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.

SoftLand met SoftLand TS 024.jpgOn 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!

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

dq
Well, somebody had to do it...

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.

Yeah, baby! Mixed use!
Yeah, baby! Mixed use!

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!

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

Dick Ackerman’s Fatal Endorsement Record

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 5th and 6th.
  • 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.

Being Dick Jones; Sharing the Crazy Hillbilly Routine

The Orange County Vector Control Board meets monthly with all its 3 dozen Board Members, and Vector staff. Our own Dick Jones represents Fullerton on the Vector board where he now has the reputation of being a nut. Sound familiar?

During a staff presentation at the May 21, 2009 meeting, Jones had a typical Jones moment. First he pops up out of his seat waving hand in the air, screaming “enough…enough for God’s sake,” then minutes later he compliments staff for baffling him. We’re not sure how to read this other than we think Dick Jones had some sort of a mental snap, and then he flew the coop. We’re used to this sort of things, but apparently it shocked some of his Vector colleagues.

You may have trouble sorting through the man’s mangled syntax so we are providing a transcript of his remarks:
“I would like to compliment you all on the extensive report you gave, however when I get on an airplane I’d like to think that some agency says it’s air worthy, I don’t want to know the percentage of the materials that make up the wing spars, your intentions are laudible and so forth. I think this was over done, when people come to me for an operation I did not give them 4 years of surgical information during my residency, this was excellent. It’s nice to be baffled by brilliance, and it was baffling”.

We would like to think that’s it’s not asking too much of our elected officials to act like adults, not spoiled children used to getting their own way. If Jones can’t control himself in public perhaps he could just limit his idiotic outbursts to Fullerton rather than make the city a laughingstock when he takes his show on the road.

Being Dick Jones; The Sequel

A couple of days ago we shared this post about our favorite punching bag, Dick Jones. We pointed out that we had been criticized during last year’s campaign for producing a creative version of this classic moment; so we shared the original, unedited film.

And now we would like to present, once again, our original art film version that was nominated in 2008 for the prestigious Orson Welles Award for Excellence in Political Satire from the Teddy J. Brinkerhof Multi-media Institute in Nanty Glo, Pennsylvania . We didn’t win, but we have high hopes for 2009. 

We have to admit it was tough competing with the real McCoy, but we did our best! Decide for youself which version is more entertaining.

Dick Jones Pops His Cork; Witnesses Describe Wide Devastation

jones-gone-wild1
Dick Jones in a subdued moment...

We’ve been hearing now for several days that Fullerton’s own volcanic phenomenon, Dick Jones, really lost it at a recent OC Vector Control District Board meeting, blown head gasket-wise.

they get paid for this?
The OC Vector Control District Board gets down to work...

We’re not clear on what happened, precisely, but according to reliable sources (several council members from neighboring cities) Jones experienced some sort of cataclysmic melt-down. More than this we cannot say. However, we have ordered a copy of the the audio tape of the meeting to figure out exactly what happened. When we get this record we will be sure to share it with you, our Faithful Friends. Then you can judge for yourselves.

Design Review Member Steve Lynch on Jefferson Commons

Stucco, Styrofoam, and lots of it
Stucco, styrofoam, but where's the parking structure?

Greetings Everyone-

I would like to apologize to you for the manner in which I left the meeting last night. I wish I could fabricate a better reason than being absolutely disgusted with JPI Development for their thinly veiled deception of the RDRC and Staff…but I can’t. I felt my blood pressure elevating and thought it was best for me to leave before making any more comments regarding their six shades of shadiness. As you may have guessed by now I believe the JPI group deliberately misrepresented the mass of the parking structure in the colored elevation drawing that they presented to us at the RDRC meeting in which they earned our approval. I also believe it was a calculated move for them to casually slip the actual scale of the structure into the elevations in the construction drawings and hope nobody caught it. If I am not mistaken Heather caught this little “revision” and that is why they were a last minute addition to our agenda last night. If I had to do it over again I would have dug my heels in and tried to sway the other members towards my belief that what JPI presented last night was significantly different than what was approved, however, I felt at the time that would have been futile as the other members didn’t seem too affected by the change. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things none of this is going to make any difference to anybody and the building will get built and the citizens of Fullerton will be none the wiser to what the building should have looked like, but I know, and the sense of satisfaction I once felt for having collaborated on this project is now a bit corrupted. When the minutes are being drafted for last nights meeting I would like the record to reflect my true feelings as accurately as possible.

Jay/ Heather…if it’s not in violation of any policy, I would like this email shared with the other members of the committee.

Regards,

Steve Lynch

Last October, this letter was sent to the Fullerton Observer, but NEVER got published.

Demo update
Demo update

Roscoes at it Again, Temporary Nuisance, Permanent Arrogance

Just what exactly does “temporary” mean? “Roscoe’s Famous” Deli,” and famous noise polluter in downtown Fullerton is back to the Planning Commission Wednesday night to try to get a “special event permit” for outdoor amplified music.

"lyrical elements of apocalyptic fears and collective oppression"
Oh yeah! Mixed-use, baby!

The Planning Commission and City Council already agreed that outdoor amplified music is not a good thing for our community. Allowing loud music to be permitted on a permanent basis will stump Fullerton’s bright future of continuing to become a center of mixed-use commerce and residences as defined by the current downtown zoning (C3.)  If we want our downtown to unfold in a positive direction it’s imperative that we as a community find a balance between business, entertainment and living in the downtown. Its real simple: if you want loud noise you need to put it inside. In fact the city required Tuscany Club to keep it’s door shut during the hours it has its loud entertainment- that sounds like a reasonable idea doesn’t it ?

As usual the City staff has gotten everything ass-backward.

it all depends which way you're facing...
From where we're standing it looks reasonable...

Instead of establishing an objective code and requiring that businesses abide by it, they are actually justifying a likely nuisance as way to experiment with amplified music outdoors, and thus circumvent the existing Code. The taxpayers have just paid for an acoustical study. What are the results? Those results should be used to amend the Code or leave it as is. Then it should be used as a mechanism to approve or deny permits – “special event” or otherwise, and if necessary, code enforcement.  The special event permit also strangely omits hours of operation. That’s pretty negligent, and we wonder why.

Roscoe’s didn’t get approved for a permanent permit to play amplified music outdoors; now they are trying to get a temporary permit to do that very same thing…. Hey that’s very creative, but we don’t think a special event permit should evade that original denial, and we don’t think a temporary permit was ever intended for eight events spanning an entire summer! Can you imagine having a neighbor that continues to have a backyard party with a loud electric band every weekend ? That’s how a lot of Roscoe’s neighbors feel…

It could be worse. It could be Speed Metal!
It could be worse. It could be Speed Metal!

This is the Municipal Code that deals with temporary event permits in the City of Fullerton:

The Fullerton Municipal Code defines a special event as “an event that will be conducted outdoors to which the general public is admitted or invited. Such an event includes a carnival festival tent or car show, circus parade, auction rally or similar kind of temporary outdoor exhibit or performance” (Accents added).

As follows is the roster of Roscoe’s “special event” application-

Roscoe’s Special Events Request List:
Sunday June 14th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Saturday June 20th Silvia’s Engagement party. 7-12 pm
Sunday June 21st Fathers Day Celebration. 4-9pm
Sunday June 28th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 12th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 26th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 9th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 30th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm

Friends, you decide if this is just a way to get around the rules that all the rest of us are supposed to abide by. Let’s not forget that in the original permanent use hearing the City ignored its own environmental review obligations. Why is Famous Roscoes and its owner, Jack Franklyn, receiving all this special consideration and hand holding from the City? The law is the law. We all live by it everyday, and so should he.

The Fox Theater Fiasco: Pick A Card…Any Card…

Gee, what a choice!
Gee, what a great choice!

No, not that one!

That’s the way Redevelopment likes to choose its favored developers. A kabuki-like pantomime is undertaken by issuing an RFP (Request for Proposals). In the end the process presents the decision makers with a choice that is essentially no choice. To illustrate the point, Loyal Friends, we go back in time almost ten years to examine how the “Save The Fox” movement got off to a rousing start.

let's hope we don't end up going around in circles...
Let's hope we don't end up going around in circles...

In 1999 after catching the wave of the Save The Fox movement, the City issued an RFP for private developers to take over the job of restoring the Fox and developing the adjoining area. The City had committed to build a parking structure and hand over other developer goodies. Proposals were received in August. In October the Agency was presented with the lucky winner, Staff’s choice – “Berkman/Chaffee” a local restaurant owner and a politically-connected lawyer turned low-income housing credits entrepreneur. Paul Berkman was there to provide credibility to run a “dinner theater” and Doug (Bud) Chaffee’s job was to look like a land developer. The only problem, as it soon transpired, was that Berkman refused to promise a dinner theater, only movies. And Chaffee had never “developed” anything but heavily subsidized housing.

Good Lord that's awful...
That isn't very good, is it?

To complicate matters a second proposer named Dana Morris of Morris productions, who believed himself to be in the running, actually showed up at the meeting  desiring that the elected officials, not staff, decide who might get the gig. His idea was to create an performing and fine arts academy on the site that would, in turn, generate all sorts of ancillary business opportunities downtown and not compete with existing businesses.

To the acute embarrassment of staff, Morris managed to organize a slew of supporters, including a backer who promised to help finance the venture. They asked for more time to prove their bona fides.

On cue, some of Fullerton’s usual lefty suspects got up to promote Berkman/Chaffee although their proposal was dubious, at best, and despite the fact that neither partner had any experience doing what they claimed they were going to do. There were strong undertones of religious bigotry pulling their adherents along, for it had become known that that Morris was affiliated with BIOLA, and in some peoples’ minds that was anathema.

Nuh-uh. Not in our city!
Nuh-uh. Not in our city!

To add hypocrisy to the mix, people who had never shown a dime’s worth of concern when the City acquired property in downtown Fullerton were suddenly horrified by the thought of a non-profit foundation paying no property tax!

The council finally voted 4-1 (Flory dissenting, naturally) to continue the item so that Morris could clarify certain financial points in his proposal. In the intervening time, as Morris later told us, he was treated with such overt contempt and continuing hostility by Redevelopment Director Gary Chaplupsky that he finally abandoned his proposal as simply not worth the aggravation. We have only his word for what happened, but given the Redevelopment Agency staff’s propensity for prevarication over the years,  we are inclined to accept it. And so a plausible concept for the Fox was lost because the staff did its level-best to thwart a reasonable proposal and award the deal to their favored team – the team that could be counted on to play ball.

Gee, Paul, I don't remember this being so hard...
Gee, Paul, I don't remember this being so hard...

And now Patient Friends, we finally return to our title. At the hearing in October, 1999 it slipped out that of the eight original proposals only two were even deemed worthy of consideration; and the City Council was never informed that one of the other six actually came from the janitor at the Hub Cafe! Of the two “finalists” it was clear that Morris never stood a chance, thus effectively limiting the Agency’s choices to none. This “planning and activity” as our faithful reader “Jack B. Nimble” characterizes it was nothing but a sham, a fact that later became evident when the Berkman/Chaffee partnership permitted its agreement with the City to lapse, and was never heard from again. And so a feeble concept had gained traction even though (excluding Morris) there was not one credible respondent to the proposal. But in government circles, that’s all it takes to gain momentum!

Here's your card, sucker...
Here's your card, sucker...