Mission Viejo Co. Plays Politics With Vengeance

Fifteen aides to county supervisors got tickets to the ballet. Two planning commissioners played complimentary golf. And veteran Supervisor Thomas F. Riley was presented with a $150 cowboy belt buckle.

In recent years, the Mission Viejo Co. and its affiliates have given those and other gifts to elected and appointed officials throughout Orange County and beyond. They have also been significant campaign contributors.

Lately, some of that generosity has stirred controversy.

Planning Commissioner C. Douglas Leavenworth, who accepted $1,200 worth of golf games, theater tickets and other gifts over the past five years, may have violated conflict-of-interest law by subsequently voting on matters affecting the development firm, state officials say.

Leavenworth says that he did nothing wrong and that the gifts he received from the company didn’t influence his votes.

But this is not the first time that the Mission Viejo Co. has found its political activity under a spotlight. During the past several years, records and interviews show, the firm has blended contributions, gifts and scorching retaliatory campaigns against its opponents in a mix that has earned it a reputation as the most politically pugnacious developer in the county.

Developers and other political players traditionally use a combination of carrot and stick to wield their influence, and in that the Mission Viejo Co. is no different. But the company, a wholly owned subsidiary of New York-based Philip Morris Cos. Inc., has shown a particular fondness for playing rough.

Sometimes the company has been successful, and other times it has failed miserably. It has nearly always been controversial.

“They are so antagonistic and so out of the mainstream,” said Gregory A. Hile, an attorney who has tangled with the company and who has represented both developers and slow-growth advocates. “They’re bullies, and they’re very, very nasty to deal with.”

That view is widely echoed by environmentalists, by some county officials and even by other developers. Indeed, the company’s relationship with the county’s development community is at times tenuous: In 1986, the Mission Viejo Co. resigned from the local Building Industry Assn. because its leaders criticized county planning operations.

Despite vocal criticism in many quarters, the company does have its defenders. Supervisors Riley and Gaddi H. Vasquez, for instance, have each praised the firm for its contributions to Orange County sports and arts.

And even while observers often savage the company’s political practices, rarely does anyone criticize its homes or its planned communities.

“I generally think the company is regarded pretty well,” said Ben Meharg, a Mission Viejo planning commissioner. “They’ve done a decent job with this community.”

Company Vice President David A. Celestin declined a request to be interviewed for this article, and Wendy Wetzel, a spokeswoman for the company, said officials with the firm do not discuss contributions to political causes except in general terms.

“We support candidates who believe in free enterprise, good planning and good government,” Wetzel said. “That’s our response to all questions dealing with political contributions.”

Although not a major contributor on the scale of the Irvine Co.--which has given $2.2 million to political causes and candidates since the beginning of 1987--the Mission Viejo Co. has donated $636,517 to various political causes during the same period, according to county records filed by the company.

Every member of the Board of Supervisors has received modest campaign contributions--ranging from $250 to $1,000--from the Mission Viejo Co., and the company is also the largest single gift-giver to supervisorial staffs. It gave away more than $2,000 in meals, tickets and other gifts to the supervisors’ aides last year.

Campaign contributions go to state and local officials at all levels--from South County school board representatives to a Los Angeles County supervisor to the lieutenant governor’s campaign of state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach).

In many cases, the donations go to candidates who are in a position to make transportation or cityhood decisions that could affect development of south Orange County, and in a few instances, the donations come at timely moments.

Eleven months after she received $5,000 from the company for her state Assembly campaign, for example, Local Agency Formation Commission member Evelyn R. Hart voted against an annexation proposal that the Mission Viejo Co. strongly opposed.

And three months after she cast that vote, the company added another $1,000 to her Assembly campaign coffers.

Wetzel said the contributions were unrelated to Hart’s position with LAFCO. Hart said she believes the company contributed heavily to her campaign because of its longstanding displeasure with incumbent Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach).

Indeed, while the company rewards politicians it likes, its more significant financial efforts have been directed at punishing officials it opposes.

The company spent $282,042 in an unsuccessful attempt to recall Mission Viejo Councilman Robert A. Curtis earlier this year, a staggering sum that raised eyebrows across the state.

Curtis, who retained his seat and has since met with company officials to discuss their development plans for the community, said the company’s willingness to strike out at its opponents is what distinguishes it from other county political donors.

“They spend money to support some candidates,” Curtis said, “but they are clearly the most aggressive of the large landowners in the county in terms of their willingness to frontally assault those with whom they disagree.”

Confronted with a challenge to its South County development agreements in 1988, the company also came out swinging.

When the city of Irvine joined with Laguna Beach and slow-growth proponents to challenge a development agreement governing construction of Aliso Viejo, the Mission Viejo Co. helped finance a blistering legal response, suing then-Mayor Larry Agran and two other council members and tying up the city in intense and costly maneuverings.

“They bled the city’s resources,” Agran said. “They moved in their own Xerox machine and had it operating full time while they copied 80,000 pages of city documents. . . . They turned City Hall upside down.”

Copying and depositions dragged on for months as council members and other city officials were questioned again and again. The city’s suit against the Mission Viejo Co. and the company-financed suit against the city wound up costing Irvine $465,000, City Manager Paul O. Brady Jr. said, making the pair of related cases the most expensive ever fought by the city.

Irvine’s case against the Mission Viejo Co. eventually was dismissed.

Richard Munsell, a former county planning director who filed the suit against the city, said his side’s legal fees ran to about $750,000.

The Mission Viejo Co., he said, paid more than half that bill--as legal fees and not political contributions, the exact figures do not appear on public disclosure statements that are filed with the government.

“We were very public about that at the time,” Wetzel said. “(Munsell) came to us and asked us if we would support his legal effort, and we said we would.”

The Laguna Beach City Council was also sued, but efforts there went a step further. After that council tried to block the Aliso Viejo project, three council members--Dan Kenney, Robert F. Gentry and Lida Lenney--found themselves the subjects of a recall campaign backed by the Mission Viejo Co.

That campaign, sponsored by local businesses irritated that the council would not permit certain forms of outdoor advertising, drew $3,600 in contributions from the company.

“Our basis there was private property rights,” Wetzel said. “The city of Laguna Beach had filed suit against our Aliso Viejo development. There were people who opposed that suit and defended property rights, and we supported those people.”

But the company’s willingness to strike back, either through recalls or in court, has subjected it to intense criticism, more so even than the larger and more powerful Irvine Co., according to many observers.

“You can spend the money. The difference is if you spend it crassly, people will get upset,” Mark P. Petracca, a UC Irvine political science professor, said of the company’s involvement in the Curtis recall campaign. “People do have a sense of fundamental fairness, and what the Mission Viejo Co. did was essentially unfair.”

In retrospect, even some of the company’s supporters say that its political adventures probably have been ill-advised and may have damaged its reputation.

“I’ve heard people say that (the Mission Viejo Co. is) a little politically naive, though I’m not sure I agree with that,” said Planning Commissioner Meharg. “It may be true, though. That may be why they get bashed a little bit.”

THE POLITICAL PUNCH OF THE MISSION VIEJO CO.

While praised for the quaility of its housing developments, the Mission Viejo Co. has been criticized for its contributions and gifts to some politicians, and its agressive campaigns against others. The company has donated $636,517 to a range of political causes since 1987. “We support candidates who believe in free enterprise, good planning and good government,” company spokeswoman Wendy Wetzel said. “That’s our response to all questions dealing with political contributions.”

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS Money for state, county, city and school board candidates in Orange and Los Angeles counties. STATE OFFICES

Name Office Sought Total Marian Bergeson State Senator (Lt. Gov. $250) $5,250 John Seymour State Senator $6,000 William Campbell State Senator $1,000 Ron Isles State Senator $1,000 Edward R. Royce State Senator $150 Evelyn R. Hart State Assembly $6,000 Doris Allen State Assembly $5,250 Phyllis Badham State Assembly $1,000 Peter von Elten State Assembly $1,000 Nolan Frizzelle State Assembly $1,000 Richard E. Longshore State Assembly $975 Gil Ferguson State Assembly $250 John R. Lewis State Assembly $250 Tom Bradley Governor $10,000 Thomas W. Hayes State Treasurer $2,000 Total $41,125

ORANGE COUNTY OFFICES

Name Office Sought Total Bradley L. Jacobs Assessor $1,000 Michael R. Capizzi District Attorney $1,000 Brad Gates Sheriff $2,000 Harriett M. Wieder Supervisor $1,800 Dana W. Reed Supervisor $1,000 Thomas F. Riley Supervisor $1,000 Roger R. Stanton Supervisor $1,000 Gaddi H. Vasquez Supervisor $900 Don R. Roth Supervisor $150 Total $9,850

LOCAL OFFICES IN ORANGE COUNTY

Name Office Sought Total Irv Pickler Anaheim City Council $900 Mike Eggers Dana Point City Council $400 W. Ingrid McGuire Dana Point City Council $400 Don Black Laguna Beach City Council $2,500 Mark Goodman Laguna Niguel City Council $950 John C. Cox, Jr. Newport Beach City Council $200 William G. Steiner Orange City Council $500 Daniel H. Young Santa Ana City Council $440 Lisa C. Mills Santa Ana City Council $200 Lyle Overby Santa Ana City Council $200 Ronald Hoesterey Tustin City Council $210 Sandy Englander Orange Unified School District Board $1,000 Alan E. Irish Orange Unified School District Board $1,000 James H. Fearns Orange Unified School District Board $1,000 Rudy Montejano and Rancho Santiago College, $500 Hector Godinez Board of Trustees Total $11,350

OFFICES IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Name Office Total Joan M. Flores Los Angeles City Council $1,750 Patricia Russell Los Angeles City Council $500 Hal Bernson Los Angeles City Council $500 Deane Dana Los Angeles County Supervisor $1,000 Total $3,750

MEASURES / INITIATIVES The company has spent significant amounts on a wide range of ballot issues, from supporting the drive for cityhood in Mission Viejo and a half-cent sales tax for transportation to opposing a county-wide slow-growth initiative and a state “nickle-a-drink” liquor tax. Mission Viejo For Mission Viejo Cityhood Drive: $21,950 For Measure A (mandating voter review of city annexations): $10,000 Countywide Against Measure A (Slow-Growth Initiative): $146,000 For Measure M (sales tax for roads construction): $12,000 Statewide Against proposed state “nickel-a-drink” liquor tax: $30,000 For Proposition 111 and 108 (state gas tax for tranportation): $6,000 For Proposition 51 (to limit pain and suffering claims in civil suits): $2,500 For voter initiative to strip legislature of right to reapportion districts: $1,000 RECALL CAMPAIGNS Mission Viejo Councilman Robert A. Curtis recently defeated a recall effort heavily financed by the company. The Laguna Beach City Council has also been a target. Mission Viejo Recall of Councilman Robert A. Curtis:* $282,042 Laguna Beach Recall of 3 City Council members: $3,600 *A portion went to support a city annexation measure. POLITICAL GROUPS The company also gives to various political action committies and organizations. Republican Party (state and local): $12,500 Building Industry Association (state and local level): $10,100 Californians for Schools: $10,000 Committee to Ban Gill Nets: $10,000 Citizens to Save Our Schools: $5,000 Orange County Citizens for Responsible Government: $2,500 Southern California Caucus (pro-development PAC): $2,500 Orange County Lincoln Club candidates committee: $1,250 California Chamber of Commerce: $1,000 Freemarket:** $500 **Anti-Socialist PAC chaired by Assemblyman Gil Ferguson (R-Newport Beach), which campaigned for the defeat former Irvine Mayor Larry Agran. Sources: Major Donor Reports January 1987-June 1990 for the Mission Viejo Co. and affiliates; other records from the Orange County Registrar of Voters and the Secretary of State. Compiled by: DANNY SULLIVAN and ROSE ELLEN O’CONNOR / Los Angeles Times Researched by: MARY KAY LEWIS / Los Angeles Times