentage

STEVEN S. CHOI 25,052 16.8%

Just like the assertions I have made about failure to pay the pro rata share of their slate mailers - it's an easily demonstrable fact.

I agree with anon above. I've lived in Irvine for quite some time now and I believe Choi and Shea are doing a great job.

All Choi and Shea can do is say no. What are they for? What ideas do they have?

The two have advocated that the county BoS take control of the Great Park even though Irvine owns the land. They both opposed the Ethics Law twice in 2006 and offered an amendment that would allow the ordinance to go through without the lobbyist provision,and that went down. Now they are both for the ethics ordiance and say Measure H was a good first step? Flip flops please...

Choi wants Measure M funds to go to improve LA County highways. Choi lacks an understanding of how the county's libraries are funding. Choi uses his Blackberry while he's on the dias; who is texting him? Shea walks out of meetings frequently and then complains she doesn't have enough information. Shea views every disagreement as a personal attack on her.

What can either Shea or Choi point to as a positive accomplishment for the city during their terms in office?

What can either Shea or Choi point to as a positive accomplishment for the city during their terms in office?

Central Bark. My daughter loves it.
Harvard Sk8 Park -- which the eight year olds on my street tell me is "awesome."

Those were both Shea initiatives when she was mayor. Yes, thee are small initiatives, but both see more use every day than the Great Park sees most weeks.

More recently, Shea has been fighting, almost single-handedly, to keep the Great Park process open and accountable. True, she has lost miserably, but at least she's fighting. That counts for a lot in my book.

wait until those 8 years old are 12; the park won't be cool any longer. None of the skateboarders in my neighborhood use it. Bark Park is a good idea. But you highlight my argument perfectly. Krom and Agran wrote Measure W to kill th airport; Shea pushed a romance initiative and a dog park. The city has doubled in size since She's was mayor. I don't think she has the vision or leadership skills we need in a mayor moving forward.

"More recently, Shea has been fighting, almost single-handedly, to keep the Great Park process open and accountable. True, she has lost miserably, but at least she's fighting. That counts for a lot in my book."

You mean suing the park and city over totally trivial and transparently political issues? Thank god for leadership like that. Keeping the process open and accountable, is that why she and Choi claim the work they've done for the city is private? That, while they should have access to everyone in the city's private info, the public should not have access to the memos they've written.

It's amazing to me the majority's belief (and apparently Todd's) that they can spin anything. Let's take the Great Park CEO search issue.

Search committee claims it has done a national search and narrowed the candidates to be presented to the board to a small number - a very small number, in fact one.

Board members ask questions about the search and get inadequate responses.

Board members, entitled by law to the information, ask for the information and the majority denies the information.

Board members, entitiled by law to the information, have to sue to get the information.

In the face of a ruling against them, only then, the majority agrees to let the minority have the information requested.

It is a shame that they had to sue to get what was rightfully theres.

Who in this case should be ashamed of themselves - not the minority that has a responsibility of oversight, but the majority that did not share the information with fellow board members.

Honestly, I am surprised that you keep bringing it up Todd. It doesn't make your side look good.

Corruption and graft in public office are neither uniquely liberal or conservative. The issue in Irvine isn't liberal or conservative, it's honest or corrupt.

The Agran machine set up a money laundering scheme during the 2000 election, which has been refined ever since, that circumvents Irvine's campaign finance ordinance. A supposed "independent expenditure committee" is set up by an Agran crony to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from developers with business before the City Council. In more recent times, those who have received no-bid contracts from the Great Park have also contributed to these "independent" funds.

The funds then pay another "independent" entity to print and mail slate mailers promoting Agran's candidates while smearing his opponents. Until recently, it was Hometown Voter Guide, run by the now-deceased Ed Dornan. During the Measure H special election, it was Todd Gallinger who has posted upstream.

(You can read lots more about Mr. Gallinger on the Irvine Tattler at www.irvinetattler.com.)

I can't imagine that anyone who wants honest government would accept elected officials laundering money from those doing business with City Hall. If we had a D.A. with the integrity to prosecute political corruption, Agran & Co. would have been shut down long ago. Why do you think the feds busted Mike Carona and not Rackauckas? Certainly the D.A. knew all about Carona's shenanigans.

Many of Irvine's most prominent "original generation" progressives have supported Shea and Choi -- not because they've moved to the left, but because they're honest. We look forward to the day when we can honestly disagree on principle and not have to spend all our time staying one step ahead of Agran's money machine.

Stephen Smith
www.irvinetattler.com