Another Sign of Things to Come

FFFF has related how our Elementary and High School Districts are both putting new bond measures on the November ballot. The insatiable maw must be fed. The districts employ battalions of overpaid educrats with ridiculous doctorate degrees in education, pretending to be experts in this or that. But we are not permitted to delve into mystery of school budgets for waste and stupidity. The districts tried this last in March, 2020 with Measures J and K – and were soundly defeated.

School bonds are increases on your property tax bill, pure and simple. The debt and the interest incurred are paid off over decades, with everybody’s property as a form of collateral. We are still paying off previous bonds, of course.

It’s not just property owners who feel the bite. Landlords pass on the tax increases in the form of higher rents; retailers pass on the the cost of higher rents in the form of higher prices, a contributor to inflation.

Once again an organization called Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform has donned the mantle of opposition to these latest efforts to get into our pockets, and should be roundly applauded.

As usual, the advocates for these bonds – many out-of-towners – will plead that it’s all for the kids who need “state-of-the-art” this, or “world class” that.

They will follow up that with the myth of the “citizen’s oversight committee,” hand-picked gaggle of liberals who don’t know a shovel from a shitake mushroom, and have never held anybody accountable for anything.

Then they will argue that the cost is dinky – a Big Mac or a Starbuck’s latte a week. But in reality the cost of both bonds combined, will be many hundreds of dollars per year, or even more, depending on the assessed value of your property.

We may also be sure that the school districts will use our resources in their political campaign just like they did last time. That’s illegal, right? But hey won’t someone please think of the children?

Now We Are Six

Just yesterday I posted a story about how a Fullertonion friend had received five copies of the Parks Department’s glossy activities brochure. That seemed pretty funny for a town dancing along the edge of a fiscal cliff.

Five is jive…

But I wrote that before the afternoon mail arrived. Sure enough. Yet another copy.

Get your fix with six…

I guess we’ll call this a provisional total.

Five of a Kind

A friend of mine in Fullerton just received a brochure from the City Parks and Recreation Department that showed all the super-fun activities our city government provides for them.

What’s really funny is that this guy then received another. And another. And another. And another.

Five of a kind beats a royal flush.

Small stuff adds up they say, and I have to wonder how many people got five (or maybe more) copies of this thing.

One thing is pretty clear. This sort of sloppiness reflects really poorly for an organization responsible for a massive budget deficit.

My Contribution to Branding Downtown Fullerton

Well, there she goes. Don’t worry. There’s more where that came from…

Well, let’s be honest. Downtown Fullerton loses well over a million bucks every year, subsidized by the taxpayers. The beneficiaries? The good folks who purvey liquor, blast loud music, enable drunk driving and escape any sort of accountability for their customers’ behavior.

Business is booming…

And so I unveil my concept for DTF branding. Introducing the Barfman theme:

If the vomit fits, you must spew it!

Other ideas, as always are encouraged.

Ad Hoc Tuah Part Three-ah.

A little late reporting this, but it appears that last week the Fullerton City Council appointed three members to the newly created Let’s Have A Sales Tax Committee, the brain child of Shana Charles and Fred Jung and Ahmad Zahra.

Cost analysis is hard…

The item started out with a fizzle but got better as the hearing progressed. It appears that only three people applied. Charles and fellow committee-creator Ahmad Zahra couldn’t even find anybody to appoint. Charles who was in a big hurry to get this going only spoke to one person, who wisely declined. Zahra likewise failed find anybody and suggested the whole thing be re-advertised. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to these two worthies that 1) nobody applied because nobody cares; or, 2) people realize what a footling exercise this is.

But wait a minute. Maybe Charles’ genie is better off out of the bottle

Mr. Dean

Nick Dunlap said he was ready to go and appointed Jack Dean, a long-time anti-tax crusader who’s been around the Fullerton scene for a long time and knows the city. Apparently, he was active in the Great Recall of 1994. This makes sense since Dunlap correctly identified the whole process as a slow roll toward an inevitable tax proposal conclusion. Bruce Whitaker nominated a guy named Bill Brown who I don’t know anything about, but who I presume is another fiscal conservative.

Stop Bushala!

Then came the real fun. Fred Jung, who was in zoom mode, nominated Tony Bushala, the founder of this blog in 2008, and who is well known for his huge roll in killing the last sales tax proposal, Measure S, in 2020, as well as the school bond attempts in the same year. It’s now pretty obvious that Jung’s role in this affair is to pull the plug out of the socket.

Hey, you down there…

When the vote came, Zahra petulantly voted no to the three members appointment. He didn’t bother to say why. Charles simply said she’d be appointing her member later. The approval was 4-1 and we have three members to Ad Hoc Whatever It’s Called Committee.

So now the Committee exists and has a quorum. I wonder if they can’t start holding meetings as soon as they like. They can also start talking about ways to save money that the staff won’t touch, like a levy on all downtown bars/clubs open after ten P.M. to recoup something from the horrible 1.5 million annual red ink sink hole known as downtown Fullerton. Or they could discuss the elimination of the so-called downtown police Echo Unit that has caused as much trouble as it has prevented.

They might also discuss salary freezes, something all businesses do when times get tough.

Jaramillo. She wants what you have…

Both Charles and Zahra know that if their chosen candidate, Vivian Jaramillo, is elected they can replace Whitaker’s appointment in December and get the tax train back on its predetermined rails. But if that doesn’t happen, this committee could surprise the employees in City Hall by coming up with some really inventive ideas.

Is Jaramillo Paying Herself?

Many politicians get in the game for self-aggrandizement – the opportunity to be known and if not respected, at least have people pretend to respect your opinion and laugh at your jokes.

Higher office offers the opportunity to make better money and benefits than most elected office holders could possibly attain working in real jobs. But local office doesn’t offer much in the way of remuneration; and campaigns for office offer nothing. Or so I thought.

Gotta pay the bills…

Most candidates running for office lend their campaigns money with the expectation that if they win, they can leverage their new job and pay off their debt – to themselves. So did Vivian “Kitty” Jaramillo, who lent herself $3000, and no doubt expects a victory would provide a windfall from the Long Beach marijuana cartel to pay herself back.

But I I can’t remember a candidate actually paying him or herself out of funds raised for a campaign. Look at this this entry on Jaramillo’s form 460 for her current campaign for the Fullerton City Council:

I’m not sure what “Agent Payment” means in this instance, but you’ll notice there’s no entry in the “CODE” column to tell us what this is for. So Kitty made a $750 payment…to herself? Campaigning for fun and profit? A little short on the rent that month? Who knows? But if Kitty is paying herself back for some expense or other, she’s dodging the requirements of the California Fair Political Practices Commission and is inviting official scrutiny.

Hopefully, one of Jaramillo’s contributors like F. Paul Dudley or Jan Flory will ask Kitty why she’s reimbursing herself out of campaign funds.

Ad Hoc Tuah, Part Two-ah

If I knew what I was talking about this wouldn’t be Fullerton!

One week ago, true to form, the City created the “ad hoc” finance committee proposed by Councilperson Shana Charles to study Fullerton’s financial fiasco – an ocean of red ink.

The vote was 3-2.

Well, why not?

Councilman Fred Jung who supported this proposal spoke of “resident input” as if that were something never tried before.

Saying goodbye to fiscal restraint.

Ahmad Zahra pretended to be of two minds regarding this committee, citing earlier, phony push polls as proof of Fullerton’s thirst to be taxed more. But he was really all for it – gotta keep the sales tax idea on a burner. He virtually admitted that a tax was his goal.

You got problems? Academia has answers!

Predictably in her comments, Charles gushed at Fullerton’s untapped well of civilian brainpower (why goodness, two actual professors showed up earlier in the meeting!) as a source of brilliant budget-closing ideas. Of course she misused the term “holistic” several times, but, whatever.

Soon to be gone…

At first Bruce Whitaker offered that he had no objection to this committee, per se, but pointed out that previous fiscal ideas presented by the so-called INRAC citizen’s panel had been ignored by the City Council.

That’s “Mayor Dunlap” to you…

This idea was echoed by Mayor Nick Dunlap, who pointed out the obvious – that this committee had no other purpose than to keep the dream of a sales tax increase alive. He opined that it was City staff’s job to come up with ideas and plans for fiscal sustainability (a euphemism coughed up by Charles) presented to the City Council. This of course is the way it should be, although the irony that his staff failed miserably at this very task over the past year seemed to have escaped the notice of our mayor.

Dunlap’s statements convinced Whitaker to oppose creation of the committee.

Charles responded to her colleagues, by disingenuously acknowledging her recognition that a sales tax increase was not inevitable, a completely irrelevant observation intended to prove her “holistic” bona fides.

A lady named Maureen Milton called in, wanting some reassurance that the meetings of the committee would be open to the public.

The milquetoast was no longer even warm…

Our esteemed City Manager quickly muttered that the meetings would be noticed and public, but whether that half-hearted affirmation will be effected remains to be seen.

And so Fullerton has another of its footling and futile committees, five souls, one appointed by each councilmember. This is all being uber-rushed so that appointments will be made a week from today, on August 20th, so that the sales tax solution indoctrination can begin as soon as possible.

Ad Hoc Tuah Coming

You read that right. This evening the Fullerton City Council is being asked to create an “ad hoc” committee that would spend the next nine months considering our financial situations, and, presumably, making recommendations for next year’s budget hearings. The idea came from Councilmember Charles, supported by Councilman Fred Jung.

If I knew what I was talking about this wouldn’t be Fullerton!

The fact that Charles initiated this process is telling. Her only observable skill on the City Council is to keep things the bureaucracy wants alive, alive.

And what they want is a recommendation to put a sales tax on the ballot at a 2025 special election.

The object here is simple. Keep talking about a 13% sales tax increase, a tax whose campaign the “public safety” unions will pay for and that might pass a 50% threshold in a low turn out special election.

When and where will this committee meet? Who knows? One thing is sure, meetings won’t be easy to find, and will likely take place midday somewhere – like a broom closet at the Fullerton Physical Plant.

According to our crack legal team of the I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm” of Jones and Meyer, “temporary” ad hoc committees are not subject to the Brown Act – California’s open meeting laws. Our City Manager, the hapless Eric Levitt, promises real hard to “notice” us peons, but wants to maintain “flexibility” to accomplish the “work” requested.

Of course that work is to work on the committee members to come to the right conclusion – a tax to fix the dire fiscal cliff years of pandering to the cops and the paramedics has created.

I sure hope that Nick Dunlap and Bruce Whitaker will see what’s going on; and that Fred Jung was just having some fun with pro-tax Charles. But then again, Fullerton, being Fullerton, has been known for this sort of thing: stalling, obfuscating, temporizing, hoodwinking, and generally doing the stupid thing in the end.

She’s In! The Return Of Jan Flory

The closer you look, the worse it gets.

A week or so ago FFFF reported that Jan Flory, the elderly, humorless scold who has been on the Fullerton City Council three times had taken out nominating papers to run this fall in the 2nd District.

FFFF rejoiced.

Too much scotch, not enough water…

We didn’t necessarily think she’d go through with it, what with her pushing 80 years old, her historic constituency dying off, and running against the popular and well-financed Mayor, Nick Dunlap. Still the prospect of having Flory around gave hope for all sorts of blogging fun – once again reciting her horrendous pro-tax, pro-corruption record.

Provide Your Own Caption

And now we learn that Mrs. Flory has indeed returned her nominating papers and is in the process of creating a new campaign committee.

Better check the sell by date…

Well, done, Jan, say I. Your record of “public service” is in a class by itself.

You were the one who approved the budget busting 3@50 retroactive pension bonanza to cops and paramedics.

You were the one who enthusiastically supported the illegal water tax.

You were the one who supported Measure S, the foolish sales tax effort.

You were the one who supported the ill-conceived Utility Tax, and wished it had been double,

You were the one who approved years of red ink budgets and lied about them to the public.

You were the one who cut a slimy deal with Ahmad Zahra to deny the citizens of Fullerton a chance to vote on a replacement for Jesus Quirk Silva.

You were the one who refused to create a citizens commission to reform the Culture of Corruption in the Fullerton Police Department.

You were the one who defended the Three Bald Tires in the wake of the Kelly Thomas murder by the cops. You called them honorable men.

You were the one to sneer and deprecate your own constituents if they dared criticize or complain about the actions of your beloved “staff.”

You were the one to support every Redevelopment boondoggle and every massive, over-built apartment block.

And of course the list goes on and on and on.

And so once again, FFFF says thank you, God!

Walk on Wilshire Limps Along

Gone but not forgotten…

Last Tuesday the Fullerton City Council considered extending the so-called Walk on Wilshire project, a staff-driven closure of Wilshire Avenue just west of Harbor to auto traffic and leasing the street to adjacent businesses to operate for outdoor dining. The “pilot” program term ended in June but “economic development” bureaucrats sure wanted to keep it going even though it’s over fifty grand in the hole so far, with little but wishful thinking promising success in the future.

Right off the bat, Mayor Nick Dunlap recused himself. Apparently his father is part owner of the adjacent the Villa del Sol building that has tenants who may or may not want the street closure ended. That left four councilmembers to deal with the item.

It turns out that the folks in City Hall commissioned another one of those surveys designed to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion that City Hall wants. We’ve seen that over and over and over again. Guess what? Everyone just loves them some Walk on Wilshire.

Public speakers included about five or six people nobody had ever heard of before, suggesting that they were planted by staff or a councilmember like Shana Charles to be there. Oh, they just oozed enthusiasm for the closure, rhapsodizing on the exclusion of cars, the walking and the bicycling and the ambiance, etc., all the touchy-feely stuff you would expect.

Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)

Saskia Kennedy, editor of the yellowing Fullerton Observer got up to extol the virtues of the plan, proving that making the news is a lot more fun than responsibly reporting it.

Several adjacent business owners spoke, complaining about the unfairness of the closure that only benefitted three adjacent restaurants and that hurts their business. They included the owners of Pour Company, Les Amis, and The Back Alley Bar and Grill, and Tony Bushala who owns the historic building at 124 W. Wilshire.

Local hero…

Two other speakers, Joshua Ferguson and Jack Dean made excellent arguments against continuing the closure. Ferguson pointed out that the council was being asked to make a decision based on insufficient information, while Mr. Dean reminded the council that the business and property owners on Wilshire, many of whom were not even notified of the meeting, have a paramount interest in this endeavor.

When the chit-chat was all over it became clear that there was not a majority in favor of continuing the program until December. Zahra and Charles naturally wanted to prolong the boondoggle, Fred Jung and Bruce Whitaker didn’t. In a rambling discourse Whitaker went to great but unpersuasive lengths to explain his switcheroo, but did hit upon one truth. The Walk on Wilshire is completely driven by bureaucrats in City Hall, and nobody else. A motion for continuing the Walk on Wilshire until the end of the year failed on a 2-2 vote.

Cost analysis is hard…

But a waffling Whitaker was in favor of giving the participants three months to plan for the end of the program which wasn’t all that bad of an idea. However, Shana Charles thought she espied the eye of the needle and threaded herself though it, using all the arguments against the Walk on Wilshire to propose that staff review the mess, again, and come back, again.

The pirouettes were dizzying…

Waffling Whitaker agreed to a return of the item in three months to study up on the issue, as if there hadn’t been plenty of time to do that already. And so a council majority voted 3-1 to keep the patient on life support, and as usual nothing was decided and there was no specific direction. Staff is supposed to review something, anything, who knows what.

There never seems to be closure until it is approved by the bureaucrats who are the real profiteers on money losing schemes. It’s job security.