CHAPTER 5

 The 2006 elections were of interest for two reasons. Bill Horn was up for re-election and a fellow Republican was contesting his position for County Supervisor. Three positions on the Deer Springs Fire District Board were also up for re-election.

.

The 2006 Political Race for Supervisor:

  Horn vs. Thompson

.

The 2006 primary was in full swing and Supervisor Bill Horn was up for re-election. He had a storied past with numerous accusations of corruption dogging him.1,2,3,4,5,6 A fellow Republican, Bruce Thompson, decided to run against Horn in the primary. Since Republican registration vastly outnumbers Democratic registration in San Diego County, the primary is the election. All of the major San Diego newspapers endorsed Thompson and the prediction in all quarters was that Horn, bogged down in one corruption scandal after another, would lose the election. Many members in the anti-Stonegate community privately supported Thompson’s candidacy but decided to keep their opposition to Stonegate free from political involvement. At this same point in time, a large number of Fire District residents were contacting the Deer Springs Fire District Board to voice opposition to the Stonegate project and to encourage board members to reject Stonegate’s inadequate Fire Protection Plan. We knew that if we in the anti-Stonegate movement publicly endorsed Thompson, it would win him additional votes. We decided, however, to keep fire safety and the expose of shelter-in-place above the political fray and our sole focus.

.

Remaining apolitical continued to be our decision until several front-page newspaper articles appeared countywide just days before the election. It had come to light that the Horn campaign was being funded illegally by a group bypassing election laws by sending out slate mailers under a phony name.7 The group, calling itself “Voters for a Responsible Government” (based in Elk Grove in Sacramento County, a long way from San Diego)  pumped massive contributions (totaling nearly two hundred thousand dollars) into Horn’s campaign in the last weeks before the June 2006 election. The group was actually a coalition of developers that included the joint partners behind Stonegate, Newland Communities and Stonegate Development. These illegal campaign contributions became front-page news in the both the North County Times and the San Diego Union Tribune. The headlines read: “Election mailers outrage Thompson backers” in the NC Times and “Mailers for Horn paid for by group” in the Union-Tribune.8 The articles confirmed that at the last minute $157,000 went into Horn’s campaign from Orange County developers. Newland Communities and Stonegate Development contributed $20,000 apiece. It was evident that if Horn won the election, he would be indebted to Stonegate and Newland Communities.  At this point, many in the anti-Stonegate community came forward to publicly endorse Thompson. To our surprise, a community "leader" in Hidden Meadows who was one of our allies, became enraged. We did not know at that time of his ties to Bill Horn.  He immediately withdrew support from our group and became an aggressive foe. We learned three lessons from this experience:

.

·        Responsible, fire-safe development in the WUI has become seriously endangered because some politicians rely on developers’ money to get re-elected. These politicians will go so far as to grant approval to a development that is patently unsafe. Given the fact that San Diego County is one of the most dangerous fire-prone regions in the country, such ill-conceived development can one day wind up killing countless numbers of people in the event of a major wildfire.

·        Local community leaders often have ties to politicians. These ties and their own self-interest can make them sell out their community.

·        The arrogance of the politicians in San Diego County is beyond the pale. Even with front-page major media coverage of special interest money illegally flooding their campaign, these politicians continue to pander to special interests without so much as blinking.

.

Horn won the election by a slim margin (52 to 48 percent) over his unknown and vastly underfunded opponent. In 2002, Horn’s election contributions were also heavily weighted from developers and questions of illegality were noted at that time.9 Horn had truly become the Teflon Supervisor. A review of the political history of San Diego County shows that incumbent Supervisors are always re-elected. Part of the reason lies in the fact that the Supervisors have voted themselves an annual $2 million dollar “slush fund” apiece to distribute as they see fit among “deserving” individuals and groups in their District.  Come election time, in particular, money is dispensed to local individuals and groups to ensure re-election. Right before the election, Supervisor Horn “donated” funds to the Hidden Meadows Homeowners' Association to improve a landscape median at the community’s entrance. Much political capital was made of this gift from the Supervisor. The Community newspaper, The Meadowlark, ran a full-page ad exclaiming “THANK YOU SUPERVISOR HORN!” in addition to running full-page endorsements and advertisements for Horn (while at the same time failing to mention the existence of any opposition candidate). Another salient feature of San Diego County politics is the fact that there are no term limits for Supervisor. Horn has been entrenched as County Supervisor for four consecutive terms, for a total of sixteen years in office. Since there are five supervisors, any individual supervisor cannot be held responsible for a poor and dangerous development. Each one can hide behind the cover of five.  The structure of governance in San Diego County had led to entrenched corruption and special interests running amok. The proposed Stonegate development is an example of such an excess.

.

THE DISTRICT FIRE BOARD ELECTIONS

.

With the approval of Stonegate’s Fire Protection Plan now delayed (the outgoing Fire Board never having gotten the chance to vote on it in time before the 2006 election), there was an opportunity to replace the three members that were up for re-election to the Deer Springs Fire District Board. Asaro (the lawyer for the building industry) and Slaughter (the retired firefighter) still had another two years left on their four-year terms. The community fighting Stonegate now had to scramble to find three viable candidates to run for the Fire Board. Three candidates volunteered to run. They were Bruce Tebbs (a retired airline pilot), Frank Donnelly (an accountant) and Peter Orner (a physician and mechanical engineer). They would be up against two incumbents (as the former sheriff decided not to run for re-election). It was almost a rule that the incumbents are re-elected since special district elections historically never draw any attention. However, the Stonegate controversy and the shelter-in-place fiasco were now in the spotlight and suddenly there was coverage of the local Fire Board election in the major San Diego newspapers.10

.

The time was ripe for a large community meeting, which took place one month before the election. Hundreds of attendees learned about the fire danger problem of the Stonegate development, that evacuation would not be possible in the event of a fast-moving Santa Ana driven wildfire and that the concept of shelter-in-place had been specifically disallowed by the County for this development. A Fire Protection Plan had to be devised that would not subject the future residents of the project to a significant risk of injury or death in a worst-case wildfire on Merriam Mountain. There was no way to avoid a significant risk as long as the project's proposed density remained the same.  The meeting induced many people to become interested in the election and volunteers came forward to help in the election campaign. They went door-to-door and constructed large signs that were posted at major intersections. E-mails were flying. We were suddenly in the election campaigning business.

.

We felt that if we were successful, Stonegate would be forced to deal with fire safety issues. If all three opposition candidates were elected, Stonegate would be facing a safety-minded Fire Board and would have difficulty in getting a bogus Fire Protection Plan approved (instead of having it rubber-stamped by a developer-controlled Board).

.

The election results rewarded the community’s efforts. The three challengers (the anti-Stonegate candidates) swept to victory in a landslide, garnering 74% of the vote. The old board would still be in power for two more months and there were two more Fire District meetings before the new board took over. Stonegate’s revised Fire Protection Plan had not yet been finalized and we wished to be able to see the plan as soon as it was available. We were fearful that the lame-duck board would push through some inadequate Fire Protection Plan hastily drawn up by the developer. We also wanted to know more about what was occurring at the County DPLU. We wanted to see the County records (which are supposed to be available to the public) and went down to the DPLU offices. On the day of our visit, we happened to encounter the developer himself and his large entourage at the Planning unit. In full view, they let themselves into the “Employees Only” back room as if they themselves ran the County and were treated royally. We, taxpayers and concerned citizens, were treated rudely and with overt hostility, with every obstacle placed to prevent us from obtaining requested files. It became unbearable when the County decided to forbid access to the public records, claiming they did not have to show us the files. We invoked the California Public Records Act11 and involved the Office of the County Counsel in determining that we were indeed entitled to view public records. At first trying to claim their right to withhold “draft” records, the DPLU was quickly forced to back down. The County was not able to ignore state law enacted to provide transparency and honesty in government. If we had sued to see the withheld public records and the courts ruled in our favor (which was clear on the merits), the County would be responsible for paying all court costs in addition to receiving highly negative publicity for their obstructionist efforts. We were finally given the requested records. The files were actually hurled at us by the Assistant Director of Planning who derisively shouted: “Knock yourselves out!” A review of the file clearly showed the County bending over backwards to help the developer and thwarting the call to investigate the fire hazard (firetrap) that this proposed development would create.

.

THE NEW FIRE DISTRICT BOARD AND QUITE A SURPRISE

.

It was now December of 2006 and the results of our efforts were apparent. At the Fire District Board meeting, the swearing in of the three new safety-minded anti-Stonegate candidates was going to occur. Feeling that they were now outnumbered and their power diminished, the two incumbent holdovers (Frank Asaro and Jean Slaughter) promptly resigned and walked out in a huff. This meant that the three new members could fill their two vacancies. Bruce Tebbs, a new Board member, made his intentions known to represent the people in the District with regard to fire safety. The Fire Chief confirmed that the the organizational chart of the Deer Springs Fire District showed the Fire Board at the top of the chart, with the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal reporting to the Board. The Chief also affirmed that he would follow the Board’s directives so long as they didn’t violate any laws of the state of California. It seemed as if we were going to be able to influence what Stonegate would have to do to gain Fire Protection Plan approval---that is, to drastically reduce the size of the project so that evacuation as a strategy would be possible.

.

Within a short time, we were told by one of the newly elected Board officers the non-believable. This Board member said that he talked with the Fire Chief and that Stonegate was going to be approved. He said it was over. He said it was a done deal.  Forget opposing Stonegate. The Fire District Board had more “important” things to concentrate on. The Board member also stated that we would not be allowed to question the Fire Chief at the meetings. We were aghast and angry. One Board member had decided unilaterally that all the work we had done was for naught. We were now indoctrinated into the real world of politics and fire. We were double-crossed.

.

We tried to understand what had happened. The 180-degree turn violated all the promises that we had made to all the volunteers and people who voted for this Board with our recommendation.

All of the Board members were no longer our allies and we had to walk on eggshells. Needless to say, we felt that there could be no lower form of a human being that would take the hard earned votes of the community and then trash them. One could only guess as to why a Board member would make such a 180-degree turn. We were intent to fight on despite the setback. We still had people on the Board who were against Stonegate. Bruce Tebbs remained steadfast and true to his pre-election promise to oppose dangerous and unsafe development and to require that all development proposals have satisfactory Fire Protection Plans.

.

We had to prevent any Board member from using his influence to create favorable circumstances to sneak in Stonegate past the noses of the other Board members. As time went on, there would be evidence of just such occurrences.

.

The first order of business was for the Board to replace the two members that had summarily resigned. By this time, Bruce Tebbs was becoming more disillusioned with the Board member who said that Stonegate was going to be approved. At this time we had to make sure the Board would not be compromised by people with special interests such as developers and pawns of Horn. A compromise was reached and Laurel Nicholson (a recently defeated candidate for the State Legislature) and Joan Van Ingen were selected.  We had to try our best to make sure that the Stonegate matter maintained its status as an important issue facing the Fire District and the future safety of residents of the District. Stonegate proponents tried to create a smokescreen by claiming that the issue of Stonegate was not important to the District and that the matter of Stonegate was detracting from the board’s ability to deal with other important issues. That was tantamount to saying that the Board couldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Of course, the Board could rule on the deficiencies of Stonegate’s Fire Protection Plan while at the same time, address other issues facing the District. It was not a question of one or the other, but that is the artificial and divisive dichotomy the Stonegate advocates tried to promote.

.

ANOTHER FLY IN THE OINTMENT

.

At the same time the newly elected Fire District Board was being sworn in, another problem at the Deer Springs Fire District surfaced. A new firehouse was scheduled to be built in Hidden Meadows and it appeared to be drastically over-budget without valid reasons. Bruce Tebbs, a strong proponent of saving taxpayer money, wanted to evaluate and reduce the excessive expenditures for the firehouse. He felt it was a financial fiasco, with many hands evidently in the cookie jar. A firehouse with an original budget of less than one million dollars had now ballooned to well over 2 million dollars with no accounting whatsoever of how the money was spent. Bruce was incensed by the squandering of money but the Board eventually rubber-stamped the firehouse proposal. There were some community leaders who were very involved in the firehouse (including the Firesafe Council) and they didn’t want anyone derailing their plans, no matter how over-budget and inflated the expenses of the firehouse became. Laurel Nicholson (an appointed member of the Board) promised that there would be no need for additional taxes on the residents. In 2008 she brought a proposal to the Fire District to raise taxes. That is another matter and not to be discussed any further in this book but it did create a furor between the community and some members of the Board. This influenced the way community leaders reacted and affected our relationship with the Hidden Meadows newspaper called the Meadowlark.

.

THE MEADOWLARK

.

The Meadowlark is a Hidden Meadows community newspaper put out monthly by members of the ARO, the Association of Resident Owners.  The ARO is a dues-paying association of residents of Hidden Meadows (an unincorporated hamlet in North San Diego County consisting of approximately 1,500 homes). The Meadowlark features local events and community news. The paper is supported financially by member dues and paid ads from local advertisers. When Stonegate became an issue, concerned community members submitted articles to the Meadowlark. The editor was very interested  and gave front-page headlines to the Stonegate story, enabling the community to be kept abreast of latest Stonegate developments that would impact Hidden Meadows and surrounding communities. This helped alert the Hidden Meadows community to the fire dangers of Stonegate. As time went on, it became obvious that we began to trample on some sacred cows in the community by impeding the agenda of Supervisor Bill Horn. The “old boy’s club” of Hidden Meadows was obviously allied to Horn and acted as his surrogate in its role of “community leader.” Eventually, the ARO censored all further articles about Stonegate. Freedom of the press died in Hidden Meadows. The ARO’s justification for the press censorship was that people were “tired” of hearing about Stonegate and would not read the paper if there were articles in it regarding Stonegate. There was nothing further from the truth. People wanted to know more. The damage done to the Hidden Meadows community by the ARO Board was significant. All the county-wide newspapers continued to actively report on the Stonegate story. We decided not to contest the pro-Horn community leaders controlling the Meadowlark, together with the turncoat member at the Fire District Board, the County DPLU, the County Supervisors and the deep-pocket developers all at the same time. The important thing was that the people in the community were already aware of Stonegate. The ARO Board was even petitioned directly in an attempt to persuade the Board to reconsider its decision to silence all opposition to Stonegate.  We were met with the same rejection that an outsider would feel in trying to gain admission to an exclusive club. It was another on-the-job lesson in trying to defend the community (and not the leaders who have their own vested political agendas and interests) from an unsafe development. Some of the articles published before freedom of the press was so unceremoniously terminated:

            May 2006: The Merriam Mountains Development (Stonegate LLC)

            June 2006: Fire catastrophe looms with proposed Stonegate development

            July 2006:  Stonegate adopts Shelter-in-Place as an alternative to evacuation for Merriam

                             Mountain project

           Aug. 2006: Critics refer to Stonegate/Merriam Mountains project as a deathtrap on CBS

                             news  

           Sept. 2006: Proposed Stonegate project's fire protection plan in shambles

           Oct. 2006:  Panic now a concern in Stonegate Development

      Nov. 2006:  Stonegate's Contradictions Exposed

Deer Springs Fire District Board member Bruce Tebbs was also barred from writing in the Meadowlark about Stonegate or the overspending on the Hidden Meadows firehouse. It was a case of some community “leaders” trying to hide the truth from the community. In the upcoming 2008 Fire Board Election, the Meadowlark was once again a full-fledged surrogate of Bill Horn, as it was in the 2006 elections.  The Meadowlark is being used to support the approval of Stonegate, as per Horn and his surrogates’ desires.        

.               

Soon after the Meadowlark censored all articles about Stonegate, a massive telephone survey by Stonegate’s public relations firm was launched throughout the Deer Springs area.  After starting off with some generic, non-controversial questions, the phone survey broached the subject of the Stonegate project. Apparently, the answer most commonly given to the interviewers was that Stonegate was bad news. Shortly thereafter, the Stonegate developers dropped the name “Stonegate” from the project and thereafter referred to it exclusively as “Merriam Mountains.”  “Merriam Mountains” began mailing its own glossy public relations newsletter to residents all over the District, showcasing its generous donations to deserving local community groups. The name “Stonegate” was nowhere in evidence. Apparently all of the media and newspaper publicity had accomplished its purpose, as the community was onto the fire danger presented by the Stonegate development.