Friends For Fullerton's Future

June 14, 2009December 30, 2009Dick Jones

New Blight Report: “Fullerton Airport Unsafe”

fullerton-airport19945787_8d67ff580a — "Breaker breaker there 1-9...it's unsafe to land here, over"

Lawyers for the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency have a tough job in trying to defend the bogus blight findings that have been so effectively demolished by County Counsel Attorney James Harman and Friends for a Livable Fullerton‘s & FFFF Attorney Robert Ferguson.

They just came out with a weak 14 page response to the blight objections, in preparation for the scheduled hearing this Tuesday, June 16 (Item 14). If the council has any sense, they’d shelve this turkey project now.

"but we need the money" — but, we need the money

Imagine, Fullerton Council Members, some of whom have been in office since the 90s, spending public money to prove that blight in Fullerton is growing. Blight growing on their watch!

One Page 11 of the Agency’s response, the report reads “Significant improvements are needed at the airport and its vicinity, including safety upgrades. The airport is affected by the lack of safety upgrades…”

Huh?

Admitting that its own airport is unsafe opens the City to serious liability. And if it is true, upgrades should be paid for by internal airport revenues (leases, tie-down fees, etc.) Property tax increment shouldn’t pay for airport upgrades, any more than for municipal golf course improvements. The airport is setup as an enterprise fund—self supporting.

The report clearly asserts that Fullerton Municipal Airport is blighted—and dangerous. If true, who allowed this to happen? If the airport has to be subsidized by redevelopment, than perhaps it should be shut down and sold off.

On Page 12 of the report, the crack Agency legal minds write: “Sam’s Club—This store is completely surrounded by properties with at least one significant condition of physical blight.”

Well, tell that to the Home Depot, which is adjacent to Sam’s Club, and one of the City’s biggest retailers. The City’s biggest home improvement center is now a source of blight!

The report is so full of blanket and sweepingly false statements that is difficult to fathom the legal minds behind it. But, then, if the facts aren’t on your side, you have to make them up!

June 13, 2009December 28, 2009Fullerton School Board

Hilda Sugarman Apparently Not Sweet on Friends for Fullerton’s Future

by The Fullerton Shadow1 Comment

A while back (6/3) FSD Trustee Hilda Sugarman inadvertently sent us an e-mail meant for someone else in which she directed this person(s) to read our post on the FSD laptop flop, asking whether it was “worth it” to “correct our errors.” We replied via e-mail and invited her to share these supposed errors with us. See? We’re nothing if not open to correction.

On 6/4 our intrepid Travis followed up with another e-mail, this time to the entire board, asking for additional specifics about the laptop program to help clarify points of confusion he encountered when talking to parents. Well over a week has gone by and so far nothing but a deafening silence from the biggest cheerleader of this coercive governmental shakedown scheme. We realize that the well-lubricated FSD bureaucratic machine is hard at work extruding “knowledge creators” for the 21st Century.

Make sure to cut them off the right length — Make sure to cut them all off the same length...

But not even a quick post correcting our so-called “errors”? That doesn’t sound so hard, does it? Maybe they can assign the task to an 6-year old for extra credit.

Okay kids someone come up with something creative. Mr. Hovis can't write for beans. — Okay kids. Someone come up with something creative. Dr. Hovis can't write for beans.

C’mon Hilda, we’re waiting! And how about the rest of the FSD crew?

June 12, 2009March 27, 2012About Us

Roscoe’s Famous Nuisance Appealed: Showdown at City Council!

by admin5 Comments

So we did it. Friends for Fullerton’s Future has appealed the appalling decision by the Fullerton Planning Commission to grant a bogus “special event” permit to Jack Franklyn’s “Roscoe’s” in order to legitimize his ongoing violation of the City ordinance regarding outdoor amplified music in the C-3 District.

We’ve been over this already so there’s no need to rehash all the details except to say that for some reason the City has been complicit in this ongoing permit-dodging scandal: no permits, no code enforcement, a cooked-up noise study, a phony special event permit. The list goes on and on. Now the City Council will be able to weigh in on the subject. We expect lots of chit-chat but the real issue is so simple: the law says you can’t do it! If you want to change the law, then do it. But not before all the necessary CEQA responsibilities are met. And that means an EIR!

We paid for it. Will it say what we want it to say?

June 11, 2009January 12, 2010Big Brother

CITY SIGN CENSORS HIT EUCLID

by admin5 Comments

For as long as we can remember, community groups have hung banners on the fences at the corner of Euclid and Malvern. So, what’s up with the new “Do Not Post Banners on Fence” sign? Who put it there? And why?

The fence has long been used by youth sports teams, the Muckenthaler, the Farmers’ Market, local churches and cultural groups to publicize community events to passing motorists. Now they are being scolded with the “No Banners” warning.

As the fences are along a flood control channel, we suspected the County put the sign up. But according to a June 9 memo from OC Flood Control Director Nadeem Majaj, the fence is city-owned and the warning sign was installed by city staff.

Why? There is no record of this ever having been before the City Council. Is this a precursor to a banner ban at other similar locations? (Yorba Linda & State College, Gilbert & Malvern, etc.)

The council should order this sign removed. The “Do Not Post Banners on Fence” will continue to taunt motorists with the heavy hand of city government, denying community groups their long-held location for needed free publicity…. Until the council takes it down.

June 10, 2009June 10, 2009About Us

It’s Now Official!

by The Fullerton Harpoon14 Comments

Fruity Lexia in a box has been named the Official Wine of Friends for Fullerton’s Future.

The more you drink the better it tastes!

Fullerton Friends spokesmodels Heidi and Karin enjoy their favorite alcoholic beverage between blogging sessions on FFFF.

June 9, 2009December 30, 2009Chris Norby

Dick Ackerman’s Fatal Endorsement Record

by admin12 Comments

acermans-record-3613215222_c4b76a2759

If county bureaucrat Hieu Nguyen thinks Dick Ackerman can help his Clerk-Recorder campaign, he’d better think again. There is one word for Ackerman-backed city and county candidates: LOSERS.

Is it just bad luck? Or does Dick choose weak candidates he can control after they’re elected? The problem for him is that they don’t get elected!

Look at the record of Dick’s choices, dating back over a quarter-century:

1982: Ackerman backs insurance agent Jim Williams for Fullerton City Council. Williams loses to Molly McClanahan.
1984: Dick endorses realtor Merrill Braucht for the open council seat. Braucht loses to Chris Norby.
1988: Dick supports Dan Baker for an open council seat. Baker loses to Don Bankhead.
1992: Ackerman goes 0-for-2 in ’92. His hand-picked candidates Jim Blake and Jack Beddell place 5^th and 6^th.
1994: Ackerman vocally opposes the recall of Buck Catlin, Bankhead and McClanahan. That trio had rubber-stamped an unpopular new utility tax foisted by City Manager Jim Armstrong. The recall easily passes, all three leave office and the tax is repealed.
1996: Dick endorses fellow legislator Mickey Conroy for Third District Supervisor. Conroy loses his cool—and the election–when he flips his opponent the bird during a debate. Brea School Board Member Todd Spitzer wins handily.
2002: Like 1992, Dick goes 0-2 in 2002. He actively supports Supervisor Cynthia Coad’s re-election and is featured prominently in her mailers. Coad loses to Norby. Later that year he backs accountant Chuck Munson for Fullerton City Council. Munson is buried by Shawn Nelson.

To be fair, there is one current Council Member who was elected and thrice re-elected with Dick Ackerman’s support: Dick Jones.

June 8, 2009December 28, 2009Fullerton City Council

More Proof That The Redevelopment Expansion is Pure Baloney

by admin12 Comments

Just in case any objective person needed more evidence that the basis of the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency’s proposed land-grab is unadulterated hog wash, we share a letter from an individual whose property is currently within the proposed boundaries; and of course we include a copy of the response from the City.

In his letter to the Agency, longtime Fullerton resident and businessman Mr. Paul O’Neil of AEROMARK, provides a rather comprehensive indictment of the entire expansion process and its ultimate conclusion of “blight.” He concludes his letter with a request to have his property deleted from the project area. In response Agency Director Rob Zur Schmiede agrees that the property can be excluded because it is near the boundary, because it not necessary to further the goals of the project, and because Mr O’Neil wrote a letter!

Well, Mr. Zur Schmiede’s missive begs several pertinent questions that go to the very heart of the Agency’s competency and honesty in this whole matter. First, if the property in question is on the edge and not necessary, why was it included by the City’s “expert” consultant in the first place? Second, why does the fact that Mr. O’Neil wrote a letter asking to be removed have any bearing on the supposed “findings” necessary to include it? This response gives every indication of being nothing but a way to shut up potentially vocal opposition to the expansion by an obviously informed, and unhappy property owner. If the mere fact of “writing a letter” is a germane to exclusion of a property, then it seems like every single property owner ought to have the same right.

We also note that exclusion of Mr. O’Neil’s “edge” property from the project would simply create a new “edge” property right next door. At the very least that property’s owner should have the same opportunity as Mr. O’Neil to have his property deleted from the expansion – thus creating another edge property!

This whole process of Redevelopment expansion, including both analysis and notification, seems to have been undertaken in an incredibly haphazard way. Who can say whether this was intentional. Not us. But we have our suspicions – as do a growing number of affected businesses and property owners.

June 7, 2009March 1, 2011Fullerton City Council

Water, Water Everywhere…

by The Fullerton Harpoon9 Comments

The ‘ol H2O seems to be on a lot of people’s minds these days, and as ever more people wrangle over the available resource, why not?

This time of year the City of Fullerton addresses the issue of water rates it charges the users of this commodity as part of its budget voodoo. What many people fail to realize is that not only does this water revenue go to running the waterworks, per se, but that 10% of the gross revenue is siphoned off into the General Fund to pay for salaries and benefits of people who have nothing to do with the purchase and transmission of water. In the next two years the projected amount of liquid gold is projected to be over $5.3 million, a tidy sum, to be sure.

well don't just sit there, go get it — "There it is. Take it."

This little financial two-step is called the “in-lieu franchise fee” in which the City treats the water enterprise fund as if it were a separate utility – and milks it like a cash cow. Can anybody possibly believe that there is a direct and attributable cost to the City’s General Fund of $2.7 million a year to operate the waterworks?

What all of this means is that every time water rates are raised there is an indisputable raise in the amount transferred into the General Fund. Another apt term for this raise is a tax increase, pure and simple, disguised in this case by being included as part of a “fee.” Year after year the Fullerton City Council has embraced this cheapjack swindle, perhaps not caring that the water rate payers (including many businesses) are carrying a disproportionate tax burden. It’s enough for them that no taxes were seen to be raised.

Next time you cross paths with one of your councilmembers why not ask them why the water “in-lieu franchise fee” is so high, and ask them to justify it. If you get a cogent answer please let us know!

June 6, 2009December 28, 2010Dick Jones

Is Roscoe’s Franklyn Above The Law?

by admin29 Comments

Public parking lot, or Jack's parking lot, you decide. — 1.5 Million $$ Public parking lot, no more!

The verdict is in, Jack Franklyn owner of Roscoes is above the law.

June 6, 2009January 5, 2010Fullerton School Board

Hilda Sugarman Puts Her Lafite Where Her Mouth Is…

by The Fullerton Shadow21 Comments

can we get that in a box... — can we get that with a screw cap?

We have to say this for FSD Trustee Hilda Sugarman. She puts her Premier Cru on the line for what she believes in. And what she believes is that her elementary school kids need laptops to be properly educated.

Mrs. Sugarman is one of the masterminds of the FSD laptop program that has given us (and the ACLU) such heartburn. Perhaps not coincidentally, she is also the President of the Fullerton Excellence in Education Foundation (or at least was as late as 2008); the pupose of the foundation, per its website is to support the technology/laptop education in the FSD, etc.

We have heard on the grapevine that the Foundation has pledged $120,000 to the district program over the next two years, which is fortunate since the program seems to be in the hole for at least that much in unanticipated costs in this year’s budget. Seems some folks don’t want to pick up the tab for pricey laptops.

But on to the the bibulations!

well, it's for a good cause, i guess... — well, it's for a good cause, I guess...but remember kids, just say no!

This evening, the Foundation holds an “exclusive” wine auction over at the Arboretum. Lots of locals are involved and it looks like many of Sugarman’s in-laws are event sponsors; and, again we give kudos to Hilda for doing a little intrafamily arm twisting.

We’re sure a good time will be had by all, and that everybody goes home feeling downright philanthropic. But let’s hope that at least some of the attendees come to reflect upon FSD Superintendant Mitch Hovey’s blithering baloney on the FEEF website:

“To be effective in the 21st century, the Fullerton School District believes that students must be able to develop innovative products and processes using technology, construct knowledge and demonstrate creative thinking.”

what did that funny man say? — what did that funny man just say?

We really have no idea what this statement means, but in any case it seems to imply a pretty tall order for an eight-year old. We here at FFFF are somewhat old fashioned, and think that its the job of our elementary schools to teach kids how to read, write, and do some ‘rithmatic; and maybe along the way learn to think a little bit for themselves. Mitch, please consider scaling back your goals for success to something comprehendable, reasonable and measurable.