Chevron vs. Fullerton


I’ll keep this simple.  Chevron is a lowlife among corporate miscreants.  A dark oilstain on the free market; a corrupted, taxpayer-subsidized payoff and extortion specialist with expertise in despoiling the globe and bullying anyone who challenges them.  They are responsible for disastrous oils spills and damages to EcuadorBrazilNigeria and elsewhere, resulting in loss of life and mind-boggling environmental devastation.  They have also been implicated for human rights abuses in despotic states such as Burma. Even by oil company standards, they kinda suck.

Now, you might say, sure, they’re the bottom-feeders of transnational corporate-oil-trash, and probable warmongers (with a tanker named “The Condoleeza Rice”) but still, what about their property rights?  Good question. Let’s look at Ecuador, where Chevron fouled other people’s property so much that they lost an $18 billion judgment in court.  You violate others’ property rights, you pay.  Unless you’re Chevron. Refusing to pay, they instead filed suit against the indigenous people of Ecuador and their lawyer for racketeering.  Pollute, deny, avoid, bully.  That’s Chevron’s way of handling your demand for the fair treatment of YOUR property rights.

We respect all property rights. Except yours.

So here’s a company with NO respect for property rights, including ours in the US.  In Richmond CA they were recently placed under criminal investigation for intentionally routing pollution around sensors. Pollution that travels into people’s homes and makes them sick. But even psychopaths are guaranteed property rights.  Well fine, they can have their property rights. After all, nobody is trying to seize their property and they can keep drilling for oil and gas as long as they want.  But their property rights to land zoned for oil and gas drilling do not give them the right to build 700 homes on it and call it a park, any more than I have a right to say … open a public Gin-bar on my porch and call it a rehab center.

Mind if I park my oil rig here? “Park.” Get it?

Speaking of everybody’s favorite cocktail base, guess who among our fine crop of candidates supports Yes on W? None other than purported “liberal” and breastfeeding advocate Jan Flory. Evidently police union support and vapid Facebook posts are insufficient resources to counter her well-deserved shortage of voter appeal. So might as well hit up Chevron.

If Chevron’s plan was really in the public interest, would it be necessary to spend $1.3 million dollars in cash on trying to secure the vote? Some befuddled citizens and politicians are agog with the prospect of the oil-soaked carrots being dangled by the plunderous petroleum-peddling plutocrats. Fullerton teachers are particularly ginned up by the prospect of a “Nature Center” they can plan worthless field trips to, where students can learn all about what caving in to special interests looks like as they try to locate the scant vegetation popping up between the expensive and potentially PCB-laced tract homes. The bribe offered to the Fullerton School District (“free money! Gimme!”), as well as the greed of the non-profit moneygrabbing sector shows special interests only too willing to trade their “green” integrity for a little bit of the other green Chevron bilks from the US taxpayer. The fact is however, that city analyses indicate no major new revenue coming in from this development. The schools get some cash, greatly offset in the long-term by having to serve even more students. Nobody else basically gets a dime.

You like me! You really like me!

Greenwashed Yes on W ads are all over the place – on Youtube, Facebook, email, via phone call – everywhere but in most people’s yards since the average citizen has an instinctive sense not to trust professional grifters. They realize that Measure W is a joke. No real park compared to what is possible, just a few lonely ditches surrounding the concreting of North Orange County’s last open space, an already existing park, and a “Nature Center.” Unneeded houses on contaminated oil-lands. Traffic. Dangerous and toxic air pollution (a Chevron specialty) and infrastructural, water, and education costs to a city that can ill afford them. “But think about the children! Doesn’t anybody care about the children?”

Yes, we care about the damn children. Some of us even have some and would like to leave them a bit of undeveloped nature as a legacy. We’ll be saying no to the oil plutocracy’s local con job. No on W!

Now sue me, Chevron.

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

  1. #1 by nipsey on October 26, 2012

    “Speaking of everybody’s favorite cocktail base, guess who among our fine crop of candidates supports Yes on W? None other than purported “liberal” and breastfeeding advocate Jan Flory. ”

    Ahem, she ain’t the only one.

    • #2 by Greg Diamond on October 27, 2012

      Flory, Whitaker, Kiger, Bartholomew, Fitzgerald, and Bankhead, all of whom received contributions from Chevron, are supporters of Measure W.

      Fullertonista, this is a great story and OJB would be hapy to republish it with your consent. You could even deal directly with Vern rather than me if you prefer.

      • #3 by Greg Diamond on October 27, 2012

        Thanks: Fullertonista’s masters, is it OK?

        (Clearly you’ve escaped the hive mind on this one, because Travis and I believe Tony as well both favor measure W.)

        • #4 by Anonymous on October 27, 2012

          The only thing hive-like here is your big, fat queen bee ass.

          • #5 by Joe Sipowicz on October 27, 2012

            Some anonymous dude for the win.

          • #6 by cg on October 27, 2012

            lol

        • #7 by Greg Diamond on October 28, 2012

          Aww, you took away Sista Nista’s comment where she said it was OK with her if it was OK with “her masters” on the site. Dirty pool!

          • #8 by The Fullertonista on October 28, 2012

            “Masters” was ironic and I’ve never heard Tony say anything is support of W.

  2. #9 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

    Well done.

  3. #10 by Tuco Ramirez on October 26, 2012

    In a city not far from Fullerton, Texaco owned a 145 acre site and wanted to sell it for $60,000,000 (in 20 years ago $$). Residents from the city said, not unless you clean it up first, hire consultants who will take soil samples on a set pattern to make certain it really is cleaned up. And by the way, add a $2,000,000 drainage pump and a 6 acre park.
    Well, Texaco spent the entire sale price to clean the 145 acres by stripping the top 15 to 20 feet of soil off the entire property.
    I am not certain what is the matter with Fullerton residents, but if nearby cities can get oil and oil product soaked properties cleaned up then so can Fullerton! Get some cujones Fullertonistas and you tell Chevron what to do. Not Chevron run the city! About 20 concerned citizens at city council meetings is all it takes. You want cleaned up park lands, tested to be clean, not take their word. You need independent lab tests done, and paid by Chevron. Wake up before its too late and you wonder why the kids living in those 700 houses have birth defects, cancer and all those other nasty environmental diseases!

  4. #11 by greg COSTCO HOTDOG EATING diamond on October 26, 2012

    its got techron

  5. #12 by Frank on October 26, 2012

    Here’s another example of Chevron bullying to add to your list.

  6. #13 by Coyote Lover on October 26, 2012

    I’ll keep this simple. It IS a private property rights issue, regardless of who owns the property. Measure W is about the development agreement that was arrived at after many years of negotiations with all stakeholders. I suggest you review the impressive list of supporters, including Jack Dean, President of our Fullerton Assoc. of
    Concerned Taxpayers. The benefits package to the City is VERY generous. Go ahead and be mad at Chevron, but don’t let your stupidity deny us of the benefits we’re getting with this deal. Fenced in nature with invasive plants that are choking out the natural habitat and increasing fire hazards is not going to benefit anyone who want to “save it for a nature park”. We ARE getting a nature park. This is the ONLY way we’re going to save the nature AND we’ll be able to access it. So get over the fact that it’s owned by Chevron and don’t deny the City of all of the benefits that a YES on W will bring.

    • #14 by nipsey on October 26, 2012

      Blah blah blah. Jack Dean is a compulsive corporate & developer shill – I’m sure you can relate – whose notions of property rights (the “right” to a zoning change while retaining all your mineral rights to cintinue to extract oil and gas, how delightful!) are only slightly less comical than Chris Thompson’s Celestial Cone of Rights.

      • #15 by Coyote Lover on October 26, 2012

        Nipsey, you’re clueless. Just because they retain the rights to extract doesn’t mean they can. It’s no longer zoned for oil and gas! Most of our title policies for the homes we live in have much of the same retained rights. Seven out of the twelve candidates running for Council support the measure, Kiger and Whitaker, among them. The opposition is the minority of Fullerton using scare tactics, running an emotional campaign, using children (clueless to what they’re speaking about) as speakers at Council meetings…real nice. The YES campaign is simply using facts. Blah, blah, blah to this post.

        • #16 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

          Oh really, seven now? I must have missed who that donation went to. I only saw six of them on the Chevron campaign contributors list. Who did I miss?

          Ah, here we go with the scare tactics. This sounds like more bologna from you know who.

          Get a dictionary and look up the term. While you’re there, look up astroturfing and greenwashing.

          I can’t believe you just insulted those high school kids at the last council meeting. You’re really going to talk campaign ethics? You mentioned a long list of endorsers. At least those kids who spoke their peace had real names and actually supported the cause they represent. You can’t say the same about your list.

          Take your bologna somewhere else. We ain’t buyin.

        • #17 by Anonymous on October 26, 2012

          Using scare tactics? Richmond going up in flames is a fact. The only reason Chevron is willing to provide a “special” fire truck is because there is a difference between a gas fire and a brush fire. Also providing the city with a bill of goods on speculation is insane. We have nature parks all throughout our city; connecting everything with a cement trail is not worth the pollution, excavating, and invisible money. You are right about one thing, after reading this post and the writer only pointing out Flory; your opine I felt the same way. Blah is the best way to describe both of your attitudes towards the real issue frightens me – you cannot see past your own hand.

        • #18 by nipsey on October 27, 2012

          Moron, Chevron maintains mineral rights for the property and own a lot of adjacent properties from which they can do their extraction. Slant drilling. They’re going to drink your milshake!

          • #19 by Hippocrates on October 27, 2012

            Except in this case it’s more of a blended gin-based fruity cocktail.

      • #20 by James Carville on October 29, 2012

        What is with this “Celestial Cone of Rights?”

    • #21 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

      This is just absolute bologna.

      The deal isn’t generous at all! We’re getting a bunch of toys we don’t need — all of which Chevron is obligated to provide either through existing laws or through physics. The benefits that are tangible (i.e., cash) outstrip their value in a few years, after which the taxpayer will be obligated to assume the long-term burden.

      It’s a bad deal any way you slice it.

      This has nothing to do with property rights and if WCH is such a big damn fire hazard, declare the space a public nuisance and condemn the property. Chevron is obligated to keep their property in order and if they aren’t doing it, it’s hardly a reason to grant them corporate welfare relief. Next to property rights, that’s about the stupidest damn argument you could possibly fabricate. That meth lab is a fire hazard! We better give them a quarter million so they can install some fire sprinklers!

      There are plenty of ways to preserve the space– one of which is to do nothing and hold Chevron to their existing obligations to clean up their mess.

      If you want to throw down the “private property rights” card, fine– be prepared to back it up. The only thing Chevron is entitled to build in WCH is an oil well.

      • #22 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

        Yep. Lots of talk about property rights from a company with zero regard for property right. Love the meth lab analogy.

    • #23 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

      “Nature Park” – what a joke. I’ve looked at the maps. An enormous housing project plus shopping mall is what is NEW about the project. You might fool a few shut-ins with your constant barrage of disinformation but the ratio of No to Yes signs around town indicates the reality you’re facing come election day. Now try to scare us some more.

      • #24 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

        Anyone can put a sign up. You think people really pay attention to that crap? All it is, is legalized littering!

        • #25 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

          Chevron does. $1.5MM and counting. Thanks for pointing that “littering”.

    • #26 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

      “Go ahead and be mad at Chevron, but don’t let your stupidity deny us of the benefits we’re getting with this deal. Fenced in nature with invasive plants that are choking out the natural habitat and increasing fire hazards is not going to benefit anyone who want to “save it for a nature park”.

      Suggesting that plants are going to be more of a fire hazard than over 700 homes and 1500 vehicles and an additional 2,000 residents is just plain stupid.

      The Fullerton Fire Department recently was asked whether or not they had ever had a call for service on this property and the Fire Chief reported back that there has NEVER been a fire or call for fire services at Coyote Hills.

      What your engaging in is “fear/fire mongering”.

    • #27 by YES on W on October 28, 2012

      BRAVO Coyote Lover. All these tree huggers do not understand if this was turn into a nature preserve, Fullerton would have to hire more people to take care of it. Like this city needs another reason to add more people to the their budget collecting high pensions off the sweat of the residence. I say if these people want the park, let them pay for the cost, NOT me!

      • #28 by nipsey on October 28, 2012

        Well at least you’ve acknowledged the obvious, that what Chevron is proposing is not a nature preserve. Baby steps.

        • #29 by YES on W on October 28, 2012

          Great way of twisting my words nipsey. You must be a Democrat.

          • #30 by nipsey on October 28, 2012

            How did I twist your words, by repeating them? You must be an idiot.

            • #31 by The Fullertonista on October 28, 2012

              Well, that was apparent from the the first words it typed.

            • #32 by Fullerton Lover on October 28, 2012

              “Residence” as opposed to “residents” should’ve tipped your hand Nipsey as to whether or not Yes on W’s intellect might be in question.

              Baby steps.

              • #33 by YES on W on October 28, 2012

                Mark, is that all you got? Grow up pill popper.

                • #34 by Fullerton Lover on October 28, 2012

                  Not exactly the sharpest pencil in the box are you?

                  Would you prefer dullard?

                • #35 by The Fullertonista on October 28, 2012

                  “Pill popper” huh? We probably should be nicer to the 95 year old blue hair.

            • #36 by YES on W on October 28, 2012

              nipsey, look in the mirror.

              • #37 by nipsey on October 28, 2012

                I did, I am hot.

  7. #38 by Chicken on October 26, 2012

    Having a home is too expensive.
    Working too much for too little is maddening
    Let the coyotes and hawks have some space.
    Cheveron has enough.

  8. #39 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

    All of you who oppose W, obviously haven’t a clue of the ramifications YOU are causing Fullerton. Chevron owns the land and they have a RIGHT to build the homes. Keep trying to push Chevron, and Fullerton will be sued to the fullest extent of the law. Then all of YOU WILL be whining and crying because YOU forced this city into further debt then it’s already in!

    • #40 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

      Yeah, they’ll sue. I’ve seen their complaint. It’s suitable for toilet paper, that’s about it.

      They don’t have a right to build homes. More bologna.

      • #41 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

        Then they will keep a fence around it with No Trespassing signs. Winner, Winner Chicken Dinner! What an idiot.

        • #42 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

          Eventually they’ll sell, since keeping the land forever with no possible of being able to develop it would not be very smart.

          • #43 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

            Chevron WILL prevail with or without it. Jeez, you really don’t get it do you?

            • #44 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

              Then you really don’t have too much to be upset about if W doesn’t pass. Relax a little.

              If they do prevail (and they won’t), we still get all the free goodies.

              • #45 by Coyote Lover on October 26, 2012

                Wrong, Cantor, we don’t get all of the “goodies” if it doesn’t pass.

                • #46 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

                  Yeah, we do. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

            • #47 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

              I get that you are a corporate shill for Chevron. YES.

              • #48 by YES on W on October 28, 2012

                You couldn’t be more wrong in that statement Fullertonista. I am a long time home owner in this city and this county. Believe me when I say this; Chevron could care less about this blog. Their too busy making sure your gas guzzling SUV has enough fuel to get you from home to the grocery store and back again every week. They own the property, NOT YOU! If you own property, you should understand. Take anyone’s right away to sell to who they want just opens up a can a worms you can’t handle. It’s apparent you do not have a logical bone in your body.

                • #49 by nipsey on October 28, 2012

                  Yes that’s right, they own it – and it’s zoned for oil and gas, which then can extract to their heart’s content.

                  As a property owner I am aware that I cannot have a place which is zoned residential and turn it into a shooting range or supercross track. That would be so rad.

                • #50 by YES on W on October 28, 2012

                  nipsey, educate yourself on zoning laws and how land such as Coyote Hills can and WILL be rezoned as residential. Fullerton needs these homes and revenue.

        • #51 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

          Like I give a rat’s ass? I’ll take a fenced in property that can be negotiated for purchase over a massive development project that my kids are going to have to pay special taxes to support because our existing infrastructure can’t support the demands of the new residents.

          Listen twerp: This is a bad deal and it’s permanent. Voting “Yes” means we concede to corporate bullying and we hand Chevron a billion dollar get out of remediation free card. I’m not willing to do that for a free fire truck we don’t need.

          • #52 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

            Twerp? Too funny. Your kids will be paying regardless.

            • #53 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

              “YES” seems positively gleeful about our inevitable acquiescence to his corrupt corporate masters. Stockholm syndrome or payola? You decide.

      • #54 by Salty Dog on October 27, 2012

        Thanks for the insight ‘Perry Mason’.

    • #55 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

      Keep cashing those Chevron checks and keep spouting the corporate line. That’s what we expect from you.

    • #56 by Anonymous on October 26, 2012

      Is that right? We are the reason. It could never be Chevron trying to sell us amenities we already have. If Chevron really wanted to preserve this land, wouldn’t it have been done by now? Also, this talk about using gas to fuel over-sized vehicles – what do you think will be doing all the work? Dinosaurs? Oh that’s right – that’s what is in the semi hauling the bulk dozer up Euclid.

  9. #57 by Tuco Ramirez on October 26, 2012

    Interesting that Coyote lover completely ignored my post on the necessity to ensure clean land that the 700 houses would be built on. Chevron can afford to clean it up! What guarantees does Fullerton have that the land will be free of polluted substances like benzene, toluene, etc. – All containing virulent cancer causing components! Go ahead, eat a carrot from my garden!!

    • #58 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

      Tuco, so true. Fullerton has a track record of building parks on contaminated land.

      Why doesn’t the owner of this blog along with his crony writers and the opposition of W stop buying gas for their over-sized vehicles?

      WHAT HIPPOCRATES

      • #59 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

        I don’t speak for anybody else on this blog, I speak for myself. And I drive a modest low-consumption vehicle.

        Chevron has a record of buying intellectually and morally bankrupt individuals out and converting them into its corporate shills. Congratulations on being one.

        • #60 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

          You’re still dependent on oil PERIOD! Therefore YOU ARE A HIPPOCRATE.

          • #61 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

            What? I have to drink water, too. Does that mean if Arrowhead wants to store nuclear waste in my bathroom I have to say yes? Go away clown.

            • #62 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

              Do you realize how much money Chevron has paid to Fullerton? Do you realize how much Kimberly-Clarke pays? Are you going to fight to make that land into a park also knowing that they use chemicals for the production of the paper you wipe your butt with?

              • #63 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

                I can’t tell if that’s a threat or an argument. Try again.

                • #64 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

                  It’s Education. Obviously some people don’t get it.

                • #65 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

                  Word. Maybe Chevron can’t send you a check. I’ve got some ins with some local private schools. They’ll hook you up.

                • #66 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

                  I believe he is threatening to cut off our supply of toilet paper.

                • #67 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

                  That’s cool. I’ve got A LOT of Yes on W ads over here. I should be good for awhile.

              • #68 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

                Working yourself up into a veritable scatological conniption aren’t you? Paycheck on the line? Developer much?

                • #69 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

                  Not mine. My paycheck comes from another technology the majority of you cannot live without.

              • #70 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

                YES on W,
                Please enlighten us and provide a link to your source of imformation as to how much Chevron has paid to Fullerton city residents.

                I’m not talking about the money that Chevron has paid to Fullerton elected officials, I’m talking about how much money has Chevron paid to Fullerton residents?

                • #71 by The Fullertonista on October 28, 2012

                  Then let’s subtract how much we citizens pay Chevron in the form of direct subsidies, paying for their externalities, paying for the Middle East wars they lobby for, and paying for their manipulation of retail gas prices. I would like to see the “balance” of that computation.

            • #72 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

              HA!

          • #73 by Anonymous on October 27, 2012

            The word is “hypocrite.”

            Hippocrates was a Greek doctor.

          • #74 by gloria monti, ph.d. on October 27, 2012

            YES on W :
            You’re still dependent on oil PERIOD! Therefore YOU ARE A HIPPOCRATE.

            a “hippocrate?” as always, arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand. i recommend the viewing of the docu, *crude: the price of oil” to learn a few things about chevron.

      • #75 by nipsey on October 26, 2012

        I’m not sure what Hippocrates has to do with this, but I expect he’d fall on the side of “first do no harm”.

        • #76 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

          Well done. A little irked I missed that. :-)

    • #77 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

      I agree Tuco that in the best of all possible worlds Chevron should clean the land. I do not agree that they should then get a rezone to let the build houses on it.

      • #78 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

        I bet Fullertonista doesn’t even know what a Phase 1, 2 or 3 is. Just wants to sit and blow off steam because “dangit, I want a park”

        • #79 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

          Yeah, only soil contamination experts and remediation contractors are allowed to have an opinion on the subject, right? Oh, and corporate shills.

        • #80 by Coyote Lover on October 26, 2012

          Right on that one, Yes on W! That’s all they ever do is complain…and of course, only their opinion is correct.
          A balanced truth seeking blog, ha, that’s hilarious! If you don’t agree with them, then it gets reduced to playground, name calling bullying. Hmmm, just like the opposition to W.

          • #81 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

            OK anonymous mud slinger. Let’s throw down, shall we? I’m tired of your lies and half truths. You’ve got my name and you can find me anytime on orangejuice. I assume I can find you in Chevron’s office in Brea. All I see from you are insults and complaints.

            Let’s see if you’ll back them up by slapping your name on them. I doubt it.

            • #82 by Coyote Lover on October 27, 2012

              I, too, am tired of all of the lies (out right blatant on the No flyers) and you’ve been doing your share of so called mud slinging. I’m a long time Fullerton resident and I haven’t taken or been offered a dime from Chevron. I’m done…you can chatter on. It won’t change the outcome. I learned a long time ago you can’t change minds that are set. But I felt the need to address the attack on Measure W, because Chevron has a target on it’s back. I’ll say it again, this is NOT about Chevron. But I already know you don’t agree, so no sense in trying to convince you.

              • #83 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

                Hey, I’m tired of talking about it too. Let’s talk about Ecuador and the $18 billion that poor little Chevron with a target on its back refuses to pay.

              • #84 by Ryan Cantor on October 27, 2012

                So . . . that’s a no? You won’t provide your name and go on the record?

                OK, well, I asked. You could have had your say on this blog or on the one that I contribute to and you took the coward’s way out.

                The ballot measure is entirely about Chevron, what they’re getting from W, and how long Fullertonians are going to get screwed by it.

                I’m happy to provide all the rational dialogue you can stomach, but I’m not going to do it while you duck and weave behind your cloak of anonymity. Perhaps you think I’m slinging mud, but at least I’m not ducking down into a fox hole after I do it.

          • #85 by The Fullertonista on October 26, 2012

            Complain? We get elected officials recalled. We get good people in office. We clean up corruption in OUR city. Just like we told the police, OUR city, not yours. Same goes to Chevron. OUR city, not yours.
            Oh, and by “we” I mean the passionate, caring, and well-informed citizens of Fullerton.

            Getting it yet?

            • #86 by nipsey on October 27, 2012

              Though to be fair, some of these “good people” also thought it was a good idea that the Measure title and description explicitly mention a Nature Preserve but not, for example, 700+ homes, and that these “good people” are in perfect agreement with (as mentioned) Gin Flory, Pat McPension, F. DICK Jones, and Dino Don Bankhead, along with such estemmed institutions as the Orange County Ragister.

              • #87 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

                Well that’s why its never a good idea to be a single-issue voter. But some of the “good people” don’t mind me posting my opinion on their blog, I should note. So much for the hive mind theory.

    • #88 by Coyote Lover on October 26, 2012

      Do you really think they don’t have to clean it up? Of course they do!!! And there’s a whole lot of agency red tape to ensure that it’s done. Apparently, you haven’t gone through the approval process. I’ll be happy to eat the carrots and drink the water.

      • #89 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

        You’re not telling the whole truth again, Bob . . . err. Coyote Lover.

        Chevron is required to remediate and restore the land to it’s pre-drilling state. By building over the majority of the land that’s been contaminated, Chevron’s cutting their cost to the tune of around a billion bones.

        That’s the reason they want this project. It’s to avoid their significant costs to do what they’re already required to do. Why restore what you broke when you can bulldoze and grade instead!

        • #90 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

          So why not move millions of yards of dirt and flatten the hills. Will that make all you tree hugger’s happy? NOT! Because, you want a park!

          • #91 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

            You wouldn’t move millions of yards of dirt or flatten the hills . . . doing so would most definitely not make me happy.

            Lay off the bologna, buddy. It’s getting to your brain.

        • #92 by Coyote Lover on October 26, 2012

          hahaha, I’m not “Bob”. There you go “ass”uming….
          And BTW, the environmental analysis (CEQA), was already challenged in court….and dismissed by the Judge. Hmmm, all of your concerns have already been addressed and many times over. You really are clueless.

          • #93 by Ryan Cantor on October 26, 2012

            CEQA? Who said anything about CEQA?

            More bologna and treating people like their stupid. Sounds very familiar.

            Chevron is obligated to restore all of west coyote hills to its pre-drilling state, unless we grant them a waiver to do something else (i.e. build homes and a shopping center.) That’s what W is all about. A yes vote means we’re exempting Chevron to do something else.

            CEQA. You’ve got to be freaking kidding me. CEQA has NOTHING to do with Chevron’s pre-existing obligations to restore the property and everything to do with building homes on the property. The two aren’t at all related. Go have another sandwich.

            • #94 by A Reformed FPD? on October 27, 2012

              Well done Ryan. These guys like Yes on W have been getting away with bogus statements for too long, I’m very thankful that folks like you and Fullertonista are calling them out. a 100 years from now those that saved the last open space in North OC will be remembered, those that played ball with scum like Chevron will become just one more semicolon in a pages of Fullerton history.

      • #95 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

        Follow the cash to find the trash.

        Chevron’s latest public expenditure report regarding West Coyote Hills.

        http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/1/doc/482465/Page1.aspx

        Note the names that are associated with the firm “Nossaman LLP” and find our own little “Tricky Dicky”, and poster boy for selling out the best interests of Fullerton…

        Dick Ackerman.

        Nuff said.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nossaman

        • #96 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

          Nice find FL. Figures any hack project going up anywhere in Fullerton and Ackerman is involved.

  10. #97 by Anonymous on October 26, 2012

    If they are gonna built 700 homes. They need to built more shools. If they dont, can you imagine the overcrowding on already overcrowded schoosl. And the traffic. It’s going to be terrible. Chevron is not looking at all the picture, and they dont even care.

  11. #98 by History Major on October 26, 2012

    Excellent post Fullertonista, Bravo! And, ” the plunderous petroleum-peddling plutocrats”, for the win!

    • #99 by YES on W on October 26, 2012

      Make sure you head over to the gas station and fill up the tank.

    • #100 by Jane H on October 27, 2012

      plunderous petroleum-peddling plutocrats

      That WAS a good one!

  12. #101 by Yes on October 26, 2012

    ha that marlena is lucky all she got was a sticker!! Justice!! well done kiddy!

    • #102 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

      I wouldn’t be too sure about that.

      If that were me instead of Marlena, I would see “kiddy’s” mother and father, as well as the Fullerton Police officers who stood around and didn’t stop the minor from assaulting this woman, in my lawyers office being deposed under sworn oath so that I could sue them all for damages in civil court afterwords.

      • #103 by Yes on October 27, 2012

        yea. You seen them? Sue someone that’s on welfare? Oh yea, true, you would win their food stamps right?

      • #104 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

        The mother of the boy who assaulted the nice lady at the police department is a school teacher in Brea.

        • #105 by Yes on October 27, 2012

          Oh they can get rich then. Teachers make $100 k a year plus $100k pensions.

  13. #106 by Steve Baxter on October 27, 2012

    Great post and props to FFFF for allowing an alternate view point. Property rights is just a bullshit argument in this case. My neighbor in our north fullerton suburb can no more build a gas station on his land, which is zoned for a single family dwelling, than chevron can build homes on land zoned for drilling. Pussies like Chaffee, Flory, Kitty and Alvarez can’t hack the union backlash that being in favor of pension reform brings , and unfortunetly even those who are correct on pension reform bend over for Chevron. My guess is that they do so because they can’t go without both union and corporate perks and are not up to taking on 1.4 million in campaign money the Yes on W greedtards have spent. They need at least one or the other. Only Jane Rands and Barry Levinson are correct on both issues and only Rands and Levinson can claim that they have neither whored themselves out to the public union thugs and Chevron’s corporate pimps.

    • #107 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

      True that.

    • #108 by Franklin on October 27, 2012

      It should also be noted that Fullerton Residents have been fighting Chevron’s intentions to pave over their mess for over a generation… Property Rights aside, the proponents want development period, for in development they see economic opportunity. That’s fine and all, I guess, but it misses out on the reality that land can be seen as a value in and of itself. That is why the great T. Rooselvelt and J. Muir faught to protect vast areas of America so as to be untouched for future generations. We can strip everything away for economic prosperity today, but we’ll only leave a garbage heap later for the children. I am insulted that Bruce Whitaker had the nerve to change the ballot statement to include a “nature park” in the language… I wonder who he is working for… the residents or the corporate interests? Jack Dean IS a shill… dont you be fooled…

  14. #109 by Common Sense on October 27, 2012

    The No on W people are knowingly lying about the impact on schools. It is a matter of economic fact that the development will be of at least marginal benefit to both the elementary and high school districts. There are no classroom space issues and the developer fees and increased ADA (average daily attendance) dollars improve the current FSD and FJUHSD economies of scale. If anything, it would contribute to an ability to maintain ever so slightly lower class sizes. Why do you think these Districts push their magnet programs like IB and Tech to draw out-of-district transfers? This is a NIMBY issue no different than at any other time adjacent homeowners cry about development on what was formerly vacant land. My favorite is watching all of the life-experienced Sunny Hills HS students at city council talk about the tragic dust, dirt and noise as though their homes were built by clean and silent fairies during the gold rush. Stop your crying. It’s an incredibly generous project and Chevron’s past financial benefit has nothing to do with the reasonableness of this project. You will all go away a decade from now when there are no toxics issues. No mass die-offs from liver cancer. No hillsides falling away. No water shortages attributable to the 2,000 people (0.15% of Fullerton’s 135,000+ population). No more than has been the case with the dozens and dozens of other housing tracts that have been built in Fullerton over the last 70 years. Many of you will watch your children, your grandchildren, nieces, nephews and friends have birthday parties, play sports, ride bikes and generally have a great time in a huge, beautiful park GIVEN to you by thousands of stockholders (mostly public employee pension holders) who have every right in the world to maximize their profit. All of this thanks to the beating-like extortion wrought upon Chevron through this nightmare. All of you self-righteous and full of crap jackasses living in Sunny Hills and off Rosecrans and all of those other nice areas that NIMBY’s of yore didn’t want to see built need to go back inside your nice homes and stare at your Costco Vizio screens and drink your BevMo 5 cent wine. Idiots.

    • #110 by nipsey on October 27, 2012

      I think we can all agree that if one word characterizes Chevron, it is “generosity”. .

      • #111 by Common Sense on October 27, 2012

        Is it just possible genius that a self-serving company can be forced to build a generous project by an overzealous government?

        • #112 by nipsey on October 27, 2012

          Oh it’s possible, but the only thing overzealous about Fullerton government re: Chevron was the bootlicking.

      • #113 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

        The people of Ecuador are positively awed by Chevron’s “generosity” in despoiling their land beyond repair, refusing to compensate them for it, denying responsibility, and countersuing them for racketeering.

        Hey Common Sense where’s the $18 billion your generous benefactors still owe?

    • #114 by Common Sense on October 27, 2012

      …sorry 1.5% before all of you jackasses jump on the math error.

    • #115 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

      If there are no new schools being built how do you figure that the current situation of approximately 35 children per classroom in our elementary schools would improve?

    • #116 by Ryan Cantor on October 27, 2012

      Maximize profits. You nailed it alright.

      As a Chevron stock holder, I am appalled at Chevron’s completely unethical behavior regarding measure W.

      As “Common Sense” posted, measure W is all about Chevron’s bottom line. If W passes, we’ve handed out around a billion dollars of corporate welfare so Chevron can shirk their responsibility to restore all of WCH to its pre-drilling state.

      When one of the biggest companies in the world lines up to spend $1.5MM convincing you that their charity is a good idea for your town, one ought to be wondering what’s in it for them? Why on God’s green earth would Chevron spend this kind of cash trying to convince me of something they have a right to do?

      Well, the answer is they don’t have a right to do it and they stand to make a boat load of money by convincing you to grant them corporate welfare. Have some common sense and vote “No” on W. No bologna. We’ve been ripped off enough by Chevron already.

  15. #117 by A Reformed FPD? on October 27, 2012

    I will bet the 1.4 million Chevron spent on this election that “Common Sense” is not a moniker which others bestowed on you. No one is crying. The No on W folks are fighting 1.4 million with a 50K war chest and shoe leather. The low level Chevron executives who have spent another couple years and millions of dollars to once again walk away with f*ck all will have another embarrassing conference call to to HQ to look forward too. I bet the last one did not go too well either “i THOUGHT YOU SAID NELSON WAS IN THE TANK, WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?” “I don’t know sir “.. THIS TIME IT WILL BE THE PEOPLE THAT HAPPENED.

    • #118 by Common Sense on October 27, 2012

      Nice logic. What an exciting night on FFFF for nimbydom. Chevron has more money therefore they should lose. Makes sense.

  16. #119 by John Salazar on October 27, 2012

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Fullerton_West_Coyote_Hills_Development_and_Nature_Preserve,_Measure_W_(November_2012)#Path_to_the_ballot

    Instead of all the bluster I suggest folks read this third party analysis.

    Make an informed vote!!!!!! The no people will go to great lengths to silence the truth. All the bull$hit rhetoric will not change the facts!!!!!!!

  17. #120 by Angela Lindstrom on October 27, 2012

    Thanks for bringing up the ballotpedia site again here. Here is the more informative link for it… the revision history. You can see how blatantly the Chevron “coalition” is trying to distort what Measure W is. The left hand of the page shows the before, and the right hand side of the page shows the after. Amongst other falsehoods and “spins”, they’ve asked the editor to redact the 760 houses and shopping center from the page, and they added a statement that the referendum attempt by the Friends of Coyote Hills failed to qualify. What? Measure W does not exist? The page currently reads like their campaign advertisement, but the revision history is more telling of how they are trying to greenwash, brainwash, and just plain lie to Fullerton voters.

    http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Fullerton_West_Coyote_Hills_Development_and_Nature_Preserve%2C_Measure_W_%28November_2012%29&action=historysubmit&diff=1484513&oldid=1456437

    • #121 by John Salazar on October 27, 2012

      Thanks for the link.

      I do see the revisions. Compare the before with the impartial analysis. To me, the after on ballotpedia seems to be consistent with the impartial, conspiracy theories aside

      I understand the distaste for development BUT this isn’t the ballot question related to measure w.

  18. #122 by James Carville on October 27, 2012

    Not a single post on the dollar cost of a “no” vote. Remember, the Redevelopment Tit has dried up. Are we going to turn this into Great Park fiasco? Didn’t OCTA commit $24 Million towards the purchase of the land? Doesn’t Chevron want much more than that to acquire the land?

    These are my questions. If I’m wrong or confused, I stand corrected.

    • #123 by Ryan Cantor on October 27, 2012

      Yes. Chevron wants more money. In addition to the fair market value of the parcel, they want someone else to pay to remediate the property and restore it to it’s pre-drilling state. They’re required to do it under state and federal law and they don’t want to cut the check.

      They figure they can spend $1.5MM instead to convince you that a free fire truck is a fair exchange for $1B in corporate welfare.

      They’re wrong, and I won’t bail them out while they’re charging me $5 for a gallon of gas.

  19. #124 by Anonymous on October 27, 2012

    BTW: If I recall from the last time that I perused the Chevron Development Plan for the Coyote Hills Project there is an elementary school to be built in the vicinity of the new fire station on Rosecrans.
    Also, what entity built that new fire station and GAVE it to the City?

  20. #125 by Fullerton Lover on October 27, 2012

    According to the website on Proposition W…

    “More than 1,000 additional students will be added to our schools if Chevron gets its way. No new schools are planned, only budget cuts.”

    Is there something else that I’m not aware of that supercedes this position of no new schools being built?

  21. #126 by chicken on October 27, 2012

    how about trying to figure out some kind of future, some kind of balance with nature instead of just paving and making houses and strip malls.

    and really , it IS the last little bit of almost natural habitat around. that in itself is important. If they build their houses and their nature preserve that nature preserve wont be natural , it will be used by people and the little mice wont like that.

  22. #127 by Loving Nature on October 27, 2012

    Sad that you’re blind to the fact that this IS a balance between nature and development. Really glad that more people read the OC Register than this blog. They’re supporting Measure W along with Whitaker and Kiger.

    • #128 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

      Here’s the “balance” it is. The center of the property and the vast majority of it will be a series of housing complexes. Down some steep slopes from the houses tiny disconnected parcels of land with a trail will be “preserved” as “open space.” All of the land will be graded and that will require vegetation being stripped from it. The only actual park will be the one that already exists and belongs to the city. Wildlife will be eradicated and open space irrevocably destroyed.

      The idea that Measure W creates a park is just a flat-out lie. It creates a housing tract and shopping center.

      Look at the maps and see for yourself. Chevron thinks we’re to stupid to do that and will just blindly swallow their lies about “balance.” Not this time.

  23. #129 by Loving Nature on October 27, 2012

    Fullertonista, you are totally wrong and your statements are false. I have seen the maps in detail. The entire site will NOT be graded. There will be removal of invasive plant material that is choking out the natural habitat. This is a “nature” park, yes with slopes so less disturbance to the land. The natural habitat will be protected. So you know nothing of what you’re talking about. This was never meant to be a landscaped park like Craig or any other similarity. This “park” is to preserve the open space which is contiguous, not little disconnected parcels that you describe. Again, you obviously do NOT understand the plan. But go ahead and put your blinders on. You can continue believing your lies. Fortunately, the majority of the folks out there are more intelligent. You are sooo misinformed but I’m not going to get into a pissing contest with words; I have better things to do with my time. Measure W will prevail.

    • #130 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

      Nope, I’ve seen the maps. How come you don’t mention the ENORMOUS HOUSING PROJECT that will be put into the “park”? “Yes, with slopes” – yeah, the whole thing is just a few slopes your developer cronies can’t grade down to flat and stick some more houses on! How stupid do you think we are? “The natural habitat will be protected” – where? In people’s YARDS? That’s right, if you can’t win by presenting the TRUTH just tell BALDFACE LIES.

      Nice greenwashing name there. I think you meant to type “Loving the Checks from Chevron.”

      • #131 by Greg Diamond on October 27, 2012

        “How stupid do you think we are?”

        They apparently think that you are very, very stupid.

        I have an idea — get a court to say that Chevron has to restore the land to its prior state, as Ryan Cantor notes is already required, before selling it off. Give them five years to do it.

      • #132 by Loving Nature on October 27, 2012

        Yes, Fullertonista, you are pretty stupid, which can’t be dealt with rationally. Yes, there are going to be houses there, hundreds fewer than was originally approved years ago. The amenities and benefits are part of the negotiation. There was never any plan to “grade down to flat”…there’s no value in that…duh. The value is with the vistas and the views. Apparently you have not been on the tour to see the contiguous acres that are not in peoples yards. Spewing your lies doesn’t change the plan. Tired with dealing with idiots who are clueless. And BTW, I haven’t received a dime from Chevron, or lunch or anything else. You just can’t accept that some of us supporters have not received anything from Chevron. Another one of your many misinformed lies. So stop your accusations that every supporter who dares to speak the truth are recipients of Chevron’s favors. NOT!!!!

        • #133 by cg on October 27, 2012

          It is quite clear in this neighborhood. Measure W is going down….I guess there just going to have sue us…….But don’t let this pop your bubble.

        • #134 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

          The person who just wrote “you are pretty stupid, which can’t be dealt with rationally” is calling other people stupid?

          Here’s what you’re leaving out:
          Amenities = minimal.
          Benefits = short-term.
          Contiguous acres = hilly areas it costs too much to develop, and by contiguous you mean tiny corridors connecting a few of them.

          Well at least you finally admitted there are going to be houses there. Now why don’t you explain what proportion of the land will be houses, their yards, their streets, etc., and what proportion will not? Actually, why bother? The map is right here: http://www.votenoonw.com/measure_w_facts

  24. #135 by Fullerton's Conscience on October 27, 2012

    It is certainly unfortunate that Chrevron chose to present misinformation to bambuzzle and to confuse those Fullertonians who are not paying close attention to this Ballot Measure.

    Big oil companies are not exactly the most loved of big corporations in the first place.

    But their misleading campaign is clearly a self-inflicted wound that they may not recover from.

    VOTE NO ON W!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  25. #136 by Loving Nature on October 27, 2012

    Can’t reason with NIMBYs. Their minds don’t want to accept the truth because their blinded by their NIMBYism. What a sad group you are. There’s nothing more to say. Really looking forward to Nov. 6.!

    • #137 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

      You misunderstand the etymology and proper use of the term NIMBY. NIMBY was created to describe wealthy communities who resisted toxic, industrial or waste sites in their neighborhoods, resulting in those sites being located in poorer neighborhoods.

      Open space or park advocacy has nothing to do with the above. In the above examples, the problem was that these sites had to go somewhere, and because of their wealth, certain communities were able to foist them off on their poorer or more marginalized neighbors, usually racial minorities. And the environmental justice movement was born.

      This is not an issue here, because it is not as if residents of West Fullerton are going to require East or South Fullerton to accept a Chevron-backed oil-contaminated development project in their neighborhoods by rejecting it in their own. So you see, NIMBY and NIMBYism have nothing to do with any of this, and are just another feeble attempt by Chevron, its shills, and those who have been hoodwinked by them to slander their opponents.

      So, before insinuating that the people in the community you live in are close-minded idiots, you might want to ensure that you actually understand what the hell you are talking about.

      Just a helpful tip.

      • #138 by Common Sense on October 27, 2012

        Etymology of nimby. Really? You’re a nimby. Just because the etymology of dumbass began with cavemen doesn’t mean there stopped being dumbasses after the stone age.

        • #139 by The Fullertonista on October 27, 2012

          The $18 billion, Chevron’s bitch. Where is it?

        • #140 by Greg Diamond on October 28, 2012

          She’s right about the etymology of NIMBY — “Not In My Back Yard” — and that it’s being misused here.

  26. #141 by Steve Brow on October 27, 2012

    First of all, let me state that in no way should Chevron be allowed to pass pollution on their land to future generations whether the land is reused for homes or for parks. The land should be cleaned to modern standards under the supervision of modern regulatory agencies. God knows Southern Califonria has suffered for the toxic waste dumped on the land during World War Two era activities.

    Having stated this, remember that tha Amerige brothers surveyed the area in the 1800′s and identified the area of Fullerton that was the most biologically prolific; that contained the most wildlife. They chose this area, which is now the intersection of Harbor and Commonwealth, to be the center of their new town. The surrounding similar land was also rich with life and ideal for agriculture, which would be the lifeblood for their new town.

    The northern hills were relatively thought of as wastelands, although they were good enough for Bastanchury to use for sheep ranching.

  27. #142 by Steve Brow on October 27, 2012

    In the time of the Amerige brothers, and for two milenium before them, prime bottom lands near rivers and creeks was the preferrable properties. The wealthy would build their homes on large lots near the center of town. As one moved into the outskirts of town, the population got progressively poorer. A term for those who lived in the hills and were forced to walk daily to town to transact essential business was “hillbilly”.

    In the early 1800′s the prime mode of transportation was horseback, horse and buggy for the wealthy, and horsedrawn stagcoach for the corporate dominators such as Butterfield and Wells Fargo.

    In the late 1800′s, the railroads became supreme. This is why the Amerige brothers were willing to give the naming rights to their town to Robert fullerton, the railroad executive that ensured that the main line from Los Angeles to Chicago would not pass through Anaheim, but would take the more direct route to Santa Ana Canyon through Fullerton.

  28. #143 by Steve Brow on October 27, 2012

    In the 1800′s those with horse and buggies were able to travel farther and more comfortably than those who had to travel open to the elements on horseback or had to simply walk to where they were going. The advent of the horseless carriage added to this discrepancy.

    Soon, the wealthy were able to establish estates some distance from the center of town yet still be connected to the establishment of the town. The Muckenthalers built an estate 1.5 miles to the west. The Hunters in the same area. The Chapmans built a mile north of downtown.

    As time went on, in Fullerton, across the country, and even in Europe, the preferred locations in the center of town were left to the poor while the wasteland of the hills was consumed by the relatively wealthy for larger homes with quietude and views. All of this, of course, was fueled by “evil” oil companies such as Chevron.

  29. #144 by Steve Brow on October 27, 2012

    For 30 years I have watched the battle between Chevron and the NIMBY’s over the development of the West Coyote Hills. Again, in no way do I accept that Chevron should be allowed to foist pollution upon future generations.

    However, my uncle earned a PHd. in urban planning and I myself am fairly knowledgeable in land use issues. It seems to me that their has been a 30-year torture against Chevron over the land use of these hills. Each time parkland was set aside, it was not enough. Each time housing was clustered, it was not enough. Each time the number of units were reduced, it was not enough. Today’s Chevron plan looks like what would be a wet dream for my uncle 30 years ago, yet it is not enough.

  30. #145 by Steve Brow on October 27, 2012

    I thuroughly enjoyed growing up in our home in the Fullerton hills, which I am told was the original “Sunny Hills” development. I think the environment of what is currently referred to as Sunny Hills, which was called “Sunny Hills West” while it was being built, is also very nice. I think the homes in the East Coyote Hills are also very nice.

    It seems to me that the opposition for the 700 homes in the remaining portion of the West Coyote Hills come most strongly from those who already live in the Fullerton Hills. I wonder, if these people think that building homes in the hills is so bad, why they participated in destroying the habitats of their own neighborhoods?

    Meanwhile, many of these same people have no compunction against taking the most ecologically valueable land along Commonwealth Avenue near Harbor Boulevard and near State College Boulevard and converting it into acres-wide, four story deep human rat cages.

    In contrast to the West Coyote Hills, which would contain 700 nice homes, parks, and natural habitat, these blocks would contain none of the original wildlife–only real rats and cockroaches.

    In contrast to the civil atmosphere that would permeate the Chevron development by nature, these blocks would attract rifraf that would need to be constantly controlled by the likes of Hughes, Goodrich, Coffman, Cicinelli, Hampton, Blantley, Wolfe, Ramos, and the like.
    It might even attract several as bad as Kelley Thomas.

    It seems to me that on the issue of development of the city, that the culture of Fullerton has gone crazy. Maybe that is just me. Maybe that is why I moved away to a place where I could afford to buy 12.5 acres of hill property.

    Good luck guys. I will visit. And laugh.

  31. #146 by Anonymous on October 27, 2012

    Let me say this in a straightforward manner……….. if Chevron is for it I am against it. Period !!!! Chevron is not trying to foist this generosity on the citizens of Fullerton out of the goodness of its filthy heart.

    No on proposition W !

  32. #147 by van get it da artiste on October 28, 2012

    First came the sheep herders, then the oil wells,then the cookie-cutter houses, then the residents of same houses demanding pristine Fullerton acreage.
    Sheep herders relative minimal damage to flora and fauna, oil companies erect ugly structures to torment subterranean Fullerton, Fullerton neighborhoods ruin Fullerton’s pristine tumbleweeds,cacti by corrupting it I to green grass, building surrounded by trees.
    When will anyone care about the coyotes and rabbits?
    Not me. I’m more irate over the ten million tax dollars spent on Fullerton library’s architectural facelift that left us with space age googie facade and substandard it services, research resources and academic collection.
    Actually, I don’t need to use the library anymore thanks to a superior internet that houses most of our knowledge and literature.

  33. #148 by The Fullertonista on October 28, 2012

    YES on W :
    nipsey, educate yourself on zoning laws and how land such as Coyote Hills can and WILL be rezoned as residential. Fullerton needs these homes and revenue.

    Yeah, housing prices are still down, tons of foreclosures still being held off the market, no recovery in sight and yet “Fullerton needs these houses.” Just drop the whole “Nature Park” facade and go with that one ok? Let’s see how the polling for that looks. Douchebag.

    • #149 by YES on W on October 28, 2012

      Douchebag? Because I don’t agree with your non-sense?

      • #150 by The Fullertonista on October 28, 2012

        Isnt there an I Love Subsidizing Chevron blog you could contribute your brilliantly erudite commentary to? Or maybe an I Love Make-Believe Parks blog?

  34. #151 by s. harris on October 28, 2012

    Levinson = NO on W.

  35. #152 by Stephan Baxter on October 29, 2012

    Now we have two great articles on why a No On W vote, the the only rational vote. This one from a conservative and registered Republican Ryan Cantor. If this does not persuade you to change your mind to NO, you are not open to truth in or in Chev’s pocket.. I’m betting truth is worth more than 1.5 million in Chevron campaign money in this election. Thank you Fullertonista and Ryan for your research and well written editorials.

    http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/10/fullerton-candidate-meet-and-greet-to-end-all-fullerton-candidate-meet-and-greets-at-verns-church-tonite/

    • #153 by The Fullertonista on October 29, 2012

      Ryan’s article is a sober and analytical counterpart to my ranting. Well done.

    • #154 by Ryan Cantor on October 29, 2012

      Thanks, Steve. I’m sure Vern will appreciate you floating his candidate forum . . . but here’s the link to my piece.

      http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/10/fullertons-coyote-hills-chevron-thinks-youre-really-stupid/

      And thanks for letting me ride your coat tails, ‘ista.

      • #155 by Lifesaving Service on October 29, 2012

        They have proven to be a danger to and anyone in their path, Fullertons resident and Future Fullertons residents,
        Fullerton OWES THEM NOTHING!!!

        The local area needs effective national and state representation, not a bunch of pliable fools, endowed by Public Unions, the maturation of organized crime, money hungry low class fools, and those that run from all ethics, Oaths of Office, and our Contitution!!!

      • #156 by nipsey on October 29, 2012

        Awesome, just awesome.

        At its best, FFFF managed to deliver a few truth bombs of this quality that exposed lies, hypocrisy, graft and a general raw deal for Fullerton citizens, and it pisses me off to no end that on a matter of this magnitude FFFF has not only dropped the ball famously, but adopted a speak-no-evil kind of running cover for Whitaker and Kiger. Sebourn was, of course, already a write-off.

        Yes, I appreciate Fullertonista’s post very much, but the fact that we’ve been getting lots of ugly pics of Flory (easy enough to do) and pumpkin painted butts to annoy a blogger while ignoring how the council handed out an (illegal?) goodie to Chevron is a huge, embarrassing disservice to everyone who wants to believe in FFFF’s stated mission of intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton.

        • #157 by Lifesaving Service on October 29, 2012

          Fullertons legal representation is at the very heart of the problems, where else should some responsibility go. The 3 charged killers are a small part of the system.

        • #158 by Joe Sipowicz on October 29, 2012

          What’s with the hostility, chum? We’re not obligated to agree with your version of events in West Coyote Hills and opine accordingly.

          If you don’t want to look at a Jack O’Assclown then avert your gaze.

          • #159 by nipsey on October 29, 2012

            Come on Joe, no one ever thought Chris or Travis or Bruce or Quisli- sorry, Sebourn, were anti development. But to go from merely being sympathetic to actually carrying Chevron’s water for them? That’s fucking pathetic.

            To pretend that falsely greenifying the measure title on Chevron’s behalf didn’t warrant mention, and wasn’t just as cynical as any of the developer ass-kissing misdeeds that you’ve railed against in the past, right here – that’s why the hostility. It’s the selective concern and the hypocrisy, Joe.

            Even you know it’s true, but I’m not waiting for a mea culpa.

  36. #160 by Stephan Baxter on October 29, 2012

    sorry – good catch.

  37. #161 by Lifesaving Service on October 29, 2012

    nipsey :
    Awesome, just awesome.
    At its best, FFFF managed to deliver a few truth bombs of this quality that exposed lies, hypocrisy, graft and a general raw deal for Fullerton citizens, and it pisses me off to no end that on a matter of this magnitude FFFF has not only dropped the ball famously, but adopted a speak-no-evil kind of running cover for Whitaker and Kiger. Sebourn was, of course, already a write-off.
    Yes, I appreciate Fullertonista’s post very much, but the fact that we’ve been getting lots of ugly pics of Flory (easy enough to do) and pumpkin painted butts to annoy a blogger while ignoring how the council handed out an (illegal?) goodie to Chevron is a huge, embarrassing disservice to everyone who wants to believe in FFFF’s stated mission of intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Arent you trolling and not a Hypnotist?

  38. #162 by nipsey on October 29, 2012

    Drink my juice you random, free-associating, rambling nonsense fruitcake. If you can’t be bothered to call a spade a spade then just step aside.

    • #163 by Lifesaving Service on October 29, 2012

      Why the anger? (Taxpayer FREE FOR ALL OVER SOON!!!)

    • #165 by truthseeker on October 29, 2012

      Nipsey-such poignancy-I just about fell out of my chair.

Comments are closed.