More Proof That The Redevelopment Expansion is Pure Baloney

hogwash300Just in case any objective person needed more evidence that the basis of the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency’s proposed land-grab is unadulterated hog wash, we share a letter from an individual whose property is currently within the proposed boundaries; and of course we include a copy of the response from the City.

In his letter to the Agency, longtime Fullerton resident and businessman Mr. Paul O’Neil of AEROMARK, provides a rather comprehensive indictment of the entire expansion process and its ultimate conclusion of “blight.” He concludes his letter with a request to have his property deleted from the project area. In response Agency Director Rob Zur Schmiede agrees that the property can be excluded because it is near the boundary, because it not necessary to further the goals of the project, and because Mr O’Neil wrote a letter!

Well, Mr. Zur Schmiede’s missive begs several pertinent questions that go to the very heart of the Agency’s competency and honesty in this whole matter. First, if the property in question is on the edge and not necessary, why was it included by the City’s “expert” consultant in the first place? Second, why does the fact that Mr. O’Neil wrote a letter asking to be removed have any bearing on the supposed “findings” necessary to include it? This response gives every indication of being nothing but a way to shut up potentially vocal opposition to the expansion by an obviously informed, and unhappy property owner. If the mere fact of “writing a letter” is a germane to exclusion of a property, then it seems like every single property owner ought to have the same right.

Edge, what edge?
Edge, what edge?

We also note that exclusion of Mr. O’Neil’s  “edge” property from the project would simply create a new “edge” property right next door. At the very least that property’s owner should have the same opportunity as Mr. O’Neil to have his property deleted from the expansion – thus creating another edge property!

This whole process of Redevelopment expansion, including both analysis and notification, seems to have been undertaken in an incredibly haphazard way. Who can say whether this was intentional. Not us. But we have our suspicions – as do a growing number of affected businesses and property owners.

12 Replies to “More Proof That The Redevelopment Expansion is Pure Baloney”

  1. So every affected property owner has to write a letter to Zur Schmiede to find out if their property is REALLY blighted or if it was just added by mistake?

    Why did they even bother to do the study?

  2. Does anyone out there is blogland know how much money the Redevelopment Agency gave to
    Urban Futures to tell us that our City is blighted even though we all know it’s not?

  3. Good question, Travis. Another good question is why the guy was included in the first place. And this just goes to show that the original boundaries were almost completely arbitrary.

    Somehow it doesn’t seem right that they should have to petition to be removed. The Agency has failed to demonstrate blight. This phoney charade should be dropped immediately.

  4. Thanks for this post. I really like the way you pulled apart that nonsense produced by Zur Schmiede. ThaT guy really needs a new job.

  5. Fortunately, Fullerton has a new Sheriff in town and his name is Nelson, Shawn Nelson.

    Rob will get it, give him another chance Joe.

  6. Nelson gets it. it’s the other four clowns you need to enlighten. Since it won’t happen, sue their pants off – and their wallets!

  7. I think the county is going to sue their (our) pants off. How much taxpayer money is going to be spent in a fruitless attempt to legally defend this expansion of the RDA? Where is fiscal conservatism when we really need it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.