Redevelopment Hustlers Undermine Own Credibility on Expansion Plan


Loyal Friends, on June 16th the city council again demonstrated why the process behind selecting the boundaries of the proposed expansion area are almost completely arbitrary. The council voted 3-1 to remove 7 selected properties from the area.

kids donkey 3300407850_3670652f0e

The criteria employed in the deselection are these:

  • the properties are on boundaries,
  • they are not necessary
  • and the owners simply ask to be removed.

Now some cynical folks might surmise that these exclusions were just done to shut people up,  including former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer, in fact we have already suggested that very same thought.

42-17157553

What is inescapable is the conclusion that if these 7 properties are not necessary than they never should have been included in the first place. How many haphazard lines drawn on a consultant draft table include non-blighted properties?  The statistics presented by the lone dissenting vote, Shawn Nelson suggest very many  indeed.

We suspect the city staff and their consultant are pursuing an age old strategy:  grab all you can, get, and then hang on to as much of it as you can.

squirrel1129

More about ,

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

  1. #1 by Terry O. on July 2, 2009

    We live in West Fullerton, and this is my first time on your blog, I like the way you explain things. I’m having trouble understanding why this redevelopment government agency is allowed to expand without a vote of the people, please explain? My neighborhood is not blighted and we love Kimmie’s and that’s not blighted, what’s up with this blighted property stuff?

  2. #2 by WestFulGuy on July 2, 2009

    The blight’s a joke and the staff knows it. They’re letting everyone out who even knows about this to forstall lawsuits.

    Somebody tell the rest of these landowners before it’s too late–and their properties get “assembled” by some developer.

  3. #3 by Anonymous on July 2, 2009

    Have you posted a map of the proposed area? Would be helpful.

  4. #5 by DontBlightMeBro on July 3, 2009

    California’s extremely gerrymandered legislative districts have nothing on the proposed West Fullerton area expansion! Take a look at these maps! This is nothing less than a power grab to control most of these privately owned properties. Will some of these property owners stand up for their rights and demand to be excluded from this farce?

  5. #6 by Diana on July 7, 2009

    I live in west Fullerton, in this area. I have seen it deteriorate over the last 10 years of my residence. Nowhere else in Fullerton looks as bad as the Orangethorpe/Brookhurst/Gilbert area. These private-current property owners are doing nothing but bringing down our neighborhood. Empty shopping centers and 99 cents stores bring down my property value! I say buy it up and put in something that serves me better while increasing my property value.

  6. #7 by Hank Mason on July 7, 2009

    Diana :
    I live in west Fullerton, in this area. I have seen it deteriorate over the last 10 years of my residence. Nowhere else in Fullerton looks as bad as the Orangethorpe/Brookhurst/Gilbert area. These private-current property owners are doing nothing but bringing down our neighborhood. Empty shopping centers and 99 cents stores bring down my property value! I say buy it up and put in something that serves me better while increasing my property value.

    Diana, listen to what you are saying, it’s obvious that you have no respect for private property rights, you sound like a communist, “let the government help us because we are too weak and stupid”. There is nothing wrong with a 99 cent store. I like them and so does Dick Jones. Ask him if you don’t believe me. There are empty spaces all around Fullerton, you must believe that the city should condemn all stores that are vacant or that you don’t like and put in Macy’s or Nordstrom’s in every one, don’t you? I bet you work for the Chamber of Commerce?

Comments are closed.