An old gas station was recently remodeled with a small addition along Harbor Blvd. And I might say it’s one of the most creative adaptive reuse projects we’ve seen in Fullerton for many years, and it’s very pleasant to look at. It has no fake columns, no fake second floors, no tile roof, it’s very simple and honest. Frank Webb Architects is the owner, designer and occupant of this very cool building located just north of Berkley on Harbor. This project had no redevelopment dollars and no subsidy. Friends for Fullerton’s Future welcomes Frank Webb, his partners and his employees to Fullerton.

It was supposed to be “affordable” housing for CSUF faculty. Well affordable to them – not to the taxpayers who paid for it, we presume. Last winter we ran a post about the “University Heights” boondoggle, and noted that the place was a ghost town. It was already open to any government worker who wanted a house and we wondered aloud when it would be open to anybody.

The story took another turn last week when it came out that nine of the units were just going to be leased out, perhaps ending any hope of ever establishing a permanent egghead foothold on Elk Hill. The architect of this disaster, one Bill Dickerson of the CSUF Housing Authority, came out from under cover long enough to put his finger on the problem: in a declining real estate market nobody wanted to commit to a cracker box of sticks and stucco on a ground lease. Seems the academics had enough faith in capitalism to shun the slings and arrows of outrageous socialism themselves; and the educrats are left holding their own bag. The Heights sales agent also seems to be pinning his hopes on the next real estate boom.

As an amusing aside we note that the author of this story was our own beloved stuffed toy and Wurlitzer prize winner, Barbara Giasone, whose paper got the headline wrong – indicating that the units were to go on sale . Not that it really matters. Also, Fullerton Councilman Dick Jones who admitted that he “worked very hard” to bring about this debacle hasn’t said much about it lately.

There is an object lesson here of course that will no doubt be lost on educrats and befuddled local electeds: stay out of the housing business and kill policies that encourage tax-payer purchased housing subsidies for public employees.
Listen to Councilman Shawn Nelson explain why he voted against the redevelopment expansion in Fullerton, his reasons are rational, logical and legal.
A few days ago a guy named “Alan” left a nasty-gram on our blog accusing me of being a hypocrite because I fought the amplified music being performed illegally at Roscoe’s Famous Deli while outdoor amplified music was being performed at the Santa Fe Depot.
Well, I really don’t mind being called a hypocrite since I’ve been a called a lot worse things, especially since I started this blog; but I do want Fullerton Friends to know what’s going on.
My brother George and I have a long-term lease on the historic Santa Fe Depot which we restored in 1993. We sublet the old baggage room to our sister Salma who runs the cafe there with her daughter. Salma rents the outdoor patio area (where the music is being played) from the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency. She also has a permit from the Fullerton Police Department for entertainment, although this is not relevant to our lease with her. Any pertinent violations of city code at this site should be cause for revocation of that permit – no argument from me or the Friends. If anyone is aware of such violations please report them to the landlord – the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency.
And Alan – thanks for stopping by. We appreciate all points of view. Keep ’em coming!
Former Fullerton Councilman and tax fighter Conrad DeWitte points out why redevelopment expansion is nothing more than a can of spray paint. We can always count on clarity and comedy from Conrad.
Please note the running dialog between DeWitte and our beloved target Dick Jones at the end of the clip. See if you can determine who came out on top.
We have received a request to publish a post written by Friend and frequent commenter Joe Sipowicz and we reproduce it below, verbatim:
First, I want to say that I am not a political writer and have never gotten too involved in city or County politics. But I have done a lot of local political blog reading in order to write this post, and boy have I learned a lot!
I was reading your post a couple weeks ago about the Galloway candidacy for 4th District Supervisor and something just didn’t seem kosher about the whole thing. When I found out that a guy named Matt Cunningham was involved publicizing this news, I immediately got suspicious. Why? Well, first off, he had recently visited the FFFF blog in the role of defender of the indefensible – the gerrymandered 33rd State Senate District. His tactics were those we had been alerted to in our high school debate class: misdirection by stating obviously true, but irrelevant facts, meantime dodging the real, incontestable issue.
I also got suspicious because of what was obviously a slavish defense of Republican Dick Ackerman, apparently just for its own sake. A visit to his own blog and a little time in its archives revealed a Republican establishment toady. A related link on the Orange Juice blog revealed another relationship – that with John Lewis a supposedly conservative Republican political consultant and lobbyist who is backing Tom Daly, a Democrat, for the 4th Supervisorial District. Cunningham’s participation in that dialogue was interesting in that it studiously and lamely avoided explaining why he had failed to post on the subject of the Lewis endorsement of Daly himself, and kept inserting backhanded reasons why Republicans would be supporting Daly. I recognized his technique immediately.
But to return to Galloway and this “announcement” on Cunningham’s blog. I started asking myself why a Democrat like Galloway would even get involved with a supposedly right-wing Republican spokeshole like Cunningham. Why her embarrassing comment about the cute shoes? Why Cunningham’s pretense about wondering whether Daly was still in the race, when a call to his pal John Lewis would give him all his answers in about 12 seconds? Why the subtle comment that if Galloway were in it Republicans would coalesce behind Fullerton’s Shawn Nelson, implying that they wouldn’t if Daly were against him.
A later update on this post included a non-response from Daly and a weird comment by Chris Jones, Daly’s campaign “consultant,” and yet another Lewis protege. Jones attacked Galloway’s “announcement” and obliged with a comment about her residency issue – but not about her left-wing politics vis-a-vis the supposedly centrist Daly – a fairly obvious approach you would think. This was also interesting since the same carpetbagging issue applies to Anaheim Hill’s Harry Sudhu, another candidate who lives outside the 4th District, and the authenticity of whose campaign Cunningham has been downplaying on his blog. Is Jones just signaling this as an issue to use it against Sidhu?
A final practical fact of interest is that John Lewis is also termed-out Supervisor Chris Norby’s campaign man, and stands to profit from Norby’s attempt to be the next County Clerk – a job currently held by – Tom Daly. No Daly campaign for Supervisor, no Norby campaign for Clerk.
Anyway, the whole thing seems too scripted, a little too well rehearsed.
I think some of the answers to this lay in the fact that Galloway, Lewis and Cuningham were all working together for the SunCal project in Anaheim a few years ago, and we know that Lewis is now willing to back Democrats for office. Was a deal made between Lewis and Galloway to throw up this trial balloon? What kind of a deal doesn’t really matter. But what for? Could the motivation be to try to push Harry Sidhu out of the race and then, after Galloway quietly disappears, preserve the Anaheim vote for Tom Daly in what would basically be a two-man race with Nelson? If the Anaheim vote is split three or even two ways, a candidate from Fullerton gets a plurality in the primary election, but ony one of the Anaheim candidates moves forward into a November runoff. And it may not be Tom Daly!
Somebody on this blog recently opined that the purpose of Galloway was to scare Daly out of the race. It seems more likely to me that her purpose in this race is to frighten Sidhu out and free up his old guard Anaheim support for Daly.
If this is true then we may simply be seeing wheels within wheels – which is what politics is all about, of course. And maybe this Cunningham guy is just being used as a witless tool by Lewis, Daly, and Company. His role hardly matters except as giving away clues.
Being a skeptic and new to all this stuff, maybe I am missing something here, but I’ll just end by saying this: a wise person will take nothing in politics at face value – especially when uttered by a politician.
Joe Sipowicz
Fullerton

On Tuesday night, July 7, 2009 the Fullerton City Council finally concluded the issue of Live Outdoor Amplified Noise. With a 4-1 vote (Pam Keller in opposition for some reason), council members decided that our current sound ordinance will suffice, moving forward into the future. Currently, acoustic music is allowed outside and louder live amplified music is not. Jones, Bankhead, Quirk and Nelson all voting that the outdoor use of acoustical instrumentation (without amplification) is A-OK, but the use of louder live amplified noise on downtown private patios on a regular basis is not the best thing for Downtown Fullerton.
It was stated in the sound study that was produced for the city at a cost of $16K that it is very unusual for cities to allow loud live amplified music outdoors on a regular basis. This obviously doesn’t include special events which are permitted under the current city code. It’s so unheard of that only 3 cities in the whole country where cited as allowing some kind of routine outdoor noise, 2 of them out-of-state. The vast majority of cities allow acoustic (non-amplified) music outdoors while the loud music belongs inside. What a great idea!

Cheers for the Council for making a wise decision and preserving the peace in Downtown!
Cheers for the Council for having the foresight to see that over the long run this will encourage positive development in the downtown and promote a healthy business climate for all types of diverse shops and residential dwellings to thrive in downtown.
If you think about it, some types of music just aren’t conducive to being peace and quiet, yet others are. So by sticking with the current ordinance, acoustic music like folk, jazz and blues are encouraged outside while the louder harder stuff is only allowed indoors.
Makes great sense—Good job City Council!
FFFF’s seasoned veteran Attorney Bob Ferguson (6-0 record vs. redevelopment scams) knows a blight scam when he sees it, and is relishing the idea of bringing the redevelopment expansion under the judicial microscope. Like a quack doctor intentionally trumping up a diagnosis to jack up his fees, the redevelopment agency’s legal council Jeff Oderman with Rutan & Tucker fabricates blight that doesn’t exist at $400 per hour. Judges will see through this charade, just as they have with many other cities Ferguson has challenged.
One property owner in the affected area said it best–“I’m offended that the City has declared my property blighted, and I just now found out about it. Tell me how it’s blighted and I’ll fix it myself!”
The process limps forward towards a legal battle, with Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk in opposition. At least Nelson and Quirk respect the law that they have sworn to uphold.

A classic example of how the redevelopment agency casts a dead hand on parts of our city can be seen at the Northeast corner of Brookhurst & Orangethorpe. A firm that I know has plans to purchase the properties from 6 different owners and assemble the 8 acres for a new development. They have the cash, the experience, the patience, and the price is right.
Now, however, the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency proposes to include this property into its expanded area. The owners are unwilling to sell now because they think the agency will pay more later than the private firm will pay now–which may be true.
In addition, if the agency does a “friendly eminent domain” scam, the owners get tax advantages the private company cannot offer. Of course, the eminent domain may be unfriendly if the agency won’t pay what the owners’ want.
Then, having assembled the parcels, the agency will sell at a discount–or give the land away–to a politically connected developer who will build what the RDA staff wants. Not what the market demands, but what the bureaucrats want.
This kind of micromanaging of property is what the RDA is all about. Instead of letting the market work on its own, the bureaucrats and politicians intervene. Instead of allowing willing sellers and willing buyers to create a privately-funded project–they want to use your tax dollars.
Instead of letting private enterprises’ make a profit–and of course risk a loss–they want to socialize the whole development. This approached has failed time after time.
Isn’t it time to leave the free market alone?