Friends for Fullerton’s Future is the #1 Ranked Political Blog in Fullerton & North OC. We are currently seeking bloggers who would like to post on this site. You don’t have to be a Democrat or a Republican. If you believe in Fullerton’s future, in honest and open government, that principles are worth fighting for, and you have a passion to write what you believe, please send us an email us at: fullertonsfuture@yahoo.com We will protect your anonymity should you prefer to use a pseudonym.P.S. An ironic sense of humor is a huge asset!
Steven Greenhut confirmed the other day that uber right wing “Republican consultant John Lewis will be supporting (although not working for) Clerk/Recorder Tom Daly in his bid for the 4th district supervisorial seat once Chris Norby is termed out,” according to the Orange Punch Blog. Apparently Lewis “appreciates that Daly was one of the very few people who backed Norby when the entire establishment was behind Cynthia Coad.”Greenhut points out the fact that Daly, who is a prominent Democrat, willl not likely be a better advocate for limited-government than either of the two likely Republican contenders, Fullerton Councilman Sean Nelson (Republican elected official of the year), or Anaheim Councilman Harry Sidhu.(Click here to read the rest of this article by Art Pedroza)
Last night I had my 60 day review at the Planning Commission to review the trumped up “public nuisance” charge brought against me by City staff at the behest of former council member and noted broomstick rider Jan Flory.
Still smarting from her defeat at the December meeting she showed up again and had to swallow the bitter pill yet again – a final 4-1 exoneration by the Commission.
Mrs. Flory held forth in a rambling ten-minute, diatribe the purpose of which was to attack me personally, one more time, as well as the Commission’s lack of proper diligence.
Her rant did include one bit of new information, if Mrs. Flory can be believed, and that’s the fact that she hasn’t had a dog in twenty-five years! That bit of information emerged as she challenged the accuracy of this humble blog!
Jan sure seemed annoyed at having been featured in an earlier post of mine (even though I thought the picture was pretty flattering – considering the subject. You can decide – I’m including it again, below).
Anyway the story has a happy ending. I have been vindicated and Jan Flory’s dog is in a much happier place – away from its owner.
Tony Bushala
And now, loyal Friends of Fullerton’s Future, we return to a theme a bit neglected of late, namely: our built environment, with an emphasis on both aesthetic and policy issues. In the past we have spent some time highlighting some really good examples of appalling public architecture and design paid for by the taxpayers.
Now let us cast our attention to an example of bad design foisted on a private commercial development by Fullerton’s own tasteless planning bureaucrats. Most of us have come to associate strip center developments with crappy design. Some folks blame the lack of aesthetic achievement on the tacky taste of commercial center’s owners, and there is no doubt that this is often a fair assessment. But what is not commonly appreciated is the role of government planners in the strip center development.
A case study is unfolding on Rosecrans and Euclid where an existing commercial center is undergoing a “facelift” (as Barbara Giasone would call it). In the coming weeks we will pictorially document progress on this site, although “progress” seems like such an inappropriate word!
Oh no! God-awful, tacked-on rooflets of various shapes and sizes – nothing more than useless vertical appendages enclosing wasted space and consuming perfectly good construction materials. The only redeeming thing about this work is that in twenty year’s time it too, will be torn away and replaced with something else.
We can see from the framing just what is being added – nothing of use. We may recall Louis Sullivan’s old saying: form ever follows function. Well, here Friends, is form with no function. “Ah, but what about beauty” some uninitiated readers may be inclined to cry. To which we can only reply that too many people are satisfied that a remodel of some kind is a guarantee of aesthetic improvement. We will document the emerging hodgepodge of roof add-ons and see if our readers agree with us!
Finally, we must relate the saddest part of this story. For some reason the owner of this project was required to undergo bureaucratic design review that apparently consisted of a low level planner foisting his own aesthetic preferences of design propriety for this site onto the owner. We believe what is emerging on Rosecrans and Euclid shows all the design traits of bureaucratic interference. We are not sure why this review was even necessary in the first place; its effectiveness will soon be very evident, indeed!
Below is a link to a video of the January 6th Fullerton City Council meeting. Try this. Jump to item 14 and watch the various members discuss the proposal to RETROACTIVELY increase city employee pensions. Your challenge in responding to this post is to explain how any member other than Shawn Nelson does not appear to be clueless. In all fairness, Pam Keller may have escaped “clueless” status in this segmant as it was unclear as to when she figured out that the proposal was a bad idea. But for Quirk and Bankhead, it was as though somebody just let them know that the earth isn’t flat and they’re pissed. Heads are going to roll. By essentially implying to Nelson that opposing defined benefits to public employees is unconcionable, Bankhead is literally arguing that the math should be damned. It’s really worth the watch for the entertainment value alone if you know the players. Warning. If you were hoping that Sharon Quirk had a basic understanding of her responsibilities, have a martini first because you are about to be enlightened. http://fullerton.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=127
On January 20th, the Fullerton Elementary School District voted on a consulting contract of up to $100,000 which would assess the “viability” of implementing a parcel tax on every property owner in Fullerton. This tax was ostensibly being considered in order to bridge the currently projected $17 million, 3 year FSD budget gap created by the state’s financial crisis.
For those who are blind to the perpetual folly, the ever-present elephant in the room that is the ridiculous manner in which public education is financed as a result the mafia-like tactics of our child-hating teacher’s unions, I will not attempt to educate here. Suffice it to say that we owe a debt of gratitude to current FSD Board Vice President, Beverly Berryman for her singular sage leadership in saving Fullerton citizens from an unbelievable attempt to raise our taxes…especially the taxes of parents struggling to save their homes for their children in these painful economic times.
Any manner of idiocy is pursued under the banner of FOR OUR CHILDREN which ultimately hurts children by destroying the future of public education with unsustainable financial foolishness. The Grand Dame of the Fullerton School District, Hilda “have you met my husband the doctor?” Sugarman actually argued that the board needed the “courage” to risk negative public reaction in order to continue to support her wasteful spending. Laptops for all is Hilda’s favorite cry. She is particularly fond of her unbelievably expensive International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program(me) which flushed thousands of dollars down a Geneva, Switzerland toilet.
In all fairness, I must give Lynn Thornley her due props on opposing this contract. Very surprised I was, but Lynn has surprised before on the side of reasonable decision making. And, finally, dear, sweet Minard Duncan. Once again too frightened, too kind, too very, very sweet to take a position which might hurt somebody’s feelings. Take heed my young liberal students of politics. Minard knows the path to garnering the many votes. Stand for children. What does that mean you ask? Weren’t you listening dummy? Stand for children. You need not know how to stand for them…just stand for them. Unbelievable.
This Tuesday evening at 5:30, the Fullerton School Board is expected to hire a consultant to do a feasibility study to determine the viability of a special school parcel tax in Fullerton. Any time I read “feasibility study” in a staff report, it’s code for “see even the consultant thinks we need to…”. When was the last time you looked on your property tax bill and noticed the long list of special tax’s to do this, that and the other thing? Isn’t it time that we learn how to survive in these tough economic times without a new tax.
What is it about the Fullerton Observer that sparks the passions of Fullerton residents? Some hail it as a beacon of “progressive” enlightenment while others see it as nothing more than an instrument of quasi-socialist propaganda. It is certainly either of these things, depending on one’s ideological point of view – and a whole lot less.
We have come to the conclusion that people who want to see the Fullerton Observer through a political prism are missing the real nature of this “newspaper.” Why do we use quotation marks around the word newspaper? Because we don’t think it really is one. And not just because it is a completely amateur operation that fails in almost every respect to attain the ethical and objective professional standards employed by real journalists and editors; but, also because the Observer mirrors precisely the personality and temperament of its editor and publisher, Sharon Kennedy.
What characterizes the Observer’s failures? For one thing, the Observer indulges in the complete confusion of editorial comment and actual news reporting. Sometimes this is reflected in incomplete reporting, and often through inappropriate commentary introduced into stories merely for its ability to malign those people Sharon Kennedy dislikes. In this same vein we can add the gratuitous slurs, snide commentary, and innuendo aimed at those same targets for no other apparent reason than personal vindictiveness.
What are some of the other indicators of failure to meet basic journalistic standards? Kennedy routinely prints unsigned articles and anonymous letters to the editor that also engage in personal attack; and of course there is the editor’s constant need to add her own commentary at the end of letters from those she dislikes – as if her poor readers were incapable of figuring out anything without her acerbic often incoherent explanations.
Simple errors like spelling and factual mistakes can be attributed to the amateur nature of the operation. More serious is Kennedy’s seeming desire to act as cheerleader for city staff and for council members who toe the line by affiliating themselves with the bureaucracy rather than with their real constituents. So Sharon Quirk and Pam Keller get to vote for the over-development of Fullerton by supporting the Jefferson Commons and Amerige Court projects, and suddenly the issues associated with failure of environmental review slide by the Observer’s notice.
While some of its writers (Judith Kaluzny comes to mind) are really interested in reporting what’s going on without covering up for anybody, there appears to be a real effort on Kennedy’s part to avoid printing anything that might embarrass City officialdom. On the other hand there seems to be no story so unrelated to him that it can’t include a gratuitous insult aimed at Councilman Shawn Nelson.
The Fullerton Observer has got by with its sloppy, jaundiced, pique-pocked brand of reporting since its inception because it was free and nobody expected much. Very little has changed over the years except that the overheated rhetoric that resulted from spirited socialism has given way to shilling for city hall employees and using the Observer to exercise its proprietor’s bitter animus.
At the request of several Council Members, the City Council will discuss the issue of term limits, and if the matter should be placed on the next ballot. How many years do YOU think is enough? Some say 8 years, others 12, Mr. Dick Jones says NO term limits. Don Bankhead has been on the Council for 22 years and counting. What will Mr. Jones have to say about agenda Item #13, will he “blow his lid”… again? Stay tuned this Tuesday evening, it should be one to remember.