Fullerton City Council Archives - Page 69 of 74 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

June 15, 2009June 15, 2009Dick Jones

Let Commonwealth Be Commonwealth

There are 154 small businesses along West Commonwealth in the 2 1/2 miles stretching from Euclid to Dale. Many are run by entrepreneurs who own their own property. This variety of small business owners is why City Staff is declaring it blighted in their attempt to hoodwink the council into including it into a new redevelopment area.

In response to County Counsel’s objections to the original blight findings, the staff report asserts that “these parcels if developed will need to be assembled with adjacent properties to create a sufficient development parcel. Because these parcels are in multiple ownerships it becomes more difficult the parcels into a desired development site.”

Huh?

These parcels already ARE developed into a variety of small businesses, ranging from coffee shops to body shops, from florists to machinists, from preschools to flight schools. Staff sees this as blight. The new RDA seeks to “assemble” (under threat of eminent domain) these parcels, clear out the small businesses to “create a sufficient development parcel” under one ownership. And that’s not good for Fullerton.

One Commonwealth business owner (Aeromark) has already opted out, fearing consolidation of his small parcel. Other owners, beware!

No, West Commonwealth is not Irvine. Some planners may dislike the very variety that makes it interesting. But there is an edgy realism there, of small hardworking people actually producing goods and services for their customers–not because of some government mandate. The report goes on to say “development proposals are not financially feasible because acquisition costs have increased over the years rendering in-fill projects to be infeasible in many cases without redevelopment assistance.”

Let Commonwealth be Commonwealth!

June 14, 2009December 30, 2009Dick Jones

New Blight Report: “Fullerton Airport Unsafe”

by admin10 Comments

fullerton-airport19945787_8d67ff580a — "Breaker breaker there 1-9...it's unsafe to land here, over"

Lawyers for the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency have a tough job in trying to defend the bogus blight findings that have been so effectively demolished by County Counsel Attorney James Harman and Friends for a Livable Fullerton‘s & FFFF Attorney Robert Ferguson.

They just came out with a weak 14 page response to the blight objections, in preparation for the scheduled hearing this Tuesday, June 16 (Item 14). If the council has any sense, they’d shelve this turkey project now.

"but we need the money" — but, we need the money

Imagine, Fullerton Council Members, some of whom have been in office since the 90s, spending public money to prove that blight in Fullerton is growing. Blight growing on their watch!

One Page 11 of the Agency’s response, the report reads “Significant improvements are needed at the airport and its vicinity, including safety upgrades. The airport is affected by the lack of safety upgrades…”

Huh?

Admitting that its own airport is unsafe opens the City to serious liability. And if it is true, upgrades should be paid for by internal airport revenues (leases, tie-down fees, etc.) Property tax increment shouldn’t pay for airport upgrades, any more than for municipal golf course improvements. The airport is setup as an enterprise fund—self supporting.

The report clearly asserts that Fullerton Municipal Airport is blighted—and dangerous. If true, who allowed this to happen? If the airport has to be subsidized by redevelopment, than perhaps it should be shut down and sold off.

On Page 12 of the report, the crack Agency legal minds write: “Sam’s Club—This store is completely surrounded by properties with at least one significant condition of physical blight.”

Well, tell that to the Home Depot, which is adjacent to Sam’s Club, and one of the City’s biggest retailers. The City’s biggest home improvement center is now a source of blight!

The report is so full of blanket and sweepingly false statements that is difficult to fathom the legal minds behind it. But, then, if the facts aren’t on your side, you have to make them up!

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 11, 2009January 12, 2010Big Brother

CITY SIGN CENSORS HIT EUCLID

by admin5 Comments

For as long as we can remember, community groups have hung banners on the fences at the corner of Euclid and Malvern. So, what’s up with the new “Do Not Post Banners on Fence” sign? Who put it there? And why?

The fence has long been used by youth sports teams, the Muckenthaler, the Farmers’ Market, local churches and cultural groups to publicize community events to passing motorists. Now they are being scolded with the “No Banners” warning.

As the fences are along a flood control channel, we suspected the County put the sign up. But according to a June 9 memo from OC Flood Control Director Nadeem Majaj, the fence is city-owned and the warning sign was installed by city staff.

Why? There is no record of this ever having been before the City Council. Is this a precursor to a banner ban at other similar locations? (Yorba Linda & State College, Gilbert & Malvern, etc.)

The council should order this sign removed. The “Do Not Post Banners on Fence” will continue to taunt motorists with the heavy hand of city government, denying community groups their long-held location for needed free publicity…. Until the council takes it down.

June 9, 2009December 30, 2009Chris Norby

Dick Ackerman’s Fatal Endorsement Record

by admin12 Comments

acermans-record-3613215222_c4b76a2759

If county bureaucrat Hieu Nguyen thinks Dick Ackerman can help his Clerk-Recorder campaign, he’d better think again. There is one word for Ackerman-backed city and county candidates: LOSERS.

Is it just bad luck? Or does Dick choose weak candidates he can control after they’re elected? The problem for him is that they don’t get elected!

Look at the record of Dick’s choices, dating back over a quarter-century:

1982: Ackerman backs insurance agent Jim Williams for Fullerton City Council. Williams loses to Molly McClanahan.
1984: Dick endorses realtor Merrill Braucht for the open council seat. Braucht loses to Chris Norby.
1988: Dick supports Dan Baker for an open council seat. Baker loses to Don Bankhead.
1992: Ackerman goes 0-for-2 in ’92. His hand-picked candidates Jim Blake and Jack Beddell place 5^th and 6^th.
1994: Ackerman vocally opposes the recall of Buck Catlin, Bankhead and McClanahan. That trio had rubber-stamped an unpopular new utility tax foisted by City Manager Jim Armstrong. The recall easily passes, all three leave office and the tax is repealed.
1996: Dick endorses fellow legislator Mickey Conroy for Third District Supervisor. Conroy loses his cool—and the election–when he flips his opponent the bird during a debate. Brea School Board Member Todd Spitzer wins handily.
2002: Like 1992, Dick goes 0-2 in 2002. He actively supports Supervisor Cynthia Coad’s re-election and is featured prominently in her mailers. Coad loses to Norby. Later that year he backs accountant Chuck Munson for Fullerton City Council. Munson is buried by Shawn Nelson.

To be fair, there is one current Council Member who was elected and thrice re-elected with Dick Ackerman’s support: Dick Jones.

June 8, 2009December 28, 2009Fullerton City Council

More Proof That The Redevelopment Expansion is Pure Baloney

by admin12 Comments

Just in case any objective person needed more evidence that the basis of the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency’s proposed land-grab is unadulterated hog wash, we share a letter from an individual whose property is currently within the proposed boundaries; and of course we include a copy of the response from the City.

In his letter to the Agency, longtime Fullerton resident and businessman Mr. Paul O’Neil of AEROMARK, provides a rather comprehensive indictment of the entire expansion process and its ultimate conclusion of “blight.” He concludes his letter with a request to have his property deleted from the project area. In response Agency Director Rob Zur Schmiede agrees that the property can be excluded because it is near the boundary, because it not necessary to further the goals of the project, and because Mr O’Neil wrote a letter!

Well, Mr. Zur Schmiede’s missive begs several pertinent questions that go to the very heart of the Agency’s competency and honesty in this whole matter. First, if the property in question is on the edge and not necessary, why was it included by the City’s “expert” consultant in the first place? Second, why does the fact that Mr. O’Neil wrote a letter asking to be removed have any bearing on the supposed “findings” necessary to include it? This response gives every indication of being nothing but a way to shut up potentially vocal opposition to the expansion by an obviously informed, and unhappy property owner. If the mere fact of “writing a letter” is a germane to exclusion of a property, then it seems like every single property owner ought to have the same right.

We also note that exclusion of Mr. O’Neil’s “edge” property from the project would simply create a new “edge” property right next door. At the very least that property’s owner should have the same opportunity as Mr. O’Neil to have his property deleted from the expansion – thus creating another edge property!

This whole process of Redevelopment expansion, including both analysis and notification, seems to have been undertaken in an incredibly haphazard way. Who can say whether this was intentional. Not us. But we have our suspicions – as do a growing number of affected businesses and property owners.

June 7, 2009March 1, 2011Fullerton City Council

Water, Water Everywhere…

by The Fullerton Harpoon9 Comments

The ‘ol H2O seems to be on a lot of people’s minds these days, and as ever more people wrangle over the available resource, why not?

This time of year the City of Fullerton addresses the issue of water rates it charges the users of this commodity as part of its budget voodoo. What many people fail to realize is that not only does this water revenue go to running the waterworks, per se, but that 10% of the gross revenue is siphoned off into the General Fund to pay for salaries and benefits of people who have nothing to do with the purchase and transmission of water. In the next two years the projected amount of liquid gold is projected to be over $5.3 million, a tidy sum, to be sure.

well don't just sit there, go get it — "There it is. Take it."

This little financial two-step is called the “in-lieu franchise fee” in which the City treats the water enterprise fund as if it were a separate utility – and milks it like a cash cow. Can anybody possibly believe that there is a direct and attributable cost to the City’s General Fund of $2.7 million a year to operate the waterworks?

What all of this means is that every time water rates are raised there is an indisputable raise in the amount transferred into the General Fund. Another apt term for this raise is a tax increase, pure and simple, disguised in this case by being included as part of a “fee.” Year after year the Fullerton City Council has embraced this cheapjack swindle, perhaps not caring that the water rate payers (including many businesses) are carrying a disproportionate tax burden. It’s enough for them that no taxes were seen to be raised.

Next time you cross paths with one of your councilmembers why not ask them why the water “in-lieu franchise fee” is so high, and ask them to justify it. If you get a cogent answer please let us know!

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 5, 2009Big Brother

This One Speaks For Itself

by admin7 Comments

June 1, 2009June 1, 2009Fullerton City Council

When the Going Gets Tough The City Raises Your Fees

by admin4 Comments

It is what it is — They tell us there's a bone in there somewhere.

Tonight the City has its first of two annual budget review special meetings. Have you ever known a government agency that proposed cutbacks during tough economic times? Of course not. And it really helps when you can incorporate “revenue enhancements” with out raising taxes. It’s called fee increases. And that’s what the Fullerton city staff is proposing:

OPERATING BUDGET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
Mayor opens public hearings for the proposed 2009-11 operating budget City and Redevelopment Agency Fee increases for the:

Parks and Recreation

Fire Department

Community Development

Engineering Department

(see page 5)

The department heads will stand up, hats in hand, and request that the City Council increase fees that the public has to pay for certain services. Did you really expect any of these people would suggest budget cuts for their departments?