Statewide Stuff – Friends For Fullerton's Future

May 17, 2026May 17, 2026About Us

Ad Hoc Tuah Part…Aw, Who Cares?

Fullerton’s so-called Ad Hoc Fiscal Sustainability Committee met again, and probably for the last time last Thursday. Like its predecessor, the meeting expended hours of lots of peoples’ time and accomplished nothing. Not very little. Nothing.

Hours and hours of already familiar Power Point readings.

Three things worth mentioning happened.

First, Daisy Perez, the Assistant City Manager reminded the committee that if the City were to get a dedicated “infrastructure” half-cent sales tax increase, that money could be diverted to pay for “maintenance” of police and fire department facilities. She said nothing about a commensurate reduction in the “public safety” budgets and naturally nobody on the committee asked her.

Later, when pressed, the City Manger had to explain that he needed some sort of City Attorney blessing before he could share polling questions asked by the City’s quality of life/pro tax consultant. Huh? The only people who get to know the questions are the ones who got phone solicitations? What bullshit is this? Fortunately, Joshua Ferguson was on hand to share the nature of the questions his wife got; of course they were directed to promoting a sales tax increase of some kind.

Later still, when everyone was fatigued, Perez tried to get the committee to vote on a laundry list of options, all of which would be passed on to the council. This is the precise swindle that occurred during the redistricting process courtesy of City Clerk Lucinda Williams – when Fullerton Booohoo was trying real hard to keep Jesus Quirk-Silva in a political job.

Chris Norby, our former City Councilman, County Supervisor and Assemblyman showed up to save the day. He shared the value of vacant properties the City owns, and threw in the airport. These collectively are worth half a billion he asserted. He didn’t remind committee members that these properties would be declared surplus, and that “affordable” housing developers would get first shot at them. He reminded the committee that sales taxes are inherently regressive, perhaps thinking anybody cared about that.

In the end a completely improper process of trying to vote on something, anything, occurred. Without following any order except prompting by staff, the committee voted 3-2 against a Tony Bushala suggestion of a 1/2 cent sales tax dedicate to infrastructure, and keeping in place an existing ordinance guaranteeing a certain percentage of funding for infrastructure.

Peace. No, piece. Another piece of your money. You have it. We want it.

Then the appointees of the liberals Shana Charles and Ahamad Zahra, Derek Smith and Jennifer Duong proposed their own idea: a one cent general sales tax. This failed 3-2, also with Bushala, Wehn and Wozab voting no.

Finally a legitimate motion was made by Eric Wehn and seconded by Bushala: investigate the possible sale of the water function to an independent water company. That proposal was finally passed 3-2 again with the liberal appointees voting no. This idea really has no place to go, except that an exploration of the Water Department’s vacant property should be definitely considered for offloading.

There seemed to be confusion about whether the committee could meet again to keep kicking the can around. No decision was made on that as far as I can tell, but I’ve seen so many Fullerton meetings dissolve into incoherence at their end that I really can’t say.

May 6, 2026May 8, 2026About Us

F-U to North Fullerton, Almost

by The Fullerton Harpoon26 Comments

I really think that’s what a lot of last night’s council meeting regarding a proposed development at the northwest corner of Harbor Blvd. and Hermosa Drive was about.

The appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial was the issue and to their credit Dunlap, Jung and Valencia pushed back on the appeal. But the real show was put on by Ahmad Zahra and his stablemate Shana Charles.

First a little about the project. It would cram 32 dinky “townhomes” on a parcel that the City claims is 1.3 acres (it looks smaller); the zoning for the site is R-1-20 which is typical in the old horsey part of town – a minimum 20,000 square foot lot, or about half an acre. But the developer applied for permits during a period when Fullerton’s “Housing Element” was not in compliance with the State regulations; therefore he could rely on “Builder’s Remedy” a harebrained scheme by the State Legislature whereby somebody can cram a whole bunch of units on to a site and fuck you, neighbors. There just has to be mandated and restricted “low income housing” of which our friendly builder was to produce the bare minimum.

Such is our government that the project still needed to be approved by the Planning Commission, and City planning staff recommended approval lest there be spooky lawsuits. The PC bravely said nay, exercising their authority as a discretionary body. The Council did the same.

But it was a fight. Zahra and Charles did their best to defend what can only be described as an out of scale, mini-monstrosity. Five stuccoed buildings with crappy plastic windows; three stories each jammed onto the site with only way in and out. And because of, ya know, low income housing, the developer doesn’t even have to bring power to the site underground!

Zahra tried mightily to show that the PC had no objective basis for their decision given staff’s assurances; but this begs the question of how much due-diligence staff actually put into this to make a balanced presentation in the first place. Apparently there was no traffic study required and because of our wonderful Legislature, “in-fill” projects are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff said there was no basis for a claim of public safety endangerment, a finding, if made, that could be used to reject the project. Zahra tried to undermine the neighbors and the Planning Commission’s conclusions as mere opinion, not fact.

Charles was just as bad with her usual dumb grin, condescending routine. We have to abide by the State’s diktats and there was nothing else that could be done. And although public opinion is just great we have no choice, yadda, yadda. The ridiculousness of voting on something about which you have no choice seems to have escaped the otiose public health professor. How come you dropped the low income level from 20% to 13%, asked the smiling academic of the developer. Higher interest rates the fellow claimed; both were play-acting. The Legislature previously reduced that requirement over a year ago and of course they both know it.

A few of Fullerton Boohooers got up to present pre-coordinated statements: the need for housing uber alles. Fresh and fragile Elijah Manassero gloated that there was no way to reject this; and we need places for people like him to live, he tenderly beseeched! Of course these folks mentioned the horrible lawsuits coming Fullerton’s way – as if that had ever concerned readers of the Fullerton Observer. The “pastor” who can’t figure out how to button his shirt was there, on cue to preach to us that a city’s character” is more than just scale and density.

Sitkia Kennedy could be seen in the fifth row applauding these speakers, presumably before she returned to her role of objective journalist.

Our old friend Elizabeth Hansberg showed up via Zoom to advocate for the project. We recall her “advocacy group” that advertises her willingness to advocate for a project; developer donations to her non-profit always welcome. She betrayed her affiliation with the comment: “we are providing the opportunity for people to move up…” Of course she gleefully entertained the council with the threat of lawsuits from her legal pals.

In typical Fullerton fashion, the end the issue was punted to May 19th, I guess.

The net result of this proposal, if approved, is only 32 out of the 13,000 new housing units demanded by the SCAG and Sacramento crowd. Only 5 would be deed restricted to low income. The units are meant to be sold at this point so the positive impact for poor renters like Zahra and Charles is virtually nil.

I’m trying to figure out why the Fullerton liberal claque was so het up on this project. I couldn’t think of a good reason except that they thought this was something that would annoy northern Fullertonions – those folks that Zahra is always complaining get all the municipal goodies while his underserved constituents get the short end of the stick.

Is this really about a perceived class distinction of north versus south? I really don’t think there’s anything more involved than that. One of the speakers said it: “The entire city needs to do their (sic) part…”

April 13, 2026April 16, 2026Ahmad Zahra

Take Out The Trash Tuesday

by The Fullerton Harpoon10 Comments

Tomorrow evening a special session of the Fullerton City Council will review responses to a Request for Proposals for a new trash hauling contract.

It seems sort of mundane, but the issue is big. Really big. The amounts of money at stake are enormous and the contracts typically run for years and years – as we have seen with our current provider Republic Services.

Won’t look you in the eye while you’re trashing him…

An ad hoc committee of Fred Jung and Jamie Valencia were involved in reviewing this process although their contributions aren’t really known. We do do now that the evaluation of the responses and subsequent interviews resulted in these rankings.

15 scoring categories, somewhat weighted to proposed rates, were the basis of the evaluation.

The winning score was earned by EDCO, based in Lemon Grove, down in San Diego County with an office in Signal Hill. CC&R, based in nearby Stanton placed a close second. Universal Waste, based in Santa Fe Springs was a close third. The lowest score was given to trash giant Republic, with whom the City has been having issues for years both in labor impacts and environmental compliance under SB1383 (organic waste recovery).

I have no idea how much lobbying of councilmembers has been going on, but I assume it’s been significant.

Tomorrow night we should have an interesting show since Fullerton Boohoo is mad at Valley Vista Services for contributing to the PAC that torpedoed the candidacy of Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo. Ahmad Zahra’s followers and the Kennedy Sisters are sure to bring this up.

March 16, 2026March 16, 2026Behind Closed Doors

Small Stuff Adds Up

by Fullerton Engineer24 Comments

The Fullerton City Council agenda for tomorrow’s meeting is pretty light. Except for a budget discussion everything is “Consent Calendar.” One of those items caught my attention. Item #10 is an emergency, non-bid request to work on some drainage channel wedged between the Uptown Apartments on Yorba Linda and the 57 CalTRANS right-of-way.

Staff is claiming the project (whose scope isn’t described, other than “a damaged wall”) is necessary due to “recent rain events,” always a useful pretext for doing stuff. The channel isn’t one of those big ones with perpendicular walls, but from a satellite view it looks like a simple concrete “V” ditch that enters and exits a concrete drain structure.

It must look something like this, right? A concrete “V” in cross section with woven wire mesh or thin rebar. Has a part of the been washed out or undermined? Who knows? We just know there’s some sort of damage, and I’d bet the “recent rain events” are an excuse for a long-developing issue.

Here’s a google earth view of a portion of the the existing “V” ditch that is either buried or washed out.

This is the funny part. The City Engineer has estimated a construction cost of $105,000, but with an overhead of almost 20%. That’s ridiculous. At $100 an hour for staff time we’d be looking at 200 manhours, or one person working on nothing else for five weeks. The design is negligible since you can just sketch a plan and pull a cross section and specs out of the Green Book or other standard sources, like I did, above. Administration? Processing? You’ve got to be kidding. And then there’s the amount budgeted for “contingencies.” $75,000, or 75% of the construction amount. So they really don’t know what the scope is and are expecting surprises.

If I were on the City Council I would be asking staff about these figures. They don’t make sense, at least not on the surface. Something is going on.

When the 57 freeway was built this drainage flow was created by a giant berm, but I have to wonder how and why the City created a drainage right-of-way on what appears to be the CalTRANS right-of-way, or on private land since the property looks like a jagged remnant of the State’s freeway land acquisitions.

Someone might also reasonably inquire into how come this thing is an emergency at all. That seems awfully strange. The rainy season is virtually over and the amounts of water collected here seem pretty insignificant.

But back to the finances. The problem with all municipal public works budgets are the amount used to cover staff expenses and overhead, and this, normally around 10% or more, is already padded. If you think about it, money from infrastructure funds are being used and abused to support to bureaucracy instead of pouring concrete.

The amounts in this instance are small, but they are indicative of an ongoing philosophy of abusing Capital Improvement budgets. Some might argue that unused funds will simply be returned to the fund from which they came. Could be. But how would anybody know?

March 2, 2026March 2, 2026Boohooism

Government Make-work Alive and Well

by Disillusioned Ex-Hippy29 Comments

Fullerton may be on the verge of financial crisis, but let it not be said that creative ways for its employees to stay busy aren’t possible, if you can find “other peoples’ money” to do it. We’ve seen it in spades on the ridiculous Trail to Nowhere, built mostly with money from an unaccountable and irresponsible State agency whose only observable job is to give away money with no answers to questions even checked for truthfulness.

The next silly project in line comes to us courtesy of the State Legislature, again, in the form of AB 1572 that mandates that “non-functional” turf can’t be watered with potable water. Municipalities are first on the hit list, and that includes the formal lawn in front of City Hall. The item is on tomorrows Council meeting agenda.

The City can declare that the City Hall lawn is functional and walk away. Oh, but that won’t do! We have to get rid of the grass and replace it with drought resistant plantings of some sort or other. This strategy scratches the itch of those who feel moral gestures are more important that facts, who love big government mandates, no matter how footling, and those who want city staff to be happy and productive.

How much water will *this* use? Who cares?

The City thoughtfully promulgated a call for ideas from the citizenry in a press release a couple of months ago. Re-imagine the municipal front yard! A blank slate! A blue sky! The world is your oyster! Presumably your idea will save water and respect the ecosystem, etc., etc. Grateful citizens sent in pictures of idyllic succulented and lavendered walkways!

At least one submission had a sense of the ridiculous nature of this nonsense.

A giant Hornet and a giant Titan! Come to think of it, maybe this suggestion was serious, Fullerton being Fullerton.

But there is no money budgeted, alas! What to do? Well a budget transfer from Water Non-Rate Revenue funds can be tapped. I have no idea where this money would even come from, the Water Fund being supplied by rate payers. Another option to pay for the new, giant cactus garden is to apply for, and get, a grant from the Metropolitan Water District, one of those huge, opaque agencies that practically answer to nobody.

I have to wonder what the ultimate savings would be water-wise, and what the existing cost of watering the grass is. The fact that the City uses free water paid for by the rate payers has always been an issue and naturally no facts about the acre foot volume or the cost to the rate payers are included in Tuesday’s staff report. No data will be presented except the results of the survey done to solicit public opinion.

I could make the pitch that the reflecting pool, steps and lawn were part of a neo-formal aesthetic that went along with the 1962 building, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. Somebody has decided that the pool and the grass is offensive to modern sensibility, and provides an opportunity to engage the public in a feel-good Kabuki drama.

March 9, 2025March 9, 2025Ahmad Zahra

Charting a New Course?

by The Fullerton Harpoon37 Comments

Fullerton is a General Law city. The question of studying the costs and the benefits of adopting a municipal charter was on the agenda for the last city council meeting.

To charter or not to charter. That became the debate. But it shouldn’t have been.

Rather than accepting the benign idea of beginning to study the pros and cons of Fullerton being a charter city, numerous public speakers, a claque obviously organized by Ahmad Zahra, and Zahra himself, began reciting a litany of reasons to not even study the idea. Of course they didn’t know what they were talking about, and kept spewing nonsense, like ginned up election costs, scary rejection of State paternalism, mandates, and planning control, and all sorts of drummed up stuff leading to the inevitable conclusion that California state government is benevolent, well-run, desirable, and comforting.

The speaker list was comprised of the usual suspects: our old, nattering friend (and Scott Markowitz nominator) Diane Vena; the ever-angry Karen Lloreda; the bitter, avian Anjali Tapadia and others.

Good grief, even the superannuated Molly McClanahan appeared, cluck-clucking her disapproval of the proceedings. And there in the audience sitting next to McClanahan, was none other than Jan Flory, looking pretty worn out. Flory didn’t say anything, mercifully, but perfunctorily clapped when speakers questioned the motives and integrity of the council majority. On McClanahan’s other side sat Ms. Lloreda, which was appropriate: two former city councilwomen recalled by their constituents.

Several school district boardmembers showed up, too, trying, and failing to explain the nexus between the municipal charter topic and the welfare of their districts. That was just pathetic lackeyism for Zahra. Boy, have they backed the wrong horse.

As noted before, Zahra’s indignant, theatrical and lengthy diatribe was even more ridiculous that the dumb speeches of his little entourage. He began a recitation of how a 15 member elected charter-writing committee would become a political springboard for bad people (i.e. those not chosen by him) funded by bad interests – like Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, presumably. This was amazing since nobody in their right mind would pursue this approach. I don’t know if any city ever has. But Zahra must have thought it was good obfuscation to help confuse the already dimly lit brains of his followers, I guess.

There was a plot afoot said Zahra, with devious manipulators pulling the council’s strings to buy and sell Fullerton, somehow, sometime, somewhere. Don’t believe what they say, said the master of prevarication.

Ferguson speaks. Fullerton Boohoo is not happy…

One speaker, Joshua Ferguson supported the study, pointing out that the process of voting on a charter was actually highly democratic because it gave people a chance to participate in how their city is governed. The Three Old Ladies shook their heads in disapprobation.

The three councilmembers who voted to simply consider the idea – Jung, Dunlap and Valencia – didn’t try to justify some positive end result, reasonably supporting a study, the sort of thing people like Zahra and his friend Shana Charles normally adore.

The idea here is that actually learning things about something relating to city governance is a good thing.

I don’t know anything about the benefits or drawbacks of having a municipal charter; neither do the people of Fullerton;. neither does our City Council, two of whom, Zahra and Charles voted to remain ignorant.

February 18, 2025February 18, 2025Ahmad Zahra

The Trail to Nowhere. Radio Silence With The Capital

by Mr. Peabody5 Comments

The trouble with the City of Fullerton’s Public Records Act system is that responses are so dilatory, so frequently incomplete, and often so non-responsive, as Friends have seen over the years, it’s hard to know if you can draw any firm conclusions from what are charitably called public records.

Here’s an interesting request made a couple of weeks ago.

The request has elicited a “full release” response, so we may infer, I hope, that it really is full.

It’s a total waste of money, but it sure is short…

Why is this request interesting? Because the obscure State Department of Natural Resources is the grant-giving sugar daddy of the 2.1 million dollar UP Trail fiasco.

I noted back on January 27th that there were problems with the Trail to Nowhere project schedule, namely, that the design and construction milestones were seven and five months late, respectively.

It’s hard to know the exact status of this boondoggle because nobody in City Hall is saying anything about it to the public. I (confidently) assume the final design was never submitted to the State because the City Council never approved it, never released a bid or awarded a contract. Construction has obviously not started. Now there are just eight months left to do it all.

This is where the PRA request comes in. The response just shares a short email string between Fullerton and Natural Resource Department people trying to set up a meeting for a briefing on some water project up north and its impact on MWD cities’ water supply. That’s it. There is nothing about the grant for the so-called UP Trail.

The project showed little promise, but they didn’t care…,

So what is the status? Were the milestones waived by the Natural Resources Department? Has some schedule modification been made? If so there’s no correspondence (at least none shared by the City Clerk) that show it. That’s pretty odd, isn’t it? Is it possible the State isn’t even keeping track of the agreement and the City isn’t bothering to remind them? That strikes a believable chord.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Camp-750x1000.jpg

At this point it seems highly unlikely that the Trail to Nowhere could be completed in time, but maybe hope springs eternal. The State doesn’t seem to care.

Ahmad Zahra and his pal Shana Charles made a big deal about this dumbassery and organized such an annoying Astroturf backing for it, that the previous council majority chickened out and agreed to the mess. They haven’t been talking about it either, even though they already took a victory lap and threw themselves a party.

Let’s hope so.

February 17, 2025February 17, 2025Ahmad Zahra

Zahra Goes Unicorn Hunting With His Pea Shooter

by The Fullerton Harpoon17 Comments

FFFF received a fun email the other day, pecked out by Fullerton 5th District Councilman Ahmad Zahra. It is directed to Fullerton Assistant City Attorney Baron Bettenhausen, a fellow that the Friends met yesterday. Ahmad writes on January 27th, and is obviously still in a grand funk about losing his precious Walk on Wilshire the previous week.

The tone of the letter is pretty unfriendly since Zahra seems to believe Bettenhausen has left out something real important in the discussion of Jamie Valencia returning campaign contributions. Of course, as we have seen, none of this would have been necessary if Bettenhausen knew the law and had known about the FPPC decision in Palo Alto before January 21st.

But let’s let Ahmad speak for himself:

From: Ahmad Zahra <ahmad.zahra@cityoffullerton.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:55 PM
To: Baron J. Bettenhausen <bjb@jones-mayer.com>; Richard D. Jones <rdj@jones-mayer.com>; Eric Levitt <Eric.Levitt@cityoffullerton.com>
Subject: Conflict of interest question

Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.

Baron, at the last council meeting, you had opined that CM Valencia could vote on the matter of Walk on Wilshire since she had returned the campaign contributions to Tony Bushala and Cigar Shop owner, both of whom have direct economic interests in the decision. Community members have shared with me some concerns regarding your rendered opinion and I’d like clarifications from you.

Was the FPPC consulted on this matter, as has been the practice in the past on complicated issues (example: CM Charles votes on CSUF)? If so, where is their opinion letter and why was it not presented at the time of the meeting?

There’s been a claim that the funds hadn’t been actually returned even if the return check was issued. This is a claim from a resident that raised concerns but no evidence was presented. But it does bring up the question, what evidence did CM Valencia present to you and why was that not made public? This is especially relevant because that reporting period for campaign committees isn’t until Jan 31st, occurring after the meeting itself with no chance for the public to verify any of this.

In your opinion that night, while you addressed the letter of the law, did you factor in the spirit of the law? It seems to easy for anyone to take contributions, use them, then conveniently return the funds before a vote. This is especially important to know as CM Valencia was fully aware of the WoW vote since apparently it was a question asked to her during the campaign.

I would appreciate a clarification on these questions and would request that an FPPC letter confirming your opinion on this matter be made available to the public to prevent any legal issues. Any correspondence to the FPPC should also include the concerns of the public for a comprehensive review.

I am also requesting that any action to execute the reopening of Wilshire be delayed until such legal questions are resolved to avoid any legal challenges to the city.

Note: I am writing this email in the interest of the public and thus deem it and any response to it in the public domain and not under any lawyer confidentiality privilege.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

AHMAD ZAHRA

Council Member, District 5

City of Fullerton – Tel: (714) 738-6311

303 W. Commonwealth Ave., Fullerton, CA 92832

www.cityoffullerton.com / Follow me on Facebook

Oh dear me. Where to start. Naturally, Zahra wants to make up and nurture a scandal where there is none. He’s obviously been stirring up an element of outraged Fullerton Boohoo to keep the red herring going. He even uses the same language as the Kennedy Sisters: “there’s been a claim,” and “This is a claim from a resident that raised concerns but no evidence was presented.”

FFFF first addressed the non-applicability of the law in question way back on January 21st. We know Zahra reads FFFF, but maybe he didn’t catch that post.

Anyway, Zahra wants to know if the FPPC has been consulted about this horror of horrors. We now know that the FPPC previously ruled on the identical issue in a case in Palo Alto. FFFF relayed that information, here on February 10th. The answer is clear as a bell: the law doesn’t apply. Bettenhausen should have known this before January 21, and maybe even before Valencia gave back money she didn’t have to.

Ahmad made me wear this and took a picture.

Then Zahra’s deep sea fishing expedition turns to the completely baseless “actual claim” that although a check may have been written, it wasn’t cashed, challenging Valencia’s integrity and Bettenhausen’s lack of diligence.

Zahra’s final numbered point is really funny. He wonders why the “spirit” of the law is not being upheld. Poor Ahmad should be addressing his lament to the State Legislature instead of his own attorney, but, whatever.

Zahra wants the FPPC findings on the issue to be made public, and he requests that WoW remain open until such time as the FPPC responds. Zahra’s worried about legal challenges? From whom? The Kennedy Sisters and Diane Vena? Man, what a failed Hail Mary. WoW was unceremoniously removed a few days after Zahra’s demand letter. Thousands more laughed than did weep at it.

Poor Ahmad wraps up his missive by letting his own lawyer know that this email and any response are free from attorney-client confidentiality – in the public interest, of course. That’s good ’cause we got it, Ahmad, being members of the public, and all. Was there ever even a response by Bettenhausen in the end? Who cares

January 16, 2025January 16, 2025Ada Briceno

Meet Ada Briceño

by The Fullerton Harpoon21 Comments

Ada Briceño, recently retired head of the Democrat Party in Orange County is going to run in 2026 to replace Sharon Quirk in the State Assembly. At least that’s the story she told Voice of OC publisher Norberto Santana. He mentioned it in a story about the new Chairpersons the OC Dems and Repuglicans.

Don’t worry. The stay in jail was short…

Ada’s back ground is one to give pause. Her day job is activist and agitator for Unite Here 11, a hotel worker’s union. Her activities are mostly centered around the horrors perpetrated by the Anaheim Resort hotels. This requires a lot of theater, of course, like getting arrested protesting Disney – that sort of thing.

She was the mastermind of the recent and idiotic attempted recall of City Councilwoman Natalie Rubalcava in Anaheim last spring. Merit of the charges aside, it was bad politics and a huge waste of her member’s dues. Even if the recall had succeeded (it didn’t) the Council there would have replaced her with somebody just as bad for Briceño’s members. Hundreds of thousands of dollars flushed down the drain. I presume it was an ego thing, mostly.

Less than a year before, Briceño’s union sponsored Anaheim’s Measure A, a $25 per hour minimum for hotel and event employees. The measure went down in flames by a 2-1 margin in October 2023. More hundreds of thousands wasted on the campaign, and the taxpayers picked up the tab for the special election.

Here in Fullerton her folk turned up to protest the boutique hotel/monster apartment, not because it’s a terrible project whose front men are scam artists. No, it’s because the project doesn’t include enough subsidized units for her members to live in.

If you’ve been following FFFF recently you’ll also know that Briceño must have known about the scam candidacy of Tony Castro in 2022 that deprived 5th District voters of a home-grown Latino representative. What her role may have been in the 2024 creation of the Scott Markowitz campaign fraud and the perjury therein remains to be seen, but her henchman and former OCDem Executive Director, Ajay Mohan, was involved in both.

Whether Ada knew about Markowitz or not she was all in for the deplorable Vivian “Kitty” Jaramillo, granting an early party endorsement without talking to the eventual winner, Democrat Jamie Valencia. There’s another black mark.

I can’t imagine what Briceño thinks her base would be. Quirk has been a fairly moderate Democrat, suitable for this district. She’s cozied up to the cops and established interests. That’s not Ada. And Briceño has zero name recognition in the district outside of central Anaheim where her reputation is not favorable. She’s made a lot of enemies in Anaheim. Enemies with a lot of money. She would have to rely on huge infusions of cash from the more “progressive” unions and from friends in Sacramento. Of course her tactic would be to frighten all other Dems away and waltz into office.

I don’t even know if she currently lives in the district.

Well, maybe this aside in a Voice of OC article is nothing more than a trial balloon. The 2026 primary is still a year away.

November 26, 2024November 26, 2024Ahmad Zahra

They Did What?

by Mr. Peabody14 Comments

I have to admit I haven’t been paying much attention to the development of Fullerton’s “6th Cycle” General Plan Housing Element. I figured it to be a fruitless paper chase in which a consultant got paid a bunch of money to produce umpteen pages of incomprehensible gobbledygook. Turns out I was right about that.

The other thing that caused indifferent resignation on my part was the housing mandate decreed by the State Housing and Community Development Department, often referred to as “State HCD.” It so happens that their mandate for Fullerton was to create the opportunity for 13,000 new residential units, as determined by yet another faceless bureaucracy, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), whose mission is to do whatever the State wants, regardless of what is good for its constituent members. The 13,000 units are part of SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA, pronounced ree-nuh). These people sure love them some acronyms.

Where these 13,000 unit opportunities are supposed to go in a built out city is no mystery. It will require re-zoning commercial, office professional, and industrially zoned property to admit new residential use. Lots of it.

Well, that’s bad enough, but our crack Community Development Department saw fit to propose a new zoning overlay that could accommodate 30,000 new units. You read that right. 30,000 units, a sum that could increase Fullerton’s population to near the quarter million mark. Their justification? It’s so they won’t have to do anymore bowing and scraping to State HCD. At least not for a while. Or so they say.

The whole thing is ludicrous. First, the rationale for giving the Sacramento boneheads more than they demand is crazy. It’s like paying a million bucks in ransom when the kidnapers only asked for half a mil with no guarantee they won’t do it again. Then there’s the practical side of this. There would be no new roads, no new sewer and water superstructure added, no new schools built, and sixty thousand new auto trips daily. And don’t forget the inadequate parking. It’s a farce piled on top of another farce. But somehow everything will work out, our six-figure experts tell us..

The mechanism to perform this new housing miracle is the called the Housing Incentive Overlay Zone (you guessed it, there’s an acronym – HIOZ). Staff and their consultants have identified hundreds and hundreds of real estate parcels that would receive the new overlay zone, but they don’t seem to be unduly concerned about the effect to the City of Fullerton of losing land for commercial and industrial purposes. It seems that in the grand bureaucratic scheme of things, satisfying other bureaucrats in Sacramento is even more important than losing that sales tax revenue they’re always hunting around for like rabid wolverines.

Well, fear not, Friends. In reality the 30,000 units was likely just Kabuki theater meant to look like a good faith effort to outdo even the demands of anonymous paper-pushers at SCAG. The City Council discussed this issue last week and there’s no way any of them are going to give the State more than it wants.

Of course, there’s another possibility, too. A political one. The utterly incompetent Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles, Fullerton City Council’s two ultra-liberals, are up for re-election in 2026, and, cynic that I am, I have to wonder if they both won’t use this silver-platter opportunity to campaign on how they defended Fullerton’s quality of life by fighting hard against 17,000 apartments that were never going to happen anyway. Now that would be cynical, wouldn’t it?