When I was a kid, liberals were all about civil rights, social justice, anti-police corruption, women’s rights, etc., etc., etc.
Maybe professorial tenure, home mortgage interest deductions, and appointment to a City Community Service Commission or Bicycle Committee tends to make one complaisant. I don’t know.
In the wake of the Kelly Thomas murder at the hands of the FPD, and the revelation of a potential serial sex offender in FPD uniform, Fullerton’s liberals have been silent as a graveyard. A great letter to the Fullerton Observer by a guy named Steve Baxter sums up the situation to perfection.
Maybe this silence marks the difference between a statist liberal and what is now being called a “progressive.” I don’t know.
But one thing I do know: the first category includes our esteemed Congressional She-Bear, Loretta Sanchez, whose district includes south-central Fullerton, as well as some of the locations where women allege they were sexually assaulted in the backseat of an FPD patrol car!
Here’s an e-mail from one of the recall petition signature gatherers who re-enforces the ugly truth that Ed Royce isn’t our only congressional problem.
I was at the Stater Brothers today with my recall petition and I had an interesting conversation with a 50-ish red-headed woman who happens to work for Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez. I asked her if she was interested in signing my petition to recall our City Councilman and Mayor and was sort of shocked when she declined. As she was putting away her groceries I asked her what Ms. Sanchez position was on the recent events that had occurred in Fullerton, and she told me that Ms. Sanchez was staying out of the matter because it didn’t involve her constituents. I said that that was odd because I had voted for her in the last election and that I live in West Fullerton. She said that Loretta’s district only encompassed a sliver of Fullerton and that where Kelly Thomas was beaten to death was out of her district!
I sort of left it at that, however when I got home and checked the district map for Loretta Sanchez I saw that not only is my home in her district, but the site where Kelly Thomas was beaten to death is maybe 200 feet from the boundary.
Is there any way that you guys can inspire this champion of women’s rights to engage in what’s going on here in Fullerton? I got the distinct impression that Loretta Sanchez was looking to stay out of the fray and distance herself from what’s going on in her district, and I think that it’s important that she get involved or make a statement on what her position is pertaining to violations of Kelly Thomas’s civil rights, as well as the violation of the these recent allegations of sexual assault under color of authority by members of the the Fullerton Police department.
Best Regards,
p.s. I’ve changed my political affiliation to “decline to state” on my voter registration so there is no love lost on Loretta.
It’s pretty obvious that Ms. Sanchez has seen her main chance in trying to ignore things in Fullerton and hope like hell that no one will ever associate her with what was done, or in her case what hasn’t been done. Comically Ms. Loretta found time from her busy schedule to attend the Fullerton Library re-opening – a building also not in her district – while 500 feet away people of good will were protesting the murder of a helpless homeless man at the hands of the FPD.
Disgustingly, Sanchez seems a lot more interested in the civil rights of Vietnamese women (who live eight thousand miles outsider her district) than with her own constituents.
Sanchez could get the Department of Justice fired up with a phone call. But even that smallest of gestures would require a modicum of courage.
As FFFF’s Grover Cleveland has pointed out, the City of Fullerton has no fewer than 7 pending or likely law suits pending – and that’s just what’s on the Agenda!
After the shock wears off, let’s look at the rest of tonight’s Agenda.
There are the usual meeting minutes and funding transfers. There’s an agreement between the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency and the City of Fullerton so that the City/RDA can pay the State so that the City can keep the RDA.
The price tag is staggering: $54,701,015!!! And this is in addition to paying off tens of millions in bond debt incurred thanks to Bankhead, Jones, and even McKinley. And this is “under the radar” in the Consent Calendar where we usually see minor routine action items. More often then not, however, this is where staff places big ticket items (like the City Manager’s FAT raise or this RDA agreement to pay blood money to the State.)
Oh but wait! It gets better. In the same agreement there is a schedule of payments to the tune of $58,383,657 to cover RDA administrative costs!
And almost as an after thought, the agreement schedules “housing administration annual costs” which will total $16,234,607!
The most frustrating thing about the awful story of the death of Kelly Thomas and its aftermath is not knowing what goes on behind the closed doors of the Fullerton Police Department. Certainly a position of leadership comes with the obligation to take responsibility for what goes on within a department, but even if a Police Chief falls on his sword and resigns or is forced out of his job we really don’t know what is happening with the individual officers who comprise the police force. One of the most repeated statements heard from the many irate speakers at Tuesday night’s council meeting was that the police work for us, not the other way around.
Fullerton has commissions for parks and planning, and committees for transportation, infrastructure, the library, energy, community grants, investments, technology and even bicycles and the arboretum. One way or another, they oversee or at least review the activities of various city departments, namely Parks and Recreation, Engineering, the Library and Community Development. Why is there no commission to oversee the Police Department?
Other cities have them. A Fullerton Police Commission won’t prevent every mistake or outright crime committed by individual officers, but it could create appropriate policies and procedures, review individual cases, have access to all documents and recordings (like the notoriously unreleased tape of the beating of Mr. Thomas), advise the city council on matters of employment before the city council, and generally audit the effectiveness of the department.
If we are truly in charge of the Fullerton Police Department we should assert our authority and acknowledge our collective responsibility to oversee its policies and actions. It’s our department, let’s treat it that way.
A few months back we told you about a new group called Open Coyote Hills here. Their friendly looking green and white signs have appeared all over Fullerton to show support for Chevron’s West Coyote Hills plan. The development was voted down by the city council last year, but thanks to the ongoing threat of a lawsuit by Chevron, will be brought back before the council tonight, July 12. No doubt some of Open Coyote Hills’ illustrious members will be on hand to state their support for the 760 home development.
An April 1 email from Scott Starkey of West Coyote Hills forwards a message introducing Open Coyote Hills. Additionally, the West Coyote Hills website features a direct link to Open Coyote Hills, where they are described as “an independent group of Fullerton residents who joined together to support West Coyote Hills.”
Friends –
I wanted to call your attention to the email below from Open Coyote Hills, a recently formed group that wants West Coyote Hills to be approved so the land can be enjoyed. Their website is extensive and worth checking out.
Thank you for your interest in West Coyote Hills. We will keep you posted on our efforts to bring back a low-density plan for West Coyote Hills that preserves 55 percent of the property as open space and generates about $38 million to local agencies to improve schools and services.
—–Original Message—–
From: OPEN COYOTE HILLS [info@opencoyotehills.com]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Scott Starkey
Subject: Open Coyote Hills website now online
Scott –
Our new website www.OpenCoyoteHills.com is now live and we’re reaching out to Fullerton residents to help spread the word.
The site contains a brief history section and an extensive FAQ — both of which should be of interest to all residents. It also offers those
who are excited about the plan a way to show their support by adding their names to our Supporters page.
Can you please pass this information along to those on your West Coyote Hills interest list?
Thank you,
The Open Coyote Hills Steering Committee
Molly McClanahan
Bob Hayden
Jack Dean
Debra Pember
Chris Heusser
Rick Crane
Tom Dalton
Katie Dalton
However, if you hover over any of the links to Open Coyote Hills you’ll see a short hidden text referencing emcdesignca, a design firm found online here:
Funny thing is, one of EMC Design’s clients is none other than West Coyote Hills. Click on the “Client Work” link, then on “West Coyote Hills” to see images of the website and familiar color brochure promoting the development.
Did the same design group that produced the website for West Coyote Hills, the development plan, also create the website for Open Coyote Hills, an ostensibly independent group of familiar Fullertonions supporting that plan?
Thursday evening the Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee voted and made some recommendations.
First, the Committee rescinded our May 23rd recommendation to the City Council to use Alternative A which would have raised ALL rates 7.8% or more. All would feel the pain evenly.
Second, the committee voted to recommend “Alternative B”. The Committee briefing describes Alternative B as an “Alternative rate structure using 1983 Rate Study meter equivalents for all fixed charges, increasing fixed charge revenue from 12% to 18% and adjustments to commodity charges to better reflect cost of service.”
I voted NO and Mr. Jack Dean abstained from recommending Alternative B. Regardless, Alternative B was passed.
Third, I moved to recommend that the City Council exempt from the water franchise tax all new revenue generated from this new rate structure to ensure that ALL new revenue goes strictly back into the water system. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. There appeared to be too much opposition for recommending that the council abolish the hidden tax.
Speaking to the THREE members of the public who came to the meeting, I explained that 10%-11% (depends on who you talk to and which document they look at) of the money we pay for our water bill does not go into the water system and that the money, $2.5 million FY2010, goes into the General Fund. The General Fund does not contribute any money to the Capital Improvement Program (infrastructure) but does pay for things like parks, fire, police, special club memberships for the city, and other oddities. Similarly, the Paramedic Fee does not go exclusively to paramedics- it goes into the General Fund.
The end results of the Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee work are recommendations to the City Council. Whether or not they agree with our recommendations, we will see on July 19th at the Public Hearing.
Last month I was walking Independence Mall in Philadelphia and admiring the history and reflecting on what it would have been like in 1776. As I crossed Market Street to go look at the Liberty Bell I looked left and right scanning the streets. Then something caught my eye. The antique cityscape had something shiny and new nestled in between two pieces of historic-looking buildings.
The structure has jutting polished metal forming right angles and contrasts sharply against the backdrop of American history. The building’s unusual placement on the historic Mall speaks volumes of its purpose, though no billboards announce what that may be.
As I circle the Mall admiring the formation of our Country, my mind and camera wander back to the building, now more striking than when I saw it just moments ago. Seeing the building on the Mall and recognizing the unusual beauty of its presence in that location has caused me to question the direction the City of Fullerton has traveled for decades.
A recent FFFF post brought to light the Redevelopment Design Review Committee’s selections of less than inspiring architecture.
I used to have the strong opinion that modern designs just would not work in our downtown. After long debates and discussions with friends and my visit to Philadelphia I am confident that it can work well.
Entrepreneurs looking to raise the bar and make their place in Fullerton should look to innovative designs which will stand in contrast to our old and confused architecture. More importantly, when every other building is a bar or tattoo parlor, business owners need to look at ways of setting their establishment apart from the rest of the herd.
Update from admin: It’s 2011 and we’re still still catching stanky wiffs rising from the bog of mediocrity known as the RDRC. Yep, they’re still slowing and stalling residential additions, nitpicking the architectural details of private projects and using the know-nothing force of government to bear down on hapless homeowners trying to improve buildings that aren’t even visible from the public street. And so again we say…
The Fullerton Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) must be abolished. The committee was created in the 1970’s along with the Redevelopment Project Areas with the goal of fostering good architectural designs within them.
The trial run period is over. The RDRC and its associated bureaucratic process has failed – failed to improve design in either the project areas themselves, or in the ever growing number of projects in which city staff has required RDRC review. Actually the reverse is true. The failure has been spectacular.
Who says affordable housing has to look good?
The pages of this blog has been nauseatingly filled with examples of RDRC failure-projects dutifully approved by a compliant and complacent RDRC. Rather than promoting innovative and creative work-excellence, in fact, the RDRC has enabled city staff penchant for the phony, stucco, and brick veneered banalities intended to comfort the worst of middle brow aesthetic preferences.
Over the weary years the RDRC has been the precinct of local architects looking to promote their own interests within the city. Numerous examples of conflicts of interest were exposed in the 1990’s. And the city council keeps appointing to the RDRC dingbats, talent-free Pecksniffs, and interior decorators, to whom you wouldn’t entrust the design of a birdhouse. The existence of this committee provides the city council with a little political cover on potentially controversial projects, but accomplishes very little else.
And so we say: Abolish the RDRC! People developing their own property without subsidy or without legislative action by the City should be able to design their projects without city oversight; those receiving subsidy or significant zone changes should be required to use architects who have been published in reputable professional journals. Maybe when this happens we can have increased freedom for private owners and design excellence for City sponsored projects. Presently we have very little of either.
Neighbors around Lemon Park received a letter from the city inviting them to meetings on 5/31 and 6/28 to discuss the old Lemon Park Murals. The Public Art Committee would like feedback from the community…
1. Is there one or more mural out of the group you feel is/are absolutely essential to keep and restore?
2. Is there one or more mural out of the group that you feel is/are absolutely essential to remove or replace?
3. Please rank the murals in order of importance to the park and the community. A number 1 would indicate the most important, 12 the least.
Come Back Again and La Adelita
Fullerton Clasped Hands
Girl with Car
Cross with Crown of Thorns
The Town I Live In and Brown Car
Virgin de Guadalupe
La Mujer Latina
Zoot Suit Riots
Calle Elm
Los Ninos Del Mundo
4. If we are able to produce a new mural in or around Lemon Park, what subjects/themes would you like to see depicted in the mural.
FFFF will be forwarding all comments to the Fullerton Public Art Committee, the Fullerton Museum Board and the Fullerton City Council.
A Public Comment to the General Plan Advisory Committee By Judith Kaluzny
I ask that you remove the reference to a Business Improvement District from your draft of a general plan. I understand the mention is to “encourage” a business improvement district. A business improvement district is a tax on businesses, collected as a property tax by the county tax assessor, in a defined area. It can be based on property ownership–and the owners pass the costs along to their tenants; or on individual businesses in the district.
This is found in the codes of the State of California in the Streets and Highways code. Thing is, a city can assist a BID ONLY AFTER the business people on their own form a group, plan the boundaries, get a petition signed to ask for having a BID. A BID is NOT for paying for regular maintenance of an area, but for improvements. An executive director will be hired, and a board of directors elected–another level of government and taxation for your small downtown businesses in this case.
The redevelopment department, inappropriately, has already tried that for $3,000 paid to a consultant and a balance in the accounts for another $27,000 for that consultant. Four meetings were held; I attended all, as did Cameron Irons and Mr. Terranova. Only at the last meeting did about five other business owners attend. And I had handed out many fliers to alert downtown businesses.
A year or two before that, Cameron Irons sent out a survey to downtown property owners regarding a BID. He gave me copies of the 12 or 14 replies. All were against it, but two said, if you are going to have it, we will participate.
The Nicole Coats had a meeting or two to gin up support for a BID. The two people (me and Henry Jones) who indicated willingness to participate were not invited. Those meeting with Nicole Coats–Cameron Irons, Terranova, Theresa Harvey, and two or three more chose the consultant. Paul Dunlap said he was invited, but declined to participate.
The idea of a BID for downtown arose when Councilmember Quirk asked if there wasn’t some way to get money for paying for the costs of maintaining downtown. Redevelopment Director Zur Schmeide told her that a business improvement district might be a way.
When the consultant was hired, I talked to both the city manager and Councilmember Quirk. Mr Meyer said, “we have an eight block area that is costing us over million and a half dollars a year. We have to do something.” Councilmember Quirk also spoke of a BID paying for the excess costs of maintaining the restaurant overlay district.
This is not the appropriate use or purpose of a BID! And it is by law supposed to arise from the grass roots business people, not top down from the city to get tax money for maintenance.
What I see happening is that if a BID were established for downtown, the only people who would have time or interest to serve on the board of directors will be restaurant/bar owners. Then they will vote to spend the taxes raised for maintenance so the city will not be so burdened by the bar district. (Which burden the city council created by abolishing CUPs for restaurants downtown.)
The Downtown Fullerton Restaurant Association is a non profit listed as c/o Cameron Irons, 118 North State College Boulevard, same address as Vanguard Investment Properties.
I got hold of a press release from LULAC yesterday regarding their “plan” for County redistricting. LULAC stands for League of United Latin American Citizens, and the president of their Santa Ana chapter, Zeke Hernandez seemed pleased as punch with the monster he and cohort Arturo Montex have fashioned. First, here’s their map.
Fugly, ain't it?
And here’s the text of their press release:
League of United Latin American Citizens, Santa Ana LULAC Council #147
Established: National – 1929 | Santa Ana – 1946
Orange County LULAC District #1
PO Box 1810, Santa Ana , CA 92702-1810
PRESS RELEASE: May 23, 2011
Local Civil Rights Groups to Submit Proposed Redistricting Plans to Orange County Redistricting Committee
Santa Ana LULAC Council #147 (League of United Latin American Citizens) has submitted it’s completed county supervisorial plans with appropriate population data to the Orange County Redistricting Committee by the May 18 deadline. The Santa Ana LULAC county plan (Plan #3) and data are included in this press release (see also attachment).
Santa Ana LULAC President Zeke Hernandez states, “There are well-over twenty plans being submitted by county supervisors, community groups and individuals. Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Campbell announced at the May 17th board meeting that he himself is submitting four plans, including one suggested by former county supervisor Phil Anthony. We understand another county supervisor has submitted 10-12 plans through his/her appropriate office or through third party intermediaries. Other local elected officials may also be submitting their own plans.”
Due to population changes following the decennial federal census count in 2010, Santa Ana LULAC has been able to draft two supervisorial districts (1 and 4) with over 50% minority population. These two districts have a community of interest – sharing common social and economic interests. The Santa Ana LULAC Plan #3 is affirmed to stand on its merits for the purpose of a community’s fair and effective representation.
Hernandez added, “We have brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors its concerns that the redistricting committee has not adopted a definitive process on how it will review submitted plans and how it will determine which plans will be recommended for adoption. The committee has acknowledged it may even re-draw a submitted plan by the public to be sent to the Board for approval. Committee members are comprised of staff aides to the supervisors and were appointed by them to act on their behalf. The committee recently revised its writing of the committee meetings, but continues to do its best to provide very little content, thus thwarting public knowledge through written commentary.”
Santa Ana LULAC Public Policy Director Arturo Montez emphasizes, “We have drawn a plan that has ZERO concerns relating to incumbents, political parties and candidates. These plans were drawn, keeping in mind our strong adherence to the U.S. Voting Rights Act and the California Constitution. In addition, we have done our best to take into consideration the public’s concern for transparency and reform in the redistricting process.”
Montez continued, “Santa Ana LULAC feels its Plan #3 surpasses any other 20-23 plans that were submitted by the May 18th deadline. The question that now comes to the forefront: Will the Board of Supervisors recognize the dramatic demographic changes taking place in Orange County ? As proposed, District #1 has an 85% minority population, and District #4 has over 72% minority population. These are most likely the most heavily minority populated county districts in the nation.”
The redistricting committee will hold its first of several public meetings on Thursday, May 26 (2 pm) to review and receive public comments on the submitted plans. This first meeting will be held at Orange County Hall of Administration – Board Hearing Room, 333 West Santa Ana Blvd., 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana.
Established in 1946, Santa Ana LULAC Council #147 is the oldest LULAC council in California and is an affiliate of Orange County LULAC District#1 and LULAC National – founded in 1929 with its national office in Washington , D.C.
The mission and objectives of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is to advance the economic development, educational advancement, public policy outcomes, housing opportunities, health awareness, and general civil rights protection of Latinos in the United States and Puerto Rico through community-based programs and services through more than 700 local LULAC councils nationwide.
~~ end ~~
The funniest part of this “ZERO concerns” drivel is this gem: Montez continued, “Santa Ana LULAC feels its Plan #3 surpasses any other 20-23 plans that were submitted by the May 18th deadline. Now, Art hasn’t seen any of the other plans, nor apparently, does he even know how many were actually submitted. Yet it’s Plan 3 surpasses any other!
Judging by the map above, LULACs main purpose is to create a Latino-majority district in the Fourth and a near-Latino majority in the First. Well okay, that’s their agenda. But the map necessarily carves up four or five cities, including Fullerton, into two or more supervisorial districts in order to sequester “white” populations out of the districts in question. While ethnic gerrymandering for and against minorities is nothing new for, it flies in the face of one of the main goals of redistricting which is to keep cities wholly in one district.
This means that a decent plan should aim to consolidate Garden Grove and Newport Beach, not create more divided cities.
Another aim of redistricting is to create compact, geographically cohesive units. LULACs plan just makes the current odd shaped districts an even odder hodgepodge.
I ask that you remove the reference to a Business Improvement District from your draft of a general plan. I understand the mention is to “encourage” a business improvement district. A business improvement district is a tax on businesses, collected as a property tax by the county tax assessor, in a defined area. It can be based on property ownership–and the owners pass the costs along to their tenants; or on individual businesses in the district.