Amerige Court—How to Give Away Public Land for $500


Mid-Evil Circus Revival revival

Last December The Fullerton Redevelopment Agency approved yet another extension to Pelican, the hapless developer of the gigantic Amerige Court project downtown. Readers will recall that this project was approved in 2008 over the objections of hundreds of people who saw it for what it was, yet another cheap looking, insipid  copy of the retail/loft model that is supposed to revive downtowns.

This time the now unemployed redevelopment staff allowed the developer to plan to rent the housing units at first, even though when it was first approved years ago it was supposed to be all about classing up the area by inviting the landowning gentry to move in and stare down the lawless drunks of Fullerton’s bar culture.

So two months ago, despite several people speaking out against the fourth (!) amendment to the original agreement, and no one speaking in favor of it, the extension was granted. Bruce Whitaker and Sharon Quirk-Silva dissented, having had enough of developer excuses for why they haven’t been able to build anything, but Bankhead, McKinley, and Jones predictably went along with this giveaway of taxpayer owned land in the heart of the city.

Well, that was back before Redevelopment disappeared last week, so now they have to do it all over as the City Council tonight.

Show up to watch developer owned politicians try to give away your land once again, if you let them.

Last week we showed you why the Three Dinosaurs were so willing to perpetuate this disaster of a project.

When you take their money, you have to do their bidding. Besides, if you can give away public land to build a monstrous and unneeded architecturally appalling project that will add more traffic to the area and tear down some really old buildings to do it, why wouldn’t you? Especially when the half of the development partnership that’s still in business gives you $500 to keep you from being recalled?

More about ,

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

  1. #1 by Greg Sebourn on February 7, 2012

    Dick Hamm reminded the Council on November 15, 2011 that the City can purchase Pelican-Liang’s entitlements for under $1 million (letter dated September 21, 2011). Those are the same entitlements which the City has granted to Pelican-Liang through the agreement which will be voted on for an extension tonight.

    The City Council really must put this monstrosity out of its misery and decline another extension of their horrible agreement.

  2. #2 by Erin on February 7, 2012

    Must be nice to give everything away to your friends.

  3. #3 by Wrong Guy on February 7, 2012

    It’s simple when it costs YOU nothing.

  4. #4 by Johnny Donut on February 7, 2012

    I violently disagree with this project.

  5. #5 by karma on February 7, 2012

    The out going city council will want to screw the citizens of Fullerton just to spite tony….except for SSSSSSilva who needs tony’s supporters in her effort to climb the political trough and Whitaker who knows it isn’t right.

  6. #6 by The Fullerton Harpoon on February 7, 2012

    Jeez, domes and mansards? Isn’t there Design Review?

    Oh right!

  7. #7 by Fullerton Blight Boy on February 7, 2012

    That land is worth what, 7-8 million bucks.

    Heehaw, Bankhead, and McPension give it away for free.

    That’s robbery, pure and simple.

  8. #8 by Wrong Guy on February 7, 2012

    Johnny Donut :I violently disagree with this project.

    ROTFLMAO! Nice one JD.

  9. #9 by Tom Hanson on February 7, 2012

    I friggin hate these types of projects. THE REASON PEOPLE MOVE TO ORANGE COUNTY IS THAT THEY LIKE SPACE AND WANT TO AVOID FRIGGIN PLACES WERE EVERYTHING IS CRAMMED TOGETHER LIKE SAN FRANCISCO AND NEW YORK! You can go rent an apartment for about half of those lofts about a quarter of a mile away.

  10. #10 by Eric H. on February 7, 2012

    Mr. Sebourn, I’m a disabled senior, but I hope to watch you on TV slap the 3 idiot councilmen in the face with the letter from the developer that offers the city the option to buy back the city’s property!

    It’s weird to even think that these f-ing morons put the Fullerton residents in a position where the developer has the city over a barrel again.

  11. #11 by nipsey on February 7, 2012

    Someone should remind “Dick” Hamm that $5 and their “entitlement” can get you a venti latte at Starbucks.

    Redevelopment is dead, and P-L doesn’t have anything from the City that the City couldn’t take back for nothing, which it should.

  12. #12 by Fullerton Blight Boy on February 7, 2012

    If Redevelopment owns the property, the City will argue that’s it’s an enforceable obligation (it isn’t but truth never got in the way of Bankhead, Jones and McKinley).

    The Oversight Board and the Department of Finance may object to continuing these deals.

  13. #13 by Chapman1 on February 7, 2012

    Check out what is going on in Anaheim too. These cities can’t stop giving away sweetheart deals to developers that own council members.

  14. #14 by merijoe on February 7, 2012

    Wow, redevelopement is like alchohol was the money maker during prohibition

    Big $$, and, like the black market whiskey pushers, I bet those involved with redevelopment would stoop to any method, legal or not, to keep their cash flow.

  15. #15 by vw type 53a on February 7, 2012

    Fullerton Blight Boy :
    If Redevelopment owns the property, the City will argue that’s it’s an enforceable obligation (it isn’t but truth never got in the way of Bankhead, Jones and McKinley).
    The Oversight Board and the Department of Finance may object to continuing these deals.

    Pay close attention people. They are already trying to re-name the redevelopments. Just sayin’.

  16. #16 by Tuco Ramirez on February 7, 2012

    There is so much bs that goes on in Orange Co. politics! Not just redevelopment. I attended a council meeting in another North OC city where some famous stock brokerage and investment firm owned by some bank in Switzerland wanted the city to borrow a hundred million dollars to reinvest in something that paid like 1% more to clear around $3 or 4 million profit.
    Not having Pat McPension on the city council of that other city, they listened attentively and the mayor said, I speak for my fellow councilmembers, that seems like something that is illegal and crooked even if you say it is legal. They then politely asked the “bankers” to leave!
    In Fullerton, that would have passed just so they could get campaign donations from a new source. It truly is a culture of corruption that allows redevelopment and other government favors to flourish!

  17. #17 by vw type 53a on February 7, 2012

    vw type 53a :

    Fullerton Blight Boy :
    If Redevelopment owns the property, the City will argue that’s it’s an enforceable obligation (it isn’t but truth never got in the way of Bankhead, Jones and McKinley).
    The Oversight Board and the Department of Finance may object to continuing these deals.

    Pay close attention people. They are already trying to re-name the redevelopments. Just sayin’.

    Go Greg!!!

Comments are closed.