Fullerton Lies to Fight Transparency – Airport Edition

I’m not sure why Fullerton is so dedicated to being lying liars telling lies to just to tell them but that’s how they do.

Recently somebody put in a Public Records Request to find out if the City of Fullerton was in violation of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Grant Rules and risking a financial headache.

This all stems from Hanger 21 and their non-aeronautical use holding parties instead of making sure the space in question is used for actual aeronautical use as required by the FAA.

Public Records Request number 19-272 asked, and I quote;

“Please provide me with a list of non-aeronautical and aeronautical hangars at the Fullerton Airport.”

The response from the city was;

No Records Available

“The City does not maintain a list, and the Public Records Act does not require the City to create records in response to a request.”

Oh really.

Weird. This email from Airport Manager Brendan O’Reilly seems to say otherwise.

Non-Aero Uses at Airport

“Here’s what I wrote up for the eviction of the twelve non-aero tenants, along with the letter I sent out last February as a warning.”

So there’s a list of non-aeronautical tenants when the city needs it but not one when the city is required to disclose it? It sure seems that Brendan O’Reilly is making things up at his convenience to suit his immediate needs.

Oh Lying Liars and the Lies they tell.

This isn’t the first time that O’Reilly has been caught lying. He previously lied to the city about the airport having a waiver for non-aeronautical uses which the city doesn’t have. He got away with it because our council and staff are lazy, incompetent or both.

In the end, these lying liars who lie are going to cost you, the taxpayers, millions.

It’ll cost you when AirCombat wins their lawsuit because the city is illegally renting an aeronautical facility to a non-aeronautical user at below market rates AND the city purposely disqualified two applicants (including AirCombat) from the lease because Hanger 21 could pay more. BUT we rented to H21 at below market rate (if it wasn’t on an airport) because they could pay more than the tenants who would actually use the space for aeronautical uses which the city is legally required to prioritize.

Then it’ll cost you once more when Hangar 21 sues the city for estoppel for damages they incurred after the Feds force H21’s eviction from the property due to an illegal lease.

Oh. And don’t forget that the airport wasn’t even zoned to allow for Hanger21’s business when they were approved. Again, per Airport Manager O’Reilly:

Hanger21 PL Zoning

“After our EDAT meeting on October 5, it seems that we won’t be able to get CC approval for the item because of the PL Zoning issue.”

This is the bullshit Fullerton’s Council tolerates. This is the bullshit they will continue to tolerate because they don’t know any better. This is the bullshit we get to pay for because our City Council is too spineless to ask a single pointed question, let alone demand compliance with our own laws.

It isn’t going to get better until voters hold these nitwits accountable and make them responsible for their actions. Good luck getting that to happen.

Behind Closed Doors Chronic Failure Fullerton City Council Liar Transparency

50 thoughts on “Fullerton Lies to Fight Transparency – Airport Edition

  1. Zoning was never corrected.

    CIty flew some bullshit that the Council’s approval of a lease is the same as Council’s approval of land use per zoning.

    The latter requires an affirmative vote by Council. Never happened.

    H21 requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), has none, and is in violation of the City’s Zoning Code.

    1. What’s wrong with you? Don’t you know that in Fullerton the zoning enforcement rules apply to some and not to others?

    2. Wh do they think there LAX …..close it down, north Buena Park are fearful for there kids
      And the community are sick of the noise.

  2. Looks like Rob Sims is given carte blanche! On 10/16/18 Rob Sims writes a letter to Brendan, (Current Airport Manager) requesting rental credit for 4 months. On October 23rd, 2018 Ken Domer, (Current City Manager) approves the credit because the statements “appear to be true and correct” after the airport staff reviewed it. That doesn’t seem odd, at all. He was credited an additional $6,000.00! Yet, he seems to be falling behind in his rent at the airport. He has the North Side hangars, South Side Hangars and several smaller hangars for all of his wedding equipment. Not for airplanes but for his event business.. It seems that he bit off more than he could chew! oops! Good job Brendan! There’s no doubt that you’re a liability to our city.

      1. Umm.. you’re the idiot dumbfuck reading and redoing to comments about issue that you probably don’t understand or are getting thrown a bone to come and troll.. and by bone I mean d1$k in mouth.. haha loser.

        1. Oof you got me buddy, but i think i lost a chromosome reading your comment. Learn how to talk on the internet before you get cyberbullied kid.

    1. PPRs 101: listen up! These are for public records RETAINED by public agencies. The record has to be EXISTING and IDENTIFIABLE.

      Although these people may exist, which is not the matter in question here, If there is no document showing these people LISTED, there is no LIST. In order for there to be a list someone would have to make a list with the people’s names on it in a LISTED manner and submit it. Agencies are NOT required to create documents in order to satisfy a PPR. Whoever submitted that request was dumb and didn’t do their homework. Nicely played, Ken. Saving a buck or two of tax payer money at a time when every penny counts. Thanks

      1. Bullshit.

        CPRA requires agencies to actively assist the requestor in finding the information being requested. In this case, the individual wanted the information contained within a list.

        The city has information related to what operators it has or had that were non-aeronautical and casually rejected the request without exercising any effort to satisfy the intent of the requestor, which is a violation of the law.

        It’s also a violation of the law to intentionally charge fees with the purpose of discouraging future records request.

        Anyone want to guess if the Fullerton Airport Manager asked his City Manager to charge fees related to PRRs to stop future record requests?

        1. Nope. You’re misinformed. And I’m not sure what fees you’re referring to. There ARE fees associated with PPRs as there should be. You think it’s free to do the work? Just look at the chart of fees. Not that difficult.

          1. Misinformed on what? The airport manager trying to duck PRRs by asking the City Manager to impose fees that don’t exist or that you’re not currently sweating bullets and afraid of losing your job?

                1. Just googled city of Fullerton chart of fees. Under administrative fees, #3 publication and duplication fees, it lists the fee for general duplication of records. See all you had to do was google it and there ya go. Couldn’t even do that? Misinformed. : /

                2. Well, dickhead, as I originally said, it’s a question of intent.

                  Intent has nothing to do with Google, but you’re such a smartass, that you blew by that. That’s exactly why you’re going to cost us a few million.

                  Intentionally charging fees to discourage future records request is illegal. That’s the issue, jackass.

                  Now get back to work. You have an entire community to run into the ground.

                3. pulling out the insults, ad hominem.

                  I know exactly what you’re trying to say. If you want to talk about intent, that’s awfully hard to prove. Especially when there are fees for record duplication. Meaning there are other reasons why one might be charged other than some sort of evil intent. thats what I was saying but you blew By that.

                  And can you please stop pretending that you know me. It’s weird.

        1. StRaIgHt Up ScHoOl YaRd BuLlYiNg.

          Dont you mean what this entire website does. Y’all just some mad middle age people complaining about shit nobody cares about. Omegalul

            1. Good one buddy did you get that comeback from your kid or something? Cuz that shit was wack haha. Do you even know how to talk shit or is this your first time. By the way comment above me also BIG GAY

  3. Oh the ridiculous machinations some people come up with when they know absolutely nothing. Thus, the “blog”.

  4. If Hanger 21 is non aeronautical, will someone please tell me why their damn helicopters are flying over my house all damn day long!!!!

    1. Because they displace aircraft from an aeronautical hangar by hosting parties in said hangar.

      It’s a cut and dry definition from the FAA. Fullerton is violating it’s Grant Assurance requirements daily. The primary use of that hangar is an event space. The secondary use of that hangar is an event space. The tertiary use of that hangar is an event space.

      Operating it under the pretence that the event space is transitional only while a helicopter is being flown is total and complete bullshit. It’s going to cost the taxpayer millions.

      1. LOL you know nothing about FAA grant assurances besides what you googled on the internet, nor do you know anything about the operations of the airport. Do some real investigative research and then we’ll talk.

  5. Where is Ted White while all this is happening? Just doing what Dumber says? Good riddance to another do nothing, gutless trough feeder. Another worthless Planning Director will come and go and more 3-5 year career City Managers will retire as a millionaire for knowing how to hide themselves and info from the public while bamboozling at least 3 City Councilpersons. on every issue

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.