This item failed on a split vote last night. Keller and Quirk against, Jones and Nelson in favor, with Bankhead absent.
Redevelopment
Redevelopment is Government removing existing homes, businesses, and other buildings and replacing them with something different. The history of redevelopment in Fullerton has lead to a long string of ugly, deteriorating buildings and outright failure.
A Colorfully Gesticulating Norby Loses The Skirmish, But Wins The Battle
Posted by admin in Behind Closed Doors, Chris Norby, Redevelopment, Repuglicanism, Statewide Stuff, Victory, Watch Your Wallet on August 24, 2010
Who will win the war? Follow the money.
The GOP Initiatives Endorsement Committee met this past Saturday to debate whether it should recommend to the State GOP to endorse Proposition 22.
Watch and see what happened during the questions and answer period. The proponents for Yes on 22 focused their argument on misdirected “local control,” and the fear that if it doesn’t pass Arnold Schwarzenegger will raid the cities’ Redevelopment funds and give them away to the schools. Hooray! The only problem is that by the time this is voted on Arnold will about as lame a duck as Daffy, and probably already reading the script for Terminator 5.
Did the most vocal Yes on 22 proponent, Jon Fleischman (hot dog alert @ 3:18), really think the voting members in the room would be dumb enough to buy that “Arnold will cook up a bad budget” line? Well, they did – the vote was 9 Ayes and 8 Noes. However, good news came on Sunday when the recommendation of the Initiatives Committee was tossed out by the GOP party who gave a thumbs down to the Prop 22 proponents.
Check out Chuck Devore, one of the few non-repuglicans in office. He gets it.
And yes, I really do have to wonder if Fleischman was on the Yes on 22 payroll. The Howard Jarvis group was no doubt bought off by the purchase of a slate mailer.
California GOP Initiatives Endorsement Committee Hashes Out Prop 22
Posted by admin in Redevelopment, Statewide Stuff, Watch Your Wallet on August 23, 2010
Proposition 22 here, is an initiative supported by the California League of Cities and Redevelopment agencies and their lobbyists.
Voting yes on 22 would prohibit the State from restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. It would prohibit the State from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship.
The question boils down to whether the State should have the authority to redistribute redevelopment property tax increment funds and use it for schools, and fire departments.
The clip below was taken at the GOP state convention held this past weekend in San Diego and features the Yes on 22 proponents debating State Assemblyman Chris Norby at the Endorsement Committee meeting. Each party was given 3 minutes to make their pitch, the Yes on 22 proponents spoke for 3-1/2 minutes, however when Assemblyman Norby was only 2-1/2 minutes into his speech (6:58) one of the 22 proponents rudely interrupted Norby and yelled “TIME” even though Norby still had 30 seconds left of his 3 minutes.
My next post will feature video footage of questions and answers by both Norby (No on 22) and the Yes on 22 proponents. There’s also a little treat at the very end of the clip, enjoy!
To Hell In A Handbasket
Posted by admin in About Us, Hidden Government Agencies, Redevelopment on July 18, 2010

Trouble on Commonwealth?
If you spend much time driving around Fullerton you become painfully aware of the sad state of the streets. The deteriorating infrastructure underneath is a disaster just waiting to happen. Some folks might characterize this as blight. I know I do. And yet when it comes to dealing with blight, the one and only mission of Redevelopment law, our agency would much rather spend millions on subsidies to commercial developers, land “write-downs,” low income housing, crummy remodels, fire sprinklers for dance clubs, transforming a useful alley into an elevated pedestrian paseo, purchasing a poisoned park, and relocating a McDonald’s for $6,000,000, etc. etc.
One of the key points of our settlement negotiations with the City over its Redevelopment project area expansion will be to require the Agency spend a significant portion of its funds on infrastructure replacement – the very “talking point” that the pro-expansion mouthpieces used at the public hearings in the first place.
Redevelopment vs. the Principles of the California Republican Assembly
Posted by Greg Sebourn in Redevelopment on July 16, 2010
I was recently asked by a fellow member of the CRA why I felt that Redevelopment Agencies were bad for the public. After my long dissertation (found throughout this blog and elsewhere), I boiled it down to the CRA’s own principles.
7. That the market economy, based upon capitalism and free enterprise, allocating resources by the free play of supply and demand, is the greatest system for creating personal freedom, a strong constitutional government, and is the most productive supplier of human need.
8. That when government interferes with the free enterprise system or attempts to control the economy by taking from one individual to bestow upon another, it diminishes the incentive of the first, the integrity of the second, and the moral autonomy of both.
Redevelopment TAKES (purchases at “fair market value”) property from one person and GIVES it (usually for FREE) to another under the auspices of “the public good”. On it’s face it should be apparent that this practice is inconsistent with the CRA’s principles. The public coffers should not fund private development and give one developer/investor an unfair advantage over another.

A private pool at City Pointe, funded by your taxes through Redevelopment. No, you may not use it.
The Register Finds Time for Sex
Posted by The Fullerton Savage in Fullerton City Council, Local Media, OC Register, Redevelopment on June 13, 2010
It’s been a couple of months since The Fullerton Savage’s debut on this blog drew over sixty responses to the story of a new sex oriented shop in downtown Fullerton. Now the Register has gotten into the act with a story about the same subject. Adam Townsend, the author, and many commenters on this blog seem to think I had something inherently against the business in question. This is what Mr. Townsend wrote:
‘The author called the shop’s merchandise “trash.” ‘The blog said that seeing the underwear-clad mannequins and other sexually-oriented merchandise would harm children and said allowing the business to operate was “engendering blight.’
To be fair, I did use the word “trash”, but trashy isn’t the worst thing to associate with lingerie. I never wrote that the sight of the busty mannequins etc. would “harm children.” I did write that they would get “quite an education” from looking into the shop’s windows. Remember, we are The Education City!
So maybe Adam Townsend got the wrong idea about my attitude toward a sex-themed business. No big deal, but where he really blew it in his article was when he wrote that I ‘said allowing the business to operate was “engendering blight.”‘
No, Mr. Townsend, what I asked was “Is there any better evidence of redevelopment engendering blight?” This is no small distinction. Shops like The Naughty Teddy are sometimes cited as examples of blight when cities are trying to establish redevelopment zones. Downtown Fullerton has been a redevelopment zone since 1973. My point, Mr. Townsend, was that despite nearly forty years and millions of dollars spent to push out pawn shops, lure in restaurants, add trees, build signs, commission murals, rehab storefronts, brick street medians, redesign traffic signals, build mixed use developments, and whatever else The Redevelopment Agency unilaterally decides is good for the area, in the end a 5,000 square foot shop that sells lubricants, videos and sex toys to the 21-and-over only crowd is open for business near a major intersection downtown.
Well, just for the record, I don’t really care what consenting adults do for sex and I don’t care what a business sells, as long as both are safe. But if a city spends millions of taxpayer dollars trying to turn a downtown into restaurant Disneyland or whatever it is they are trying to do with it, I would really like to know how The Naughty Teddy fits into their vision for the whole place.
Did the business lie on their application to the city, as has been claimed, or are they the victims of a prudish municipal mindset? I don’t know. Several tattoo parlors have already opened downtown, and the city is right behind that curve. Look for an agenda item concerning the classification of tattoo parlors on the next council meeting agenda.
The Missing Conversation with the Redevelopment Department
Posted by The Fullerton Savage in Redevelopment on April 27, 2010
Last Thursday marked the second in a five part series of presentations at the Fullerton Museum Center entitled “Conversations with your City”. Organized by Fullerton City Council member Sharon Quirk-Silva, each evening features managers and directors of some of our city’s most prominent departments, including Police Chief Michael Sellers and City Manager Chris Meyer. June 24 brings Parks and Recreation Director Joe Felz, followed by August 26 with Fire Chief Wolfgang Knabe, and ends with an October 28 double header with Engineering Director Don Hoppe and Maintenance Services Director Bob Savage. Just about everyone you’d want to talk to as an active member of your community, right?
Conspicuously missing are the Community Development and Redevelopment Department directors. As it happens, Community Development (aka Planning Dept.) Director John Godlewski will finish his contract with Fullerton very soon. Who knows when his successor will be hired, so perhaps it was just awkward to try to schedule someone to speak with the public about that department.
But Redevelopment is something of a puzzling omission. Why was Redevelopment Director Robert Zur Schmiede not included in this series of conversations with our city? After all, his department’s current fiscal year budget is over $ 13 million, about twice that of the Parks and Rec. Dept., and nearly twice the budget of Community Development (see them all here.) Redevelopment does big things. You’d think they would be proud to talk to us about their past accomplishments and how they can be more responsive to all of us (because you know that’s what everyone else will say is the goal of their departments).
Did no one invite Mr. Zur Schmiede to the party? Or does it go without saying that the Redevelopment Department simply isn’t thought of as being accountable to the people of Fullerton? Mr. Zur Schmiede answers directly to the Redevelopment Agency, better known as your city council. Wouldn’t you like to have an hour or to ask Robert Zur Schmiede a few questions about how his agency operates?
Will Redevelopment Borrow $50 Million for Affordable Housing?
Posted by Christian in Redevelopment on April 19, 2010
Have you ever been robbed? Some robberies are violent and involve weapons or threats of force. Others are of a white-collar nature. Don’t be fooled, you are robbed either way. One robber let’s you know he is taking your money while the other is much more insidious and calculating. Our Redevelopment Agency is the latter.
Item 10 on this week’s council agenda deserves some attention.

According to the staff recommendation signed by Ramona Castaneda, for our illustrious Land Czar Rob Zur Schmiede and Charles Kovac, these fine public employees would like to sell a bond. They say that their autonomous agency could net between $26,900,000 and $32,000,000 in proceeds. That sounds like a great idea if you like to squander public money. The Staff report states that the debt service payments over a 17-year term would be approximately $2,900,000 per year starting September 20100 and ending September 2027. Okay, so check my math: $2,900,000 x 17 years = $49,300,000.
That’s a cost of nearly $50 MILLION! We are cutting staff hours, cutting services and rethinking the way we do business… at least everyone else is. Our Land Czar wants the money so he can build MORE affordable housing. That’s laughable since his agency has single-handedly destroyed and displaced more homes than any other in Fullerton. Oh, but wait! What’s that Doc? Oh, he says it’s that law, we just gotta do it! No we don’t.
Of course missing from the discussion about this venture seems to be the little matter of the lawsuit that Friends for Fullerton’s Future has filed against the Redevelopment Agency’s expansion plan. Is Zur Schmiede counting on tax increment from the proposed expansion area to pay off his bonds? Better hope not.
A Letter to the City Council by Judith Kaluzny
Posted by admin in Dick Jones, Don Bankhead, Friends Around the World, Fullerton City Council, Pam Keller, Redevelopment, Sharon Quirk, Shawn Nelson on April 6, 2010
UPDATE: A version of this item is back on the agenda for tonight’s council meeting. Council denied the $69,997 expenditure last year. Now the Redevelopment Agency has broken the project into smaller increments, hoping that it can slither its’ way through in 2010.
I read the state laws regarding business improvement districts. The process is that business people sign a petition to the city council. It is not the job of redevelopment to gin up a petition to give the appearance of support for this new taxing agency.
Cameron Irons did a survey February 2008 and got about 10 responses regarding a BID, mostly negative.
Sharon Quirk as councilmember said in 2007 that people should pay for the privilege of doing business downtown.
Maybe you want the money for city improvement, but it is not RDA’s place to create a demand for a taxing agency business people rejected in a private survey–the appropriate kind for a BID–last year.
Please do not waste money on this ill-advised venture. Vote no on Item 17 on May 19.
Yours truly,
A downtown business person,
Judith A. Kaluzny, Mediator and Lawyer
149 West Whiting Avenue
Fullerton, California 92832



Recent Comments