On the Agenda – February 16th, 2010

Temper Tantrum Tuesdays are back!

There is a study session at the police department’s mural room.  You can participate in three areas of discussion to fix the broken housing and redevelopment system.

“Staff will provide further update regarding housing policy issues, including 1) the status of progress by the City in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Assessment obligations; 2) an overview of the federal tax credit programs; and 3) proposed next steps for the use of current and future redevelopment housing set-aside funds.”

It is an opportunity to voice your concerns about management or mismanagement as it may be of tax dollars spent tearing down low-cost apartments, displacing tenants, and building more costly condos.

In the regular meeting the consent calendar has, among other things, several parking issues as well as public works projects.

Item 9 is an alley abandonment related to a redevelopment agency proposal.  The reason stated behind the abandonment is to save the city maintenance costs.  However, an abandonment now makes it that much easier for a private developer to build.

I didn’t know that the City of Fullerton has lobbyists but that is what the supporting documentation for item 10 states.  I urge you to read the details of what legislation your City supports.

Item 11 is for a community garden.  No surprise that Keller and Quirk Silva are backing this.  If it passes, we will all have a place to sow our seeds.

If the Transportation Center and high-speed rail are important to you, take notice of item 12.

“The purposes of this item are to: 1) provide the Agency with a description of the proposed public review process for the Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan/EIR and solicit suggestions or comments, if any, from Agency members; and 2) describe the public outreach program being contemplated by the California High Speed Rail Authority in connection with proposed Anaheim to San Francisco high-speed train service, including possible development of a Fullerton station stop.”

Seven lieutenants and captains at the police department have agreed to take a 5% pay cut.  Item 13 makes it official.

Lastly, item 14 is the financial report for the first half of FY2009-2010.  I haven’t read the entire report yet but I wonder how many tax-dollars have been funneled from the general fund to the Redevelopment Agency.

As always, chime in and let me know if I missed anything or if you have some details that shed light on any of the items listed.

4 Replies to “On the Agenda – February 16th, 2010”

  1. I know what I’m going to plant in the community garden.

    And I don’t think that the cops are actually taking a pay cut. It looks like they are cutting hours across 5% the board.

  2. It’s time for housing vouchers for the poor.

    It’s ridiculous to buy existing housing stock when all you are doing is removing poor people at a huge relocation expense, and then bringing back more poor folks. The only ones who seem to benefit are the developers, the relocation consultants, staff and the realtors.

    The smart cities use housing vouchers, and it’s never too late to be smart.

  3. I want to know why does the city pay a lobbyist to lobby Sacramento, isn’t that what our State Assemblyman is suppose to do? The wish list of things seem pretty basic, I wonder what Chris Norby thinks of:

    Support maximum flexibility for local government in contracting and contract negotiations.
    Support ability of cities to retain public access channels and revenues from cable television providers.
    Support local authority to zone and plan for the deployment of
    telecommunications, infrastructure, as well as maintain and manage public right of way receiving compensation for such use.
    Support the principles of the open meetings provisions of the Ralph M Brown Act.
    Oppose costly mandates and unnecessary procedures related to the election process.
    Oppose federal or state efforts that seek to limit or control local fiscal and or contractual relationships.
    Support measures that seek to protect local government revenues from takings by the state.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.