City Council Left in Dark Over Fate of Park; Say, Who In Hell Elected That Guy, Anyway?

While watching the youtube clip of David Espinosa tee off on the Union Pacific Park and the comment by City Manager Chris Meyer that the park was being shut down, we got to thinking. The Mayor was clearly not told by anybody that the park was being closed down – observe the standard “we’ll fix it, thanks, move along” comment by Bankhead followed by Meyer’s explanation.

Meyer went on to say that the problem of what to do with this “park” was being passed to the Community Services Commission for ponderment.

And we say: who in Hell gave Chris Meyer the authority to shut down a public park? Why wasn’t the Council asked to make this decision and how come they were never even told about it before the apparent revelation at the council meeting? Who gave Meyer the authority to assign this problem to anybody, let alone a lower committee without even informing the Council of his plans? Why wasn’t this issue agendized and discussed, in public, by the City Council?

These are mostly rhetorical questions, of course. The City’s staff wants to sweep this acute embarrassment under the municipal rug and the only way to do that is not to tell anybody. Even their bosses.

meyersIt also makes us wonder how much else in Fullerton has being undertaken by the City Manager on his own hook. It’s one thing to execute policy laid down by elected officials; it’s quite another thing to start taking on major policy decisions, and worse still, not tell anybody. Unfortunately this situation is symptomatic of two long-standing problems in Fullerton, two problems that fit together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.

First is the perfect willingness of our elected city council persons to abdicate their own policy-making responsibility and simply show up for the meetings, the Rotary lunches, the Chamber mixers, and the ribbon cuttings; second is the perfect willingness of the city managers to step into the authority void and run the show any damn way they please. It’s a perverse symbiosis.

This has got to stop. The results have been amply catalogued on the pages of this blog. And they aren’t very pretty.

What Is the Lorri Galloway “Candidacy” All About?

We have received a request to publish a post written by Friend and frequent commenter Joe Sipowicz and we reproduce it below, verbatim:

First, I want to say that I am not a political writer and have never gotten too involved in city or County politics. But I have done a lot of local political blog reading in order to write this post, and boy have I learned a lot!

I was reading your post a couple weeks ago about the Galloway candidacy for 4th District Supervisor and something just didn’t seem kosher about the whole thing. When I found out that a guy named Matt Cunningham was involved publicizing this news, I immediately got suspicious. Why? Well, first off, he had recently visited the FFFF blog in the role of defender of the indefensible – the gerrymandered 33rd State Senate District. His tactics were those we had been alerted to in our high school debate class: misdirection by stating obviously true, but irrelevant facts, meantime dodging the real, incontestable issue.

I also got suspicious because of what was obviously a slavish defense of Republican Dick Ackerman, apparently just for its own sake. A visit to his own blog and a little time in its archives revealed a Republican establishment toady. A related link on the Orange Juice blog revealed another relationship – that with John Lewis a supposedly conservative Republican political consultant and lobbyist who is backing Tom Daly, a Democrat, for the 4th Supervisorial District. Cunningham’s participation in that dialogue was interesting in that it studiously and lamely avoided explaining why he had failed to post on the subject of the Lewis endorsement of Daly himself, and kept inserting backhanded reasons why Republicans would be supporting Daly. I recognized his technique immediately.

But to return to Galloway and this “announcement” on Cunningham’s blog. I started asking myself why a Democrat like Galloway would even get involved with a supposedly right-wing Republican spokeshole like Cunningham. Why her embarrassing comment about the cute shoes? Why Cunningham’s pretense about wondering whether Daly was still in the race, when a call to his pal John Lewis would give him all his answers in about 12 seconds? Why the subtle comment that if Galloway were in it Republicans would coalesce behind Fullerton’s Shawn Nelson, implying that they wouldn’t if Daly were against him.

A later update on this post included a non-response from Daly and a weird comment by Chris Jones, Daly’s campaign  “consultant,” and yet another Lewis protege. Jones attacked Galloway’s “announcement” and obliged with a comment about her residency issue – but not about her left-wing politics vis-a-vis the supposedly centrist Daly – a fairly obvious approach you would think. This was also interesting since the same carpetbagging issue applies to Anaheim Hill’s Harry Sudhu, another candidate who lives outside the 4th District, and the authenticity of whose campaign Cunningham has been downplaying on his blog. Is Jones just signaling this as an issue to use it against Sidhu?

A final practical fact of interest is that John Lewis is also termed-out Supervisor Chris Norby’s campaign man, and stands to profit from Norby’s attempt to be the next County Clerk – a job currently held by – Tom Daly. No Daly campaign for Supervisor, no Norby campaign for Clerk.

Anyway, the whole thing seems too scripted, a little too well rehearsed.

I think some of the answers to this lay in the fact that Galloway, Lewis and Cuningham were all working together for the SunCal project in Anaheim a few years ago, and we know that Lewis is now willing to back Democrats for office. Was a deal made between Lewis and Galloway to throw up this trial balloon? What kind of a deal doesn’t really matter. But what for? Could the motivation be to try to push Harry Sidhu out of the race and then, after Galloway quietly disappears, preserve the Anaheim vote for Tom Daly in what would basically be a two-man race with Nelson? If the Anaheim vote is split three or even two ways, a candidate from Fullerton gets a plurality in the primary election, but ony one of the Anaheim candidates moves forward into a November runoff. And it may not be Tom Daly!

Somebody on this blog recently opined that the purpose of Galloway was to scare Daly out of the race. It seems more likely to me that her purpose in this race is to frighten Sidhu out and free up his old guard Anaheim support for Daly.

If this is true then we may simply be seeing wheels within wheels – which is what politics is all about, of course. And maybe this Cunningham guy is just being used as a witless tool by Lewis, Daly, and Company. His role hardly matters except as giving away clues.

Being a skeptic and new to all this stuff, maybe I am missing something here, but I’ll just end by saying this: a wise person will take nothing in politics at face value – especially when uttered by a politician.

Joe Sipowicz

Fullerton

Lorri “Cute Shoe” Galloway Running for Supervisor

ouch!
ouch!

Hat tip to one of our readers who just informed us that Matt “Jerbal” Cunningham over at the Red Clownty blog just reported that Anaheim Councilperson Lorri Galloway has announced that she is going to run for Supervisor Chris Norby’s termed out 4th District seat.  This is terrible news for Tom Daly and Harry Sudhu as Galloway’s presence in the race will split the Anaheim vote, but great news for Fullerton’s Shawn Nelson. When asked what she would bring different to the Board of Supes, she said, “I also intend to bring something different, like way cute shoes!”

Redevelopment Hustlers Undermine Own Credibility on Expansion Plan

Loyal Friends, on June 16th the city council again demonstrated why the process behind selecting the boundaries of the proposed expansion area are almost completely arbitrary. The council voted 3-1 to remove 7 selected properties from the area.

kids donkey 3300407850_3670652f0e

The criteria employed in the deselection are these:

  • the properties are on boundaries,
  • they are not necessary
  • and the owners simply ask to be removed.

Now some cynical folks might surmise that these exclusions were just done to shut people up,  including former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer, in fact we have already suggested that very same thought.

42-17157553

What is inescapable is the conclusion that if these 7 properties are not necessary than they never should have been included in the first place. How many haphazard lines drawn on a consultant draft table include non-blighted properties?  The statistics presented by the lone dissenting vote, Shawn Nelson suggest very many  indeed.

We suspect the city staff and their consultant are pursuing an age old strategy:  grab all you can, get, and then hang on to as much of it as you can.

squirrel1129

What Has the City Council Accomplished?

Once a bold master planned development and site plan
Once a bold master planned development with a pioneering spirit
-Media Card-BlackBerry-pictures-IMG00520
Now, the pioneers are gone and so is their spirit

Why did the City Council vote to extinguish several office buildings, all which contributed to Fullerton’s business zone and stock of professional offices, as well as our historic built environment?  Besides a crappy deceitful plan called Jefferson Commons for more student housing on a private college campus, the city lost a huge asset, one that helped create the historic character of East Fullerton for the past 50 years. Shame on them!

Correction to this post: I have been informed that the project cannot legally be exclusively for students, despite the council repeatedly calling it “student housing”.  It is a private development, and they cannot discriminate against non-students who want to rent there.

Welcome to Fullerton; Home of The Double Play


dsc00056

The City bought two “Go Titans” banners and posted them on the railroad overpass above Harbor Blvd. Great! We’re all for the Titans. Titan fans glory in our four College World Series championships. Some recall the 1978 basketball season when we were one point away from making the Final Four, and our 1984 football season when we were ranked in Sports Illustrated’s Top 25 for much of the season, with a final record of 11-1. Banners do liven up a city, inform the public and boost community spirit.

So, why the kill-joy sign still posted at Malvern & Euclid, on the flood control channel fence? malvern-euclid-click_dfbc06f8b92 Like a scolding nanny, it reads “Do Not Post Banners On Fence.” This has long been a convenient and inexpensive way for youth sports, churches and community groups to advertise their sign-ups and activities. It is hypocritical for the city to post a banner above Harbor, but ban signs at Euclid. If the Titans want to maintain baseball supremacy, the prospective Little League dad must know how to sign up his junior slugger—and for decades moms & dads read the banners at Euclid & Malvern for just such updated info.

Safety concerns must be weighed, but a loose banner above Harbor will fall onto oncoming traffic. A loose banner at Euclid & Malvern will fall onto the sidewalk—or into the urban runoff in the channel. At Euclid & Malvern, the fences are low enough so the banners aren’t blocking anyone’s and since their on the south side of the street, motorists don’t even need to look their direction to check cross-traffic.

do not postmedia-card-blackberry-pictures-img00471-500x375We’re all for a Titan banner on Harbor. But we’re also for the Little League and all manner of other banners on Euclid. That scolding warning sign is deterring community groups from getting their message out. You can bet it won’t deter politicians from their bi-annual blossoming of yard signs.

An Open Letter to McDonald’s Franchisees Mr. / Mrs. Frisbie

Do not enter into negotiations with the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency to move your McDonald’s restaurant 150 feet west to the Chapman / Pomona corner. Stay put.

There are many reasons for you to stay where you are. You some of them you know better than we do. But we have some political insights that might be helpful.

  1. To force you to move against your will, the agency must use eminent domain, which requires a 4/5ths vote. With Nelson and Jones already having voted against the move, the votes for eminent domain aren’t there.
  2. Besides, there’s every indication that Sharon Quirk will change her vote. That would make it 3-2 against granting $6 million for the move.
  3. The reconfiguration of your restaurant will hurt business, confusing regular customers who will have to access your drive-in window from Pomona Avenue.
  4. The agency will confine you into a “new-to-look-old” building that will look nothing like a traditional McDonald’s. Many of your patrons will not be able to recognize you.
  5. McDonalds’ trademark signs and golden arches will not be allowed in the new building provided by the agency, confusing and discouraging regular patrons.
  6. You have been, are and will be criticized for accepting $6 million in public money. We know you don’t want to move, but if you accept it, the public will see it as corporate welfare.
  7. The move will likely result in down time, costing you money and customers.
  8. When there are cost overruns (inevitable in public projects) the Agency may be slow to reimburse you for your costs. Those costs may be disputed.

This move is completely unnecessary for you from a business standpoint. You’d said during the hearing that long ago then-Redevelopment employee Terry Galvin told you the city wanted you to move. Galvin didn’t speak for the council then and he certainly doesn’t now.

Terry Galvin has retired. There is a whole new council majority. Nothing obligates you to go along with this deal.

And, there are not the 4 votes needed for eminent domain. You cannot be forced to move. Stay Put!

“NO TO BIG GOVERNMENT!”

In response to County Counsel’s objections to the original blight findings, the staff report asserts that “these parcels if developed will need to be assembled with adjacent properties to create a sufficient development parcel. Because these parcels are in multiple ownerships it becomes more difficult to assemble into a desired development site.”

My brother and I assembled 27 irregular shaped parcels along Truslow & Walnut Ave. without any RDA assistance. No subsidy, no eminent domain. The result is the Soco Walk transit-oriented condo complex.

OC's Priemier Transit Oriented Development
OC's Premier Transit Oriented Development

Many subsidized in-fill projects made possible by eminent domain are failures, because they respond to government hand-outs rather than market realities. Up and down California there exist many Ghost Malls (Triangle Square / Costa Mesa, Carousel Mall / San Bernardino) built on the backs of dispossessed property owners and fleeced taxpayers.

Let’s not suffer the fate of Santa Ana’s “Renaissance Plan” with numerous agency-owned vacant lots (where home and businesses once stood) have festered for years of bureaucratic inertia. There are many other such examples.

Redevelopment staffs abhor small business districts with multiple ownerships, because they cannot control them.

I will have a fundraiser for you after you vote on my project
Remember, staff always knows best!

They tarnish them with the blight label and threaten them with eminent domain to benefit some politically-connected developer who makes a killing before selling out and moving on.

Who thinks that government officials can do a better job of redeveloping areas than private individuals using their own money and taking their own risks? Bottom line: Do you trust the free market or city staff to make crucial development decisions for Fullertons future?

Let Commonwealth Be Commonwealth

There are 154 small businesses along West Commonwealth in the 2 1/2 miles stretching  from Euclid to Dale. Many are run by entrepreneurs who own their own property. This variety of small business owners is why City Staff is declaring it blighted in their attempt to hoodwink the council into including it into a new redevelopment area.

The Atnip Bld.
The Atnip Bld.

In response to County Counsel’s objections to the original blight findings, the staff report asserts that “these parcels if developed will need to be assembled with adjacent properties to create a sufficient development parcel. Because these parcels are in multiple ownerships it becomes more difficult the parcels into a desired development site.”

Huh?

These parcels already ARE developed into a variety of small businesses, ranging from coffee shops to body shops, from florists to machinists, from preschools to flight schools. Staff sees this as blight. The new RDA seeks to “assemble” (under threat of eminent domain) these parcels, clear out the small businesses to “create a sufficient development parcel” under one ownership. And that’s not good for Fullerton.

One Commonwealth business owner (Aeromark) has already opted out, fearing consolidation of his small parcel. Other owners, beware!

What idiot would call  this "Blight"?
What idiot would call this "Blight"?

No, West Commonwealth is not Irvine. Some planners may dislike the very variety that makes it interesting. But there is an edgy realism there, of small hardworking people actually producing goods and services for their customers–not because of some government mandate. The report goes on to say “development proposals are not financially feasible because acquisition costs have increased over the years rendering in-fill projects to be infeasible in many cases without redevelopment assistance.”

Let Commonwealth be Commonwealth!