Why did I (and many others) advocate the removal of the Silk Floss trees in downtown Fullerton? Damaged and dangerous sidewalks for one thing. And slimy-skinned, scrotum-shaped pod bombs, giant wafting cotton swabs, and naked spike armored monstrosities, depending on the season, for another. And let’s not forget the blocked architectural elevations, signage, etc.
About ten years ago the City started removing a few of the worst offending silk flossers and replacing them with some other brand of tree. Of course they plopped the new ones right back in the same holes as before – rather than plant them at property lines where they wouldn’t block architectural elevations and business signs so badly.
And of course it never occurred to the clever folks in Redevelopment that these trees, wedged into the narrow sidewalk space would never develop proper crowns and generally look like wretched half-trees.
Now that the big Harbor Boulevard redesign (you know the one that killed on-street parking, created a traffic tunnel, and doomed regularly functioning storefronts) is nearing its 30th birthday it seems like a good time to readdress the mess that Redevelopment has caused on Harbor and talk about a different model.
The Orange Line is comming to town, perhaps at the wrong time. Not only did the OCTA use eminent domain to grab 8 acres of property from my brother, but they also removed much-needed parking at the Transportation Center before the new parking structure was built. Talk about a bumbling construction schedule. Oh well that’s government for you.
Let’s be realistic. No matter how dire the situation gets, there’s no way our brain-dead state legislature will ever find their way out of California’s massive black hole of public employee pensions. Most of our representatives are too entrenched, too well-lobbied and too gutless to take effective action against the powerful public employee unions.
Thankfully someone is going to put real reform out for a vote to the people. Our Friends over at the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility have filed two pension reform initiatives with the state Attorney General’s office on Thursday, which will be put on the 2010 California ballot after the foundation gathers enough signatures to qualify.
Say, how did that happen?
The initiatives would apply a benefits cap to the benefit plans offered to all new state, local government, school district, university and special district employees beginning July 1, 2011. Savings to taxpayers are expected to reach over 500 billion dollars over the next 30 years if adopted.
The plan saves money by limiting guaranteed benefits for government works to 75% of pay and requiring employees to wait until they reach MediCare eligibility age before retiree health benefits kick in.
California will never escape the budget crisis and its massive unfunded pension liabilities without enacting legislation built on solid fiscal principles. CFFR spells out the new rules in “The 10 Commandments”
Honor all pension contracts
Death and disability benefits shall not be changed
Pension benefits must be fair and adequate
Pension benefits must be guaranteed
Pension spiking abuse must be discouraged
Future generations should not pay retirement costs for today’s workers
Retiree health funds must not be diverted to any other purpose
Retirement benefit costs must be sustainable
Local agency voters shall retain the right to change benefits
Bankruptcies must be avoided
Democrat Bill Lockyer has admitted that the state will go bankrupt without serious changes to the pension system. Will angry voters support reform in 2010? I think so.
The other day one of our Friends, an entrenched member of the Green Party, got a spam e-mail at his GP address from: drum roll…..Linda Ackerman.
Now there isn’t a chance in hell that this guy or any of his kindred spirits are going to vote for a Republican, let alone one that lives in Irvine; especially when they have a perfectly fine Greenie in Jane Rands.
We have already related how Mrs. Ackerman has tried to court non-Reeps by slithering out from under her own Repuglican rock; only to alienate local Republican stalwarts. She’s still trying to scrape the elephant dung off her shoes after that misstep.
We have also been told that Ackerwoman is advertising on cable TV during the day. Well there’s a no-brainer. And we mean that literally.
I gave Adam Probolsky fifteen grand and he told me I look good on TV
Friends, check out the Linda Ackerwoman campaign expense report at the California Secretary of State’s website.
We noticed this odd line item.
10/19/2009
ACKERMAN, DICK
OFFICE EXPENSES
$654.40
Ackerwoman’s campaign forked over $654 bucks to her husband under the crypric description of “office expenses.”
Heh heh. Never miss a trick.
Could Dick actually be charging his wife’s campaign for some sort of services rendered? Well, why not? She made a killing as a “consultant” on his campaigns, and what the Hell, turnabout is fair play, right? Too bad the campaign won’t turn a profit.
We do have to wonder what kind of total Dick will rack up by the time Ackerman, Inc. is done squeezing every drop out of lobbyists.
Remember this one? It seems that some enterprising Russians have been sharing this clip with their pals in Mockba. So we thought, what the heck! If it’s good enough for Ivan, it’s good enough for the voters of the 72nd District – to be reminded THAT ACKERMAN, INC. DOES NOT LIVE IN OUR DISTRICT! OH, NO. NOT EVEN CLOSE. THE WOMAN WHO WANTS TO REPRESENT NORTH ORANGE COUNTY IN THE STATE ASSEMBLY LIVES IN IRVINE, AND HAS DONE SO FOR TEN YEARS!
It’s time to bring an end to the carpetbagging campaign of Linda Ackerman. Please join Chris Norby in a precinct walk for his campaign for the 72nd Assembly District.
This race is an opportunity to send a reformer to Sacramento and to say “NO” to the business as usual politicians and special interest groups.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2009
10am-1pm
Meet at:
CHRIS NORBY’S HOME
216 N. YALE
FULLERTON
Morning refreshments will be provided. For further questions or to confirm your attendance, please call 714-937-1005.
State Treasurer Bill Lockyer, a consumate Sacramento insider who for years was part of the legislative problem, seems to have seen the light. Here he is testifying on legislative reform. He takes his fellow Dems to the woodshed and it ain’t pretty. But it is entertaining.
A new month, the same old weeping by the Fullerton Observer about how the good ol’ boys are keeping poor Pam Keller from her entitlement to be mayor when the next term starts. It’s not fair! Not fair!
(Ed. – Never a word about Keller’s dismal votes on massive projects or her unique working relationship with FSD/Fullerton Collaborative, but that’s another story.)
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the person who is entitled to be mayor is the council person who can get two other people on the council to vote for him. Pretty simple. Nothing else really matters.
The author of this indignant drivel lays out a conspiracy tale of events behind the scenes to keep a Democrat out of the presiding chair; and as usual the plot centers around Shawn Nelson, without whom the Observer would have a lot less to natter on about. Ironically the tangled web includes Observer favorite Don Bankhead and by necessity another Observer endorsement recipient – Dick Jones! Observer chickens coming home to roost? God, let’s hope so!
Politics might be going on. The horror! Of course despite the Observer trying to emphasize the ceremonial (i.e. non-political) aspects of the mayorship, the fact is it is a very coveted title when re-election time rolls around – as it does for Pam Keller, next year. Aha! Politics!
So is a scheme being worked out to elect somebody else mayor for 2010? Possibly. Quite likely, although since none of the supposed principles would be likely to talk to Sharon Kennedy about it, it seems much more likely to be a pure guess on her part. Our congressman Ed Royce loves to meddle in these affairs; to him it seems easier than simply turning on the light and opening the closet door to discover that there really is no monster in there. Just some mops and brooms.
And speaking of politics, maybe The Observer should quit endorsing Ed Royce puppets like the chowderhead Jones and focus on somebody who could actually be counted on to support Keller for mayor. Oh no! More politics.
We’ve made a pretty big deal on this blog about the use of brick veneer, specifically, the way our Redevelopment Agency has always insisted on slathering it on to stuff to try to give the false appearance of historic structure, or under the guise of matching what is supposed to be the building material par excellence of downtown Fullerton: red brick.
We thought it was about time to get an historical perspective on the uses of architectural veneer – particularly masonry veneer, and so we have once again called upon the good offices of Dr. Ralph E. Haldemann, Professor or Art History (Emeritus) at Otterbein College, and our adjunct Arts and Architecture Editor. Doc?
When you want to find out, go to the best...
The question of the role of veneers in architectural history is really quite fascinating, but requires an amount (admittedly minimal) of erudition. I will try to sum up some thoughts on the subject.
In pre-modern times the nature of building materials basically necessitated that structural materials were de facto finished materials as well – although historical exceptions are not uncommon: we know of course, that the Romans during the Imperial Era were fond of using stone veneers on brick buildings to dress them up. Such uses of marble veneer were often used in the Western Mediterranean basin countries in Romanesque and Italian/Venetian Gothic buildings.
The use of plaster cement or lime-based coatings on brick, especially non-fired brick, has an ancient lineage that reaches forward into the adobe buildings of California’s own Mission period; however neither this application nor the modern use of lath and plaster on studs can be considered a veneer.
Medieval Europe, particularly in the non-deforested climes of the north, saw a rise in timber construction in which the structural members were exposed and the interstitial areas filled with plastered wattling. Again, such fill even though non-structural, cannot rightly be called a veneer.
With the advent of structural iron and steel, fill materials in modern commercial architecture remained brick (for practical and fireproofing reasons). However, terra cotta facings with ceramic finishes attached to the underlying structure became the norm from the 1890s through the 1920s; the wide adoption of moderne styles in the 20s and 30s often replaced highly detailed terra cotta with simpler and smoother concrete and even ceramic tile finishes. These uses generally applied a finished masonry surface over an unfinished substrate of common brick. These are veneers.
It was really in American domestic architecture that brick veneers (almost exclusively brick) captured the imagination of a growing bourgeois sensibility. After the industrial age had ushered in standardized lumber, machine made nails and mass produced balloon-frame wood houses, a longing for the perceived hominess and historicity of brick set in. This was aided by several cultural American Colonial Revivals, particularly in the early 20th Century that coincided nicely with eras of vast suburban expansion. It was all mostly a real eastate come-on.
The use of phony brick surfaces continued unabated in the little cracker box houses of the ’50s and persists happily to this very day, particularly in subdivisions where an emotional attachment to American historical antecedents is being peddled.
The use of fake brick fronts in commercial areas followed the same suburban trajectory as the use of the material in domiciles. It too persits today, particularly where city fathers and chambers of commerce wish to deal out a conjured up historical image for their otherwise unremarkable and humble burgs.
Modern architectural theory held that this sort of use of non-structural masonry veneer is fundamentally non-truthful, meretricious and basically a middlebrow (or lower) affectation. And so it is! And yet the Robert Venturi school of Post-Modernists embraced such use for its exuberance, color and tactile properties, as well as potential (often ironical) historical connotations. However it must be said that when the historical connotation is wrong, or the deployment is meant to be deceptive or even slavish, a real aestheic problem exists; and can, if left uncontrolled, lead to real civic embarrassment.
