Friends For Fullerton's Future
FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Just yesterday I posted a story about how a Fullertonion friend had received five copies of the Parks Department’s glossy activities brochure. That seemed pretty funny for a town dancing along the edge of a fiscal cliff.
But I wrote that before the afternoon mail arrived. Sure enough. Yet another copy.
I guess we’ll call this a provisional total.
Well, let’s be honest. Downtown Fullerton loses well over a million bucks every year, subsidized by the taxpayers. The beneficiaries? The good folks who purvey liquor, blast loud music, enable drunk driving and escape any sort of accountability for their customers’ behavior.
And so I unveil my concept for DTF branding. Introducing the Barfman theme:
Other ideas, as always are encouraged.
It’s axiomatic that when government agencies get money from some external source they often display a casual attitude toward spending it intelligently. Thus we get boondoggles like the infamous Trail to Nowhere, paid for mostly by a State grant.
The latest example of this is an $800,000 grant handed to Fullerton by Caltrans meant to improve transit centers. Here’s the staff report intro:
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The City received funding to enhance and beautify areas in and around the Fullerton
Transportation Center (FTC) through a competitive grant application process. The City
used the grant to work with a consultant to establish a downtown brand and wayfinding
program to assist mass transit users navigate the downtown area and improve
visitation. The FTC is one of the higher ridership stations in the region serving over
400,000 riders annually. The project would capitalize on visitors using both Amtrak and
Metrolink services.
At the last council meeting Community and Economic Development Director Sunayana Thomas and ED underling, Taylor Samuelson presented the fruits of all their labor so far in their effort to expend the Caltrans largesse.
And what they came up with is mostly just comical. And unnecessary.
It seems that our staff thinks the the most important way to “enhance” the FTC is by installing news signs. But of course “signs” is far too simple a concept, which instead is called “wayfinding,” a term implying that people are just too stupid to know where they’re going while “navigating.” But of course we know this whole thing is just make work for our crack “economic development” team who don’t develop anything except our pension obligation to them.
Of course a sign is inextricably tied to the notion of “branding,” an advertising phrase co-opted by bureaucrats pretending they have something to sell. And boy do they think they can “capitalize” on visitors. Why branding downtown Fullerton has anything to do with Caltrans is beyond me, but I leave that to greater minds to ponder.
Here are some branding ideas displayed at the council meeting.
Legendary music history? Local charm? A carnation? Botanical attributes? Modern and timeless theme? WT everlasting F? We paid somebody for this nonsense?
And, of course, new signs, repeating the theme, just in case you didn’t get it the first time.
Naturally, the “brand” looks outdated even before it’s installed on the signage, and we can be sure that in less than ten years the reigning economic development experts will be calling for a new brand, the old being so embarrassing. But in the meantime, fear not. The signs will be printed on “retroflective” vinyl attached to rigid aluminum panels.
The funniest idea of all is the notion of a “gantry” sign spanning Harbor Boulevard, welcoming people to downtown Fullerton.
Of course there already is a sign on the old UP bridge doing just that a few hundred feet to the south:
And how much is this nonsense going to cost the taxpayers of California? Check out the budget:
That’s $322,000, give or take, if you count thirty-one grand for some sort of mural. That’s a whopping 40% of the entire grant that is supposed to freshen up the Fullerton Transportation Center.
When you see this sort of circle wank, you really have to wonder if there is anybody providing any sort of adult supervision in City Hall when you look at footling crap like this.
Now that Shana Charles and Ahmad Zahra’s critical “Fiscal Sustainability (or something like that)” ad hoc committee has been created, and a quorum of that committee has been appointed by the City Council, I don’t see any reason why the three appointees can’t meet, appoint a chairman, and start on the all-important task at which our well-paid staff has dismally failed; to wit: figuring out how to stanch the red ink flow that our leaders and their professionals have created over the past decade or so.
Zahra and Charles couldn’t be bothered to find their own appointees. I guess it was too hard for them.
In my last post we already received some helpful comments about how to close the budget gap between revenue and expenses. In this in post I invite any other ideas that seem worth discussing, but that probably would never see the light of day in a city staff report. Here’s an outline of what we have so far.
Well, that’s just to get started. I hope the new committee will be open to these and other ideas. City staff has no incentive to propose anything except a new sales tax increase. I guess we need to help them.
One week ago, true to form, the City created the “ad hoc” finance committee proposed by Councilperson Shana Charles to study Fullerton’s financial fiasco – an ocean of red ink.
The vote was 3-2.
Councilman Fred Jung who supported this proposal spoke of “resident input” as if that were something never tried before.
Ahmad Zahra pretended to be of two minds regarding this committee, citing earlier, phony push polls as proof of Fullerton’s thirst to be taxed more. But he was really all for it – gotta keep the sales tax idea on a burner. He virtually admitted that a tax was his goal.
Predictably in her comments, Charles gushed at Fullerton’s untapped well of civilian brainpower (why goodness, two actual professors showed up earlier in the meeting!) as a source of brilliant budget-closing ideas. Of course she misused the term “holistic” several times, but, whatever.
At first Bruce Whitaker offered that he had no objection to this committee, per se, but pointed out that previous fiscal ideas presented by the so-called INRAC citizen’s panel had been ignored by the City Council.
This idea was echoed by Mayor Nick Dunlap, who pointed out the obvious – that this committee had no other purpose than to keep the dream of a sales tax increase alive. He opined that it was City staff’s job to come up with ideas and plans for fiscal sustainability (a euphemism coughed up by Charles) presented to the City Council. This of course is the way it should be, although the irony that his staff failed miserably at this very task over the past year seemed to have escaped the notice of our mayor.
Dunlap’s statements convinced Whitaker to oppose creation of the committee.
Charles responded to her colleagues, by disingenuously acknowledging her recognition that a sales tax increase was not inevitable, a completely irrelevant observation intended to prove her “holistic” bona fides.
A lady named Maureen Milton called in, wanting some reassurance that the meetings of the committee would be open to the public.
Our esteemed City Manager quickly muttered that the meetings would be noticed and public, but whether that half-hearted affirmation will be effected remains to be seen.
And so Fullerton has another of its footling and futile committees, five souls, one appointed by each councilmember. This is all being uber-rushed so that appointments will be made a week from today, on August 20th, so that the sales tax solution indoctrination can begin as soon as possible.
Last Tuesday the Fullerton City Council considered extending the so-called Walk on Wilshire project, a staff-driven closure of Wilshire Avenue just west of Harbor to auto traffic and leasing the street to adjacent businesses to operate for outdoor dining. The “pilot” program term ended in June but “economic development” bureaucrats sure wanted to keep it going even though it’s over fifty grand in the hole so far, with little but wishful thinking promising success in the future.
Right off the bat, Mayor Nick Dunlap recused himself. Apparently his father is part owner of the adjacent the Villa del Sol building that has tenants who may or may not want the street closure ended. That left four councilmembers to deal with the item.
It turns out that the folks in City Hall commissioned another one of those surveys designed to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion that City Hall wants. We’ve seen that over and over and over again. Guess what? Everyone just loves them some Walk on Wilshire.
Public speakers included about five or six people nobody had ever heard of before, suggesting that they were planted by staff or a councilmember like Shana Charles to be there. Oh, they just oozed enthusiasm for the closure, rhapsodizing on the exclusion of cars, the walking and the bicycling and the ambiance, etc., all the touchy-feely stuff you would expect.
Saskia Kennedy, editor of the yellowing Fullerton Observer got up to extol the virtues of the plan, proving that making the news is a lot more fun than responsibly reporting it.
Several adjacent business owners spoke, complaining about the unfairness of the closure that only benefitted three adjacent restaurants and that hurts their business. They included the owners of Pour Company, Les Amis, and The Back Alley Bar and Grill, and Tony Bushala who owns the historic building at 124 W. Wilshire.
Two other speakers, Joshua Ferguson and Jack Dean made excellent arguments against continuing the closure. Ferguson pointed out that the council was being asked to make a decision based on insufficient information, while Mr. Dean reminded the council that the business and property owners on Wilshire, many of whom were not even notified of the meeting, have a paramount interest in this endeavor.
When the chit-chat was all over it became clear that there was not a majority in favor of continuing the program until December. Zahra and Charles naturally wanted to prolong the boondoggle, Fred Jung and Bruce Whitaker didn’t. In a rambling discourse Whitaker went to great but unpersuasive lengths to explain his switcheroo, but did hit upon one truth. The Walk on Wilshire is completely driven by bureaucrats in City Hall, and nobody else. A motion for continuing the Walk on Wilshire until the end of the year failed on a 2-2 vote.
But a waffling Whitaker was in favor of giving the participants three months to plan for the end of the program which wasn’t all that bad of an idea. However, Shana Charles thought she espied the eye of the needle and threaded herself though it, using all the arguments against the Walk on Wilshire to propose that staff review the mess, again, and come back, again.
Waffling Whitaker agreed to a return of the item in three months to study up on the issue, as if there hadn’t been plenty of time to do that already. And so a council majority voted 3-1 to keep the patient on life support, and as usual nothing was decided and there was no specific direction. Staff is supposed to review something, anything, who knows what.
There never seems to be closure until it is approved by the bureaucrats who are the real profiteers on money losing schemes. It’s job security.
Next Tuesday our City Council will once again address the issue of Walk on Wilshire, the bureaucrat-driven “pilot program” that closed off the 100 block of West Wilshire Avenue to street traffic so that three restaurants could set up shop in the middle of the street. The issue is whether to approve an extension of the idea. Pretty soon they’re going to drop the word “pilot” altogether, and we’ll know that City Hall has permanently squatted on the street.
As usual, the staff report is so poorly written that it takes some forensic work to figure it out.
So far the thing has cost ninety grand, but more “enhancements” are projected – another $80,000. Staff says lease revenue for the past 27 months is less than $36,000, but somehow will go up to $40K a year once two more users build their “parklets” – a silly phrase that has currency among urban “planners.” That remains to be seen, but any way you slice it, with ongoing maintenance costs it will be years before the City recoups its outlay – if it ever does. This concept seems to have eluded the crack minds of our “Economic Development” employees, and our City Council that steadfastly spends more to get less back. But that is the constant theme of Downtown Fullerton.
It’s funny how depriving the taxpaying citizens of their right to drive on a public street is seen as a good thing in some circles – cars bad, bad, bad; and the impact on other businesses on Wilshire Avenue isn’t taken into account at all. Some folks seem to think the experience is cosmopolitan, likening it to a veritable Parisian vacation, but failing to note the difference between a sidewalk café and putting tables out in the middle of a road closed for that purpose – something no Parisian citizen would tolerate for a second.
Even though the staff report says it awaits City Council guidance, it is replete with pro-street theft propaganda, including another one of those ginned up polls done by Kosmont whose previous efforts include this hot mess. And it gets even worse.
Staff is requesting an “Asssement” opportunity to locate other places in DTF to recreate the money loser on Wilshire, “vibrancy” sounding ever so much better than bureaucratic busywork and inconvenient street closings.
Well the die is already cast on this one. Zahra and Charles just ooze sanctimonious support for this hare-brained idea; and Bruce Whitaker is all in for it, too, for some nincompoop reason – maybe because his wife likes it. Nick Dunlap recused himself last time and may do so again. Or he may just go along with more staff-driven nonsense. Only Fred Jung seemed really opposed to this scheme, but he’s going to be in the minority.
I wasn’t able to watch the Fullerton City Council meeting last night to see If my predictions would take place. But I’ve heard about it. Some did, some didn’t.
The item for consideration of a plebiscite 13% sales tax increase, placed on the agenda by Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles, went nowhere as I supposed it would. In the end the staff report was “received and filed,” a polite way of saying sayonara and into the round file with you.
As predicted Zahra and Charles pleaded ardently for putting the tax on the ballot – even cutting the amount and placing some sort of sunset term. No takers.
What didn’t happen was the appearance of Zahra’s Zanies, his coterie of cult followers, to harass and harangue the Council majority. A little gaggle of folks spoke, discussion was held, and then the proposal was sent to the dead letter office. In almost no time the meeting was adjourned and everybody went home very early.
I wonder if Zahra even tried to marshal his forces, or whether he couldn’t muster any support. Why else agendize the issue knowing failure was certain. Maybe just to check the box.
It could be that Ahmad’s Aimless Army was busy elsewhere, maybe even pursuing recreation on his famous Trail to Nowhere.
I don’t know if District 4 candidate, Vivian Kitty Jaramillo even showed up.
When the video is available I may get details of who said what, but I’m not sure it matters.
A Friend has alerted us that the on-line version of the Fullerton Observer posted a story by somebody named “Emerson Little” about a little known Fullerton trail called the Lucy Van Der Hoff Trail. The title? “Lucy Van Der Hoff Trail Needs Maintenance.” It seems that almost nobody knows about this .9 mile “asset” even though it is City-owned.
Unfortunately, the “trail” is overgrown, full of trash, and is yet another shining example of neglect by our top-notch Parks Department. Fortunately, the intrepid Emerson took the trail and generously provided images. But let’s let Emerson tell it in his own words: .
“It’s maintained by the Fullerton Parks and Recreation Department and is listed on the city’s website as a connector. However, when I walked on the trail, it was rather overgrown and poorly maintained. In certain spots, there were quite a few lost objects and pieces of garbage, possibly swept down the pathway by rainwater.”
So, the City has completely failed at maintaining the Lucy Van Der Hoff Trail – even as a simple mountain bike trail. They seem actually have completely ignored it – a facility that should cost almost nothing to maintain. It’s alleged “connector” value is almost useless.
More from Emerson: “I stepped around some discarded plastic bags, bottles, pillows that were torn open, unidentifiable articles of clothing, pieces of broken wood, old soccer nets, and cans, making my way forward.” When the overgrown vegetation became too thick our brave explorer had to ditch the “trail.”
Finally, here’s Emerson wrapping up the tale of his Big Adventure: “So, while my hike was interesting, I really wouldn’t recommend taking the Lucy Van Der Hoff trail.”
And now, Friends, here’s an observation that seems to have escaped the keen notice of the Observers. The advocates of the infamous Trail to Nowhere on the old Union Pacific right-of-way tacitly believe (or pretend to believe) it is going to be maintained – 170 trees, hundreds of shrubs, water lines, irrigation systems, benches, paths, signage, light fixtures – and let’s not forget graffiti removal, etc. – even though there is no budget to do this, and the money can’t be looted from the Park Dwelling Fund which can’t be used for maintenance.
We’ve already seen the maintenance fiasco of UP Trail Phase I – the plant denuded, trash filled, urine soaked predecessor of Phase II that nobody in City Hall has given a rat’s ass about. And Fullerton is also facing a fiscal cliff thanks to years of budgetary mismanagement.
Several months ago FFFF received a comment from former City Manager Chris Meyers, warning about the foolishness of building something that doesn’t have a plan for maintenance cost. But Ward 5 Councilman Ahmad Zahra believes even talking about maintenance issues south of the tracks is “offensive,” the idea being that it’s great to give the “underserved” barrio “something nice,” but who cares what happens to it later. It’s like giving somebody a car when they can’t afford to buy gas, or insurance, or keep it running. Looks like Zahra’s colleagues all agree – even though the very same people can’t figure out how to open Union Pacific Park – another embarrassing disaster.
A few weeks ago I published a post on the extremely dubious efforts of a paid consultant to begin a renewed effort to raise a new sales tax in Fullerton. The consultant is an operation called FM3.
We’ve seen this movie before. Many times.
In an effort to build momentum toward justifying a new tax a consultant is tasked with cooking up a poll, a survey that is worded in such a way as to make the question of a new tax sound not only plausible but even desirable.
The information that is collected is meant to probe the electorate’s weak spots, just like an army might send out reconnaissance to figure out where to attack.
Another benefit is to begin the process of developing ballot statement language that will push and persuade voters to the correct decision – a decision that will always be to vote for the tax. The reasons will be a short recital of the usual, low-hanging fruit, public safety being at the top of the list, but with no explanation that our public safety corps – emergency medical personnel (formerly known as :firefighters) and cops already suck up the majority of Fullerton’s General Fund. Mention of parks, quality of life, libraries and now “homeless” will be thrown in to the pot; and infrastructure maintenance will be included, disingenuously, to get support of the more hard-headed voter, just like last time.
And of course this language will be also be used by the inevitable political action committee formed to wage the propaganda war.
Make no mistake about it. The consultant hired to undertake this effort will know at the outset what his mission is. He knows who hired him and he knows what his employer wants.
Here’s a fun little Aussie video that spells out the process succinctly:
And so it goes. The start of a charade in which the taxpayers foot the bill to be “educated” into supporting a pre-determined outcome. The line between education (legal) and propaganda (illegal) is not bright, as asserted by Councilmember Bruce Whitaker. The fuzzy demarcation is exploited all the time by government agencies – always based on information collected in the original poll.
The hopeful part of this is that the electorate is not always as easily persuaded as is supposed by the would be taxers. This was demonstrated in Fullerton in 2020 when voters rejected the ill-considered Measure S, and property tax-based bond floats by Fullerton’s two school districts.
In the end the Council (Jung, Zahra and Charles) voted, vaguely, to keep the “education” process going, a process that we know is nothing other than political propaganda aimed at persuading a majority of voters and coordinating with a special political action committee set up to scare, cajole, and bamboozle the voters.