Taking a brief break from the non-stop coverage of (mostly) bad news from the Fullerton Police Department, we have received our first candidate response to the FFFF Candidate questionnaire, and it is realtor Johnny Ybarra, who is running in District Five.
To reiterate: all City Council candidates for the 2018 election are strongly encouraged to respond to the questionnaire and their responses will be reprinted in full at our earliest opportunity. All candidates have received the questionnaires already and we hope to hear what the other candidates have to say soon.
Our original questions, and Mr. Ybarra’s responses, are as follows:
With the filing period now closed, the election season is in full swing for the first district election on Fullerton City Council history (the full list of candidates who have qualified and their candidate statements can be found here).
The transition to District elections is proceeding smoothly.
As someone who has run for office before, I know that the single biggest challenge for any candidate is raising enough money to get your message out so that voters even know who you are. Nobody likes the direct mail pieces that inundate our mail box during election season but the candidates who pay for mail are the ones most likely to win, like it or not. And as a voter who has cast a ballot in every election since his 18th birthday, my biggest challenge for every election cycle is sorting through all that BS to find out which candidates have an actual plan, and are sincere about and committed to that plan.
So as a service to both candidates and the electorate, we have prepared the official Friends for Fullerton’s Future City Council candidate questionnaire, which we will email it to all candidates who qualify for the ballot. Unlike most questionnaires, ours has no word limit. Brevity is always recommended, but if you think your position takes three or more paragraphs to explain, then that’s what it takes. Whatever you write, we will publish it, in full, and let other residents know where you stand and why. The first one to turn in their questionnaire will be the first article we will publish.
Most government projects have three things in common: they are bad ideas promoted by bureaucrats, they are obscenely expensive, and there is no accountability attached to them.
In Fullerton we have lots of examples over the years that touch all three bases. But if ever one needed a veritable poster child for government fiascoes, the ill-conceived “Downtown Core and Corridors” Specific Plan would be it.
Back in 2010, the City of Fullerton put in an application for a “project” to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s “Strategic Growth Council” an assemblage of bureaucrats and political appointees selected by the governor to promote sustainability and responsibility in urban (and suburban planning). On the face of it, the idea was to promote development that would be eco-friendly – somehow, someway. Lo and Behold! Fullerton received a $1,000,000 grant to create the Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan, a massive overlay zone. In 2013 a committee was appointed to make this look like a community driven enterprise, but as so often happens the committee was led along by the consultants and staff who were being paid, and paid well, out of the grant money. Some members of this committee only went to one meeting, the last one, in May 2014, a meeting consumed by passing out certificates of participation to committee members for all their hard work.
In the meantime, the intent of the creators of the specific plan became crystal clear: opportunity for massive new housing projects along Fullerton’s busiest streets, development that would not even have to undergo the scrutiny facing normal projects so long as the permissive guidelines of the specific plan were met. Naturally, lots of people objected to the continued over-development of Fullerton, and the utter disconnect with what the Strategic Growth Council was ostensibly promoting. Perhaps the most obnoxious thing about the specific plan proposal was the way it was being used, unapproved by any policy maker, to promote other massive apartment projects already in the entitlement process.
And then a funny thing happened. The Downtown Core and Corridors Specific Plan vanished into thin air. Although recommended by the Planning Commission in August of 2014, the plan and its Environmental Impact Report never went to the city council for approval. 2015 passed; and so did 2016 without the plan being approved. Even modifications rumored to have been proposed by the now-departed Planning Director Karen Haluza never materialized for council review or approval.
I’ll drink to that!
Some cynical people believe the plan was postponed in 2014 because of the council election, an election that returned development uber alles councilmembers Greg Sebourn and Bud Chaffee. And they believe that the subsequent attempt to erase the plan from the municipal memory was perpetrated by none other than the hapless city manager, Joe Felz and lobbyist councilperson Jennifer Fitzgerald, (so the story goes) two individuals who had every incentive to shake down potential developers one by one, rather than granting a broad entitlement for new and gargantuan development. Felz had a massive budget deficit to fill, and Fitzgerald had massive lobbying opportunities from potential Pringle and Associate clients.
A chemical bond
What is undeniable is that three long years have passed and no action has been taken to either approve or deny the specific plan. The grant money approved by the State has been a complete waste – a travesty so embarrassing to everybody concerned that no one seems to want to demand an explanation for this fiasco. Neither the city bureaucrats or council, nor the State has any incentive to advertise this disaster, and you can bet there never will be an accounting.
We are used to politicians lying to us, especially when they are running for office. Sometimes the lies are more or less fuzzy, but once in a while the lies are staggeringly blatant. So blatant, in fact, that we must assume the politician believes the electorate are idiots.
Bored and angry. Accountability? It was never on the agenda.
And so it was last year with then-lobbyist-mayor and humble vessel of God, Jennifer Fitzgerald, whose campaign rhetoric deliberately misled the public into believing everything was just fine with Fullerton’s financial state of affairs. Here are a couple of pearls from her little chest of jewels:
BALANCED BUDGET
While other cities in Orange County are trying to raise sales taxes to prevent insolvency, in Fullerton, our budget is balanced! Our five-year financial forecast shows a balanced budget to 2020. We’ve done this by making the most of our assets and minimizing our liabilities.
REDUCED UNFUNDED PENSION LIABILITY
With conservative fiscal management and successful revenue strategies, Fullerton has been able to reduce its unfunded liabilities. This is a long-term strategy, with a short-term goal to achieve what is a generally accepted adequate level of funding of 80% of liabilities.
It didn’t take long for that hot-air balloon of happy talk to sail away. Barely three months after Fitzgerald’s re-election she had to listen as the Director of Administrative Services, Julia James, at last week’s budget workshop, tell the exact opposite story. Due to continuing unbalanced budgets and exploding pension costs, the City is following in the footsteps of Stanton and Westminster with a built-in, structural budget deficit. Naturally the cops and the “fire fighters” bloated salaries and pensions are the principle cause of the impending disaster.
James mentioned taxes as a solution. Any takers?
How long will it be before our temporary City Manager, who has absolutely nothing to lose, begins crisis public meetings meant to gin up support for a Fullerton sales tax increase? And how long will it be before the people who voted for her realize that “SparkyFitz” Fitzgerald would have said, and did say anything to get re-elected?
I got a letter from Fullerton’s Lobbyist-Mayor, Jennifer Fitzgerald congratulating “us” for rising above it by re-electing her. I love it when personal-agenda laden politicians complain about “negativity.” Generally they are just reacting to embarrassing scrutiny they’d rather not have to endure.
Here’s the missive:
Cut through the baloney to find the bullshit…
Ms. Fitzgerald is happy to share the issues she “campaigned on.” Road repair, more, and higher paid cops, and get this… a balanced budget! Now we all know that Fullerton’s budget has not been balanced since she got on the City Council four years ago. We’ve been leaking red ink worse than Laguna Lake has been leaking Grade A MWD water. The amount during Fitzgerald’s tenure runs in the millions. So not only is she still lying about having a balanced budget, but any other pipe dreams like cops and parks are going to have to come at the cost of draining our reserve funds even more.
Of course this means nothing to Ms. Fitzgerald. After all she is all about politics, not governance. She is a Vice President of Curt Pringle & Associates, an operation that has tried its level best to rip off Anaheim taxpayers to benefit Pringle’s clients. She will be long gone by the time Fullerton goes into receivership.
I really like the part about ensuring “that every Fullerton neighborhood is served well by its city government.” I guess that excludes the people who live in and around downtown Fullerton: it was only recently carved up into five separate council districts by Ms. Fitzgerald and her downtown bar pals like a Christmas ham, precisely for the purpose of disenfranchising the residents while the drunken party rolls merrily along.
And then there’s the part about having a “community-wide discussion” about providing library services for Southwest Fullerton. Quite delicious irony coming from the head of a city government that can’t afford to keep the Hunt Branch Library open; or does she really believe nobody is paying attention?
Finally, I note that “working positively together” is code: what it really means is not criticizing the massive budget deficits; not complaining because there is no adult supervision over the cops; looking the other way as the Lobbyist-Mayor herself helps cover up the madcap motoring adventures of her City Manager returning home from her own election night party.
Well, you know, I just don’t feel like it.
And now, Friends, please share any negative banter in the comments section we thoughtfully provide, below.
After discovering that Fullerton was not biting on their “Bushala Buying Fullerton” fairy tale, the Anti-Recall committee moved on to their pathetic and even hysterical Plan B: maybe Fullerton will believe that both Tony and Chris Thompson were hooked up several times by the Fullerton PD, hauled and away and placed under investigation by the Orange County DA?
Since this story can be factually disproven, they might want to consider going back to their buying Fullerton strategy.
This week, Larry Bennett attached his name to this mailer which can be seen (here) and additionally attached it as a file to an email blast which can be seen (here).
This monolithic mailer must have cost a bundle to send out. Along with a giant pair of handcuffs and the header of “Busted”, it includes three more postage paid opportunities for voters to tell Bankhead, Jones and McKinley what horrific leaders they have actually been.
The Fullerton Recall has had an uninterrupted and remarkably cooperative relationship with now Interim Chief Dan Hughes and the Fullerton PD with regard to our signature gathering activities at retail locations. It is informally understood between our campaign and the FPD that they WILL NOT arrest our people for signature gathering activities. But in California it is legally incumbent upon any police officer to assist any citizen in executing a citizen’s arrest if the accuser claims to witness a crime.
The bottom line is that signature gathering in front of multi-tenant retail centers s is protected by the First Amendment and legal precedent.
But a number of times, supermarket managers upset by the unwillingness of the Fullerton PD to agree that a crime is occurring, have chosen to file a citizens arrest. The process takes 3 minutes. The police take your name, fill out some paperwork describing the citizen’s accusation, issue a “release” to the signature gatherer and submit a copy of the accusation to the DA to review. Chief Hughes has confirmed that in every case, the DA has quickly and formally disregarded the accusations for lack of evidence.
There are NO pending cases against Tony, myself or any of our signature gatherers. Note that we continue to gather signatures during the “arrests” and after the police leave.
Most notable with all of this continues to be the absolute unwillingness of the anti-recall campaign to address or debate the real issues of the recall:
An absence of management over out-of-control Fullerton cops.
The theft of $27 million of taxpayer’s money with an illegal franchise tax.
The planned doubling of our exorbitant water rates.
A multi-million dollar annual city budget deficit.
Bankhead and Jones’ effort to secretly and retroactively spike the pensions of their buddies who run city hall.
Putting every Fullerton voter $1,700 in debt with a $124 million unfunded city employee pension liability.
Absconding with $10 million per year of revenue for schools and public safety through an illegal and massive expansion of the corporate welfare known as Redevelopment.
Mr. Speaker! Let's kill Redevelopment once and for all!
Way out here at the end of Screech Owl Road the silence is almost absolute – only occasionally ruptured by the stray thump of Marine helicopters in the distance. It gives a man time to think in peace and quiet, and I’ve been thinking about Chris Norby ever since his post the other day about the possibility of a stake in the heart of Redevelopment.
I started watching Norby’s political career in Fullerton back in the early 80s. During his days on the City Council he was effectively marginalized by the various majorities who saw Norby as an annoyance and an irritant. His 18 years saw almost no accomplishment at all; ditto his seven years as a County Supervisor, years in which his colleagues saddled you Orange Countians with a massive unfunded pension liability.
The gods were certainly kind to Norby when they presented him with an unforseen chance to extend his professional political career in the form of an open mike and an open Mike’s mouth. Still, what the gods giveth with one hand… 2010 saw a big Democratic majority and an opportunity to pass a budget with a mere 50%+1 of the Legislature. Total irrelevance for an OC Republican, right?
Well, maybe not. For those sly gods also finally presented Norby with an opportunity to be a Capitol player via a monstrous budget deficit and a Democratic governor who actually seems sincere in willing to dismantle Redevelopment – as well as to divert special taxes away from make-work, feel-good programs like the First Five scam.
Chris who?
Governor Brown will have to fight the entrenched Redevelopment lobby that has tentacles wrapped around members of both parties, and a budget proposal that goes after it may well need to be supported by Republicans, too. And when it comes to pulling the plug on Redevelopment nobody has a better record than Norby. A Brown-Norby alliance? Relevance at last? Who knows?
Just in case anybody thought the Fullerton News Tribune might somehow become more, you know, relevant, with the departure of Barbara Giasone, they had better think again.
Let us contemplate this week’s edition. In a week when the City Council held a special meeting to discuss millions in projected budget deficits, the Thursday News Tribune’s big story (by a guy named Bruce Chambers), was about – drum roll – tulips.
Okay some guy grows tulips in his front yard, and that’s great. Tulips and daffodils are pretty and I love digging up flower beds. But is that news?
I don’t think so, but, what do I know. I’m just a dog.
The Fullerton City Council held a special meeting the other night to address the City’s projected budget deficits. It ain’t pretty.
Man, that's a big ugly hole...
But even uglier was watching the discussion unfold on what to whack and what to keep when the discussion turned to the City’s membership in the California League of Cities – a do nothing operation run by bureaucrats for the purpose of promoting their own policies. The annual membership cost is something like $75,000 – not an inconsiderable sum.
To their credit both Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk-Silva recognized the elective character of this annual expense and are willing to dispense with it – a gesture both symbolic and practical. And then into the breach to save the day leaped council members Don Bankhead and Pam Keller, relating how important membership in this organization really is. Looks like Dick Jones is the swing vote on this.
Mmm. Shrinp cocktail and Jack Daniels.
Hmm. Bankhead and Keller. League of Cities. Now why does that ring a bell?
Oh yeah, now I remember. And here. These two spendthrifts attended the October 2008 League of Cities conference in Long Beach, a mere 25 miles from their front doors and racked up $400 per night waterfront hotel bills. Keller’s total was an embarrassing $1200+. Not even her die-hard posse could defend that profligacy.
Party hats extra?
The League of Cities is wonderful metaphor for government that can’t be bothered to control its spending and is accountable to no one. The real purpose of this operation is to give bureaucrats and ambitious local politicians a chance to hobnob, network, self-promote, and eat, drink and be merry on our dime. In some circles it is being claimed that Keller is using the League to wangle a seat on the OCTA, where her mission will be to promote Curt Pringle’s HSR agenda.
As long as free spenders like Bankhead and Keller promote this expensive joke we know we are not being properly represented.
And thanks to Nelson and Quirk-Silva for being accountable to the people of Fullerton.
Sometimes you think you couldn’t make something up that is so ludicrous as to seem impossible.
And so it is with the case of Jan Flory vs. Fred Jung’s ballot statement that was determined on March 27th.
Not the outcome, per se, in which Jung had to change his designation from “Fullerton Mayor/Business owner” to “Fullerton Mayor/Businessman;” and had to remove from his statement the silly claim of opening 9 new parks and balancing a budget left unbalanced by predecessors.
A reputation at stake…
No, Friends, the crazy, and unintentionally hilarious part was the last minute filing by Ms. Flory’s attorney meant to dodge a stay on the original writ of mandate. In this latest filing, Mr. Brett Murdock (who could not have possibly have composed it with a straight face) demanded immediate relief because Jung’s statement would cause poor Flory “irreparable harm.”
It’s pretty funny reading, all based on the premise that government is a business, and that business is hers:
“Petitioner Jan Flory is engaged in the business of government and politics“
A reputation is a terrible thing to waste…
The supposedly “practically libelous in nature” part is due to the implication that Flory – whose name does not even appear in Jung’s ballot statement – didn’t balance the budget during her fourth laborious canter around the Fullerton City Council track. This supposed assertion of her incompetence is said to impugn her professional political reputation; this so, so funny because every Friend is aware of Flory’s dismal record of incompetence and deceit on the City Council – from the years of Water Fund fraud, refusal to reform a culture of corruption at the FPD, Redevelopment disasters, and of course deficit spending, just to mention a few issues.
I have always hated you, and I always will…
And then there’s the specious and even more hilarious Murdock argument that if Jung were to win based on his ballot statement, it would deprive Flory of opportunities to possibly serve on one of the many County commissions and boards, some of which might offer remuneration:
“If published in the official election material, Jung is more likely to win the election. As a political opponent, Petitioner is unlikely to be appointed by the Supervisor to any of the County’s 85, (sic) boards, commissions and committees; whereas as a highly-qualified and prominent supporter of Traut, she may well earn an appointment.
Membership on a board or commission not only comes with political advantages, but pecuniary advantages as the County “pays certain board and commission members stipends for attending meetings.”
Other benefits—for which “it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount”—could accrue to prominent supporters of a winning candidate, including opportunities to be hired as staff counsel or prestige in the community as a lawyer or lobbyist.”
I can’t imagine which “community” would consider Flory as a lawyer – she quit her lawyering, good or bad, years and years ago. Flory the octogenarian lobbyist if Traut gets elected? Who’s kidding who? Her victimhood is based on not being able to be a political hack?
All of this adds up to very little, really, except to spread a little unintended humor to the good people of Fullerton.
