The Scarcity of Public Information, Part 2

A few weeks ago I published a post detailing how someone had requested on October 12th, through a Public Records Act Request, information on environmental testing along the abandoned Union Pacific right-of-way; and how the City on October 23, in response, replied with six document files they called a “full release” and that had nothing to do with any sort of testing at all.

Well, they’ve done it again.

The trail didn’t go anywhere, but it sure was short…

Also on October 12th, the same person made a related request, specifically asking for a Phase 1 environmental report of the right-of-way. A Phase 1 environmental report surveys a property and its neighbors for historical usage in an attempt to identify potential environmental issues. On October 28th the City responded with the identical unresponsive documents as before, apparently digging a deeper hole for itself.

Whether this is sheer incompetence or just bullheaded arrogance, or a lot of both, remains to be seen.

As before, the proper response is not to share completely irrelevant and non-responsive documents, but, rather to simply state that there are no responsive documents.

The blue square ain’t good. Welcome to Trichlorethylene Alley. Please keep moving…

Why the City refuses to obey the law suggests several things. First, as mentioned above, stupid incompetence and/or arrogance. Or maybe somebody down there thinks they can stonewall a possible, even likely truth – that there never was any environmental testing done along the right-of-way, a path that lies adjacent and likely right on top of toxic contamination and on which the City tried to build a recreation trail for $2,000,000.

26 Replies to “The Scarcity of Public Information, Part 2”

  1. I want to see the grant application. There is no way a State resource agency wouldn’t require a report on environmental conditions. I mean ZERO.

    1. I want to see it, too, lol. I’d bet the north forty Alice Loya lied on the application to get her money to waste.

    2. Zero? Assumptions assumptions.

      Testing could very well be a future phase like after funding is actually in place to pay for it. Which wouldn’t happen until the grant was awarded.

      The grant application MIGHT ask for some stipulation that no issue is known about in advance.

      Unless the site was specifically tested and contamination found I doubt there is any legal jeopardy from saying no to such a question.

      Speculation speculation.

      Your certainty is unwarranted.

      1. In swoops Captain Mediocrity to defend the slothful, deceptive, and frequently erroneous work of Fullerton’s incompetent public employees.

        1. In this case I’m afraid the word is deceptive. But it really is yet another fail to fool, so I guess dumb applies, too.

          I really can’t understand why the elected people put up with this – unless they’re afraid of being implicated somehow.

    1. No, NO NO! We have to give the New Crew a chance to become competent. We would never employ competent people in the first place.

      This way we build for Fullerton’s Future.

    1. You’re right. Still no evidence of anything. Lot of talk, lots of speculation. No evidence.

      I can speculate just as well in the other direction. It would be just as uninteresting.

      And even if there was contamination doesn’t mean you couldn’t use it as a trail. It would likely have to be mitigated and the money likely comes from some other budget than park funds or grants.

      1. Desperate, much?

        Why did they hand over irrelevant shit, Einstein? That was a lie. Either there was no testing done or if there was they can’t prove it. That’s the point of the post you moron.

        And if remediation was required there is no budget for it and not even Zahra and Charles who are just as stupid as you are would have voted for the Trail to Zombieland. Actually, they probably would have.

      2. “It would likely have to be mitigated and the money likely comes from some other budget than park funds or grants.”

        And what budget would that be?

        I know! You and Zahra and Skaskia Kennedy could do a round-robin coin toss to see who pulls it out of their own ass!

        1. Whose budget… theoretical contamination is the responsibility of the business interests that mishandled material or failed to clean it up or disclose it.

          1. Theoretical? The EPA has identified the site and the plume. That’s over. The original polluter is gone.

            You are ridiculous.

      3. The magic money you treat with indifference ALWAYS comes from taxpayers. That’s why it’s so easy for the bureaucrats you worship and defend to waste it. If every elected official and public employee had a lien on their personal assets to offset and make the taxpayers whole if their project went over budget or failed, every single one of them would be destitute. Failure is their trademark and incompetence is their calling card.

        1. Yes, that seems to be the case. There is no accountability for the mess in the first place and none for the feeble and amateur cover up.

  2. This isn’t news. We all know they didn’t do any soils testing. If they had the would have cleaned it up BEFORE wasting millions on the Poison Park and “Phase I” of the Trail to Nowhere.

  3. Me thinks an environmental assessment was never completed otherwise they would have handed over the report. Has anyone asked for a copy of the grant application yet?

    1. That seems to be the case. But why the childish attempt to deflect an honest PRA request with dummy non-information.

      Our councilmembers seem to be completely ignorant. Or afraid of their own incompetent, dishonest staff. That’s sad.

        1. Hard to believe, when you think about it. When you publish documents that don’t correspond what was requested – at all – you have to suspect malfeasance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *