Ah, late night music in downtown Fullerton. The louder it gets, the more people show up. And at the Slidebar, the party rocks on every night of the week.
Sure, it’s fun if you’re visiting from the 909 on a Thursday night. But to the rest of the public, nonstop amplified outdoor music is known as something else: a Public Nuisance.
Here’s what the Fullerton Municipal Code’s Limitations on Permitted Uses section has to say about music on outdoor patios:
Accessory Outdoor Dining or Patio.
15.30.040.I.7.c.ii. No amplified music or amplified entertainment is permitted outdoors, except recorded background music for dining establishments wherein normal conversation is not impeded; no music or entertainment shall be permitted on a patio past 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
So whose job it is to police the downtown bars and night clubs that have patios with outdoor amplified music?
On a post today at the dismal Liberal OC blog (almost as self-righteous and irrelevantly noisy as Red Klownty) our old pal and sanctimonious prig Matthew J. Cunningham shares these gem-like comments, reiteration of charges he made against me a few weeks ago.
Great post, Dan. A portrait of Pedroza’s true, amoral nature in action.
Among other things, it clear Pedroza is an accessory to Bushala’s violation of Section 18320 of the California Elections Code.
Written By Matthew Cunningham on November 19th, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Well folks, Cunningham seems to think if he keeps repeating something maybe somehow it will turn out to be true. It is very clear that my ownership of the Daly for Supervisor URL is intended to make a clear and unadulterated political statement: Daly is a career politician. Too bad Cunningahm can’t seem to grasp this pretty simple point. This is protected political speech and is in no way intended to shake down or extort anything from Daly – which is the intent of the law. Of course “Jerbal” never bothered to inform his readers that he has his own interest in the matter: his godfather John Lewis has gambled big trying to get the Democrat Daly’s vote on the Board of Supervisors, and Cunningham has been running interference on that issue since early in the year; what’s good for Lewis is good for Cunningham, especially in light of his cowardly refusal to support Chris Norby in the 72nd election.
Anyway, the Lewis URL is not for sale: I’ll be putting it to good use myself, thank you very much!
In closing I would like to reflect upon the irony of moral outrage from aself-interested hack like Cunningham who is perfectly satisfied to turn a blind eye to perversions of justice and decency perpetrated by his pals in the Diocese of Orange, the behavior of Mike Carona, the promotion of a candidacy by a woman who didn’t live in our district, and most recently his running cover for his buddies on the Fair Board (and their lawyer Dick Ackerman). Gosh they were just so generous with the food, drinkies and tickets!
Right now it looks like Ms. Charles, the sanctimonious and self-important gasbag representing District 3 on the Fullerton City Council has no competition for re-election this November.
I suppose this is a testament to the apathy of the electorate because there should be at least one person willing to challenge the otiose uber-leftist whose constant stream of self-righteous and ignorant bullshit almost demands an opponent.
A visit to the City Clerk’s webpage listing candidate committees shows no one except Charles in the Third District.
This doesn’t mean that a non-committee candidate isn’t running, or that a potential opponent isn’t waiting to file the forms necessary to raise funds like a serious contender. But time is almost up. Candidates will be able to “pull papers” to run in just a few weeks. If they haven’t announced yet, at this late date, it seems unlikely.
Why?
Charles has taken lots positions that would undoubtedly be unpopular among responsible, taxpaying citizens outside the Fullerton Boohoo echo chamber. Let’s put aside her flip-flops on issues like the downtown noise regulations and the issue of private publications on city property. Instead, let’s focus on issues that would be pretty damaging to Charles once voters learn about them. They involve wasting money, or trying to. A lot of it.
First is her steadfast support of handing over $200,000 of public funds to support illegal aliens harassed by ICE. You can feel sympathy for people snagged by the ICE goons without wanting to use public funds to pay for their groceries.
That can’t be good…
Then there is the embarrassing matter of the so-called boutique hotel, where the Council approved massive entitlements on a property and then “sold” it for peanuts to build a massive and harebrained project on Santa Fe Avenue. The worst part was deeding over the property to a couple of inveterate con men who, after many years, haven’t turned a shovel of dirt on the site and never will. Providentially, that approval was Shana Charles’ very first vote.
Green means green. One way or another…
How about the issue of her income from the marijuana lobby – gained via her husband’s effort to get Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo elected in the 2024 D4 election. Her tribe is always blathering about the evils of money in campaigns; Jaramillo got $60,000 of Washington DC lobbyist cash working for her and $4000 went right into the Charles family wallet. Would the residents of D3 like a dispensary on State College?
I don’t want to forget the disastrous Trail to Nowhere that cost $2.5 million and has virtually no use. FFFF predicted that over and over again, although it wasn’t hard for anybody to foresee. The last half dozen times I have driven down Richman at various hours, I have yet to see a single user. Charles was stupid enough to fall for all the bullshit peddled by staff; either that or she knew it was nonsense and didn’t care. Does it make a difference?
Spinning, spinning…
If there is a tax on the November ballot Charles will have to take a stand. Spinning won’t help. She won’t get her 13% general sales tax increase, but there could be two 6.5% special sales taxes to vote for, infrastructure and “public safety.” Opposing these would send a signal that she doesn’t care about fixing the budget deficit she helped create: just a couple years ago she bragged about hiring more people.
She has to run on the state of the City and that state isn’t good. She’s been there for four years with nothing to show for it except foolish positions and non-stop, rambling lectures.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
Yes, indeed. In an editorial masquerading as some sort of news, Fullerton Observer sister Sikita Kennedy explained the failure of government and the ways in which that failure is dressed up to look like victory. This article appears to be an AI generated creation since the estimable Satskia has never shown this sort of perspicuity in the past, but, whatever. After you weed out the jargon some fundamental management truths emerge.
The topic of course is something almost nobody gives a rat’s ass about: getting rid of bike lockers at the train station, the reason given that they are underused. The awkward title shouts out “Fullerton’s Bicycle Lockers Spark Controversy Among Cyclists” as if an inanimate object has such puissance. Naturally, it’s the removal of said lockers that is causing Siska herself grief; not a solitary cyclist is interviewed or quoted in her essay.
But I digress. The topic is inconsequential, but the analysis of failure is quite remarkable and completely uncharacteristic. Kennedy seems to have finally discovered the cultural behavior of government bureaucracies that we have known all along. Let’s enjoy some of the fruits of her editorial labors:
Organizations in crisis rarely announce themselves as such.More often, they produce charts, reports, and performance metrics that tell a reassuring story — one that, on closer inspection, was shaped by the same decisions it purports to evaluate. This is one of the quieter dangers of institutional mismanagement: it doesn’t just damage an organization, it can generate the evidence that justifies its own continuation.
How perfectly true, and so descriptive of almost every staff and study report ever produced in Fullerton. The classic dodge is to answer a question that nobody asked.
“…a dispute over bicycle lockers is offering a textbook example of how low performance, manufactured by neglect, gets cited as the reason to eliminate the very thing being neglected.
Yes, indeed. Sort of sounds like the death-march noise ordinance fiasco, doesn’t it, wherein City failure to enforce codes results in the push to abandon the process of code enforcement altogether.
When managers make poor decisions, they typically face two options: change course or defend the course they’re on. Defense, in institutional settings, almost always involves data. The problem is that those same managers often control what data gets collected, how it gets measured, and how it gets reported.
Good Lord, Satkia, has had her come to Jesus revelation! The truth may yet set her free! How often have we seen a circling of the wagons, the manipulation of information to reinforce the error? Mostly data collection, crooked or otherwise, isn’t even necessary. Convoluted rhetoric often does the trick. Option number one never takes place.
A leader who has misallocated resources will tend to measure success in ways that don’t reveal the misallocation. A department head who has pursued the wrong strategy will frame performance indicators around the metrics where progress is easiest to show. Over time, the organization’s entire information infrastructure bends toward confirming decisions already made.
This is something we’ve seen time and time again. Throw out the jargon and it means this: “look over there.” The misdirection is so common as to be commonplace. This is what will happen when the City’s disastrous “fire fighter” ambulance driver chickens come home to the proverbial roost.
This is the classic mismanagement data trap: measuring outputs rather than outcomes, and then using those outputs to validate the decisions that produced them.
Amen, Sister, testify!
The “data trap” of measuring outputs was nowhere better seen than on the horrendously useless Trail to Nowhere, where the efforts were all about building something expensive and then patting yourself on the back for…building something expensive. But that wasn’t about a few piddling bike lockers, no, but the waste of $2,500,000, an irony lost on the Fullerton Observer editorial staff of two. The Observer Sisters will never expend a moment’s time worrying about actual users (or complete lack of same) on the “trail.”
One of the most common tools in this playbook is selective periodization — choosing a start date for measurement that makes current numbers look favorable by comparison. Applied to civic infrastructure, this often means measuring usage after a program has already been allowed to deteriorate, rather than tracking the arc from functional to neglected.
How funny. Siskia has had her epiphany, alright, but it sure is a selective enlightenment. Remember when staff tried to keep the ridiculous Waste on Wilshire going by citing low traffic on Wilshire after the street had been closed!
Organizations under poor leadership often commission external reviews that appear to provide independent accountability but are structured to confirm decisions already made. The questions given to reviewers shape the findings, and the questions come from the people who need favorable findings. The result carries the authority of objectivity while functioning as a mirror.
Let’s consider the very recent Grant Thornton report whose results were meant to cauterize a huge embarrassment without naming a single culprit or a single systemic failure. No outcries from the Observers, of course.
Cities do this too — with traffic studies, usage audits, and infrastructure assessments that are framed around the conclusion leadership has already reached. Whether that’s what’s happening with Fullerton’s active transportation data is a question advocates would do well to press publicly.
They sure do, Sitka. Who are you supposed to believe, your commonsense or the experts we have hired to back us up? Ahem, remember the “experts” hired to produce pro tax findings, pro development findings, pro this or pro that findings? In fact data supporting everything that the City Manager who hired them wants. The latest examples is that “traffic study” for the overbuilt Harbor/Hermosa project that will never in a million years stop the project as designed, from being built.
The antidote to data shaped by mismanagement is not more data — it’s differently sourced data, with different incentive structures attached to it. Independent audits are conducted by parties with no relationship to the decisions being evaluated. Performance metrics set before interventions begin, not after. Usage data is examined in the context of program accessibility, not in isolation.
Great Caesar’s Ghost! What a splendid statement of objective accountability and something that should be happening, at least occasionally, and not on some silly bike lockers, but on real issues where millions are spent, from hiring ambulance drivers to deciding if anybody is now going to use a new but previously failed park; on weather there is a chance in hell that anybody would patronize a “boutique” hotel at the Transportation Center.
There is a vast irony in the Observer’s new-found demand for objective standards to promote accountability – exactly the thing government employees dread. See, it’s the squalid world of professional management, and such accountability is not to be applied to government bureaucrats who are made of a finer material. They are working for us, see, and have a noble calling not to be subjected to accountability.
And it’s deliciously ironic that the new Observer spirit has been discovered due to some footling bike lockers, and not the decades long history of Fullerton disasters that nobody but FFFF has chronicled.
Might Sciatica Kennedy’s observations and suggestions be applied to future Fullerton mishaps? Bet not. But let’s enjoy them while we can.
College Park is an old neighborhood adjacent to Fullerton Junior College. Back in 1979 the City designated it as an historic preservation zone. That was 46 years ago if you’re counting. The area is full of little bungalows and small spanishy looking houses. It’s a nice neighborhood even if you add in the dinky roundabouts on Wilshire – the brainstorm of Wild Ride Joe Felz, who certainly could not have navigated them on election night, 2016.
But I digress.
Cornell Avenue resident
At the last City Council meeting a woman who lives on Cornell Avenue in the district complained about a building on her street under construction that was completely out of character with the neighborhood and the preservation rules, adopted in 1996, that are supposed to protect against such things. She kindly reminded the Council that she lives in D5 – Ahmad Zahra’s district.
So I went over to the 100 North block of Cornell Avenue and snapped some images.
The Thing That Ate Cornell…
Now I’m not an architect, but something is awfully wrong here. Yeah, it’s a big box with cheap, misaligned windows that is completely out of scale with the houses around it. Yikes. Check out the puny little rooflet over the cheapo Home Depot door.
It may be ugly but it sure is big…
How could this happen? It looks like somebody in City Hall dropped the melon with a loud plop. As I understand it, there is a staff process for reviewing these developments. Did it occur? I don’t know. But whether it did or didn’t happen, the problem is obvious. If it didn’t, why not? If they did what sort of knucklehead(s) could have approved this?
Eyesore is right.
At the meeting Development Director Sunaya Thomas preposterously claimed this hulking monster was somehow an ADU development – meaning a mere accessory dwelling unit, a “granny unit,” and that the City had no real control over the design of the beast; and also that it was up to the owner to figure out parking for his tenants! Up to the owner?Since when?
Of course Ms. Thomas is talking out of her backside, as is so often the case. The rules for preservation in the R2P zone are called out in the Municipal Code – Chapter 15.17.60, from which I quote:
All proposed development, including the rehabilitation of existing structures, will be reviewed for compliance with established design criteria and standards, specific to the preservation zones and identified significant properties. These adopted design criteria and standards, entitled “Design Guidelines for Residential Preservation Zones,” are intended to serve as a baseline — a set of elementary guidelines — by which a proposal will be evaluated.
Here are the the guidelines, supposedly unknown to the very person in charge of applying them to new development in preservation zones:
I learned a long time ago that it’s almost impossible to make Fullerton planning bureaucrats do their jobs (see noise ordinance issues). The defensiveness and lack of shame will always prevail. But this is appalling. The rules are there to follow, not to pick and choose.
Thomas failed and failed badly. The Council was lied to on Tuesday night. Does anybody care?
Hopefully the D5 council representative Ahmad Zahra, who champions transparency and accountability, will get to the bottom of this fiasco.
In case you missed the 2022 District 3 election for Fullerton City Council, here’s a recap of the results.
Our current incumbent, the self-righteous and condescending gas bag, Shana Charles, got far less than 50% of the vote; the remaining votes were spilt pretty evenly between a guy named Johnny Ybarra and Arnel Dino who had been supported by Fullerton Mayor Fred Jung. Charles was supported by the fire brigands who got her elected.
It’s obvious that the turnout was anemic. That’s an ongoing challenge to candidates; or an opportunity – depending on one’s perspective.
Dino ponders his future…
The word on the Fullerton grapevine is that Arnel Dino wants to give it another go in 2026. If true, he has been super low-profile about it. I haven’t heard a peep out of this guy.
I’m a doctor. I will figure it out for you dummies…
One opponent would be Charles – who has announced her decision to continue her fascinating journey of discovery.
Charles is vulnerable among conservatives – Republican or Independent. Her spendthrift stance on shelling out $200,000 for illegal immigrants’ rent and legal help will be a huge detriment. A year from now, the failure of the $2.3 million Trail to Nowhere will be obvious; the Waste on Wilshire fiasco, the boutique hotel disaster, and numerous other boondoggles will no doubt shine prominently as campaign issues.
Spinning, spinning…
Then there’s the $4000 she and her husband got from the dope lobby during the 2024 campaign in District 4. The dead weight of these albatross neckties is going to be heavy – even for an advocate for public health.
There is no doubt that Fullerton Tax Payers for Reform will wage a well-funded and efficient campaign against her, as they did with Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo.
Shana Charles has flipped her stance on noise regulations. I wrote about it, here the other day.
Previously, the councilwoman proposed a 10pm cutoff on amplified music with an 11pm cutoff on weekends. This is an ideal solution, as it supports residents’ needs for peace and quiet while still recognizing the importance of nightlife to the city’s “vibe.” However, Mayor Pro-Tem Charles has renounced her previous stance and instead, her recent vote indicates that she now stands behind louder music and promotes the disruption of residents.
Shana has failed to side with the reasonable ordinance that would benefit both residents and businesses. Her stance seems to favor only the business side, ignoring the needs of the residents who deserve a quiet environment, especially during late hours. The lack of respect for all of us who live here undermines trust in our local government and shows a disregard in our community’s well being.
Once again, an elected in Fullerton has flip-flopped. Big surprise.
Obviously, Shana doesn’t live near the loud music. The amplified music is constantly disrupting our sleep, even on weeknights when rest is necessary for school and work. This inconvenience is impossible to get used to and negatively impacts our focus, energy, and overall lifestyle. It never seems to quiet and is a constant headache to all of those who are affected.
Shana’s decision was hypocritical and disrespectful to all residents. It just looked political. It’s frustrating to see those in charge act for political reasons rather than in the best interests of the community. Some councilpersons’ choices continue to show a lack of accountability and awareness of how their actions impact everyone else. Decisions like these create disappointment and distrust, making it harder for residents to believe that those leading Fullerton truly care about the people they represent.
We need to hold Mayor Pro-Tem Charles accountable for her actions and recognize what the city really needs, not what Charles wants.
All this thinking can give a youngster a headache.
The other day I shared the City Attorney’s response to unfounded allegations and threats the tender, green bud, Elijah Manassero, made about the Santa Fe Depot lease. His mission is to connect Mayor Fred Jung to bad decisions, even when they are not bad decisions. He’s been working hard at it with his friends “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra and the Kennedy Sisterhood Coven.
Some cynical folks are saying sweet Elijah is working on behalf of the Buena Park carpertbagger, Connor Traut, seen above with his close personal mentor, Jordan Brandman.
Therefore it is no surprise that sweet young Elijah refuses to be educated in the ways of municipal legal thinking and submitted a response to the response. In his response he stubbornly refuses to understand that a breech isn’t a default; and something nobody cared about hardly merits his conniption. Moreover, if the City thinks historic plaster restoration is within its purview, it has the latitude to do so.
Dear Mr. Bettenhausen,
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your office’s willingness to engage on this matter.
That said, your reply raises serious concerns that warrant clarification.
Your letter states that “notice and cure” must occur before a default is recognized. However, Section 6(e) of the lease amendment plainly states that “If Tenant is in default (beyond applicable notice and cure periods), the Third Extension Term… shall not commence.” The City was made aware, before approving the amendment, that:
Mr. Bushala admitted to a sublease on the record,
Staff publicly acknowledged having no record of any authorized sublease, and
The City had already incurred costs repairing the tenant’s plaster, repairs that are the tenant’s contractual obligation under both the original lease and the 2025 amendment.
In short, Council knowingly proceeded with lease approval while credible evidence of an uncured default was in plain view. That is a failure of due diligence and, arguably, of the lease itself. Whether or not the lease term technically commences until 2027 is beside the point, the City has bound itself to a long-term extension with a tenant under active investigation for breach. That defeats the purpose of the default clause entirely and undermines the City’s leverage.
I also note that between the prior version of the lease and the final version adopted, Section 8(g) was materially altered. The earlier version allowed the City to terminate the entire lease if the tenant failed to construct agreed improvements within five years. The final version, however, softens that enforcement mechanism, allowing only for loss of the 13-year extension, not lease termination.
The modification to Section 8(g), which weakens the City’s enforcement authority and softens default penalties, represents a material change in the terms of the lease, if not the price. As such, it triggers public disclosure and review requirements under Government Code §54956.8, which applies to leases of public property involving ‘price and terms of payment.’ To my knowledge, this change was not discussed by Council in open session or disclosed to the public prior to final adoption.
You argue the City may fund ADA improvements on its own property. While I agree in principle, the repairs at issue, including the plaster restoration inside the leased premises, are explicitly listed as tenant responsibilities under both the 1992 lease and the 2025 amendment. Public funds should not be used to subsidize private tenant obligations, especially under a lease that explicitly absolves the City of those duties. If the City chooses to assume those costs anyway, it is:
Waiving a breach of lease without formal Council action or public justification, and
Potentially engaging in a gift of public funds under Article XVI, Section 6 of the California Constitution.
I had hoped the City would proactively enforce its rights under the lease. Instead, your office appears to be shielding the Council’s actions under the narrowest possible reading of the agreement, despite clear signs of default, fiscal exposure, and procedural irregularity. I intend to proceed with a formal Brown Act “Cure and Correct” demand based on the post-continuance modification of lease terms and other irregularities cited above.
If your office or the City has documentation or a timeline that explains how the Section 8(g) change was reviewed or approved by Council in open session, I welcome it.
Sincerely, Elijah Manassero Fullerton Resident
Well there you have it. Like a small, angry child with a drum, delicate Elijah intends to keep banging out the same noise until somebody responds and gives him a cookie. However, there is no default. There is no fiscal exposure. Any irregularities were de minimis, have already been cured, and have nothing to do with a lease extension that won’t occur for another two years.
None of this boy’s accusations mean anything. The City’s own lawyer has said so. Repeating the same thing isn’t going to help. Of course tender Elijah doesn’t care that his buzzing about is actually costing the public he pretends to care so much about. We have to pay Jones and Meyer to deal with fresh Elijah. Think about that for a second.
I hope Jones and Mayer are told by the Council to drop this correspondence with the delicate sprout. He doesn’t deserve a response, not even to tell him to shove it.
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.
That can’t be good…
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.
“Tam. Smell that smell…
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.
At the June 3rd Fullerton City Council meeting, George Bushala directly asked Shana Charles something I raised a few weeks back when I discovered that her husband, Andre Charles was paid $4000 by the marijuana workers union that was invested big time in the ill-fated council campaign of Vivian Jaramillo.
Obviously, the issue raises questions about Ms. Charles relationship with the legalized dope lobby.
Her response to Mr. Bushala was pathetic. You’ll have to ask my husband about that, she said cavalierly through her idiot grin.
They think they are smarter than you are…
Hey, wait a minute “Doctor” Charles. California is a community property state, meaning that you benefited from that four grand just as much as your loquacious hubby. Your husband is not a public figure making policy decisions for the people of Fullerton. You are. And why should anybody have to chase down Mr. Charles on his daily rounds?
By the way, will you be showing that $4K on your Form 460, presuming you ever get around to filling it out? Will you declare yourself ineligible to discuss cannabis related issues, as your followers demanded (unnecessarily, it turns out) that Councilwoman Valencia do with regard to campaign donors? If not, why not?
I want my cannabis!
As an aside, my favorite bit of the exchange came when “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra identified the union in question as a grocery store workers organization, as well as a cannabis workers crew. And this outfit isn’t a lobbyist, he proclaimed.
Not a lobbyist, I tells ya…
Hmm. Of course we remember that Zahra appointed the OFCW political lobbyist, Derek Smith to the ad hoc Fiscal Sustainability Committee so we know he’s lying about the lobbyist thing; but we also knew he was lying because his lips were moving and noise was coming out.
Why would grocery store workers union give a rat’s ass about a city council election in Fullerton that has almost zero control over their interests? And other than recruiting a few dozen potential union members from dope store workers why would the national union HQ flood $60,000 to Jaramillo’s election? Smart money places the donation of that kind of loot right back to the cannabis lobby itself, bankrolling the effort to elect pro-dope Jaramillo.
Zahra also made a point that it was bad to vilify unions, something nobody had done.
For those wondering about that code section, click here: http://www.redcounty.com/4th-supe-district-watch-illegal-cyber-squatting-fringe-o-sphere
