Update: a well-informed reader pointed has out that 7/7/26 was removed from the calendar in December 2025 because staff determined it was too close to Independence Day.
I have no idea why it wasn’t so designated on the CC’s schedule found on the City website – until this afternoon.
This does beg the question as to why the meeting wasn’t rescheduled as an official hearing to make determinations regarding the budget and find out the status of the search for a new money-raising consultant. There seems to be almost no sense of urgency about the fact that the City still doesn’t have a budget for this fiscal year.
I decided to watch the afternoon Fullerton City Council session about hiring a new trash hauler, yesterday. When it came time for questions directed to staff I learned a few things.
First, I realized the extent to which Ahmad Zahra blames one individual – Tony Bushala – for every thing he, Zahra, doesn’t like. And it’s got to the point where anything attributable to Bushala is something he, Zahra, doesn’t like. Even when the attribution is based on his own baseless paranoia and suspicion and egomania. It’s embarrassing.
That’s a mighty fine thing you did, Anthony…
This accounts for his outbursts yesterday to staff and special council about the origins of the upfront payment to the City by a couple of RFP respondents, EDCO and Republic. As noted here, the idea was mentioned by Mr. Bushala several months ago at a Budget Sustainability Committee meeting and that was it. There is no demonstrable tie between that brief occurrence and any of the trash haulers, except in the febrile brain of the dodgy “doctor” from Damascus. Nada. It was never mention in the first round of RFP submissions.
When Zahra couldn’t get staff or the lawyers to agree with him and condemn the notion of a big initial payment he became agitated and began a completely unprofessional diatribe.
It was good stuff for the handful of his Fullerton Crazy claque in attendance who also faithfully believe any nonsense peddled by Zahra and who remain completely incurious about Zahra’s own string of malfeasances starting with immigration and marriage fraud to get into the country.
I am gratified to know that Zahra is a reader of this blog. It’s really too bad he can’t learn anything from it. He is not the least bit opposed to hidden taxes, per se; quite the contrary. However what he and his pals really love is an officially adopted tax, out in the open, when the community proves it is worthy of the higher paid city government that the new revenue buys.
Of course it didn’t seem to occur to Zahra that his admission about the FFFF post undermined his conspiracy theory that Bushala was somehow, somewhere tied to the new proposals by EDCO and Republic.
I observe that a third proposal, by CR&R offered four million bucks, upfront for street repair. This appeared to be seen as some sort of a philanthropic gift. It was seen as such by Councilman Nicholas Dunlap. This is naiveté or dumbness. Nobody works for free, and the cost of that four mil is obviously wrapped up in CR&Rs rate structure that would obviously be lower without their apparent upfront largesse.
The City’s special council mentioned that a lawsuit described as a precedent by opponents of the upfront payment idea was not really precedent since the matter was returned to a lower appeals court where the matter was settled without adjudication. According to this chap an upfront deal repayment would have to be legally justified based on the value of the franchise and that would be his job. I’m confused by this since the proposals by EDCO and Republic do not involve in-lieu franchise fees at all, but rather describe one-time monetary payments, exclusive of the in-lieu fee. This needs clarification.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
Yes, indeed. In an editorial masquerading as some sort of news, Fullerton Observer sister Sikita Kennedy explained the failure of government and the ways in which that failure is dressed up to look like victory. This article appears to be an AI generated creation since the estimable Satskia has never shown this sort of perspicuity in the past, but, whatever. After you weed out the jargon some fundamental management truths emerge.
The topic of course is something almost nobody gives a rat’s ass about: getting rid of bike lockers at the train station, the reason given that they are underused. The awkward title shouts out “Fullerton’s Bicycle Lockers Spark Controversy Among Cyclists” as if an inanimate object has such puissance. Naturally, it’s the removal of said lockers that is causing Siska herself grief; not a solitary cyclist is interviewed or quoted in her essay.
But I digress. The topic is inconsequential, but the analysis of failure is quite remarkable and completely uncharacteristic. Kennedy seems to have finally discovered the cultural behavior of government bureaucracies that we have known all along. Let’s enjoy some of the fruits of her editorial labors:
Organizations in crisis rarely announce themselves as such.More often, they produce charts, reports, and performance metrics that tell a reassuring story — one that, on closer inspection, was shaped by the same decisions it purports to evaluate. This is one of the quieter dangers of institutional mismanagement: it doesn’t just damage an organization, it can generate the evidence that justifies its own continuation.
How perfectly true, and so descriptive of almost every staff and study report ever produced in Fullerton. The classic dodge is to answer a question that nobody asked.
“…a dispute over bicycle lockers is offering a textbook example of how low performance, manufactured by neglect, gets cited as the reason to eliminate the very thing being neglected.
Yes, indeed. Sort of sounds like the death-march noise ordinance fiasco, doesn’t it, wherein City failure to enforce codes results in the push to abandon the process of code enforcement altogether.
When managers make poor decisions, they typically face two options: change course or defend the course they’re on. Defense, in institutional settings, almost always involves data. The problem is that those same managers often control what data gets collected, how it gets measured, and how it gets reported.
Good Lord, Satkia, has had her come to Jesus revelation! The truth may yet set her free! How often have we seen a circling of the wagons, the manipulation of information to reinforce the error? Mostly data collection, crooked or otherwise, isn’t even necessary. Convoluted rhetoric often does the trick. Option number one never takes place.
A leader who has misallocated resources will tend to measure success in ways that don’t reveal the misallocation. A department head who has pursued the wrong strategy will frame performance indicators around the metrics where progress is easiest to show. Over time, the organization’s entire information infrastructure bends toward confirming decisions already made.
This is something we’ve seen time and time again. Throw out the jargon and it means this: “look over there.” The misdirection is so common as to be commonplace. This is what will happen when the City’s disastrous “fire fighter” ambulance driver chickens come home to the proverbial roost.
This is the classic mismanagement data trap: measuring outputs rather than outcomes, and then using those outputs to validate the decisions that produced them.
Amen, Sister, testify!
The “data trap” of measuring outputs was nowhere better seen than on the horrendously useless Trail to Nowhere, where the efforts were all about building something expensive and then patting yourself on the back for…building something expensive. But that wasn’t about a few piddling bike lockers, no, but the waste of $2,500,000, an irony lost on the Fullerton Observer editorial staff of two. The Observer Sisters will never expend a moment’s time worrying about actual users (or complete lack of same) on the “trail.”
One of the most common tools in this playbook is selective periodization — choosing a start date for measurement that makes current numbers look favorable by comparison. Applied to civic infrastructure, this often means measuring usage after a program has already been allowed to deteriorate, rather than tracking the arc from functional to neglected.
How funny. Siskia has had her epiphany, alright, but it sure is a selective enlightenment. Remember when staff tried to keep the ridiculous Waste on Wilshire going by citing low traffic on Wilshire after the street had been closed!
Organizations under poor leadership often commission external reviews that appear to provide independent accountability but are structured to confirm decisions already made. The questions given to reviewers shape the findings, and the questions come from the people who need favorable findings. The result carries the authority of objectivity while functioning as a mirror.
Let’s consider the very recent Grant Thornton report whose results were meant to cauterize a huge embarrassment without naming a single culprit or a single systemic failure. No outcries from the Observers, of course.
Cities do this too — with traffic studies, usage audits, and infrastructure assessments that are framed around the conclusion leadership has already reached. Whether that’s what’s happening with Fullerton’s active transportation data is a question advocates would do well to press publicly.
They sure do, Sitka. Who are you supposed to believe, your commonsense or the experts we have hired to back us up? Ahem, remember the “experts” hired to produce pro tax findings, pro development findings, pro this or pro that findings? In fact data supporting everything that the City Manager who hired them wants. The latest examples is that “traffic study” for the overbuilt Harbor/Hermosa project that will never in a million years stop the project as designed, from being built.
The antidote to data shaped by mismanagement is not more data — it’s differently sourced data, with different incentive structures attached to it. Independent audits are conducted by parties with no relationship to the decisions being evaluated. Performance metrics set before interventions begin, not after. Usage data is examined in the context of program accessibility, not in isolation.
Great Caesar’s Ghost! What a splendid statement of objective accountability and something that should be happening, at least occasionally, and not on some silly bike lockers, but on real issues where millions are spent, from hiring ambulance drivers to deciding if anybody is now going to use a new but previously failed park; on weather there is a chance in hell that anybody would patronize a “boutique” hotel at the Transportation Center.
There is a vast irony in the Observer’s new-found demand for objective standards to promote accountability – exactly the thing government employees dread. See, it’s the squalid world of professional management, and such accountability is not to be applied to government bureaucrats who are made of a finer material. They are working for us, see, and have a noble calling not to be subjected to accountability.
And it’s deliciously ironic that the new Observer spirit has been discovered due to some footling bike lockers, and not the decades long history of Fullerton disasters that nobody but FFFF has chronicled.
Might Sciatica Kennedy’s observations and suggestions be applied to future Fullerton mishaps? Bet not. But let’s enjoy them while we can.
Why did this go away? I don’t know, but I suspect that three councilmembers who voted for it lost interest or maybe decided it wasn’t worth the trouble, political or otherwise.
“Dr.” Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles stirred up his usual claque to clamor against it, citing Fred Jung’s vaulting ambition, but failing to explain how, exactly, a charter would deliver an evil outcome.
I think it’s time to resurrect this idea, even though no one seems to want to chat about it. A lot of good could come from it. Despite the cries of horror from the Kennedy Sisters and their ilk, a new municipal organization could be created, with a strong, city-wide elected Mayor holding executive power and the accountability for it.
The “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” argument now seems absurd. The City is a breaking mess. The infrastructure is a disgrace and the finances seem to have been handed over to cluster of chimps. Things are not working. One only has to look at the budget disaster and the basic accounting errors to know it. Who knows what the proverbial “deep dive” into Fullerton’s personnel, purchasing, asset management and risk management might reveal?
When things don’t work, and haven’t worked for a long, time it sure looks a lot like an invitation to change.
But change is hard for everyone, especially when lots of people are involved in the making of it.
Back in the 1950s there was a TV show called “Queen for a Day.” Typical American women got to compete for the stupid title and probably won some housewife-drudgery prize like a washing machine or a vacuum cleaner.
The booby prize…
“Dr.” Ahmad Zahra got a similarly useless tile the other day, when a dozen Council irritants selected him as “The People’s Mayor.” Except that Zahra didn’t even get a useful home appliance. Instead he got a Fullerton Crazy diploma in a plastic frame.
Last week “the People” held their own meeting in front of City Hall since the Fullerton City Council meeting had been cancelled for lack of a quorum.
Who were “the People?” Nobody was saying before the event, except that the organizers were springing for limited pizza.
The turnout, predictably, was a couple dozen of the usual agitators at City Council meetings – a combination of Fullerton Boohoo, Fullerton Self-righteous, Fullerton Angry and Fullerton Nuts.
The ostensible theme of the get together was to bitch about the usual stuff, including transparency, which was funny because Sanka Kennedy of the Fullerton Observer who advertised this event, didn’t even bother to say who was putting on what turned out to be an overtly political event, whose principal purpose was to attack Mayor Fred Jung and promote Connor Traut in advance of the upcoming Supervisorial primary election.
It turns out the shindig was the work of Fullerton Forward, a political action committee cooked by council annoyance Steven Sherry, one of those underemployed political cling-ons looking to make his way in a cold, cruel political world. He was the one who sprang for the dozen pizzas, apparently.
O, the sparkling rhetoric from Crazy Air-punching Tim Johnson. Little Angry Bird, Dancing Ms. Green Card, Professor Curtis Gamble, Tender Young Elijah, Oliver the No-account of Montecristo, and other luminaries! Stika Kennedy, erstwhile “journalist” addressed the gaggle, too, showing again her failure to distinguish journalism from partisan politics.
The booby prize…
Then, at last, to the mawkish business of “appointing” the “People’s Mayor.” Angry Johnson had already prepared certificate of accomplishment for the Dodgy Doctor from Damascus, Ahmad Zahra! What a surprise!!
The People’s Mayor contemplating his political future…and then free pizza for dinner!
The entire affair was an unwitting foray into comic opera, so at least some entertainment value was produced.
Questions about whether such an overtly political event on public property is legal and whether Fullerton Forward had permits or insurance to put on this affair are being raised by concerned citizens (see what I did there, Observers?).
Now, finally in his last year of public preening and pontificating on our dime, Fullerton Councilmember Ahmad Zahra deserves an appropriate retrospective from FFFF. And this backwards look is colored by Zahra’s own continual critique of his colleagues for their lack of transparency. His claque, in particular the lonely old Kennedy Sisters of the Fullerton Observer, are willing to pass along these accusations without a shred of curiosity about their own hero.
Transparency.
Mug shot of the one-time Mrs. Ahmad Zahra.
Back in mid 1990s the immigrant Zahra came to America with a dream in his heart. That dream was stay here. To that end he quickly married a woman in Arkansas named Michelle Salmon in order to jump the green card line. In Zahra’s case the marriage fraud takes on a pungent charm since Zahra is proudly gay and has said in print that he has always known he was gay.
The newly minted husband left right away for the sunshine and beaches of California, leaving his unheartbroken and probably a little wealthier bride in Little Rock. When the statutory time obligation passed he divorced his abandoned wife, and here he remained. Zahra has never bothered to share his brief sojourn in Arkansas in any of various biographies, and why would he? That would be transparent.
Zahra claims he is a medical doctor although he certainly didn’t attend any medical school in the First World. Maybe in the Third World? There is no record of his practicing medicine anywhere, and he has never even bothered to share his medical school diploma. That would be transparent.
Sometime in the 2000s he says, Zahra, claiming to be a “film maker,” washed up on Fullerton’s shores. Zahra still claims film making as his job, even though no one can find any recent cinematic work to his credit. How he makes ends meet is a mystery and the wherewithal for his trips abroad (he says they are) is a matter of conjecture. Zahra never explains where he gets his income. It certainly isn’t from making movies. The public has the right to know how he supports himself. That would be transparent.
Not the people’s choice…
Zahra’s first action on the City Council was a cheap flip-flop that you never read about in the Observer. Despite his call for an election to replace Jesus Quirk Silva’s citywide seat, he soon voted to disenfranchise Fullerton voters and appoint the old retread Jan Flory; in return he got a great paying seat on the Orange County Water District Board where he pulled in $70,000 over a couple years. Zahra never talks about his decision reversal, nor do his followers. That would be transparent.
While on the Water Board, Zahra published three articles under his own name in the Fullerton Observer about water-related issues. It was later discovered that the articles weren’t written by Zahra at all, but rather by an OCWD PR hack. Zahra didn’t care and neither did the Observer Sisters, who tried to explain the plagiarism as some sort of amateur error by somebody, probably Jesse Latour. Transparency?
Read. Weep.
In the middle of Zahra’s first term on the City Council, he was busted and charged by the District Attorney for battery and vandalism. The case vanished as happens when somebody pleads guilty, pays a fine and does some community service. That gave Zahra the chance to falsely claim that he had been “exonerated” and offered to show evidence of that claim. But he never did. That would be transparent.
Not looking so good…
Zahra has been a cheerleader for legalized marijuana dispensaries in Fullerton. He had recommended the services of the later-convicted dope lobbyist Melahat Rafiei. He appointed Derek Smith, an MJ union lobbyist and peripheral character in the Anaheim Cabal crew to be his representative on the Budget Sustainability Committee. Zahra has never revealed his ties to the legalized marijuana cartel and what was in it for him. That would be transparent.
Ferguson and Curlee. The easy winners…
In Zahra’s worst offense against the people of Fullerton, he voted over and over again to sue David Curlee, Joshua Ferguson and FFFF. That flagrant abuse of power cost the public hundreds of thousands of dollars in a settlement. Zahra was aided and abetted by the Fullerton Observer’s Sharon Kennedy who actually employed an “expert” family member to assist City Hall’s reckless lawsuit. Zahra lied to the Voice of OC, claiming he was a “fan” of settling the lawsuit from the beginning, even though he voted against the final settlement. No explanation for this disaster was ever forthcoming from Zahra or his accomplice, Sharon Kennedy. That would be transparent.
In 2021 Zahra tried to privatize the UP Park and turn it into a commercial events center masquerading as a non-profit fish farm. The move was illegal as hell, but none of his friends cared so why should he? Zahra never reminds anyone of that harebrained scheme, but loves to talk about how his district is park poor. Transparency?
Tony Castro. Staying out of jail long enough to be of use to the Democrat Party of OC.
In his 2022 reelection campaign, Zahra spent $120,000 to keep a job that pays a thousand bucks a month. Part of this campaign involved the Democratic Party’s creation of a patsy candidate with a shady past but with a Latino name, Tony Castro, to beat his real opponent, Oscar Valadez. How much did Zahra know about this phony candidacy? Come to think of it, how much did Zahra know about the perjury of another fake candidate in 2024, Scott Markowitz, recruited by north county Dems in order to elect Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo. Once again Sharon Kennedy of the Observer not only ignored the story but ran interference. More transparency.
In October of 2021 Zahra filed a false police report against his colleague, Fred Jung. The cops interviewed other councilmembers who denied Zahra’s tall tale. End of story. Except that the story has never been reported by Zahra’s Observer friends and of course never discussed by Zahra. That would be transparent.
Zahra’s campaign finance reporting has been the subject of an FPPC investigation. First reported in August of 2025, it still seems not to have been resolved. A credit card payee, not vendors was routinely reported, leaving an unclear record of who was the beneficiary of these payments, payments that might have benefitted Zahra personally. Zahra has said nothing about this complaint. His friends at the Observer don’t seem interested, either. So why would he? That would be transparent.
That’s quite a list of misfeasance and malfeasance. Transparency? Not so much. Zahra has had the good fortune of having bamboozled the simpletons at the Fullerton Observer. And he has groomed a stable of eager young fellows who appear to be interested in political upward mobility and are happy to parrot the transparency schtick. To these followers and acolytes there is no reason to delve into their hero’s own extensive catalog of lies, secrets, hypocrisy and plagiarism.
On Tuesday the Fullerton City Council voted 3-2 to expand the finalists for the trash hauling contract from three to six. Staff had recommended solely negotiating with EDCO of Signal Hill and points south, even though the difference in scoring between the top three was de minimis, as they say. As a back-up recommendation staff requested the City work with the top three as finalists.
Councilmembers Jung, Valencia, and Dunlap voted to include three more for continued negotiations, including Valley Vista, and our current hauler, the giant Republic Services. For Mayor Jung the critical qualification was cost. Naturally, the obstructionists “Dr.” Zahra and the absent Shana Charles voted no.
Included in the “supplemental agenda” materials were an email to the Council and a written statement from Mr. Jeffrey Otter, Treasurer for the Craig Park East Homeowners Association, and a professional engineer, to boot. Mr. Otter gives his take that the process pursued by the City has inherent risk, legally, cost-wise, and in terms of negotiating weakness.
Otter goes into more detail in a written statement presented to the Council wherein he repeats his email conclusions and requests an independent “Cost of Service Analysis” to identify rate correction factors across various types of properties; in other words comparing oranges and oranges. His own analysis identifies the most overall cost-effective firms: Valley Vista, NASA and EDCO. He thoughtfully provides his own backup materials and data. Of course his diligent efforts will get him nowhere.
Otter also identifies an interesting fact. EDCO’s Marketing Director is a person named Duron. Apparently Fullerton’s Solid Waste and Recycling Specialist is a woman named Michelle Anna Duron. Is this just a curious coincidence or a possible familial conflict of interest? When asked who was on the evaluation committee the Stephen Bise, the City Engineer identified himself, Richard Armendariz, Assistant Director of Public Works Maintenance; Jerome Joaquin, Public Works Administrative Manager; Olivia Martinez, Environmental Services Coordinator; and Kim Chaudry, Senior Management Analyst. No Duron, although Michelle Anne Duron’s contribution to the overall process no doubt have provided influence.
I can’t find a Duron on ECDO’s dismal website, but Octavio Duran is identified in the EDCO proposal thus: Mr. Octavio Duran, Director of Market Development, has 15 years of EDCO industry experience and will oversee direct engagement with the City of Fullerton. His primary office is in Signal Hill. Mr. Duran will spend approximately 30% of his time on the transition and 25% on an ongoing basis.
So go figure.
In defeat, malice…
Anyhow the dance is far from over. Valley View has incurred the wrath of Fullerton Boohoo because they contributed to the Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform PAC who torpedoed the odious Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo in the 2024 election, an act that should bestow honor rather than opprobrium.
Marvelously, Zahra and Charles seem to think that Valley Vista’s political involvement should disqualify Jamie Valencia from participating in the process because the PAC caused her election, even though they didn’t give Valencia a nickel – a species of childing logic not worthy of an adult. I note in passing that Charles got $4000 from the cannabis workers union PAC in 2024 and wonder if that disqualifies her to vote on pot issues.
No, of course not. The truth is not in him. If it were he would have explained how he, the first gay Muslim in America married a local woman in Arkansas to jump the Green Card line.
Not asking real questions is a great way to avoid getting real answers…
The Damascus Dodger is featured in a three part interview with Stiskia Kennedy in the Fullerton Observer. It’s an opportunity for the Kennedy Sisters to give the scam artist another of their tongue baths and to avoid anything that resembles the truth about Zahra and his career, a career that resembles a jailbreak more than anything else.
“In a recent discussion, I spoke with Fullerton City Council Member Ahmad Zahra about his role and responsibilities. We engaged in a Q&A session that delved into the challenges and rewards of serving the community at the municipal level. “
Bushala says stop!
First Satkia wants to know how to stand up to influential donors. Suddenly Tony Bushala’s unseen presence fills the room. Zahra’s response? He lies of course. Naturally, Zahra is a profile in courage, standing up to the “special interests” over whom he prevailed in his two elections. This demanded his “wisdom and thick skin.” This history is false, of course. Nobody knew who he was in 2018 and he slipped in past a couple others; naturally he ignores the facts of his 2022 run when his victory was not won on any issues, but by spending $120,000. And then there was his recruitment of Tony Castro, the dummy Latino candidate who the OC Dems set up to take votes away from Oscar Valadez. Oops.
Stikia follows up with campaign finance. Zahra complains about political action committees and the poor plight of the “community-focused” candidate (presumably just like him). No questions are asked or answered about Zahra’s big campaign donors, just as the Kennedy Sisters never bothered to ask who gave money to Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo in 2024, and what they hoped to get out of it. The cannabis workers’ PAC gave $60,000 to help Cannabis Kitty, but that’s not the sort of mean, nasty PAC Zahra has in mind.
Malo, indeed…
Zahra says his opponents spent more than he did and he still won in 2022. That’s a lie, too, but he knows the Sisters won’t check him on it. Dredging up another Fullerton Boohoo gripe about Mr. Bushala, Zahra bemoans the fact that donations can be returned so that councilmembers can vote on the donor’s project. This is reference to Councilwoman Jamie Valencia’s return of money to Bushala before the vote on the stupid Walk on Wilshire in which Bushala had no legal interest. That return wasn’t even necessary per state law so why is this a problem?
What, me lie?
Staksia’s last question is about ranked choice voting about which her interlocutor knows nothing and doesn’t care. He wants to curb “unethical practices” by PACs, saying nothing about the fraudulent candidates Tony Castro and Scott Markowitz whom his party set up so their pals like Zahra and Jaramillo could get elected in Fullerton. And that betrays Zahra’s true feelings about the community he pretends to love so much.
Fullerton may be on the verge of financial crisis, but let it not be said that creative ways for its employees to stay busy aren’t possible, if you can find “other peoples’ money” to do it. We’ve seen it in spades on the ridiculous Trail to Nowhere, built mostly with money from an unaccountable and irresponsible State agency whose only observable job is to give away money with no answers to questions even checked for truthfulness.
The next silly project in line comes to us courtesy of the State Legislature, again, in the form of AB 1572 that mandates that “non-functional” turf can’t be watered with potable water. Municipalities are first on the hit list, and that includes the formal lawn in front of City Hall. The item is on tomorrows Council meeting agenda.
The City can declare that the City Hall lawn is functional and walk away. Oh, but that won’t do! We have to get rid of the grass and replace it with drought resistant plantings of some sort or other. This strategy scratches the itch of those who feel moral gestures are more important that facts, who love big government mandates, no matter how footling, and those who want city staff to be happy and productive.
At least one submission had a sense of the ridiculous nature of this nonsense.
A giant Hornet and a giant Titan! Come to think of it, maybe this suggestion was serious, Fullerton being Fullerton.
But there is no money budgeted, alas! What to do? Well a budget transfer from Water Non-Rate Revenue funds can be tapped. I have no idea where this money would even come from, the Water Fund being supplied by rate payers. Another option to pay for the new, giant cactus garden is to apply for, and get, a grant from the Metropolitan Water District, one of those huge, opaque agencies that practically answer to nobody.
I have to wonder what the ultimate savings would be water-wise, and what the existing cost of watering the grass is. The fact that the City uses free water paid for by the rate payers has always been an issue and naturally no facts about the acre foot volume or the cost to the rate payers are included in Tuesday’s staff report. No data will be presented except the results of the survey done to solicit public opinion.
I could make the pitch that the reflecting pool, steps and lawn were part of a neo-formal aesthetic that went along with the 1962 building, but that would be a waste of my time and yours. Somebody has decided that the pool and the grass is offensive to modern sensibility, and provides an opportunity to engage the public in a feel-good Kabuki drama.
