Jane Reifer For Fullerton City Council in 2010?

Well, why the hell not? We were immensely impressed by her statement at the recent City Council meeting where she stared down the establishment in its headlong rush to expand Redevelopment in Fullerton. She was courageous and knowledgeable – a far cry from the Pam Kellers and Sharon Quirks of Fullerton who have gone along with monstrous development projects with the casual complicity of politicians who have higher aspirations. While the Redevelopment goons and shills like John Phelps and “Fullerton Positive” jackasses were trying to grease their own skids, Jane was at the podium defending the interests of the people of Fullerton from further Redevelopment demolitions and styrofoam construction. 

Jane Reifer has been a dedicated advocate for true preservation and sensible development for years. She has embraced progressive ideas without falling into the brainless trap of liberal cliches and shibboleths. She has learned the hard way that City staff has its own agenda that is not necessarily congruent with the interests of the people.

Maybe most importantly she would truly listen to voices not connected to issues via their own self-interest; she would bring a geniunely independent perspective to those issues; and best of all she would demand accountability on the part of City staff.

And so we say: Jane Reifer in 2010! Why not? It’s time for a real change.

23 Replies to “Jane Reifer For Fullerton City Council in 2010?”

  1. Hey, I have nothing but stellar things to say about Jane Reifer. As far as I’m concerned she’s the conscience of the city, but don’t you think you’re putting a little pressure on her with this post? I’m not sure it’s fair to throw something like this out in the world without talking to her first. What concerns me is that we may see a whole discussion ensue about someone who has never sought the spotlight unless there was a need for her leadership, and may not appreciate an open discussion about her suitability for city council.

  2. Oh Matt, quit it. Maybe she wants a little reassurance that she’s not the only voice in crying out in the Wilderness. Maybe she has no political ambition (smart!).

    If the former she needs a little push. If the latter, the post is irrelevant.

  3. With such a source of exuberance, the fair lady wont lack for enemies. For sure thanks to you Harpo, the Observer is probably already printing a hit piece on Miss Riefer.

  4. Ahab :
    Harpo, the Observer is probably already printing a hit piece on Miss Riefer.

    An interesting question you raise Ahab. Would the Observer endorse Don Bankhead over Jane Riefer?

  5. Henry, that’s a great question. I would say not. They tell me Jane has been active representing non-auto interests in county-wide transportation issues. No way they could X her – that’s right up the Observer’s alley.

    On the other hand Sharon Kennedy did endorse the buffoon Jones. So who knows?

    BTW, Ahab I’m “Harpoon.” harpo didn’t talk. I’m a lot more like Groucho.

  6. Jane may be a nice girl but she would have no chance. You don’t get elected in Fullerton by being on the fringe. You have to join the Chamber and Rotary or something like that. Fullerton likes people who do not make waves.

  7. if jane is to succeed, she needs to avoid fullerton observer endorsement. it has a bad track record of city council endorsements; doc dick jones and quirk the jerk.

  8. Um, van, The Observer endorsed both Quirk and Jones. They both won! That sure looks like success.

  9. I understand Jane runs her own blog. Admin, perhaps you should let your readers know what her blog is about, or better yet, you could invite Jane to write a guest post on a topic that is important to FFFF?

  10. Rudy, it’s true that Fullerton likes its candidates bland, mealy-mouthed, and ultimately non-threatening. But that’s only because nobody hs been paying attention as an agricultural crossroads has morphed into a city of 140,000 people. Most of those people haven’t got a clue what’s been going on. Most of the apologists for the current situation have something to gain by its perpetuation.

    We are trying to get the word out: there’s been a whole lot of mismanagement, incompetence, favoritism and waste in Fullerton government – city and schools. Millions upon millions of dollars are at stake.

    If a realtively small fraction of the voting public is reached then politics as usual will be a thing of the past – just like the horse and buggy thinking that has produced candidates like Bankhead and Jones form the RINO side of the aisle, and vapid, go-along DINOs like Quirk and Keller on the other.

    So I repeat: why not Jane Reifer? Sure we could do worse; and I don’t think we could do better.

  11. I think Fullerton needs new blood! Jane Reifer has checked out for a few year, she needs to be involved (I agree with Fullerton Rudy) before considering running for City Council. On a different note can we grow up with the nasty comments about Jones. It is really getting old! Don’t get me wrong I agree with the message you are sending about him! But we need to move on. JANE REIFER WHY? Does not have a chance

  12. Marylin, what has Jane “checked out” of? She was there to fight Redevelopment cancer when hardly anybody else was.

    Could be she has just given up on trying to get anything substantive done playing by the rules laid down by the bureaucracy and its running dogs in the various “feel good” civic groups. Maybe we can get her to comment here.

  13. Jane made more sense than the “lunatic” Jones, “dinosaur” Bankhead and “appear to listen, but can’t comprehend” Quirk did at the bogus blight hearing.

    GO FOR IT JANE REIFER

  14. She doesn’t stand a chance against Keller, her only hope is Bankhead pulls out and nobody else gets in.

    1. Jones will be quitting soon and Bankhead’s days are numbered, especially if the election becomes a referendum on term limits.

      The Little Man and the Repugs will dredge up some losers and hit Keller with some mud – hey boom! Wide open race, baby!

  15. Instead of throwing out names from the rather small pool that everyone knows, why don’t you sit down and decide what qualities you’d like to see in a person and also what issues you’d like them to have good grounding in?

    Then get the word out. Have meetings around town. Get those who are usually not included involved. Drum up support and make it one huge group push. But not for any one candidate at this point, find out what other issues are important and who in the crowd stands out.

    Maybe looking out of sphere of conventional wisdom will pull in new names?

    Concern about Jane: Was unable to answer questions regarding the financial viability about future plans for the FOX when she was making her pitch. While she was dutiful in making the rounds and gathering support, there were many who were not convinced about the entire project, even though they recognized the significance of the building.

    Just because Tony Bushala wants Jane, this can’t be reason enough for everyone to get behind her.

    Cast your net wide, the pull it in and figure out who all is out there.

  16. So who are you Harpoon? If you’re going to toss Reifer’s name out there, why not come out and tell us all who you are?

  17. No one with the sense of a peanut would put Jane Reifer in charge of running a Photo Mat. Just because she can act the role of contrarian is no reason to support her for running the city.

    Agree with #17, list the qualifications first then see if anyone steps forward to meet them.

  18. Too funny! Let’s do a roll call of Fullerton councilmembers who haven’t had the sense God gave a peanut. let’s reflect upon Jones, Bankhead, Keller, Quirk, Wilson, Clearasil, Sa, etc., etc.

    Either stupid, lackies, or both. Compared to the garden variety FCC member Jane starts to look pretty good, huh?

    #17 we know the kind of person we want. it’s on our mastehead. By the time you’re done with your process you’ll be gearing up for the 2020 election.

  19. Says: We need intelligent candidates, but they must also have the ability to admit ignorance and error. Who are willing to hold themselves and others accountable for their decisions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.