Pam Keller Archives - Page 13 of 16 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

July 3, 2009January 5, 2010Don Bankhead

City Council Hearing on McDonalds $6 Million Subsidy

Oh boy, it's McSpanish McMission Revival — 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 crappola that 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 ! ! !

July 2, 2009December 28, 2009Dick Jones

Redevelopment Hustlers Undermine Own Credibility on Expansion Plan

by admin8 Comments

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.

July 1, 2009December 28, 2009Dick Jones

The Fullerton Fabricator & City Hall Apologist

by admin9 Comments

did anyone see where I put my barbeque sauce? — Ronald, where did you put my barbecue sauce?

The Fullerton Observer continues to sink to new lows in its coverage of important Fullerton issues. Or lack of coverage.

In its most recent edition it published a redevelopment article which was simply an interview with RDA Director Rob Zur Schmiede, whose very job depends on RDA expansion. Wow, that’s cutting edge investigative journalism!

The Observer has totally ignored the RDA’s $6 million McDonald‘s move. An evil corporation making kids fat, a giveaway to the rich, money intended for blight going to promote junk food! Fast Food Nation was written by muckraking journalists that the Observer should emulate. $6 million to help McDonald’s make high school kids fatter!

The Observer has completely ignored the story that has excited even usually tepid reporter Barbara Giasone. They will NOT embarrass the council majority that it helped elect with their endorsement. Jones, Bankhead, Quirk, Keller were all backed by the Observer.

Could it also be that the Fullerton RDA–is paying for quarter page ads in the Observer?

The Observer has published two pieces by Supervisor Norby expressing the County’s opposition to the RDA expansion, but only after leaking both articles to city staff in time to write rebuttals. The rebuttals themselves are not fact-checked by anyone and are filled with lies.

In the current July 2009 edition (Page 4) Kennedy bewails the 1994 recall of Bankhead after he “voted to support a ½ cent utility rate increase to keep the city from going bankrupt”. Three wrong statements in one sentence!

It was NOT a utility rate increase, but a utility TAX on gas, water, electricity and cable TV. It was NOT a half cent but 2%. It did NOT keep the City from going bankrupt. In fact, it was repealed soon after the recall and has saved us Fullerton tax payers over $ 100 Million dollars over the past 15 years and the City is just fine!

True to form, the Observer has supported every city, county and state ballot measure that increased taxes, most of which went down in defeat. It especially likes sales tax hikes, which disproportionately affects the poor–the supposed constituents of a “progressive” paper.

July 1, 2009July 1, 2009Don Bankhead

Time for An Explanation

by admin7 Comments

Hey Pam, put your arms out and see if you can catch this, ready — Hey Pam, put your hands out and see if you can catch this, ready

Dear Friends, we have spilled a lot of cyberink on the subject of the McDonald’s relocation fiasco, and it really seems to us that it is about time for our elected leaders to explain just what is going on and how they got to this point.

No doubt Bankhead, Quirk and Keller believe that they are simply following an inevitable path dictated by years of planning and simply can’t be altered.

Knock-knock! The contract hasn’t even been voted on yet! It’s scheduled to come before the Council/Agency July 7th. Until then, there is no inevitability, only careful deliberation….we hope! You’re rubber stamps for the daydreams of long-departed staffers! You were elected by US to be stewards of our cash. Is this the best use of $6 million of OUR $$$?

When you are spending $ 6 million to move a fast food franchise 150′, you had better be damned sure why you are doing it, and you should be able to explain clearly why there are no better alternatives.

We suggest that it is high time for a complete review of the entire Fox project history, strategy, and consequences, especially while there still may be time to consider intelligent alternatives.

June 24, 2009December 28, 2009Don Bankhead

Could Quirk Change Her Vote?

by admin11 Comments

I would if I could, but "they" are telling me it's too late :( — Ms. Quirk, are you going to change your vote to spend 6 million in tax $ to move McD's 150'?

Sharon Quirk told me she was going to change her vote on the McD’s. She was disappointed in the way the staff presented no alternatives to leaving the McD’s at it’s current location. She has also told a good friend of ours the same story.

The $6 million McDonald’s move has become a community laughing stock. Even reporter Barbara Giasone, with a long record of fluffy features, ripped into the vote, and followed up with coverage of FHS student opposition.

Any council member voting for this is subject to an easy hit piece which could be the center of an opposition campaign. “Quirk / Keller and/or Bankhead spent $6 million of your tax dollars to move a McDonald’s 150 feet west–across the street from Fullerton High.” This issue will resonate with both fiscal conservatives (wasting $$) and social liberals (big corporate bail-out).

Changing your vote, Council Member Quirk, is the right thing to do. If you want the Fox project to succeed, put the money into the restoration, not to move a fast-food outlet!

The McDonald’s franchisee doesn’t want it. The high school administration doesn’t want it. And you can bet Fullerton voters aren’t going to like it when you get hit with it in the next election (same for Keller and Bankhead).

June 23, 2009June 23, 2009Dick Jones

Make Work Project: Expand Redevelopment

by admin8 Comments

Run for the hills, them damn taxpayers are on to our scheme — 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.

June 23, 2009June 23, 2009Arts & Architecture

What Has the City Council Accomplished?

by admin2 Comments

Once a bold master planned development and site plan — Once a bold master planned development with a pioneering spirit

-Media Card-BlackBerry-pictures-IMG00520 — Now, 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.

June 21, 2009February 7, 2012Dick Jones

So Who’s Responsible For Downtown Fullerton’s Amerige Court Turkey Project?

by admin5 Comments

June 16, 2009……..Fullerton City Council Agenda

CLOSED SESSION

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?

George knows all about turkeys — ...a turkey from day 1

June 20, 2009July 1, 2009Don Bankhead

A Redevelopment Boondoggle in the Making

by admin11 Comments

Teachers are being laid off, we have fewer police officers patrolling the streets of our city, and our library is cutting back.

burgers-and-books45735106 — (Christine Cotter, Los Angeles Times) March 12, 2009

So why did Pam Keller, Sharon Quirk and Don Bankhead vote to spend 6 million of our tax $ to move McDonalds 150 feet closer to Fullerton High School?

June 19, 2009June 19, 2009Big Brother

Welcome to Fullerton; Home of The Double Play

by admin3 Comments

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.