Search Results for: Boutique

One of the curiosities that emerged from the Bushala depot lease hearing at Tuesday’s Fullerton City Council meeting was a letter from the Bushalas’ lawyer demanding Councilman Ahmad Zahra to recuse himself. Why? Because he is biased against them, as indicated by numerous derogatory comments about their supposed negative influence on the Council majority. Here’s the letter, sent to Zahra on Tuesday afternoon.

At the outset of the meeting Zahra innocently claimed his impartiality and lack of animosity to the Bushalas, a claim that his past behavior has shown to be false, and that his behavior that very night was to belie. Anyone watching the charter city hearing, and watching Zahra’s ten minute meltdown, knows this.

Zahra began to question staff about all sorts of details in the existing and proposed lease amendment; about staff’s procedures in negotiating, etc. a strategy never before displayed by Zahra when it came to dozens and dozens of previous lease agreements he approved on the nod.

Zahra’s behavior didn’t escape the notice of two public commenters who took him to task for his blatant bias, observing that he never before showed much, if any interest in the details of lease agreements set before him, most of which were passed on the consent calendar.

Later, Zahra felt the need to defend himself. The subsequent speech explained his constant attention to details and outlined his incredible diligence looking out for the welfare of the “people.” Mayor Jung felt constrained to point out the disastrous “boutique hotel” vote of Zahra and Charles, in which conmen were essentially the beneficiaries of a massive gift of public funds – obviously no due diligence had been performed by either Charles or Zahra before they voted for the boondoggle.

My own favorite Zahra dereliction was the proposed “fish farm” in which a closed public park was to be illegally converted into a private event center with a fish tank in the middle. Remember? The unsolicited proposer had no money to pay rent or even possessory interest tax, and no collateral to get a loan; there was no parking; instead of thinking about the impact on the neighbors, Zahra even dragged up some of his toadies to gargle about trees and green space, not noise and lack of parking. All the details would be figured out later, said Zahra. The Big Idea, not the details were what was important.

I have never met Mr. Matt Leslie but I already like him. For some reason the Sisters at the Fullerton Observer don’t ban him from commenting on their blog – even though he often deflates their silly rhetoric and unprofessional lack of standards. The latest example was his response to the tendentious essay posted by the political operative Steve Sherry.

Sherry regurgitated the same old absurd talking points about the Bushala lease at the Santa Fe Depot, including the nonsense that the new hotel next door will jack up rental value at the depot; he comically suggests a brand spanking new restaurant like they have in San Juan Capistrano to replace the “downtrodden” café.

Here’s Leslie’s common sense response:

Mr. Leslie points out to naïve Observer readers the nonsense of kicking out the existing café in order to install a fancy restaurant in a space where there is no large kitchen and virtually no seating. Implicit in Leslie’s response lurks the truth that the knucklehead Sherry has never even been inside the café space.

Naturally, this comment provokes one of the Kennedy sisters to leap into the breach with one of the Observer’s obnoxious “ED Responses.” The erection of a hotel adjacent to the depot is “planned,” ED reminds us. ED takes the erection for granted.

Do the Kennedy sisters really believe a hotel is coming, or is this just a (poor) talking point meant to persuade their uninformed readers? It doesn’t really matter, I guess.

Anyway, Leslie ain’t buying the nonsense, and rightly concludes that a hotel – even if there ever were one – isn’t going to make the café space any bigger, and suggests the “aspirational” hotel include fine dining for its customers. Of course aspirational is far too kind a term for an unsolicited project that was hijacked by bankrupt and disgraced conmen, is tied up in litigation, and is years behind meeting contractual milestones.

The following missive was discovered in the FFFF In Box this morning. It may seem gratuitous to point out the hypocrisy of the Fuller Observer and the two Kennedy sisters who run it, but it good to seem others cotton on to the complete lack of journalistic ethics involved there.

In the realm of local journalism, consistency and fairness are paramount. Unfortunately, the Fullerton Observer, a poseur “newspaper” in Fullerton, has shown a glaring inconsistency in its coverage of recent development projects in the city – projects that ironically happen to be adjacent. This selective criticism proves the paper’s lack of objectivity and its fundamental inability to hold local government accountable.

A few years ago, the City of Fullerton entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (ENA) with an individual who, remarkably, had no prior experience in the type of development planned – a “boutique” hotel. This agreement granted him exclusive rights to develop a 2-acre parcel of city-owned land adjacent to the train station. Despite the lack of experience and the complete lack of market demand for the proposed hotel, the Fullerton Observer remained silent. There was no critical analysis, no questioning of the city’s decision to entrust such a significant project to an inexperienced developer. The paper seemed content to report the facts without delving into the potential risks and implications for the city and its residents.

When the project was passed on to two individuals with a record of fraud and loan default, the Fullerton Observer ignored the glaring problem – even as the City prepared to up-zone the land and hand over title to the land before a development agreement was even reached. The project is now in limbo as all of the required milestones have been missed – but the land belongs to the conmen. Silence from the Observer

Fast forward to the present, and we see a stark contrast in the Fullerton Observer’s supposed civic concern. Currently, the Observer has stirred up opposition to a lease amendment at the citiy’s adjacent property, a historic train station listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The city is considering whether to include in the lease the area of only 1000 sq. ft. of its extended portion of it’s “loading dock” that’s been fenced off for nearly thirty five years with no access other than through the current tenant’s leasehold. The tenant of the station has made substantial improvements to the train station building, and has twenty two years remaining on its current lease if he exercises extension rights. However, the Observer has been highly critical of this proposed lease amendment, questioning the results of the City’s staff’s negotiations with the tenant.

The discrepancy in the Observer’s coverages is vivid. Why was there no scrutiny when an inexperienced developer made an unsolicited proposal and was given an exclusive agreement for a high-profile project? Why no scrutiny or criticism of how the deal and the land were handed over to a couple of con artists? Why is there such intense criticism now when a tenant with a proven track record is involved; a tenant who is incentivized to build out the loading dock into a tax-paying space; a tenant who is willing to double his monthly rent to the City? This double standard demonstrates that the Observer’s editorial stance is influenced by factors other than journalistic integrity.

It is crucial for local newspapers to maintain a consistent and critical stance when reporting on city developments. They have a responsibility to question decisions that may not be in the best interest of the community and to hold city officials accountable for their actions. The Fullerton Observer’s selective criticism undermines its credibility and raises concerns about its commitment to fair and unbiased reporting.

As residents of Fullerton, we deserve a real newspaper that provides balanced, critical, and thorough coverage of all development projects. It is time for the Fullerton Observer to reassess its editorial practices and ensure that its reporting is consistent, fair, and in the best interest of the community.

– A Friend of Fullerton’s Future

As a highlight, I’ve added a comment made by David Curlee on the Observer blog that eviscerates the idiotic post by poor Steve who is now left holding his own on a canal bridge. Fortunately, common sense still exists in Fullerton.

The Observer’s new action figure’s name is Steven Sherry who is on the Fullerton Transportation Commission and is also a Democrat political consultant of some sort; meaning he is on some politician’s payroll, or desperately want to be. He doesn’t seem to have ever held a job outside of political wheedling and and political campaign hackery.

Gee, I wonder who put this person on a city commission. Any guesses?

He is the author of a recent post in the Fullerton Observer attacking the proposed lease amendment at the City-owned Santa Fe Depot with Bushala Brothers, Inc. The lease would activate the long dormant east end of the loading dock and would get rent for a derelict structure that would be adaptively reused.

Steven Sherry is not happy about it. And spells out numerous reasons why. They are nothing but unfounded opinions, typical Observer innuendo, and of course, outright falsehoods. The title of his screed is “Opinion: Fullerton’s Train Station Could Be a Jewel—If We Stop Settling.” Settling. That’s funny, Steve.

Let’s review Steve’s complaints one by one.

WASTED POTENTIAL. Steve claims Tony Bushala has reneged on all sorts of (undocumented) promises from 1989 (3 years before the lease started) and comically lists things that aren’t and never were in the Bushala leasehold. He cites no sources for verification for his allegations, as usual. We do learn of a place called “Trevors” is in the SJC depot. Hooray.

AN UNNECESSARY MIDDLEMAN. Steve asserts that the City should build out the loading dock and rent it out itself, eliminating a “middleman.” But poor dumb Steve seems to be unaware that the City controlled portion of the dock is the eastern, skinny butt-end – a mere 1000 square feet. Without the Bushala leasehold portion that far end of the loading dock is completely useless. Plus, the City doesn’t have the money to build a birdhouse and has no facility for property management; but let’s not let facts get in the way of a political essay.

LEGAL JEOPARDY. A recurring Observer theme. Because Albert Bushala is suing the rest of the Bushala family the City could end up in…LEGAL JEOPARDY. Forget for a moment that the City is ALWAYS embroiled in legal jeopardy because of its own actions with no complaint from the Fullerton Observer, the issue is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the rent is paid on time. If it isn’t, the tenant gets evicted. Pretty simple unless you don’t know what you’re talking about.

DOUBLE DIPPING. Bushala Brothers were recently paid by the City for exterior plaster and interior renovation. Over $100,000 for what should be obligated maintenance under the lease! What Steve doesn’t share with his readers is that The Bushalas responded to a solicitation by the City itself to do this work, work the City obviously considered outside the scope of routine maintenance in the existing lease. Another contractor bid significantly higher to do this work. Gee, Steve wants an audit!

LACK OF REVENUE. Steve complains about the current low-rent. What Steve doesn’t know, maybe because it happened before he was born, the Bushalas put in hundreds of thousands of dollars into the initial historic preservation and rehabilitation – money the City didn’t have to fork over at all. Over the past 30 years this investment is worth many times more.

Steve wants the tenants to share the wealth! Kick back a percentage of revenue says Steve. But Steve doesn’t seem to grasp that the loading dock has produced $0 revenue for the City over the past 35 years and without this deal, never will; but with renovation that loading dock would generate sales and possessory interest tax revenue to the City and County of Orange. Steve cites the Summit House restaurant – a completely different type of agreement.

QUESTIONABLE TERMS. All terms are questionable once they’ve been questioned. And Steve is trying, gosh darn it. Then he steps on his own weenie by citing rising land values thanks to “The Tracks at Fullerton” a project that really is mired in the inability of its conmen Johnny Lu and Larry Liu to perform to the agreement, two grifters who were never “audited” by anybody in City Hall and whose multiple frauds, crimes and, massive loan defaults have never been mentioned once in the Fullerton Observer. Fortunately the odds of this monstrosity ever getting built are very long.

Poor Steven never bothers to explain what elements of his essay would make the Santa Fe Depot a “jewel” if it isn’t one already. He says the cafe is “downtrodden,” whatever that means to him. It might be news to the proprietor of the establishment.

And so Steve Sherry pops up to join the tender young sprout Elijah Manassero, in a desperate attempt to twist language and logic in an effort to defame the Bushalas, and doing it at the behest of somebody else.

Yesterday Sharon Kennedy published a post by tender young Elijah Manassero – Part 2 of what is supposed to be a damning legal revelation against the Bushala family. It’s really the wild product of an angry man-child against all of his relatives, but no matter. The point of the post is to try to make Tony and George Bushala look bad to Fullerton Boohoo, and at the same time call into question the upcoming lease agreement between Bushala Brothers, Inc. and the City of Fullerton at the Depot.

Sharon Kennedy telegraphed this intent by making the following comment on her own blog:

This is clearly supposed to be a talking point for the usual gaggle who loudly harass the City Council majority at every meeting over some silly grievance or other.

It’s funny how nobody evert hears from Fullerton Boohoo about the legal entanglements surrounding Mario Marovic’s stolen sidewalk or about the legal entanglements and bankruptcies that enveloped Johnny Lu and Larry Liu before the entitled land for the so-called boutique hotel/rabbit warren apartments was essentially gifted to the grifters. That would require intellectual and moral consistency, two qualities sorely missing from Fullerton Observers.

Well, the item is on the agenda for next Tuesday, so we can expect a vocal shrieking from the banshees Sharon Kennedy and her younger sister, Skakia intend to call out.

And I would be remiss if I didn’t point out (again) the secondary, perhaps primary purpose of the Kennedy Klan’s plan: to create fodder for next year’s campaign for County Supervisor, in which fresh young Elijah’s (alleged) boss, Connor Traut is running against Fullerton Boohoo Public Enemy #1 – Fullerton Mayor Fred Jung.

Our new friend, sweet young Elijah Manassero, has written a letter to selected Fullerton City Councilmembers and FFFF got a copy. This communication is very is ignorant and confrontational; and if the writer thinks it is going to persuade through reason or threat, he’s sadly mistaken.

The topic is the Bushala lease revision at the Santa Fe Depot that would be expanded to include the abandonned loading dock area. Here’s what tender, innocent Elijah had to say to Councilman Nick Dunlap:

Dear City Council,

I’m writing to express deep concern about the lease agreement approved for Mr. Tony Bushala. The terms are lopsided, irresponsible, and betray the values you claim to uphold: fiscal responsibility, transparency, and local control.

Worse, they come in the context of political donations from the very party benefitting. This is a breach of public trust.

⸻

Councilmember Dunlap,
With your background in commercial real estate, you know how bad this deal is.

Section 10 of the agreement allows Bushala to assign or sublease the lease to any entity controlled by George, Tony, or Salma Bushala, including shell companies. This eliminates oversight, obstructs transparency, and gives one political donor unchecked long-term control over public property.

Even more troubling: the lease includes rent credits that discount the already-low rent by up to 75%. That means Bushala can pay pennies on the dollar and then turn around and sublease to a third party at market rate, pocketing the profit with little obligation to improve the property. The City receives nothing from this resale.

You know this isn’t standard in municipal leases. Cities typically reserve the right to renegotiate when property is flipped for private gain. That clause is missing. The power to cancel a lease or require public bidding? Gone. That’s not fiscal responsibility. It’s a giveaway.

This lease is also next to the development, The Tracks at Fullerton Station, which makes the low rent and numerous benefits even more egregious. Mr. Bushala can lock-in a low payment now, before major development takes place which will raise the value of the surrounding area.

You say you believe in local control. But locking the public out of a city-owned property next to a major transit hub until 2060, while giving control to a donor network, is the opposite of local control. It’s donor control.

Ah, poor, sweet boy. Completely uninformed; and he doesn’t let ignorance interfere with the enthusiastic gush of opinion. Elijah wants to come across as knowledgeable and yet shows his political motivations at every misstatement. He’s obviously Ahamad Zahra’s latest toy, and he shows it.

It’s a bad deal because Elijah was told it was.

1. The term “shell company” nonsense is rolled out for sensational and perjorative effect. Really the object here is to secure and expedite future assignment rights for the leasee, acceptable to the landlord, too. There is nothing illicit or objectionabl about this; it’s not uncommon.
2. Excitable young Elijah’s next objection (he’s even more troubled!) is a “rent credit” of 75% – lowering the rent even more. Poor, sad Elijah. He’s referring to the construction rent credit that offsets rent by applying the contruction cost to rent over a long time. But the poor boy misunsterdands (or pretends to). The 75% figure refers to the qualifying amout of the credit – 75% of the construction cost – agreed to by the City. Construction rent credits are not rare, in fact they are used all the time, althought young Manassero doesn’t know anything about it. At the end of the lease the owner gets a built facility, in this case commercial/retail space in the otherwise useless loading dock. And, by the way, how does this impressionable sprout know what’s “standard” in any sort of lease?
3. Newly blossomed Elijah seems to think that something is being “flipped” and a “resale” is going on. Oh, well, how can you even respond to nonsense like that?
4. Finally! The young bud mentions “The Tracks at Fullerton Station” a project that will make the Bushala’s “low rent” even more “irresponsible”egregious.” How, Elijah doesn’t say. And he doesn’t mention that “The Track” developers are convicted conmen, have missed all of their required milestones, and are embroiled in a lawsuit with the heirs and assigns of the original mastermind, Craig Hostert. And Elijah isn’t done omitting facts, probably because Zahra never told the eager youngster: “The Tracks” (that Zahra voted for) amounted to a fantastic giveaway, entitling property that increased in value geometrically and was concurrently sold (by Zahra, again) for 6 cents on the dollar: a real giveaway. Naturally, the land involved was never offered to the public in the form of a developers RFQ. Finally, if “The Tracks” ever happens I’ll fly with callow Elijah to the moon on gossamer wings.
5. Our puerile interlocutor wraps up by asserting that the lease will somehow “lock out” the public from a city-owned property. I have no idea what this means. We could guess what Elijah means, or what he thinks he means, but really, why bother?

Nick Dunlap is involved in commercial real estate. As such he knows that the Santa Fe Depot space is highly unique and not in the way typical real estate types use the phrase. The three parts, not counting the loading dock, are comparatively small, noncontiguous areas that are hard to lease; the Bushala’s are also responsible for a share of the maintenance that would otherwise be paid for by the public. The Loading Dock is of no use to anybody but the Bushalas: there is no access to the dock except through their existing leasehold. In other words the rents here are not comparable to other properties downtown and certainly not to any other city leases. Dunlap surely knows all this, even if sweet, young Elijah and the Kennedy Sisters and Zahra don’t.

The public’s trust is not being “breached” as asserted in young Elijah’s attempt to make his rhetoric take flight. It’s actually being tended to in a way that will generate sales and property taxes to the city and to the county.

On Tuesday the Bushala Depot lease agreement was not voted upon. It item was continued until July 15th.

But that didn’t keep a gaggle of Zahra followers from trying to continue the narrative of subsidies and below market rate rent.

Our new friend, tender young thing Elijah Manaserro, local scholar, was there to do just that. And a few other callers in.

My favorite speaker was the itinerant pest Curtis Gamble, whose near homelessness makes him qualified to opine on real estate deals.

When public comments were done, Zahra showed his role as coordinator of the opposition. He wanted comparative market rates, he said; there won’t be any, but okay, fair enough. But then he displayed his fundamental ignorance by including agreements with The Summit Restaurant and the Boys and Girls Club – completely different properties.

The fact is that the Santa Fe Depot doesn’t have any “comps” in Orange County. The historic building is is unique and made up of several disparate areas, each of pretty small space; in other words, hard to rent out. And the Loading Dock, proposed for inclusion in a revised overall lease, is only connected to an area already leased by the Bushalas. Adaptive reuse will require a huge outlay of money to effect structural reinforcement, enclosure and interior finishes. And because there is no place for kitchen or restrooms, it is functionally useless for anybody except the Bushalas who have ten year lease extension options.

Here’s the hypocrisy part. Remember the ill-fate “boutique hotel/monster apartment,” an unsolicited proposal with no RFP, no RFQ, no RF-anything? Do you remember any of Fullerton BooHoo raising Hell about that? Me neither. I do remember that Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles voted to give con-men Johnny Lu and Larry Liu a $14,000,000 price subsidy on a parcel they upzoned themselves. Talk about short-term memory loss.

Hopefully when this item returns, staff will explain (based on their extensive expertise) the expertise Fullerton Boohoo is always praising – that the deal they negotiated is not a subsidy and that rather than losing money, the deal will bring in tax revenue to the City and to the County; and that letting the Loading Dock fall down doesn’t help anybody – even those taxpayers Zahra and Charles pretend to care so much about.