Behind Closed Doors Archives - Page 79 of 82 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

January 21, 2010January 21, 2010Behind Closed Doors

Handling Politicians: The Termite Queen Syndrome; A Brief Essay

All your needs will be tended to... — All of your needs will be tended to...

In our casual study of the behavior of our local elected officials we have observed a rather disturbing thing: their treatment by the bureaucrats, local media, and even their own political consultants that is remarkably similar to the treatment received by the queen within the hives and nests of certain social insects.

Their psychological needs are carefully ministered to; their egos are carefully tended and stroked; their sustenance is provided in the form of ceremonial activities and dutiful obeisances pleasantly doled out by a superficially sycophantic crowd.

And there they are: voluntarily trapped in an official cocoon in which their votes are almost as perfunctory as the myriad pupae produced by a termite queen. And like the queen that grows ever larger and ever more constrained by her own girth, our pols become ever more dependent on their handlers.

Even the campaign consultants who are supposed to be working for the politician come to control the behavior of their candidate – stressing useless and harmless “issues” and actually avoiding anything that could possibly be construed as controversial – like actually trying to reform government stuff that just doesn’t work very well.

Just check out any of the websites of these poor creatures, trapped by their own fear and ambition. In the ones where there actually is any content (lots of “coming soon”s) it’s just blather: cliches, nonsense and double-talk, spit out to positively dodge saying anything substantive.

And there you have it friends: the Termite Queen Syndrome.

January 20, 2010January 21, 2010Behind Closed Doors

Attorney Dick Jones Spins Out New City Policy To Cover Posterior

by admin14 Comments

He droned. And droned. And droned some more. When he was done his crapola lay before the City Council and public like the steaming load of road apples it was.

Well like they say, the road apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

Back in November City Attorney (Junior Grade) Tom Duarte had told the Planning Commission that their range of review on the ghastly Richman housing project did not include economic considerations. At Tuesday night’s city council meeting his boss, City Attorney Dick Jones, defended his boy by cooking up a line of nonsense about city “policy” precluding the Planning Commission from considering economic viability factors in its review of projects, even apparently a highly subsidized one like the Richman disaster-in-the-making. As you can see he keeps blathering on about “historic” roles and “prior direction” blah, blah, blah.

By the time of Tuesday’s meeting, even the city planning staff had admitted that there was nothing to preclude economic consideration by the commission. To the contrary, a detailed staff memo by city planner Al Zelinka documented the many instances where such review was not only appropriate, but required. As expected, staff started waffling again at the meeting, but we already have it from them, in writing! We shared it with you here. Since the legal jig was up, Jones fell back on his lame-ass “policy” response.

And we challenge attorney Jones to point out exactly which council resolution(s) puts that alleged “policy” into effect. hell, go ahead and point out a single vote that established this policy. Go ahead, Mr. Jones. Do it. Enlighten us. Prove to us that you are not merely protecting the ill-advised action of your employee.

As an odd footnote, Jones noted that Planning Commissions do review and advise on development disposition agreements. Which begs the question: on this highly subsidized housing project, why didn’t they?

Hmm.

January 15, 2010July 14, 2010Behind Closed Doors

Fullerton Decision-makers Lied To. So What’s New?

by admin9 Comments

Last year just before Christmas the Fullerton City Council voted 3-1 to approve the idiotic Richman housing project, a staff-driven boondoggle that makes zero planning, housing, or economic sense. We wrote about it here.

We also wrote about the review of the same fiasco-in-the-making by the Planning Commission here, in which we lauded Commissioner Bruce Whitaker for his solitary stance in opposing it. As the YouTube clip shows, Whitaker objected on economic grounds citing the project’s dubious fiscal foundation.

This position was immediately questioned by Commissioner Lansburg who inquired about it of the city attorney, Tom Duarte:

Commissioner Lansburg: is it within the Commission’s purview to look at this from a financial standpoint or are we only to look at this from a planning standpoint?

The city attorney Mr. Duarte answered: In the commissions purview its a land use issue, the city council will look at the financial impact.

Well, the project was passed by a Commission majority, with only Whitaker dissenting.

Subsequently Commission Chairman Dexter Savage addressed the following communication to staff, seeking clarification of the issue.

And now, Lo and Behold, the issue has been agendized by the City Council; and just look at staff’s response: economic considerations are indeed within the purview of a planning commission in many respects, and are nowhere prohibited.

This response begs several questions. Why did the city’s attorney misinform the commission? Is he incompetent, or was he motivated to press the approval of a project near and dear to the hearts of the city staff, without any reference to the law.

Why did the staff present like (John Godlewski) not correct him? He countersigned the above memorandum contradicting Duarte, yet was at the meeting and said nothing.

The facts can really only be interpreted in one way. Both the attorney and staff were more interested in the approval of the project, no matter how bad, than in the service of the public interest, or the truth, or the law.

Now the entire matter has been brought to the City Council for its enlightenment as agenda item #16 at the January 19, meeting. But it’s really to late for the Richman project – a Redevelopment/housing staff concocted project that has all the tell-tale signs of a disaster in the making.

And Friends: there you have it.

January 14, 2010January 14, 2010Behind Closed Doors

Right On Cue The Spokeshole Speaks

by Joe Sipowicz4 Comments

fartboy — We are widely misunderstood...

Yep. The day after former State Senator Joe Dunn addressed the County Board of Supervisors about establishing a mechanism for keeping track of the professional lobbyists who haunt the 5th floor of the Hall of Admin, Matthew Cunningham popped up serially on the “Red County” blog to explain to his readers why the system ain’t broke and why his lobbyist friends have a constitutional right to “petition their government for redress.”

Aha! We called it here. Of course the idea that lobbyists are petitioning their government for anything except a chance to make big bucks for their clients is patently absurd.

We don’t agree with some of the purported details of Dunn’s original idea, but overall the concept of knowing which well-connected middlemen are knocking on your representative’s door in order to swing some deal or other, is basically a good one. Dunn’s timing and presentation to the Board were counterproductive and will be viewed as partisan, in some way. But so what?

Cunningham suggests that the whole thing is just a plan to dissuade privatization, but of course he really can’t say how, except that the OCEA union boss Nick Berardino is involved. But why should a lobbyist who is doing nothing improper or illegal fear a little bit of light illuminating his interaction with public officials?

Actually, an effort to squelch the idea will make people even more suspicious than ever about what is going on behind closed doors.

Cunningham is just doing his job, of course: trying to run interference for his Repuglican lobbyist pals like John Lewis who apparently would really rather not have the public aware of his influence with electeds. But the strategy is poor. In a second post he suggests that Dunn is simply trying to force the supervisors to adopt their own plan to avoid his referendum. Good idea.

Rather than let Dunn produce a likely popular plebiscite, the Supervisors ought to develop a sensible sytem for keeping track of lobbyists themselves, and include the union bosses like Berardino and Wayne Quint who are really nothing but lobbyists themselves – paid with ample union dues.

This issue is about recognizing the influence peddlers in OC – people who use their political and financial contacts to make inroads into public policy and pubic expenditure. Nothing wrong with that.

January 7, 2010January 10, 2010Behind Closed Doors

Greenhut Counsels CSPAN on Fullerton’s Pension Problems

by Travis2 Comments

In this video from CSPAN’s BookTV, Steven Greenhut talks about his book Plunder!: How Public Employee Unions Are Raiding Treasuries, Controlling Our Lives and Bankrupting the Nation.

Fast forward to 22:20 and listen to Greenhut recount the story of how Shawn Nelson saved Fullerton taxpayers from a secretive retroactive pension spike orchestrated by council RINOs Jones and Bankhead in 2008.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/ID/217436

January 6, 2010January 26, 2010Behind Closed Doors

Joe Dunn Proposes Transparency for OC Lobbyists

by admin5 Comments

Former State Senator Joe Dunn has submitted a proposal to the OC Board of Supervisors that would register and track the activities of lobbyists at the County, as reported in the OC Reg by Jennifer Muir.

In the article Dunn is careful to point out that his mission is to restore faith in government rather than to stem any specific corruption. Well we don’t have to be so polite: for months we have been complaining about the circles of influence and money that run things in the County. There’s nothing wrong about knowing who is paid to peddle influence and whom they are peddling it to. The only people who will try to make this look troublesome are the ones who don’t want a light shined on their activities.

Some of the items that Muir describes in the Dunn proposal are not necessary – such as a registry fee, and some of the information – like the amount a lobbyist is paid is irrelevant. The piddling stuff can be worked out. And let’s not forget that people like Nick Berardino and Wayne Quint of the OCEA and OCSD unions are paid lobbyists, too – paid by their members to get as many concessions for themselves that they can. They should be included in any program that monitors lobbyists.

The Repugz and their blowholes will probably be decrying their loss of free speech and will forecast a tsunami of paperwork and bureaucracy – which is pure malarkey. An on-line registry could be created and maintained for next to nothing, and could be accessible by the public all the time. The Supervisors have paid staff with hardly anything better to do who can keep their bosses activities updated.

For some reason Dunn is trying to get this on the Supervisor’s January 12th agenda at the last moment which seems sort of odd. If he gets no help from the BoS he says he’ll get it on the November ballot via petition.

Good luck, Joe. Ya gotta start somewhere.

January 5, 2010January 5, 2010Behind Closed Doors

A Good Article, By George!

by Mr. Peabody4 Comments

I've never even been to Fullerton — Fullerton? Where's that?

Although George Will can be stuffy and, well, fat-headed on occasion, there is nothing off the mark about his opinion piece in the Washington Post the other day about the Atlantic Yards eminent domain scandal occurring in Brooklyn, New York. Read it here.

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it? Trumped up findings of blight that justify the creation of a government-as-developer zone. In Fullerton we have the proposed Redevelopment expansion – leveraged off a completely fraudulent finding of blight. There are no massive projects in the expansion area – yet, but the idea of securing property tax increment and using the expansion to extend the life of the existing Redevelopment project area foreshadows all sorts of problems with government overreach and the misdirection of public revenue.

January 4, 2010January 4, 2010Behind Closed Doors

“Fiscal Conservative” Pam Keller Blows More Than $1200 Bucks At Local League Of Cities Meeting

by The Desert Rat40 Comments

If it's in my interest, it's in the public's interest, too! — If it's in my interest, it's in the public interest, too!

Hoo Boy! So this is how a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative squanders our money.

In the fall of 2008 Pam Keller attended the California League of Cities Annual Meeting, a useless agglomeration of bureaucrats and bureaucrat lovin’ electeds who like to micromanage everybody’s life while we pay for it.

The event was held at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach, a luxury hotel, exactly 26.1 miles from Fullerton. The distance is so vast that Pam decided to stay at the hotel for three nights and amassed a bill of $1236.10. Check out the payment vouchers, the hotel invoice, and even a handwritten request for nine buck’s reimbursement for parking, here.

Seems Pam also took along a guest, and, among other treats, they may have availed themselves of a trip to the LB Aquarium that was included in the deal.

Even if we disregard the questionable usefulness of attending one of these taxpayer funded boondoggles, what on earth was the need for Keller to stay at a hotel whose drive-time distance Mapquest lists at a mere 28 minutes?

And I have to wonder how all of Keller’s lefty knee-jerk supporters could possibly countenance this sort of profligacy of public money. $1,200 could be used collaboratively to feed a lot of homeless people, right?

Now to be perfectly fair (I am a very fair person), Fullerton’s two RINOs, Don Bankhead and Dick Jones also attended this conference and also racked up big bills. At least Jones went alone.

Friends, this is likely not the only Keller taxpayer-funded junket and rest assured, we will be providing examples of others in the very near future if we find them.

December 19, 2009December 30, 2009Behind Closed Doors

Another Disaster in the Making

by The Fullerton Shadow9 Comments

How come our electeds don’t seem to be able to grasp simple concepts; why have they no resistance to the bureaucratic sales pitch; why must they obscure their own ignorance in a cloud of asinine nonsense or outright lies?

Last Tuesday night the Fullerton City Council/Redevelopment Agency approved the idiotic Richman housing project, a staff-concocted, no-bid, pet project that proposes to subsidize ownership of condos. The vote was 3-1, Sharon Quirk-Silva, dissenting. Shawn Nelson took a powder.

Why is this project idiotic? First we believe that the ownership of a house is something that should be available equally, and not doled out by the government to its own selected recipients.

Second, the units in this project will have to be perpetually restricted to people whose income levels qualify. Perfect: perpetual housing bureaucracy! The necessary deed restrictions are a pretty significant encumbrance and will just add to the financial shakiness of the whole enchilada. But without these restrictions the original buyers would be in line for a massive windfall courtesy of all of us, when they sell.

A third point, as was admirably developed by Sharon Quirk-Silva, the proposed occupancy restrictions would very likely disqualify people who need housing the most. Which leads to the fourth point. These units will not count against Fullerton’s most neglected RHNA category – low and very low income. Which leads to:

Five. Dick Jones claimed that approving the Richman project is required to satisfy some legal mandate – it is THE LAW. That’s just a tin-plated, bald-faced lie. The SCAG RHNA allocations are goals, not a legal mandate. Cities are required by the State HCD to provide evidence of programs used to achieve those goals – not specific projects. And, in any case hypocritically, this project does not address the most urgent RHNA category of all which means that for folks who profess to really like this sort of thing, an opportunity has been lost.

Finally, FFFF has tried to promote better, more sustainable design in government-subsidized projects. And this project just promises more of the same old architectural crap we’ve been getting all along.

And now that we contemplate this fiasco, we feel the need for a last minute adendum to the Fringie Worst Vote category.

December 14, 2009December 30, 2009Behind Closed Doors

On the Agenda: December 15th, 2009

by Christian4 Comments

The Fullerton City Council has just released their agenda for December 15, 2009 and it’s a fat package!

Something near and dear to me is baseball so I take a little more interest when the subject shows up on the agenda. Item 2 of the closed session is a conference with the real property negotiator concerning 304 W. Commonwealth Avenue. It would appear that the Orange County Flyers of Fullerton want to move to downtown Fullerton to be closer to City Hall. In fact they want to have the baseball field across the street where many a young man played pony league baseball. The Duane Winters Field just might be the sight of the next Golden Baseball League Championship. In March 2007 the team gave up being the Fullerton Flyers because the new partners wanted to be more marketable. Hmm, sounds like an Arty Moreno stunt! So the changed to the Orange County Flyers. I have a t-shirt that says “Top 10 Reason’s To Be a Fan: …Reason #4: They aren’t the L.A. Flyers of Fullerton.” That’s true; they’re the O.C. Flyers. So, will Parks and Rec Director, Joe Felz, give them the field? We’ll see…

Also in the closed session is another real property whiz-bang. Rob Zur Schmiede is working on 655 W. Valencia. In 2007 this was a 63 unit condo by John Laing and the project was in plan check. 3+ years later, what could they be discussing? Price and terms with C&C Development’s Barry Cottle, according to the agenda.

In the open session you can look forward to a presentation by MWD and a few awards to people like Quirk-Silva, Dick Waltz, and – drum roll please – The Golden Bell Award, Fullerton Union High School District and (another drum roll please) Fullerton School District! How ya like dem apples?

Make sure you fill out your blue card before you yell at the council – which you will want to do…

There are a few appointments being made to the Library Board of Trustees. Your favorite Mayor, Don “Don’t Mess With Me” Bankhead and Shawn “See Ya Later Alligator” Nelson. Their terms are to expire December 31, 2012 – if they last that long.

We have a busy consent calendar to cover so hang on tight. In the mix is the amended landscaping ordinance, group insurance for city employees, the employee’s deferred compensation, more sewer replacement, a bunch of Redevelopment stuff, air pollution, SALE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY FAIR GROUNDS (seriously – item 11), Raymond Avenue grade separation, Fire Management Association agreement, Bastanchury/Valencia Mesa bike path. There is too much for me to cover here so I’ll expand a little on just a few.

First, there for Redevelopment. Item 6’s title should tell you everything you need to know… “Redevelopment Agency’s Annual Determination That Planning And Administrative Expenses Are Necessary For The Production, Improvement, or Preservation of Low and Moderate Income Housing”. Yep that’s all you need to know so don’t look into it or question it. I suggest that if you ever had a beef with Redevelopment, this is a chance for you to SCREAM at your elected officials. This “determination” is the justification for wasting your money. Because if that isn’t enough reason, read item 7, the Redevelopment Agency’s annual report. This the RA’s justification for existence to the State and Feds. If it doesn’t dazzle you with brilliance, rest assured, it will baffle you with bullshit!

Ok, enough with the Redevelopment Agency, let’s get down to real business. According to item 8, it’s time to modify the signals at Orangethorpe and Highland, as well as re-stripe the area and add some signs.

Air pollution shows up 9^th on the list. It’s actually a MSRC grant for $450,000 for a compressed natural gas station. I wonder how much money we will throw at it to get the gas station operational. How much will we sell the gas for? Are there enough customers to make it profitable or are we, the tax payers, suppose to subsidize CNG vehicle owners? I’m sure the details are all there waiting to be found.

Don Hoppe gets an appointment as the Public Works Dispute Hearing Officer. Will he get paid extra for the job?

And then we have the Fairgrounds. It appears that the council would like to request the Governator to not sell the O.C. Fairgrounds. I’m sure Arnold will read the letter and quickly cancel the whole sale.

The Raymond Avenue Grade Separation is getting a change order for AECOM. Their fee is $2,450,000. It is unclear from the agenda or staff recommendation just how much the change order will cost us, if anything. According to the recommendation, there is $63,739,000 for the project. That’s a lot of money!

Skipping ahead to the Public Hearings we have some more Redevelopment doozies. The first one, item 15, is for 524 and 530 S. Richman Avenue where the Olson Company wants to erect 34 moderate income housing units. I believe the Honorable DR. Jones said we “…absolutely have to build these. It’s the law!” Well, sort of…not really.

Also, item 16 is the Five-Year Implementation Plan for Redevelopment Agency. The item is on the agenda so that a request can be made to have a public hearing on it and consider adopting the plan. What a racket!

Here is an interesting one. Item 17 is an appeal to install a nature/wildlife habitat along a portion of the Juanita Cooke Greenbelt (known to many who are not as up to date on official trail names as “The Equestrian Trail Behind the Court House that goes to Laguna Lake”). After looking at what they wanted to do and where, I’m not sure why the City didn’t take advantage of the situation. Here are a couple who want to improve the trail where it runs along their backyard. They wanted to make it wilder (I guess) on the slope NEXT TO the path. The fix could have been to enter into an agreement whereby they can install certain pre-approved plants in a pre-approved manner, the total costs of which would be paid by the applicant. The City could have the homeowners maintain it until such time as the agreement is cancelled in which case the homeowners could be on the hook for removal/restoration costs. The cop out from Parks that the trail has two paths and this would confuse people is silly. Are people really that stupid? Also, from what I have seen, the encroachment would be onto the slope. I don’t think the mountain bikers are on the slopes nor are the walkers or horses. So what’s the problem?

The city will also be looking at parking permit fees in certain areas. (See item 18)

Moving on to Regular Business (I said this was a big package), we have a few reports on the City’s financials as well as the Airport. Also in the Regular Business is the Commission/Committee At-Large Appointment Process.

I urge you to read through all of the supporting documents for the agenda. That is where you might find some nuggets of truth that should be brought forth. I simply don’t have enough hours in the day to do it. Thanks for reading and feel free to point out other topics that I missed or are important to you!