Attorney Dick Jones Spins Out New City Policy To Cover Posterior

He droned. And droned. And droned some more. When he was done his crapola lay before the City Council and public like the steaming load of road apples it was.

Well like they say, the road apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

YouTube Preview Image

Back in November City Attorney (Junior Grade) Tom Duarte had told the Planning Commission that their range of review on the ghastly Richman housing project did not include economic considerations. At Tuesday night’s city council meeting his boss, City Attorney Dick Jones, defended his boy by cooking up a line of nonsense about city “policy” precluding the Planning Commission from considering economic viability factors in its review of projects, even apparently a highly subsidized one like the Richman disaster-in-the-making. As you can see he keeps blathering on about “historic” roles and “prior direction” blah, blah, blah.

By the time of Tuesday’s meeting, even the city planning staff had admitted that there was nothing to preclude economic consideration by the commission. To the contrary, a detailed staff memo by city planner Al Zelinka documented the many instances where such review was not only appropriate, but required.  As expected, staff started waffling again at the meeting, but we already have it from them, in writing! We shared it with you here. Since the legal jig was up, Jones fell back on his lame-ass “policy” response.

And we challenge attorney Jones to point out exactly which council resolution(s) puts that alleged “policy” into effect. hell, go ahead and point out a single vote that established this policy. Go ahead, Mr. Jones. Do it. Enlighten us. Prove to us that you are not merely protecting the ill-advised action of your employee.

As an odd footnote,  Jones noted that Planning Commissions do review and advise on development disposition agreements. Which begs the question: on this highly subsidized housing project, why didn’t they?


More about , , , ,

  1. #1 by Dezhavoo on January 20, 2010

    Odderman, Barlow, Duarte, Jones… the list of city/agency attorneys lying to their clients grows.

    The lying is tolerated because it furthers staff interests and emasculates council & commissioneers who really don’t want any responsibility, anyway.

  2. #2 by havegunwilltravel on January 20, 2010

    The corruption of the Obama administration make the Fullerton Council look stellar in their conduct of municipal affairs.

  3. #3 by W. Hernandez on January 20, 2010

    Sharon Quirk-Silva is now consistent in her search for the truth, I wish others would follow. She took offense to being lied to. She showed courage standing up to the deceitful city attorney.

    Her idea to take the tainted project back to planning commission was the right and accountable thing to do. Go Sharon!

  4. #4 by Anonymous on January 21, 2010

    For a Dem, she does a pretty good job!

  5. #5 by van get it da artiste on January 21, 2010

    Under the auspices of Quirk-Silva, Jones, Keller and Bankhead, Fullerton redevelopment wrought havoc with its styrofoam architecture, tenements (condos) and 6 million dollar move of McDonalds a few feet from its original site. Obviously, the six million dollars netted only a vacant lot next to the steadfast McDonald’s hamburger joint. Gratitude should be directed towards Fullerton council member Shawn Nelson . Fullerton’s municipal leaders and its planning commisssion treat our tax dollars and our city as their private clubhouse. the voters need to vote out quick to change her mind if she senses its political enhancement of herself Quirk-Silva, Keller and her “political whatevers” collaborative , Doc Dick Jones and laughing all the way to the Bankhead.

  6. #6 by admin on January 21, 2010

    van, Quirk-Silva’s name does not belong in the same sentence with Jones, Keller and Bankhead.

    She can think for herself, she is independent, she is accountable to the Fullerton citizens and no longer to the city staff.

    May I please have your permission to strike her name from your comment?

  7. #7 by Sad, Sad, Sad on January 21, 2010

    Yup. You nailed it. Making up stuff to protect that Duarte clown who was no doubt just saying what he thought staff wanted to hear to get their “aye” vote from the PC.

    What strikes me as really funny is that nobody seems to have thought about another issue that the PC avoided by just sticking to “land use” issues- which is whether or not the Richman project is even congruent with the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan, or how it would address the real RHNA needs quota.

  8. #8 by Aggies or Steelies on January 21, 2010

    Would someone please ask Mr. Jones to remove those marbles from his mouth?

  9. #9 by van get it da artiste on January 21, 2010

    admin. you have been fair with most of the commentors on your blog site, so go ahead and strike quirk-silva’s name. but from prior anti-quirk-silva posts, why the change of heart?

  10. #10 by admin on January 21, 2010

    Van, 1st she changed her mind on the McDonalds boondoggle, then she voted against the bogus redevelopment expansion, and now she voted against the Richman housing boondoggle.

    I believe we have a “new” Sharon Quirk-Silva. it appears she has learned that staff has their own agenda, she has been forthright in admitting error, and seems to be accountable to the Fullerton voters and not the city staff. These are good qualities that we seek in our elected officials.

    Let’s hope she holds the city attorney accountable for the lie that help turn the Richman housing project into what I believe will become the biggest boondoggle in Fullerton redevelopment history.

    And Van, thank you for being a Friend!

  11. #11 by van get it da artiste on January 21, 2010

    your’e velcome. since quirk-silva has left the dark side of back room deals politics and entered the realm of enlightened representative government , will the Fullerton Observer no longer endorse her for city council member?

  12. #12 by Ralph Mouth on January 21, 2010

    The Observer will cut Quirk loose now that she is not a party line staff stooge. She’s free from the strangle hold of ignorance and stupidity.

  13. #13 by Bud Chaffee on January 22, 2010

    #12 you’re nuts Ralphie boy. She endorsed Heehaw, remember?

  14. #14 by van get it da artiste on January 22, 2010

    maybe doc hee haw doesn’t charge the editor, artist sharon kennedy for his doctor’s visits

Comments are closed.