Downtown Fullerton Archives - Page 20 of 23 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

June 29, 2009January 4, 2010Big Brother

Red Light Cameras Trashed, Legal Blunders Swept Under the Rug

Fullerton has terminated a dubious partnership with failing red light camera vendor Nestor Traffic Systems after the contract for operation of the cameras was declared to be illegal by an appeals court last year. It’s a long story, but stick with us as we tell this tale of inept vendor selection and blatant disregard for the law in Fullerton…

Why won't this thing turn on? — The end of an error

A long time ago, Fullerton signed a contract with Nestor Traffic Systems to provide red-light cameras throughout the city in an attempt to increase ticket revenue and reduce accidents at popular intersections. At the time, the contract included a clause that allowed the city’s payment to be negotiated down if ticket issuance was lower than expected.

Just about anyone could see that the vendor now had a financial incentive to keep the number of tickets high — that’s a problem. At the time, case law had already dictated that vendors could not benefit from the number of red light tickets issued. Eventually these rulings would become codified into state law.

When the city inquired about how this new California law might affect the contract, the vendor essentially said “Don’t worry, we’ll change it if we get caught.” Sound familiar? That’s how it goes in Fullerton. So our representatives carelessly signed on the dotted line and the police department kept giving out red light tickets illegally.

It didn’t take long for one angry citizen to file a lawsuit, and in 2008 an appellate court ruled that the tickets were being given out unlawfully. Issuance of red light tickets immediately stopped.

After the city lost the appeal, a whirlwind of suspicious events transpired:

Failure to Appear – The city of Fullerton didn’t even know that they had lost the appeal until the Register called them for the story. It turns out that the city never showed up for the appeal. The city’s crack legal team at Jones and Meyers attempted to have the original ruling overturned by filing a 26-page Writ of Mandate in May. The request claims that the Fullerton PD was never serviced with a notice of an appeal, even though the court docket says otherwise. The PD’s request was denied, and that’s the last we’ve heard of the case.
The Right to Remain Silent – For the council meeting on 2/3/09, the city staff put together an amendment of the Nestor contract to end the city’s lawbreaking ways, as other cities had already done. But when the item came up for discussion, city manager Chris Meyer mysteriously got cold feet and proposed that the item be moved forward “to a date uncertain”. The council instantaneously and unanimously agreed to put this item off without further questioning. In fact, the council moved so quickly that a gentleman named Dr. Arnold Vagts had to demand his right to speak on the issue later that evening. Why were they so quick to sweep this item under the rug? It turns out that Dr. Vagts had sent a series of emails earlier in the day threatening a class action lawsuit against the city, demanding that the city return all illegal ticket revenues to the victims. If not, the city risks “millions of dollars in lawsuits”, according to Vagts.
In June, after months of silence, we’re finally told us that the red light camera contract with Nestor has been canceled, and that all of the cameras will be removed.

Last week our Friend at HighwayRobbery.net made a records request to find out how much the city had spent on legal fees to fight this lost case. In a written reply to a direct question, Sgt. Steve Williams said “No legal council (sic) was retained to prosecute the case by the Fullerton police department.” We believe this to be either a blatant misdirection or perhaps an outright lie, since the city’s contract attorney did write the aforementioned 26-page writ for the case. Lawyers don’t work for free.

How much is this legal wrangling costing us? Why is the city spending time and money to fight a lost court case? We suspect that the legal liabilities and risk of expensive lawsuits are piling up while the city tries to keep this issue quiet.

To top it all off, a successful class-action lawsuit against the city would probably leave taxpayers holding the bill for years of red light revenue, as it is unlikely that the city will be able to turn around and sue Nestor for their part in this tragedy. The company has severe financial problems, including a recent descent into receivership and failure to pay subcontractors for the installation of additional cameras in Fullerton.

When we lose a class action lawsuit, who will pay? Will anyone admit error and appologize for wasting our time and money? Stay tuned as more scandelous details come to light.

June 26, 2009June 27, 2009Downtown Fullerton

Redevelopment, Destroying Downtown Fullerton

by admin10 Comments

Downtown Fullerton was once an enchanted part of the city, complete with significant buildings and full of character. Comparing a photo of downtown in the late 1950’s to the same street today is like looking at two completely different places. The before pictures depict a hip and high-energy part of Fullerton. As opposed to the after snapshots, which show mundane building colors and sparse streets. An apparent combination of incompetence and ignorance has ruined the urban feel of our city and possibly the last piece of originality that Orange County had to offer. Where are we supposed to look for our city’s history and former glory, if not in our downtown area?

We need to take a look at our city’s recent history and begin holding people accountable for their mistakes and in turn, create a new thought process that can revive Fullerton to it’s original state.

June 21, 2009February 7, 2012Dick Jones

So Who’s Responsible For Downtown Fullerton’s Amerige Court Turkey Project?

by admin5 Comments

June 16, 2009……..Fullerton City Council Agenda

CLOSED SESSION

Item 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR – Per Government Code

Section 54956.8

Property: North and South Block of 100 West Amerige Avenue,

Fullerton, CA

Agency Negotiator: Rob Zur Schmiede, Director of Redevelopment and

Economic Development

Negotiating Parties: Richard Hamm, Pelican-Laing Fullerton, LLC

Under Negotiations: Price and terms

The Laing of the LLC is John Laing Holmes. Laing is a home builder with a reported debt of $500 million to $1 billion and is in Chapter 11 receivership. And furthermore, the word on the street is the front men of the LLC Hamm & Pellican are also on the verge of financial protection.

Exactly what kind of negotiations could our financially unexperienced City Council be doing with a group of financial wizards who are running amok in debt? When is the Redevelopment Agency going to realize the housing market has collapsed? If this project goes forward it will be a financial wreck for Fullerton.

Dear Friends, how many of you realize Pam Keller, Sharon Quirk, Don Bankhead and Dick Jones have already voted to place the Fullerton tax payers on the hook by guaranteeing the developer who’s in bankruptcy a 15% profit? Who besides us are willing to admit this project was a turkey from day 1?

George knows all about turkeys — ...a turkey from day 1

June 17, 2009April 4, 2010Downtown Fullerton

The Sidewalk “Gizmo”

by admin12 Comments

A friend just emailed us this image of some sort of gizzmo that has recently appeared in the front patio of Roscoes “Famous” Deli. We are not quit sure why anyone would have made a decision to put the gizzmo on a public sidewalk in downtown. It’s taking up space that could also be used as sidewalk dining. For some reason, this doesn’t seem right.

June 12, 2009March 27, 2012About Us

Roscoe’s Famous Nuisance Appealed: Showdown at City Council!

by admin5 Comments

So we did it. Friends for Fullerton’s Future has appealed the appalling decision by the Fullerton Planning Commission to grant a bogus “special event” permit to Jack Franklyn’s “Roscoe’s” in order to legitimize his ongoing violation of the City ordinance regarding outdoor amplified music in the C-3 District.

We’ve been over this already so there’s no need to rehash all the details except to say that for some reason the City has been complicit in this ongoing permit-dodging scandal: no permits, no code enforcement, a cooked-up noise study, a phony special event permit. The list goes on and on. Now the City Council will be able to weigh in on the subject. We expect lots of chit-chat but the real issue is so simple: the law says you can’t do it! If you want to change the law, then do it. But not before all the necessary CEQA responsibilities are met. And that means an EIR!

We paid for it. Will it say what we want it to say?

June 6, 2009December 28, 2010Dick Jones

Is Roscoe’s Franklyn Above The Law?

by admin27 Comments

Public parking lot, or Jack's parking lot, you decide. — 1.5 Million $$ Public parking lot, no more!

The verdict is in, Jack Franklyn owner of Roscoes is above the law.

June 1, 2009December 28, 2009Downtown Fullerton

The City of Fullerton Keeps Breaking The Law for Jack Franklyn. Why?

by admin38 Comments

We did what we were told to do — Jack's musicians waiting for the amplifiers to arrive...

For some strange reason, the surrounding business owners and/or residents of properties within proximity of Roscoe’s were NOT notified to allow input at the Planning Commissions recent Public Hearing. A violation of the law (Sec 15.58.060).

Is an on going ’special event’ spanning 3 months the intent of this section? Obviously not. (Sec 15.58.020)

Was the application filed 90 days prior to June 14th? N0. (Sec 15.58.040)

Here’s the relevant section of the Fullerton Municipal Code:

15.58.010. Intent and purpose.

The intent of this chapter is to identify special events and to specify the requirements and provisions for their approval regardless of the proposed location or zone classification. The requirements and provisions established for each special event are intended to ensure the general safety, health, and welfare of the community and to ensure that the temporary operation of the special event will be a compatible activity for the neighborhood in which it is located. (Ord. 2982, 2001)

15.58.020. Definitions.

A “special event” is an event that will be conducted outdoors to which the general public is admitted or invited. Such an event includes a carnival, festival, tent or car show, circus, parade, auction, rally, or a similar kind of temporary outdoor exhibition or performance. A temporary commercial activity, such as a “sidewalk” or parking lot sale, which is intended to promote the sale of merchandise from on-site businesses, shall not be considered a “special event.” (Ord. 2982, 2001)

15.58.040. Application for permit and fees.

A. An application for a special event permit must be on file with the Director of Development Services at least 90 days before the scheduled special event. The City Council may, by resolution, set appropriate fees for the filing of the application.

15.58.060. Procedure for review of application.

B. A permit for a special event proposed on all other types of private property shall not be issued without a review and approval of the application by the Planning Commission. Prior to the Planning Commission reviewing the application, the Director of Development Services shall do the following:

1. Consult with other departments of the city on the request.

2. Notify business owners and/or residents of properties within proximity of the proposed venue, stating the nature of the request, the date, time and location where the Planning Commission will review the request, and the opportunity for the public to comment on the request during that review.

3. State all reasonable concerns and issues identified by city staff and the general public when the Planning Commission reviews the request. (Ord. 2982, 2001)

All this begs the very obvious question: why is the City bending its own laws past the breaking point to accommodate Jack Franklyn and his outdoor nuisance? The City Manager and his planning staff are obviously doing this for a reason. What could it be?

Mommy, I don't think the meter is working today

May 26, 2009March 27, 2012Dick Jones

Roscoes at it Again, Temporary Nuisance, Permanent Arrogance

by admin82 Comments

Just what exactly does “temporary” mean? “Roscoe’s Famous” Deli,” and famous noise polluter in downtown Fullerton is back to the Planning Commission Wednesday night to try to get a “special event permit” for outdoor amplified music.

"lyrical elements of apocalyptic fears and collective oppression" — Oh yeah! Mixed-use, baby!

The Planning Commission and City Council already agreed that outdoor amplified music is not a good thing for our community. Allowing loud music to be permitted on a permanent basis will stump Fullerton’s bright future of continuing to become a center of mixed-use commerce and residences as defined by the current downtown zoning (C3.) If we want our downtown to unfold in a positive direction it’s imperative that we as a community find a balance between business, entertainment and living in the downtown. Its real simple: if you want loud noise you need to put it inside. In fact the city required Tuscany Club to keep it’s door shut during the hours it has its loud entertainment- that sounds like a reasonable idea doesn’t it ?

As usual the City staff has gotten everything ass-backward.

it all depends which way you're facing... — From where we're standing it looks reasonable...

Instead of establishing an objective code and requiring that businesses abide by it, they are actually justifying a likely nuisance as way to experiment with amplified music outdoors, and thus circumvent the existing Code. The taxpayers have just paid for an acoustical study. What are the results? Those results should be used to amend the Code or leave it as is. Then it should be used as a mechanism to approve or deny permits – “special event” or otherwise, and if necessary, code enforcement. The special event permit also strangely omits hours of operation. That’s pretty negligent, and we wonder why.

Roscoe’s didn’t get approved for a permanent permit to play amplified music outdoors; now they are trying to get a temporary permit to do that very same thing…. Hey that’s very creative, but we don’t think a special event permit should evade that original denial, and we don’t think a temporary permit was ever intended for eight events spanning an entire summer! Can you imagine having a neighbor that continues to have a backyard party with a loud electric band every weekend ? That’s how a lot of Roscoe’s neighbors feel…

It could be worse. It could be Speed Metal!

This is the Municipal Code that deals with temporary event permits in the City of Fullerton:

The Fullerton Municipal Code defines a special event as “an event that will be conducted outdoors to which the general public is admitted or invited. Such an event includes a carnival festival tent or car show, circus parade, auction rally or similar kind of temporary outdoor exhibit or performance” (Accents added).

As follows is the roster of Roscoe’s “special event” application-

Roscoe’s Special Events Request List:
Sunday June 14th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Saturday June 20th Silvia’s Engagement party. 7-12 pm
Sunday June 21st Fathers Day Celebration. 4-9pm
Sunday June 28th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 12th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 26th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 9th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 30th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm

Friends, you decide if this is just a way to get around the rules that all the rest of us are supposed to abide by. Let’s not forget that in the original permanent use hearing the City ignored its own environmental review obligations. Why is Famous Roscoes and its owner, Jack Franklyn, receiving all this special consideration and hand holding from the City? The law is the law. We all live by it everyday, and so should he.

May 23, 2009January 5, 2010Don Bankhead

George Giokaris: School Snitch/Team Player. But Which Team Is He On?

by admin12 Comments

Just what does Fullerton H.S. District Superintendent George Giokaris owe Fullerton City Manager Chris Meyer? What compels him to be a tattletale on his own Board? Unlike Mike Escalante, his predecessor, Giokaris apparently wants a McDonald’s right across from Fullerton High.

Here’s what we’ve gathered from credible sources:

Last week, County Supervisor Chris Norby (FHS ’68) spoke with former district Superintendent Escalante and current Boardmembers Dutton and Singer. All confirmed their opposition to the $6 million McDonald’s move across the street from FHS. Escalante recounted an earlier conversation with Meyer opposing the relocation on traffic and safety grounds.

Unfortunately, these concerns were kept from the city council.

This week, Norby wrote a letter to Dutton and Singer suggesting they communicate their position to the city council, while there’s still time. Giokaris saw the letter, then quickly dispatched a “heads up” email to Meyer warning of a possible lobbying effort by members of the High School Board against the McDonald’s relocation fiasco.

Is there something we should know about these two?

Imagine that – a warning from a Superintendent that his own bosses on the School Board may actually stand up for their students’ safety and their taxpayers’ wallets! Instead of tattletaling to Meyer, he should repeat the opposition of his predecessor and oppose this super-sized boondoggle!

And we say to Dutton and Singer–if you really do oppose this $6 million move, say so now. Don’t be intimidated by Giokaris’s little intrigues behind your back – be outraged by them!

Me: Long walks on the beach and cuddling by the fire... — Long walks on the beach and cuddling by the fire?

May 22, 2009December 28, 2009Chris Norby

The Fox Theater Fiasco: Pick A Card…Any Card…

by The Fullerton Harpoon4 Comments

Gee, what a choice! — Gee, what a great choice!

No, not that one!

That’s the way Redevelopment likes to choose its favored developers. A kabuki-like pantomime is undertaken by issuing an RFP (Request for Proposals). In the end the process presents the decision makers with a choice that is essentially no choice. To illustrate the point, Loyal Friends, we go back in time almost ten years to examine how the “Save The Fox” movement got off to a rousing start.

let's hope we don't end up going around in circles... — Let's hope we don't end up going around in circles...

In 1999 after catching the wave of the Save The Fox movement, the City issued an RFP for private developers to take over the job of restoring the Fox and developing the adjoining area. The City had committed to build a parking structure and hand over other developer goodies. Proposals were received in August. In October the Agency was presented with the lucky winner, Staff’s choice – “Berkman/Chaffee” a local restaurant owner and a politically-connected lawyer turned low-income housing credits entrepreneur. Paul Berkman was there to provide credibility to run a “dinner theater” and Doug (Bud) Chaffee’s job was to look like a land developer. The only problem, as it soon transpired, was that Berkman refused to promise a dinner theater, only movies. And Chaffee had never “developed” anything but heavily subsidized housing.

Good Lord that's awful... — That isn't very good, is it?

To complicate matters a second proposer named Dana Morris of Morris productions, who believed himself to be in the running, actually showed up at the meeting desiring that the elected officials, not staff, decide who might get the gig. His idea was to create an performing and fine arts academy on the site that would, in turn, generate all sorts of ancillary business opportunities downtown and not compete with existing businesses.

To the acute embarrassment of staff, Morris managed to organize a slew of supporters, including a backer who promised to help finance the venture. They asked for more time to prove their bona fides.

On cue, some of Fullerton’s usual lefty suspects got up to promote Berkman/Chaffee although their proposal was dubious, at best, and despite the fact that neither partner had any experience doing what they claimed they were going to do. There were strong undertones of religious bigotry pulling their adherents along, for it had become known that that Morris was affiliated with BIOLA, and in some peoples’ minds that was anathema.

To add hypocrisy to the mix, people who had never shown a dime’s worth of concern when the City acquired property in downtown Fullerton were suddenly horrified by the thought of a non-profit foundation paying no property tax!

The council finally voted 4-1 (Flory dissenting, naturally) to continue the item so that Morris could clarify certain financial points in his proposal. In the intervening time, as Morris later told us, he was treated with such overt contempt and continuing hostility by Redevelopment Director Gary Chaplupsky that he finally abandoned his proposal as simply not worth the aggravation. We have only his word for what happened, but given the Redevelopment Agency staff’s propensity for prevarication over the years, we are inclined to accept it. And so a plausible concept for the Fox was lost because the staff did its level-best to thwart a reasonable proposal and award the deal to their favored team – the team that could be counted on to play ball.

Gee, Paul, I don't remember this being so hard...

And now Patient Friends, we finally return to our title. At the hearing in October, 1999 it slipped out that of the eight original proposals only two were even deemed worthy of consideration; and the City Council was never informed that one of the other six actually came from the janitor at the Hub Cafe! Of the two “finalists” it was clear that Morris never stood a chance, thus effectively limiting the Agency’s choices to none. This “planning and activity” as our faithful reader “Jack B. Nimble” characterizes it was nothing but a sham, a fact that later became evident when the Berkman/Chaffee partnership permitted its agreement with the City to lapse, and was never heard from again. And so a feeble concept had gained traction even though (excluding Morris) there was not one credible respondent to the proposal. But in government circles, that’s all it takes to gain momentum!