District 4: OC GOP Endorses Lucille Kring for Re-Election

[Cross-posted from OC Daily]

Anaheim Council Districts 1, 4 and 5 were among the numerous races the Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee took up during its marathon endorsements exercise on Wednesday. Central committee members got it right two out of three times. I mean “right” in the sense that the OC GOP should get out of the business of endorsing in local races in which multiple Republicans are running – even in cases like District 1 where only one Republican candidate (Steve Chavez Lodge) is qualified to hold elected office.

District 1
In each case, Chairman Fred Whitaker urged committee members to follow common sense and act in the interests of party unity by not dragging the Republican Party into the bitter, expense campaign fracas taking place in Anaheim – reminding them such a path would only sow division within the party. Committee members followed that advice in District 1, voting to remain neutral among Steve Chavez Lodge, Orland0 Perez and Denise Barnes (whom the mayor has plucked from obscurity to stand as his candidate there.) It’s plain to any reasonable person who watched and listened to these three that only Chavez Lodge possesses the knowledge and experience to serve competently as councilmember for California’s 10th largest city. Neither Perez nor Barnes are remotely qualified for the position. That is not a criticism of them as people or as Republicans, but a fair assessment of whether they should be making policy in a city as large and complex as Anaheim. At candidate forums, they barely get beyond bland talking points when answering questions about serious policy issues. Chavez Lodge is the conservative Republican with the best chance of winning this seat.

Still, within the framework of what is best for the party, this was the proper course.

District 4
In District 4, the Endorsements Committee had voted to send Mayor Pro Tem Lucille Kring’s name to the full Central Committee with no recommendation. Chairman Whitaker reminded the members that the purpose is to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats – and since Kring was the only Republican candidate and her principal opponent is a far-Left Democrat, the party should endorse Kring.  Despite self-interested efforts by water-carriers for Mayor Tait, the committee did the obviously right thing and endorsed Kring.

District 5
Unfortunately, the committee turned from the path of common sense when it came to District 5, in which there are three Republican candidates: Steve Faessel, Mark Lopez and Sandra Angel.  The Endorsements Committee had recommended the full committee remain neutral. Chairman Whitaker exhorted the committee that the right and proper path was to remain neutral, rather than drag the OC GOP into an intramural war that would only engender bitterness and division within the county GOP. Eminently sound and sensible advice, which committee members then ignored.

You can read the rest of the article here.

21 comments

  1. Steve Faessel was not at the GOP Endorsement event on Wednesday because of a scheduling conflict. He had a fundraiser that night that was scheduled some time ago.

    I find the GOP’s decision to make an endorsement for District 5 a great disappointment.

    Oh well, we Faessel supporters will just have to work that much harder to win this election.

  2. The OC GOP Endorsement Committee is a joke. It’s rigged. It’s chaired by TJ Fuentes, who works for Howard Ahmanson, who is going spend a boatload of money hitting Steve Lodge and Steve Faessel and Lucille Kring and supporting the Tait candidates. So you had a political consultant pretending to fairly interview candidates whom knows he’s doing hit mail against! And he never disclosed this. The honorable thing would have been for him to recuse himself. But why is a political consultant running the endorsement process?

  3. I think Mark Lopez is the front runner here because he will not give away the taxpayer money like Steve has pledged so he appeals to conservatives He is appealing to Democratic voters as evidenced by his meetings with Dr. Moreno.

    • “Bob”:

      Mark has said different things to different people. I know two different people to whom he said he would look at TOT tax rebates for hotel development on a “case-by-case” basis, rather than his current blanket opposition. I know two other other to whom he expressed support for the TOT tax rebate agreements with Disney and Wincome. Those conversations took place prior to Mark gaining Tom Tait’s endorsement – and the price of that endorsement is total opposition to these agreements (just ask Steve Chavez Lodge). That is now the position Mark is espousing.

      If he is elected, which position will guide his votes?

      • [T]he price of [Tait’s] endorsement is total opposition to these agreements (just ask Steve Chavez Lodge).

        Sounds like an interesting story, Matt. How would Steve “Chavez” Lodge know this? Did he, um, ask Tait for his endorsement? I’d like to know more about how that happened — and why he possibly ever though that he would get it.

        Or would asking Lodge just elicit some hearsay?

        • Dude, do you actually pay attention to Anaheim politics?

          Tom Tait endorsed Steve Chavez Lodge’s 2012 candidacy for city council. He was the featured speaker at a Lodge council fundraiser at the beginning of 2012 – and spoke glowingly of what a great councilman Steve would be. Fast forward to June 2012: Tom asked Steve to change his position on the GardenWalk agreement from support to oppose. Otherwise, Tait would pull his endorsement. On other words, Tom told Steve that if he wanted to keep his endorsement, Steve would have to flip-flop and take a public position that was contrary to his real views.

          Steve refused and Tom pulled his endorsement — but promised Lodge he wouldn’t actively oppose him or support another candidate. A few weeks later, Tait went all in for John Leos.

        • Notice that Greg care less that Mark Lopez is a cipher who will tell anyone anything they want to hear.

          Does it matter to Greg that the man he worships, Tom Tait, is supporting a chameleon who only moved back into Anaheim a few months ago because he saw a political opportunity, and who has NEVER lived in District 5? Another example of how Tait’s talk about being principled and “neighbors electing neighbors” is complete and total BS. Tom Tait is just another conniving politician who will make a deal with anyone he has to in order to secure more political power. Maybe someday you and Vern and Cynthia and Ryan and Zenger and the other fools will one day be honest enough to admit it.

  4. “Bob” –

    Define ‘Give Away Taxpayer Money’.

    The Transient Occupancy Tax rebate program offered to Disney and Wincome are rebates on taxes that they will generate over the next 20 years, not the rest of the citizens of Anaheim.

    The rebate is given only when the hotels are built and the rooms are rented. The developers would have had to invest in our city first by creating jobs and attracting visitors.

    If those three hotels are never built, then those tax dollars will never exist.

    If you want to see a case of a city giving away existing taxpayer dollars to a developer in order to build a hotel then take a look at Garden Grove and the Great Wolf Lodge. That city actually had to cut a check of $42 million to the developer when the resort opened. It also gave the developer $30 million in land on which the hotel was built. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/city-704642-million-great.html

    City governments are always looking at ways to sweeten the deal for developers and employers to set up businesses in their boundaries. This is because it creates jobs and improves the local economy.

    There many types of incentives available in Anaheim to encourage businesses of all sorts to open in our city. There’s even a program to attract Micro-Breweries. I applaud them all.

    The big problem I have with Mark Lopez is that he is a carpet bagger. He moved into District 5 from Westminster and then announced his intention to run for City Council two weeks later.

    Yes, he was born in Anaheim (a different district) and may have spent his childhood in the city.

    However, he relocated to our city only after the opportunity to run for City Council appeared. If we wouldn’t have had districting, I truly believe he would never have left Westminster.

    This single act completely destroys his credibility in my eyes.

    If he is elected, I believe it will only be a few months before he announces his intent to replace Shawn Nelson (his boss) on the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

    How do you think that would help District 5?

    • “Bob” has been BBQing MC so much lately that he has been blocked. You raise some good questions David so I will try to answer as Robert.

      In this case I define taxpayer money give away as the following:
      A. Free money in fact millions of dollars to wealthy corporations that are not necessary and and don’t benefit the rest of us that don’t have the political capital to get council members to give it us.
      B. Incentives that truly spur new growth that would not have happened otherwise and that are offered to a broad group of people would not count as a give away in my mind.
      C. Specifically the Disney deal was not needed because competition from universal studios is the real catylist in growth not this paid for “incentive” that was sold.
      D. The hotel deal is patently unfair to every other hotielier in anaheim and these corporations were going to meet the demand for Luxury hotels even without the kick back.
      E. The attempted give away to arte Moreno and his Los Angeles angels makes no economic sense at all. It was a give away of the third magnitude and thank goodness Tom Tait had the courage to stop it and expose it for what it was.
      Mark Lopez is the best choice in my opinion because he is listening to his neighbors. Ultimately the push behind district elections was to allow the people who live in that area have their wishes heard not simply to have a long timel resident represent the wishes of people from outside the district.

  5. “Bob” –

    You argued…
    A. Free money in fact millions of dollars to wealthy corporations that are not necessary and and don’t benefit the rest of us that don’t have the political capital to get council members to give it us.

    My response…
    With this TOT deal, it’s not ‘Free Money’ to them. They invest far more money on their part to build the hotels, hire the staff and keep them operating. They take on the risks of the choice to build the hotels in our town versus somewhere else. Those are rebates on the tax money they generated.
    The increased tax revenue generated by the hotels is actually free money for the rest of us citizens of Anaheim.

    I consider it a win for Anaheim if the present value of TOT revenue generated over the next 40 years is greater than the present value of the expected tax revenue generated by what is currently on those properties.

    I’m working on trying to get those numbers. However, the fact that the anti-Hotel Incentive people never mention the present value of TOT generated revenue leads me to believe that the tax revenues will increase considerably.

    You argued…
    B. Incentives that truly spur new growth that would not have happened otherwise and that are offered to a broad group of people would not count as a give away in my mind.

    My response…
    I like what you are saying here. However, there isn’t a broad group of people that build four diamond hotels. I have yet to find evidence indicating that the developers committed to building the hotels without the incentive. In fact, only two 4 Diamonds in the resort’s 60 year history begs otherwise.
    Anaheim is in competition for those Hotel Developer dollars. Just because we have a huge tourist magnet, which many anti-Hotel Incentive people love attacking, does not mean that a developer is going to choose a property in our city to add to its investment portfolio. We have to compete with major cities around the world and the little cities that are just down Harbor or up Chapman. Here’s an article on a four diamond that looks like we will lose to Garden Grove. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hotel-715736-nickelodeon-city.html

    Every loss equals ZERO dollars in taxes to Anaheim.

    You argued…
    Specifically the Disney deal was not needed because competition from universal studios is the real catylist in growth not this paid for “incentive” that was sold.

    My response…
    If you are arguing about the TOT… Please see my above response. Maybe Universal was the catalyst, but I don’t think so. Disney has so many other places it can invest its money.

    If you are arguing about the Gate Tax, I personally believe we should not have given Disney a 30 year guarantee on no tax. I’m not sure of Faessel’s opinion on the gate tax. I’ll ask him the next time I see him.

    Regardless, I don’t find it an issue that determines whether I’ll vote for him.

    You argued…
    D. The hotel deal is patently unfair to every other hotielier in anaheim and these corporations were going to meet the demand for Luxury hotels even without the kick back.

    My response…
    It’s only unfair if there are four diamond developers that have been denied the chance to receive such incentives. To my knowledge, five four diamonds approached Anaheim and incentives were offered to all of them. If the demand is out there for more three diamond properties, then I think there should be incentives to attract more three diamond developers? I believe Faessel would say the same thing. I’ll ask him the next time I see him.

    You argued…
    E. The attempted give away to arte Moreno and his Los Angeles angels makes no economic sense at all. It was a give away of the third magnitude and thank goodness Tom Tait had the courage to stop it and expose it for what it was.

    My response…
    I spoke with Faessel about this. I learned that the city is currently losing between 1 and 2 million dollars a year on this agreement with Arte Moreno and the Angels. So, we are already on the losing end of this deal.

    Faessel wants to see a negotiation move forward between the city and the team to bring us back into a revenue positive position.

    Hopefully such an agreement can be reached and the team will stay.

    If Mr. Moreno finds a victim (I mean) city that will build him a new stadium, then we’ll likely lose the Angels. Anaheim has lost a sports team before and survived. If necessary, the city can do it again.
    There are plenty of other ways to turn that large plot of land into a positive revenue generator for our city.

    You argued…
    Mark Lopez is the best choice in my opinion because he is listening to his neighbors. Ultimately the push behind district elections was to allow the people who live in that area have their wishes heard not simply to have a long timel resident represent the wishes of people from outside the district.

    My response…
    Bob, you greatly underestimate Mr. and Ms Faessel’s dedication to District 5 and the rest of this city. I’ve witnessed their desire to improve the lives of their fellow District 5 residents first hand.

    Their actions are the reason that they have won me to their cause. My decision to support them has nothing to do with the resort taxes or the Angels.

    Mr. Lopez’s contribution to our city has been miniscule compared to the accomplishments by the Faessels.

    I’m a District 5 resident and I am walking the precincts to share my experiences with Mr. Faessel. If you live in the district, maybe we’ll meet and you can hear what I have to say because I think you care for this city as much as I do.

  6. Mr. Bartash,
    Thank you for clarifying those points for me. I find your reponse refreshingly informative and honest.

    I do not love in district 5 but I do have many family members and friends that will be first time voters in this election. I think everyone should keep an open mind and after reading your post and doing more research on Mr. Faessel I now believe I was wrong in lumping him in with some of the other bad actors on our current council.

    I am looking forward to meeting you and Steve along with the other candidates in district 5 at the upcoming forums and events.

  7. Bob –

    Thank you.

    I look forward to meeting you at one of the candidate forums. I know of two Cater/Occord (at the Mosque on St. College and Romneya) and. Chamber of Commerce (Phoenix Club)

  8. Vern,
    Yes I am looking forward to meeting Donna. She sounds like a very honest person and my beliefs probably most closely align with her.

    David,
    I must say that I am still not in agreement with you about the hotel issue. I am just saying that Steve sounds like an honest person and deserves to be considered.

    • Bob

      It’s perfectly fine not being in agreement with me on the TOT rebate. I’m hoping the reason is for more than just because some blog calls those against it lefties or some other blog calls those for it kleptos.

      I’m in support of the rebate because I believe that it will bring a significant increase in tax revenue for our city.

      I wish we could attract the luxury hotels without having to offer an incentive. That is just not the case.

      In fact, I believe that the initial TOT rebate offer was at 50% and the developers didn’t jump at the offer.

      Anaheim isn’t the only city in the world that a luxury hotel developer can build a hotel.

      Part of the responsibility of our local government is to convince those developers to build in Anaheim instead of some other city.

      Unfortunately, we can’t offer developers the opportunity to open casinos in their hotels. If that were the case, devlopers would jump at the opportunity to build in Anaheim without a TOT incentive (like Vegas)

      Vern –
      I would encourage you, Donna and any of her followers to please use the Anaheim Anytime app to report graffitti, abandoned shopping carts and anything else the city needs to fix while walking precincts.

      Faessel’s team is doing this.

      Maybe we can work together to beautify District 5 while we are competing for the voters’ support.

      Thanks,
      David

      • Kudos for doing that, David. Removing graffiti and returning shopping carts (or reporting graffiti and pushing the carts to near a trash bin, but we hate to overwork our heroic city staff) is all in a day’s work for Donna and me … although believe it or not, we hardly ever see any graffiti in the formerly notorious Anna Drive area.

        • I am glad to hear this more positive involvement with Ana Drive.

        • Vern –

          Thank you.

          Regardless of our disagreements over the Resort District, we both live here in District 5 (I like to call it “The Nickle”). We might as well make it as nice a place to live as possible.

          It only takes about 4 or 5 people in a neighborhood to actively report the graffiti and stray carts in order for them to quickly become rare sites.

          By the way, do you know the difference between the puppy I gave my daughter for her birthday and Mark Lopez?

          My daughter’s puppy has 6 months more experience as a District 5 resident.

    • Kissy kissy? Remember you are a dishonest socialist!!!

  9. Imagine, if CATER’s two members and their lawyer put their resources into IMPROVING communities like mentioned above, and NOT into “get rich quick” lawsuits how much improvement could be seen in Anaheim.

    Breaking the cycle of violence, crime, poverty and despair takes little more than the handy actions of those on Anna Drive. I don’t think anyone denies that.

    Maybe if there was an “ANNADRIVETV” station Greg and Cindy would be front and center.

    I agree JRR.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


Skip to toolbar