Cathy Schlicht Voice of the People

Cathy Schlicht Voice of the People

In SB Valley News 10/26 edition, Frank Ury and Wendy Buchnum refrained from saying how they would vote in the future regarding electronic billboards.

During a recent council meeting, Ury conveniently pushed the issue aside until after the election, stating, “We gave direction to the staff to work with residents, local businesses and our neighboring cities...” Since when do residents need or want city staff or neighboring cities making their decisions? Is not the council the voice of the people?  

Cathy Schlicht thinks so. She demonstrated leadership in proposing to keep the current sign ordinance, taking decisions away from city staff and developers. Ms. Schlicht suggested residents be allowed to voice their opinions via a public referendum.

Frank Ury and Wendy Buchnum are beholden to contributors who donated thousands in special interest money. Ury .  Schlicht declined any developer money, keeping her focus on resident’s wishes rather than repaying favors to donors.  

Ms. Schlicht adheres to Mission Viejo’s original plan supporting “…commercial signage strictly controlled by size, height and structure…”  The horrendous Monster Drink sign at Kaleidoscope exists because Mayor Ury has not insisted that code enforcement do their job.

Keep monsters away from Mission Viejo by reelecting Cathy Schlicht to City Council for strong leadership. Cathy is the voice of the people.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Dan Avery October 31, 2012 at 09:47 PM
A couple of problems with some points here. According to legal documents that Schlicht filed, she has accepted money from Atlas, Family Action Pac, and Bemus Landscape Inc, . Atlas is a city vendor and Cathy voted to give them the street sweeping contract. Does that make Schlicht corrupt? In order to be successful in politics one raises money. A lot of it. Ury and Bucknum are no more beholden than Schlicht to any contributor. They simply have a higher level of support. For one thing they are more likable. For another, they are both more positive and intelligent. Maybe that shouldn't matter but it does. To claim corruption without evidence against any politician is, quite frankly, idiotic and demeans the intelligence of Mission Viejo voters. We are smart enough to realize these claims about contributions are nothing more than sour grapes by those who are not successful. City staff makes certain decisions because the city council is a part-time position. The council has final say, so your point about the council being our voice is nonsensical. In addition Schlicht showed recklessness and not leadership voicing her determination on the electronic sign issue,. The City Attorney warned her several times that a statement along those lines would remove any notion of her objectivity and subject the city to possible litigation. It was not the first time Schlicht has subjected the city to possible litigation. She recently voted twice to violate State Mandated Housing Laws.
Dan Avery October 31, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Oops correction. Schlicht received money from Athens Street Sweeping and not Atlas. I pulled all that from memory and then started to think about the name.
Shripathi Kamath October 31, 2012 at 10:17 PM
"Keep monsters away from Mission Viejo" While I love the Halloween-themed pun, what exactly is monstrous about electronic billboards? If a business wants to have a big billboard on its private property, like we have signs of "Elect Cathy Schlicht", "Desi Kiss for City Council", "John Campell for Congress" some of which are really HUGE on private residences, why should the rest of us get in their way? If you think that the business is too gaudy to place that sign, fine, do not be their patron. What's this governmental control of what businesses should or should not do? Are the signs a hazard to life or limb? Yes? Then fine, vote against them. No? Then it is free speech, ugly as it may be. Is it not blatantly hypocritical to demand that government should get out of our lives, stop regulating, and then demand that electronic boards be limited to some specific size?
Desi Kiss October 31, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Mr. Kamath, my signs are only 12"x18" . I would not label them as HUGE. Actually the Desi Kiss signs are one of the smallest in this election cycle. Unfortunately already more than 150 of those signs disappeared from both private property and the streets of MV. I would appreciate if some are being returned prior to November 6, 2012. No questions asked. It would be greatly appreciated. To learn more or to see an illustration of my sign please visit: http://djk4mv.wordpress.com Please vote 4 Desi J. Kiss on November 6, 2012. Thank you for your vote and support.
Shripathi Kamath October 31, 2012 at 10:43 PM
"Mr. Kamath, my signs are only 12"x18" . I would not label them as HUGE" Well, if you ask the Monster electronic board sign business they would also say "my sign is only 10 feet by 50 feet. We would not label them as HUGE" Now what?
Desi Kiss November 02, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Mr. Sampath, I believe that there is a "limit" to HUGE and perhaps the Monster electronic boards should be labeled "GIGANTIC" or "GALACTIC" perhaps? After all some would say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In any event that is my 2 cents on it. However readers can also visit: http://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/or/vote/kiss_d/ to learn more about my political philosophy and position papers and what I bring to the City. Thank you for your support. Please vote : Desi Kiss on November 6, 2012! PS: I would appreciate if some of my signs are being returned prior to November 6, 2012. I paid for them out of my own pocket. No questions asked. I wish all candidates the best of luck on November 6. Have a wonderful weekend.
Shripathi Kamath November 02, 2012 at 04:52 PM
While I am not too fond of my new name, I am not sure how that serves as an answer. All you have done is used a different adjective to describe something that you do not like. I understand your personal distaste for GIGANTIC signs, but why, when people are preaching "no government dictating our lives,", "promote business friendly community" and offer other platitudes, is this antipathy towards billboards that businesses are erecting on private property? Why will you as a politician interfere with a business's right to free speech?
Victoria Avery November 03, 2012 at 04:21 AM
The whole "sign" argument is tiresome. The signs are a non issue, it is just giving Kiss and Schlict something to try to get residents upset about. Watch the last couple of city council meetings. More important is how they behaved on the street corner tonight. Holtzman, Gilbert, Dale Tyler and the rest of that sad group were verbally aggressive at the Bucknum sign waivers down on La Paz & Christanta. The hate they spew is disturbing. The little orange derogatory signs that Larry Gilbert was seen placing in front of Bucknum and Ury signs are childish and sad. Mission Viejo is a wonderful place, I am so tired of seeing this ugly behavior,
julia tully November 03, 2012 at 04:36 AM
Is the Monster Drink sign the directioh you want to see MV go? Low impact signage is one of hte most distinctive characteristics of our commuinty. Keeping flashy lights to a minimum is important to keep the desired image. Residents do not want Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach. The only reason bigger , brighter lights are being considered is because Ury and Buchnam are playing coochie coo with developers. Cathy wants to preserve the original plan for MV. of keeping oversized signs and bright lights to a minimum. The signs are an issue and to say they are not, shows lack of understanding.
Shripathi Kamath November 03, 2012 at 04:50 AM
"Is the Monster Drink sign the directioh you want to see MV go?" Please explain why we should interfere with businesses doing what they want to on private property. Not that I understand where MV is going because someone put up a sign in a business complex that is big. Do you want government to be regulating what a private business should do? Should we not be cutting regulations instead of deciding how big a sign on their private property should be? "Keeping flashy lights to a minimum is important to keep the desired image." Well, whose idea of a image and who is it desirable to? Please answer a simple question. Do you want government to regulate a business because your idea of a 'desired image' disallows that? Or do you want minimal government that lets job creators do what they need to attract customers, so that they can hire more MV people, or produce more in sales tax revenue for the city? "The signs are an issue and to say they are not, shows lack of understanding." Perhaps, but to not explain *why* they are an issue shows evasion.
julia tully November 03, 2012 at 05:11 AM
Let's publish your "F" word descriptions about people to truly define beating people up. Those little signs are nothing compared to the Monster sign allowed up now by Mayor Ury or the signs being considered for K-Scope. Coochie Coo with developers is disgusting and you are part of it as long as you support the likes of those taking their money and owing them favors.
Victoria Avery November 03, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Speaking of taking money and owing favors, the only one that I have seen use that so far is Cathy Schlict. Her position was bought for her by Connie Lee and Gail Reavis (another 1 termer) the first time around, to allow Larry Gilbert and Brad Morton to get a foothold onto the council. Cathy did not disapoint them. She is the puppet they never could get with anyone else. Now, Larry is giving openly to her campaign. No wonder they use the "being bought" attack on Ury and Bucknum, Gilbert must figure since he is doing it everyone is. The difference is Ury and Bucknum are honest, they actually want what is best for our city. Cathy supported measure D which limits property owners rights. Thats a big no no for republicans, realtor donations are clearly because they want people who support property rights. Oh and Julia, pay attention and you would see that the signs are not even on the agenda.
Dan Avery November 03, 2012 at 05:45 PM
Fine by me Julia. http://daniel-avery.com/blog/ Words are paint and I use paint for effect, but I keep it appropriate for the market I'm in. Your side has sent me completely obscene emails, which I have published. You can tell marylynne2 her "eat schlicht!!!" email didn't surprise any of the team at http://protectmissionviejo.com. By the way in the second word marylynne2 only used the first, third, fifth and last letter. I had to change it here, because that language is not appropriate for a family blog. That language is also not appropriate for emails. My blog isn't a family blog and I use all the words. People who read my blog understand that and could care less. I don't, however, unlike you, lie. There are no proposed signs and you know it. I don't value signs like Mr. Gilbert's immature, home-made signs that lie over a sign that advertises a real product. I guess you do value lies over reality because you stated it above. Good to know. Cathy's most recent lie is that she was honored by a former law enforcement official. She has never been honored by law enforcement. They don't like her because she has consistently tried to undermine their efforts to keep Mission Viejo safe. She actually wants our underfunded schools to pick up the costs of school resource officers and crossing guards. You can hear her in her own words at http://protectmissionviejo.com. When it comes to Cathy we don't have to lie
julia tully November 03, 2012 at 09:26 PM
You complain about naughty words yet you use them yourself condon using them . So much for honesty and logic, Mr. Avery. And please, since you are both so well informed, do the math for us in special interest contributions. You have the records. If what you are saying is so true then give the public the numbers of how much money has been contributed to U,B & S campaigns and how much of it is special interest and DEVELOPERS. If you are silent on this , we will all know why. Do the math and follow the money. And that's right , the signs are not on the agenda YET. They have conveinetlly been postponed until after the election. We know how Ury feels about signs. Monster Drink says it all. Coochie coo goes Ury and Buckman with the developer and owner of K-Scope. waiting for your reseach and math on contributions ...
Dan Avery November 03, 2012 at 10:54 PM
First of all I wasn't complaining. I was pointing out that I am appropriate in my use of naughty words. You and your friends are not. It's that simple. As far as your lies about developers and so on, what you're really objecting to is that Ury and Bucknum are successful at what they have undertaken. Meanwhile Schlicht is in debt $19,000. If you want to vote for a woman who can't handle her money, knock yourself out. Schlicht was the only council member who didn't attend the open house for the new storytime reading room at the Library today. She was the only council member to vote against the project. She actually wants to sell the library. So much for her support of families and her concern for children. That too is a lie. Be honest now, it was your husband Joe who was photographed putting up those home-made signs that are nothing more than character attacks. Wasn't it? Joe and Larry. What a pair of desperate men. See, you have to lie. But when it comes to Cathy, we don't have to lie. We just have to let her speak for herself at http://protectmissionviejo.com Please please please double down again so I can continue to make these points and get that url out there again. http://protectmissionviejo.com. We've had over 250 hits since this morning. You're helping us.
Shripathi Kamath November 03, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Since you cannot or will not respond to my numerous, polite requests, I'll ask one other thing that seems to be in contrast to the position you tout above. Let's say that electronic signs are evil. Let's also say that electronic signs are being propped up only because of favors to developers. So the expectation one should have for Ms. Schlicht is that she is against special interests wielding any sort of hold over politicians. You know that monies to politicians from "outside" interests is bad. If you agree that the above is true, how do you explain that Ms. Schlicht has exactly ONE proposition that she has taken a stance on, and it is Prop 32 http://bit.ly/SoAW00 To be sure, I do not think she is naive to ignore the special interest that is funding that and is exempt from Prop 32. Because CU ruled that corporations/SuperPACs can given unlimited funds to candidates. Prop 32 is simply trying to exclude all *others* like unions. So Crossroads GPS and ActBlue are OK with her. So it'd seem that Ms. Schlicht likes some special interests and in the case of Prop 32, dislikes others. But this is not even consistent. She likes "outside of CA" SuperPAC special interests but is railing against local businesses who want to erect signs on private property. I asked her on her website, she has not said a word. Maybe you can help us out, why are outside of CA special interests OK with her, but not the ones in Mission Viejo?
Victoria Avery November 04, 2012 at 02:14 AM
Julia the reports are available for all to see. Go to the city web site. Right now any contribution of $1000 or more must be reported within 24 hours so you will have all the money received up to date available. You don't address anything that has been said in response to your comments you are just repeating the garbage that you have already thrown out. I mistook you for a concerned resident. My mistake. You are a Parrot.
julia tully November 04, 2012 at 03:49 AM
yes, the reports are available and you and i both know that Ury and Bucknum have recieved a fortune from special intererst /developers and Cathy has chosen to receive nothing from developers so that she is not beholden to their wishes at the expense of our master planned community. If you respond , please stay on topic to this specific post, Follow the money.
julia tully November 05, 2012 at 03:44 PM
The Monster Drink sign is a case in point. It is not in compliance with city sign ordinances, yet Mayor Ury has done nothing about it. This shows lack of leadership and it indicates the hidious signage he will allow in the future. The Monster Drink sign is a case in point. Wendy and Frank play kissy-kissy with the owner of K-Scope and developers and now owe them favors at the expense of Mission Viejo's unique charm. Cathy Schicht wants to keep the sign ordinance as is, thereby protecting our master planned community from becoming light polluted. But Frank said no not now. Let's wait until after the election and then we'll get those lights flashing. Juile Tully
Shripathi Kamath November 05, 2012 at 04:57 PM
Again, you fail to explain why is it the government's job to dictate how big a sign a private business should be allowed to put up on private property. I get it that you find it aesthetically unappealing. I find Vote for Ury signs, Vote for Schlicht signs ugly, but they are not on my lawn. They are on someone's private property. Their house looks ugly, or maybe that's exactly how they want their lawn to look. For example, there is a Vote for Schlicht sign on back of the new 7-11 to be built in from of the YMCA. Heck that clock at the YMCA is ugly, but it is THEIR clock, "protecting our master planned community from becoming light polluted." This light pollution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_pollution If so, then have there been any astronomical society nearby that has complained of interference from that or similar signs? Should government be involved in regulating business, and if so, light is the pollutant that you most want to target? Not greenhouse gases? The latter actually is causing harm. Also, Ms Schlicht has endorsed Prop 32, which favors one special interest group -- the SuperPACs, and disfavors another -- the unions and corporations (which I presume would include these developers), so why the facade of not favoring special interests? You keep ignoring this. In fact it is important, because it is the ONLY proposition she has endorsed on her campaign website Also, coochie coo or kissy kissy, which is it?
Dan Avery November 05, 2012 at 05:07 PM
Also she fails to mention that Ury voted no with the other council members on June 3rd. And why exactly this is up to Ury to solve. Schlicht has been on the council and did nothing about the Monster sign. Ury has one vote, Schlicht has one vote, Reardon has one vote, Kelly has one vote and Leckness has one vote. Seems that you can only add up to the lie you want to preach Julia. Shri, these folks don't want to govern. They want to control.
Shripathi Kamath November 05, 2012 at 06:00 PM
As I drive into work, I take 5 Fwy N. On the ramp are signs for many candidates. One such sign is for Ms. Schlicht, who says she listens. Well, I wonder what one has to do to get her to answer one simple question. I asked this of her on her website, and I have asked this here several times. There is exactly ONE prop she has taken a public stance on, that I am aware of.. yes on Prop 32. Note that Prop 30 which is to raise taxes, Prop 38 which again to raise taxes, have no positions from her. But Prop 32, she is a YES (http://www.cathy4council.com/) It is rather visible on her site. I appreciate that she has made it known that she'll vote against one group of special interests and this is consistent with this opposition to the electronic sign. I find it odd, but fine. What I do not get is how does she maintain a sense of consistency by voting YES on 32, which is very narrowly going to rule out ALL special interests except SuperPACs. If one Monster sign is bad, imagine how hundreds of signs on TV just by SuperPACs are going to look. So again, why the selective outrage against special interests?
Dan Avery November 06, 2012 at 12:31 AM
classy right up to the end. and on a family site no less.
julia tully November 06, 2012 at 06:47 AM
It doesn't take a vote. It takes leadership and Cathy Schlicht did say something about it but Frank Ury did not one thing about it. Also, the few contributers to Cathy's campaign were not developers who want favors in return. We have the truth on our side, Mr. Avery. Go Cathy!
Shripathi Kamath November 06, 2012 at 07:00 AM
AH, the vote. On her campaign site (http://www.cathy4council.com/mycampaignmailer.htm) Cathy proudly mentions three votes as the pinnacle of her first term: A 4-1 vote agenda item to remove healthcare for councilmembers A 5-0 vote to ban sex offenders from parks Another 5-0 vote to support Harkey on the opposition to high speed rail. How exactly does she stand out from the rest, if her best votes were basically supported by everyone else? Three votes, two in complete agreement with the rest of the council, and one basically opposed by just one. So why is she exceptional for doing what everyone else was doing anyway? Also, banning sex offenders from parks sound nice, but how exactly are we measuring its success? Are there stats that show a reduction in crime? What happens when and if it is ruled unconstitutional and the city has to pay money for lawsuits such as the ones filed against four other cities by an ex-offender who has long served his time? When this was asked of Ury, he said, yes, but it is what people wanted, so he is OK with the lawauit and costs. If Ms Schlicht has a different view than him, please, explain it. As to the high speed rail, does the state even care since MV has no say in the matter really? Doesn't leadership require something more challenging? Like the 5th vote on a 3-2 margin that pushes something bold? Or opposes something popular because it is good for the city?
Dan Avery November 06, 2012 at 07:01 AM
Yes, she said something about it, despite the warnings of the city attorney, and, now, the city is open to a lawsuit, in the slim chance that she wins tomorrow. You don't have truth on your side, you have ignorance, cowardice, and duplicity. Or the holy trinity of the morally corrupt. At least we agree on something: "Go, Cathy!" Commas are damn important to meaning. Aren't they, Julia? That was for you, kids, and I hope you enjoyed this handy lesson in "Dan's Pretty Good Use Of The English Language. Today's lesson is titled, "The Insufferable Importance Of Commas."
Shripathi Kamath November 06, 2012 at 07:01 AM
Julia, just ignore Dan. Please answer my sincere and politely phrased questions. Arguing with Dan (he is a bit of an elitist) will not help Cathy, but answering my sincere questions could help her be seen in a different light than silence.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something