Could Quirk Change Her Vote?


I would if I could, but "they" are telling me it's too late :(

Ms. Quirk, are you going to change your vote to spend 6 million in tax $ to move McD's 150'?

Sharon Quirk told me she was going to change her vote on the McD’s. She was disappointed in the way the staff presented no alternatives to leaving the McD’s at it’s current location. She has also told a good friend of ours the same story.

The $6 million McDonald’s move has become a community laughing stock. Even reporter Barbara Giasone, with a long record of fluffy features, ripped into the vote, and followed up with coverage of FHS student opposition.

burgers-and-books45735106Any council member voting for this is subject to an easy hit piece which could be the center of an opposition campaign. “Quirk / Keller and/or Bankhead spent $6 million of your tax dollars to move a McDonald’s 150 feet west–across the street from Fullerton High.” This issue will resonate with both fiscal conservatives (wasting $$) and social liberals (big corporate bail-out).

Changing your vote, Council Member Quirk, is the right thing to do. If you want the Fox project to succeed, put the money into the restoration, not to move a fast-food outlet!

The McDonald’s franchisee doesn’t want it. The high school administration doesn’t want it. And you can bet Fullerton voters aren’t going to like it when you get hit with it in the next election (same for Keller and Bankhead).

More about

Email This Post To A Friend Email This Post To A Friend

  1. #1 by martin b on June 24, 2009

    Can she really change her vote that easily? What kind of pressure will the staff put on her?

  2. #2 by admin on June 24, 2009

    Martin, Dick Jones changed his mind about the SRO project, first he turned it down, then 4 weeks later if was brought back to the council (under extreme staff pressure) and he voted for it, that simple! Staff has total control over “their” minds.

  3. #3 by The Commissioner on June 24, 2009

    Admin. This is probably a deal council is going to have to live with. Votes have a legal significance and the Frisbie family has the right to hold the council to its agreement. Heck, they have probably already cashed the check.

    It was a bad vote for Keller, Quirk and Blankhead but non are any more or less culpable than the other.

  4. #4 by Hilltopper on June 24, 2009

    Any vote can be reversed. But Commish is right about the $$$. Once it’s spent, it’s hard to get it back.

    The owners don’t want the deal, however, so why would they “hold the council to its agreement” when they never agreed in the first place?

    The $6 Million Burger will be an issue voters can easily understand. Easier than the hit pieces thrown at Flory, Wilson and Clesceri, all incumbents who LOST their 2nd term bids.

  5. #5 by just a guy on June 24, 2009

    Right on, Hilltopper. I have to think of it this way… we just spent $6 million to open up two city council seats in 2010 and one more in 2012.

  6. #6 by Jacaranda Jay on June 24, 2009

    Look for a Big Mac Attack piece. This will put some people’s campaigns in the deep frier. A real strawberry shake-up!

    Anything on the menu I missed? (They don’t have turkey, do they?)

  7. #7 by Sage of Skyline on June 24, 2009

    Seriously, this could be a real win-win-win-win for Quirk. 1) She looks studious and open-minded for changing her vote, 2) she easy onlineplaudits from FFFF, 3) she looks independent from staff, and 4) her reversal vote effectively SAVES taxpayers $6 million.

    True, she originally voted for it, but that’s done. By reversing herself, she can claim credit for saving us money.

    A mea culpa is a powerful tool. Nothing disarms your adversaries more than to admit you were wrong and then make it right. Just ask any husband!

  8. #8 by WestFulGuy on June 25, 2009

    Don’t forget our McDonald’s down here on Brookhurst, right across the street from Orangethorpe School. It works out fine. Of course, taxpayers didn’t hafta pay $6 million to put it there!

  9. #9 by The Commissioner on June 25, 2009

    Hilltopper:

    You have failed to understand what you heard from the “owner”. Mr. Frisbie said they didnt want to move (past tense) meaning it was not originally their idea. In other words, “we didnt come to the city with this idea, they came to us”.

    Fast forward to present and understand they have been made an offer they can not (and do not want to) refuse. The fact that it was not originally their idea has nothing to do with how nice it will be for them to now get a new building for free, built to their specs, and a corner location.

    There may have been a time when they didnt want to move but that time is not now. Any good business man knows when a deal is too god to pass up. The Frisbees are not an exception to this rule.

  10. #10 by Leagl Eagle on June 25, 2009

    Commish,

    All that may be true, but the Council can still pull out with little liability. Even if Frisbie sued, what are his damages? Maybe some out-of-pocket legal costs that could be easily reimbursed.

    To be a contract, there must be a “consideration.” At this point, Frisbie hasn’t really given up anything, so there are no damages to sue for. A one-sided contract isn’t really enforceable. I can promise to give you something free, but if I don’t follow through, what have you lost?

  11. #11 by Hilltopper on June 25, 2009

    Thanks for the back up, Eagle.

    Besides, the legal opinions given the council always support staff. Quirk needs independent counsel–not Odderman or Jones, who take their cues from Meyer and Zur Schmeide.

Comments are closed.