Update: It’s that time of the year again. Don’t forget to deduct the optional $42.00 “crash tax” from your Fullerton utility bill this month.
Don’t forget, this is the month in when an optional Paramedic Fee is automatically added on to your Fullerton water bill. Look closely and you’ll see that the city squeezing the optional charge into the total amount due, which seems a little sneaky. Subtract $42.00 from your total before you make your payment to opt out of the program.
According to the city website, paramedic visit charges range from $250 to $500 and are sometimes covered by your health insurance. Unless you fall down a lot, specific risk coverage for relatively minor expenses such as these are usually not a good investment.
Update: These two murals are about to be put on the schedule as part of the $100,000 taxpayer-funded Lemon Park Mural restoration project, so now it’s time to ask the question again…
There has been some discussion over the past few years about what to do with the aging and in some cases repeatedly defaced murals that adorn the pedestrian bridge over Lemon Street.
When I went to take some pictures recently, a new twist on the story occurred to me, and one which the ACLU-types don’t seem to have noticed: the promotion of Christianity on public property. On the east side support an actual Catholic shrine has emerged.
An interesting situation, to say the least, and one in which any artistic statement has obviously morphed into an obviously overt religious expression. Do these murals get a pass as a cultural expression that, say, a Christmas display in front of City Hall wouldn’t?
As always we welcome your thoughts on the subject.
Last month I was walking Independence Mall in Philadelphia and admiring the history and reflecting on what it would have been like in 1776. As I crossed Market Street to go look at the Liberty Bell I looked left and right scanning the streets. Then something caught my eye. The antique cityscape had something shiny and new nestled in between two pieces of historic-looking buildings.
The structure has jutting polished metal forming right angles and contrasts sharply against the backdrop of American history. The building’s unusual placement on the historic Mall speaks volumes of its purpose, though no billboards announce what that may be.
As I circle the Mall admiring the formation of our Country, my mind and camera wander back to the building, now more striking than when I saw it just moments ago. Seeing the building on the Mall and recognizing the unusual beauty of its presence in that location has caused me to question the direction the City of Fullerton has traveled for decades.
A recent FFFF post brought to light the Redevelopment Design Review Committee’s selections of less than inspiring architecture.
I used to have the strong opinion that modern designs just would not work in our downtown. After long debates and discussions with friends and my visit to Philadelphia I am confident that it can work well.
Entrepreneurs looking to raise the bar and make their place in Fullerton should look to innovative designs which will stand in contrast to our old and confused architecture. More importantly, when every other building is a bar or tattoo parlor, business owners need to look at ways of setting their establishment apart from the rest of the herd.
Update from admin: It’s 2011 and we’re still still catching stanky wiffs rising from the bog of mediocrity known as the RDRC. Yep, they’re still slowing and stalling residential additions, nitpicking the architectural details of private projects and using the know-nothing force of government to bear down on hapless homeowners trying to improve buildings that aren’t even visible from the public street. And so again we say…
The Fullerton Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) must be abolished. The committee was created in the 1970’s along with the Redevelopment Project Areas with the goal of fostering good architectural designs within them.
The trial run period is over. The RDRC and its associated bureaucratic process has failed – failed to improve design in either the project areas themselves, or in the ever growing number of projects in which city staff has required RDRC review. Actually the reverse is true. The failure has been spectacular.
Who says affordable housing has to look good?
The pages of this blog has been nauseatingly filled with examples of RDRC failure-projects dutifully approved by a compliant and complacent RDRC. Rather than promoting innovative and creative work-excellence, in fact, the RDRC has enabled city staff penchant for the phony, stucco, and brick veneered banalities intended to comfort the worst of middle brow aesthetic preferences.
Over the weary years the RDRC has been the precinct of local architects looking to promote their own interests within the city. Numerous examples of conflicts of interest were exposed in the 1990’s. And the city council keeps appointing to the RDRC dingbats, talent-free Pecksniffs, and interior decorators, to whom you wouldn’t entrust the design of a birdhouse. The existence of this committee provides the city council with a little political cover on potentially controversial projects, but accomplishes very little else.
And so we say: Abolish the RDRC! People developing their own property without subsidy or without legislative action by the City should be able to design their projects without city oversight; those receiving subsidy or significant zone changes should be required to use architects who have been published in reputable professional journals. Maybe when this happens we can have increased freedom for private owners and design excellence for City sponsored projects. Presently we have very little of either.
Neighbors around Lemon Park received a letter from the city inviting them to meetings on 5/31 and 6/28 to discuss the old Lemon Park Murals. The Public Art Committee would like feedback from the community…
1. Is there one or more mural out of the group you feel is/are absolutely essential to keep and restore?
2. Is there one or more mural out of the group that you feel is/are absolutely essential to remove or replace?
3. Please rank the murals in order of importance to the park and the community. A number 1 would indicate the most important, 12 the least.
Come Back Again and La Adelita
Fullerton Clasped Hands
Girl with Car
Cross with Crown of Thorns
The Town I Live In and Brown Car
Virgin de Guadalupe
La Mujer Latina
Zoot Suit Riots
Calle Elm
Los Ninos Del Mundo
4. If we are able to produce a new mural in or around Lemon Park, what subjects/themes would you like to see depicted in the mural.
FFFF will be forwarding all comments to the Fullerton Public Art Committee, the Fullerton Museum Board and the Fullerton City Council.
A Public Comment to the General Plan Advisory Committee By Judith Kaluzny
I ask that you remove the reference to a Business Improvement District from your draft of a general plan. I understand the mention is to “encourage” a business improvement district. A business improvement district is a tax on businesses, collected as a property tax by the county tax assessor, in a defined area. It can be based on property ownership–and the owners pass the costs along to their tenants; or on individual businesses in the district.
This is found in the codes of the State of California in the Streets and Highways code. Thing is, a city can assist a BID ONLY AFTER the business people on their own form a group, plan the boundaries, get a petition signed to ask for having a BID. A BID is NOT for paying for regular maintenance of an area, but for improvements. An executive director will be hired, and a board of directors elected–another level of government and taxation for your small downtown businesses in this case.
The redevelopment department, inappropriately, has already tried that for $3,000 paid to a consultant and a balance in the accounts for another $27,000 for that consultant. Four meetings were held; I attended all, as did Cameron Irons and Mr. Terranova. Only at the last meeting did about five other business owners attend. And I had handed out many fliers to alert downtown businesses.
A year or two before that, Cameron Irons sent out a survey to downtown property owners regarding a BID. He gave me copies of the 12 or 14 replies. All were against it, but two said, if you are going to have it, we will participate.
The Nicole Coats had a meeting or two to gin up support for a BID. The two people (me and Henry Jones) who indicated willingness to participate were not invited. Those meeting with Nicole Coats–Cameron Irons, Terranova, Theresa Harvey, and two or three more chose the consultant. Paul Dunlap said he was invited, but declined to participate.
The idea of a BID for downtown arose when Councilmember Quirk asked if there wasn’t some way to get money for paying for the costs of maintaining downtown. Redevelopment Director Zur Schmeide told her that a business improvement district might be a way.
When the consultant was hired, I talked to both the city manager and Councilmember Quirk. Mr Meyer said, “we have an eight block area that is costing us over million and a half dollars a year. We have to do something.” Councilmember Quirk also spoke of a BID paying for the excess costs of maintaining the restaurant overlay district.
This is not the appropriate use or purpose of a BID! And it is by law supposed to arise from the grass roots business people, not top down from the city to get tax money for maintenance.
What I see happening is that if a BID were established for downtown, the only people who would have time or interest to serve on the board of directors will be restaurant/bar owners. Then they will vote to spend the taxes raised for maintenance so the city will not be so burdened by the bar district. (Which burden the city council created by abolishing CUPs for restaurants downtown.)
The Downtown Fullerton Restaurant Association is a non profit listed as c/o Cameron Irons, 118 North State College Boulevard, same address as Vanguard Investment Properties.
On tonight’s Planning Commission agenda there’s an item titled “Planning Commission Position on Green Building”. This should be fun to watch. I’ll make anyone a bet that the Planning Commission decides to send a letter to the city council recommending to NOT mandate Green Building standards. Stay tuned!
I got hold of a press release from LULAC yesterday regarding their “plan” for County redistricting. LULAC stands for League of United Latin American Citizens, and the president of their Santa Ana chapter, Zeke Hernandez seemed pleased as punch with the monster he and cohort Arturo Montex have fashioned. First, here’s their map.
Fugly, ain't it?
And here’s the text of their press release:
League of United Latin American Citizens, Santa Ana LULAC Council #147
Established: National – 1929 | Santa Ana – 1946
Orange County LULAC District #1
PO Box 1810, Santa Ana , CA 92702-1810
PRESS RELEASE: May 23, 2011
Local Civil Rights Groups to Submit Proposed Redistricting Plans to Orange County Redistricting Committee
Santa Ana LULAC Council #147 (League of United Latin American Citizens) has submitted it’s completed county supervisorial plans with appropriate population data to the Orange County Redistricting Committee by the May 18 deadline. The Santa Ana LULAC county plan (Plan #3) and data are included in this press release (see also attachment).
Santa Ana LULAC President Zeke Hernandez states, “There are well-over twenty plans being submitted by county supervisors, community groups and individuals. Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Campbell announced at the May 17th board meeting that he himself is submitting four plans, including one suggested by former county supervisor Phil Anthony. We understand another county supervisor has submitted 10-12 plans through his/her appropriate office or through third party intermediaries. Other local elected officials may also be submitting their own plans.”
Due to population changes following the decennial federal census count in 2010, Santa Ana LULAC has been able to draft two supervisorial districts (1 and 4) with over 50% minority population. These two districts have a community of interest – sharing common social and economic interests. The Santa Ana LULAC Plan #3 is affirmed to stand on its merits for the purpose of a community’s fair and effective representation.
Hernandez added, “We have brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors its concerns that the redistricting committee has not adopted a definitive process on how it will review submitted plans and how it will determine which plans will be recommended for adoption. The committee has acknowledged it may even re-draw a submitted plan by the public to be sent to the Board for approval. Committee members are comprised of staff aides to the supervisors and were appointed by them to act on their behalf. The committee recently revised its writing of the committee meetings, but continues to do its best to provide very little content, thus thwarting public knowledge through written commentary.”
Santa Ana LULAC Public Policy Director Arturo Montez emphasizes, “We have drawn a plan that has ZERO concerns relating to incumbents, political parties and candidates. These plans were drawn, keeping in mind our strong adherence to the U.S. Voting Rights Act and the California Constitution. In addition, we have done our best to take into consideration the public’s concern for transparency and reform in the redistricting process.”
Montez continued, “Santa Ana LULAC feels its Plan #3 surpasses any other 20-23 plans that were submitted by the May 18th deadline. The question that now comes to the forefront: Will the Board of Supervisors recognize the dramatic demographic changes taking place in Orange County ? As proposed, District #1 has an 85% minority population, and District #4 has over 72% minority population. These are most likely the most heavily minority populated county districts in the nation.”
The redistricting committee will hold its first of several public meetings on Thursday, May 26 (2 pm) to review and receive public comments on the submitted plans. This first meeting will be held at Orange County Hall of Administration – Board Hearing Room, 333 West Santa Ana Blvd., 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana.
Established in 1946, Santa Ana LULAC Council #147 is the oldest LULAC council in California and is an affiliate of Orange County LULAC District#1 and LULAC National – founded in 1929 with its national office in Washington , D.C.
The mission and objectives of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is to advance the economic development, educational advancement, public policy outcomes, housing opportunities, health awareness, and general civil rights protection of Latinos in the United States and Puerto Rico through community-based programs and services through more than 700 local LULAC councils nationwide.
~~ end ~~
The funniest part of this “ZERO concerns” drivel is this gem: Montez continued, “Santa Ana LULAC feels its Plan #3 surpasses any other 20-23 plans that were submitted by the May 18th deadline. Now, Art hasn’t seen any of the other plans, nor apparently, does he even know how many were actually submitted. Yet it’s Plan 3 surpasses any other!
Judging by the map above, LULACs main purpose is to create a Latino-majority district in the Fourth and a near-Latino majority in the First. Well okay, that’s their agenda. But the map necessarily carves up four or five cities, including Fullerton, into two or more supervisorial districts in order to sequester “white” populations out of the districts in question. While ethnic gerrymandering for and against minorities is nothing new for, it flies in the face of one of the main goals of redistricting which is to keep cities wholly in one district.
This means that a decent plan should aim to consolidate Garden Grove and Newport Beach, not create more divided cities.
Another aim of redistricting is to create compact, geographically cohesive units. LULACs plan just makes the current odd shaped districts an even odder hodgepodge.
An Orange County judge signed a permanent gang injunction against Fullerton Tokers Town yesterday, creating a “Safety Zone” that covers a wide swath of south Fullerton as shown below. Members of FTT are now forbidden from associating with each other, intimidating the public, making gang signs, wearing gang clothing, violating curfew and other shenanigans often associated with gang activity.
Twenty-eight members of FTT were named in the suit, nine of whom are apparently already in prison. Current membership is estimated at 125-150 active members.
Gang injunctions allow prosecutors to charge gang members for harassing or intimidating behavior which would not otherwise be a crime. Presumably this will make it easier for the Fullerton Police to crack down on gang members without any conventional crime occurring.
And that’s exactly what makes gang injunctions controversial in Orange County. A few weeks ago the ACLU won a case against the OC DA when a judge determined that naming gang members in the city of Orange without providing them an opportunity to defend themselves in court was a violation of their right to due process. More than 60 alleged Orange Varrio Cypress gang members had tried to appear in court to testify that they were not actually gang members. DA Tony Rackauckas dropped them from the case, but then served the injunction on them anyway.
Bummer.
Rackauckas lost that one, so presumably he was more careful about who he’s calling a gang member here in Fullerton.
I ask that you remove the reference to a Business Improvement District from your draft of a general plan. I understand the mention is to “encourage” a business improvement district. A business improvement district is a tax on businesses, collected as a property tax by the county tax assessor, in a defined area. It can be based on property ownership–and the owners pass the costs along to their tenants; or on individual businesses in the district.
