“Follow the Money” is their headline. But wait. Isn’t something missing?
Indeed, yes. They decided to publish information about the three winning candidates whom the really don’t like. And of course Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform has been the bane of big spending bureaucrats and politicians for years. But where is the information on Vivian Jaramillo?
Missing in action, I’d say.
But I checked all the right boxes!
Jaramillo got lots of campaign contributions from local unions, public employees, and lot from Fullerton’s public pension retiree gaggle. Not too much surprise there, so why not publish it? It’s still relevant.
But what really stood out was the omission of the massive Independent Expenditure Committee created to get Jaramillo elected. “Working Families for Kitty Jaramillo” was the recipient of $60,000 up front from the national HQ of the grocery store workers union. The local union “sponsored” the IE, but the dough came from Washington DC and the smart money was on its origin being none other than the Southern California dope dispensary cartel.
The marijuana money would be real hard for the Kennedy Sisters to explain without reminding folks that Jaramillo earned the nickname “Cannabis Kitty” due to her prior staunch support of Ahmad Zahra’s push for the broadest marijuana ordinance – the one he, Silva, and Flory voted on at the end of 2020.
The look of vacant self-satisfaction…
More even handed “reporting,” right? I don’t suppose anything is going to change from these darlings. The sniping, innuendo and criticism of Valencia, Jung, and Dunlap will continue unabated, with the usual conflation of news and editorial – in violation of any journalistic standards.
The wasteful fantasy known as “Walk on Wilshire” may be dead – even though its advocates continue their public weeping – but interesting information about the boondoggle continues to to come to light – information that doesn’t put Fullerton in a good light. WoW is yet another Fullerton cautionary tale.
One issue about WoW never discussed in public, was the Mulberry Street Ristorante parklet’s violation of the standards of Southern California Edison regarding setbacks around their transformer vaults.
Oops.
There’s the culprit, deceptively hiding under car…
It turns out there’s an Edison tranformer vault in the street right in front of the “ristorante,” and right where their “parklet” was built. Here’s the plan for the parklet. The vault is dead center in the middle of it.
The problem popped up in October, 2023 when an Edison inspector discovered a problem: Edison requires a 15ft set back around the outside of their concrete vault, free of construction.
Oops.
Now, we can’t tell what that set back would look like without a sketch. So let’s make one!
The off-limits area inside the black square essentially eradicates the poor parklet. Oops!
Edison sent Mulberry Street a couple warning letters, the second, repeating the issues, in December, 2023.
Mulberry St. Ristorante replied to both these missives, saying more or the same thing each time.
Saying fuck you to Edison isn’t a very smart thing to do if you happen to use electricity, as we will soon see. Be sure to notice how Brandon Bevins, Mulberry’s Manager, also advises Edison to talk to the City of Fullerton!
This correspondence triggered a series of subtly urgent communications between the City Engineer and Edison at the end of 2023. Even our highly paid City Manager, Eric Levitt, was somehow dragged into this low-grade stupidity – all because the City staff who “managed” this project never thought to talk to Edison in the first place.
The tenor of the correspondence and the subsequent meetings was polite, but somewhat stiff since SCE had zero intention of looking the other way. In fact, SCE notified Mulberry Street that they were going turn off the juice to the whole property on January 19, 2024 sans compliance. So Bevins, who must have been panicking, tried to scare the City into desperate action.
Bevins was plenty pissed, and suggested that the we pay the costs for his parklet – just north of $40,000! So now the City had another self-inflicted wound. But wait. Mulberry wasn’t in the clear, either.
In correspondence from December 2022 the City (somebody named Matt Laninovich) erroneously tells Bevins that their parklet can cover the SCE vault so long as there is a hinged door in the parklet platform for access. Of course he pulled that out of his ass; but he also wisely informs Bevins to consult with Edison. Had Bevins done so he could have saved everybody time and trouble, including himself. Nevertheless, the City is now a full partner in a SNAFU that was completely avoidable.
A resolution of sorts was achieved on January 24, 2024 when Edison agreed to let the parklet remain if seating on it were limited to an area outside a 15ft radius from the perimeter of the iron manhole in the middle of the vault. The manhole would have to be reinforced (in case it might blow off in an explosion, presumably) and the vault had to be accessible from the Wilshire Avenue side.
This resolution doesn’t look too promising for Mulberry Street that also had to pay for that additional manhole restraint. Look. There’s hardly any room for seating left.
Was the parklet enlarged to make it actually work? Did Edison finally look the other way? Documents acquired from a Public Act Request don’t inform us: at this point information provided by the City about this issue ends. Was there more? Who knows?
One thing I do know is that images of the operating parklet from last year show tables within the no-go zone.
How much risk were the patrons who used the Mulberry Street parklet exposed to for the past year? How much risk if Edison had not spotted the issue to begin with? I don’t know, but Edison has safety rules for a reason. The explosion of the transformer in Huntington Beach in 2019 gives us some indication of what can go wrong, and the consequences of that episode were actually considered lucky.
Walk on Wilshire. A tail-wagging-the-dog gift that keeps on giving. The thing is a moot issue now, fortunately. But if anybody feels like asking good questions about this or other city-created public hazards, I’ll bet my Nevada ranch they won’t get good answers.
FFFF received a fun email the other day, pecked out by Fullerton 5th District Councilman Ahmad Zahra. It is directed to Fullerton Assistant City Attorney Baron Bettenhausen, a fellow that the Friends met yesterday. Ahmad writes on January 27th, and is obviously still in a grand funk about losing his precious Walk on Wilshire the previous week.
We’re #1.08!
The tone of the letter is pretty unfriendly since Zahra seems to believe Bettenhausen has left out something real important in the discussion of Jamie Valencia returning campaign contributions. Of course, as we have seen, none of this would have been necessary if Bettenhausen knew the law and had known about the FPPC decision in Palo Alto before January 21st.
But let’s let Ahmad speak for himself:
From: Ahmad Zahra <ahmad.zahra@cityoffullerton.com> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 9:55 PM To: Baron J. Bettenhausen <bjb@jones-mayer.com>; Richard D. Jones <rdj@jones-mayer.com>; Eric Levitt <Eric.Levitt@cityoffullerton.com> Subject: Conflict of interest question
Caution: This is an external email and may be malicious. Please take care when clicking links or opening attachments.
Baron, at the last council meeting, you had opined that CM Valencia could vote on the matter of Walk on Wilshire since she had returned the campaign contributions to Tony Bushala and Cigar Shop owner, both of whom have direct economic interests in the decision. Community members have shared with me some concerns regarding your rendered opinion and I’d like clarifications from you.
Was the FPPC consulted on this matter, as has been the practice in the past on complicated issues (example: CM Charles votes on CSUF)? If so, where is their opinion letter and why was it not presented at the time of the meeting?
There’s been a claim that the funds hadn’t been actually returned even if the return check was issued. This is a claim from a resident that raised concerns but no evidence was presented. But it does bring up the question, what evidence did CM Valencia present to you and why was that not made public? This is especially relevant because that reporting period for campaign committees isn’t until Jan 31st, occurring after the meeting itself with no chance for the public to verify any of this.
In your opinion that night, while you addressed the letter of the law, did you factor in the spirit of the law? It seems to easy for anyone to take contributions, use them, then conveniently return the funds before a vote. This is especially important to know as CM Valencia was fully aware of the WoW vote since apparently it was a question asked to her during the campaign.
I would appreciate a clarification on these questions and would request that an FPPC letter confirming your opinion on this matter be made available to the public to prevent any legal issues. Any correspondence to the FPPC should also include the concerns of the public for a comprehensive review.
I am also requesting that any action to execute the reopening of Wilshire be delayed until such legal questions are resolved to avoid any legal challenges to the city.
Note: I am writing this email in the interest of the public and thus deem it and any response to it in the public domain and not under any lawyer confidentiality privilege.
Oh dear me. Where to start. Naturally, Zahra wants to make up and nurture a scandal where there is none. He’s obviously been stirring up an element of outraged Fullerton Boohoo to keep the red herring going. He even uses the same language as the Kennedy Sisters: “there’s been a claim,” and “This is a claim from a resident that raised concerns but no evidence was presented.”
FFFF first addressed the non-applicability of the law in question way back on January 21st. We know Zahra reads FFFF, but maybe he didn’t catch that post.
Anyway, Zahra wants to know if the FPPC has been consulted about this horror of horrors. We now know that the FPPC previously ruled on the identical issue in a case in Palo Alto. FFFF relayed that information, here on February 10th. The answer is clear as a bell: the law doesn’t apply. Bettenhausen should have known this before January 21, and maybe even before Valencia gave back money she didn’t have to.
Ahmad made me wear this and took a picture.
Then Zahra’s deep sea fishing expedition turns to the completely baseless “actual claim” that although a check may have been written, it wasn’t cashed, challenging Valencia’s integrity and Bettenhausen’s lack of diligence.
Zahra’s final numbered point is really funny. He wonders why the “spirit” of the law is not being upheld. Poor Ahmad should be addressing his lament to the State Legislature instead of his own attorney, but, whatever.
Here goes…
Zahra wants the FPPC findings on the issue to be made public, and he requests that WoW remain open until such time as the FPPC responds. Zahra’s worried about legal challenges? From whom? The Kennedy Sisters and Diane Vena? Man, what a failed Hail Mary. WoW was unceremoniously removed a few days after Zahra’s demand letter. Thousands more laughed than did weep at it.
Poor Ahmad wraps up his missive by letting his own lawyer know that this email and any response are free from attorney-client confidentiality – in the public interest, of course. That’s good ’cause we got it, Ahmad, being members of the public, and all. Was there ever even a response by Bettenhausen in the end? Who cares
There really shouldn’t be any surprise that bad legal advice always comes with a price tag. Sometimes that cost is monetary. Sometimes it’s misleading and even abusing the public and its trust.
No, I wasn’t asleep. I was praying…
And so it has been over the decades for Fullerton and its egregiously awful lawyer, Dick Jones, of the I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm. The latest example is a real boner, even for a guy whose firm specializes in boners in dirty book stores and misbehaving topless bars.
It seems that last fall City Attorney Jones and Mayer may very well have passed advice to newly elected councilwoman Jamie Valencia that some of the donations to her campaign could be problematic, including those from Tony Bushala and the guy who owns the cigar place on Wilshire Avenue. Any official activities effecting these gentlemen might fall under the Section 84308 of the Government Code, the so-called “pay-to-play” statute.
The statute says that politicians can’t vote on licenses, contract awards, entitlements, permits or agreements with entities that give them over $250 in campaign cash. Valencia was supposedly given two options: recuse herself on such issues for at least a year; or, alternatively, give the money back. In November, she chose the latter.
We don’t know our cloaca from a hole in the ground.
Nothing more was said of this until the idiot Walk on Wilshire was up for a vote. At this point The issue of the pay-to-play statute came up again in the bone-headed precincts of Fullerton BooHooville, prompted by who knows who. The reason? Bushala and Mr. Cigar Guy both opposed the continued closure of Wilshire Avenue.
Picture this…
For some reason the City Manager Eric Levitt (according to the Kennedy Sisters of the Fullerton Observer) told them he believed the Valencia contribution return was in process, when it had been accomplished 6-8 weeks before. The fact that he even responded at all gave the boohoos confidence in their brand-new, trumped up “issue.”
And guess what? None of it even mattered!
That’s right. The vote on Walk on Wilshire had nothing to do with the pay-to-play law. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zip. Zero. A layman could (and FFFF did) see that. No one was getting a license, a permit or a contract award; no one was getting an agreement or an entitlement. Citizens with opinions were simply giving them about a City directed action – not their own. It was so obvious. But not to Dick Jones, for some inexplicable reason. Was it ineptitude, laziness, or was there an ulterior motive? Who knows?
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
Meantime, Fullerton BooHoo and the Fullerton Observer got into high dudgeon over the non-issue, and also whether the money had been given back to the contributors. They tried hard to craft a corruption scandal. “Questions were being asked,” the Kennedy Sisters huffed and puffed, their erectile hairs stiffened. Their nincompoop followers raised the issue at the council meeting in question. But in the end it was irrelevant gums flapping.
Now for the fun part. Guess what? The identical issue had already been raised last fall by City of Palo Alto Councilmember Patrick Burt. About what? The issue was a controversial, City-created street closure vote! What are the odds? Mr. Burt inquired of the FPPC whether such a vote fell under the purview of the pay-to-play law.
If you don’t want to read the whole letter, here’s the conclusion:
CONCLUSION No, decisions by the Palo Alto City Council to permanently close the specified downtown areas to car traffic are not entitlement for use proceedings subject to Section 84308. The City Council initiated the actions to close these areas permanently to car traffic. The facts indicate that the interests impacted by the closures will be many and diverse. Furthermore, the closures were not applied for, nor have entitlements for use been formally or informally requested by any party to date, and the decisions do not involve a contract between the City and any party.
As you can see, the reply was succinct, and the answer was no, just like FFFF had said. Why didn’t Dick Jones know this? Why, indeed. This was a very important finding for those in the political arena – like Jones himself.
Poor Ms. Valencia was caused to publicly explain herself and her return of the campaign cash when she didn’t have to. That alone would cause me to cut loose the useless dumpster fire known as Jones and Mayer for their blatant incompetence.
That’s the bureaucratic snarl that surrounds the standard American community due to mandates from Sacramento and Washington.
Half a mile of high-density housing.
We just had 13,000 potential new housing units shoved down our throat by the State of California Housing and Community Development pointy-headed paper pushers with the connivance of SCAG – the Association of Southern California Governments, that supplies the cooked up numbers. The good folks at SCAG answer to nobody, and the State Legislature just loves them some housing bureaucracy – and the more intrusive, the better, apparently.
And now what, you ask? Why another mandate – a five year “2025 Housing Consolidated Plan” required by the people at the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. Here’s the City of Fullerton’s grand announcement of…a survey to get the ball rolling.
A cynical type person might suspect that the only real reason for any of this massive and seemingly eternal paper chase is to keep public employees employed: hiring consultants, reviewing surveys, gathering “data,” writing reports of compliance, reading reports of compliance, writing notifications of compliance and non-compliance, writing more reports, reading more reports, handing out awards for compliance, and general bureaucratic backslapping all around.
The effects of all this mumbo jumbo on the communities it impacts are neither here, nor there. The government Kabuki-hustle described as public participation is necessary, but let’s be honest. The goal of this splendidly vast empire is simply to amass more budget and hire more people at government agencies. If only American industry could match this amazing growth record over the past 60 years.
We gotta go up!
So what motivates local compliance with all this gobbledygook? Well, there’s the old carrot and stick, as you might imagine – two sides of the same metaphorical coin. If you play nice and do what you’re told you get Federal and State money, part of which you can use to hire people into your city’s “housing” department, a thing that didn’t exist until the 60s and 70s. That’s empire building, a point of pride for your garden variety city manager. Everyone wants a cookie, right?
You know you can’t resist the Big Cookie!
But if you don’t go along and try to fight back against the idiot mandates, like Huntington Beach is doing right now, you incur the full wrath of State and Federal magistrates; from houseacrats to attorneys general and judges – the latter really just loyal public employees in silly robes. The reluctant jurisdiction will be threatened with a cut of of State and Federal payments, grants, and other beneficent distributions from far away capitals. No cookie for you, naughty boy.
Hardly even pretending to be objective, Kennedy Sister Skasia just unburdened herself of a ridiculous account of how Fullerton, specifically Mayor Fred Jung, failed to declare Rosa Parks Day. Some out-of-towner named Bill Preston got up at the February 4th Council meeting and addressed himself to Mayor Fred Jung for the latter’s lack of a proclamation declaring Rosa Parks Day.
Billy Preston
Apparently poor Bill Preston’s “disappointment” left him with a “broken heart” (No I am not kidding), but he hopes to come back next year to present a “Rosa Parks Award – whatever that may be – to the City of Fullerton.
It’s not surprising how this apparent omission was not-so-subtlety elevated into some sort of deliberate offense by Jung himself.
Gloves are so Nineteenth Century…
Once we cut out all of Mr. Preston’s hyperbole about Rosa Parks’ influence on world history and his own critical role in honoring her legacy, we are led to this predictable paragraph added to the end by Saksia:
The Mayor’s decision not to honor Parks with a proclamation has sparked a significant discussion about the values of the community and how local governments recognize influential historical figures. This situation raises important questions regarding local authorities’ responsibility in honoring those who have made a significant impact on society, ensuring their contributions are remembered and that their stories continue to inspire future generations.
Very predictable.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
First we are presented with an unfounded accusation – that Jung himself deliberately decided not to honor Parks, an assertion with no basis in any evidence. Then we are informed that “significant discussion” about community values, etc. has been “sparked;” but evidently not significant enough for Skadia to let us know who exactly has been sparked, and what they are saying. Furthermore, “local authorities” in Skasdia’s opinion, are “responsible” to ensure, yadda, yadda, yadda.
No, honey, local authorities are responsible to pave the damn roads and make sure the street lights work among other local government responsibilities. Honoring heroes with “days” is not on that list, and there’s already way to much of that crap weighing down council meetings.
Someone please listen to me…
It’s become apparent that the Kennedy Sisters and their running dogs have made it their mission to attack Jung in any way possible – no matter how fucking stupid, which for them is pretty stupid.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
Oops. The crack Observer editor Skasia, younger member of the Kennedy Coven, has done it again.
This proud pillar of the 4th Estate decided a recap of the now dismantled Walk on Wilshire public hearing comments was in order, given that the vast majority of them yammered in favor of keeping it.
The look of vacant self-satisfaction…
Therefore it was necessary to regurgitate the usual cut and paste mishmash of what people actually said.
Anti-WoW speaker #7 was one of them. Here’s what The Observer recollects:
7) Layla, identifying herself as the landlord of the Wilshire Promenade called into the council saying ‘The street closure has negatively impacted our tenants, and 88 Cigar Bar, Slice, and ShabuShabu. We as landlords can’t make money – we need to drive through traffic. If it remains as is or is expanded we won’t make it.” (Fullerton Promenade Apartments is one of 252 apartment complexes owned by the largest operator of apartment complexes on the West Coast – the $18.5 billion Essex Property Trust, Inc.)
Notice how at the end the end Skakia appends the obligatory and Observer biased contextual facts, implying that “Layla” represents a conglomerate of massive wealth – suggesting that this vast enterprise can afford to chum a few bucks for the common good of Fullerton Boohoo, because it is so…so something.
Over here, ya dummy…
The only problem is that “Layla” has absolutely nothing to do with the Promenade Apartment Block, but rather, works for an entity, “Fullerton Promenade,” that owns some buildings on the south side of Wilshire Avenue – precisely whose small business tenants were the most affected by the idiot closure.Layla even named her tenants!
And then there’s the Promenade Apartments
This is exactly the sort of spiteful, inaccurate boobery that characterizes the Fullerton Observer and its crew of incompetent ideologues. I hope Layla isn’t waiting for a correction and apology, because she won’t get either.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
In the the online edition of their rag, the Fullerton Observer sisters, Sharon and Skaski explain their behavior in intentionally defaming named individuals as purveyors of lies. These were some of the people who contributed to Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, a group that made it its mission to educate the public about the candidate Vivian Jaramillo in the 2024 City Council election.
Skaskia doubles, triples down on her assertion of slander and defamation against poor Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo by Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, but claims there was no intent to “harm the reputations of its contributors.” Well, of course there was intent to harm; the inclusion of individual names directly linked to accusations of distributing falsehoods was obviously intentional.
Hmm. Did we lay an egg recently?
It is comical that if you think about it, the Kennedy Sister’s underlying excuse must be that they didn’t know what they were doing. Exculpation through ineptitude! That phrase should be prominent on their Observer header.
Is this a sufficient “full retraction and public apology?”
I don’t have the answer. Not yet anyway. But I know that the “I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm” of Jones and Mayer has been making bank on Fullerton for over 25 years as City Attorney. And I know that that the dismal legal counsel has impoverished the taxpayers of Fullerton plenty over the two and a half decades. I’m not going to recite the litany of legal failures we can lay at Jones’s doorstep – not yet anyway; we’ve already been doing that for years.
For reasons that escape Council watchers, Dick Jones somehow managed to escape getting the boot between 2020 and 2024, and I can’t think of anybody outside the Council who knows exactly why. Generally we can conclude that at least one member of the Whitaker, Dunlap, Jung triumvirate was protecting Jones and his minions, since it is incomprehensible that either Ahmad Zahra or Shana Charles would dump this chump.
Jail is for the little people…
Dick Jones is nothing if not a politician, playing the angles to keep at least three council persons happy at any one time, even alongside legal debacle after legal debacle. It’s worked through 4 different decades thanks to Fullerton being Fullerton. The Old Guard didn’t care and didn’t want to cause trouble; they were easy to push and persuade without too much trouble. The lamebrains like Leland Wilson and Mike Clesceri were afraid of their own shadows. Norby, I’m told, was just happy that the job was outsourced. The other dopes like Pam Keller, Sharon Quirk and Jesus Quirk-Silva could not have conceived of anybody holding Jones responsible for the legal advice he dispensed. For a fixer like Jennifer Fitzgerald he was the perfect running buddy, trying to accommodate anything she wanted.
Is Jones & Mayer still have a pulse?
Well, now Whitaker is gone, and if he was the fly in the ointment for the past 4 years, we may soon find out. Will Council newcomer Jamie Valencia take an independent stand and actually review Jones and Mayer’s record of failure? I sure hope so. It’s time that the City Attorney started giving out advice that avoids lawsuits instead of getting into them, with the result that he gets paid even more for failure.
I don’t know if Ms. Valencia reads this blog, but if so I sure hope she follows that link, above. She would find stories of Jones & Mayer’s incompetence, self-service, and ghastly legal decisions that have harassed Fullerton citizens, given away public resources and cost the taxpayers millions going back 25 years.
I’m sure Jonesy has already tried hard to wheedle himself into Valencia’s good graces, because that’s what he has always done. Will she go for it?
Hanging on to Fullerton should be a big deal to Jones and Mayer in terms of the future legal partnership. And I’m sure Jones figures that the loss of Fullerton could jeopardize his jobs in other cities like Westminster, La Habra, and Costa Mesa. True, Jones is 75 years old and may not even care anymore. Still, the firm must go on, and the junior partners such as the terrier-like Kim Barlow and the obnoxious hand-job lawyer, Gregory Palmer may still have a few years of legal bungling ahead of them.
One thing you can always count on in Fullerton elections is that concrete, real issues will never be discussed. You’ll hear mostly generalities about this or that topic. Even roads and taxes melt away in general promises and vague hand-wringing. But, when it comes to specific projects with all sorts of facts and figures involved, you can forget it. A charming characteristic of all local elections, and especially in Fullerton, is that people aren’t elected on their knowledge of anything, but, rather on their acceptability as wise people who will do the right thing given the opportunity.
This is all nonsense, of course. The electeds, knowing nothing are in no intellectual position to push back on the lamest of lame ideas that percolate through the “experts” in the bureaucracy. Not knowing and not learning and not working are the natural siblings of the councilmember’s natural tendency to acquiesce to City Hall staff anyhow. It’s easier just to attend ribbon cuttings and golden shovel ceremonies, I suppose.
Enhanced with genuine brick veneer!
And so it is that zero attention has been given by anybody (except FFFF) to various nonsense projects, the worst of which is the so-called boutique hotel project that started out as an idiotic scheme and naturally morphed into the worst kind of Redevelopment boondoggle. It even has a stupid name: It’s called The Tracks at Fullerton Station.
I’m not telling the truth and you can’t make me…
You may recall that the hare-brained idea was hatched by your former Mayor-for-Hire, Jennifer Fitzgerald who pushed a non-competitive agreement with some local dude who couldn’t build a birdhouse. Because the City had to declare the land on which the thing was supposed to sit as “surplus property” a deadline had to met to dodge a State law requiring first right of refusal to low-income housing “developers.”
Rather than shit-canning the whole thing, boobs Bruce Whitaker, Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles approved of the project and the City actually deeded over the land before any agreements were in place. Pretty amazing, huh? Their convoluted reasoning was so dumb it doesn’t even deserve a description. That was December 2022.
They had me at boutique…
The even bigger problem was that by then the original guy (now deceased) had been pushed out and a whole new partnership had taken over. The new players were a pair of bums – Johnny Lu and Larry Liu who had a record of fraud, embezzlement, and bankruptcies in their wake, and creditors foreclosing on them. Why Fullerton’s crack economic development team and City Attorney failed to pursue even the slightest investigation of Lu/Liu’s record like FFFF did, has never been discussed. And it never will be, Fullerton being Fullerton.
I don’t know the current situation with this project. Two years have passed. Johnny Lu and Larry Liu had many milestones to accomplish certain actions per the agreement they finally signed. Did they? Who knows? Not the public, that’s for sure. Obviously, no one in City Hall wants to talk about this vast embarrassment, and an insecure council isn’t making them. And naturally, the Fullerton electoral process doesn’t discuss such things – bad form to discuss City failures, you see.
But the public has a right to know the whole story, because in the end, the entitlements granted to Lu and Liu are worth a fortune; even worse, the sales price of 1.4 million, less site clearance, is a tenth of the market value the City created with those entitlements. And the new density with hotel and with the new apartments Liu suckered the City into approving, just to keep the mess alive, is two and a half times the density the Transportation Center Specific Plan allows for housing. Go figure.
The mileage is terrible and the wheels are bald…
It’s also critical to remember that in Fullerton projects take on a life of their own through institutional inertia and the human instinct to dodge responsibility whenever possible. The Fullerton Clown Car has never had a rear-view mirror.
