Who’s Who In The Zoo

There's a lot more to me than meets the eye...
There's a lot more to me than meets the eye...and a lot less, too.

It’s always nice to know who is who. And when somebody gets up in public to opine on a subject, it’s particularly useful to know what relationship exists between the speaker and somebody – like a staff member, or a city council member- who is promoting a specific item on a public agency agenda.

While we are always promoting the importance of what is said rather than who said it, there’s no denying the fact that having people get up and speak, no matter how stupid or uniformed they are, helps sway councilmanic opinion; and when the council persons aren’t the brightest bulbs on the tree to begin with, it’s just that much more effective.

Here’s a story: somebody named Lee Chalker showed up at the hearing for the Redevelopment expansion hearing and spoke in favor of the expansion. She even got her name in a Barbara Giasone article on the subject here . Now, none of us had ever heard of Lee Chalker before despite her having lived in Fullerton for 35 years. We wonder if she really knew what she was talking about since her stated concerns about bad roads and drainage suggest current deficiencies in the Engineering Department rather than Redevelopment issues.

A little research on Lee Chalker reveals a member of a church called “University Praise” that is affiliated with an organization called OCCCO. What is that? The “Orange County Congregational Community Organization” – a group with a fairly nebulous remit, but that seems to organize its efforts around helping poor folks organize to get things from the government.

What’s really interesting about OCCCO is that in 2007 it was a major beneficiary of Pam Keller’s “Fullerton Collaborative.” In fact, the Collaborative forked over $25,600 to OCCCO for something called “community organizing.” Well, that makes sense, we suppose, since a “Community Organization” should have something to do with community organizing. What they did for the $26K is less important than the connection with Pam Keller herself, who was able to vote on the Redevelopment expansion only after City staff redrew the boundaries around a piece of property that Keller has some sort of interest in. And of course she voted in the affirmative.

We also note that in the Collaborative’s facebook page here we find that Chalker was being installed as a new board member in the Collaborative at just about the same time.

So did Collaborative Executive Director Pam Keller mobilize a gaggle of her pals in the Collaborative and/or the OCCCO to attend the meeting  and shill for the illegal Redevelopment expansion? Who knows? Sure looks like it.

The larger point here is to understand the interrelated nature of all sorts of groups in Fullerton who actually have a very small number of aggregate members, but who can be relied upon to show up periodically at hearings to promote some cause or other near and dear to the heart of some bureaucrat or councilmember. Their numbers give moral support to councilmembers who either lack conviction or are afraid of standing alone.

Is there anything wrong with this sort of mobilization of support? No. But when some of the members of these claques have financial interests at stake (which happens all the time, too) it gets a little dicey. People who want to understand what’s going on are well advised to figure out who these people are and why they are there. In the end it is the content of what they say that counts. But it’s fun to know who the players are. And if you happen to see a procession of people march to the podium to sing the praises of this or that project, you can bet that they were asked to be there. And you have to wonder: if applauders are dragooned into service to help promote some scheme or other, just how good or necessary is it really?

Need a program to tell the players? We’re working on it.

Jones and Mayer Lose Another One for Fullerton

jones-and-mayer

Our city attorney just lost what is hopefully the final round in Fullerton’s red light camera case. A superior court judge denied the city’s request to re-hear the appeal of People vs. Franco, which was originally lost when the city attorney failed to show up at court last.

If you’ve been following along, you know that the red light cameras were a disaster from the very beginning. Fullerton’s contracted city attorney at Jones and Mayer allowed our city council to sign an obviously illegal contract for red light cameras to be installed throughout Fullerton. Thousands upon thousands of illegal tickets were given out until one recipient finally stood up and challenged the contract in court.  Last year a judge found that Fullerton’s deal with the bankrupt Nestor Traffic Systems illegally gave the operator an incentive to boost ticket issuance by the cameras.

The most painful part of this story is that we kept getting those expensive legal bills throughout the entire red light camera circus, all the while being encouraged to continue fighting for this lost cause.

Someone close to this case wrote in to suggest that the city should sue Jones & Mayer for malpractice. If that’s an option, we certainly won’t hear about it from Richard D. Jones himself. How much longer will Fullerton pay for this bad advice? Will anyone be held accountable for this series of screw-ups? When was the last time that our contract with J&M was reviewed? It’s time for the council to admit that they were led astray and publicly address these issues with our city attorney.

County Deploys Certified Helmet Fitters

helmet-fitting
Clearly this is a job for professionals

There’s an item on tonight’s council agenda that highlights the ridiculous overhead that government do-gooders can add to otherwise trivial tasks. In this case, the Orange County Health Care Agency wants to give out 300 helmets to poor kids in Fullerton. Sounds like a simple task, right? Buy 300 helmets and give them out, hoping that kids will smash their melons a bit less frequently.

But that’s not how government operates – in this case, the county hires Helmet Fitting trainers to train Helmet Fitters to fit helmets on juvenile fittee’s. Before that can happen, Helmet Fitter trainee’s must be Helmet Fitter certified, presumably by some kind of Helmet Fitting certification authority.

But we can’t have certified Helmet Fitters running around without releasing the city from Helmet Fitting risk. And we can’t have Helmet Fitters fitting helmets without filling out a Helmet Consent Form. In case you think I’m making this up, here is the text from the grant request:

This grant provides 300 helmets for distribution to low income children under age 18 living in Fullerton. Parks and Recreation staff and volunteers will be trained and certified as Helmet Fitters by the County of Orange Health Care Agency. Prior to receiving a helmet, each recipient and/or parent of recipient will receive helmet safety education by the certified Helmet Fitter, complete the Voluntary Release Assumption of Risk and Indemnity Agreement form and the Helmet Consent Form

This obvious make-work project would be comical if it wasn’t a complete waste of city and county resources. If this task must be done, please give the helmets to some non-profit who can tackle it without all of the overhead.

Ironic Twist to “Euclid Commons”; City Wants To Make A Deal With Disabled Housing Foe

2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

Property: 626 & 700 S. Euclid Street
Agency Negotiator: Rob Zur Schmiede
Negotiating Parties: Paul Kott, Pierre J. Nicolas Trust
Under Negotiations: Price and terms

Affordable housing, like politics apparently makes for strange bedfellows. Take the case of Euclid Commons, a proposed affordable housing site that the City wants to buy. The agent for the owner is none other than Paul Kott, an Anaheim realtor and apparently a giant NIMBY, to boot.

About three years ago the City of Anaheim proposed a housing development for disabled folks near Kott’s offices on Lincoln Avenue, a pretty worthy goal you would think. But guess who marshaled neighborhood opposition that caused the city council back down? That’s right, Paul Kott.

Money does funny things to people...
Money does funny things to people...

Lest anyone think we make this stuff up, we thoughtfully provide a link to the LA Times article from 2006, here.

And speaking of money, here’s the money quote:

“Residents of the neighborhood, called Westmont, said a letter from real estate agent Paul Kott alerted them to the city’s plans for the vacant lot at Wilshire Avenue and Pearl Street. Kott, whose office is a few hundred yards from the site, wrote in his letter that “parolees, child molesters and mentally ill” could soon live nearby.”

Hey, Fullerton CC, nice guys you want to do business with!

Euclid Commons: What Is It?

What'll it be? Fish or fowl?
What'll it be? Fish or fowl?

Yesterday we ran a post on the duplicitous way the City started the ball rolling behind closed doors on a big housing project that promises CEQA impacts on its neighbors. In fact decisions are already being taken that should have been done under the illumination of a public hearing.

The project even has a name, “Euclid Commons” that makes us wish to make a quick pit stop at the West Harbor Alley Improvement Project vomitorium. A couple of comments provided descriptions of what was being proposed that seemed to differ considerably and so we provide la tabula rasa for our Friends to chime in and see if any clarifications are forthcoming.

The issue of starting negotiations is being addressed tonight (Aug 4th) behind closed doors since the public can’t be trusted to even know that a project is now officially (if secretly) sanctioned by the City Council. There will be “reporting out” but no public comment. Really, what have they got to hide?

HEY WHAT’S WITH ALL THE SECRECY; THIS IS A DEMOCRACY, RIGHT?

closed doorsclosed doorscloseddoorclosed doors

Here’s an item on tomorrow’s agenda to be addressed by the City Council behind closed doors:


2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

Property: 626 & 700 S. Euclid Street
Agency Negotiator: Rob Zur Schmiede
Negotiating Parties: Paul Kott, Pierre J. Nicolas Trust
Under Negotiations: Price and terms

Why is the Redevelopment Agency negotiating to buy this property?
This is a big deal. Where's the public hearing?

Let’s get this straight. The Redevelopment staff (aka Rob Zur Schmiede) is asking for council permission to begin negotiations for a huge piece of property off Euclid, presumably to build low income housing. He’s trying to do it behind closed doors under the cover of the “closed session” where he can get the ball rolling on a project that has NEVER been authorized by anybody. The key phrase here is “price and terms” which justifies the secrecy but that in reality is being used as a fig leaf to hide the fact that the council is giving tacit approval to a project that has never been offically authorized by them, in public – even in concept. In fact the very nature of the request is the first in what will be a long series of incremental approvals. In fact, this process is called incrementalization for that very reason.

Well, WE object to these shennanigans even though it happens all the time.  Authorization to negotiate price and terms is premature, and at this juncture issues that are not covered by under Brown Act exclusions are already occuring. What is involved is a secret commencement of the process that will lead to land use entitlements and rezoning. This is wrong, wrong wrong. This is obviously going to be a major project with major policy and CEQA implications.

The City Council should agendize this issue for a public hearing immediately with proper notification to all the neighbors. If they choose to go ahead with this (likely monstrosity), THEN they can schedule their “price and terms” meeting in the cozy confines of the backroom!

Team Cuts; What Are Your Team’s Priorities?

Former Mayor Clesceri walk & talk at Chambers State of City Luncheon
Former Mayor Clesceri does a walk & talk at a Chamber of Commerce/State of City Luncheon, of course sponsored by the City of Fullerton

What associations and organizations does the City of Fullerton support financially that should be cut before cutting a librarian, a police officer or a life guard? How much money does the city spend every year on contracts with lobbyists?

one for you, the rest for me
one for you, the rest for me

Isn’t it time to examine some of these relationships and analyze their effectiveness?


When is “No” better than “Yes”?

Hopefully, saying “yes” to something means you understand what you are saying yes to. How many times have we said “yes” when we really have no idea what the results of  that “yes” really meant? Hopefully not many.

How many times has our city council said “yes” when they really had no idea what they were saying “yes” to.

ac1-300x217
Fullerton or Toontown?

When is “No” better than “Yes”? Always, when you don’t know what you are talking about.

fox-missing-slide-500x324
How to kill a Fox

When is it too late to be smart? Never.

Remember, it’s never too late to be smart. Just say “no” when you are not 100% sure about the results of what you are saying “yes” to.

Urban Futures has no idea of Fullertons Future
Urban Futures has no idea about Fullerton's Future
Voting “yes” may comfort insecure or uninformed politicians, but it inevitably leads to disaster.

City Council Left in Dark Over Fate of Park; Say, Who In Hell Elected That Guy, Anyway?

While watching the youtube clip of David Espinosa tee off on the Union Pacific Park and the comment by City Manager Chris Meyer that the park was being shut down, we got to thinking. The Mayor was clearly not told by anybody that the park was being closed down – observe the standard “we’ll fix it, thanks, move along” comment by Bankhead followed by Meyer’s explanation.

Meyer went on to say that the problem of what to do with this “park” was being passed to the Community Services Commission for ponderment.

And we say: who in Hell gave Chris Meyer the authority to shut down a public park? Why wasn’t the Council asked to make this decision and how come they were never even told about it before the apparent revelation at the council meeting? Who gave Meyer the authority to assign this problem to anybody, let alone a lower committee without even informing the Council of his plans? Why wasn’t this issue agendized and discussed, in public, by the City Council?

These are mostly rhetorical questions, of course. The City’s staff wants to sweep this acute embarrassment under the municipal rug and the only way to do that is not to tell anybody. Even their bosses.

meyersIt also makes us wonder how much else in Fullerton has being undertaken by the City Manager on his own hook. It’s one thing to execute policy laid down by elected officials; it’s quite another thing to start taking on major policy decisions, and worse still, not tell anybody. Unfortunately this situation is symptomatic of two long-standing problems in Fullerton, two problems that fit together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.

First is the perfect willingness of our elected city council persons to abdicate their own policy-making responsibility and simply show up for the meetings, the Rotary lunches, the Chamber mixers, and the ribbon cuttings; second is the perfect willingness of the city managers to step into the authority void and run the show any damn way they please. It’s a perverse symbiosis.

This has got to stop. The results have been amply catalogued on the pages of this blog. And they aren’t very pretty.

Victory for Outdoor Music in Downtown

we play for food and drinks
If you don't like our sound you don't have to listen

On Tuesday night, July 7, 2009 the Fullerton City Council finally concluded the issue of Live Outdoor Amplified Noise.  With a 4-1 vote (Pam Keller in opposition for some reason), council members decided that our current sound ordinance will suffice, moving forward into the future. Currently, acoustic music is allowed outside and louder live amplified music is not.  Jones, Bankhead, Quirk and Nelson all voting that the outdoor use of acoustical instrumentation (without amplification) is A-OK, but the use of louder live amplified noise on downtown private  patios on a regular basis is not the best thing for Downtown Fullerton.

It was stated in the sound study that was produced for the city at a cost of $16K that it is very unusual for cities to allow loud live amplified music outdoors on a regular basis. This obviously doesn’t include special events which are permitted under the current city code.  It’s so unheard of that only 3 cities in the whole country where cited as allowing some kind of routine outdoor noise, 2 of them out-of-state. The vast majority of cities allow acoustic (non-amplified) music outdoors while the loud music belongs inside. What a great idea!

We do our best work indoors...
We do our best work indoors...

Cheers for the Council for making a wise decision and preserving the peace in Downtown!

Cheers for the Council for having the foresight to see that over the long run this will encourage positive development in the downtown and promote a healthy business climate for all types of diverse shops and residential dwellings to thrive in downtown.

If you think about it, some types of music just aren’t conducive to being peace and quiet, yet others are. So by sticking with the current ordinance, acoustic music like folk, jazz and blues are encouraged outside while the louder harder stuff is only allowed indoors.

Makes great sense—Good job City Council!