Former Fullerton Councilmembers Archives - Friends For Fullerton's Future

February 8, 2026February 8, 2026About Us

The Money Game

Money is the mother’s milk of politics – the famous phrase shamelessly coined by Jesse Unruh, former California politician and fixer.

And nowhere is this more true than in Orange County, where Supervisorial districts include 600,000 residents and getting people out to vote (for you) requires lots of investment in media of one kind or another. Setting aside independent political action committees, the politician’s own expenditure is critical.

Since our own District 4 Supervisorial job is up for election in 2026 (the senile and corrupt Doug “Bud” Chaffee being termed out) it is timely, on the verge of a primary campaign, to see how much money the various candidates have raised, and how much they have on hand.

The second half of 2025 finance statements for the D4 candidates are now viewable on line. The results of July-December fundraising are interesting.

The big cash leader is Fullerton’s own Mayor, Fred Jung. He raised a whopping $145,000 bucks in the second half of 2025, and had a cash balance of $354,000. He’d have more but spent almost 50K in 2025 mostly on campaign consultants. That’s a lot of money.

Connor Traut the eager office hopper from Buena Park; the carpetbagger who lusts after politcal office, raised $64,000 and has $225,000 in the bank. Of course $100,000 of that was shifted from his existing campaign account, a move he sleazily pretended was a real 24 hour fundraising effort.

Tim Shaw, the only Republican in the race raised $60,000 and has $69,000 on hand.

Rosie addresses the Boys in the Back (of the) Room; Will they hear her?

The final candidate who I am aware of is Rose Espinosa from La Habra. She raised a paltry $14K, but thanks to one of those personal loans politicians make to themselves, in this case $150,000, she’s got a $160,000 total.

The primary election is June 2nd, so a tsunami of political outreach will probably be starting in a month or so. What are the prospects for these free spenders?

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

Fullerton is in the 4th Supervisorial District, in fact, it is the largest city completely within the boundary of the district. Three of the last four D4 Supervisors have been on the Fullerton City Council. This gives Fred Jung a natural edge over candidates from Fullerton’s much smaller neighbors like Buena Park and La Habra. Jung, however has no help from a political party, if in fact that means much anymore. He is now registered NPP – no political party preference. His record of defying the kooks in Fullerton will help, not hurt him with conservatives and independents.

Connor Traut is the nebbish candidate of the Democrat establishment and has all the usual endorsement from the same people endorsing the thief Paulette Chaffee for NOCCCD board. He has a lot of money on hand, but only 63% of what Jung has stockpiled. Being an elected in Buena Park isn’t much of a help since it is historically apathetic in politics and he moved there just to get into a municipal office.

Tim Shaw, the only Republican running, has zero hope of being elected. He came close seven years ago, but the district has become even more Democrat and less Republican. He is a member of the whackadoodle and opaque OC Board of Education. That will get him some charter school lobby money as a sop. He might do well enough to make a run-off in November by coming in second, but he can’t win in a general election. In 2022 two Democrats made the runoff. Shaw has no path to victory.

Rose Espinoza, another Democrat, has no foreseeable path, either. All the Dems are behind Traut, for what that’s worth, and Espinosa has no name ID outside of small La Habra, where getting elected doesn’t seem all that difficult. Still, as the only woman in the election she’s got that going for her. But she hasn’t raised much money. But she is willing to risk her own dough, apparently, and that says something. Something sort of Paulette Chaffee-esque. She has run for Supervisor two or three time previously way out of the money.

The OC 4th District Supervisor election is likely going to be won in the flatlands of Anaheim where none of the above candidates is very well known. There are lots of Latino voters in these precincts and that might help Espinosa. There could be the better part of 25,000 to 30,000 votes there. Large, but not enough to help an Anaheimer do well. At this late date I can’t think of any who could or would try to run.

February 4, 2026February 4, 2026Ahmad Zahra

Bent History Bullshit

by Mr. Peabody33 Comments

Here’s an interesting bit from the “print edition” of the Fullerton Observer, proving that once again the Fullerton Klown Kar has no rearview mirror.

The subject is the reopening of the abandoned UP Park, and all you have to do is look at the photo op result to guess that a history re-write is in the works.

While we were basking in the Spring-like day, most of the USA was under an unrelenting, repressive assault by ice, snow, and freezing rain. All of the speakers took notice of who was in the audience, mainly the Fullerton residents who did not give up on the idea of a local park, rallying support for an incredible 20-plus years. Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk Silva recalled how she was on the City Council in 2004 when the idea of revitalizing Union Pacific Park was discussed. Persistence from Fullerton residents kept the idea alive, so keep that in mind.

There’s a who’s who of Fullerton libs who can’t seem to have their pictures taken often enough, especially over there on the far left – the tarnished antique Pilferin’ Paulette Chaffee, who did less than nothing to have the park reopened. But then again, neither did Vanessa Estrella, or Sharon Quirk, or Jesus Quirk-Silva.

And on the subject of Quirk and Quirk Silva, the reimagining of history is appalling. Quirk got on the City Council at the end of 2004 all right. But at that point the first Union Pacific Park was just completed – brand effing new. Her statement is obviously meant to ignore the long history of bureaucratic failure that led to toxic soil removal and closure of a third of the park, to finally fencing off the whole damn thing because of the hypes, borrachos and homeless campers.

But just as important as hiding ugly truth is promoting your own accomplishment – finally doing what was thought impossible – after a 20-year fight! And let’s not forget the other myth – the popular struggle from la communidad, all of it ginned up, when it existed at all, by patronizing gringos at the Center for Healthy Neighborhoods, etc.

The Big Q probably doesn’t want you to remember that she was on the Council for another 8 years after her mythical park revitalization “discussions” allegedly took place, and so if the park wasn’t “revitalized” under her careful stewardship, why not?

Then there’s her dopey, hare-brained husband, Jesus, who was on the council from 2016 through 2022. What was he doing to revitalize the park after it really was fenced off? Nada. That’s right fish farm fans. He and Ahmad Zahra, also mugging in the picture, were trying to illegally convert the parkland to an intrusive fenced off private event center. So much for “the community.” You couldn’t make this stuff up.

The Fullerton Observer sisters and these political types want us to forget the real history of the UP Park – a poisoned public nuisance created by and for City bureaucrats as a Redevelopment money plaything who’s history would be a civic shame, if anybody in City Hall had any shame.

Now maybe you think that this is all trivial, this whitewash of the past. Not so. The conditions which caused UP Park #1’s failure are still there, even as more millions are thrown at UP Park #2. No one is paying attention because nobody cares.

January 31, 2026February 1, 2026Ahmad Zahra

Doug “Bud” Chaffee Screws Liberal Supervisor; Fullerton Boohoo Ignores Story

by Grover Cleveland15 Comments

The relentlessly corrupt Nguyen spots unattended cash…

A couple weeks ago the Voice of OC did a couple of stories about the succession of the new Chairman of the OC Board of Supervisors. The first story posited the appointment of the incomprehensively corrupt Janet Nguyen as the new chair, over the then current Vice Chair, Katrina Foley. Foley has been passed over several times. The Voice’s reasoning was that Republicans Nguyen and Don Wagner would vote for the former; Democrats Vicente Sarmiento and Foley would vote for the latter. And our own home-grown rodent, Democrat Doug Chaffee? He has already endorsed Foley’s re-election opponent – a Republican – he thinks so little of her.

Brothers in arms: Chaffee and his mentor, the recently imprisoned Andrew Do.

Not one to miss an opportunity to promote himself (and his wife, Pilferin’ Paulette), the octogenarian made a deal to keep the office for himself another year. The little drama was scripted to make it look like Foley was behind the idea, which is pure nonsense. She didn’t have a third vote and was obviously cajoled into voting for Chaffee so she could remain Vice Chair..

After the little Kabuki was done it was stamped by all five of the Supervisors.

Now here’s a fun snippet from the second Voice article:

Chaffee said he was “looking forward to a little more restful year,” but that he looked forward to using his last year in office effectively.

“I would accept the position if so elected.”

What predictably disingenuous bullshit from this decrepit, evil chipmunk.

But here’s the kicker: there has not been a single mention of Chaffee’s screw job of Foley by the Fullerton Observer that spends so much energy bemoaning the poor travails of “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra who also can’t scrape up that necessary third vote for elevation to the lofty title Mayor of Fullerton.

Personally, I couldn’t care less how the Chairman of the OC Board of Supervisors gets three votes; ditto for the Mayor of Fullerton. Three is three and that’s all that matters. Got your feelings hurt? Stay out of politics. But I have to admit my annoyance (not surprise) by the hypocrisy of the Kennedy Sisters’ refusal to even mention the story of how a liberal woman was kept from her “turn” in their precious uber-liberal rag.

January 13, 2026January 16, 2026Ahmad Zahra

The Boutique Hotel to Nowhere, Part 2

by Mr. Peabody25 Comments

Warning: Conceptual only, not to be taken seriously!

The other day I described the history of the idiotic Boutique Hotel – a notion to build a high-end hotel on the site of the East Santa Fe parking lot at the Depot. The idea was, and is so stupid that it astounds any commonsensical thinker. And even worse, as the “unsolicited,” exclusive deal became less and less likely, the concept became bigger and dumber. The approved plan more than doubled the density allowed by the Transportation Center Specific Plan.

City projects are virtually immortal if they look like work for eager “economic development” bureaucrats or look like they can be sold as accomplishment by people like Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles, who think (or pretend to think) that their gullible followers can be fooled into believing something good is happening.

Except that nothing good is happening. Our City officials increased the value of the property ten-fold through entitlements, but sold it for its original value – a staggering subsidy of at least ten million bucks. And that subsidy was handed to TA Partners, a flimflam operation fronted by a couple of con men, Johnny Lu and Larry Liu, at the end of 2022.

In the three intervening years nothing has happened so far as the public knows, even as TA Partners’ legal and financial woes have become public; woes that certainly should have been known by our economic development experts in City Hall prior to signing a contract, but weren’t. Why not? And why is the project at least two years behind schedule? Don’t ask. Fullerton being Fullerton.

The land was deeded over to Johnny and Larry without even an approved set of conceptual plans. But the deed was encumbered after a fashion with development and construction milestones.

And here’s the Schedule of Performance mentioned above:

I don’t know what sort of plans have been submitted, if any, but I know that grading should have started at least 20 months ago and hasn’t. And look at that project completion deadline – a Certificate of Occupancy by 10/21/26. That’s only nine months from now. As this fiasco looks worse and worse, not a peep from our friends at Fullerton Angry and Fullerton Transparency about the initial giveaway or the state of the schedule. They have more important if less expensive “scandals” to rant about.

Of course the paragraph tacked on to the Grant Deed, above, describes the covenants attached to the land, but that’s it. Other language talks about the City’s right to legal recourse if the conditions of the covenants are not met. That’s pretty toothless since lawsuits are always possible; there is no mention of Johnny and Larry surrendering their new asset, an asset whose entitlements could still make it worth a fortune. Why the City hasn’t already initiated legal action is a mystery worth speculating upon.

We all know that when it comes to Fullerton redevelopment boondoggles, nobody ever takes responsibility for failures. It’s just not good form to hold the masterminds accountable. Often it’s not enough to just keep quiet; sometimes staff actively tries to keep the boondoggle gasping for air so it can be reassigned to some new front man. That’s what I think must be happening now.

By the way, a majority of the current City Council has not voted for this hot mess. It’s a legacy mess.

It’s way past time to learn what’s going on, to find out what the status of the Boutique Hotel and Apartment monster and to find out why the City hasn’t pursued legal remedy to protect our interests.

January 11, 2026January 11, 2026A Step in the Right Direction

A Modest Proposal: the Case for Cannabis Dispensaries in Fullerton

by Disillusioned Ex-Hippy33 Comments

The other day my FFFF colleague, Fullerton Harpoon, published a post on a possible move on the part of Fullerton’s annoying liberal claque to drum up support for legalizing cannabis dispensaries in town.

It’s really hard to get worked up over Doc HeeHaw’s illegal “hip hop drug guy,” and Fullerton Harpoon was quite right in pointing out the absurdity of the “it costs so much to crack down on illegal stores” as a good argument for legal dispensaries when the real reason to have them is to generate large amounts of cannabis sales taxes and fee revenue.

With the Fullerton budget in parlous condition, cannabis revenue derived from an intelligent program isn’t such an unreasonable idea.

Let’s quickly dive back into history when we examine the previous cannabis dispensary ordinance and its revocation in 2020 and 2021.

Throughout 2020 public discussion was held regarding a potential cannabis dispensary ordinance. Public input was clear people wanted a 1000 foot buffer from “sensitive receptors” such as schools, parks, and houses. In fact the consultant’s map that reflected this desire became known as “the People’s Map.”

That was the map approved for recommendation by Fullerton’s Planning Commission. But a funny thing happened on the way to the City Council.

The ordinance was pushed through by the Council 3-2, in the waning months of 2020, even though an election promised a new councilmembers. Jan Flory, Jesus Quirk-Silva, and of course Ahmad Zahra voted yes. Jennifer Fitzgerald and Bruce Whitaker voted no.

The problem that many saw was that in the modified plan there was now generous latitude of potential locations, even to have a dispensary 100 feet from a residential zone. This latitude was undoubtedly the result of dope lobby pressure on Zahra and Quirk-Silva to increase their opportunities as much as possible, and to “share the pain” as Quirk-Silva put it. The public could shove it where the sun didn’t shine.

The other obvious problem was that the ordinance invested the authority to approve cannabis licenses in the hands of the City Manager, who at the time was the incompetent Ken Domer; the decisions would be shrouded in secrecy instead of transparently, in public

The People’s Map had been sandbagged by Flory, Zahra and Quirk-Silva.

In December 2020 and in the early months of 2021 the two new councilmembers – Fred Jung and Nick Dunlap joined Whitaker in pulling the plug on the ordinance. No one has tried to resurrect the issue – yet.

So I have a modest proposal. Why not go back to the People’s Map? Why not go back to the earlier suggestions that would have banned these stores within 1000 feet of anybody’s residence? In addition, why not require street visibility from a Primary or Secondary arterial so everything is in plain view? Sure, almost all of the cannabis businesses would be in southwest Fullerton – Council District 5, so what? That’s the reality of Fullerton’s zoning code.

As far as other revenue options go, two proposed special sales taxes on the 2026 ballot might not pass as they require 2/3 majority; even if the council waffles toward reverting to a general sales tax there would have to be 4 council votes to put it on the ballot. Are they there? Without these revenue sources the practical financial aspect of cannabis-generated revenue appears useful.

The same argument against a special or general sales tax increase is always there: why should everybody be asked to make a sacrifice for the city’s welfare when the City Council and the hundreds of municipal employees, whose salaries and benefits paid for by the public, have sacrificed nothing?

And here’s a final thought: why not restrict cannabis revenue to specific deployment – such as roads, sidewalks and street lights?

Difficult decisions such as who gets licenses and how many there should be remain. I’m not confident in our existing bureaucracy to regulate this use successfully, but to me an intelligent rethink of the issue that minimizes citizen concerns is not a bad idea at all.

January 6, 2026January 6, 2026Ahmad Zahra

The Boutique Hotel to Nowhere, Rehash, Part 1

by Mr. Peabody20 Comments

Domer-Decorations — Hitching to Desert Center

2026 is here, portending all sorts of fun for Fullerton. Some haunting spirits will have to be propitiated, among them is the so-called “boutique hotel” fiasco, one of the parting gifts of former incompetent City Manager, Ken Domer left for his ultimate successor, Eric Levitt.

You will recall the project: a small, high end hotel at the train station, that over the years morphed into a massive housing project attached to it.

Grab it and consume it as fast as you can…

Domer was the facilitator of the stupid concept cooked up by our former Mayor-for-Hire, the lobbyist Jennifer Fitzgerald. His sole reason for being City Manager, in fact, appeared to be his willingness to enable Fitzgerald’s wish lists into fruition.

And Domer was the fellow who let the project move along, during the gestation – recommending a non-bid, exclusive negotiating agreement with Westpark LLC, a company that couldn’t build a birdhouse. Domer was fired in the spring of 2021 but his boutique child, an infant that should have been strangled in its crib, lived on, proving that make-work ideas supported by staff never die.

The years passed and Levitt became godfather to Domer’s baby. In this time his staff had uncovered a new and willing partner – TA Partners. Enter Johnny Lu and Larry Liu, two con artists who were already getting deep into debt and fraud elsewhere in Southern California.

By the end of 2022 the real disaster struck: on December 20, 2022, the City voted to approve an agreement to deed over its property, the value increased tenfold, without an approved project even in place. The supporters? Ahmad Zahra, Shana Charles, and inexplicably, Bruce Whitaker, the latter ignoring any of the warning signs that his instincts should have been screaming to him.

Three years have passed. None of the milestones in the Development and Disposition Agreement have ben met. And nobody is talking about this fiasco, at least not in public. We have all learned that Larry and Johnny have pleaded guilty to fraud; that their project in Irvine collapsed, probably taken over by whatever investment bank was dumb enough to give them a construction loan.

Has the City even contemplated action? No closed session reporting has been forthcoming and no reasons given for why not. FFFF learned that the original Westpark guy, Craig Hostert’s family is suing Larry and Johnny for their hijacking of the project. They must see some sort of asset there. If so they are right.

Despite having failed to meet contractual deadlines, TA Partners owns this 1.7 acre parcel and is presumably paying their property taxes to keep it in the family. And the property has value thanks to a incompetent City Council majority.

The entitlements approved by Whitaker, Zahra and Charles are worth a fortune, and can, with the City’s approval, be assigned to somebody else, a tactic that City bureaucrats have pursued in the past to keep embarrassing projects alive and kicking. But that may not work because only Zahra and Charles will keep voting for this disaster.

This fiasco is now seven years old and if there’s an end in sight, it isn’t even on the horizon.

December 31, 2025December 31, 2025Ahmad Zahra

At the Fullerton Observer Raising Awkward Facts Gets You Nowhere

by The Fullerton Harpoon42 Comments

One of our commenters recently pointed out the “reply” string on a Fullerton Observer post supposedly written by a guy named Kevin Curriston, a chap who doesn’t appear to be the literary type. Some of comments are pretty good. Naturally Sharon, the elder Kennedy Sister, leaps into the breach to validate the theme of the essay. Amy the Angry Little Bird is on hand too, to lend her support.

A guy named Brian calls bullshit on the supposition that 40 public commenters represent anybody but a small percentage of Fullertonions.

That premise is not well-received in Fullerton Boohooville.

I particularly like Brian’s wicked request for Kennedy to share some of Zahra’s vast filmography.

A Mr. Matt Leslie reminds everybody that Zahra’s flipped on his first real decision and in doing so disenfranched a whole bunch of people when he appointed Jan Flory to complete Jesus Quirk-Silva’s term.

Here’s the reply thread, reproduced:

15 replies »

Matt LeslieDecember 27, 2025 at 9:48 amThe author neglects to inform readers that Council member Ahmad Zahra did not attend this important meeting. Although it seems unlikely that other council members would have supported him for mayor, he had the opportunity to support Shana Charles for the position, but was not present to do so.Ed Response: Councilmember Zahra had a work trip out of town so did not attend the meeting.
- BrianDecember 29, 2025 at 2:39 pmI see you seem to know a lot about council member Zahra, just what does he do for a living?
  - Sharon KDecember 29, 2025 at 4:35 pmZahra is a filmmaker. Currently the only Councilmember who doesn’t work is Jung. You can discover this kind of thing through the form 700 financial filings of each Councilmember. – though I notice Valencia has failed to file. Not sure why.
    - BrianDecember 29, 2025 at 6:46 pmWow, that is fascinating. Can you point me in the direction of some of his work?
AmyDecember 29, 2025 at 8:12 amDunlap and Jung continue to gaslight the public and delude themselves by saying that public commenters are not representative.Every meeting brings new attendees infuriated by the actions of the majority, but Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia keep telling themselves the public’s voices don’t count. It seems they can’t bring themselves to accept that anyone could possibly disagree with their blatant corruption and repeated defiance of the wishes of the public.
- BrianDecember 29, 2025 at 2:27 pmI’d imagine if you took two seconds to step outside your bubble, you may realize that in a town of 140,000+, 30 or 40 people don’t even represent a decimal of a percentage. And just because you comment, it doesn’t make your comments true. Much like this publication and the liberties it takes with the truth all the time.
  - Sharon KDecember 29, 2025 at 4:56 pmBrian – sounds like you are talking to yourself on that critique.
    Most people are busy with their lives and don’t pay that much attention. And of course over half of our town’s 140,000 or so residents are children. Others have jobs that interfere with council meeting hours, etc. Some don’t think it is possible to fight city hall. Some are just not interested. Having 40 people show up at a council meeting and speak on an issue is huge.
    If people didn’t come out we wouldn’t have any trails in town; there would be a polluting flour mill across from Amerige Heights; the toxic park and McColl dump site would not be cleaned up; our museum center would be high rise office building; we wouldn’t have saved FOX or Coyote Hills and much much more.
    Some politicians – just out for themselves and narrow special interests – can fool people for awhile but eventually the truth of their actions come out
  - AmyDecember 29, 2025 at 5:33 pmThose who disagree are welcome to attend a city council meeting, but for some reason they have not.Jung received unanimous opposition to his taking of the mayorship at the last meeting. Dozens of public comments unanimously supported creating a fund for immigrant support against ICE raids and kidnappings. Dozens still attended to beg city council not to kill the Walk on Wilshire – twice; the paltry number of voices in opposition were those financially aligned with Jung and Bushala. If opposition exists, it has yet to show up to city council meetings.
    - BrianDecember 29, 2025 at 6:44 pmLike I said, just because you comment, doesn’t make your comments true. With this statement you proved my point again.
      Full of inaccuracies. Do better.
      - AmyDecember 29, 2025 at 9:19 pmI don’t see how, but okay. I’m sure you know best.
    - Matt LeslieDecember 30, 2025 at 8:59 amAmy, I opposed Walk on Wilshire for several reasons, not because I was “aligned” with anyone. Please be careful not to be dismissive of the concerns of those with opinions contrary to your own.
      - AmyDecember 30, 2025 at 5:11 pmI fully respect your right to your opinion, but I do disagree that the bollards – comparable to those used on nearly every trail in OC – were an actual impediment to cyclists traversing the Walk on Wilshire and merited removal of the whole thing. I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to say any opinion I disagree with is invalid. That would be absurd. But the argument seemed so ridiculous as to be disingenuous to me. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.That said, as one of the fewer than 10 detractors, you’re certaintly entitled to your opinion. I hope the dismantling of the Walk on Wilshire that so many enjoyed brought you great happiness and satisfaction.
  - FrankDecember 30, 2025 at 2:00 pmStep out of your bubble pal.
Sharon KDecember 29, 2025 at 9:05 pmBrian – if you are talking to me – you are right — I guessed that there are way more children than there are at least according to the stats I just looked up that say there are only 32,000 children under 18 in Fullerton.
But when you are figuring out percentages of people think about the fact that – according to the OC Registrar of Voters – only 7,432 voted for Jung; 9,546 for Dunlap and 3,489 for Valencia in the last election. That certainly does not make a majority. Some of those who voted for Jung, Dunlap are among those who have come to council and said they were unhappy with their votes on various things and felt fooled when the vote to keep Walk on Wilshire open – turned into an expansion suggested by the two – and then that vote was postponed until after the election and both Jung and Dunlap proceeded to vote no.
Really the point is that we residents of town want a fun place to live that we are proud of where people want to visit and small businesses can thrive. Dulling it down by reducing unique features, curtailing music, outdoor patios, walking paths, safe bike paths, etc does not make our town attractive to anyone. And everything turns into a big fight with residents begging for good decisions. And I am not alone in really hating their recent decision to not help residents targeted by ICE and other weird unfair decisions like not following fair rotation so every district gets chance to have their representative as mayor.
Matt LeslieDecember 30, 2025 at 10:51 amAnd, by the way, if you want to talk about steamrolling over public opinion go watch the videos of Ahmad Zahra’s first council meetings in 2018. Dr. Zahra first voiced support for a special election to fill a vacant council seat, a position in line with nearly all public speakers on the issue during meetings. But he quickly changed his position entirely, aligning himself with a council majority who disregarded expressed public opinion in favor of an election and instead voted to appoint a someone to the vacant seat.Zahra’s swing vote to appoint a council member instead of holding an election disenfranchised an entire district of the city, instead foisting upon them an unelected representative for the two full years remaining in the council term. This decision was of much greater significance, in my opinion, than choosing a mayor from among sitting council members (something the appointed council member got to do). Where was the concern for “the public” then?

December 17, 2025December 17, 2025A Step in the Right Direction

Mayor Jung, Again, For 2026

by Grover Cleveland38 Comments

Yes, Mayor Fred Jung will be Mayor Fred Jung again. It happened at the Fullerton City Council meeting last night.

The usual assortment of Fullerton Boohoo showed up at the meeting for their annual December moan-fest about how “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra should be Mayor of Fullerton because he is a combination of Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus H. Christ. And also District 5, where Zahra has never got 50% of the vote, is somehow “disenfranchised” because Zahra can’t revel in the lofty title. Sputter, wheeze, etc. Ironically, one Zahra advocate explained as a qualification how the unemployed and family-less Zahra was always at photo-op events.

Comically, many of Zahra’s ardent followers couldn’t pronounce his name right, referring to him as “Za-ha-rah,” thus suggesting they don’t even know him.

But somehow the show seemed pretty muted, and sort of perfunctory; maybe it was because Zahra wasn’t even at the meeting and this meant that his getting three votes wasn’t in the cards.

Zahra minions spoke about the policy of mayoral rotation made years ago by other city councils that must be adhered to, even though the City Attorney had said a council majority could set it aside anytime they want, making the policy meaningless.

What will 2026 have in store for this one…

The endlessly self-impressed gasbag Shana Charles said it was also her turn to be mayor, cuz she had just been Mayor Pro Tem, and ya know, policy. She is running for re-election next years and probably thought, delusionally, that she had a shot at the Title. She didn’t.

In the end Valencia nominated Fred Jung who was appointed Mayor; Nick Dunlap was nominated, and appointed Mayor Pro Tem.

No one within the boohoo tribe has ever bothered to honestly figure out why the council majority has steadfastly refused to appoint Zahra to be mayor. It’s chalked up to selfish personality issues on their part, but we know the real reason. No one whom Zahra hasn’t fooled with his phony immigrant schtick and faux sincerity wants to hear his long-winded, self-praising bloviation and his promotion of his “brand.” They resent his constant condescension toward them, his performance of moral superiority, and his hysterical, behind the scenes behavior.

The same applies to the majority’s opinion of Shana Charles, with her smug, incompetent, speechifying. She loves the sound of her own voice, alright, but nobody else loves the bi-monthy waste of time that just interminably drags out meetings. Even Nick Dunlap, who nominated Charles to be mayor Pro Tem a year ago, has evidently had enough of her tedious monologues.

Speaking of Dunlap, he did excel himself before the vote, noting that the same 40 people (it’s probably closer to 20) who show up at council meetings do not represent the public or the community and that he had been elected to represent everybody. Well done, there, Mr. Dunlap. They won’t get it, but need to be reminded once in a while.

So Fred Jung gets to use the title “Mayor” during his campaign for County Supervisor which is a help in the odd world of local politics where almost nobody is paying attention to real accomplishments or real failures.

November 5, 2025November 5, 2025Ahmad Zahra

Zahra Does What Zahra Does Best. Lie.

by The Fullerton Harpoon15 Comments

I will get what I want, one way or another…

At last night’s City Council meeting, “Doctor” Ahmad Zahra, the Dissimulator of Damascus, informed the packed audience the he had written an opinion piece in the Fullerton Observer. The thrust of the article he said, was to point out the disparity in park spending in south Fullerton when compared to the north.

I was curious to see what Zahra had written, knowing as I do his penchant for plagiarism in the Observer, and his special brand of hand-wringing. I wondered if it might be AI written as has appeared to be the case before. So I found the online copy of the print edition.

Naturally the first thing Zahra does to establish his position is to tell a bald-faced lie. People in the neighborhood have been waiting 20 years, he bemoaned, for the Union Pacific Park to “finally” be opened! One poor mom could become a grandmother waiting for the park to open! The shame! Zahra was peddling the same false history bullshit as his pal Skiaka Kennedy.

Of course Zahra’s implication is that the closed park symbolizes profound unfairness, proving bias against south Fullerton, presumably by white City Councils from north Fullerton (not so subtle racism and hideous classism would be the obvious cause, Zahra hoped, to the Latino-packed audience). That’s the official Fullerton Boohoo narrative.

The problem is that this weeping about Union Pacific Park is completely untrue, and the history of the park, while demonstrating gross incompetence by City staff and councils, in no way shows an anti-south Fullerton bias. Actually, just the opposite.

Here’s the truth: the park had been opened back in the early 2000s at a cost of several million bucks to the public – all of Fullerton’s public. In a year or two part of the park was fenced off due to soil contamination – but a small part of the western end. The balance of the park remained wide open to the public and stayed open for ten years or so. Then the park was closed by Fullerton’s City Manager, and former Parks and Rec Director, Joe Felz.

Why?

Because the Union Pacific Park had become a haven for borrachos, gang members and drug addicts. The City finally put up a fence around the whole damn thing. The small toilet building was a magnet for illicit activity; it was closed, then demolished. Homeless started to haunt the walkways and build wickiups against the fence. No City Council ever voted on this closure, by the way. A public explanation would be too damn damning. It has been painfully obvious that there never should have been a park there in the first place, and there wouldn’t have been except for the ego of the then Parks Director and lots of Redevelopment play money.

The sad truth is that nothing has changed to make the new version of the Union Pacific Park successful. All of the same socio-economic, criminal, and drug abuse issues still exist. Zahra will not be in office after next November’s election, but the legacy of his foolish, patronizing make-work projects – the Trail to Nowhere and the Union Pacific Park – will be notorious to anybody willing to look at the topic honestly.

Alas, honesty is not a commodity in high demand in the world of uber-liberal politics, made manifest locally in the precincts of Fullerton BooHoo. Here, governance, if you want to call it that, is based on seeking out, and appearing sensitive to the plight of some victim or other, some “underserved” person or class, whether they want that solicitude or not. The more you spend, the more you appear to care, even if the money is utterly wasted, as were the millions spent acquiring and building the first Union Pacific Park.

October 9, 2025October 9, 2025Ahmad Zahra

When Docs Go Wild

by The Fullerton Harpoon20 Comments