Friends For Fullerton's Future

Part III of an essay sent in to FFFF.

THE WHITE PAPER
CAUGHT IN A CULTURE WAR of HISTORIC PRESERVATION

PART III

 In the last article, we covered the introduction of SB 9, which was the YIMBY’s way of taking a hatchet to single family zoning by making it legal not only to build ADUs, but also to subdivide lots and build up to four units per 2400 sq ft lot (now divided into 50/50 or 40/60). Crafted by 7 authors and co-authors, SB 9 had the support from a mix of housing groups and organizations like AARP, big money builders, cities, planners, advocates, urban planners, developers, and companies such as Facebook. The CA YIMBY claimed that it is illegal to build middle income housing in 70% of Los Angeles County because of R-1 zoning. The YIMBY movement adheres to the belief expressed in a paper, “It’s Time To End Single Family Housing,” by Manville, Monkkonen and Lens that R-1 zoning is built on racist and classist assumptions as well as exclusion. The authors call for an outright abolition of R 1 zoning, which is the basis of the YIMBYs view of the future, and it has influenced every bill passed. However, the authors state that ending R-1 zoning will not guarantee the end of segregation, exclusion or housing affordability. In other words, you can do all of this -SB 330, SB 9, but still have dickheads. Because getting rid of assholery is a totally different challenge (which extends to both sides of the aisle). But for the YIMBY movement, passing a bill is where they decided to start.

IN LIEU OF COWS, APPLY PRESERVATION

Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones” in response to SB 9. Much of it by neighborhood groups or nonprofit organizations like Fullerton Heritage, who have moved aggressively to include downtown adjacent areas.

However, YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to ʻweaponize preservation.ʻ They claim NIMBYs donʻt want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family as well as affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 is used by NIMBYʻs to get people to side with adding Preservation layers, as happened at a community meeting in Fullerton, requested by Fullerton Heritage and facilitated by City Planning for the purposes of finding out about this top-down proposal. All anyone had to do to gain support was say the word, “four-plex” without being informed of the nuances of SB 9, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this bruiser bill both costly and difficult.

PUSHBACK: AB 2580

To help cities ensure that their Housing Element is met, YIMBYs countered this rush to create new preservation zones or move land into land trusts. AB 2580 was passed to monitor them:
“(N) A list of all historic designations listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic places by the city or county in the past year, including an assessment of how those designations affect the ability of the city or county to meet its housing needs.” –Text of Assembly Bill 2580
            The reality is that by declaring entire districts ‘historic’ regardless of whether or not the neighborhoods were built to express one or a few historically significant styles, puts more pressure on adjacent neighborhoods to fill a city’s Housing Element (the required number of state-mandated housing units). Neither style, nor era-based uniformity is required. One such neighborhood, Skyline Park, is an attractive mix of single family homes built over a 100 year period, from Spanish revival, mock colonial, and to houses that reflect a broad scope of styles. To NIMBYs, the loophole exists to highlight and preserve architectural examples for a particular era but keep a districtʻs relationship between buildings and grounds intact. They also seek to prevent, what in their eyes are behemoths or buildings or features not to their taste from being built. What teeth does AB 2580 have if a city runs afoul? It remains to be seen.
AB 2580 was approved by Quirk-Silva and Newman, with solid support from both parties.

BANG BANG: AND THEN A JUDGE CHIMED IN

To the YIMBYs dismay, SB 9 was declared unconstitutional by a Los Angeles judge in 2024. While SB 9 made way for increased housing, it had no provisions for affordable housing as required by the state constitution. The judge ruled in favor of the 5 cities who sued the state: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar, who no longer must abide by the rules of SB 9.  For now, SB 9 is still in force and could be amended to reflect the same wording in the California constitution. But it has led Fullerton to consider morphing into something different.

A few weeks ago a guy named Matthew Ali wrote a post for the Fullerton Observer about the issue of the prohibition of non-government materials from City property. I wrote about it, here.

Okay, so the Kennedy Sisters found somebody to pitch their usual brand of editorial drivel masquerading as of news – fodder for the sheep that consider the Observer indispensable reading, and nothing new.

But the story doesn’t end there. Let’s let Matthew Ali tell it in his own words, in an email sent to people he talked to in developing his article:

Hello, this is Matthew Ali

If you are receiving this email, it is because you were interviewed for my article that appeared in the early May issue of the Fullerton Observer. First and foremost, I need to apologize for what was published under my byline. The words printed with my name attached were not the same as what I wrote. Multiple things were changed, and those changes were made without my knowledge or consent. Some things were taken out of context and changed into an attack on some of the people I interviewed.

In my estimation, the article as printed is not journalism. Nor is the published version something I can stand by. As of Monday, I have removed myself from the publication and will no longer be contributing to the Observer. This is entirely because of the liberties that were taken with my article. If what was printed read as an attack, that was never my intention.

Attached you will find an earlier draft that more closely aligns with what the article was supposed to be. It’s a bit rough and lacks the benefit of editing. But I am sending this to you without changes so my actual intent and what I wrote can be seen and the difference can be understood.

Again, I apologize for what was published under my name. If any of you have questions or would like to chat about the article, please do not hesitate to reach out.

With warm regards,

Matthew Ali

Who to believe? Pretty easy. Sankia Kennedy has no credibility and has been known to modify submissions to suit her editorial preferences. And this email suggests irresponsible editorial license.

I don’t think we’ll be reading anymore articles or blog posts by Matthew Ali for the Fullerton Observer. Let’s chalk this up to yet another excellent reason why the Fullerton Observer doesn’t belong on City property.

Reading the staff report for the May 20th Trail to Nowhere© rehash I came across this little nugget:

Early in the design phase, the construction cost was estimated at $4million. Because of City Council direction to keep within the estimate, staff simplified the trail crossing at Richman Avenue, and simplified the connection at Independence Park to reduce the total estimated cost prior to putting out to bid.

$4,000,000?! How on earth did staff get to that number for construction? Who knows? And how did it become $1,800,000? The following sentence shines the light on staff’s desire to look like they waged a ruthless war of economy – only listing a couple of minor items that don’t add up to millions. But boy they sure were trying hard to follow “City Council Direction” to keep within the estimate, whatever that was.

But of course they failed. And the new City’s share for this boondoggle rose 91% to $630,000.

Even more disturbing to me is what I believe is an artificially low-bid, made to fit exactly the so-called “Engineer’s Estimate” provided to bidders – $1,845,776. How that number relates to a $4,000,000 the “early design” estimate I’ll ignore.

The real issue to me is whether the contractor wrote off their profit and overhead to get this job. The median bid for this project was $2,286,000 – $440,000 and 24% more than the low bid. I think somebody kept sharpening their pencil ’til there was nothing left but wood shavings and graphite dust. Either that or they bungled the bid. If that’s the case we may definitely expect change orders to help bolster the contractor’s motivation for the job. The consequences are the same.

The public doesn’t even get to see the plan for the job. I suspect the Council hasn’t seen a final design either, even though they’re expected to approve it. One thing the agenda item does include “are a few elevations “3D renderings” (above) of the trail at four points. There are lots of happy, recreating people shown, verdant flower beds and mature trees. There’s nothing that looks like the forlorn neglect of Phase I. No drug deals, no graffiti and no homeless.

Something else is missing, too. For some reason the renderings ignore the clear 10ft buffer zones required by the Council back in January, 2024. Maybe these views are just holdovers from before the thing was approved. If so, that’s just sloppy and lazy.

Ironically, Trail to Nowhere© advocates are getting shortchanged and don’t even know it. The original bike trail was supposed to be concrete and is now just cheaper asphalt. The 10,560 shrubs described in the grant application are now just 600. But it’s all great. City Hall is giving “them” something good.

Our friend Joshua Ferguson has done Fullerton a solid, taking the time to create a video of the notorious Trail to Nowhere© site. He starts at the west and heads east documenting the dilapidation, gang graffiti, trash, and general unhealthy and unsafe nature of the environment on and next to the proposed trail.

A couple of things to remember that City staff steadfastly refuses to acknowledge:

1. Phase II does not connect to Phase I
2. Phase I is a design failure, a total maintenance disaster, and is unused by anybody
3. The existing Phase I “trail” ends at the fenced off Poisoned Park. The original “trail” went through the park and ended at the old UP bridge over Harbor Blvd. After that it just turns into a regular sidewalk, not a recreation trail.

Here’s the video. It’s well worth watching.

Fullerton’s Union Pacific Trail Betrayal – YouTube

I sure hope Dunlap, Valencia and Jung get the opportunity to see this video and realize that this “project” was never more than a bundle of lies, misinformation, omitted facts, and constant pressure from people who didn’t and don’t know what they’re talking about.

There are no potential users, there is no connectivity, there is no money for maintenance; there is a history of failure, a hollow, patronizing gesture by lefties, make-work for City employees, and nonsense-talk from a handful of locals manipulated by Ahmad Zahra. And oh, yeah, an ever-escalating cost to the citizens of Fullerton, that has quadrupled in five years.

Part 2 of an essay sent in to FFFF.

Caught in a culture war
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The End of Single Family Housing Zoning
Shortly after the Eaton Fires, I saw posts on forums where people anticipated rebuilding, “anything but single family housing.” Even though R 1 zoning has been the California dream, it has been phased out, first with the introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units in 2016, then later, Jr-ADUs. ADUs offer a quick way to add housing and gain property taxes, potentially doubling a neighborhood population. However, the utility infrastructure stays the same, while a greater demand is foisted onto first responders. Cities are left to assume the expenses and resource demands of more people. R1 zoning is deemed by the YIMBYs as wasteful and selfish, and limits availability of housing choices. NIMBYs point to a harmonious life of space, predictability and security. But the YIMBY’s weren’t done dismantling R1 zoning, so they introduced a new tactic: SB 9.

The Problematical SB 9

To add more firepower to the ridding of R 1 zoning, YIMBYs backed SB 9 in 2021 to allow lot “splitting” but only in R 1 neighborhoods. Lots must be a minimum of 2400sq ft. They can be divided 60/40 or 50/50 with up to two units on each new lot that meet the setback and height requirements. According to the City of Fullerton, the structures may not be more than 800 sq. ft. For lot splits, one unit must be owner occupied for three years. For two unit projects, all units can be rented. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant for the last 3 years, may not be torn down. The reality is 2-4 units are not going to make a fast enough difference in reaching 13,206 units. Since no requirements in the bill specify affordable housing, there are no public funds available for these projects. Because of the high per-unit cost of building and a lower ROI, in the first two years only 75 lot splits were approved across California, as opposed the approval of 8800 ADUs. Confusing? Attempting just to describe it is fodder for mistakes. But ideological wars are both heated and have many twists and turns. This is an attempt to solve a housing shortage with a culture war pushing it from behind.

In Lieu Of Cows, Create A New Preservation Zone
Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones.”
 YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to “weaponize preservation.” They claim NIMBYs don’t want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family and affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 can intentionally be used to get people to side with Preservation zoning, as happened at a community meeting held for the purposes of finding out about this proposal. All anyone had to do was say the word, “Fourplex” without understanding nuances of the bill, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this both costly and difficult.

FFFF was sent a well-written and thought provoking essay regarding the issue of historic preservation, zoning used to defy Sacramento mandates, and of course freedom of expression. Apparently somebody is making a another attempt to establish a historic district in one of Fullerton’s older neighbor hoods.

This piece is pretty lengthy so I’m presenting it in installments.

Caught in a culture war;
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The question of whether or not to approve a historic preservation layer over a neighborhood isn’t one that is new. This is the third fight, which in the past has included protests with pink lawn flamingos. Hells bells and all out, I didn’t mind wading into new waters to gain an understanding of this current push to put several neighborhoods under preservation layers, and how three new laws are shaping our city and its neighborhoods.

NIMBYs and YIMBYs

This is a culture war is between NIMBYs and YIMBYs (Not in My Backyard and Yes in My Backyard). Both are adept at crafting legislation that echo their ideologies. The struggle is between those don’t want any changes in their neighborhoods, and those who insist that the California Dream needs to evolve and that zoning needs to be changed in order to accommodate the needs of cities today. The foot soldiers for this war are embodied by the California Senate and the Assembly. Most of us wouldn’t self-identify as either a NIMBY or a YIMBY, but prefer the term neighbors. Culture wars start with a problem: Californiaʻs population of 39.4 million has resulted in a housing shortage. There aren’t enough places to rent, and the median price for housing in Orange County alone, is well beyond the reach of many. In Sacramento, new laws have been created, the bulk of them are partisan bills introduced and passed in the Newsom era. To make way for building, these new laws override existing municipal zoning combining egalitarian ideals with capitalism.

Re-zoning On Steroids: SB 330

The result of one side of the culture wars is marked by the emergence of high rise apartments, not only in Fullerton, but everywhere. These developments help cities meet a state-assigned number of new units to fulfill its Housing Element (Fullertonʻs HE has been set to 13,206). The law, SB 330, super charges the approval process and prevents cities from adopting new zoning laws that could serve as a barrier to development. Laws like SB 330 are part of the ʻBuilders Remedy,ʻ which applies to a section of the California code for cities who have yet to meet their quota. Present zoning regulations are moot, and developments for housing are planned. These projects get help from Federal economic stimulus plans intended to revitalize cities because they include affordable housing. Programs that provide funding and tax breaks to build new housing are applied for by developers, while cities get development fees and increased tax revenues. Since land is scarce, former commercial, freeway and railroad adjacent lands and urban infill are being developed. With a lower per-unit cost, and a higher ROI, high rises and new subdivisions that cover city blocks are being built for buyers, renters, and includes affordable and low income housing. Thereʻs a lot riding on this. The state is trying to create housing for all, help people avoid homelessness, fuel the economy with the creation of jobs, renew cities, and keep employers in California by producing affordable housing. Housing, jobs, and renewing cities are ways of affirming humanity.

Government agencies always love to talk about their transparency and how hard they work providing services to the folk who pay their salaries. But let’s not forget that secrecy is the unspoken watchword of all bureaucracies of whatever type.

Here’s a prime example of a dodge to a Public Act Records request. Somebody wants information about the low bidder on the infamous Trail to Nowhere©. The low bidder exactly matched the City’s “Engineer’s Estimate” to within five cents. Disclosure: this request was not made by FFFF,

The information requested is really specific. Just the sort of thing that avoids rejection based on over generalization or on requiring an onerous collection effort.

Uh, oh. The requestor made a BIG mistake.

He/she made his/her request on April 30th, 8 days after the bid. But the contract had not yet been awarded. Therefore, technically, there was no information to disclose because there was no awardee.

The requestor may or may not have known there was no award yet, and assumed there was. Or maybe he/she should have said “low bidder.” Now, you might say that the City’s Engineering Department are not mind readers, and so honestly said there were no records. And yet all of the information requested about low-bidder KASA Construction is known by the City, and that is obviously what the requestor wanted. Now, when (and if) the award is made the requestor will never get his request answered because it already has been.

I notice how this request was closed on the very morning the contract was expected to be approved by the City Council. Now, the City might have waited until the next day when they believed the question could be answerable. But no. Never answer a question you can avoid. Done and done.

There is a moral to this story, and that is that the City, even if they are capable of competently responding to a PRA request (wait for my next post), will never release information that it deems sensitive if it can help it, and you need to craft your request in a way that is specific enough and that contemplates the subtleties of the English language. And you will not get an explanation of how you failed.

Last night the City Council voted 3-2 to move ahead with a study of a Charter City status for Fullerton. Jung, Dunlap and Valencia voted to look into it. Zahra and Charles voted no.

It was painful to sit through comments, most of which were obviously scripted to attack the motives of Mayor Fred Jung, and were all full of nonsensical misinformation about staggering financial costs, legal entanglements, and of course the old standby cliché: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

These Fullerton Boohoo worthies were obviously coached- and coached sloppily – by Zahra and Charles, and maybe even by reading the opinions of Sanskia Kennedy in the reliable Fullerton Observer – reliable to make stuff up if it helps the narrative. All of the excuses had been debunked, but that doesn’t matter. Commonsense is a not a common commodity among these folks.

Old grievances were aired of course, mostly the money pit Waste on Wilshire, and the Trail to Nowhere© redux in which “the people” have spoken – a few dozen out of a City of 160,000.

My favorite line of attack that was parroted by several speakers was that Fullerton has bigger problems – a fiscal precipice, and horrible roads. The fact that these disasters developed under General Law City status made their “argument” comically ironic. Is it or ain’t it broke?

Joshua Ferguson was on hand to deliver a hard, cold slap to the commentary by pointing out that the citizenry can become more involved in Fullerton affairs in the Charter process, not less. He was interrupted by boos from the faithful.

A Mr. Matt Leslie called in to support a study, and to admonish the speakers who had said (insultingly) that it would be too complicated to figure out and people would just vote yes (because they are so dumb), the typical top-down patronization of ordinary people by liberals. “The people want (fill in the blank)” doesn’t apply to a possible majority regular voters – only the claque of 12 or so who show up to harangue the council majority on a regular basis.

Another zoom caller expressed astonishment that so many adults, especially old ones, were so scared of the monster under the bed.

Which brings me (at last) to the real issue of charter status, expressed without bias. The proverbial devil is in the details. A charter can be as simple or as complex as people want. True the final charter version will be put on the ballot by the City Council, but lots of smart people will be able to scrutinize the text long before an election to approve or reject it. Don’t like it? Mount an anti-charter campaign. Zahra and Charles must have lots of campaign money lying around. Put it to work and get voters to just vote no.

I would be remiss if I failed to point out the noxious presence at the meeting of our old friend, Vivian Jaramillo, still very bitter about losing in last fall’s election, and then being rejected as a planning commissioner. Her “argument” was that a charter would make “Little Dictator” Fred Jung able to give all the City’s construction jobs to the Bushala Brothers, a claim based on her own long standing vendetta with the Bushalas, not any facts in evidence.

MY APOLOGIES FOR IDENTIFYING THE WRONG HOUSE IN THIS POST. GABRIEL SAN ROMAN IS CORRECT. THE HOUSE IN QUESTION IS ON HILLCREST DRIVE.

Historic preservation, to my inexpert understanding, is about recognizing the significance of buildings that are associated with historic figures and with significant architecture. Enter the home of one Louis E. Plummer, longtime Superintendent of Fullerton Schools in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. He wrote a useful history of the Fullerton Schools in the early days, I am informed.

Fullerton Heritage nominated Mr. Plummer’s house as a candidate for recognition as a Fullerton City Landmark. It’s (not) at 104 Park View Road – an attractive red tile roofed house from the 1920s. The item came up at last week’s City Council meeting.

Things got challenging.

You see, Mr. Plummer was a member of the Ku Klux Klan back in the 20s, according to someone’s doctoral dissertation 46 years ago. I no have idea if the assertion is even accurate, but it presented real problems for the two self-righteously woke members of the City Council, namely the Good “Drs.” Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles, who can’t be seen as associating themselves with the Klan, no matter how ridiculously remote.

The same issue confronted the Fullerton Joint Unified High School five years ago and they took Plummer’s name off the FHS auditorium that bore it for 60 years, folding under WoW-style pressure from similar ignoramuses.

Apparently, nuanced conversation isn’t useful when you’re out to score what you think is an easy political layup.

Forget the fact that Plummer was significant leader in Fullerton and contributed to the development of the public education system in Fullerton – the soi-disant “Education Community.” And forget the fact that the house wouldn’t be a damn shrine for White Nationals. And forget the fact that the house is 100 years old and designed by the guy that did a lot of those historical WPA Spanishy buildings at FJC – the old concrete ones – not the new overbearing monstrosities. Forget that the dedicatory plaque will be on private property and will offend nobody. No. KKK.

In the end Jung, Valencia and Dunlap voted to approve the inclusion of the house into the Landmark Register (or whatever they call it). Zahra and Charles voted no. Charles and Zahra both claim intellectual attainment, being “Drs” and all. But if they have any they didn’t dare show it.

Right on cue the Fullerton Observer kraken Skania Kennedy released herself with a headline that blares out:

“Council Majority Approves Controversial Landmark Designation for Ku Klux Klan Collaborator Louis Plummer’s Residence“

Suddenly a public conversation requiring some sophisticated thinking becomes an attack on Sasksa’s favorite villain – Fred Jung and Co. In weaselly fashion Sansika labels Plummer a KKK “collaborator,” but of course there’s no more proof of that than there is of his being a full-fledged member, based on who knows what evidence collected by the dissertation writer without fear of a defamation lawsuit from a dead man.

It’s pretty clear that this effort is nothing more than a way to blackguard three decent people, and maybe someday supply a theme for a political hit piece.

Anyway, I’ll let Fran J, the Observers new reality fact checker take us home by responding to Saksia and her sister, Sharon on the Fullerton Observer blog:

As for decisions like the WoW program or the Plummer home designation, these are nuanced matters being flattened into soundbites. The Plummer home, what you refer to as KKK house is historic building that tells a story—good, bad, and ugly. Pretending that preserving it is an endorsement of racism ignores the value of reckoning with our history rather than erasing it. The city isn’t honoring the man; it’s preserving a piece of our past so we can learn from it. The LA Times also reported about the Louis Plummer house that actually better reflects the complexity of that issue which I encourage residents to read if they really cared.

It’s fine to disagree on policy, but let’s do so with the full picture in mind. Mayor Jung isn’t perfect—no leader is—but he’s showing up, making hard decisions, and putting Fullerton on the map in ways we haven’t seen in years. That deserves a fair evaluation, not a list of half-contextualized talking points.

Well said, Fran.

An interesting post popped up on the Fullerton Observer blog yesterday. It isn’t interesting because of content. It’s interesting because it was actually advertised as an opinion piece for a change; and it has an named author: Skasia, one half of the intellectually challenged Kennedy Sisters who publish the Observer. Because of this latter fact, the post is chock full of misinformation, weak generalizations, and double talk. Of course it is completely unpersuasive.

The topic? The awfulness of charter cities in California, and a list of supposed reasons to fear and loathe them.

Somebody called “Fran J” responded with a comment methodically dismembering all of Snakia’s talking points. Here’s what Fran J had to say, and please note the final two paragraphs of Fran J’s comment:

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 12:36 pm

The opposition to Fullerton becoming a charter city isn’t rooted in facts or public interest—it’s rooted in political bias and a reflexive rejection of anything introduced by Mayor Fred Jung. The arguments raised against charter status collapse under scrutiny, and publications like the Fullerton Observer, which should be advocating for local empowerment, have instead chosen to stoke fear and misinformation.

Sacramento is not slowing down. From housing mandates to labor laws, the state continues to erode the power of cities to govern themselves. Charter status is the most effective legal tool we have to protect our autonomy. It doesn’t mean we ignore state law—it means we have the power to decide when and how to apply it in local matters.

Fullerton deserves better than to be handcuffed by outdated state mandates. We are a city of educators, entrepreneurs, artists, and families who care deeply about where we live. We have the intelligence, the creativity, and the civic pride to shape our own future—and the charter is the legal framework that lets us do just that.

Claim: Charter cities reduce accountability and invite corruption.
Reality: Charter cities still operate under California’s transparency laws, including the Brown Act, the Public Records Act, and the Political Reform Act. Nothing about becoming a charter city removes oversight or ethics requirements. In fact, a city charter gives residents the power to implement even stricter ethics rules, term limits, or transparency standards than state law requires. Suggesting otherwise ignores both the law and reality.

Claim: Charter cities concentrate power in the hands of a few elected officials.
Reality: This is a talking point, not a truth. Charter cities are governed by documents written with public input and approved by the voters themselves. That’s democracy—not consolidation. It’s ironic that the people making this argument seem far more concerned with who proposed the idea (Mayor Jung) than with the content of the proposal itself. The fear of power concentration is a distraction from the real issue: whether Fullerton should control its own local affairs or remain bound to Sacramento’s one-size-fits-all mandates.

Claim: Charter cities face more lawsuits and cost taxpayers more money.
Reality: Any city—charter or general law—can face legal challenges. The legal risks are not higher simply because a city adopts a charter; they only rise if a city writes a sloppy or reckless charter, which Fullerton has every opportunity to avoid through proper public process and expert input. More importantly, charter cities have more flexibility to reduce costs in public contracting, land use, and local services, often saving taxpayers money long term.

Claim: It will silence public voices.
Reality: This argument couldn’t be more backwards. Charter adoption requires public engagement, input, hearings, and a vote. If residents don’t support a specific provision, they can vote it down or demand it be changed. The process invites deeper civic participation—far more than passively following distant state mandates.

Claim: Charter cities can raise taxes more easily.
Reality: False. Charter cities are still bound by Prop 13, Prop 218, and Prop 26—meaning no new local taxes can be imposed without voter approval. The only thing charter status allows is greater efficiency in how cities spend public money—not how they raise it.

Claim: It isolates Fullerton from state or county support.
Reality: There is no evidence whatsoever to support this. Charter cities still receive state funding, participate in county programs, and are eligible for grants. Nearly 125 cities in California are charter cities—including Anaheim, Santa Ana, Irvine, and Huntington Beach. None of them have been “cut off” from support. This is fear-based rhetoric, not grounded in fact.

Let’s be honest—the real reason groups like the Fullerton Observer are opposing charter status has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with politics. If this proposal had come from anyone other than Mayor Fred Jung, many of these same critics would likely be praising it as a progressive step toward local empowerment. Instead, they’ve allowed pettiness to dictate their stance, opposing a good idea simply because of who introduced it.

Fullerton deserves better than performative outrage and knee-jerk contrarianism. This isn’t a small town that needs to be told what to do by Sacramento. This is a proud, capable community that can write its own rules, shape its own future, and trust its own residents. Becoming a charter city is a powerful step in that direction—and it’s time to stop letting political grudges get in the way of progress.

ED Response: Wow Fran J – you seem to know a lot about this subject though not everyone agrees. We do have a lot of problems to pay attention to and spend our limited funding on. This seems – to many – to be something that will not be helpful. I agree with you that a study session presenting all sides would be useful. In the past Fred Jung and the council majority have terminated the contract of an excellent City Manager for no reason at great expense and hired an unemployed friend who was not up to the job, tried to privatize the public library, end the UP Trail, and did end Walk on Wilshire – and more – so are not trusted by many who live here and want those things.

Unfortunately “ED” felt constrained to exercise a nasty, unprofessional habit that still plagues Siskyu. “Wow” she says, sarcastically trying to denigrate the commenter. Of course she may just be that surprised that someone actually bothered to read her tripe. She slips up and says she’s for a “study session” but that’s a lie, of course. Then Sakia trails off into a litany of Fullerton Boohoo grievances against Fred Jung and the council majority for:

1. firing an “excellent” City Manager (ED Note: Ken Domer was an incompetent boob)
2. trying to privatize the library (ED Note: and when did this happen?)
3. end the UP Trail (ED Note: the UP trail has always been an absurd boondoggle, but the majority did approve it.
4. end the Walk on Wilshire (ED Note: yes – an idea so damn stupid, and so bad for Wilshire Avenue businesses only a dunce couldn’t see it)
5. “and more” (ED Note: what’s the matter Sanka, too busy soliciting mortuary ads to spin more mythology?)
6. not trusted by many who want those things (ED Note: many people want many things, and many people can be manipulated into believing falsehoods about things they say they want. That’s just demagoguery, and that’s we have representative democracy.

My own favorite part of the editorial was this hilarious hypocritical line from Saksia:

– Charter cities can impose local taxes with significantly fewer restrictions, placing the financial burden squarely on the community.

Since when have the Kennedy Sisters or any of their tribe given a rat’s ass about the ease of raising taxes, except to make it easier. I wonder if Sanka even pays any taxes at all.

A close second for unintentional hilarity was Skiana’s assertion that a charter city would be more expensive in legal costs, another topic that Fullerton Observers have never shown interest in the past as Dick Jones racked up billing based on his own legal misjudgment. More self-unawareness: Sharon Kennedy actually tried to help the City in its absurd and losing legal harassment of Joshua Ferguson, David Curlee, and FFFF. That lawsuit cost the taxpayers plenty.

And even more, later yesterday. Enjoy.

Fran J

May 11, 2025 at 3:38 pm

Yes, I am very familiar with this subject. As a former municipal attorney, I have experience with local governance and legal frameworks. You’re welcome to disagree, but there is a difference between opinion and fact—I’ve provided the latter for readers to consider.

That said, you’re actually reinforcing my point. Your response appears heavily influenced by personal grievances with the Mayor—many of which are either inaccurate or irrelevant to the issue at hand. It’s important for your readers to understand that, as the editor of this publication, you’re approaching this topic with a strong and evident bias.

Readers deserve transparency, not personal vendettas disguised as civic concern.

ED Response: I have no personal grievance with anyone on our council. I was merely listing some of the reasons many in our town do not trust the current majority to make good decisions on our city’s behalf. For instance at the most recent council meeting the majority allowed a memorial plaque for a historic building in honor of a KKK member and at the same meeting banned our university newspaper Daily Titan and the 46-year-old all local volunteer community newspaper Fullerton Observer from continuing to have a rack in the lobby of city hall. You may have read about that in the OC Register, LA Times, Voice of OC, the LAist, or heard about it on NPR or other news agencies or from various Free Speech agencies. These, and other decisions have made residents suspicious of our council majority.

Saska has no personal grievance with anyone on our council. Now that’s hilarious.