A couple of days ago we shared this post about our favorite punching bag, Dick Jones. We pointed out that we had been criticized during last year’s campaign for producing a creative version of this classic moment; so we shared the original, unedited film.
And now we would like to present, once again, our original art film version that was nominated in 2008 for the prestigious Orson Welles Award for Excellence in Political Satire from the Teddy J. Brinkerhof Multi-media Institute in Nanty Glo, Pennsylvania . We didn’t win, but we have high hopes for 2009.
We have to admit it was tough competing with the real McCoy, but we did our best! Decide for youself which version is more entertaining.
A few months ago we posted on the remodeling underway at the Rosecrans/Euclid shopping center. We shared information that a city planner had insinuated himself into the design process; we opined that government and good design rarely mix; and we promised periodic visual updates.
Is that a caretakers unit above retail?
On that last point we have been remiss, and so we now share some images. They don’t seem to have made a lot of progress, but as you can see all that wasted space has been wrapped in lath and stuccoed – all wasted materials, too.
Are those multi-units above retail, or, perhaps it's a mixed use project? We will soon find out.
We’ve been hearing now for several days that Fullerton’s own volcanic phenomenon, Dick Jones, really lost it at a recent OC Vector Control District Board meeting, blown head gasket-wise.
The OC Vector Control District Board gets down to work...
We’re not clear on what happened, precisely, but according to reliable sources (several council members from neighboring cities) Jones experienced some sort of cataclysmic melt-down. More than this we cannot say. However, we have ordered a copy of the the audio tape of the meeting to figure out exactly what happened. When we get this record we will be sure to share it with you, our Faithful Friends. Then you can judge for yourselves.
A wide-awake Chris Norby contemplates his future as a paper shuffler
An apparently pleasant Dick Ackerman. Out of power, but not out of venom.
Tip o’ the bowler to Art Pedroza at the Orange Juice blog for this entertaining bit . It seems that former Fullerton City Councilman, State Assemblyman, State Senator, architect of the hideously gerrymandered 33rd State Senate District, and proprietor of the record for the shortest Congressional campaign on record, Dick Ackerman, has named himself honorary chairman of the “Hugh” Nguyen for County Clerk/Recorder campaign. Nguyen’s opponent at this point is our own beloved Chris Norby – termed out County Supervisor about whom some cynical people are saying that he’s just looking for a soft place to land.
Now, why would a former bigshot like Ackerman deign to bestow his name to the candidacy of an unknown government file clerk with political ambition over a sitting supervisor? Well, Friends, it all goes back to the 1980s when both served on the Fullerton City Council, and when Ackerman discovered a deep and abiding hatred of Norby. No one is really sure from which deep well of bile this animosity sprang – but it is a profound source, that’s for sure.
a river of bile runs through it...
Ackerman doesn’t give a damn who the County Clerk is, and we wonder if he’s ever even met this Nguyen fellow. But the fact that Norby wants something is enough motivation for Dick to try to keep him from getting it.
Stucco, styrofoam, but where's the parking structure?
Greetings Everyone-
I would like to apologize to you for the manner in which I left the meeting last night. I wish I could fabricate a better reason than being absolutely disgusted with JPI Development for their thinly veiled deception of the RDRC and Staff…but I can’t. I felt my blood pressure elevating and thought it was best for me to leave before making any more comments regarding their six shades of shadiness. As you may have guessed by now I believe the JPI group deliberately misrepresented the mass of the parking structure in the colored elevation drawing that they presented to us at the RDRC meeting in which they earned our approval. I also believe it was a calculated move for them to casually slip the actual scale of the structure into the elevations in the construction drawings and hope nobody caught it. If I am not mistaken Heather caught this little “revision” and that is why they were a last minute addition to our agenda last night. If I had to do it over again I would have dug my heels in and tried to sway the other members towards my belief that what JPI presented last night was significantly different than what was approved, however, I felt at the time that would have been futile as the other members didn’t seem too affected by the change. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things none of this is going to make any difference to anybody and the building will get built and the citizens of Fullerton will be none the wiser to what the building should have looked like, but I know, and the sense of satisfaction I once felt for having collaborated on this project is now a bit corrupted. When the minutes are being drafted for last nights meeting I would like the record to reflect my true feelings as accurately as possible.
Jay/ Heather…if it’s not in violation of any policy, I would like this email shared with the other members of the committee.
Regards,
Steve Lynch
Last October, this letter was sent to the Fullerton Observer, but NEVER got published.
Just what exactly does “temporary” mean? “Roscoe’s Famous” Deli,” and famous noise polluter in downtown Fullerton is back to the Planning Commission Wednesday night to try to get a “special event permit” for outdoor amplified music.
Oh yeah! Mixed-use, baby!
The Planning Commission and City Council already agreed that outdoor amplified music is not a good thing for our community. Allowing loud music to be permitted on a permanent basis will stump Fullerton’s bright future of continuing to become a center of mixed-use commerce and residences as defined by the current downtown zoning (C3.) If we want our downtown to unfold in a positive direction it’s imperative that we as a community find a balance between business, entertainment and living in the downtown. Its real simple: if you want loud noise you need to put it inside. In fact the city required Tuscany Club to keep it’s door shut during the hours it has its loud entertainment- that sounds like a reasonable idea doesn’t it ?
As usual the City staff has gotten everything ass-backward.
From where we're standing it looks reasonable...
Instead of establishing an objective code and requiring that businesses abide by it, they are actually justifying a likely nuisance as way to experiment with amplified music outdoors, and thus circumvent the existing Code. The taxpayers have just paid for an acoustical study. What are the results? Those results should be used to amend the Code or leave it as is. Then it should be used as a mechanism to approve or deny permits – “special event” or otherwise, and if necessary, code enforcement. The special event permit also strangely omits hours of operation. That’s pretty negligent, and we wonder why.
Roscoe’s didn’t get approved for a permanent permit to play amplified music outdoors; now they are trying to get a temporary permit to do that very same thing…. Hey that’s very creative, but we don’t think a special event permit should evade that original denial, and we don’t think a temporary permit was ever intended for eight events spanning an entire summer! Can you imagine having a neighbor that continues to have a backyard party with a loud electric band every weekend ? That’s how a lot of Roscoe’s neighbors feel…
It could be worse. It could be Speed Metal!
This is the Municipal Code that deals with temporary event permits in the City of Fullerton:
The Fullerton Municipal Code defines a special event as “an event that will be conducted outdoors to which the general public is admitted or invited. Such an event includes a carnival festival tent or car show, circus parade, auction rally or similar kind of temporary outdoor exhibit or performance” (Accents added).
As follows is the roster of Roscoe’s “special event” application-
Roscoe’s Special Events Request List:
Sunday June 14th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Saturday June 20th Silvia’s Engagement party. 7-12 pm
Sunday June 21st Fathers Day Celebration. 4-9pm
Sunday June 28th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 12th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 26th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 9th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 30th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Friends, you decide if this is just a way to get around the rules that all the rest of us are supposed to abide by. Let’s not forget that in the original permanent use hearing the City ignored its own environmental review obligations. Why is Famous Roscoes and its owner, Jack Franklyn, receiving all this special consideration and hand holding from the City? The law is the law. We all live by it everyday, and so should he.
Well, why the hell not? We were immensely impressed by her statement at the recent City Council meeting where she stared down the establishment in its headlong rush to expand Redevelopment in Fullerton. She was courageous and knowledgeable – a far cry from the Pam Kellers and Sharon Quirks of Fullerton who have gone along with monstrous development projects with the casual complicity of politicians who have higher aspirations. While the Redevelopment goons and shills like John Phelps and “Fullerton Positive” jackasses were trying to grease their own skids, Jane was at the podium defending the interests of the people of Fullerton from further Redevelopment demolitions and styrofoam construction.
Jane Reifer has been a dedicated advocate for true preservation and sensible development for years. She has embraced progressive ideas without falling into the brainless trap of liberal cliches and shibboleths. She has learned the hard way that City staff has its own agenda that is not necessarily congruent with the interests of the people.
Maybe most importantly she would truly listen to voices not connected to issues via their own self-interest; she would bring a geniunely independent perspective to those issues; and best of all she would demand accountability on the part of City staff.
And so we say: Jane Reifer in 2010! Why not? It’s time for a real change.
It’s a sad truth that government projects just don’t seem to have much accountability. There are always lots of impressive titles handed out, but nobody ever seems to have a grip on what’s going on.
Oh no, not again!
Take the NOCCCD Football field-to-stadium sleight-of-hand that took place at FJC. Somehow a project was altered without any policy review, CEQA documentation, or public notification. It only became a problem when neighbors found out about the deception and loudly protested. Who approved these changes? And who is this person’s boss? We’d like to find out who is responsible for the now very expensive and increasingly embarrassing switcheroo.
And let’s not forget the so-called Oversight Committee – a group of individuals who were either kept in the dark or who had their eyes closed. It’s hard to find anybody who really takes these committees seriously, except perhaps voters who are persuaded by the Bond Salesmen that the committee will actually ensure some sort of accountability for the public’s hundreds of millions of dollars. Nevertheless, there they are, and so they have a responsibility to the public.
In June of 2005, the Chamber of Commerce’s Executive Director, Thresa Harvey was appointed to the North Orange County Community College District Citizens Bond Oversight Committee as a representative of a “taxpayer group.” We’re not sure what a taxpayer group is since we all pay taxes (well most of us, anyway). In any case it was and is her job to comprehend what’s going on with the bond revenue projects. Was she misled? Did she even know what was going on?
Jeez, maybe we need to do this more often...
Things have gotten to the point where even Fullerton’s City Manager Chris Meyer has produced a letter claiming the stadium violates the City’s General Plan, and the City is demanding an EIR. This is doubly ironic, since he routinely attends Chamber of Commerce Board meetings where Harvey can usually be found; and also because the City has been signally deficient when in come to CEQA compliance of its own favored projects.
But, to return to our main story: Who is accountable for this gridiron fiasco? Will we ever know? Probably not. But in the meantime the NOCCCD is facing the increased likelihood of an amended EIR for their stadium and some fancy footwork in the backfield if they want to build it.
Hundreds of Hornet fans disguised as empty seats...
Just what does Fullerton H.S. District Superintendent George Giokaris owe Fullerton City Manager Chris Meyer? What compels him to be a tattletale on his own Board? Unlike Mike Escalante, his predecessor, Giokaris apparently wants a McDonald’s right across from Fullerton High.
Here’s what we’ve gathered from credible sources:
Last week, County Supervisor Chris Norby (FHS ’68) spoke with former district Superintendent Escalante and current Boardmembers Dutton and Singer. All confirmed their opposition to the $6 million McDonald’s move across the street from FHS. Escalante recounted an earlier conversation with Meyer opposing the relocation on traffic and safety grounds.
Unfortunately, these concerns were kept from the city council.
This week, Norby wrote a letter to Dutton and Singer suggesting they communicate their position to the city council, while there’s still time. Giokaris saw the letter, then quickly dispatched a “heads up” email to Meyer warning of a possible lobbying effort by members of the High School Board against the McDonald’s relocation fiasco.
Is there something we should know about these two?
Imagine that – a warning from a Superintendent that his own bosses on the School Board may actually stand up for their students’ safety and their taxpayers’ wallets! Instead of tattletaling to Meyer, he should repeat the opposition of his predecessor and oppose this super-sized boondoggle!
And we say to Dutton and Singer–if you really do oppose this $6 million move, say so now. Don’t be intimidated by Giokaris’s little intrigues behind your back – be outraged by them!
That’s the way Redevelopment likes to choose its favored developers. A kabuki-like pantomime is undertaken by issuing an RFP (Request for Proposals). In the end the process presents the decision makers with a choice that is essentially no choice. To illustrate the point, Loyal Friends, we go back in time almost ten years to examine how the “Save The Fox” movement got off to a rousing start.
Let's hope we don't end up going around in circles...
In 1999 after catching the wave of the Save The Fox movement, the City issued an RFP for private developers to take over the job of restoring the Fox and developing the adjoining area. The City had committed to build a parking structure and hand over other developer goodies. Proposals were received in August. In October the Agency was presented with the lucky winner, Staff’s choice – “Berkman/Chaffee” a local restaurant owner and a politically-connected lawyer turned low-income housing credits entrepreneur. Paul Berkman was there to provide credibility to run a “dinner theater” and Doug (Bud) Chaffee’s job was to look like a land developer. The only problem, as it soon transpired, was that Berkman refused to promise a dinner theater, only movies. And Chaffee had never “developed” anything but heavily subsidized housing.
That isn't very good, is it?
To complicate matters a second proposer named Dana Morris of Morris productions, who believed himself to be in the running, actually showed up at the meeting desiring that the elected officials, not staff, decide who might get the gig. His idea was to create an performing and fine arts academy on the site that would, in turn, generate all sorts of ancillary business opportunities downtown and not compete with existing businesses.
To the acute embarrassment of staff, Morris managed to organize a slew of supporters, including a backer who promised to help finance the venture. They asked for more time to prove their bona fides.
On cue, some of Fullerton’s usual lefty suspects got up to promote Berkman/Chaffee although their proposal was dubious, at best, and despite the fact that neither partner had any experience doing what they claimed they were going to do. There were strong undertones of religious bigotry pulling their adherents along, for it had become known that that Morris was affiliated with BIOLA, and in some peoples’ minds that was anathema.
Nuh-uh. Not in our city!
To add hypocrisy to the mix, people who had never shown a dime’s worth of concern when the City acquired property in downtown Fullerton were suddenly horrified by the thought of a non-profit foundation paying no property tax!
The council finally voted 4-1 (Flory dissenting, naturally) to continue the item so that Morris could clarify certain financial points in his proposal. In the intervening time, as Morris later told us, he was treated with such overt contempt and continuing hostility by Redevelopment Director Gary Chaplupsky that he finally abandoned his proposal as simply not worth the aggravation. We have only his word for what happened, but given the Redevelopment Agency staff’s propensity for prevarication over the years, we are inclined to accept it. And so a plausible concept for the Fox was lost because the staff did its level-best to thwart a reasonable proposal and award the deal to their favored team – the team that could be counted on to play ball.
Gee, Paul, I don't remember this being so hard...
And now Patient Friends, we finally return to our title. At the hearing in October, 1999 it slipped out that of the eight original proposals only two were even deemed worthy of consideration; and the City Council was never informed that one of the other six actually came from the janitor at the Hub Cafe! Of the two “finalists” it was clear that Morris never stood a chance, thus effectively limiting the Agency’s choices to none. This “planning and activity” as our faithful reader “Jack B. Nimble” characterizes it was nothing but a sham, a fact that later became evident when the Berkman/Chaffee partnership permitted its agreement with the City to lapse, and was never heard from again. And so a feeble concept had gained traction even though (excluding Morris) there was not one credible respondent to the proposal. But in government circles, that’s all it takes to gain momentum!
