FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Category: Don Bankhead
Mayor Pro-Tem Don Bankhead is a councilmember in the City of Fullerton. In his spare time he enjoys playing with toy trains and pretending to be a fiscal conservative.
Now pay attention to the legend of Don Bankhead in Fullerton…
Below is an illuminating video clip of our old nemesis City Councilman Dick Jones defending redevelopment expansion in Fullerton.
Dick’s suggestion that blight exists because foreclosed houses are close to “those blighted areas”, makes absolutely no sense, and, in fact directly contradicts the specific legal findings he had to make to support Redevelopment expansion; but then again look who’s talking.
The other important question Dick’s little speech raises is whether or not he discussed this issue with Pam Keller prior to the meeting. Listen to when Dick he says “when this thing passes, I’m going to make a motion to have our attorney and our staff work with the County to….”, it was obvious he already knew it was going to pass. But how could he have known unless of course Dick had already gone over this with Keller, the ultimate third vote? This is not a Brown Act violation, but it sure would be if he had previously discussed this issue with either Don Bankhead or Sharon Quirk, and it’s pretty hard to believe otherwise. These guys habitually play fast and loose with the Brown Act prohibition against “serial meetings” so it’s not inconceivable.
A few months ago we went after Sharon Kennedy and her Observer’s shameless pandering to City Hall when she passed along a letter from OC Supervisor Chris Norby opposing Redevelopment expansion to her pals in the government. Some Redevelopment flunky put together the “official” response, Don Bankhead affixed his X to it, and the two were printed side by side.
Well she’s at it again. Check out page 8 of the July edition. Same technique, same result.
Now, we have nothing against the City getting out its propaganda, even if it is full of baloney. But this habit on the part of Kennedy of sharing an editorial writer’s submission so that it can be immediately rebutted without counter response is so unfair that, well, we feel justified in accusing Sharon Kennedy of being just a wee bit biased in the stuff she prints.
Why not print the submission and let the City respond if it feels inclined to do so? Why not let the debate go back and forth – fairly, and see who can develop the more compelling argument? Oh, yeah. That’s right:
While watching the youtube clip of David Espinosa tee off on the Union Pacific Park and the comment by City Manager Chris Meyer that the park was being shut down, we got to thinking. The Mayor was clearly not told by anybody that the park was being closed down – observe the standard “we’ll fix it, thanks, move along” comment by Bankhead followed by Meyer’s explanation.
Meyer went on to say that the problem of what to do with this “park” was being passed to the Community Services Commission for ponderment.
And we say: who in Hell gave Chris Meyer the authority to shut down a public park? Why wasn’t the Council asked to make this decision and how come they were never even told about it before the apparent revelation at the council meeting? Who gave Meyer the authority to assign this problem to anybody, let alone a lower committee without even informing the Council of his plans? Why wasn’t this issue agendized and discussed, in public, by the City Council?
These are mostly rhetorical questions, of course. The City’s staff wants to sweep this acute embarrassment under the municipal rug and the only way to do that is not to tell anybody. Even their bosses.
It also makes us wonder how much else in Fullerton has being undertaken by the City Manager on his own hook. It’s one thing to execute policy laid down by elected officials; it’s quite another thing to start taking on major policy decisions, and worse still, not tell anybody. Unfortunately this situation is symptomatic of two long-standing problems in Fullerton, two problems that fit together like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.
First is the perfect willingness of our elected city council persons to abdicate their own policy-making responsibility and simply show up for the meetings, the Rotary lunches, the Chamber mixers, and the ribbon cuttings; second is the perfect willingness of the city managers to step into the authority void and run the show any damn way they please. It’s a perverse symbiosis.
This has got to stop. The results have been amply catalogued on the pages of this blog. And they aren’t very pretty.
FFFF’s seasoned veteran Attorney Bob Ferguson (6-0 record vs. redevelopment scams) knows a blight scam when he sees it, and is relishing the idea of bringing the redevelopment expansion under the judicial microscope. Like a quack doctor intentionally trumping up a diagnosis to jack up his fees, the redevelopment agency’s legal council Jeff Oderman with Rutan & Tucker fabricates blight that doesn’t exist at $400 per hour. Judges will see through this charade, just as they have with many other cities Ferguson has challenged.
One property owner in the affected area said it best–“I’m offended that the City has declared my property blighted, and I just now found out about it. Tell me how it’s blighted and I’ll fix it myself!”
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.
A classic example of how the redevelopment agency casts a dead hand on parts of our city can be seen at the Northeast corner of Brookhurst & Orangethorpe. A firm that I know has plans to purchase the properties from 6 different owners and assemble the 8 acres for a new development. They have the cash, the experience, the patience, and the price is right.
Now, however, the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency proposes to include this property into its expanded area. The owners are unwilling to sell now because they think the agency will pay more later than the private firm will pay now–which may be true.
In addition, if the agency does a “friendly eminent domain” scam, the owners get tax advantages the private company cannot offer. Of course, the eminent domain may be unfriendly if the agency won’t pay what the owners’ want.
Then, having assembled the parcels, the agency will sell at a discount–or give the land away–to a politically connected developer who will build what the RDA staff wants. Not what the market demands, but what the bureaucrats want.
This kind of micromanaging of property is what the RDA is all about. Instead of letting the market work on its own, the bureaucrats and politicians intervene. Instead of allowing willing sellers and willing buyers to create a privately-funded project–they want to use your tax dollars.
Instead of letting private enterprises’ make a profit–and of course risk a loss–they want to socialize the whole development. This approached has failed time after time.
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.
Ever since the City of Fullerton climbed aboard the “Save the Fox” bandwagon, something was just plain wrong. Somehow the redevelopment bureaucrats inculcated into the public mindset the story that the only way the Fox could be “saved” was by appending it to another massive downtown housing project. To facilitate the latter the city had to relocate a fast food franchise; to accomplish that they had to buy up property on Pomona Ave. at exorbitant prices.
And so the initial make work myth has created a cascade of expensive, almost comical decisions by the city council.
Why was the linkage between the Fox and a new project a quote “myth”? Let’s apply some common sense to the issue. It was assumed (correctly) that the theater was going to require massive subsidy to restore and to operate; but somehow the city believed this loss could be rolled into a larger, profitable project by some private developer, or to be more precise, the city staff believed they could sell this bag of magic beans to the public. Three city council members (Don Bankhead, Pam Keller and Sharon Quirk) are still waiting for the beanstalk to grow.
magic beans only grow in Fullerton
There is no logical connection between restoring the Fox and the development of any new project! The fact is that whoever developed this “project” will receive massive subsidies from the Redevelopment Agency which will cover the cost of the Fox, developers do not do anything for free.
And so why doesn’t the city at least be honest: come out and acknowledge the cost of restoring and operating the Fox-and if it is deemed a worthy municipal value grant the money directly to saving the Fox.Or better yet why not let the people vote on weather or not to create a permanent Fox restoration and operations budget? Honesty and transparency. Two other civic values.
What's that in the background, more McSpanish McMission Revival?
On July 7th at 6:30, the Fullerton Redevelopment machine is revved up and ready to shove the $6 Million Dollar burger plan, fake old and all, down the public’s throat.
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER: FULLERTON REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
A request to construct an approximately 4,400 square-foot drive through fast food restaurant for McDonalds in a Community Improvement District, which includes applications for a minor (doesn’t sound minor to me) development project for the site plan and architecture (fake old crappolathat people are sick of), and a tenative parcel map for lot consideration and lot line adjustment purposes, on property presently located (and owned by the Redevelopment Agency, ie. tax payers) at 501 N. Pomona Ave. (N.W. corner of Chapman and Pomona, across the street from Fullerton High School), (Categorically exempt under Section 15332 of CEQA Guidlines).
How could this project be exempt under CEQA? It’s a proven fact that this project will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the kids attending Fullerton High School and injurious to property or improvements to the area. This McD’s project is a part of a larger project which must be considered ONE project! I smell a Mclaw suit ! ! !
Loyal Friends, on June 16th the city council again demonstrated why the process behind selecting the boundaries of the proposed expansion area are almost completely arbitrary. The council voted 3-1 to remove 7 selected properties from the area.
The criteria employed in the deselection are these:
the properties are on boundaries,
they are not necessary
and the owners simply ask to be removed.
Now some cynical folks might surmise that these exclusions were just done to shut people up, including former Congressman Bill Dannemeyer, in fact we have already suggested that very same thought.
What is inescapable is the conclusion that if these 7 properties are not necessary than they never should have been included in the first place. How many haphazard lines drawn on a consultant draft table include non-blighted properties? The statistics presented by the lone dissenting vote, Shawn Nelson suggest very many indeed.
We suspect the city staff and their consultant are pursuing an age old strategy: grab all you can, get, and then hang on to as much of it as you can.
