I was watching the League of Women Voter’s candidate forum a few days ago and I couldn’t help but notice how the Fullerton Boohoo darlings, Jan Flory and Vivian Jaramillo, kept attacking the incumbents for their refusal to “listen to the people.” Well, okay politics.
The two examples cited were the idiotic Trail to Nowhere and the equally stupid Walk on Wilshire. Ironically, the former was approved unanimously by the City Council; and Council majorities have kept the latter, the money-losing and annoying “WoW” alive for years.
The fact is that both of these wasteful and useless “projects’ were the brain children of bureaucrats in City Hall and became the vanity projects of the egregious Ahmad Zahra and the lamentable Shana Charles who were instrumental in both cases in getting people to show up and harass anybody who might be exercising common sense. And right there to create the news and also report on it were the Kennedy Sisters, Skaskia and Sharon, who saw nothing wrong with trying to intimidate downtown businesses in the case of the moronic Waste on Wilshire.
This sort of “public support” is not organic; it’s artificial, and that’s why it’s commonly referred to as Astroturfing. Hence the irony that the same people who ginned up the “support” are the ones braying to demand that the Fullerton City Council “listen to the people.”
Well, irony isn’t the strong suit of people like Flory and Jaramillo. Neither is honesty. But self-serving sanctimony is.
When the the idea of legalizing marijuana dispensaries in Fullerton came to the City Council in 2019, public speaker after public speaker, in English and Spanish denounced the idea as bad for Fullerton. The percentage must have been 30 to 1 against dispensaries. And where was Jan Flory, defender of the untermenschen? That’s right. She was voting to permit dispensaries in the closing months of 2019 – before the election that would usher in a new, anti-dispensary Council majority.
When the new Council revoked the Flory-Zahra-QuirkSilva dope ordinance and the vast majority again being in favor of disallowing dispensaries, guess who was there. Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo, that’s who, the enthusiastic marijuana advocate who proclaimed dispensaries were “right for Fullerton.”
Amazing how these twin pillars of public advocacy had no such interest in overwhelming public opinion when it came to legalized dope and it didn’t suit their ambitions; a public opinion, by the way, that was not ginned up by City bureaucrats, politicians or brain-dying ideologues, but that represented genuine public sentiment.
If you watched the so-called Fullerton City Council candidates forum a few weeks ago, you’ll have noticed something very funny.
On the question of marijuana dispensaries, candidate Janesse “Jan” Flory displayed some mental gymnastic exercises.
She first noted that on the City Council she approved Ahmad Zahra’s dope ordinance that would have allowed dispensaries within 100 of somebody’s house. That ordinance was crammed through at the end of 2020 before a new City Council majority could take over. When the new majority did take over they almost immediately pulled the plug on the ordinance in 2021.
At the forum, Flory claimed to have had an epiphany, in which she finally educated herself (a little late, no?) on the matter, and discovered to her surprise that the issues of revenue and impacts to communities had been overstated and understated, respectively. She had changed her mind, she said. Oopsy. Could Flory have been misled by her precious “staff?” Well, let’s not go to that inevitable outcome of Flory’s thought process.
But Janesse wasn’t through. After establishing her case against dispensaries she concluded that she was “on the fence,” a sort of tie the bow on the ribbon of saying nothing that really mattered.
Although she tried real hard to make herself sound informed and decisive, listeners still have no idea where Flory sits on the matter of marijuana dispensaries But where she sits doesn’t look very comfortable.
According to a knowledgeable Friend I know, it is illegal to hold a political campaign event on City property. I don’t know for sure, but this certainly has the ring of truth. If so, Fullerton council candidate Matt Truxaw is about to break the law. He’s having a campaign event a week from today on City property.
The embarrassing, money-losing “Walk on Wilshire” is indeed public property and Mr. Truxaw is having an election party for himself October 3rd on that closed portion of Wilshire Avenue. Can’t get more public than that, even if it’s on a leasehold that grants no such right.
Uh, oh. Is Mr. Truxaw one of those limousine libs who doesn’t think the law applies to him?
Oh, right. He became an overnight Republican just to run for office and make Fred Jung spend some money.
It will be interesting to see who shows up to this event and who would be dumb enough to pony up any cash for Truxaw the Straw. Man.
Many politicians get in the game for self-aggrandizement – the opportunity to be known and if not respected, at least have people pretend to respect your opinion and laugh at your jokes.
Higher office offers the opportunity to make better money and benefits than most elected office holders could possibly attain working in real jobs. But local office doesn’t offer much in the way of remuneration; and campaigns for office offer nothing. Or so I thought.
Most candidates running for office lend their campaigns money with the expectation that if they win, they can leverage their new job and pay off their debt – to themselves. So did Vivian “Kitty” Jaramillo, who lent herself $3000, and no doubt expects a victory would provide a windfall from the Long Beach marijuana cartel to pay herself back.
But I I can’t remember a candidate actually paying him or herself out of funds raised for a campaign. Look at this this entry on Jaramillo’s form 460 for her current campaign for the Fullerton City Council:
I’m not sure what “Agent Payment” means in this instance, but you’ll notice there’s no entry in the “CODE” column to tell us what this is for. So Kitty made a $750 payment…to herself? Campaigning for fun and profit? A little short on the rent that month? Who knows? But if Kitty is paying herself back for some expense or other, she’s dodging the requirements of the California Fair Political Practices Commission and is inviting official scrutiny.
Hopefully, one of Jaramillo’s contributors like F. Paul Dudley or Jan Flory will ask Kitty why she’s reimbursing herself out of campaign funds.
What appeared to be a pretty tame fall City Council election may have just become a lot more fun.
Word on the street is that Jan Flory pulled nomination papers yesterday to run against Mayor Nick Dunlap in the 2nd District election in November.
Who is Jan Flory? If you don’t know, take a spin through our files, here. You’ll find all sorts of entertaining stories about Ms. Flory and even about her creepy/pervy son Mike, who used to be a Deputy District Attorney and even tried to be a judge once.
Jan Flory was elected to the City Council in 1994 and voted off in 2002. In those eight years she happily allowed an illegal water tax, voted for the disastrous retroactive public safety pension spike and supported the culture of unaccountability that has helped us get where we are today.
In 2012 she hauled herself out of the stable to try another lap around the track.
Her mission was to restore municipal authority to the Old Guard she represented, and to protect the Culture of Corruption at the Fullerton Police Department from any sort of reform. She informed us that the City Department heads were the “heart of the City.”
She put in her four years, patting her Chief of Police Danny Hughes on the fanny as they both walked out the door in 2016, a few days after the drunken City Manager, Joe Felz drove over a tree and tried to drive away. The ensuing cover up turned out to be expensive. Oops.
But Jan wasn’t done with us. Not by a long shot.
When an opening on the City Council occurred in 2019 guess who was there to snap up the job? After her appointment she rewarded the unemployed Ahmad Zahra for his vote with a paying gig at the Orange County Water District.
In this last stint Flory was happy to continue her love affair with unbalanced budgets and was one of the members of the Council, along with Jesus Quirk Silva, Ahmad Zahra, and Jennifer Fitzgerald who waged a legal vendetta against this blog and specifically against Joshua Ferguson and David Curlee. Of course that harpy-like mission cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, but didn’t cost the perpetrators anything.
Well, I sure hope Ms. Flory really does want to run. The entertainment value alone is worth it. Who her constituency might be is unclear. There aren’t that many elderly liberals left in Fullerton. She might get the support of the yellowing, and thinning Fullerton Observer crowd, but a humorless, stick-up-the-backside septuagenarian is not likely to appeal to anyone under seventy.
On June 26th the Fullerton Planning Commission revisited the never-ending saga of a Noise Ordinance Revision, mostly as it applies to illegal noise in Downtown Fullerton, a situation that City Code Enforcement has for years been energetically ignoring. Friends may recall that the City Council bobbed and weaved on this issue at the end of 2023 and again in February, without, seemingly even bothering to read the proposed mess of an ordinance. Taking bold action the Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission who had already rubber stamped it.
But when the PC did review the matter again, the same thing it had already approved, the Commission seemed to have developed both curiosity and courage. On March 26th they savaged the jumbled and contradictory hodgepodge and decided they had better have an on-site examination of the actual problem and the problem makers; afterward they would reconvene.
And reconvene they did, for a “workshop.” Somehow – and it’s not quite clear how – the meeting had been identified somewhere as a “public hearing,” a meeting where important discretionary decisions are made. Even the staff report contained a recommendation to approve the ordinance changes – a formal action. Some of the Commissioners wanted to shut it down then and there, and reschedule the matter; others were eager share their opinions after on-site field trips. In the end the Planning Commission continued the matter so that staff could get it right next time (they won’t).
The staff report itself contained the usual propaganda and misstatements and handwringing that have become the hallmark of Sunayana Thomas, Fullerton’s Planning Director and Economic Development expert. Here’s one:
This statement is absurd, of course.
Then there was the same old litany of difficulties in legally enforcing anything and winning in court. Jesus H., when they don’t feel like doing something they’re just weak as kittens.
Two things emerged during brief “public comments.”
First, Joshua Ferguson pointed out that the notice error was a Brown Act violation and also that a “serial meeting” had taken place. The unnamed lawyer at the meeting who is employed by “The I can’t Believe It’s A Law Firm,” claimed everything was kosher because a quorum of the Commission never met to discuss anything, which begs the question of whether staff itself can organize a serial meeting, illegal under the Brown Act.
Another thing that popped up is that staff, on its own initiative has actually now raised the allowable decibel level that they are recommending in Fullerton’s Commercial Zones to 80dBs – based, presumably, on their field adventures.
Two things remain crystal clear: City staff doesn’t want to do their jobs, and the coddling of nightclub operators abusing their 47 Licenses is going to keep happening until some City Council caves in and gives the bar owners legal license to keep doing what they’ve been doing for 20 years. The long-running effort to protect lawbreakers in Downtown Fullerton will continue for at least a while longer. And every delay makes more money flow into the pockets of the scofflaw bar owners.
Looks likes Fullerton’s cops have dispatched another wacked out trouble-maker. A few months ago they performed the same duty at the McDonald’s over on Brookhurst St., although that fellow was only wielding a belt.
Here’s the FPD statement, another self-serving literary effort, short on details, but clearly suggesting that the police ‘feared for their safety.”
Fullerton Police Dispatch received a 9-1-1 call on June 15, 2024, at 5:04 am regarding a male armed with knives and threatening people in the 200 block of E. Imperial Hwy. The reporting party told the call taker he was a victim of weapon brandishing and to send multiple officers due to the male’s dangerous behavior.
Fullerton Police Officers arrived on the scene and contacted a male adult, matching the provided description, holding what appeared to be a knife in each hand. The male was directed multiple times to drop his weapons; however, he was uncooperative with the commands. The male suddenly began running towards officers with the knives in his hands and failed to comply with commands to stop. An officer-involved shooting then occurred.
Officers began life-saving measures while paramedics responded. The suspect was transported to a local trauma center, where he was later pronounced deceased. At this time, we have no information about any injuries to witnesses or potential victims of this incident. No officers were injured.
A knife and a boxcutter were located at the scene in close proximity to the suspect (pictured below).
Photos of the knives recovered at the scene of a Fullerton PD Officer Involved Shooting.
As standard protocol, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office responded to conduct an independent investigation into the actions of the officers during this officer-involved shooting. Fullerton Police Crimes Against Persons Detectives will investigate potential criminal acts committed by the suspect.
Per State Law, we will release all relevant videos, recordings, and images via a Critical Incident Community Briefing Video within 45 days.
The deceased suspect’s identity will be released by the Orange County Coroner.
This investigation is ongoing. Based on the initial 9-1-1 call, we believe there may be others who may have witnessed or been a victim to the suspect’s actions leading up to this incident. We encourage any additional witnesses or victims to contact Fullerton PD Detective L. Ramirez at (714) 738-5334. Those wishing to provide information anonymously can call the Orange County Crime Stoppers at 1(855) TIP-OCCS or can visit their website at http://www.p3tips.com/913.
Last time the police wasted the perp with the ironically named “less lethal” projectiles. Here, no mention is made of the weapon that killed the man.
Oh, well, with our dynamic DA Todd Spitzer, the cops’ best friend we may be sure a complete investigation will be performed with attaboys all around.
A good Friend received an interesting piece in the mail the other day, and sent it in to FFFF.
It’s a solicitation from Scott Flynn, President of the FPOA – Fullerton Police Officer’s Association – the cop’s union in Fullerton.
It seems your support of the police union “has been a beacon of hope that has helped fuel many initiatives to make our community a better place.” Somehow your donation helps the cops with their “support” of all sorts of philanthropic efforts. What that support might be is left to the imagination of the reader.
If you give them some big money you will get incredibly valuable gifts as a “VIP.” An “engraved” tumbler and a “custom donor plaque” will be yours for the low, low price of $1000.
Of course the solicitation is based on the idea that the giver isn’t very bright. The obvious first thought is that if you put the FPOA’s decal on you car somewhere, you might just avoid getting that next, expensive, moving violation. Could that be true? I don’t know, but the thought obviously crossed the minds of the solicitors and the donors.
Second, if you look closely at the piece you notice something interesting.
Of course this operation isn’t a non-profit and you can’t deduct your donation. In fact the FPOA exists for only two reasons: first, to use its political influence electing councilmembers to squeeze evermore higher wage and benefits out of the citizenry; and second to remain as unaccountable to the civilian authority as possible.
The whole thing is hardly different than any other mail scam trying to get people to part with their money. There is no charitable purpose here, just a way to get people to support a public employee union by pretending to be doing good works.
Why wouldn’t any intelligent person simply donate to the real and worthy charity of their choice, and get a tax deduction, too?
“No more blood on Fullerton’s streets,” went the chant of a handful of protesters after the vote on last Tuesday’s Council Agenda Item 4. These folks were upset that the item, which was a statutory requirement that the City police department list its “military” hardware, on going running costs, and reaffirming policy to the use thereof, was passed on a 3-0 vote.
The protesters, such as they were. seemed agitated that the cops have these toys to begin with – surplus military equipment, some of it, and other weaponry that were included by the Legislature under the rubric “military.” And that’s okay. Ever since the war on terror began two decades ago, our military-industrial complex has been churning out hardware to attack, assault, disarm, kill, maim anybody that cause or accident put in the way of our military. So a lot of it, used or unused, has become surplus, and was bound to find its way into the hands of American police departments. That’s not okay.
Having the equipment – from projectile launchers to high caliber guns and assault rifles – has helped reinforce the notion of our own police as an occupying force, and is about the last mentality you want your cops to have, and leaves citizens feeling like maybe something sinister is at work. I get that.
The apologists for this item were quick to point out that the list of equipment – some of it very expensive to maintain – was for stuff the City already has, and wasn’t a shopping list, as they supposed the public speakers believed. Councilmembers Whitaker, Charles, and Zahra were happy to explain this, and reiterated the pro forma nature of the list and the policy statement. They seemed really averse to discussing the item at all, which is understandable for a politician in Fullerton; you don’t get ahead denying police their armored vehicles and, riot gear, and SWAT paraphernalia.
And so the the second issue that should have been discussed never happened at all.
A few weeks back, as Friends may recall, FPD cops killed an evidently distressed man in front of the McDonald’s on Brookhurst St. by blasting him in the chest with multiple “less lethal” projectiles – a distinction without a difference to the dead man.
Then there was the case of Hector Hernandez who was blown away on his own property defending himself against a police dog let loose by Jonathon Ferrell – who is still on the payroll. That settlement cost $8.5 million.
And just as importantly, who is going guarantee the proper training for this gear? Accountability has never been a strong suit of Fullerton’s governing personnel.
This is all certainly food for cogitation. But Fullerton, being Fullerton, nobody is going to do it, at least not anybody in authority.
It’s pretty rare when one of our commissions really does its job, so when they do I’m happy to advertise the fact. Last week the Fullerton Planning Commission re-reviewed the noise ordinance that was kicked back to them by the City Council for further consideration, and they excelled themselves.
Their performance was so rewarding it almost makes me want to overlook the first time this group unanimously passed virtually the same proposed ordinance in November, 2023. This time they really took their jobs seriously.
The staff report for the item, given by some guy named Edgardo, was the same nonsense they pitched before, and they essentially asked the Commission to rubber stamp it yet again.
But this time there is a problem. It seems that no matter how many words they throw at the issue, staff can’t talk around their own complete lack of effort at code enforcement in Downtown Fullerton. They admit it now, claiming (without a shred of evidence) that the existing noise level is unsupportable in court, and begging the question of why amplified music is then allowed outdoors at all – it wasn’t for decades. We were informed that a “vibrant” downtown (pictures of happy people) requires more noise, not less. The underlying theme was the usual tripe: DTF is an economic asset whose saloon proprietors must be coddled at all cost. Look the other way, fast!
Incredibly, our new friend Edgardo informed the Commission that current levels of noise are acceptable to the citizenry based on the fact that so few complaints are lodged. Complete balderdash, of course. Naturally the bald declaration of “acceptability” was unsupported by any complaint data, suggesting that if there is a record, it is an embarrassing one. And the Commission learned from public speaker Joshua Ferguson that the City doesn’t bother with code enforcement and almost never has, leading Commissioner Patricia Tutor to wonder if this lack of responsiveness might have caused citizens to give up complaining.
One poor lady, the owner of Les Amis was there to push for the proposal. Unfortunately, as she admitted, she does live music in her establishment without the benefit of the required entertainment permit. Oops. Code enforcement to the rescue!
Tony Bushala got up to speak, sharing his story of being driven out of his downtown home due the noise. He also produced a lengthy list of errors and omissions in the proposed ordinance and stuff that was just contradictory. It turns out that the public and the Commission were not presented with a complete underline/strike-out version, showing pretty clearly that counsel Baron Bettenhauser of the I Can’t Believe It’s a Law Firm, had not, as he claimed, looking up from his cell phone, read the damn thing.
One zoom caller named Maureen said the smartest thing of the night. She actually suggested that without actually hearing the sound on site, she (and presumably everybody else) was at a loss to really fathom the mystery of decibel levels.
Commissioner Tutor was particularly effective in asking pertinent questions, one of which, was how come, after 10pm when music is supposed to move indoors, isn’t the decibel level lowered. A really commonsensical question. She didn’t get a commonsensical answer. The acoustical consultant from some operation called Dudek explained that during their noise collection procedure, that seemed to be the general noise level.
Oops again. Commissioner Cox pounced on the fact that the collected data was based on a noise level that was one, currently illegal; and two, based on a situation where there is no code enforcement, thus kicking up the noise level that staff was claiming was acceptable! He didn’t say so, but it was pretty clear that Mr. Dudek Guy had been receiving coaching from staff on the noise levels they found acceptable.
The other main sticking point was where to measure noise from – a certain distance from the noise source or a certain distance from the property line; two choices were offered with the greater distance being recommended. Commissioner Mansuri was unpersuaded by staff. That issue tied everybody up in knots off and on for the better part of an hour. Finally it was concluded that the noise sampling site needed a rethink.
Finally, mercifully, Commissioner Arnel Dino moved that the whole thing come back in May with the entire code changes organized and clarified and that in the interim the Planning Commissioners would go out themselves with decibel monitors and experience for themselves the problems of sound accumulation, reverberation, etc. So that’s what is going to happen. Imagine that – first hand experience without the muddled abstraction of decibel levels on a piece of paper.
As usual it was obvious that our hand-wringing staff was pursuing their path of least residence by raising sound thresholds, making it harder to enforce even that, and refusing to enforce the requirements of the bar-owners’ entertainment permits – things like closing doors and windows. How many times have we seen staff guide the consultant they chose to get what they want? Happens all the time. And how many times must the public be subjected to uninformed or misinformed opinion passed along as Gospel truth by our public employees? Happens all the time. And when will the City Council demand honesty and competence from its bureaucrats? I’m afraid we all know the answer to that.