Author: Disillusioned Ex-Hippy

Last week I put up a post based on a realtor’s post about how Fullerton had been declared the safest suburban city in Orange County and Southern California. The guy’s name is Alex Yu, and because he didn’t cite any source except a national survey of some kind, his declarations weren’t taken seriously by me or some of our commenters.

I am now happy to fill in some of the information. How? Because the City of Fullerton put out a self-serving and self-congratulatory press release.

It turns out the “survey” was done by SmartAsset and was based on per capita crime rates, traffic deaths, and reported excessive boozing. The list of cities is so wide and so varied, and missing so many undeniably safe suburbs in OC – Villa Park, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, etc., just to name a few, that we may assume, I think, that getting on the list was not an entirely objective process. Were safe suburbs weeded out solely due to their subjectively chosen proximity to a “major city?”

I notice that SmartAsset is some sort of financial advising operation, not a serious scientific survey company. This is evident by who’s not on the list. The article announcing the survey was written by a certified financial planner, so there’s that.

Here’s the text of the City’s press release:

The City of Fullerton has been recognized in a national study conducted by SmartAsset, which ranked the 360 safest suburbs in America located within 15 to 45 minutes of major cities.

The study evaluated suburbs using five safety-related metrics: violent crime rate, property crime rate (sourced from FBI data), as well as drug poisoning mortality, vehicular mortality, and excessive drinking rates (from County Health Rankings). According to the America’s Safest Suburbs – 2025 report, Fullerton was ranked #49 overall, making it the highest-ranking city in both Orange County and Southern California included in the national list.

“Fullerton is honored to be recognized as one of the safest suburbs in America — a reflection of the unwavering commitment of our public safety teams and the strong partnership we share with our residents and local businesses,” said Mayor Fred Jung. “Public safety is a community effort. This recognition belongs to everyone who contributes to making our neighborhood a welcoming, secure, and thriving place to call home.”

Police Chief Jon Radus added, “Our department is committed to proactive crime prevention and building trust with our residents. This ranking affirms the partnership we have with our community in keeping Fullerton safe.”

The study highlights Fullerton’s exemplary performance in multiple categories related to safety and public health, reinforcing its position as one of the region’s most livable communities.

Everybody wants to live (and sell houses) in a safe city, and nobody can really blame officialdom for taking an opportunity to make themselves look good, but c’mon guys. Let’s lay off the self-lathered soft soap and focus on doing your jobs with efficacy and accountability.

I am posting a communication from a guy named Dr. Steve Chapin regarding the arboretum over next to the CSUF campus. According to Chapin the Arboretum grounds are suffering from lack of attention and parking, which used to be free, will now cost an astonishing twelve bucks on week-ends.

From the Fullerton Arboretum Advocates  Facebook page:

Dear members of the “Fullerton Arboretum Advocates” Facebook page. I have not posted here since my last post on March 6, 2023. (See below).

I had not visited the Fullerton Arboretum since around that time when CSUF took FULL control and renamed it the CSUF Arboretum and started charging $4 per hour for parking at the Arboretum lot on weekdays. Today, Friday August 8th, I visited the Arboretum for the first time in over 2 years. What I saw saddened me and confirmed the concerns I expressed previously on this page.

There was hardly anyone there on a beautiful sunny Friday afternoon with only 8 cars in the almost empty parking lot. (See Pic) Starting August 25th CSUF will begin charging a $12 parking fee (*now informed it starts at $6 and will increase to $12) on the weekends for all the campus lots including the Arboretum lot. Because of the weekday $4 per hour parking fee at the Arboretum lot that began in 2022 using the Park Mobile app, the Arboretum is now mostly visited on the weekends and is often crowded then.

Earlier this year I spoke with Dr. Shana Charles the Fullerton Councilmember for District 3 about the Arboretum, she happily noted: “Parking is still FREE at the Arboretum on the weekends!” This will no longer be the case starting August 25th. Expect attendance at the Arboretum to continue to fall and its many benefits to the Fullerton community as a commons for people to visit and enjoy free of any fees on the weekend to expire. How sad for the people of Fullerton that this once great civic source of relaxation, recreation, education and family enjoyment will now be monetized and underutilized by its citizens.

The Arboretum was not looking as nice or as well kept as I remember it. Besides a lack of visitors, the extensive lawn next to Dr. Clark’s house was brown and mostly dead. Many of the surrounding citrus trees looked under water stress with curled up leaves. I have 10 citrus trees in my yard, so I know what healthy watered trees look like.

I was told that the Arboretum’s long time director had retired in January and that the position had been posted but then removed by CSUF and had not been filled. This could explain the sad shape of the grounds. I asked if Dr. Clark’s House (Heritage House) had been reopened for visitors or the many schoolchildren field trips I use to see there and was told no. The only good news I have to report is that Arboretum land was not taken for the massive expansion and building of student housing that is being added to the campus. It does tower above the Arboretum grounds though. (See pic).

I just wanted to alert the people here who are still Fullerton Arboretum Advocates to what I saw and learned today after visiting the Fullerton Arboretum after a 2 year absence.

Sincerely,

Dr. Steve Chapin

The plan here seems pretty obvious: let the Arboretum go to the dogs, declare it an unsafe nuisance and build more massive dormitories for the eager young CSUF students. $12 to park on a week-end? That’s tantamount to robbery. The City has no control over the university that can do any damn thing it wants, although I seem to recall an Arboretum Joint Powers Authority with a commission, or some such thing. I don’t know if it even exists anymore.

I do love the reference to Shana Charles, happy warrior for public health when it’s not even at stake. This is different. A real open space with trees, plants, water, n’ stuff could very well be at risk from her employer. Let’s see what the good doctor does.

FFFF received this social media snippet today and I thought it was worth sharing.

It’s hard to read, but the gist of it is that Fullerton has made a list of 47 safest suburbs in California. Mr. Alex Yu, a realtor, doesn’t name the source of his wonderful news, but refers to a “national safety report.”

Mr. Yu declares that Fullerton is named the the safest city in Orange County, and in fact, all of Southern California!

This is an OPPORTUNITY for someone, presumably Mr. Yu.

A few weeks ago my friend Joe Sipowicz wrote a post about people who seem to think they have the answers to your problems. Their academic grasp of reality is sketchy and mostly based on fealty to abstractions and a dedication to idea that the government is sacrosanct.

There is a related tribe of individuals as well. These folk are sort of a feeble fifth column for manipulative politicians and bureaucracies; they tend to spout the same nonsense as the Know-it-Alls. If you have ever watched a Fullerton City Council meeting you’ve seen them and you’ve seen their common thread: they speak for “the community.” They also speak with a degree of certitude that is astounding.

These people see themselves as bodhisatvas, the beings in Buddhism who postpone their own trip to Nirvana to remain and help the less enlightened here on Earth.

It would be charitable to suggest that these people are known outside the council chamber. But they are ever-present to admonish the City Council, a council that represents 150,000 people, that “the community,” “the people,” must be followed, seeming to forget that elected people are elected to lead, not follow.

Egleth Nunncio purports to represent all sort of communities, but really only has a handful of followers willing to show up and babble at the council about arbols and cielos azules. Sometimes it actually works, but she really represents almost nobody.

Then there’s this angry little person named Anjali who nonchalantly throws her hare-brained ideological blanket across the broad spectrum of “the people.” She is still bitching about the defunct Walk on Wilshire that “everybody” wanted. I want it so they must want it – if they know what’s good for them.

We are already well-familiar with Diane Vena who nominated the perjurious candidacy of Scott Markowitz last year. This behavior hasn’t stopped her self-righteous pontification. See, she speaks for you.

Then there’s this ever-indignant individual, Karen Lloreda, who was recalled from the Dana Point City Council a while back and has brought her special brand of liberal populism to Fullerton.

A new member of the squad is our fresh young friend Elijah Manassero who is another one of the “the people want this this” squad. His motives are nakedly political but he speaks with the same self-assurance of the self-righteous. Tender Elijah knows what “the people” want. Not coincidentally, it’s what he wants.

The Fullerton Observer just loves to cite these people in their opinion pieces that weakly masquerade as news. The Kennedy Sisters too, flatter themselves that they represent “the community.”

Across the Observer banner is the unintentionally comedic slogan: News for the people, by the people, a rather breathtaking leap away from reality into the void of self-delusion, but certainly a comforting concept to the self-righteous liberal. There is almost no real Fullerton news in the Observer, of course and it is of no interest to the vast majority of Fullerton’s populace.

Hey, how about something like “some people wanted the Walk on Wilshire, but most people didn’t know a damn thing about, and would have signed an honest petition calling for the street to be reopened.

Like it or not, we live in a representative democracy and people get elected to actually represent everybody. The community. The people. Most electeds will bring their own understanding to issues and hopefully this aligns with the candidate they once were, and will be again. If not, you can get rid of them.

Fullerton’s Queens of Incompetent Reporting, if you want to call what the Kennedy Sisters do reporting, doesn’t trust FFFF! Skakia, the younger sister opines thus in a comment thread with our new hero, Matt Leslie. Then the older sister Sharon rides to the rescue of the younger.

It seems that the settlement agreement between the Bushala brothers, cutting Albert out of the Bushala Brothers corporation doesn’t meet her level of journalistic integrity. Why? Because it might be phony, because, you know, FFFF. Here’s their exchange. First “ED” refuses to acknowledge that the document is “actual.”

The disseminators of gossip, innuendo, outright lies and other assorted falsehoods is questioning the validity of the document signed and dated by the three brothers in question. “Moving parts” bother Sharon, although to her Mount San Gorgonio is a moving part. Of course her comment includes the usual bent opinions instead of facts – just more of the sort of Observer stock in trade we are accustomed to.

She disingenuously asks why the “whole” document wasn’t provided. What whole document? FFFF provided the signed and dated document outlining the payoff for Al Bushala to go away, an agreement that specifically mentions the interest in the Santa Fe Depot. This isn’t good enough for Sakia and Sharon, perpetual purveyors of prevarication. I guess this is easier for them than acknowledging that their Big Argument against the depot lease amendment was cooked up out of thin air.

Meanwhile we may ask ourselves how someone who deliberately ignored the Markowitz perjury conspiracy and who coached her friend Diane Vena, one of the nominators of the phony MAGA candidate into peddling variant and unbelievable explanations of her behavior, can pretend to be anything but dishonest.

I just got a robocall from the good folks at Republic Services, the behemoth trash pick-up conglomerate. Apparently the work stoppage is over and they will be working hard to catch up to their regular schedule.

This stoppage has effected many cities in Orange County that contract with Republic including our fair city. The cause? A contract dispute. In Boston. That’s 2974 miles away.

According to the Voice of OC the local agreement permits this sort of thing. Here’s what is reported:

“Under the union’s contract with Republic Services, workers are allowed to honor picket lines when workers at other facilities go on strike in an effort to add pressure on the company.”

This seems like a recipe for trouble, and we’re the ones getting it, even though the “picket line” is 3000 miles away.

Walking out on a basic public service, and a monopoly, seems like a breach of faith with the public. But we’re dealing with the Teamsters here.

The Teamsters obviously believe this cross-nation strategy will intimidate Republic to play ball in Boston, and of course anywhere else Republic’s tentacles reach. Are we then to expect more work stoppages if, say, Republic gets into a labor dispute in Minneapolis, Denver or Seattle? I don’t know.

But the trash contract is up in less than two years and it may be time to consider a more local option next year.

MY APOLOGIES FOR IDENTIFYING THE WRONG HOUSE IN THIS POST. GABRIEL SAN ROMAN IS CORRECT. THE HOUSE IN QUESTION IS ON HILLCREST DRIVE.

Historic preservation, to my inexpert understanding, is about recognizing the significance of buildings that are associated with historic figures and with significant architecture. Enter the home of one Louis E. Plummer, longtime Superintendent of Fullerton Schools in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. He wrote a useful history of the Fullerton Schools in the early days, I am informed.

Fullerton Heritage nominated Mr. Plummer’s house as a candidate for recognition as a Fullerton City Landmark. It’s (not) at 104 Park View Road – an attractive red tile roofed house from the 1920s. The item came up at last week’s City Council meeting.

Things got challenging.

You see, Mr. Plummer was a member of the Ku Klux Klan back in the 20s, according to someone’s doctoral dissertation 46 years ago. I no have idea if the assertion is even accurate, but it presented real problems for the two self-righteously woke members of the City Council, namely the Good “Drs.” Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles, who can’t be seen as associating themselves with the Klan, no matter how ridiculously remote.

The same issue confronted the Fullerton Joint Unified High School five years ago and they took Plummer’s name off the FHS auditorium that bore it for 60 years, folding under WoW-style pressure from similar ignoramuses.

Apparently, nuanced conversation isn’t useful when you’re out to score what you think is an easy political layup.

Forget the fact that Plummer was significant leader in Fullerton and contributed to the development of the public education system in Fullerton – the soi-disant “Education Community.” And forget the fact that the house wouldn’t be a damn shrine for White Nationals. And forget the fact that the house is 100 years old and designed by the guy that did a lot of those historical WPA Spanishy buildings at FJC – the old concrete ones – not the new overbearing monstrosities. Forget that the dedicatory plaque will be on private property and will offend nobody. No. KKK.

In the end Jung, Valencia and Dunlap voted to approve the inclusion of the house into the Landmark Register (or whatever they call it). Zahra and Charles voted no. Charles and Zahra both claim intellectual attainment, being “Drs” and all. But if they have any they didn’t dare show it.

Right on cue the Fullerton Observer kraken Skania Kennedy released herself with a headline that blares out:

“Council Majority Approves Controversial Landmark Designation for Ku Klux Klan Collaborator Louis Plummer’s Residence“

Suddenly a public conversation requiring some sophisticated thinking becomes an attack on Sasksa’s favorite villain – Fred Jung and Co. In weaselly fashion Sansika labels Plummer a KKK “collaborator,” but of course there’s no more proof of that than there is of his being a full-fledged member, based on who knows what evidence collected by the dissertation writer without fear of a defamation lawsuit from a dead man.

It’s pretty clear that this effort is nothing more than a way to blackguard three decent people, and maybe someday supply a theme for a political hit piece.

Anyway, I’ll let Fran J, the Observers new reality fact checker take us home by responding to Saksia and her sister, Sharon on the Fullerton Observer blog:

As for decisions like the WoW program or the Plummer home designation, these are nuanced matters being flattened into soundbites. The Plummer home, what you refer to as KKK house is historic building that tells a story—good, bad, and ugly. Pretending that preserving it is an endorsement of racism ignores the value of reckoning with our history rather than erasing it. The city isn’t honoring the man; it’s preserving a piece of our past so we can learn from it. The LA Times also reported about the Louis Plummer house that actually better reflects the complexity of that issue which I encourage residents to read if they really cared.

It’s fine to disagree on policy, but let’s do so with the full picture in mind. Mayor Jung isn’t perfect—no leader is—but he’s showing up, making hard decisions, and putting Fullerton on the map in ways we haven’t seen in years. That deserves a fair evaluation, not a list of half-contextualized talking points.

Well said, Fran.

Fullerton’s garbage collection may seem like a pedestrian subject to you and me, but it’s a lucrative franchise for guys in the business of picking up our “solid waste” and hauling it to the land fill, or to the nearest materials recycling facilities (MRF).

The history of garbage collection is pretty dull, but it’s informative. A local family-owned company, MG Disposal, had the contract for decades under “evergreen” terms, apparently.

They got the gig when Eisenhower was President, in 1955. MG was eventually bought out, successively by Taormina Industries and then Republic Services, a mammoth solid waste collection company traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The latter took place around 2009 when a new agreement was created with the City. Still, the relationship lineage was still there. In essence the City has been doing business with related, successive entities for 70 years.

Anyhow, the existing contract was signed 16 years ago if you’re counting. There have been three amendments to the agreement, but the service itself hasn’t been put out to bid to see if anybody else can do it better, cheaper, more effectively, etc. It seems unlikely that Republic can be underbid, but why not see?

Government agencies have the unfortunate habit of extending contracts in the out years because putting things out to bid takes effort, and the incumbent contractor is familiar, comfortable, and has likely developed a symbiotic relationship with both government employees and their political overlords. And the one thing you don’t want to screw up is garbage collection. That’s ruined promising careers in municipal government and in politics.

What is the right amount of time to keep evergreen deal going? I don’t know. But 70 years seems like an awfully long time; even the past 16 seems like a long time if you feel like giving Republic a brand new start in 2009.

I think it’s about time to rattle this franchise cage and see who out there might be willing to respond to a bid solicitation. It may nor result in a change, but it’s just due diligence toward the people of Fullerton who pay for the service.