Dear Friends, a few weeks back Friends for Fullerton’s Future filed an appeal of the appalling decision by the Fullerton Planning Commission to grant a bogus “special event” permit to Roscoe’s in order to legitimize the ongoing violation of the City ordinance regarding outdoor live amplified music in the C-3 Zone. The appeal was based on the fact that playing live amplified music outdoors is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons visiting, residing or working in the neighborhood and is injurious to property or improvements in the area.
We are pleased to inform you that as a result of our appeal, Roscoe’s has withdrawn their application, therefore no public hearing on Roscoe’s appeal will be necessary.
Fullerton has terminated a dubious partnership with failing red light camera vendor Nestor Traffic Systems after the contract for operation of the cameras was declared to be illegal by an appeals court last year. It’s a long story, but stick with us as we tell this tale of inept vendor selection and blatant disregard for the law in Fullerton…
The end of an error
A long time ago, Fullerton signed a contract with Nestor Traffic Systems to provide red-light cameras throughout the city in an attempt to increase ticket revenue and reduce accidents at popular intersections. At the time, the contract included a clause that allowed the city’s payment to be negotiated down if ticket issuance was lower than expected.
Just about anyone could see that the vendor now had a financial incentive to keep the number of tickets high — that’s a problem. At the time, case law had already dictated that vendors could not benefit from the number of red light tickets issued. Eventually these rulings would become codified into state law.
When the city inquired about how this new California law might affect the contract, the vendor essentially said “Don’t worry, we’ll change it if we get caught.” Sound familiar? That’s how it goes in Fullerton. So our representatives carelessly signed on the dotted line and the police department kept giving out red light tickets illegally.
It didn’t take long for one angry citizen to file a lawsuit, and in 2008 an appellate court ruled that the tickets were being given out unlawfully. Issuance of red light tickets immediately stopped.
After the city lost the appeal, a whirlwind of suspicious events transpired:
Failure to Appear – The city of Fullerton didn’t even know that they had lost the appeal until the Register called them for the story. It turns out that the city never showed up for the appeal. The city’s crack legal team at Jones and Meyers attempted to have the original ruling overturned by filing a 26-page Writ of Mandate in May. The request claims that the Fullerton PD was never serviced with a notice of an appeal, even though the court docket says otherwise. The PD’s request was denied, and that’s the last we’ve heard of the case.
The Right to Remain Silent – For the council meeting on 2/3/09, the city staff put together an amendment of the Nestor contract to end the city’s lawbreaking ways, as other cities had already done. But when the item came up for discussion, city manager Chris Meyer mysteriously got cold feet and proposed that the item be moved forward “to a date uncertain”. The council instantaneously and unanimously agreed to put this item off without further questioning. In fact, the council moved so quickly that a gentleman named Dr. Arnold Vagts had to demand his right to speak on the issue later that evening. Why were they so quick to sweep this item under the rug? It turns out that Dr. Vagts had sent a series of emails earlier in the day threatening a class action lawsuit against the city, demanding that the city return all illegal ticket revenues to the victims. If not, the city risks “millions of dollars in lawsuits”, according to Vagts.
Last week our Friend at HighwayRobbery.net made a records request to find out how much the city had spent on legal fees to fight this lost case. In a written reply to a direct question, Sgt. Steve Williams said “No legal council (sic) was retained to prosecute the case by the Fullerton police department.” We believe this to be either a blatant misdirection or perhaps an outright lie, since the city’s contract attorney did write the aforementioned 26-page writ for the case. Lawyers don’t work for free.
How much is this legal wrangling costing us? Why is the city spending time and money to fight a lost court case? We suspect that the legal liabilities and risk of expensive lawsuits are piling up while the city tries to keep this issue quiet.
To top it all off, a successful class-action lawsuit against the city would probably leave taxpayers holding the bill for years of red light revenue, as it is unlikely that the city will be able to turn around and sue Nestor for their part in this tragedy. The company has severe financial problems, including a recent descent into receivership and failure to pay subcontractors for the installation of additional cameras in Fullerton.
When we lose a class action lawsuit, who will pay? Will anyone admit error and appologize for wasting our time and money? Stay tuned as more scandelous details come to light.
Several of my neighbors have complained about the large size of the new trash cans – it’s hard to fit them into smaller spaces and some might have trouble moving them because of their bulk.
You can call MG Services at (714) 238-3300 and they will switch one or all for smaller 65 gallon bins. I called today and they offered to drop it off next week.
It’s important to point out that we didn’t have much choice in this – the State forced us to a three-bin system because we were not able to meet their high standards for landfill diversion. Note that you can still leave individual items and trash bags out on the curb and they will be picked up.
Run for the hills, them darn taxpayers are on to our scheme
It takes a lot to keep the eight full time redevelopment staffers busy. With the economy tanking, widespread commercial vacancies and developer money drying up, the wheeling and dealing–at taxpayer expense–is a thing of the past!
Falling property values mean tax increment revenues are slowing to a trickle. Even the bond market is looking murky for RDAs.
So what’s a bored staff with a lot of time on its hands to do? With the only recent feather in their cap (a black eye) really is the $6 million McDonald’s move (150 feet west, right across from Fullerton H.S.) They need more self-justification.
Hence, the 18-month effort to expand the Fullerton Redevelopment Area by 25%, All the hearings, studies, consultant reports and pricey legal advice could keep any self-respecting bureaucrat busy in justifying their jobs. Never mind that the proposed new area does not meet the barest minimum legal justification for blight. Never mind that the County of Orange has found the legal backbone to oppose the $20-30 million in theft from its general fund.
Never mind that none of the hundreds of businesses affected have requested any redevelopment subsidies, nor the use of eminent domain to purloin property from their neighbors. Never mind that the state is moving to recapture lost redevelopment money.
Turf protection and self-preservation is the first law of any government agency or bureaucracy. The redevelopment staff has a tough charade to maintain. They must pretend that thy are curing blight while at the same time trying to prove that blight in Fullerton is actually growing.
Once a bold master planned development with a pioneering spiritNow, the pioneers are gone and so is their spirit
Why did the City Council vote to extinguish several office buildings, all which contributed to Fullerton’s business zone and stock of professional offices, as well as our historic built environment? Besides a crappy deceitful plan called Jefferson Commons for more student housing on a private college campus, the city lost a huge asset, one that helped create the historic character of East Fullerton for the past 50 years. Shame on them!
Correction to this post: I have been informed that the project cannot legally be exclusively for students, despite the council repeatedly calling it “student housing”. It is a private development, and they cannot discriminate against non-students who want to rent there.
Item 1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR – Per Government Code
Section 54956.8
Property: North and South Block of 100 West Amerige Avenue,
Fullerton, CA
Agency Negotiator: Rob Zur Schmiede, Director of Redevelopment and
Economic Development
Negotiating Parties: Richard Hamm, Pelican-Laing Fullerton, LLC
Under Negotiations: Price and terms
The Laing of the LLC is John Laing Holmes. Laing is a home builder with a reported debt of $500 million to $1 billion and is in Chapter 11 receivership. And furthermore, the word on the street is the front men of the LLC Hamm & Pellican are also on the verge of financial protection.
Exactly what kind of negotiations could our financially unexperienced City Council be doing with a group of financial wizards who are running amok in debt? When is the Redevelopment Agency going to realize the housing market has collapsed? If this project goes forward it will be a financial wreck for Fullerton.
Dear Friends, how many of you realize Pam Keller, Sharon Quirk, Don Bankhead and Dick Jones have already voted to place the Fullerton tax payers on the hook by guaranteeing the developer who’s in bankruptcy a 15% profit? Who besides us are willing to admit this project was a turkey from day 1?
The City bought two “Go Titans” banners and posted them on the railroad overpass above Harbor Blvd. Great! We’re all for the Titans. Titan fans glory in our four College World Series championships. Some recall the 1978 basketball season when we were one point away from making the Final Four, and our 1984 football season when we were ranked in Sports Illustrated’s Top 25 for much of the season, with a final record of 11-1. Banners do liven up a city, inform the public and boost community spirit.
So, why the kill-joy sign still posted at Malvern & Euclid, on the flood control channel fence? Like a scolding nanny, it reads “Do Not Post Banners On Fence.” This has long been a convenient and inexpensive way for youth sports, churches and community groups to advertise their sign-ups and activities. It is hypocritical for the city to post a banner above Harbor, but ban signs at Euclid. If the Titans want to maintain baseball supremacy, the prospective Little League dad must know how to sign up his junior slugger—and for decades moms & dads read the banners at Euclid & Malvern for just such updated info.
Safety concerns must be weighed, but a loose banner above Harbor will fall onto oncoming traffic. A loose banner at Euclid & Malvern will fall onto the sidewalk—or into the urban runoff in the channel. At Euclid & Malvern, the fences are low enough so the banners aren’t blocking anyone’s and since their on the south side of the street, motorists don’t even need to look their direction to check cross-traffic.
We’re all for a Titan banner on Harbor. But we’re also for the Little League and all manner of other banners on Euclid. That scolding warning sign is deterring community groups from getting their message out. You can bet it won’t deter politicians from their bi-annual blossoming of yard signs.
In the spirit of open government, Fullerton Police Chief Mike Sellers made a promise to publicly disclose internal department policies and procedures on the city website.
We're always looking for new Friends
Even before Chief Sellers joined the Fullerton PD last month, there were musings of his strong stance on community-oriented policing. It sounds nice, doesn’t it? After a month on the job, it was time to put the PD to the test.
I made a quick request for the department’s taser policy in preparation for an item on the council agenda that would allocate $40,000 for new tasers. Chief Sellers’ initial reaction was the best that we could hope for… his command staff even offered to bring the policy by my house so I would have it in time for the meeting!
Unfortunately, we suspect that someone else at the department noticed my FFFF membership card because officer friendly was then told to deny my public records request. Perturbed by this sudden reversal, I informed the chief and city council that the issue would be brought up at the city council meeting that night.
By the time I had spoken at the meeting, Chief Sellers had taken a stand and informed everyone that internal department polices would be available to the public and posted online.
The Chief knows there are loopholes in public record law that allow police departments to shut out the public, but Fullerton can rest easy knowing that FFFF and Chief Sellers have solidified their right to observe the inner workings of our government. And that’s how it should be.
Do not enter into negotiations with the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency to move your McDonald’s restaurant 150 feet west to the Chapman / Pomona corner. Stay put.
There are many reasons for you to stay where you are. You some of them you know better than we do. But we have some political insights that might be helpful.
To force you to move against your will, the agency must use eminent domain, which requires a 4/5ths vote. With Nelson and Jones already having voted against the move, the votes for eminent domain aren’t there.
Besides, there’s every indication that Sharon Quirk will change her vote. That would make it 3-2 against granting $6 million for the move.
The reconfiguration of your restaurant will hurt business, confusing regular customers who will have to access your drive-in window from Pomona Avenue.
The agency will confine you into a “new-to-look-old” building that will look nothing like a traditional McDonald’s. Many of your patrons will not be able to recognize you.
McDonalds’ trademark signs and golden arches will not be allowed in the new building provided by the agency, confusing and discouraging regular patrons.
You have been, are and will be criticized for accepting $6 million in public money. We know you don’t want to move, but if you accept it, the public will see it as corporate welfare.
The move will likely result in down time, costing you money and customers.
When there are cost overruns (inevitable in public projects) the Agency may be slow to reimburse you for your costs. Those costs may be disputed.
This move is completely unnecessary for you from a business standpoint. You’d said during the hearing that long ago then-Redevelopment employee Terry Galvin told you the city wanted you to move. Galvin didn’t speak for the council then and he certainly doesn’t now.
Terry Galvin has retired. There is a whole new council majority. Nothing obligates you to go along with this deal.
And, there are not the 4 votes needed for eminent domain. You cannot be forced to move. Stay Put!
