Letter to the Editor: Questions About Scott Peotter

Share this:

As citizens have reviewed and examined the record of Councilmember Scott Peotter, several distributing questions have arisen. 

Scott Peotter owes the community answers to these questions.

In 2015, Peotter reported $10,000-$100,000 income from Capitol Ministries, a religious organization whose web site indicates “ministers… must be capable of raising funds for their ministries.”

Did Peotter solicit donations from undisclosed parties to support his living expenses? If so, from whom and how much did they provide for Peotter’s personal expenses?

During his four years on the Planning Commission, Peotter reported no income, including, spousal income, investments, investment income or gifts. Yet, during this time frame, he qualified for, and received, two loans, one for $7 million and one for $13 million that repaid the first loan. 

Shortly thereafter, Peotter defaulted on the second loan.  How was Peotter able to qualify for a loan of this size while on the Planning Commission, with no reportable income?

In 2015 and 2016, Peotter reported an ownership interest in 14972 Culver Drive in Irvine.  A search on Google maps shows that there is no such address. Why did he report a false address for his Irvine property?

Despite allegedly being the President of Aslan Companies in Irvine since 1992, why does Peotter not have a valid Irvine Business License?

In an April 13, 2015 email to the city manager, Peotter raised questions as to the status of the city tow contract, and specifically Southside Towing, a firm not under contract to the city. On January 26, 2016, Peotter made a substitute motion that overturned the recommendation of the Newport Beach Police Department and awarded a lucrative police towing contract to Southside.  Southside is represented by Steve Baric, Peotter’s campaign lawyer and a donor to Independent Expenditure Committees linked to Team Newport. What is Peotter’s relationship to Southside Towing?

In July of 2014, Peotter was cited by the City Clerk for accepting contributions in excess of the legal limit from persons associated with Woody’s Wharf restaurant. Why did Peotter then schedule a September, 2014 fundraiser at Woody’s and fail to report the expenses associated with that fundraiser until cited by a resident in 2015?  Peotter was later the deciding vote in reversing a prior decision on Woody’s Wharf and settling litigation on terms highly favorable to Woody’s. 

When it was clear that the public rejected Museum House, why did Peotter refuse to rescind the approvals of the project and why did he oppose efforts to require his campaign manager Dave Ellis to disclose his relationship with the project developer?

Peotter should provide clear and complete answers to the public or he should resign.

 Kristin M. Cano


Share this: