Charting a New Course?
Fullerton is a General Law city. The question of studying the costs and the benefits of adopting a municipal charter was on the agenda for the last city council meeting.
To charter or not to charter. That became the debate. But it shouldn’t have been.
Rather than accepting the benign idea of beginning to study the pros and cons of Fullerton being a charter city, numerous public speakers, a claque obviously organized by Ahmad Zahra, and Zahra himself, began reciting a litany of reasons to not even study the idea. Of course they didn’t know what they were talking about, and kept spewing nonsense, like ginned up election costs, scary rejection of State paternalism, mandates, and planning control, and all sorts of drummed up stuff leading to the inevitable conclusion that California state government is benevolent, well-run, desirable, and comforting.
The speaker list was comprised of the usual suspects: our old, nattering friend (and Scott Markowitz nominator) Diane Vena; the ever-angry Karen Lloreda; the bitter, avian Anjali Tapadia and others.
Good grief, even the superannuated Molly McClanahan appeared, cluck-clucking her disapproval of the proceedings. And there in the audience sitting next to McClanahan, was none other than Jan Flory, looking pretty worn out. Flory didn’t say anything, mercifully, but perfunctorily clapped when speakers questioned the motives and integrity of the council majority. On McClanahan’s other side sat Ms. Lloreda, which was appropriate: two former city councilwomen recalled by their constituents.
Several school district boardmembers showed up, too, trying, and failing to explain the nexus between the municipal charter topic and the welfare of their districts. That was just pathetic lackeyism for Zahra. Boy, have they backed the wrong horse.
As noted before, Zahra’s indignant, theatrical and lengthy diatribe was even more ridiculous that the dumb speeches of his little entourage. He began a recitation of how a 15 member elected charter-writing committee would become a political springboard for bad people (i.e. those not chosen by him) funded by bad interests – like Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, presumably. This was amazing since nobody in their right mind would pursue this approach. I don’t know if any city ever has. But Zahra must have thought it was good obfuscation to help confuse the already dimly lit brains of his followers, I guess.
There was a plot afoot said Zahra, with devious manipulators pulling the council’s strings to buy and sell Fullerton, somehow, sometime, somewhere. Don’t believe what they say, said the master of prevarication.
One speaker, Joshua Ferguson supported the study, pointing out that the process of voting on a charter was actually highly democratic because it gave people a chance to participate in how their city is governed. The Three Old Ladies shook their heads in disapprobation.
The three councilmembers who voted to simply consider the idea – Jung, Dunlap and Valencia – didn’t try to justify some positive end result, reasonably supporting a study, the sort of thing people like Zahra and his friend Shana Charles normally adore.
The idea here is that actually learning things about something relating to city governance is a good thing.
I don’t know anything about the benefits or drawbacks of having a municipal charter; neither do the people of Fullerton;. neither does our City Council, two of whom, Zahra and Charles voted to remain ignorant.
I propose that the city gets to decide who and what entities get to do business under said city name.
Just watched the council meeting and realize that the people that was spoke against it they didn’t really have an idea why they would go against it and I don’t take to see Council should be listening to 20 people and think that that’s the whole community yeah this
Studying shit to death just to keep it going has been Charles’ stock in trade. You know she just wanted to vote for this – until Zahra’s “Don’t clap for me” tirade.
She’d better watch it. The Council majority made her pro tem and can unmake her, too.
Why is Zahra against it? Only thing I can think of is he is afraid of being put at odds with his progressive party in Sacramento. Right now the run the show and perhaps bestow the dollars.
Well, maybe. But I don’t think anybody in Sacto cares.
It’s obvious that this was a Jung idea, maybe gleaned from other cities. That would make Zahra suspicious and jealous. He’s a petty little shit and hasn’t won anything since he wore down the council on the Trail to Nowhere by organizing a non-stop harassment. That was 14 months ago.
He has a re-election coming up next year and this was his opening campaign speech. We all know it was because he said it wasn’t.
Studies cost money. Is there a budget for studies about “why aren’t we doing something that no one in Fullerton has ever studied why it might be better?”
How many such studies do you think we should fund every year since I am sure there are an unlimited things that we are not doing that might be amazing to do.
And anything we do as a result of said study is good because there’d ultimately be a vote and democracy is good. And good things are good. Right Josh?
Studies. Who paid for the 2024 soils testing on the “shovel ready” Trail to Nowhere that your heroes in City hall said were done 27 years ago in their grant application.
Ahahaha. You are one fucking stoopid jack off.
Well, you were all for funding a study to make MORE Walk on Wilshire disasters. So you’re a hypocrite and an idiot.
JRH proves once again that he is an insufferable twat and an angry elf.
Fucking moron. Just be quiet.
Hooger how is your life now that Wank on Wilshire is gone. Notice any changes at all? Thought not.
I’ve been on Wilshire several times since the reopening. The businesses are all doing better. No doubt about it.
People have returned to Wilshire. Thank you Jamie and Jung!
And thousands of Walk on Wilshire fans lose out.
The claims about thousands of people using (wasting) time on WoW in just one month is totally blown way out of proportion (lie). A local NEARBY business placed a video camera int the direction of the WoW logging is daily usage. And the claim of thousands is using it is just preposterous. There were exactly 28 people who used the area known as “the Walk” in a one-week period that was documented via video exactly one week prior to the Council meeting on 1-21-25 when the City Council rightfully pulled the plug shortly thereafter. There is a spacious two-acre area nearby pard where people can walk, bike, grab food, and very close by all the neighboring restaurants, who can very easily “walk there” one minute or less and enjoy the park with grass none the less, with a sandlot for children, and there are plenty of spots for all to relax. The fans who WoW aren’t taking advantage of all this are either too lazt to walk a couple hundred feet or missing the bigger picture.
But it was there and provided psychological comfort to thousands.
It comforts me psychologically to know a phony liar like Ahmad Zahra will never represent anything more than his small district. It also comforts me psychologically that a perfectly well working street has been returned to common vehicle traffic. It is also comforting to me psychologically to know that there are at least 3 people on city council who most of the time are representing the majority of the voters who voted for them. Anyone who is psychologically comforted by knowing something useless is there for their personal good feelings is an assshole.
But it was beautiful – a leafy refuge in a relentless autoscape.
Trying to figure out how Fullerton can pull itself out of the fiscal hole that the two former council Sea-hags created and that EVERYONE recognizes sounds not just prudent but necessary. Zahra once again proves he likes to stick his head where the sun don’t shine.
Some public policy consultant is going to pop open AI and ask it “What are the pluses and minuses of becoming a charter city in California” and charge Fullerton $100k
I’ll play public policy consultant and do it for free:
“compare the advantages and disadvantages of being a charter city versus general law city in California
Understanding the distinction between charter cities and general law cities in California involves recognizing the varying levels of local control each possesses. Here’s a breakdown of the advantages and disadvantages:
General Law Cities:
Definition:
These cities operate under the general laws established by the California State Legislature. Their powers are derived directly from state statutes.
Advantages:
Simplicity: They adhere to established state laws, which can provide a clear and predictable framework.
State Oversight: State laws offer a degree of protection and standardization.
Disadvantages:
Limited Flexibility: They have less autonomy to address unique local needs, as they must comply with state regulations.
State Control: Decisions regarding “municipal affairs” are dictated by state law.
Charter Cities:
Definition:
These cities adopt a “charter,” which is essentially a local constitution, granting them greater autonomy over “municipal affairs.”
Their powers are derived from the California Constitution and their own charters.
Advantages:
Increased Local Control: They have greater flexibility to tailor local laws and regulations to their specific circumstances.
“Home Rule”: They have more authority over matters deemed “municipal affairs,” such as local taxation, land use, and city governance.
Tailored Governance: They can customize their form of government and internal processes.
Disadvantages:
Complexity: Drafting and amending a city charter can be a complex and time-consuming process.
Potential for Local Discrepancies: Increased local control can lead to variations in regulations across different cities, which may create inconsistencies.
Voter Approval: Charter creation and amendments require voter approval, which can be challenging.
Key Differences:
The core difference lies in the source of their authority. General law cities follow state statutes, while charter cities have more autonomy through their own charters.
Charter cities have greater control over “municipal affairs,” allowing them to enact local laws that may differ from state regulations.
In essence, charter cities offer more local control and flexibility, while general law cities provide greater adherence to state-mandated regulations.”
Yeah, except that charter cities still can’t violate or ignore state law – like prevailing wage and discrimination laws. They can’t set aside the unified building codes and they can’t set aside competitive bidding on public construction like Zahra cooked up to scare his dutiful minions.
Yep. So then, what’s the point?
They can reorganize the government into something where somebody somehow might be held accountable for Trails to Nowhere and Poison Parks and Waste on Wilshires.
Accountability? That sounds like a good idea. If I were to come up with such a system in our new charter concept, I think I would regularly hold something called “elections” where people “vote” and thereby hold their, lets call them, “representatives” accountable. So, like, if people don’t like what is happening, then every, uh “election cycle” there would be “campaigns” where people could hear about what “candidates” did and what they want to do, and people would “vote” on whoever they like the best and if the people don’t like what you did then they could hold you accountable by voting for their opponent.
Am I on to something or what?
You are on something.
Good to see you acknowledge Zahra lied to his stooges about this. You may be on your way to becoming a sentient being.
So who’s going to break the reality to Jung since he seems to think that it gives us more flexibility on housing policy.
The State is serious about getting cities to approve more housing, faster and I don’t see how a side quest like becoming a charter city gets around that.
If we want more accountability and democracy as Josh thinks then the shortest path is to implement democratic reforms in the current system. Including ranked choice voting for council, a ballot initiative system, and going back to a citywide elected mayor instead of a City Manager.
You need a charter for a “strong mayor” municipality without a city manager.
You arrogant pig.
How do you know what Jung thinks John? Have you spoken to him? Because what he said during the meeting had more to do with his dissatisfaction with the politicking in Sacramento. Didn’t hear him say anything about housing policy. Or is this more BS from you because you’re a blowhard with nothing to blow dumbass.
Don’t bother with him. He’s still trying to figure out why the businesses on Wilshire are suddenly doing so well after 5 years.
I’m trying to figure out why you think that, or would claim that without any YOY data.
“How do you know what Jung thinks John? ”
I don’t. Josh seems to think so, per his post saying “It’s obvious that this was a Jung idea, maybe gleaned from other cities.”
“Because what he said during the meeting had more to do with his dissatisfaction with the politicking in Sacramento. Didn’t hear him say anything about housing policy. ”
I think my speculation makes more sense.
Fuck you though.
Blah. Blah, blah blah. Blah.
This is the best idea Fullerton has had in over 50 years.
Not saying much, is it? Fullerton being Fullerton.
Says plenty. Better than status quo. That’s Fullerton actually NOT being Fullerton.