Arthur Katz

Twenty miles south of your $75-million facility, and virtually ignored by you, lies the idyllic planned community of Mission Viejo. The Mission Viejo Community Service District officers have for the past year perpetrated a vast hoax. They have commissioned a company to "create" a feasibility study favorable to incorporation of Mission Viejo. Since the study was completed, it has been found in error (by the study company), and in spite of this the CSD is charging ahead with erroneous information lulling the Viejans with platitudes such as self-determination, wresting control from the politicians in Santa Ana and promises of vast amounts of tax money that will remain in Mission Viejo instead of being wasted in the outreaches of Orange County.

The Lake Mission Viejo Assn., like thousands of other homeowner associations, exists to maintain the common ground owned by its members. Prospective homeowners are informed of the responsibilities of membership before they purchase property. It is certainly not, as Arthur Katz incessantly contends (in his letter of Jan. 22), absurd that Lake Mission Viejo be treated as an association. It is an association. I knew that, he knew that, we all knew that when we decided to buy our homes.

The approval of funds for the Irvine Theatre ("It's Full Steam Ahead For the Irvine Theatre," Dec. 15) reeks of another case of self-aggrandizement for a city struggling with periodic money shortfalls. Virtually every community surrounding Irvine has a facility and most have periodic financial problems. The city of Irvine has approved millions of dollars to be allocated to the theater, as has UC Irvine. Most of this money is being channeled away from worthy causes involving public works.

The readers of The Times Orange County Edition should be made aware of the power extended over the residents of Mission Viejo by the Mission Viejo Co. (the builders of Mission Viejo) and the Lake Mission Viejo Assn. Now that Mission Viejo is a city, the tentacles of the Lake Assn. and the Mission Viejo Co. should be loosened and that reality should be faced. It is absurd that the lake be treated as an association, and the time has come that the lake should belong to all and not the 15,000 members who are held captive because of a covenant issued by the builders.

Re Mission Viejo article Aug. 15: Your reporter obviously got all his information from the Mission Viejo Incorporation Feasibility Study Committee. The slant tilts too far toward cityhood, as the article indicates. The touted largesses of Orange County would have Mission Viejo drenched with money. No mention of capital expenditures a new city must face. As I have asked many times, without an answer, who pays for new buildings, salaries for the mayor, city manager and council, and all that private interest groups will clamor for?

The Lake Mission Viejo Assn., like thousands of other homeowner associations, exists to maintain the common ground owned by its members. Prospective homeowners are informed of the responsibilities of membership before they purchase property. It is certainly not, as Arthur Katz incessantly contends (in his letter of Jan. 22), absurd that Lake Mission Viejo be treated as an association. It is an association. I knew that, he knew that, we all knew that when we decided to buy our homes.

The readers of The Times Orange County Edition should be made aware of the power extended over the residents of Mission Viejo by the Mission Viejo Co. (the builders of Mission Viejo) and the Lake Mission Viejo Assn. Now that Mission Viejo is a city, the tentacles of the Lake Assn. and the Mission Viejo Co. should be loosened and that reality should be faced. It is absurd that the lake be treated as an association, and the time has come that the lake should belong to all and not the 15,000 members who are held captive because of a covenant issued by the builders.

A series of news articles in The Times points up the deficits facing Orange County and the cities of Irvine and San Clemente. The county faces cutbacks in social services, increased costs of the criminal justice system and a tremendous layoff of personnel of up to 22%. Irvine is about to attach new fees (taxes) to the cost of doing business in that city. Eventual higher prices for the buyers will be a direct result of that act. San Clemente is putting on hold an increase of fire and police protection as revenues in that city fail to meet the expectation of city management, due to a slow-growth policy.

Your story (Feb. 17) presents only the views of the Mission Viejo Incorporation Feasibility Study Committee. It glowingly reports William Craycraft's jubilant accord with Fred Christensen's findings for "cityhood" for Mission Viejo. With joy, Craycraft says "incorporation is absolutely of necessity for the taxpayers of Mission Viejo." The taxpayers have never been consulted, nor have they been asked to vote on whether or not they were interested in a study. It is common knowledge that the residents of Mission Viejo would rather have their status in the county as it is now. The "hefty surpluses" the study mentions would not begin to pay for all the expenditures a city would require.

An all-day seminar April 13 at the Los Angeles Design Center, 433 S. Spring St., has been planned by the Los Angeles chapter of the American Society of Interior Designers, and will include members of five other Southern California chapters. The day will consist of four sessions with a choice of 10 topics presented by seven speakers.

The approval of funds for the Irvine Theatre ("It's Full Steam Ahead For the Irvine Theatre," Dec. 15) reeks of another case of self-aggrandizement for a city struggling with periodic money shortfalls. Virtually every community surrounding Irvine has a facility and most have periodic financial problems. The city of Irvine has approved millions of dollars to be allocated to the theater, as has UC Irvine. Most of this money is being channeled away from worthy causes involving public works.

Twenty miles south of your $75-million facility, and virtually ignored by you, lies the idyllic planned community of Mission Viejo. The Mission Viejo Community Service District officers have for the past year perpetrated a vast hoax. They have commissioned a company to "create" a feasibility study favorable to incorporation of Mission Viejo. Since the study was completed, it has been found in error (by the study company), and in spite of this the CSD is charging ahead with erroneous information lulling the Viejans with platitudes such as self-determination, wresting control from the politicians in Santa Ana and promises of vast amounts of tax money that will remain in Mission Viejo instead of being wasted in the outreaches of Orange County.

A letter printed in The Times (Aug. 2) purports that cityhood is the only way to go for Mission Viejo. This totally biased view was offered by an officer of the Mission Viejo Citizens for Cityhood committee, omitting his title and claiming to be a proud resident of Mission Viejo. He is proud, I am proud and so are 60,000 other residents of our community. The writer claims his opinion is based on "strong, undeniable, current political winds in the valley." These winds emanate from a small committee (about 35 members)

A series of news articles in The Times points up the deficits facing Orange County and the cities of Irvine and San Clemente. The county faces cutbacks in social services, increased costs of the criminal justice system and a tremendous layoff of personnel of up to 22%. Irvine is about to attach new fees (taxes) to the cost of doing business in that city. Eventual higher prices for the buyers will be a direct result of that act. San Clemente is putting on hold an increase of fire and police protection as revenues in that city fail to meet the expectation of city management, due to a slow-growth policy.

Your story (Feb. 17) presents only the views of the Mission Viejo Incorporation Feasibility Study Committee. It glowingly reports William Craycraft's jubilant accord with Fred Christensen's findings for "cityhood" for Mission Viejo. With joy, Craycraft says "incorporation is absolutely of necessity for the taxpayers of Mission Viejo." The taxpayers have never been consulted, nor have they been asked to vote on whether or not they were interested in a study. It is common knowledge that the residents of Mission Viejo would rather have their status in the county as it is now. The "hefty surpluses" the study mentions would not begin to pay for all the expenditures a city would require.

A distraught investor who shot two stockbrokers, killing one and then killed himself was a disbarred Missouri attorney relocated here through the federal witness protection program, a U.S. Justice Department spokesman said today.