Dick Jones can’t seem to understand that it is ILLEGAL to expand Redevelopment for the bogus reasons he babbles about. “Blight” must exist in order to legally expand Redevelopment, and it doesn’t exist. This clip is 7 minutes long, but it’s well worth the watch.
Dear Friends, a few weeks back Friends for Fullerton’s Future filed an appeal of the appalling decision by the Fullerton Planning Commission to grant a bogus “special event” permit to Roscoe’s in order to legitimize the ongoing violation of the City ordinance regarding outdoor live amplified music in the C-3 Zone. The appeal was based on the fact that playing live amplified music outdoors is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons visiting, residing or working in the neighborhood and is injurious to property or improvements in the area.
We are pleased to inform you that as a result of our appeal, Roscoe’s has withdrawn their application, therefore no public hearing on Roscoe’s appeal will be necessary. 
On July 7th at 6:30, the Fullerton Redevelopment machine is revved up and ready to shove the $6 Million Dollar burger plan, fake old and all, down the public’s throat.
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: FULLERTON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
A request to construct an approximately 4,400 square-foot drive through fast food restaurant for McDonalds in a Community Improvement District, which includes applications for a minor (doesn’t sound minor to me) development project for the site plan and architecture (fake old crappola that people are sick of), and a tenative parcel map for lot consideration and lot line adjustment purposes, on property presently located (and owned by the Redevelopment Agency, ie. tax payers) at 501 N. Pomona Ave. (N.W. corner of Chapman and Pomona, across the street from Fullerton High School), (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidlines).
How could this project be exempt under CEQA? It’s a proven fact that this project will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the kids attending Fullerton High School and injurious to property or improvements to the area. This McD’s project is a part of a larger project which must be considered ONE project! I smell a Mclaw suit ! ! !
Hat tip to one of our readers who just informed us that Matt “Jerbal” Cunningham over at the Red Clownty blog just reported that Anaheim Councilperson Lorri Galloway has announced that she is going to run for Supervisor Chris Norby’s termed out 4th District seat. This is terrible news for Tom Daly and Harry Sudhu as Galloway’s presence in the race will split the Anaheim vote, but great news for Fullerton’s Shawn Nelson. When asked what she would bring different to the Board of Supes, she said, “I also intend to bring something different, like way cute shoes!”
The room filled with cheers and applause at last night’s Fox Block community meeting when a citizen stood up and pronounced that the Redevelopment Agency should avoid creating more buildings that are meant to look like fake old clones of existing historic buildings.
The developer who was giving the presentation wanted to make sure that he was hearing this right… he asked for a show of hands – who wants Spanish/Mediterranean-style architecture that mimics the current Fox Theater? Two people out of 50+ raised their hands. Judging by the earlier applause, the vast majority of citizens were in support of creating long-lasting buildings in a contemporary style that would one day become historically significant themselves. The developer even went on to openly mock existing redevelopment buildings in Fullerton, at which point Redevelopment Director Rob Zur Schmiede stood up and absolved himself of responsibility, saying that the fake old buildings were created before his tenure.
Where did this sudden hatred of fake old design come from? We can only surmise that the audience was filled with citizens who have been reading this very blog, which has been loudly criticizing these projects for several months.
There are still many serious problems with this development project (we’ll get to that later), but it’s good to see that FFFF is having a positive impact on the future of architecture in downtown Fullerton.
Loyal Friends, on June 16th the city council again demonstrated why the process behind selecting the boundaries of the proposed expansion area are almost completely arbitrary. The council voted 3-1 to remove 7 selected properties from the area.
The criteria employed in the deselection are these:
- the properties are on boundaries,
- they are not necessary
- and the owners simply ask to be removed.
Now some cynical folks might surmise that these exclusions were just done to shut people up, including former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer, in fact we have already suggested that very same thought.
What is inescapable is the conclusion that if these 7 properties are not necessary than they never should have been included in the first place. How many haphazard lines drawn on a consultant draft table include non-blighted properties? The statistics presented by the lone dissenting vote, Shawn Nelson suggest very many indeed.
We suspect the city staff and their consultant are pursuing an age old strategy: grab all you can, get, and then hang on to as much of it as you can.
The Fullerton Observer continues to sink to new lows in its coverage of important Fullerton issues. Or lack of coverage.
In its most recent edition it published a redevelopment article which was simply an interview with RDA Director Rob Zur Schmiede, whose very job depends on RDA expansion. Wow, that’s cutting edge investigative journalism!
The Observer has totally ignored the RDA’s $6 million McDonald‘s move. An evil corporation making kids fat, a giveaway to the rich, money intended for blight going to promote junk food! Fast Food Nation was written by muckraking journalists that the Observer should emulate. $6 million to help McDonald’s make high school kids fatter!
The Observer has completely ignored the story that has excited even usually tepid reporter Barbara Giasone. They will NOT embarrass the council majority that it helped elect with their endorsement. Jones, Bankhead, Quirk, Keller were all backed by the Observer.
Could it also be that the Fullerton RDA–is paying for quarter page ads in the Observer?
The Observer has published two pieces by Supervisor Norby expressing the County’s opposition to the RDA expansion, but only after leaking both articles to city staff in time to write rebuttals. The rebuttals themselves are not fact-checked by anyone and are filled with lies.
In the current July 2009 edition (Page 4) Kennedy bewails the 1994 recall of Bankhead after he “voted to support a ½ cent utility rate increase to keep the city from going bankrupt”. Three wrong statements in one sentence!
It was NOT a utility rate increase, but a utility TAX on gas, water, electricity and cable TV. It was NOT a half cent but 2%. It did NOT keep the City from going bankrupt. In fact, it was repealed soon after the recall and has saved us Fullerton tax payers over $ 100 Million dollars over the past 15 years and the City is just fine!
True to form, the Observer has supported every city, county and state ballot measure that increased taxes, most of which went down in defeat. It especially likes sales tax hikes, which disproportionately affects the poor–the supposed constituents of a “progressive” paper.
Dear Friends, we have spilled a lot of cyberink on the subject of the McDonald’s relocation fiasco, and it really seems to us that it is about time for our elected leaders to explain just what is going on and how they got to this point.
No doubt Bankhead, Quirk and Keller believe that they are simply following an inevitable path dictated by years of planning and simply can’t be altered.
Knock-knock! The contract hasn’t even been voted on yet! It’s scheduled to come before the Council/Agency July 7th. Until then, there is no inevitability, only careful deliberation….we hope! You’re rubber stamps for the daydreams of long-departed staffers! You were elected by US to be stewards of our cash. Is this the best use of $6 million of OUR $$$?
When you are spending $ 6 million to move a fast food franchise 150′, you had better be damned sure why you are doing it, and you should be able to explain clearly why there are no better alternatives.
We suggest that it is high time for a complete review of the entire Fox project history, strategy, and consequences, especially while there still may be time to consider intelligent alternatives.
The proposed redevelopment expansion in Fullerton hinges upon on the city councils ability to discover “blight” in this vast area. Two of the biggest cheerleaders for this expansion of government power are councilman Dick Jones and Don Bankhead who are happy to make the necessary “finding” of blight.
Let us reflect for a moment on the irony of the situation. Bankhead has been on the city council for over 20 years, and Jones has been on it since 1996, 12 years and counting! So what have we got going on here? According to Jones and Bankhead “blight” has been proliferating at a record pace on their watch! So what does this suggest about their competency to fight blight, are these the guys we want running even more redevelopment?
The whole thing would be sort of comical if the potential consequences for the property owners in the proposed expansion area weren’t so serious.
Fullerton has terminated a dubious partnership with failing red light camera vendor Nestor Traffic Systems after the contract for operation of the cameras was declared to be illegal by an appeals court last year. It’s a long story, but stick with us as we tell this tale of inept vendor selection and blatant disregard for the law in Fullerton…
A long time ago, Fullerton signed a contract with Nestor Traffic Systems to provide red-light cameras throughout the city in an attempt to increase ticket revenue and reduce accidents at popular intersections. At the time, the contract included a clause that allowed the city’s payment to be negotiated down if ticket issuance was lower than expected.
Just about anyone could see that the vendor now had a financial incentive to keep the number of tickets high — that’s a problem. At the time, case law had already dictated that vendors could not benefit from the number of red light tickets issued. Eventually these rulings would become codified into state law.
When the city inquired about how this new California law might affect the contract, the vendor essentially said “Don’t worry, we’ll change it if we get caught.” Sound familiar? That’s how it goes in Fullerton. So our representatives carelessly signed on the dotted line and the police department kept giving out red light tickets illegally.
It didn’t take long for one angry citizen to file a lawsuit, and in 2008 an appellate court ruled that the tickets were being given out unlawfully. Issuance of red light tickets immediately stopped.
After the city lost the appeal, a whirlwind of suspicious events transpired:
- Failure to Appear – The city of Fullerton didn’t even know that they had lost the appeal until the Register called them for the story. It turns out that the city never showed up for the appeal. The city’s crack legal team at Jones and Meyers attempted to have the original ruling overturned by filing a 26-page Writ of Mandate in May. The request claims that the Fullerton PD was never serviced with a notice of an appeal, even though the court docket says otherwise. The PD’s request was denied, and that’s the last we’ve heard of the case.
- The Right to Remain Silent – For the council meeting on 2/3/09, the city staff put together an amendment of the Nestor contract to end the city’s lawbreaking ways, as other cities had already done. But when the item came up for discussion, city manager Chris Meyer mysteriously got cold feet and proposed that the item be moved forward “to a date uncertain”. The council instantaneously and unanimously agreed to put this item off without further questioning. In fact, the council moved so quickly that a gentleman named Dr. Arnold Vagts had to demand his right to speak on the issue later that evening. Why were they so quick to sweep this item under the rug? It turns out that Dr. Vagts had sent a series of emails earlier in the day threatening a class action lawsuit against the city, demanding that the city return all illegal ticket revenues to the victims. If not, the city risks “millions of dollars in lawsuits”, according to Vagts.
- In June, after months of silence, we’re finally told us that the red light camera contract with Nestor has been canceled, and that all of the cameras will be removed.
Last week our Friend at HighwayRobbery.net made a records request to find out how much the city had spent on legal fees to fight this lost case. In a written reply to a direct question, Sgt. Steve Williams said “No legal council (sic) was retained to prosecute the case by the Fullerton police department.” We believe this to be either a blatant misdirection or perhaps an outright lie, since the city’s contract attorney did write the aforementioned 26-page writ for the case. Lawyers don’t work for free.
How much is this legal wrangling costing us? Why is the city spending time and money to fight a lost court case? We suspect that the legal liabilities and risk of expensive lawsuits are piling up while the city tries to keep this issue quiet.
To top it all off, a successful class-action lawsuit against the city would probably leave taxpayers holding the bill for years of red light revenue, as it is unlikely that the city will be able to turn around and sue Nestor for their part in this tragedy. The company has severe financial problems, including a recent descent into receivership and failure to pay subcontractors for the installation of additional cameras in Fullerton.
When we lose a class action lawsuit, who will pay? Will anyone admit error and appologize for wasting our time and money? Stay tuned as more scandelous details come to light.