FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Teachers are being laid off, we have fewer police officers patrolling the streets of our city, and our library is cutting back.
So why did Pam Keller, Sharon Quirk and Don Bankhead vote to spend 6 million of our tax $ to move McDonalds 150 feet closer to Fullerton High School?
The City bought two “Go Titans” banners and posted them on the railroad overpass above Harbor Blvd. Great! We’re all for the Titans. Titan fans glory in our four College World Series championships. Some recall the 1978 basketball season when we were one point away from making the Final Four, and our 1984 football season when we were ranked in Sports Illustrated’s Top 25 for much of the season, with a final record of 11-1. Banners do liven up a city, inform the public and boost community spirit.
So, why the kill-joy sign still posted at Malvern & Euclid, on the flood control channel fence? 
Like a scolding nanny, it reads “Do Not Post Banners On Fence.” This has long been a convenient and inexpensive way for youth sports, churches and community groups to advertise their sign-ups and activities. It is hypocritical for the city to post a banner above Harbor, but ban signs at Euclid. If the Titans want to maintain baseball supremacy, the prospective Little League dad must know how to sign up his junior slugger—and for decades moms & dads read the banners at Euclid & Malvern for just such updated info.
Safety concerns must be weighed, but a loose banner above Harbor will fall onto oncoming traffic. A loose banner at Euclid & Malvern will fall onto the sidewalk—or into the urban runoff in the channel. At Euclid & Malvern, the fences are low enough so the banners aren’t blocking anyone’s and since their on the south side of the street, motorists don’t even need to look their direction to check cross-traffic.
We’re all for a Titan banner on Harbor. But we’re also for the Little League and all manner of other banners on Euclid. That scolding warning sign is deterring community groups from getting their message out. You can bet it won’t deter politicians from their bi-annual blossoming of yard signs.
After a month of speculation, Councilman Dick Jones did reappear as Fullerton’s representative at the Orange County Vector Control District meeting held yesterday (to the uninformed—vectors are mosquitoes, fire ants, killer bees, rats, flies and other living things that really bug people).
At the May meeting, other city rep’s were abuzz at Jones’ Texas-twanged tirade that interrupted a staff presentation on property assessments. Bored, angered and irritated at all the background info he was getting, he suddenly cried out—“ENOUGH, ENOUGH, FOR GOD’S SAKE!” 
Jones nearly went off again, reported on-the-scene witnesses. After the Staff presented its recommendation on the assessments, Laguna Niguel Mayor Robert Ming presented an alternate motion, and passed out a written copy to the Board. This flustered Jones, who is used to the well-scripted staff motions of the Fullerton City Council. To Mayor Ming, he sarcastically yelled out “OH—YOU MEAN WE HAVE TO READ IT NOW?”.
There was tension in the room, as Board Members feared another meltdown. Ming calmed the threatening waters when he replied “Well, yes, it’s only one paragraph long”. The motion set higher standards of accountability than did the staff recommendation.
Whether Jones read the motion or not, we’ll never know. He didn’t vote for it, as did only 8 of the 31 Board Members (including Ming, Moorlach and Buena Parks Jim Dow). In a second vote, the staff recommendation was approved. People in Orange County politics must believe that Fullerton is a joke of a city with this kind of representation.
In the spirit of open government, Fullerton Police Chief Mike Sellers made a promise to publicly disclose internal department policies and procedures on the city website.
Even before Chief Sellers joined the Fullerton PD last month, there were musings of his strong stance on community-oriented policing. It sounds nice, doesn’t it? After a month on the job, it was time to put the PD to the test.
I made a quick request for the department’s taser policy in preparation for an item on the council agenda that would allocate $40,000 for new tasers. Chief Sellers’ initial reaction was the best that we could hope for… his command staff even offered to bring the policy by my house so I would have it in time for the meeting!
Unfortunately, we suspect that someone else at the department noticed my FFFF membership card because officer friendly was then told to deny my public records request. Perturbed by this sudden reversal, I informed the chief and city council that the issue would be brought up at the city council meeting that night.
By the time I had spoken at the meeting, Chief Sellers had taken a stand and informed everyone that internal department polices would be available to the public and posted online.
The Chief knows there are loopholes in public record law that allow police departments to shut out the public, but Fullerton can rest easy knowing that FFFF and Chief Sellers have solidified their right to observe the inner workings of our government. And that’s how it should be.
Today, all eyes—and ears—will be on Fullerton’s representative at the OC Vector Control Board meeting that will take place in Garden Grove. There are three scenarios as to what might happen. Here they are, from best to worst:
Best: The City Council appoints a new Vector Control representative who will take the job seriously.
So-so: No one will show up representing Fullerton, leaving us without a voice.
Worst: Councilman Dick Jones will take his seat on the Vector Board and continue to embarrass the city with his Texas-twanged outbursts.
Stay tuned!
A friend just emailed us this image of some sort of gizzmo that has recently appeared in the front patio of Roscoes “Famous” Deli. We are not quit sure why anyone would have made a decision to put the gizzmo on a public sidewalk in downtown. It’s taking up space that could also be used as sidewalk dining. For some reason, this doesn’t seem right.
Do not enter into negotiations with the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency to move your McDonald’s restaurant 150 feet west to the Chapman / Pomona corner. Stay put.
There are many reasons for you to stay where you are. You some of them you know better than we do. But we have some political insights that might be helpful.
This move is completely unnecessary for you from a business standpoint. You’d said during the hearing that long ago then-Redevelopment employee Terry Galvin told you the city wanted you to move. Galvin didn’t speak for the council then and he certainly doesn’t now.
Terry Galvin has retired. There is a whole new council majority. Nothing obligates you to go along with this deal.
And, there are not the 4 votes needed for eminent domain. You cannot be forced to move. Stay Put!
In response to County Counsel’s objections to the original blight findings, the staff report asserts that “these parcels if developed will need to be assembled with adjacent properties to create a sufficient development parcel. Because these parcels are in multiple ownerships it becomes more difficult to assemble into a desired development site.”
My brother and I assembled 27 irregular shaped parcels along Truslow & Walnut Ave. without any RDA assistance. No subsidy, no eminent domain. The result is the Soco Walk transit-oriented condo complex.
Many subsidized in-fill projects made possible by eminent domain are failures, because they respond to government hand-outs rather than market realities. Up and down California there exist many Ghost Malls (Triangle Square / Costa Mesa, Carousel Mall / San Bernardino) built on the backs of dispossessed property owners and fleeced taxpayers.
Let’s not suffer the fate of Santa Ana’s “Renaissance Plan” with numerous agency-owned vacant lots (where home and businesses once stood) have festered for years of bureaucratic inertia. There are many other such examples.
Redevelopment staffs abhor small business districts with multiple ownerships, because they cannot control them.
They tarnish them with the blight label and threaten them with eminent domain to benefit some politically-connected developer who makes a killing before selling out and moving on.
Who thinks that government officials can do a better job of redeveloping areas than private individuals using their own money and taking their own risks? Bottom line: Do you trust the free market or city staff to make crucial development decisions for Fullertons future?
Tonight, the city council will consider the acceptance of a $41,410 Justice Assistance Grant (Homeland Security stuff) to purchase 35 tasers for the police department. Do we need tasers in Fullerton? Judith Kaluzny raises some good questions in this letter to the council.
Dear City Council Members:
I see you will consider the purchase of 35 taser guns, number 8 on June 16 agenda.
Tasers have been outlawed in several states, including New York, Rhode Island, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and in a number of cities, including Chicago, Baltimore, Indianapolis, and Philadelphia.
The use of tasers can lead to lawsuits for cities. There have been many lawsuits over mis- or mal- use. Do we really want to get into this dubious technology?
Judith A. Kaluzny, Mediator and Lawyer
www.judithkaluzny.com
Amnesty International provides a few examples of taser abuse:
There are 154 small businesses along West Commonwealth in the 2 1/2 miles stretching from Euclid to Dale. Many are run by entrepreneurs who own their own property. This variety of small business owners is why City Staff is declaring it blighted in their attempt to hoodwink the council into including it into a new redevelopment area.
In response to County Counsel’s objections to the original blight findings, the staff report asserts that “these parcels if developed will need to be assembled with adjacent properties to create a sufficient development parcel. Because these parcels are in multiple ownerships it becomes more difficult the parcels into a desired development site.”
Huh?
These parcels already ARE developed into a variety of small businesses, ranging from coffee shops to body shops, from florists to machinists, from preschools to flight schools. Staff sees this as blight. The new RDA seeks to “assemble” (under threat of eminent domain) these parcels, clear out the small businesses to “create a sufficient development parcel” under one ownership. And that’s not good for Fullerton.
One Commonwealth business owner (Aeromark) has already opted out, fearing consolidation of his small parcel. Other owners, beware!
No, West Commonwealth is not Irvine. Some planners may dislike the very variety that makes it interesting. But there is an edgy realism there, of small hardworking people actually producing goods and services for their customers–not because of some government mandate. The report goes on to say “development proposals are not financially feasible because acquisition costs have increased over the years rendering in-fill projects to be infeasible in many cases without redevelopment assistance.”
Let Commonwealth be Commonwealth!
