Fullerton City Council Archives - Page 38 of 77 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

July 14, 2017July 14, 2017About Us

Happy Bastille Day!

Dear Fullerton humans: 228 Years ago, an angry Parisian mob stormed The Bastille – traditional home for political prisoners and symbol of the hated Ancien Regime. It was empty, but that’s beside the point.

Our Bastille is not empty. And while I admonish a more reasoned revolution that doesn’t end in a Reign of Terror, a dictatorship, and an emperor, I do believe it is appropriate to recognize that our own ancient regime in Fullerton continues to look a lot like the decrepit and dysfunctional Bourbon dynasty en France.

And so: salut, and bon voyage, etc.

July 11, 2017July 11, 2017Coyote Hills

Should the state use eminent domain to take Coyote Hills?

by The Worm27 Comments

Newman has been handed yet another bill to pass off as his own in his race against the recall – SB714. It allows the state to use eminent domain to take Coyote Hills by force, turning it over to something called the “State Coastal Conservancy” at great expense to California taxpayers. Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva has put up a matching bill that provides taxpayer funding for some of the takings.

Fullerton property rights advocates are warning about the loss of local control and lamenting the potential undoing of 40 years of development compromises (sunk costs, perhaps).

On the other hand, preserve purists like the folks at Save Coyote Hills love the bill, which has the potential to take land from a developer and use it to expand the Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve.

Whatever your take, this warning applies – A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything that you have. Handing this issue over to Sacramento bureaucrats may not get you what you want.

July 5, 2017July 5, 2017Bruce Whitaker

Our Jacked Up Roads

by Mr. Peabody10 Comments

Remember when FFFF noted the deplorable conditions of Fullerton’s paving – the worst in Orange County? Well that status has snagged the attention of the Big Boss Man at OCTA, Darrel Johnson, as documented in the very diplomatic communication to our $100 per hour Interim City Manager, below. For those savvy in the foamy soft-soap of bureaucrat-speak, the letter is a ringing condemnation of our City’s infrastructure management.

July 3, 2017July 3, 2017Chronic Failure

Fitzgerald Casts Toxic Vote for Pringle Client

by The Worm19 Comments

There’s a five-mile expanding industrial waste plume under Fullerton – mostly the result of industrial run-off from mid-century industrialists. The OC Water District says that it has already begun to contaminate Fullerton’s water supply, projecting that the damage will eventually be catastrophic if not addressed immediately.

As one of the largest polluters, Northrop Gruman has been defending an OCWD case against it for years.

Last month the OCWD asked the Fullerton council to support a request to bring the EPA in to resolve the issue. That would be bad news for Northrop, but good news for Fullerton residents.

Take a look at the video of the council discussion. The topic seems to be of particular interest to Fitzgerald, who is unusually familiar with the characters involved, although she seems to take on an adversarial posture against the OCWD representative. Ultimately the council agreed to send off the letter, 4 to 1. Fitzgerald voted against the recommendation that would help protect taxpayers from paying the price. I wonder why? No I don’t.

What Fitzgerald failed to mention is that Northrop Gruman is or was a client of her employer, Curt Pringle and Associates. Here’s an exposé from the Voice of OC in 2012.

In a later article about her various conflicts of interest, Fitzgerald claims that Pringle’s firm never worked directly for Northrop, but that they were hired through an attorney who worked for Northrop. I guess we’re supposed to believe that this degree of separation clears up her conflict of interest. It doesn’t. I wonder where else this strategy is employed?

Anyway, we’re also supposed to believe that the relationship between Pringle and Northop terminated in 2012. Maybe it did. Who can be sure? But for some reason Fitzgerald is still oddly passionate about Northrup Gruman, fighting against efforts to make them pay for the clean up of their own waste that threatens the health and safety of Fullerton residents.

Why is Jennifer Fitzgerald voting in favor of a Curt Pringle client, in direct opposition to the Fullerton residents who she is supposed to be representing? This is a severe and blatant conflict of interest – one that has lasting health consequences for all of Fullerton.

June 26, 2017July 14, 2017Behind Closed Doors

Gretchen Cox and Fullerton First

by Mr. Peabody60 Comments

Quadrangle of Casual Corruption and Fullerton First brain trust. Gretch’ is the one in the middle. The rest you already know.

Apparently Gretchen Cox, reactionary pal of J. Flory and J. Fitzgerald has become weary of “malcontents” wasting everybody’s time at City Council meetings. She seems to think all this attention to city employee malfeasance, misfeasance and dumbassfeasance reflects poorly on our great town, using the usual “blame the messenger” routine always deployed by people who have something to hide: like shoddy construction, unnecessary and mind-blowingly expensive boondoggles, drunken city managers, a corrupt police department and a budget that’s a few years away from going supernova.

Quick, get clear of the impending collapse…

Her strategy is to drown out the cries off honest men and women with hosannas of praise for everything Fullerton. But she needs a choir. So she started a facebook group laughingly called “Fullerton First” where she limits the membership to folk of her own stripe. And what a membership list it is. Here you will find a lot of familiar faces, including sad sack stooge Larry Bennett, incompetent planner Paul Dudley, serial liar-cop Andrew Goodrich, and dim-bulb government apologist Jan Flory, who is w-a-a-a-y past her stated expiration date. That alone should tell you all you need to know about Fullerton First.

But that’s not the interesting part. Not surprisingly, lobbyist city council creature Jennifer Fitzgerald is an enthusiastic member of this tribe; but, very tellingly, so is the ethically flexible Matthew Cunningham, whose job is proprietor of “Anaheim Blog” where he runs interference for uber-lobbyist Curt Pringle’s interests, praises Pringle’s political tools, and denigrates Pringle’s political opponents.

You can’t hurt me. I’ve got no moral compass…

And of course Ms. Fitzgerald also “works” for Pringle. She is his “Vice President of Minor Scams and Local Government Taxpayer Ripoffs” where she enjoys mixing business with pleasure.

It’s pretty obvious that Pringle has set his slimy sights on Fullerton now that his Anaheim well is running dry. We are the pigeons he wants to pluck. Just think “College Town” and other possible gold mines where influence peddling moves things along.

And when Curt Pringle says “Fullerton First” what he really will mean is “Fullerton Next.”

June 20, 2017June 20, 2017Behind Closed Doors

What’s a Million Dollars Between Friends?

by Joshua6 Comments

Our lobbyist Councilperson Jennifer Fitzgerald has asked her supporters on Facebook to show up at tonight’s Council Meeting to support the purchase of land on Pearl Drive to be used as a park.

Our friend David already went over some of the ridiculousness of this purchase in a previous post but it bears getting a little more attention.

The first point to be made is that this item is on the Consent Calendar tonight. Consent Calendar items are items during a meeting that get no separate discussion and are voted on together unless specifically pulled for comment by a member of the public or council. A typical Consent Calendar item would be the minutes to a previous meeting or perhaps a legislative ordinance change forced upon us by Sacramento.

A typical definition of a consent calendar would be as follows:

Under parliamentary rules governing City Council meetings, Consent Calendar items are reserved for items that are deemed to be non-controversial. They allow a City Council to save the bulk of it’s meeting time for issues in which there is a need for a serious public debate.

Often though the items end up being things that the city doesn’t want to discuss or scrutinize in detail. Tonight’s meeting has 12 consent calendar items with this purchase being the 10th.

The Consent Calendar is hardly the proper place to drop a $1.2Million+ project and it’s more amusing given that councilwoman Fitzgerald is asking for support on an item that is scheduled to take no public comments. It’s somewhat infuriating that the city of Fullerton is so free with money that it doesn’t feel the need to openly discuss an expenditure that is over 18x the median household income of our residents. Worse still when basic details of the deal are lacking from public view.

The parcel in question is slated for purchase with a whopping price tag of $755,500 based on a use assumption that is faulty at best (see David’s post). Then we have $148,000 for an unexplained “administrative settlement”. Then $300,000 for “improvement costs” that will of course be more than $300K owing to the additional paragraph stating that “An updated estimate will be established upon completion of the community meetings.”

What attachments or reference points do we have so we as a city can analyze this project? None. There is no explanation because a properly scanned, searchable PDF is too much work to manage at City Hall despite numerous requests over the years. I’m sure somebody will sound off that there have been “community meetings” that were announced on Nextdoor or some such nonsense so as to suggest the lack of need for the city to do it’s due diligence on transparency. This will likely come from the same people who complain about Public Records Requests from the public in a city known for a culture of corruption and abject secrecy.

Despite being an ongoing project, per the item’s own sparse agenda attachments, since 2002-2003 and we don’t have a breakdown of costs? A thorough estimate? A reason for the administrative settlement? A list of code enforcement violations?

Even the details we do get don’t tell the whole story.

“The amenities required being demolished”? How about we mention that the city paid over $19,000 for part of that very demolition? It seems that just about every pertinent detail has been washed from this item which maybe explains why it was on the consent calendar in the first place. You do have to the give the city credit for their optimism in hoping they could sneak this through the consent calendar knowing full well that we malcontents are always willing to call them on their shenanigans.

I reckon the only thing more infuriating than a bureaucrat putting forth this kind of lazy and shoddy work is a legislative body so uninterested in demanding real data and accountability that those bureaucrats know they can get away with this nonsense.

The old adage “Trust but verify” is absolutely foreign to the Fullerton City Council.

June 16, 2017Chronic Failure

Fullerton’s Most Expensive Park?

by David Curlee10 Comments

Just when you thought the Parks and Recreation Department might get their act together comes another gem on next week’s agenda. This time, it’s a $903,500 land purchase for a new park at 3001 Pearl Drive.

The vacant lot used to be home to a swimming pool and clubhouse for the adjacent apartment complexes, which the 33 property owners failed to maintain. Those same property owners now want the City to build a park contingent on the City forking over cash to buy the land.

So what is the land worth? $740,000 according to the appraiser, who notes that an “extraordinary assumption” to build high-density housing was used. Translation: The $740,000 estimate could be totally worthless and the appraiser admits it. Nothing more is divulged about the appraised value because Hugo Curiel only included two pages from the appraisal report. Page One and Page Two

And it gets worse. Hugo wants an additional 20 percent of the appraised value ($148,000) for an administrative settlement to be paid out to the property owners. Once again, Hugo fails to provide any sort of written justification for this:

The parcel is 0.398 acres in size. At that price, it is equivalent to $2.27 million per acre which is more than double the price Chevron is asking for Coyote Hills land. This would be the most expensive land ever purchased for a Fullerton park.

I have a question. Why should we pay the property owners a premium price when it was their own negligence that created this situation? In fact, why pay them anything at all, provided the City agrees to build a park?

Makes you wonder if the property owners are more interested in a cash payout for themselves, or a park for the neighborhood’s benefit.

June 16, 2017June 16, 2017Behind Closed Doors

The New Guy

by The Worm13 Comments

The highly-desired position of Fullerton City Manager has been awarded to one “Kenneth Domer,” currently assistant city manager down in Huntington Beach. Domer has also served in management roles in Placentia and Villa Park.

Mr. Domer’s total compensation will be on par with that of the former disgraced city manager, Joe Felz.

Managing the peaceful and serene hamlet of Fullerton is not for the weak-minded, as previous occupants of this lofty position ended up seeking answers in the bottom of a bottle. If former Council member Pat “I hired them all” McKinley labeled Joe Felz the “Albert Pujols of City Managers,” how can this new Flounder hope to succeed? Hopefully this flat fish of a City Manager will take full advantage of the soothing presence of Nicole “can do” Bernard.

May 24, 2017May 24, 2017Behind Closed Doors

The Parks & Rec Manipulation of Public Comments

by David Curlee45 Comments

Readers of this blog know good and well the many failures of the Pine Forest Stairs at Hillcrest Park, not to mention the $724,000 bridge to nowhere that will soon become reality.

What you probably don’t know about are the shenanigans used by City Hall to influence the City Council vote.

Funding for the bridge, fountain, and “Great Lawn” improvements was approved on a 3-2 vote (Whitaker and Sebourn: No) at the May 16 City Council meeting. A couple weeks earlier, I made a records request for documentation on Hillcrest Park.

Jennifer Fitzgerald’s appointee to the Parks and Recreation Commission, Gretchen Cox, made public comments in support of the project. Having skimmed through the e-mails provided by City Hall the day before, I thought to myself, wait a minute, portions of her comments sounded awfully familiar.

As it turns out, my suspicions were correct. A week prior, Parks & Recreation Director Hugo Curiel had one of his employees, Doug Pickard, e-mail Gretchen Cox a list of “talking points” to assist her in making attacks on Councilmembers Sebourn and Silva:

Portions of the e-mail were in fact used by Gretchen Cox during public comments. Let’s go back and compare the e-mail to what she actually said. This ought to be fun! (more…)

May 21, 2017A Step in the Right Direction

Can We Get A Refund For The Stairs?

by Mr. Peabody12 Comments

It happened pretty quickly, just like a UFO sighting, and just as rare: a Fullerton councilperson suggesting accountability. But here you see Greg Sebourn raising the embarrassing subject of the lamentable Hillcrest Park “stairs to nowhere.”

If you’ve been paying attention, you know very well by now that these rickety looking wooden “exercise” stairs are a $1.6 million waste, a genuine Fullerton-type boondoggle that nobody outside City Hall wanted; a mess compounded by what can only be called substandard materials, workmanship and incompetent oversight – and that’s being charitable.

No, Greg, we cannot get a refund and good luck finding anybody to second a motion to do a full and complete audit of this project to find out how and why the whole thing went sideways so badly.