Category: About Us

“Dear Deputy O.C.D.A. Heather Heslep-Morrissey,

This email and the attached letter are a follow-up to your correspondence dated April 9, 2025, regarding my request to further investigate the Scott Markowitz scandal. Less than a year ago, Mr. Markowitz was caught and arrested by the O.C.D.A. for perjury and falsifying a government document, specifically his nomination papers for the November 2024 election for a City Council seat in District 4.

As stated in your letter, the new evidence I am providing proves that Mr. Markowitz did not act alone in his attempt to defraud the voters in the November 8, 2024, election. Based on the new facts contained in the attached letter, it is clear that a conspiracy to suborn perjury was in effect.

Part IV of an essay sent in to FFFF.

At present, Fullerton Heritage is applying to place historic preservation layers over four neighborhoods. While we heartily dislike SB 330 and SB 9, our experience with the local players has been negative. There are enough unpleasant memories that we wish we could assign to the scrap bin. But Fullerton Heritage members have been intrusive and confrontational in Skyline Park over things they don’t like. It is hard to shake when you are attacked at your own house. Especially when the neighborhood has never had a historic preservation layer over it, and where all the neighbors have done their best.

FOR A BAR, THE DRINKS COULD BE STRONGER: BOOHOOISM AMONG THE SELF-APPOINTED TASTE ARBITERS

Homeowners without HOAʻs assume they will make their own choices and not hassle with those who think they know better. While Fullerton Heritage isn’t an HOA, some of its members mimic one even if a neighborhood doesn’t fall within their scope.

Heritage proponents have given unsolicited opinions on everything from windows, gardens, and house colors. But their opinions aren’t necessarily rooted in the rules set forth by the city. They like to make stuff up, inferring there are rules in areas where there are none. A Fullerton Heritage board member, even made up a rule about painted bricks and unsuccessfully tried to use it against her neighbor. That this was a neighborhood without a preservation layer, and that the house was built in the mid-1960’s made no difference to her. She just wanted the power to stop her elderly neighbor from painting his fake brick facade. Fortunately, she failed (the house looks great). But it was not her first grab for authority. Many years ago, she took photos of neighborhood homes without the owner’s consent and ran away when people tried to ask who she was. They found she’d had free reign of the FH website and posted rando things about many of the homes. (They were later taken down). But make no mistake: Their lack of boundaries will be your problem, too.

At their worst, a call was made to city planning to complain about new windows, already installed in a house that was in the process of remodeling. Never mind that the city approved the work a year earlier. The city issued a stop-work anyway. The Boohoo-Who didn’t want to accept that the city allows for new energy-efficient double pane windows, and no one (except for someone applying for the Mill’s Act -but that’s another tangled story) is beholden to single-pane wood windows. Replacement metal, vinyl, aluminum clad or composite double-pane windows, with or without grids are allowed. These have all been approved, installed, and scarcely noticed by neighbors already. It’s an environmentally mindful push past the battle cry for wood windows by Fullerton Heritage members with a personal preference.

But we also got the impression of a too-close relationship between the City and Fullerton Heritage. When asked why the stop order work was issued, the city couldn’t say why. But that a Boohoo-Who had the power to bring an approved project to a halt is a forewarning that with this group, there is no discussion.

Just recently, their president tried to shut down dissent at an informational meeting. It was next level assholery, but it was on par with the scolding from another FH member who admonished anyone who disagreed with her. Is this a bar or a high school? Did they really think they could have a meeting about other people’s homes without push back? This seems like a group from an era where people were expected to get along by going along. If they’ve spent any time listening or talking with the younger generations, they’d know that the world doesn’t work that way anymore.

Part IV of an essay sent in to FFFF.

EVERYTHING’S GOING UP

But applying preservation layers also will not get rid of badly written partisan bills, set time back, or get rid of high rises. In Los Angeles County alone, if 70% is zoned R-1, this leaves 30% for a combination of single-family houses, townhouses, condos and apartments that encompasses everything from market rate to affordable and Section 8 housing. If the city of Fullerton has a housing element of over 13,000, developments on lands not zoned R 1 will be closely spaced together and many will go vertical. It is a complete shift of how people will live going forward, but ironically, also doesn’t guarantee that they will be able to afford it if wages and jobs stagnate, or if younger generations continue to saddle themselves with staggering debt before they even enter the workforce.

The California Dream of single-family home ownership was born during a time when the population was lower, and land was available. Wages and opportunities went up, there was a plentiful supply of houses, and developers worked with lenders which helped keep the housing supply affordable. But much of this has changed. While the elders of the local preservation movement were able to work, live and retire in the city, it’s been different for the generations following them. People live further away from work in the search for cheaper and new housing. But this has enormous costs: Multi-hour commutes each day, a separation of child and parent as one goes to school in one city, and the parent works (often hours away) in another. Many families and individuals are spending over 50% of their earnings on housing, fuel, utilities, and healthcare. There is not that much left over. In addition, there are the environmental costs -entire swaths of land taken up by single family homes puts stress on the local environment and wildlife. Then there is the problem of water and not enough of it, as developments have been built onto arid lands. R 1 zoning, as we once knew it, is gone.

This next part has already been covered in depth with great insight by commenter Fran J in this blog a few weeks ago. If haven’t searched for her comments -do. They deserve to be taken seriously.

CHARTER CITIES: SEEKING AUTONOMY

If the judges ruling on SB 9 is upheld on appeal it could have an impact on 121 charter cities including plaintiffs Redondo Beach, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar, and San Diego, San Francisco and Los Angeles. (A charter city has ultimate authority over its municipal affairs and works within a framework of California laws). Fullerton has entered a study phase on becoming a charter city. Fullerton city officials point out the states’ overreaching capacity to run roughshod over municipal zoning (SB 330) and order 13,206 units to be built over 5 years, with no provisions to pay for the expansion of municipal services or first responder coverage, or look how a higher density will impact health, air quality, water availability, and wildlife.

An explosion in growth from the raised Housing Element will be paid by either adding or raising fees, making cuts in programs, or raising taxes. Contrarians (YIMBYs) cite concern for abuse, and cities shirking their role to provide new housing. However, becoming a Charter City could help the city with SB 9 and SB 330. Whether or not Fullerton becomes a Charter City, NIMBYs will continue to fight to preserve even mundane neighborhoods, parks, and buildings. Adding a layer will impact the planning and permitting process, and risks ushering in a cadre of taste arbiters who will be too happy to have a glimmer of official status.

In the question of Skyline Park, this is a tiresome war that has been waged for almost 40 years, pitting neighbors against one another. What’s new is SB 9 and the undoing of R 1 zoning. Rather than grimacing and going along with the notion of establishing a permanent layer of bureaucracy, we used this as a chance to understand the housing crises, the shift in beliefs around urban planning, and the new laws that have been crafted. We also thought it was fair to compile our own experiences and observations of the players, behind this local push. Namely, Fullerton Heritage.

Andre Charles is some sort of political consultant for Democrat politicians and causes. That’s what he tells us on his rather uninformative website. What he does between elections is not mentioned. He is also the President of the North Orange County Democrats, and his name has surfaced in connection with the phony and perjurious Scott Markowitz candidacy in Fullerton last fall.

My current interest with Mr. Charles has to do with his activities in the same election. Why? Because he was paid $4000 by a political action committee sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 324 – a union for grocery store employees. You may remember the name of this group: Working Families for Kitty Jaramillo.

“Working Families” worked hard for Jaramillo, funneling $60,000 through the national HQ in Washington to fund their support for Jaramillo. Charles got some of that gravy:

Well, there’s nothing wrong, so far. At least on the surface. He’s a Dem working for Dems and that’s his job, part time or otherwise. It probably seems a little strange that a grocery store worker’s union would be involved in a local, small-time election.

But of course that’s not the whole story. See, Working Families not only represents the guy trimming lettuce in the produce section of your supermarket; they also represent workers trimming another green growing thing, namely cannabis.

The real money motive in marijuana dispensaries comes from the legalized dope cartel itself, not the promise of the union dues of a few dozen workers; even the least cynical person must wonder a little exactly who ponied up that $60,000, laundered through the national HQ.

Anyway, I digress. The real issue here is not the disheveled Charles’s job, day or moonlight. It’s the fact that his better half is none other than Shana Charles, the bloviating and sanctimonious councilmember for District 3.

Let me synopsize: Mr. Charles is the financial beneficiary of four grand in marijuana lobby money to do something to prop up the campaign of Vivian Jaramillo, a vocal cannabis dispensary advocate. And his fellow beneficiary, Mrs. Charles, is in a position to agendize reopening the issue of legalized MJ in Fullerton and using it as a remedy for Fullerton’s budgetary woes. And she would also be able to influence the zoning regulations that make winners and losers in this business, to wit: the dispensary store owners and their immediate residential neighbors.

A few months ago the Kennedy Sisters – who scratch and peck out the Fullerton Observer – made sure to review the fall campaign financial activity of their enemies, Jung, Valencia, and Dunlap. They omitted investigation of the same for their failed darling, Jaramillo.

And they never once addressed the activities of Working Families during or after the election. The silence was deafening. Even if they had they would have glossed over the relationship of marijuana money and the spouse of a councilmember they hold dear.

When the defunct disaster known as Walk on Wilshire was in its oxygen tent, the Observer, Ahmad Zahra, and a few of their running dogs tried real hard to make a legal issue of campaign donors affecting council decisions. Hopefully the same solicitude for public probity will be applied, when appropriate, to Mrs. Charles, who was the direct beneficiary of a big monied interest that poured tens of thousands into a Fullerton political campaign.

No, don’t call FPD. Not because they won’t catch anybody, but because the violation is plagiarism. And the perp? None other than one of the Fullerton Observer sisters, Sakinsia.

And the topic? Of course it relates to about the Orange County Water District.

A few years back the Observer let Ahmad Zahra pretend to write informative articles on water topics under his own name. You can still see them, uncorrected, here and here. Jan Flory was fooled about Zahra’s supposed expertise in water issues, but FFFF wasn’t.

We knew the articles were written by an OCWD bureaucrat and stolen by the Doctor From Damascus.

Here is an “article” clipped from the Observer and purportedly written by Saskina – since she put her own name above it.

The Orange County Water District (OCWD; the District) and the City of Tustin celebrated the dedication of a new PFAS treatment plant, marking a major milestone in ensuring safe and reliable water for Tustin residents and businesses.  

The dedication ceremony brought together local, state and federal representatives to recognize the proactive actions of both OCWD and the City of Tustin in addressing PFAS, a group of manufactured chemicals increasingly found in water sources across the country, including the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The new treatment system, implemented at the existing Main Street Water Treatment Plant, uses ion exchange technology to treat up to 6,400 gallons of groundwater per minute. The centralized plant is fed by four offsite wells connected through approximately 2.5 miles of conveyance pipeline. 

“This state-of-the-art PFAS treatment plant is a critical investment in our city’s water future,” said Tustin Mayor Austin Lumbard. “By removing PFAS from local groundwater, we help ensure that water delivered to residents and businesses is exceptional and continues to meet all state and federal drinking water standards.” 

Since 2019, OCWD has taken the lead in addressing PFAS, in partnership with its 19 cities and retail water districts, to remove them from the groundwater basin, which supplies up to 85% of the water to 2.5 million people in north and central Orange County. The District is funding design and construction costs, along with a portion of operational and maintenance costs for treatment facilities like this one.

“OCWD is proud to support the City of Tustin and our other partners in the construction of treatment facilities that safeguard public health,” said OCWD President Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. “Tackling PFAS contamination head-on reflects our long-standing commitment to water quality, innovation and regional collaboration.”

The City of Tustin PFAS treatment facility was partially funded by a $10 million grant from the State Water Resources Control Board through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and a $5 million Community Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

For more information on OCWD’s PFAS treatment program, visit the PFAS education center.

Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that this is one of those canned press releases that makes up vacuous quotations and puts them in the mouths of officers of government agencies. But typical Observer readers are not known for their sharpness on the uptake.

Our Friend and sharp-eyed commenter Lab Rat has pointed out that it’s outright theft. And here’s the relevant press release from OCWD:

Is this just the usual sloppy incompetence, or is it deliberate? Does it matter? It’s just one more instance of the sanctimonious “who cares so long as we believe what we believe, and what we believe is sacrosanct.”

Let’s see if it gets corrected with an appropriate notice.

It only took three days. Not bad for the Observer Sisters. Glad to see some Observer or other reads FFFF!

Part III of an essay sent in to FFFF.

THE WHITE PAPER
CAUGHT IN A CULTURE WAR of HISTORIC PRESERVATION

PART III

 In the last article, we covered the introduction of SB 9, which was the YIMBY’s way of taking a hatchet to single family zoning by making it legal not only to build ADUs, but also to subdivide lots and build up to four units per 2400 sq ft lot (now divided into 50/50 or 40/60). Crafted by 7 authors and co-authors, SB 9 had the support from a mix of housing groups and organizations like AARP, big money builders, cities, planners, advocates, urban planners, developers, and companies such as Facebook. The CA YIMBY claimed that it is illegal to build middle income housing in 70% of Los Angeles County because of R-1 zoning. The YIMBY movement adheres to the belief expressed in a paper, “It’s Time To End Single Family Housing,” by Manville, Monkkonen and Lens that R-1 zoning is built on racist and classist assumptions as well as exclusion. The authors call for an outright abolition of R 1 zoning, which is the basis of the YIMBYs view of the future, and it has influenced every bill passed. However, the authors state that ending R-1 zoning will not guarantee the end of segregation, exclusion or housing affordability. In other words, you can do all of this -SB 330, SB 9, but still have dickheads. Because getting rid of assholery is a totally different challenge (which extends to both sides of the aisle). But for the YIMBY movement, passing a bill is where they decided to start.

IN LIEU OF COWS, APPLY PRESERVATION

Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones” in response to SB 9. Much of it by neighborhood groups or nonprofit organizations like Fullerton Heritage, who have moved aggressively to include downtown adjacent areas.

However, YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to ʻweaponize preservation.ʻ They claim NIMBYs donʻt want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family as well as affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 is used by NIMBYʻs to get people to side with adding Preservation layers, as happened at a community meeting in Fullerton, requested by Fullerton Heritage and facilitated by City Planning for the purposes of finding out about this top-down proposal. All anyone had to do to gain support was say the word, “four-plex” without being informed of the nuances of SB 9, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this bruiser bill both costly and difficult.

PUSHBACK: AB 2580

To help cities ensure that their Housing Element is met, YIMBYs countered this rush to create new preservation zones or move land into land trusts. AB 2580 was passed to monitor them:
“(N) A list of all historic designations listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic places by the city or county in the past year, including an assessment of how those designations affect the ability of the city or county to meet its housing needs.” –Text of Assembly Bill 2580
            The reality is that by declaring entire districts ‘historic’ regardless of whether or not the neighborhoods were built to express one or a few historically significant styles, puts more pressure on adjacent neighborhoods to fill a city’s Housing Element (the required number of state-mandated housing units). Neither style, nor era-based uniformity is required. One such neighborhood, Skyline Park, is an attractive mix of single family homes built over a 100 year period, from Spanish revival, mock colonial, and to houses that reflect a broad scope of styles. To NIMBYs, the loophole exists to highlight and preserve architectural examples for a particular era but keep a districtʻs relationship between buildings and grounds intact. They also seek to prevent, what in their eyes are behemoths or buildings or features not to their taste from being built. What teeth does AB 2580 have if a city runs afoul? It remains to be seen.
AB 2580 was approved by Quirk-Silva and Newman, with solid support from both parties.

BANG BANG: AND THEN A JUDGE CHIMED IN

To the YIMBYs dismay, SB 9 was declared unconstitutional by a Los Angeles judge in 2024. While SB 9 made way for increased housing, it had no provisions for affordable housing as required by the state constitution. The judge ruled in favor of the 5 cities who sued the state: Redondo Beach, Carson, Torrance, Whittier and Del Mar, who no longer must abide by the rules of SB 9.  For now, SB 9 is still in force and could be amended to reflect the same wording in the California constitution. But it has led Fullerton to consider morphing into something different.

A few weeks ago a guy named Matthew Ali wrote a post for the Fullerton Observer about the issue of the prohibition of non-government materials from City property. I wrote about it, here.

Okay, so the Kennedy Sisters found somebody to pitch their usual brand of editorial drivel masquerading as of news – fodder for the sheep that consider the Observer indispensable reading, and nothing new.

But the story doesn’t end there. Let’s let Matthew Ali tell it in his own words, in an email sent to people he talked to in developing his article:

Hello, this is Matthew Ali

If you are receiving this email, it is because you were interviewed for my article that appeared in the early May issue of the Fullerton Observer. First and foremost, I need to apologize for what was published under my byline. The words printed with my name attached were not the same as what I wrote. Multiple things were changed, and those changes were made without my knowledge or consent. Some things were taken out of context and changed into an attack on some of the people I interviewed.

In my estimation, the article as printed is not journalism. Nor is the published version something I can stand by. As of Monday, I have removed myself from the publication and will no longer be contributing to the Observer. This is entirely because of the liberties that were taken with my article. If what was printed read as an attack, that was never my intention.

Attached you will find an earlier draft that more closely aligns with what the article was supposed to be. It’s a bit rough and lacks the benefit of editing. But I am sending this to you without changes so my actual intent and what I wrote can be seen and the difference can be understood.

Again, I apologize for what was published under my name. If any of you have questions or would like to chat about the article, please do not hesitate to reach out.

With warm regards,

Matthew Ali

Who to believe? Pretty easy. Sankia Kennedy has no credibility and has been known to modify submissions to suit her editorial preferences. And this email suggests irresponsible editorial license.

I don’t think we’ll be reading anymore articles or blog posts by Matthew Ali for the Fullerton Observer. Let’s chalk this up to yet another excellent reason why the Fullerton Observer doesn’t belong on City property.

Reading the staff report for the May 20th Trail to Nowhere© rehash I came across this little nugget:

Early in the design phase, the construction cost was estimated at $4million. Because of City Council direction to keep within the estimate, staff simplified the trail crossing at Richman Avenue, and simplified the connection at Independence Park to reduce the total estimated cost prior to putting out to bid.

$4,000,000?! How on earth did staff get to that number for construction? Who knows? And how did it become $1,800,000? The following sentence shines the light on staff’s desire to look like they waged a ruthless war of economy – only listing a couple of minor items that don’t add up to millions. But boy they sure were trying hard to follow “City Council Direction” to keep within the estimate, whatever that was.

But of course they failed. And the new City’s share for this boondoggle rose 91% to $630,000.

Even more disturbing to me is what I believe is an artificially low-bid, made to fit exactly the so-called “Engineer’s Estimate” provided to bidders – $1,845,776. How that number relates to a $4,000,000 the “early design” estimate I’ll ignore.

The real issue to me is whether the contractor wrote off their profit and overhead to get this job. The median bid for this project was $2,286,000 – $440,000 and 24% more than the low bid. I think somebody kept sharpening their pencil ’til there was nothing left but wood shavings and graphite dust. Either that or they bungled the bid. If that’s the case we may definitely expect change orders to help bolster the contractor’s motivation for the job. The consequences are the same.

The public doesn’t even get to see the plan for the job. I suspect the Council hasn’t seen a final design either, even though they’re expected to approve it. One thing the agenda item does include “are a few elevations “3D renderings” (above) of the trail at four points. There are lots of happy, recreating people shown, verdant flower beds and mature trees. There’s nothing that looks like the forlorn neglect of Phase I. No drug deals, no graffiti and no homeless.

Something else is missing, too. For some reason the renderings ignore the clear 10ft buffer zones required by the Council back in January, 2024. Maybe these views are just holdovers from before the thing was approved. If so, that’s just sloppy and lazy.

Ironically, Trail to Nowhere© advocates are getting shortchanged and don’t even know it. The original bike trail was supposed to be concrete and is now just cheaper asphalt. The 10,560 shrubs described in the grant application are now just 600. But it’s all great. City Hall is giving “them” something good.

Our friend Joshua Ferguson has done Fullerton a solid, taking the time to create a video of the notorious Trail to Nowhere© site. He starts at the west and heads east documenting the dilapidation, gang graffiti, trash, and general unhealthy and unsafe nature of the environment on and next to the proposed trail.

A couple of things to remember that City staff steadfastly refuses to acknowledge:

1. Phase II does not connect to Phase I
2. Phase I is a design failure, a total maintenance disaster, and is unused by anybody
3. The existing Phase I “trail” ends at the fenced off Poisoned Park. The original “trail” went through the park and ended at the old UP bridge over Harbor Blvd. After that it just turns into a regular sidewalk, not a recreation trail.

Here’s the video. It’s well worth watching.

Fullerton’s Union Pacific Trail Betrayal – YouTube

I sure hope Dunlap, Valencia and Jung get the opportunity to see this video and realize that this “project” was never more than a bundle of lies, misinformation, omitted facts, and constant pressure from people who didn’t and don’t know what they’re talking about.

There are no potential users, there is no connectivity, there is no money for maintenance; there is a history of failure, a hollow, patronizing gesture by lefties, make-work for City employees, and nonsense-talk from a handful of locals manipulated by Ahmad Zahra. And oh, yeah, an ever-escalating cost to the citizens of Fullerton, that has quadrupled in five years.

Part 2 of an essay sent in to FFFF.

Caught in a culture war
When self determination and neighborhood
trust are at stake

The End of Single Family Housing Zoning
Shortly after the Eaton Fires, I saw posts on forums where people anticipated rebuilding, “anything but single family housing.” Even though R 1 zoning has been the California dream, it has been phased out, first with the introduction of Accessory Dwelling Units in 2016, then later, Jr-ADUs. ADUs offer a quick way to add housing and gain property taxes, potentially doubling a neighborhood population. However, the utility infrastructure stays the same, while a greater demand is foisted onto first responders. Cities are left to assume the expenses and resource demands of more people. R1 zoning is deemed by the YIMBYs as wasteful and selfish, and limits availability of housing choices. NIMBYs point to a harmonious life of space, predictability and security. But the YIMBY’s weren’t done dismantling R1 zoning, so they introduced a new tactic: SB 9.

The Problematical SB 9

To add more firepower to the ridding of R 1 zoning, YIMBYs backed SB 9 in 2021 to allow lot “splitting” but only in R 1 neighborhoods. Lots must be a minimum of 2400sq ft. They can be divided 60/40 or 50/50 with up to two units on each new lot that meet the setback and height requirements. According to the City of Fullerton, the structures may not be more than 800 sq. ft. For lot splits, one unit must be owner occupied for three years. For two unit projects, all units can be rented. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant for the last 3 years, may not be torn down. The reality is 2-4 units are not going to make a fast enough difference in reaching 13,206 units. Since no requirements in the bill specify affordable housing, there are no public funds available for these projects. Because of the high per-unit cost of building and a lower ROI, in the first two years only 75 lot splits were approved across California, as opposed the approval of 8800 ADUs. Confusing? Attempting just to describe it is fodder for mistakes. But ideological wars are both heated and have many twists and turns. This is an attempt to solve a housing shortage with a culture war pushing it from behind.

In Lieu Of Cows, Create A New Preservation Zone
Because this is politics, there are loopholes, places where SB 9 does not apply: Farms, hazardous waste sites, high fire risk zones, ecological conservation areas, and historic preservation zones. Short of adding cattle or flooding city lots, NIMBYs stepped up to blanket entire neighborhoods as “historic preservation zones.”
 YIMBYs believe that this is an abuse by impassioned locals to “weaponize preservation.” They claim NIMBYs don’t want to preserve as much as they want to keep state-mandated multi-family and affordable housing out under the guise of “homey” and “charming.”

But SB 9 can intentionally be used to get people to side with Preservation zoning, as happened at a community meeting held for the purposes of finding out about this proposal. All anyone had to do was say the word, “Fourplex” without understanding nuances of the bill, along with the many restrictions that make the implementation of this both costly and difficult.