FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Author: The Fullerton Harpoon
The Fullerton Harpoon is a retired commerical fisherman having served many years on the Japanese whaler Nisshin Maru where he unfortunately lost the right side of his brain and his sense of propriety in a Greenpeace attack.
Just jotted this comment on another post but it seems to serve as a short, stand alone essay on Redevelopment. So we share it below:
The entire premise behind Redevelopment is that private enterprise doesn’t work – as evidenced in blight. They love to latch on to the concept of property being “under utilized” meaning that it’s not pulling its weight to generate sales tax revenue to pay for staff salaries and benefits! Rather than using code enforcement to clean up real problems they prefer to divert property tax revenue and play developer.
I’m not sure that the dead hand is a good metaphor. Judging by the unaccountable boondogglery in Fullerton over the years that has done real damage to the cityscape I’m inclined to think along the more active lines of “living dead” planning/design and “zombie” land use concepts.
The Charge to Clean Up Fullerton; or, A Meeting of Redevelopment Staff
I always love it when Redevelopment proponents point to the existence of pawn shops, etc. as evidence of a malfunctioning economic system. What they ignore are the cheap rents that serve as an incubator to small businesses, especially those created by young entrepreneurs. Look at the history of the SoCo abomination; Santa Fe was a “run down” street by Redevelopment standards and yet Sean Francis used an old, beat-up building shell across from an industrial use to create a vibrant business. It was later that the City tagged along and started with the lame signs and laughable paving – immediately robbing the place of any authenticity.
For some reason the Redevelopment hacklings just can’t understand the concept of business cycles and one very simple fact of business: one man’s difficulty is another man’s opportunity.
Apparently, the Redevelopment staff got the word out to those already receiving City funds to get behind this redevelopment expansion if you want to score brownie points and maybe a little more dinero.
Speakers at Tuesday’s hearing in favor of the expansion included Jim Ranii of the Museum Board. Of course, the Museum is not blighted (is it, Jim?) and is not eligible for any funding by expanding the RDA. Muckenthaler Director Zoot Velasco talked of the “hidden blight” in Southwest Fullerton. Let’s hope its not so well hidden when it’s challenged in court. And, Zoot, the Muck cannot receive any future loot, so why allow yourself to be used by RDA staff? Then the folks from OCCLA who want grafitti removal (714-738-3108) and code enforcement (they don’t need redevelopment for either), and the Chamber of Commerce director Terresa Harvey, begging for hand outs for her fellow board members like Scott Dowds (who also spoke in favor). And lastly let’s not forget old Louis Kuntz Sr., who supported the expansion as well. Not surprising, since his son Louis Jr. and the Morgan Company who already got an $18 million public gift (including the gift of a public street–100 block East Whiting) from the Agency for his downtown apartment complex…. maybe there are some more profitable projects looming for him in the expanded area.
Now you know what happened to E. Whiting Ave.
Of course, their pleas had nothing to do with blight. In order to legally declare an area “redevelopment” the area must be blighted.
The process limps forward towards a legal battle, with Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk in opposition. At least Nelson and Quirk respect the law that they have sworn to uphold. Stay tuned.
Fans of Evita will remember these lyrics: “When the money keeps rolling in, you don’t ask how. Think of all the people guaranteed a good time, now!”
Well, a lot of people at Rutan and Tucker Law firm have made plenty $$$ off Fullerton taxpayers, especially its redevelopment attorney Jeff Oderman.
Oderman has a record of loyalty to city staff and staff-directed projects, even if it means bamboozling the council (acting as redevelopment agency). Take the City Lights low-income housing project on East Commonwealth (next to the Old Post Office). In 1997 the Agency-assigned developer Caleb Nelson (who was living out of his car) disappeared. The whole deal should have ben sent back to the Council for reconsideration. A request-for-proposal should have been issued to give developers an equal opportunity.
Instead, LA developer Ajit Mithaiwala appears from nowhere to take over the project. Then-RDA Director Chaplupsky starts dealing with Ajit, until council members Norby, Sa and Jones start wondering aloud– “where did this developer come from?” Oderman claimed Ajit was now the developer. Not true, Jeff! Despite demands from the council majority, no document was ever produced showing that Mithaiwala had ever been legally assigned the project. His shoddy construction of LA projects was also a concern.
voila, it's that simple
The council saw past Oderman’s bad advice and voted to end the project. Then, Mithaiwala threatened to sue Dick Jones personally for derogatory comments he made about future tenants. Jones got no protection from Oderman and instead Jones was pressured to change his vote. He did, and the project went through.
In 1999 the City started a breach-of-contract suit against Southwest Engineering, Inc. for non-performance on the Basque Yard remodel. It turned out that Southwest had used Rutan and Tucker to defend itself against a similar suit with another city. For a firm to represent both parties in a lawsuit–even if not the same case–is a serious question of legal ethics. Yet Oderman never told the council, who found out about it from a third source–when it was too late to change lawyers.
Oderman then recommends the City settle with the non-performing contractor, paying Southwest over $1 million.
Now Oderman is giving the council/agency the same bad advice on blight in the proposed expanded redevelopment area. Its passage will lead to at least two legal challenges on the bogus blight findings. County Counsel Attorney James Harman and FFFF’s attorney Bob Ferguson have stated convincingly and repeatedly why the blight findings fail legal muster.
Similar blight findings in many other cities–including Upland, Mammoth Lakes, Diamond Bar, Murietta, Arcadia and Glendora–have been thrown out by the courts. Fullerton’s may well be headed in that direction. Has Oderman cautioned the council about the legal risks? Or is he there to provide cover for the staff and the consultants?
But, what does Oderman care? A lengthy lawsuit only adds to his hourly billings ($400/hr. adds up pretty fast). Win or lose, he’ll still be paid. If Oderman is really so confident about winning the long legal blight fight ahead, then pay him on a contingency!
Please, City Council–hire a lawyer to represent you–not defend staff boondoggles. Until then, the money keeps rolling in for Rutan and Tucker! $400 per hour for 15 years of bad advice.
The proposed redevelopment expansion in Fullerton hinges upon on the city councils ability to discover “blight” in this vast area. Two of the biggest cheerleaders for this expansion of government power are councilman Dick Jones and Don Bankhead who are happy to make the necessary “finding” of blight.
you mean to tell us that blights been going on?
Let us reflect for a moment on the irony of the situation. Bankhead has been on the city council for over 20 years, and Jones has been on it since 1996, 12 years and counting! So what have we got going on here? According to Jones and Bankhead “blight” has been proliferating at a record pace on their watch! So what does this suggest about their competencyto fight blight, are these the guys we want running even more redevelopment?
The whole thing would be sort of comical if the potential consequences for the property owners in the proposed expansion area weren’t so serious.
Word has it that Don Bankhead has endorsed Hieu Nguyen for Clerk-Recorder, joining Dick Ackerman’s anti-Norby jihad. This is a slap in the face for the lone councilman who supported Don’s quixotic bid for Sheriff back in 1990. Ackerman supported Brad Gates, who easily turned back the Bankhead challenge.
Don was first elected in 1988 with the promise that he–like Norby–would back Molly McClanahan for Mayor (an Ackerman/Catlin/LeQuire triad had blocked her for years). That broke the annual mayoral controversy and restored the rotation that continues today. So Norby and Bankhead began as buddies. Norby even endorsed him as late as 2002, much to the ire of some longtime loyalists.
For Don, though, it’s still all about his being recalled by Fullerton voters. Norby opposed the utility tax passed by Bankhead, Catlin and McClanahan which led to their recall in 1994. He’s been sore ever since. Norby did not actually support the recall, but his later hiring of organizer Bruce Whitaker is a constant reminder of the utility tax/recall fiasco, foisted on Fullerton by then-City Manager Jim Armstrong.
Yo G, what does 1+1=
Other Hieu backers with grudges against Norby include: La Habra Councilman Tim “Taxman” Shaw (mad at Norby for pulling his endorsement when he supported the 1/2 cent LH sales tax hike), State Sen. Mimi Walters (mad at Norby for supporting Harry Sidhu against her), Ackerman (mad at Norby for beating his hand-picked council candidates) and Cynthia Coad (mad at Norby for beating her for Supervisor in 2002). It ain’t no secret, the Republican party is the party of grudge holders.
The fact that County Counsel is actively opposing the proposed redevelopment expansion further fuels Bankhead’s bile. Perhaps, Bankhead thinks the County should just lay down and let the RDA steal the County’s money for that all-important Commonwealth blight fight. But, it appears the recall is what really keeps galling Mayor Donahieu.
Dick Ackerman, Fullerton Redevelopment boondoggle history, college football, and Molly McClanahan.
It’s not often that so many local topics intersect, so when they do this intersection should be scrutinized and at the very least enjoyed for it’s entertainment value.
And so Loyal Friends, climb into the FFFF way back machine and travel with us to the not so distant year of 1990.
Supposed conservative city councilman Dick Ackerman had just help orchestrate a fiscal finagle in which the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency would finance a football stadium for Cal State University at Fullerton. Councilwoman Molly McClanahan voted for this blatent abuse of redevelopment although titan football folded and the bogus fundraising program was exposed she was heard to take credit for “asking all the tough questions!”.
but no intelligent answers
Fast forward now to 2009: a football stadium sits at CSUF with no football team in it. A stadium financed by the tax payers of Fullerton, all of whom are residents of the North Orange County Community College District of which Molly McClanahan is now a Trustee. The NOCCCD is caught red handed trying to illegally slip a new football stadium into it’s bond expansion plan at FJC!
Now, that’s ironic ! How many football stadiums will Molly McClannahan oversee before she wraps up her political carreer? And why can’t FJC’s football team use the CSUF football stadium for its 5 or 6 annual home games? Maybe Molly can answer that since she approved it in the first place. Let’s ask her. Molly?
After receiving a barrage of criticism about her support of the McDonald’s relocation fiasco, Fullerton council member Sharon Quirk informed us and others about her decision to change her decision.
Our Redevelopment sources at city hall have told us that at the latest closed door session of the city council Quirk was dissuaded from her decision and in effect signaled her decision to changed her decision to change her decision.
We weren’t there, but we will bet anything that staff used there favorate standby “you cant do this he’ll sue us” to which we say, “let him“. Once again the bureaucrats at city hall have chosen to stay the course believing as they do that in Fullerton it’s better to hide the boondoggle later than to admit a mistake now, and with feeble council members like Sharon Quirk, they may be right.
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?
gimme, gimme, gimme
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.
"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!
Harry Sidhu poses with a near life-size dummy of Arnold
We haven’t posted anything on Anaheim’s Harry Sidhu and his bid for the 4th District County Supe race in some time. And we have been negligent in not passing along news of his upcoming fundraiser on June 20th. His “host committee” (remember – the guys who get in free) include a roster of current and former Anaheim politicos.
Looks like Tom Daly's got problems in Anaheim. But Stanton, Cypress and Brea aren't even in the district...
This is surely bad news for the other Anaheim candidate, Tom Daly who must be chaffing at the thought of Harry grabbing the support of Anaheim’s old guard both Republican and Democrat. That may actually be a reflection of Tom’s real popularity south of the 91. His campaign mastermind, John Lewis, must be plenty pissed off about it, too.
But back to Harry. He has a wee bit of a problem. Harry does not live in the 4th District, but in the posh precincts of Anaheim Hills, in the 3rd. He has stated that he will buy an address in the 4th, for appearances and legal requirements, presumably, because nobody expects him to move out of his cozy compound in the hills. None of this reflects well on Harry who can be seen as a perennial office seeker with more money than sense.
...and Harry isn't part of it either!
In the meantime Fullerton’s Shawn Nelson has already launched his campaign for the 4th and has a website under construction.
