Two Coyote Hills Petitions Fail to Qualify


Two of the four referendum petitions for Coyote Hills have failed to qualify per the OC Registrar of Voters. These petitions would have put Chevron’s Coyote Hills development on the ballot in a future election.

The Friends of Coyote Hills had submitted four separate petitions to cover the specific plan, the general plan amendment, the development agreement and the zoning change. The remaining two petitions (zoning and development agreement) are still being counted.

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

  1. #1 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

    Why is the Registrar of Voters sending the information via fax? Would it be cost effective to send it by e-mail?

    Cut down the landline phone costs and save taxpayers $$!

    • #2 by Anna on September 27, 2011

      Don’t you know, fax line are MORE SECURE and IMPOSSIBLE to spoof!

      ….>_<

  2. #3 by Jt on September 27, 2011

    20% of signatures were invalid huh? Seems awfully high.

    • #4 by Fraud on September 27, 2011

      Fake signatures? Orchestrated by someone like the toad Jim Alexander, maybe?

      Just saying.’

      • #5 by Jt on September 27, 2011

        So, for the recall signatures, looks like we better get 25% over the minimum needed just to be safe.

        I wonder if there’s anyway to check the list of invalid signatures, see what’s going on there?

        • #6 by Anna on September 27, 2011

          In any petition gathering campaign, you gather way more than is necessary

  3. #7 by Anna on September 27, 2011

    Can someone give me a rundown of the Coyote Hills drama btw? I’m very confused as to who is who. And there’s like, savecoyotehills.com and opencoyotehills.com and I think they are opposing but I’m not sure?

  4. #10 by Allen on September 27, 2011

    Thank you FFFF – Finally something new for a change

    • #11 by Fraud on September 27, 2011

      Wrong. If the Coyote petitions fail you’re going to have seven thousand pissed off signers. Signers who will be only too happy punish the Tumescent Trio.

      • #12 by Jt on September 27, 2011

        Good point! This wil just feed the public’s anger and desire for change.

  5. #13 by Barry Levinson on September 27, 2011

    The last two petitions gathered approx. 2,000 more signatures than petition no. 1 and 2. Since the first two failed by less than 250 votes each, I suspect that 3 and 4 will have more than enough signatures to force the council to either rescind the last WCH vote or put it on the ballot for the voters to decide.

    Recall and W. Coyote Hills on the same ballot …….it could happen!

    • #14 by Fraud on September 27, 2011

      Barry, you are right about the next two petitions, but I don’t think the timing is going to work out right.

      As I see it the recall will probably take place with the June Primary and will not cost the City the huge amount that the idiot Blankhead is tossing out there.

  6. #15 by Chris Thompson on September 27, 2011

    For what it’s worth, Neil Kelly, the Orange County Registrar told me with a pretty high level of confidence that a typical good signature rate generated by volunteers is 73% to 75%. For strategic reasons I do not want to discuss what our intentions are, but suffice it to say we do not intend on falling short. What is most amazing is that the city pays the registrar $3.95 per signature for verification. I concur with Fraud. While I personally support the Coyote Hills project and find it to be about the only acceptable loss that I have to deal with in this recall, I believe the failure of those petitions help our cause. For me, support of Coyote Hills (meaning support of the project) will be a part of my decision for who to support in the election. However, that’s phase 2. None of it matters unless we recall these guys…which we will.

    • #16 by Snow Hume on September 27, 2011

      Dear Bloggers Barry Levinson and Chris Thompson,
      I think that one of the most significant political decisions that the Council there makes in recent history, will be the schedulings of the recall and referenda elections.
      When a specialty election is held and is NOT consolidated with a general election, such as a primary or November run-off election, then the chances of passage escalate tremendously. Many people vote in general elections, and never become aware of the specialty issues, no matter how much publicity there has been. [I know this from first-hand involvement in the first Recall, and the sort of polling data that we were getting all the way up to the election.]

      It is my impression that there is a large “anti-project” contingency who is activist and would definitely “make the trip” for a special election on the two referenda. Another large group is probably pro-project, but not very concerned and not activist, and not inclined to make a special trip to vote on the matter.
      The same is generally true of recalls, except that there will be a sizable portion of anti-recall activist voters. In any recall, such an anti-recall contingent is a fraction of the pro-recall activists, and a defeat of the recall usually depends upon the unaware voters, who generally vote to maintain a status quo.

      Needless to say, combining the two special elections is tantamount to assuring a victory for the recall. But dividing up the two elections may have worse consequences– and elections-litigation might well successfully prohibit it.

      So the ruling interests must buy a lot of polling data, in order to properly engineer a process to maintain the status quo. Right now they, like the reformers, must await the outcomes of the qualifications-testing for the various petitions.

      The law of recall requires that a recall continue, coupled with a replacement election, even if the target of the recall resigns or is otherwise removed. Then, the recent appointees will run in the replacement election, with the advantage of the taxpayer-funded-campaign-advertisement which we call the “ballot designation”. It will read: “Incumbent”, or perhaps, after elections-litigation, “Appointed Incumbent”. [In states with a healthy turnover of politicians, there are no "ballot designations".] So please mark my words, part of the Rulers’ strategy might well be to get one or more of the targets of recall to resign, so that the remaining Council can appoint a successor. Replacement appointments of all three could be done in series, you know.

      The second, and most important task, is to “Balkanize” the reform constituencies. Thus, if the replacement election has candidates who are Pro-Reform and “anti-project”, but also candidates who are Pro-Reform and “Pro-Project”, then an Establishment candidate, or bloc of candidates, who or that is Anti-Reform can make it in, because of the division of the votes.

      In the Recall Replacement election in fall, 1994, Jacob Spaargaren had the Recall Committee support for the 2-year seat. Dave Zenger had the Norby-endorsement for the same seat. The two split up the Reform vote. It is true that, the combined votes of the two would not have surpassed what Peter Godfrey received, but it is also true that the resources were split up, and the united synergy was lacking. As it turned out, I shamed State Senator Lewis into pressuring Godfrey (through the Senator’s then-staffer, Linda LeQuire) to vote to repeal the tax, after Godfrey initially balked. So we got rid of that Utility Tax.

      And, once again, an oil company’s development of a large piece of Coyote Hills land looms in the background. Back then it was Union Oil of California. Now, it is Standard Oil of California AKA Chevron. They are going to need to not only try to defeat the referenda election, but they will need to “install” councilmembers who will support their plan. They will have candidates who will trick and “con” the anti-Project constituency into voting for them. If you want an explanation of how this is done — it is called the “Godfrey Maneuver” — just ask on this Blogsite, and I can lay it out for you.

      Boy, this is going to be high political drama! The coalescence of two, separately-arising divisive ballot issues. Too bad we couldn’t add the Water Rate Increase as a means to add Third-Dimensional-Complexity!!

      You all are doing great down there in Fullerton. Keep up the good work!

      • #17 by admin on September 27, 2011

        Snow, the Water Rate is a key part of the Recall platform. Not a sensational as the out of control, murderous police force, but almost as reckless in its own way.

        P.S. Godfrey Maneuver? Yeah, old Peter was pretty damn useless. Still around, too. I’ve had fun speculating if The Old Guard might run a slate of candidates in a recall or put all their money on a defeat vote.

        I remember the Cruz Bustamante campaign slogan: vote no on recall but vote for me.

        • #18 by admin on September 27, 2011

          I should say the Water Rate AND the illegal 10%utility tax on water masquerading as an in-lieu fee.

  7. #19 by Allen on September 27, 2011

    Chris Thompson for City Council!!!!

    Now thats a laugh!!!! :D

  8. #20 by thnkfstpal on September 27, 2011

    I just wanted to know what you guys n gals thought about the idea that “saving” Coyote Hills would in fact violate private property rights of the land owner. I am no fan of Chevron but I was thinking if we violate their property rights whats to stop organizations to violate MY property rights.

    I am also very skeptical about the “Save Coyote Hills” being supported (funded) by the Rockefeller organization The Sierra Club. Being that the elite families control Chevron as well as the Sierra Club and other “green” central planning organizations could this be a “false flag” type of event to set the precedent for violating peoples property rights in the name of “zoning” and “endangered” species.

    I’m open to your thoughts.

    • #21 by Snow Hume on September 27, 2011

      Some historical trivia: Old Man “J.D. Jr.” visited Yellowstone with his 6 kids, and then he went and bought up all the land from local ranchers, in some cases paying “too much”. Then he gave it to the United States government, on condition that it be made into a national park or monument.
      I recollect that he did this six other times, for less well-known wilderness areas. He personally subsidized various advocates for the National Park system.
      In order to not appear too charitable, he would tell the media that he was doing it, so that people would drive to these national parks and buy his petroleum products to do so. But he really was scared that the exotic wilderness areas would be lost, if no one acted. He was very, very clear about his place in history, and felt that he had a duty.
      And that tells you a lot about why the Rockefellers historically supported the Sierra Club, and a few other organizations like it.
      WSH

      • #22 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

        I think the Standard Oil monopoly man and eugenics researcher John D bought the forests and gave it to government in or to ingratiate himself to the people when at the time people were loathe to the Rockefeller family as a whole. This bought the Rockefeller clan more crediblity when it came time to legislate monopolies by buying off politicians. If billionaire’s wanted to land grab and violate peoples property rights what better way to ensure cover but by selling yourself as a concerned enviromentalist.

    • #23 by Anna on September 27, 2011

      Right wing paranoia. You think you have the same rights as corporations? Laff and a half, if this was about your personal property it would have just been taken, no precedant from anything needed.

      • #24 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

        Isn’t that MORE reason to protect everyones property rights? Zoning and endangered species is just another name for restricting peoples property rights.

        • #25 by Anna on September 27, 2011

          Everyone, perhaps, but not everything. I do not personally believe the Citizens United ruling was anything close to appropriate for a society that isn’t out of it’s flipping mind.

          • #26 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

            Well i understand the corporations have the same rights as people argument and agree its hogwash. That being said, currently they DO have those rights and if we violate their rights our rights will and have been violated. Change starts within, with you.

      • #27 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

        Chevron is standard oil (Rockefeller) and save coyote hills (sierra club rockefeller UN) same people playing both sides????

    • #28 by truthseeker on September 27, 2011

      I owned a home a number of years ago that backed up to the Robert Ward nature preserve. There would be people out there shooting guns in the middle of the night. No kidding. It was full of snakes and coyotes. Heck we even had snakes in our garage, coming out of gopher holes in the back yard. Quite an experience. Bottom line is if done properly, The property can be developed and people, families kids and pets can live here and play and go to school and grow up in Fullerton where the air is decent and it doesnt hit 110 everyday in the summer. The park will be full of trails and right now no one can enjoy the land except for the partiers and critters. I was in a plane a couple of weeks ago and there is empty land from here to kingdom come with no end in sight. Property rights are something we take for granted. There is NO shortage of empty space out there. Agenda 21

      • #29 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

        I agree. Respect property rights and let standard oil build homes that wont be purchased. They will lose big time and have to sell the property anyway.

        • #30 by nipsey on September 27, 2011

          They have property rights, the land is zoned for oil extraction and they can extract to their heart’s content. Done and done.

          • #31 by Johnny Donut on September 27, 2011

            On that note, it would be a real bummer if you pissed off the wrong person and your house suddenly became zoned for dirt farming.

          • #32 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

            Zoning is the property rights version of a George W. Bush Free Speech Zone. You can say whatever you want, as long as it’s done the way we like it.

          • #33 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

            Isn’t a zoning a violation of property rights also? I would hate to be zoned to the point I couldn’t build a pool or have a edible garden in front of my house. Oh wait, thats happening all over America. Isn’t zoning a violation of our rights as well?

  9. #34 by My Username Rocks on September 27, 2011

    Forgive me if this sounds silly but is Fullerton residency a prerequisite of voting/signing the recall petition?

    • #35 by The Fullerton Harpoon on September 27, 2011

      yes

  10. #36 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

    SO NOW THE LIGHT SHINE,S In dark place,s thanks to the good people of fullerton.GOD BLESS !!!

  11. #37 by Caroline on September 27, 2011

    Signature gatherers were blatantly, lying, too, saying that signing would help give us this huge, beautiful park. I’m sure some uninformed voters thought, “What could be bad about that?”

    • #38 by nipsey on September 27, 2011

      What could be bad about it, besides Chevron not being able to build homes concurrent with extracting gas and oil. Boo hoo.

      • #39 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

        What could be bad about it? Setting the precedent to violate all and anyones private property rights.

        Same as protecting the free speech of others you dont agree with. To protect your own.

        • #40 by Anon on September 27, 2011

          The more property you own, and the more drastic the changes you intend to make to it, the more it becomes other people’s business as to what you do with your property. RIght or wrong, one main argument against developing Coyote Hills is that it will unfairly impact other people living near that area.

          So for your individual home/yard, I agree you should be able to do more or less what you like. More or less meaning it still isn’t like you could build a missile silo or asbestos factory or something in your back yard. And that’s good, right?

          • #41 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

            Chevron isn’t building a missle silo though. They want to build homes that no one will buy. Let them build and take the loss.

            The fact is local cities zoning laws have gotten out of control to the point that its hurting local and small business everywhere. Meanwhile big box stores get zoning waivers left and right.

            Zoning is used as a tool by big business and local crony city councils to pick winners and losers in local marketplaces and private residences.

  12. #42 by Anon on September 27, 2011

    http://chevrontoxico.com/news-and-multimedia/2011/0921-wikileaks-cables-expose-chevron-lobbying-of-ecuador-government-to-kill-environmental-case.html

    http://ccrjustice.org/bowoto

    So much for “the free market” and “private property rights.” This company will murder, pillage and despoil just to make more profits. They’ve done it in Nigeria and Ecuador for decades.

    • #43 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

      I agree anon. Chevron is pretty bad. So does that mean because they violate peoples property rights we should violate theirs?

      That would seem to go against my issue of protecting MY private property rights. Chevron is an arm of the rockefller family just like the save coyote hills sierra club doesn’t that strike you as odd?

  13. #44 by nipsey on September 27, 2011

    Anonymous :
    Zoning is the property rights version of a George W. Bush Free Speech Zone. You can say whatever you want, as long as it’s done the way we like it.

    I think it’s more like liberty but not license.

  14. #45 by nipsey on September 27, 2011

    Johnny Donut :
    On that note, it would be a real bummer if you pissed off the wrong person and your house suddenly became zoned for dirt farming.

    I can only hope it would be zoned for magic pony tree orchard

  15. #46 by Anon on September 27, 2011

    Anonymous :Well i understand the corporations have the same rights as people argument and agree its hogwash. That being said, currently they DO have those rights and if we violate their rights our rights will and have been violated. Change starts within, with you.

    Right you are, except that in this particular case, and with this particular company, its like giving those rights to a very, very wealthy and powerful psychopathic homicidal maniac with a book-length rap sheet.

    • #47 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

      So you are advocating violating chevrons private property rights because they are murderers?

      It would seem your issue is perhaps misdirected then?

    • #48 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

      Bottom line is by trying to petition to violate the rights of Chevron you are petitioning for someone to violate your rights and my rights as well. Do you understand that?

      You are cutting your nose to spite your face.

      • #49 by Anon on September 27, 2011

        No, because I reject the argument and reasoning that corporations are people. And even though I generally agree on private property rights, there are sometimes other considerations. Want me to move next door to you and convert my property into a nuclear waste dump? Didn’t think so. Private property rights are very important but not the only consideration.

        • #50 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

          There are other considerations sometimes. This is not one of those times. Chevron is not building a nuclear waste dump.

        • #51 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

          Do you understand though that precedent WILL have been set and it WILL BE used against your friends and neighbors to violate their private property rights if your petition passes

          • #52 by nipsey on September 27, 2011

            I’m sorry, you think this is an unprecedented, potentially precedent setting matter? If you run you might be able to catch back up to the turnip truck.

  16. #53 by Anon on September 27, 2011

    Anonymous :Chevron isn’t building a missle silo though. They want to build homes that no one will buy. Let them build and take the loss.
    The fact is local cities zoning laws have gotten out of control to the point that its hurting local and small business everywhere. Meanwhile big box stores get zoning waivers left and right.
    Zoning is used as a tool by big business and local crony city councils to pick winners and losers in local marketplaces and private residences.

    I agree with your last two paragraphs. On the specifics with Chevron, I think North OC’s wildlife would benefit more from protected open space than anybody will benefit from Chevron’s plan to build houses, which as you say, nobody wants. Call me a treehugger. Its been said before. Good argument though and happy to agree to disagree.

    • #54 by Anonymous on September 27, 2011

      Im a tree hugger, people hugger, you name it I hug it.

      Cheers!!

  17. #55 by Dick Tabaccy Road Jones on September 27, 2011

    nipsey :
    I’m sorry, you think this is an unprecedented, potentially precedent setting matter? If you run you might be able to catch back up to the turnip truck.

    Ah shore nuff do love me some turnips!

    • #56 by Fred Alcazar on September 27, 2011

      ‘N spiky coocumbahs, too!

  18. #57 by CD on September 27, 2011

    Hey Chris,

    I’m right there with you on most issues.

    However I think a good chunk of Fullerton has been conned by labeling the Coyote Hills development a “p roperty rights” issue.
    Unfortunately this is a term designed to elicit a knee jerk reaction from most conservatives.

    The fact is, the Coyote Hills development is not a property rights issue, it is unfortunately a zoning issue.

    While we can debate the fairness or intrusiveness of zoning regulations ad nauseam, the property is currently zoned for oil and gas extraction, and is not zoned as residential.

    At all times parties to this debate should be mindful that Chevron and it’s predecessors were never denied their rights to use the land as zoned, and did so quite profitably for the better part of the 20th century.

    I apologize for the following analogy, but it clearly defines the case here.

    Picture Chris Thompson’s home in the middle of the block in a nice quiet residential neighborhood in Fullerton. His neighbors on each side have lived in their homes for over 40 years each. Over the years, both neighbors raised their children and families in those homes. But now due to their advanced age and physical limitations, neither needs multi-bedroom homes with yards and lawns, etc.
    Each decides to leave the neighborhood and move to a retirement community. However, neither neighbor wants to sell their property. Chris’ neighbor to the left wants to tear down his house and open a 24 hour Gas Station and his neighbor on the right wants to tear down his house and open a 24 hour convenience store.
    By allowing the neighbors a zoning variance, from residential to one allowing the businesses, the City might ultimately generate more tax revenue. But, since the change in zoning would ultimately have a net negative effect on the block, neighborhood and community, the request for a variance must be denied.
    Is this too a property rights issue?

    Perhaps 20, 30 or 40 years ago Fullerton could have benefited from a zoning change for the Chevron property, but now? We have chronic water shortages, budget shortfalls, school funding issues, etc.

    As in the case of Chris Thompson’s residential block above, the net negatives of the Coyote Hills development outweigh the property owners desire for a zoning variance, and it should be denied on the same grounds.

    However, if the City was to attempt to stop Chevron from extracting oil and gas from their property, that would be a HUGE property rights issue, and I’d be right there besides you defending Chevron’s property rights.

    cd

    • #58 by Jt on September 27, 2011

      Actually, that is not a bad analogy!

  19. #59 by Sal on September 28, 2011

    Any of you who signed the petition circulated at the Ralphs on harbor better get life lock or some Identity protection. Some of the “collectors” were actually collecting signatures to obtain credit cards.

    • #60 by Larry T on September 28, 2011

      I call BS. Prove it Sal!

  20. #61 by nipsey on September 29, 2011

    Yeah, and they were also Al Quaida! And goblins, who will steal your kids!

    • #62 by Anonymous on September 29, 2011

      The question still remains. Chevron and the Sierra Club have intertwining histories. This is fact. It seems they are playing bith sides for some reason.

      “we can argue zoning all day” really? No we can’t. Zoning is a tool used by crony capitalists to pick winners and losers in local free markets. Period.

  21. #63 by Anonymous on September 29, 2011

    “your not zoned for a garden, you’re nkt zoned for a water stand” you need a permit to sell hot dogs, you need a permit to hang a sign, you’re not zoned for a garage sale”

    Enough!! No more local big gov. Permits and zoning are a well meaning idea but just as always they go out of control and start infringing on freedom, everytime. Wake up America.

Comments are closed.