The trouble with the City of Fullerton’s Public Records Act system is that responses are so dilatory, so frequently incomplete, and often so non-responsive, as Friends have seen over the years, it’s hard to know if you can draw any firm conclusions from what are charitably called public records.
Here’s an interesting request made a couple of weeks ago.
The request has elicited a “full release” response, so we may infer, I hope, that it really is full.
It’s a total waste of money, but it sure is short…
Why is this request interesting? Because the obscure State Department of Natural Resources is the grant-giving sugar daddy of the 2.1 million dollar UP Trail fiasco.
I noted back on January 27th that there were problems with the Trail to Nowhere project schedule, namely, that the design and construction milestones were seven and five months late, respectively.
It’s hard to know the exact status of this boondoggle because nobody in City Hall is saying anything about it to the public. I (confidently) assume the final design was never submitted to the State because the City Council never approved it, never released a bid or awarded a contract. Construction has obviously not started. Now there are just eight months left to do it all.
The trees won’t block the view…
This is where the PRA request comes in. The response just shares a short email string between Fullerton and Natural Resource Department people trying to set up a meeting for a briefing on some water project up north and its impact on MWD cities’ water supply. That’s it. There is nothing about the grant for the so-called UP Trail.
The project showed little promise, but they didn’t care…,
So what is the status? Were the milestones waived by the Natural Resources Department? Has some schedule modification been made? If so there’s no correspondence (at least none shared by the City Clerk) that show it. That’s pretty odd, isn’t it? Is it possible the State isn’t even keeping track of the agreement and the City isn’t bothering to remind them? That strikes a believable chord.
At this point it seems highly unlikely that the Trail to Nowhere could be completed in time, but maybe hope springs eternal. The State doesn’t seem to care.
Ahmad Zahra and his pal Shana Charles made a big deal about this dumbassery and organized such an annoying Astroturf backing for it, that the previous council majority chickened out and agreed to the mess. They haven’t been talking about it either, even though they already took a victory lap and threw themselves a party.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want the abandoned Union Pacific Park reopened. It was a crime-ridden attractive nuisance from the day it opened even without considering the toxic substances that had to be remediated after the damn thing was built.
But there seems to be an interesting reason the park hasn’t been reopened 18 months after the City Council ordered the fence around the vacant land be taken down. And the reason could be that there isn’t enough money in the Park Dwelling Fee Fund to pay for it. These funds are collected from developers to pay for new park facilities, presumably to reflect the new projected increase in population.
This situation emerged at a Fiscal Sustainability Committee meeting a while back. The Fund has about $800,000 to $900,000, according to Assistant City Manager Daisy Perez, and at least $300,000 of that is already earmarked for the delusional “Trail to Nowhere” plan. It also emerged that the massive eyesore project called “The Hub,” on Commonwealth at the 57 Freeway, has not paid it’s Park Dwelling Fees, a number amounting to $5,000,000, staff said.
We gotta go up!
It seems that for some reason the City gave the developer of the project a waiver on the required upfront fees, until the project has a certificate of occupancy. That $5 million is burning a hole in somebody’s pocket, and it sure ain’t our pocket. How this happened is another story, and a good one, too, I’ll bet.
In the meantime, we seem to have some sort of Mexican Standoff – UP Park vs. Trail to Nowhere. The Park is assumed to have been given priority, but there’s no money for it. Meantime the Trail to Nowhere waits in the wings, embarrassingly, having missed several entrance cues demanded by the State, the most important of which were submission of plans by 6/24; start of construction by 8/24; and viable plant life by 10/25.
The idea may have been bad, but it sure was old.
One of the selling points of the Trail to Nowhere is that it connected to the UP Park (of course that was another lie, too – it ends at Highland Avenue). But what if there is no UP Park at all?
Poor, disheartened Diane Vena reminded the City Council about the Trail to Nowhere at their last meeting. Poor Diane, a liberal activist, and a member of team Jaramillo, is best known for her suspicious nomination of the phony Republican candidate, Scott Markowitz, in the 2024 4th District election.
It may be a total waste of money, but it sure is short…
Well, thanks, Poor Diane. It’s about time someone mentioned the Trail to Nowhere, even if in passing.
Friends will recall that the Union Pacific Trail project – funded by the State of California Department of Natural Resources – was finally approved by the City Council over a year ago. The conceptual “trail” goes from nowhere to nowhere and was going to cost $2,100,000 to build.
Nothing left but empty bloviation…
As usual, the idea was cooked up by City staff as a make work project, and was then vigorously supported by the Fullerton Observer Sisters and a few dozen knuckleheads taken in by the ingratiating Astroturfer, Ahmad Zahra.
Maybe the less said, the better…
Anyhow, Poor Diane believes the Trail has been deliberately put on the back burner due to the Council’s desire to first open the Union Pacific Park, more commonly referred to as the Poison Park. This is true – sort of. In August, 2023 the council majority directed City staff to drop or redeploy the grant and re-open the fenced off park. There was no timetable, and apparently no money either, since the empty park site still sits there 18 months later, even though a conceptual plan was drawn.
Pickleball for La Communidad…
Poor Diane believes lack of progress on the park is deliberate – a cynical ploy to delay the Trail until the grant money time allowance runs out. This could be true, and I certainly hope it is. Fullerton did renounce the grant in August, 2023 and then backtracked after months of harassment from Zahra’s annoying claque.
The deadline in the grant agreement was October 2025 for completion of the project – including “plant estabishment.” That’s about eight months away. But there are already original milestones that have been missed. Here’s the schedule from the grant agreement:
Final plans were due last June, and construction was supposed to start last August. Has the State granted Fullerton time extensions? If so why doesn’t the public know about it? If not, why hasn’t the State demanded its money back, per the agreement? Good questions, no good answers.
If working drawings have been completed and submitted, the public hasn’t been favored with a glimpse. And you need completed construction drawings to bid a public works project, let alone build it. There’s the hitch. At this point Fullerton would have only eight months to publish plans, receive bids, get a responsive bid, sign contracts and then construct the trail, a project that would turn out to be a lot more complicated and expensive than any of the conveniently departed Parks officials could have imagined.
Alice Loya’s pretty palette…
Why more complicated and expensive? Because of all the toxic water monitoring wells, the need for new water lines, new storm drain systems, and resolution of cross lot drainage issues – none of which are even included in the grant scope of work! It’s a pretty good guess that the cost of construction in the grant application was woefully underestimated. And nobody in City Hall ever admitted the presence of TCEs along the happy trail.
Well, well, well…
I suppose the City could get down on their knees and sing the blues to the state, asking for more time. Maybe staff already has. Or maybe, just as likely, the Department of Natural Resources and its chief, Wade Crowfoot, don’t even keep track of what happens to their money despite specific performance requirements in the grant agreement. After all, it’s not their money. Remember the $1,000,000 Core and Corridors Specific Plan, paid for by a State “sustainability” grant, that vanished into thin air?
Bon appetit!
Well, I guess we’ll have to keep an eye on this to see what’s happening. I’d hope that the Council provides an honest appraisal of the status of this hairy boondoggle, but that’s unlikely. So far nobody but FFFF has told a single truth about this fiasco.
Good God, the latest diatribe from the unhinged Kennedy Sister known as Skasia is a doozy.
In this editorial she really loses touch with reality. An intervention is necessary, but I’m not sure if anybody in that family is mentally balanced.
Ms. Kennedy claims in her headline that Jamie Valencia has returned a campaign contribution and that there is a controversy. Of course she would like to create one, but other than that there’s nothing noteworthy. The “controversy” is entirely the fabrication of Skasia’s feeble and febrile brain.
It seems that Valencia has come under “scrutiny” (passive voice, of course – no who what why or when) for getting a campaign contribution from Tony Bushala. No news there. Bushala gives lots of money to lots of candidates all over Orange County, including Fullerton. But alas! Bushala has opposed the Observer’s pet project – the dismal Walk on Wilshire. And the vote to get rid of it is tonight. Uh oh.
Slakskia tells us this situation “raises questions” about the applicability of SB 1439 (we have no idea who is asking questions – other than Skasia, of course). Naturally, this is a red herring since SB 1439 has to do with regulations on electeds voting on stuff like permit applications, zone changes, government contracts and the like. It has nothing to do with what Bushala likes, or wants, or dreams about. SB 1439 is completely inapplicable to the Walk on Wilshire as far as Bushala is concerned.
The best line is added out of the blue, a sign that poor Skasia can can’t write something an 8 year old would be ashamed of:
During her campaign, Valencia said the street needed to be open for fire and police (it has been OKed by the Fire Department) and suggested “we can find space elsewhere,” without saying where that might be. In 2024, Fullerton recorded 55 car accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists, resulting in 49 pedestrian fatalities and 6 cyclist fatalities.
This statement of “fact” has nothing to do with Jamie Valencia, or anything else for that matter. It’s thrown in to show why closing a block of Wilshire is important. The other problem is that it is comical. 49 pedestrian deaths in Fullerton in 2024? Why, we’d all be way safer in Juarez, Mexico during the cartel wars. That is so fucking stupid that we now know we have entered the labyrinthine Twilight Zone of this imbecile’s mind.
Oh, but busy Skasia soldiers on. She has contacted the city manager to see if Valencia must recuse herself on the Walk on Wilshire vote. Eric Levitt has informed Kennedy that a return of the Bushala funds is “in progress.” It isn’t. It was done 2 months ago.
Even then Kennedy isn’t finished. She adds this shining pearl:
“As the city council navigates this matter, the implications of campaign finance laws and potential conflicts of interest for elected officials continue to be significant points of discussion among constituents and stakeholders.”
Here again the poor, self-important dummy is caught trying to make news. To whom are “campaign finance laws and potential conflicts of interests” significant points of interest? We are not told who these “constituents and stakeholders” are, of course, meaning that this is just another irrelevant talking point she hopes one of her readers will pick up and run with at tonight’s meeting.
The shoe fit…
The ironic part of this scatterbrained screed is that neither Skalia or her sister Sharon ever reported on the $60,000 of marijuana money dumped into the 2024 election to help their beloved Vivian Jaramillo.
Yes, Friends, the so-called Walk on Wilshire is coming back to the City Council this Tuesday. For the fourth or fifth time this annoying street closure is being reconsidered. I really don’t know how often this mess has been rehashed. But I do know that City staff has turned this temporary remedy for COVID relief into a stupid, near permanent boondoggle. The bureaucrats in City Hall love them some Walk on Wilshire. It offers an opportunity for them to program things there, to collect what little rent comes in, and hide it all under the nonsensical concept of “business development.”
Of course it has nothing to do with business development. No one in City Hall has ever presented a comprehensive cost or budget analysis on this nonsense, and its adherents in the community who want to claim the street and block off cars don’t care. It’s another liberal gesture in which misplaced feelings are ever so more important than cost/benefit study.
One step ahead?
Last fall Mayor Fred Jung added a caveat to a Shana Charles proposal for another three month extension to do even more studying. Jung proposed to take the street closure all the way from Harbor to Malden – the whole damn block. To anybody with any sort of brains this was a non-starter idea meant to spike the 200ft closure one and for all. Naturally, the dopes Charles and Ahmad Zahra greedily went for it, the love the anti-auto gesture so much.
Tuesday’s staff report includes traffic crap bought from consultants by staff (our money, of course) to make the closure seem plausible, one conclusion being that impacts to traffic would be minimal. This is pure bullshit, of course. The comparison numbers between the 100 W. blocks of Amerige and Wilshire are based on the current Wilshire closure, the analogy being that botched surgery has already so weakened the patient that a little more cutting won’t make much difference anyhow.
Did City Manager Levitt see the light?
Fortunately, the City Manager seems to have brought some commonsense to the project. Citing staff’s inability to guarantee there won’t be a traffic impact, and noting the problem of access to businesses and residences on Wilshire, the recommendation is to drop the whole thing. There is also the potential of legal action lurking in the future, so there’s that, too. Staff recommends reopening the whole street to auto traffic and letting businesses on Wilshire pursue the “parklet” option of outdoor dining, a fairly reasonable approach.
Well, Fullerton BooHoo will be out in force on Tuesday to moan and wail about the absolute criticality of the Walk on Wilshire, despite the fact that except for a few silly events planned in desperation, the place is empty most of the time; and the Downtown Plaza, perfectly suitable for this sort of thing, is only a few hundred feet away.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
But appreciation of facts and deployment of common sense can’t be listed among the skillset of people like the Kennedy Sisters and their ilk. But things aren’t looking good for The Walk. Nick Dunlap will recuse himself again, leaving four councilmembers to provide the three votes necessary to keep the boondoggle on life support.
A few days a go a woman was hit by a car in the middle of Orangethorpe Avenue. She died at the scene. Here’s the dispassionate police department version of events.
Notice that there is mention of a bicycle, however, the now deceased woman wasn’t riding it, but walking it across the street for some reason, presumably to get to the other side.
Now here’s how the same press release appeared in the Kennedy Sister’s Fullerton Observer, purveyors of independent “journalism.”
Notice how the FPD is credited with verbiage that isn’t in their press release. It has obviously been re-written. But by whom?
The dead woman is identified in the Observer headline as a bicyclist even though she wasn’t riding it when killed. We can already see where this is going, since we know that her possession of a bike at the time of her death is irrelevant regarding the facts of the incident.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
This is the way of the Kennedy Sisters. Start off with your own narrative then create “facts” to fit it.
Take a jaywalker and turn her into a bicyclist-martyr. Then project the “tragedy” and the “grief” into a policy objective that fulfills your narrative. It’s twisted. And embarrassing when it becomes obvious you are oblivious to real facts.
And, being the Observer, the comments are part of the inevitable plot development.
Phil M.
That is usually the case and there were also bike lanes here too. The person in question was not going anywhere else but going to the other side of Orangethorpe. It is a foolish risky mistake lots of jaywalkers and “jaybikers” make without using an intersection with traffic lights.
EDITOR NOTE: According to police the bicyclist was walking her bike in the number one eastbound lane which is a designated bike lane when she was hit by the car.
Responding to a previous commenter, Phil M reminds us that there are bike lanes in Orangethorpe and addresses the jaywalking issue. the unnamed “Editor Note” says the victim was in the “designated bike lane” when hit.
So Phil M. responds with some facts and addresses some obviously erroneous conclusions made by “Editor.”
Phil M.
TO THE EDITOR: The number 1 lane is the lane closest to the center of the street. The lane for bicyclists is the ‘bike lane’ obviously, which the one closest to the sidewalk. Are you telling me that this person was riding their bicycle in the center of the street for travel?
EDITOR: Oh! You are absolutely right about that. The number one lane is the one closest to centerline. Thank you for that correction. So she was walking her bike across Orangethorpe when the car and truck hit her.
So “Editor” has finally clued in to the facts of the situation, (or is pretending to) but of course “Editor” will not observe that this is not a bike safety issue at all.
But in the meantime, Sharon Kennedy has chimed in by name, with the usual handwringing, still unaware, that as usual, she doesn’t know what the Hell she’s talking about.
The track record was poor…
Sharon K
Condolences to her family for this tragic loss. This is another good reason to make a dedicated bike lane all across Orangethorpe. Reduce cars to the other three lanes. Let’s name the new bike lane after her. Other cities are creating safe bike lanes – why can’t we?
Phil M.If you look on Google Maps in Street View, there are in fact bike lanes on both sides of Orangethorpe in that section. The person who crossed the street was NOT using the bike line to go east to west or west to east. They were crossing at a place without traffic lights get to the other side of Orangethorpe. Lots of people foolishly risk their lives to jaywalk and “jaybike” all the time in places like these quite often.
As we see, Phil M. is now well-aware of what he is dealing with – an emotional, fact-creating ideologue, and he feels constrained to point out real facts to Kennedy.
Yep. Already there…
There are dedicated bike lanes on both sides of Orangethorpe already. There is no need for a “new” one and even less reason to name it after somebody who wasn’t riding a bike or even obeying traffic lawswhen she died. It would make just as much sense to name it after the poor guy from Westminster who gets to carry this avoidable death with him for life.
And of course there is the perfect comment by one of the few people still permitted or interested in commenting on the Observer blog: “Amy.”
Amy
This is absolutely horrible and I am so saddened for this person and their family. No one deserves to die in such a senseless way. Please Fullerton, let’s build proper bike infrastructure so this never has to happen again.
Poor Amy had reflexively swallowed the bait the morning of the post, to pursue the obvious bike propaganda slant. Needless to say, she hasn’t yet returned to explain how this “senseless” accident could have been avoided by building “proper” bike infrastructure.
Last week the wretched waste known as “Walk-on-Wilshire” was extended another three months – to the end of January, 2025.
At the City Council meeting a cavalcade of comedy ended with a fun twist. More on that in a bit.
Hitchhiking to the airport…
Right out of the gate we learned from Ahmad Zahra that he had to jet away that very evening for parts unknown because of his “day job” as a “producer.” He didn’t elaborate on what he produces; or where or how or what. But he also says he’s a doctor and the faithful believe. Cynical people think that his plagiarizing gig at the OC Water District was his first paying job.
Any how he admonished the crowd he helped manipulated to be there, to exercise brevity. They didn’t.
What you see depends on where you stand
Of course Fullerton BooHoo was fully mobilized to defend the idiotic and continue spilling disinformation all over downtown. Listening to these uninformed nitwits you’d get the idea that a botanical garden had sprung up in the 100 block of West Wilshire, a veritable garden spot in an endless plain of burning sulphur.
It was brutal to listen to the whole damn thing. Jesus H. Christ, what utter nonsense.
It was fun the hear our old pal Diane Vena pontificate; I would have been hard pressed not to ask her about her role in the Scott Markowitz perjury conviction, but that’s another story.
In the end Shana Charles, the boobish mastermind behind this boondoggle made a motion – the usual temporizing – more study needed to make the Wilt of Wilshire permanent; and also to apply the same study to the rest of the block – all the way to Malden Avenue.
Then the fun started. The Mayor-pro-tem, Fred Jung intervened with a “friendly” amendment to the motion. Half-measures were wrong if Fullerton was going to do this thing, said Jung, and he proposed dumping the existing couple hundred feet as part of future study and go for the whole enchilada – the other 400 feet to Malden.
The public health doctor is in…
Doctor Charles got giddy. And greedy. In her haste to promote her hobby horse, the PhD of Public Health agreed and the motion passed 3-1, Whitaker voting no and Dunlap abstaining. Some Fullerton boohoos rejoiced, but they rejoiced too soon. Why?
Because now staff has direction to address only the entire block as relevant.
Closing the entire 100 block of West Wilshire block is a much different animal than the keeping the existing 200 feet that the City has nursed along with temporary extensions and the comical phrase “pilot program.” Much different indeed. Closing the street would entail cutting off a dozen commercial businesses on the south side of the street from direct auto access; another half dozen offices on the north side would be cut off, too.
The Villa del Sol parking lot, and the east end of the Promenade parking structure could only be reached via a narrow alley off of Whiting, itself a traffic restricted street at Harbor Booulevard.
At least 35 parking spaces would be lost or made useless.
Some businesses would actually no longer have useful street addresses if the street were to disappear.
In short, the Jung Amendment was a non-starter, a rather creative effort to stall the issue, and force a new council majority, if there is one, to start over again in February.
It was entertaining to see Charles go for this. Perhaps she could see the Jungian end run and decided that she needed the three votes to keep it alive, so she went along with it. If so she must be counting on Vivian Jaramillo to win in District 4.
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.”
Put on your walking shoes…
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.
It’s the thought that counts…
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.
It’s a total waste of money, but it sure is short…
As has been predicted, a concerned Fullerton Friend has decided that the dismal Trail to Nowhere was such an insult to California’s taxpayers and to any commonsensical Fullerton resident that he was going to do something about it.
So he wrote a letter to the State of California Natural Resources Agency and addressed it to the Agency’s boss, Mr. Wade Crowfoot. I understand that the letter was sent by registered mail so it may be hard for Mr. Crowfoot to claim he didn’t get it.
Well, well, well…
Cynics will say that the California bureaucrats at these agencies don’t care how their grants are spent, or in this case, misspent. Their jobs are to dole out the dough without a backward glance. In this case there was no real forward glance either; judging by the initial approval, they swallowed Fullerton’s tale by the proverbial hook, line, and sinker.
Anyway, it’s a good synopsis of the various inaccuracies and falsehoods in Fullerton’s grant application. Here is the text of the letter, forwarded to us by its author:
Mr. Wade Crowfoot Secretary for Natural Resources California Natural Resources Agency 715 P. Street, 20th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Crowfoot, I am writing to you as a concerned citizen of the City of Fullerton, to inform you of irregularities in a Grant Application made by the City of Fullerton to your agency which resulted in the award of a Urban Greening Grant to build a recreational trail on an abandoned section of the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This is a 2022 grant for $1,777,200.00, under Grant Agreement U29194-0 which itself was authorized by Senate Bill 859. The irregularities in the Grant Application falls into two categories: first, omission of pertinent information required by the application; second, outright falsehoods about the projected positive aspects of the project. The application failed to alert the State that one of the adjacent properties to the proposed trail is contaminated by trichloroethylene (TCE), a known carcinogen. The property (311 South Highland Avenue) is identified by the EPA and the State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Reports have indicated a TCE plume emanating from 311 South Highland in a southerly direction, precisely under the proposed trail site. There are currently 10 Monitoring test wells along the proposed trail site and several others in adjacent properties. The proposed project budget does not include any cost for additional testing, remediation, and/or export. There is no inclusion of the need to rework or replace the existing test wells. Beyond the unmitigated environmental concerns, the City of Fullerton Grant Application asserts “connectivity” as a positive feature of the proposed trail. These assertions are demonstrably false. The proposed trail does not connect to any businesses; it does not connect to Downtown Fullerton; it does not create connections between parks and schools; it does not connect different parts of the City and is actually contained within the same compact area. In fact, the proposal for Phase II does not even connect to its predecessor, Phase I, which itself was a selling point in the Grant Application. In truth, the proposed trail is a disembodied half-mile length of property that starts and stops without reference to any other transportation corridors. To the West, Phase II terminates with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe right-of-way at the back corner of Independence Park, a park so poorly maintained that the playground, courts, and gymnasium have been closed off to the public for several years. On the East, Phase II abruptly ends at a sidewalk adjacent to Highland Avenue, a North-South thoroughfare serving approximately 11,500 vehicles daily, per the City’s own traffic study in 2019. Even if Phase II connected to Phase I, which it does not, Phase I itself stops at the back of the abandoned Union Pacific Park which was closed due to contamination 15 years ago. There is no practical extension in either direction. Despite these facts, the City of Fullerton’s Grant Application included a projected 105,000 annual users, a number that is simply preposterous on its face. The proposed trail does not pass through a residential neighborhood, but rather a blighted industrial strip situated between two dilapidated, neglected, and run-down parks. In short, it doesn’t go where anyone with common sense would want to go. The existing abandoned right-of way has provided plenty of evidence of being unsafe. There is rampant drug use, homeless encampments and two violent deaths over just the past few years. The City of Fullerton cannot afford to maintain the proposed facility, as is clearly witnessed in the condition of the trash strewn, dilapidated, weed-infested Phase I, a condition deliberately omitted from the grant application. The idea that this area has been so poorly maintained but somehow the City will be able to be good stewards of the area only AFTER the State grants it nearly $2 million more, is insulting. The $1.77 million grant represents resources that could, and should, be used elsewhere. Fullerton’s Application was disingenuous, at best. At worst it included falsehoods dressed up in words echoed back from the stated objectives of the Application Form in order to defraud the State. In writing this I am hoping that your Agency will reevaluate this project, rescind the funding, and find a better use of this valuable Grant money. Thank you for consideration of this matter.
In a post only a month ago I wrote about the presence of a memorial shrine on the now-approved, ill-conceived “Trail to Nowhere,” likely evidence of a mortality, causes unknown. But we knew the name of the victim because a small cross gave his name, Emmanuel Perez, and his vital dates:1990-2018.
On a recent tour of the Trail to Nowhere FFFF noticed that the cross bearing Mr. Perez’s name has vanished, removed by somebody after having been there unmolested for many years judging by the age of the shrine.
Gone, not forgotten…
Who did it, and why?
The only plausible reason is that someone who reads this blog, or knows someone who reads this blog wanted it gone, and took it.
It’s possible that family members or friends removed it, but that sort of defeats the purpose of a memorial, and why, after all these years?
It could have been a City employee, dispatched for the purpose of removing an embarrassment to the City’s beloved boondoggle. That would be ironic given the trash, industrial waste, homeless and drug addicts that are the hallmarks of both Phase 1 and the proposed Phase 2 of the Trail to Nowhere. The City has never shown any interest in maintaining the existing property it owns.
Nothing to see here…
Or could it have been a zealous Trail to Nowhere advocate, those busy Zahra minions, who decided that a memorial to dead man was not the sort of landmark that would make good publicity for an allegedly safe facility. Or maybe it could have been a Fullerton Observer.
It might even have been taken by the fellow who is currently making his abode about 100 feet from the memorial site, to add to his collection of Fullerton memorabilia.
Mr. Perez is gone and so is his cross. But neither are forgotten. FFFF is offering a reward for information about who purloined the memorial cross of Emmanuel Perez. Send us an email.
