Looking down from doggie heaven on you folks I get some interesting perspectives on things. Like right now Fullerton has not a single female liberal running for the city council.
Back in 1982 & 86 it was everyone’s fave featherhead, Molly McClanahan; in 1988 it was Maryevelyn Bryden, a humorless old bat who was trounced by the still marginally cogent Bankhead; in 1992 it was my former broomstick wielding mistress, Jan Flory, who was chain-whipped by the incomprehensible Julie Sa; in 1994, 1998, and 2002 Flory ran again and actually won a couple of times. In 2004 and 2006 Sharon Quirk and Pam Keller emerged, right on cue to claim their liberal XX chromosonal birthright. In 2008 it was the hapless Karen Haluza.
But now, in 2010? Nobody. The closest thing the Fullerton liberal crowd can point to is Doug Chaffee. And he isn’t a woman.
But wait! All is not lost! There’s always the hand-picked Ed Royce candidate and darling of the Dick Ackerman/dim-bulb Federated Republican Women crowd: Patrick McKinley.
On September 7, Jan Flory gave McKinley $200 – more than she spent on dog food for me in ten years. McKinley’s website also boasts the endorsement of McClanahan, too. So what gives?
Are the Fullerton Dems so sad and pathetic that they have to go along with Royce and Ackerman tools, the same repuglican goons who have worked so tirelessly for decades to undermine Democrat candidates and electeds? Remember that Ed Royce was the sole creator of Leland Wilson who knocked off the liberal beloved Flory in 2002.
And you know, now that I come come to think of it, I have to wonder if these endorsements don’t say just as much about McKinley as they do Flory and McClananhan. Hmm.
Looking down from Doggy Heaven at last night’s NUFF forum I noticed my former mistress Jan Flory in attendance. At one point during Shawn Nelson’s observation that County bureaucrats were hardly a necessity to get hitched, my one-time owner blurted a loud ejaculation.
It sounded like “who’s going to marry you?”
Well, that’s a Hell of a stupid question, besides being pretty rude to someone who’s speaking, but that’s my mistress for you. Of course if anybody pulled that stunt on her she would have smacked them with the business end of her broomstick.
Defender of traditional marriage - the kind performed by a County bureaucrat!
Anyway, I’ll tell you who will marry people: their priests; their rabbis; their ministers; their ashram maharishis. Who cares? Why should a civil servant in a plastic robe do it under a dopey arch of fake flowers?
A broomstick across the eye socket does wonders to curb errant leg-lifting
Despite our repeated efforts to assure our loyal Friends that former Fullerton City Councilwoman Jan Flory’s dog is still dead-as-a-doornail, and still out of its misery, persistent rumors to the contrary, and alleged sightings keep occurring. The most recent of the latter happened last week as our own dedicated Friend Ed Peabody claims to have witnessed the hapless mutt peeing in the bushes along Brea Boulevard, directly beneath the new Elks Lodge compound.
While this reaction to the monstrosities on Elk Hill (that we have previously documented here, here, and here) seems appropriate, we cannot, however, lend credence to these wild stories, even from a normally reliable source like Peabody. Although we were willing to cut him some slack when he claimed to have seen Elvis passed out in the West Harbor Alley, now he has just gone too far.
Until we are provided with concrete evidence, we will continue to maintain that Jan Flory’s dog is still dead.
Last night I had my 60 day review at the Planning Commission to review the trumped up “public nuisance” charge brought against me by City staff at the behest of former council member and noted broomstick rider Jan Flory.
Still smarting from her defeat at the December meeting she showed up again and had to swallow the bitter pill yet again – a final 4-1 exoneration by the Commission.
Mrs. Flory held forth in a rambling ten-minute, diatribe the purpose of which was to attack me personally, one more time, as well as the Commission’s lack of proper diligence.
Her rant did include one bit of new information, if Mrs. Flory can be believed, and that’s the fact that she hasn’t had a dog in twenty-five years! That bit of information emerged as she challenged the accuracy of this humble blog!
Jan sure seemed annoyed at having been featured in an earlier post of mine (even though I thought the picture was pretty flattering – considering the subject. You can decide – I’m including it again, below).
Anyway the story has a happy ending. I have been vindicated and Jan Flory’s dog is in a much happier place – away from its owner.
Former Fullerton Councilperson Jan Flory (shown above, after three cocktails) filed a formal nuisance complaint on my property near the Brea Dam because my 14 year old son and his friends were riding their bikes on it. Mrs. Flory lives about half a mile from this property. Maybe she was offended because I put a fence around the area where she takes her dog to do its business. Seriously, Flory has never liked my family, and evidently saw an opportunity to cause trouble for me; but really, to take out her spite on kids is pretty low – even for her.
As ringleader of a phony neighborhood group she got a few folks agitated enough to believe they had a case. And for a while she must have thought things were going pretty well – Public Nuisance Inspector Clouseau agreed with Flory.
Fortunately reason and common sense prevailed over vindictiveness when the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, unanimously denied Flory’s contention that riding bicycles on my property was a public nuisance. Click here to watch the meeting, scroll forward to 1:53:15.
The sorriest part of this nasty little episode was when Flory insinuated that my 14 year old son and his friends were responsible for a burglary and car theft in her neighborhood after the initial complaint was filed. This insinuation has become part of the record in two public hearings and stands as a permanent reminder of just how sad, bitter and vindictive Jan Flory can be.
The train of thought was weak but it sure was short…
We have all seen how Ahmad Zahra has endorsed the the idea of a cannabis dispensary on almost any commercial corner in Fullerton; how the sad mental train wreck of Jesus Quirk-Silva was eager to spread the pain to all of Fullerton’s representative districts. That’s old news, from 2020.
Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo
News of more recent vintage is that in 2024 the dope lobby, fronted by the grocery store workers union pitched in to elect Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo with an astounding $60,000, dumped into a pro Jaramillo political action committee.
How come? Because this union also represents the cannabis dispensary works in Orange County. I note that the origin and intent of this contribution was never discussed in the pages of the Fullerton Observer.
Andre finds a pearl in an oyster…
Of that $60,000, $4000 was shuffled to Andre Charles, who styles himself a political consultant. What he does between elections remains a mystery, as does the service he provided Team Jaramillo for that $4000. But Andre’s sketchy employment history is of little concern, except that the source of his conjugal bliss is none other than Mrs. Shana Charles, a Fullerton City Council member and a vociferous advocate for public health.
Ms. Shana, as FFFF has noted, is running for re-election in Fullerton’s District 3 this fall. She has kicked off a re-election campaign and has begun the task of fundraising. Her second biggest contribution was $1500, and came from came from the very same dope workers union that fronted the Cannabis Kitty PAC. A coincidence? I doubt it.
Mrs. Flory’s education was complete. The designated driver was on the way.
The marijuana dispensary lobby needs three votes to revive the ill-formed dope ordinance of 2020 approved just before the election of that year by Ahmad Zahra, Jesus Quirk-Silva, and the possibly sober Jan Flory (pictured above). That ordinance was revoked a few months later and the lobby determined that it was worth a huge monetary investment in Fullerton politics.
The other day my FFFF colleague, Fullerton Harpoon, published a post on a possible move on the part of Fullerton’s annoying liberal claque to drum up support for legalizing cannabis dispensaries in town.
A Hip Hop Drug Guy
It’s really hard to get worked up over Doc HeeHaw’s illegal “hip hop drug guy,” and Fullerton Harpoon was quite right in pointing out the absurdity of the “it costs so much to crack down on illegal stores” as a good argument for legal dispensaries when the real reason to have them is to generate large amounts of cannabis sales taxes and fee revenue.
With the Fullerton budget in parlous condition, cannabis revenue derived from an intelligent program isn’t such an unreasonable idea.
Let’s quickly dive back into history when we examine the previous cannabis dispensary ordinance and its revocation in 2020 and 2021.
Throughout 2020 public discussion was held regarding a potential cannabis dispensary ordinance. Public input was clear people wanted a 1000 foot buffer from “sensitive receptors” such as schools, parks, and houses. In fact the consultant’s map that reflected this desire became known as “the People’s Map.”
That was the map approved for recommendation by Fullerton’s Planning Commission. But a funny thing happened on the way to the City Council.
Flory: Was I really hoodwinked?
The ordinance was pushed through by the Council 3-2, in the waning months of 2020, even though an election promised a new councilmembers. Jan Flory, Jesus Quirk-Silva, and of course Ahmad Zahra voted yes. Jennifer Fitzgerald and Bruce Whitaker voted no.
The problem that many saw was that in the modified plan there was now generous latitude of potential locations, even to have a dispensary 100 feet from a residential zone. This latitude was undoubtedly the result of dope lobby pressure on Zahra and Quirk-Silva to increase their opportunities as much as possible, and to “share the pain” as Quirk-Silva put it. The public could shove it where the sun didn’t shine.
The other obvious problem was that the ordinance invested the authority to approve cannabis licenses in the hands of the City Manager, who at the time was the incompetent Ken Domer; the decisions would be shrouded in secrecy instead of transparently, in public
The People’s Map had been sandbagged by Flory, Zahra and Quirk-Silva.
Just said no…
In December 2020 and in the early months of 2021 the two new councilmembers – Fred Jung and Nick Dunlap joined Whitaker in pulling the plug on the ordinance. No one has tried to resurrect the issue – yet.
So I have a modest proposal. Why not go back to the People’s Map? Why not go back to the earlier suggestions that would have banned these stores within 1000 feet of anybody’s residence? In addition, why not require street visibility from a Primary or Secondary arterial so everything is in plain view? Sure, almost all of the cannabis businesses would be in southwest Fullerton – Council District 5, so what? That’s the reality of Fullerton’s zoning code.
As far as other revenue options go, two proposed special sales taxes on the 2026 ballot might not pass as they require 2/3 majority; even if the council waffles toward reverting to a general sales tax there would have to be 4 council votes to put it on the ballot. Are they there? Without these revenue sources the practical financial aspect of cannabis-generated revenue appears useful.
The same argument against a special or general sales tax increase is always there: why should everybody be asked to make a sacrifice for the city’s welfare when the City Council and the hundreds of municipal employees, whose salaries and benefits paid for by the public, have sacrificed nothing?
And here’s a final thought: why not restrict cannabis revenue to specific deployment – such as roads, sidewalks and street lights?
Difficult decisions such as who gets licenses and how many there should be remain. I’m not confident in our existing bureaucracy to regulate this use successfully, but to me an intelligent rethink of the issue that minimizes citizen concerns is not a bad idea at all.
One of our commenters recently pointed out the “reply” string on a Fullerton Observer post supposedly written by a guy named Kevin Curriston, a chap who doesn’t appear to be the literary type. Some of comments are pretty good. Naturally Sharon, the elder Kennedy Sister, leaps into the breach to validate the theme of the essay. Amy the Angry Little Bird is on hand too, to lend her support.
A guy named Brian calls bullshit on the supposition that 40 public commenters represent anybody but a small percentage of Fullertonions.
That premise is not well-received in Fullerton Boohooville.
I particularly like Brian’s wicked request for Kennedy to share some of Zahra’s vast filmography.
A Mr. Matt Leslie reminds everybody that Zahra’s flipped on his first real decision and in doing so disenfranched a whole bunch of people when he appointed Jan Flory to complete Jesus Quirk-Silva’s term.
Matt LeslieThe author neglects to inform readers that Council member Ahmad Zahra did not attend this important meeting. Although it seems unlikely that other council members would have supported him for mayor, he had the opportunity to support Shana Charles for the position, but was not present to do so.Ed Response: Councilmember Zahra had a work trip out of town so did not attend the meeting.
BrianI see you seem to know a lot about council member Zahra, just what does he do for a living?
Sharon KZahra is a filmmaker. Currently the only Councilmember who doesn’t work is Jung. You can discover this kind of thing through the form 700 financial filings of each Councilmember. – though I notice Valencia has failed to file. Not sure why.
BrianWow, that is fascinating. Can you point me in the direction of some of his work?
AmyDunlap and Jung continue to gaslight the public and delude themselves by saying that public commenters are not representative.Every meeting brings new attendees infuriated by the actions of the majority, but Jung, Dunlap, and Valencia keep telling themselves the public’s voices don’t count. It seems they can’t bring themselves to accept that anyone could possibly disagree with their blatant corruption and repeated defiance of the wishes of the public.
BrianI’d imagine if you took two seconds to step outside your bubble, you may realize that in a town of 140,000+, 30 or 40 people don’t even represent a decimal of a percentage. And just because you comment, it doesn’t make your comments true. Much like this publication and the liberties it takes with the truth all the time.
Sharon KBrian – sounds like you are talking to yourself on that critique. Most people are busy with their lives and don’t pay that much attention. And of course over half of our town’s 140,000 or so residents are children. Others have jobs that interfere with council meeting hours, etc. Some don’t think it is possible to fight city hall. Some are just not interested. Having 40 people show up at a council meeting and speak on an issue is huge. If people didn’t come out we wouldn’t have any trails in town; there would be a polluting flour mill across from Amerige Heights; the toxic park and McColl dump site would not be cleaned up; our museum center would be high rise office building; we wouldn’t have saved FOX or Coyote Hills and much much more. Some politicians – just out for themselves and narrow special interests – can fool people for awhile but eventually the truth of their actions come out
AmyThose who disagree are welcome to attend a city council meeting, but for some reason they have not.Jung received unanimous opposition to his taking of the mayorship at the last meeting. Dozens of public comments unanimously supported creating a fund for immigrant support against ICE raids and kidnappings. Dozens still attended to beg city council not to kill the Walk on Wilshire – twice; the paltry number of voices in opposition were those financially aligned with Jung and Bushala. If opposition exists, it has yet to show up to city council meetings.
BrianLike I said, just because you comment, doesn’t make your comments true. With this statement you proved my point again. Full of inaccuracies. Do better.
AmyI don’t see how, but okay. I’m sure you know best.
Matt LeslieAmy, I opposed Walk on Wilshire for several reasons, not because I was “aligned” with anyone. Please be careful not to be dismissive of the concerns of those with opinions contrary to your own.
AmyI fully respect your right to your opinion, but I do disagree that the bollards – comparable to those used on nearly every trail in OC – were an actual impediment to cyclists traversing the Walk on Wilshire and merited removal of the whole thing. I definitely wouldn’t go so far as to say any opinion I disagree with is invalid. That would be absurd. But the argument seemed so ridiculous as to be disingenuous to me. Perhaps I’m reading too much into it.That said, as one of the fewer than 10 detractors, you’re certaintly entitled to your opinion. I hope the dismantling of the Walk on Wilshire that so many enjoyed brought you great happiness and satisfaction.
FrankStep out of your bubble pal.
Sharon KBrian – if you are talking to me – you are right — I guessed that there are way more children than there are at least according to the stats I just looked up that say there are only 32,000 children under 18 in Fullerton. But when you are figuring out percentages of people think about the fact that – according to the OC Registrar of Voters – only 7,432 voted for Jung; 9,546 for Dunlap and 3,489 for Valencia in the last election. That certainly does not make a majority. Some of those who voted for Jung, Dunlap are among those who have come to council and said they were unhappy with their votes on various things and felt fooled when the vote to keep Walk on Wilshire open – turned into an expansion suggested by the two – and then that vote was postponed until after the election and both Jung and Dunlap proceeded to vote no. Really the point is that we residents of town want a fun place to live that we are proud of where people want to visit and small businesses can thrive. Dulling it down by reducing unique features, curtailing music, outdoor patios, walking paths, safe bike paths, etc does not make our town attractive to anyone. And everything turns into a big fight with residents begging for good decisions. And I am not alone in really hating their recent decision to not help residents targeted by ICE and other weird unfair decisions like not following fair rotation so every district gets chance to have their representative as mayor.
Matt LeslieAnd, by the way, if you want to talk about steamrolling over public opinion go watch the videos of Ahmad Zahra’s first council meetings in 2018. Dr. Zahra first voiced support for a special election to fill a vacant council seat, a position in line with nearly all public speakers on the issue during meetings. But he quickly changed his position entirely, aligning himself with a council majority who disregarded expressed public opinion in favor of an election and instead voted to appoint a someone to the vacant seat.Zahra’s swing vote to appoint a council member instead of holding an election disenfranchised an entire district of the city, instead foisting upon them an unelected representative for the two full years remaining in the council term. This decision was of much greater significance, in my opinion, than choosing a mayor from among sitting council members (something the appointed council member got to do). Where was the concern for “the public” then?
Yes, Mayor Fred Jung will be Mayor Fred Jung again. It happened at the Fullerton City Council meeting last night.
The Man Who Would Be King…
The usual assortment of Fullerton Boohoo showed up at the meeting for their annual December moan-fest about how “Dr.” Ahmad Zahra should be Mayor of Fullerton because he is a combination of Albert Schweitzer, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Jesus H. Christ. And also District 5, where Zahra has never got 50% of the vote, is somehow “disenfranchised” because Zahra can’t revel in the lofty title. Sputter, wheeze, etc. Ironically, one Zahra advocate explained as a qualification how the unemployed and family-less Zahra was always at photo-op events.
Comically, many of Zahra’s ardent followers couldn’t pronounce his name right, referring to him as “Za-ha-rah,” thus suggesting they don’t even know him.
But somehow the show seemed pretty muted, and sort of perfunctory; maybe it was because Zahra wasn’t even at the meeting and this meant that his getting three votes wasn’t in the cards.
Say goodbye to my nice policy…
Zahra minions spoke about the policy of mayoral rotation made years ago by other city councils that must be adhered to, even though the City Attorney had said a council majority could set it aside anytime they want, making the policy meaningless.
What will 2026 have in store for this one…
The endlessly self-impressed gasbag Shana Charles said it was also her turn to be mayor, cuz she had just been Mayor Pro Tem, and ya know, policy. She is running for re-election next years and probably thought, delusionally, that she had a shot at the Title. She didn’t.
In the end Valencia nominated Fred Jung who was appointed Mayor; Nick Dunlap was nominated, and appointed Mayor Pro Tem.
I am the light, the truth and the way…
No one within the boohoo tribe has ever bothered to honestly figure out why the council majority has steadfastly refused to appoint Zahra to be mayor. It’s chalked up to selfish personality issues on their part, but we know the real reason. No one whom Zahra hasn’t fooled with his phony immigrant schtick and faux sincerity wants to hear his long-winded, self-praising bloviation and his promotion of his “brand.” They resent his constant condescension toward them, his performance of moral superiority, and his hysterical, behind the scenes behavior.
The same applies to the majority’s opinion of Shana Charles, with her smug, incompetent, speechifying. She loves the sound of her own voice, alright, but nobody else loves the bi-monthy waste of time that just interminably drags out meetings. Even Nick Dunlap, who nominated Charles to be mayor Pro Tem a year ago, has evidently had enough of her tedious monologues.
Speaking of Dunlap, he did excel himself before the vote, noting that the same 40 people (it’s probably closer to 20) who show up at council meetings do not represent the public or the community and that he had been elected to represent everybody. Well done, there, Mr. Dunlap. They won’t get it, but need to be reminded once in a while.
That’s Mayor Jung to you, Sankia…
So Fred Jung gets to use the title “Mayor” during his campaign for County Supervisor which is a help in the odd world of local politics where almost nobody is paying attention to real accomplishments or real failures.
