Redevelopment Archives - Page 10 of 24 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

August 16, 2011August 20, 2011Fullerton City Council

City Council Meeting Tonight

The public meeting starts at 6:30 PM. On the agenda tonight are the issue of hiring contractor Michael Gennaco to “investigate” the FPD. Those of us who have been around City hall awhile know that these contractors always do what the City Manager wants since he’s the guy that got them hired. VOTE NO!

Speaking of the City Manager, Joe Felz, who has overseen the corrupt FPD and who has totally bungled the Kelly Thomas affair is up for a $35,000 raise. Yep, you heard that right. That was bad timing! It’s on what’s called the “Consent Calendar” so unless a member of the public asks the City Clerk to pull this item for discussion it will go through on the nod. VOTE NO!

Also agenized are some more ridiculous “affordable housing” projects of the kind that cost twice as much to build as regular housing. These are being pimped by lobbyists who also happen to be some of the biggest repuglicans in Orange County who are counting on Jones, Bankhead and McKinley to line their pockets. VOTE NO!

Of course you can also make your voices heard in public comments, too, at the start of the meeting.

Fullerton City Hall is located at 303 W. Commonwealth, Fullerton at the intersection of Highland Avenue.

See you all there!

August 1, 2011Behind Closed Doors

To Redevelop or Not to Redevelop?

by The Fullerton Savage8 Comments

Last week Gov. Jerry Brown signed in to law two bills designed to drastically diminish, or at least change redevelopment in California. Assembly Bill x 126 eliminates redevelopment agencies (RDAs) altogether in municipalities across the state on October 1, 2011. It also prohibits RDAs like Fullerton’s from any new beginning any new activities or issuing any more bonds, loaning money, buying more property and number of other things they normally do. Once the RDA disappears, the City of Fullerton would take over all outstanding duties like debt service while the rest of the agency’s revenues are distributed to schools and other things usually underfunded by the diversion of tax monies to RDA districts.

That’s it. No more redevelopment except finish off outstanding projects and pay off the bond debts that make them possible. However, an alternative exists that would allow RDAs to continue. Gov. Brown also signed AB x 127, which would allow redevelopment agencies to continue as long as a significant portion of their property tax revenue is redirected to schools and other local agencies. On Tuesday night the Fullerton City Council is scheduled to decide which of these paths to take with Fullerton’s RDA. And yes, the redevelopment staff are recommending option #2, which would keep the agency they work for alive.

According the agenda item’s report written by the RDA staff Fullerton would have to pay an estimated “$ 6,259,348 million in FY 2011-12 and $ 1,472,788 million in FY 2012-13” to schools and everyone else, but it would still be worth it for the city to keep the RDA in existence. These figures are based on old numbers that don’t $ 29 of bonds issued by the RDA for housing last year, so the an appeal is planned. The recommendation is based on the idea that more money would be available for redevelopment oriented activities if the RDA is kept in existence.

FFFF readers, and anyone paying attention in town, will recall that last March, in anticipation of the Governor’s actions Fullerton’s RDA gave a laundry list of properties and other assets to the City of Fullerton to keep the state from grabbing it and selling it off to the highest bidder. But AB x 126 made this action retroactively illegal, meaning that the city has to give it all back to the RDA so the state can take it and sell it if the RDA is dissolved.

But wait, there’s more. In 2010 the RDA’s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund still has about $ 35 million to spend, most of it form a 2010 bond offering. At the last council meeting developers lined up to explain why they should each get a piece of it (more on that in the days to come, I promise).

June 26, 2011June 26, 2011Behind Closed Doors

Oh Yeah, It’s Mandated!

by Jan Florys Dog8 Comments

jones-gone-wild11-300x225 — It's MAN-dated!

Aren’t ya just sick and tired of watching our city council continue vote on things because they say it’s “mandated.” I can think of dozens of times hearing O’l Doc Hee Haw holler “we don’t have a choice cause it’s man-dated” or “it’s the law.” Now, when was the last time you ever heard of any city councilman going to jail because he voted his conscience against something really stupid?

The reality is that our allegedly conservative Republican political representatives are indulging their own high price, big-government sentiments, and hiding behind policies established by one of the most liberal legislatures in the nation – and of course continually giving away the store to public employee unions.

Friends, the next time you hear someone say “it’s mandated” or, “it’s the law” tell ’em to prove it. And proving it doesn’t mean saying it’s true because you heard it from the City Attorney who is shilling for some staff make-work project or other.

June 17, 2011June 18, 2011Chris Norby

Norby Leads Charge To Kill Monster

by admin29 Comments

May 31, 2011May 31, 2011Fullerton City Council

ABOLISH THE RDRC!

by The Fullerton Harpoon31 Comments

Update from admin: It’s 2011 and we’re still still catching stanky wiffs rising from the bog of mediocrity known as the RDRC. Yep, they’re still slowing and stalling residential additions, nitpicking the architectural details of private projects and using the know-nothing force of government to bear down on hapless homeowners trying to improve buildings that aren’t even visible from the public street. And so again we say…

The Fullerton Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) must be abolished. The committee was created in the 1970’s along with the Redevelopment Project Areas with the goal of fostering good architectural designs within them.

The trial run period is over. The RDRC and its associated bureaucratic process has failed – failed to improve design in either the project areas themselves, or in the ever growing number of projects in which city staff has required RDRC review. Actually the reverse is true. The failure has been spectacular.

who says affordable housing has to look ugly? — Who says affordable housing has to look good?

The pages of this blog has been nauseatingly filled with examples of RDRC failure-projects dutifully approved by a compliant and complacent RDRC. Rather than promoting innovative and creative work-excellence, in fact, the RDRC has enabled city staff penchant for the phony, stucco, and brick veneered banalities intended to comfort the worst of middle brow aesthetic preferences.

Over the weary years the RDRC has been the precinct of local architects looking to promote their own interests within the city. Numerous examples of conflicts of interest were exposed in the 1990’s. And the city council keeps appointing to the RDRC dingbats, talent-free Pecksniffs, and interior decorators, to whom you wouldn’t entrust the design of a birdhouse. The existence of this committee provides the city council with a little political cover on potentially controversial projects, but accomplishes very little else.

And so we say: Abolish the RDRC! People developing their own property without subsidy or without legislative action by the City should be able to design their projects without city oversight; those receiving subsidy or significant zone changes should be required to use architects who have been published in reputable professional journals. Maybe when this happens we can have increased freedom for private owners and design excellence for City sponsored projects. Presently we have very little of either.

May 26, 2011About Us

BAD B.I.D.?

by admin10 Comments

A Public Comment to the General Plan Advisory Committee By Judith Kaluzny

I ask that you remove the reference to a Business Improvement District from your draft of a general plan. I understand the mention is to “encourage” a business improvement district. A business improvement district is a tax on businesses, collected as a property tax by the county tax assessor, in a defined area. It can be based on property ownership–and the owners pass the costs along to their tenants; or on individual businesses in the district.

This is found in the codes of the State of California in the Streets and Highways code. Thing is, a city can assist a BID ONLY AFTER the business people on their own form a group, plan the boundaries, get a petition signed to ask for having a BID. A BID is NOT for paying for regular maintenance of an area, but for improvements. An executive director will be hired, and a board of directors elected–another level of government and taxation for your small downtown businesses in this case.

The redevelopment department, inappropriately, has already tried that for $3,000 paid to a consultant and a balance in the accounts for another $27,000 for that consultant. Four meetings were held; I attended all, as did Cameron Irons and Mr. Terranova. Only at the last meeting did about five other business owners attend. And I had handed out many fliers to alert downtown businesses.

A year or two before that, Cameron Irons sent out a survey to downtown property owners regarding a BID. He gave me copies of the 12 or 14 replies. All were against it, but two said, if you are going to have it, we will participate.

The Nicole Coats had a meeting or two to gin up support for a BID. The two people (me and Henry Jones) who indicated willingness to participate were not invited. Those meeting with Nicole Coats–Cameron Irons, Terranova, Theresa Harvey, and two or three more chose the consultant. Paul Dunlap said he was invited, but declined to participate.

The idea of a BID for downtown arose when Councilmember Quirk asked if there wasn’t some way to get money for paying for the costs of maintaining downtown. Redevelopment Director Zur Schmeide told her that a business improvement district might be a way.

When the consultant was hired, I talked to both the city manager and Councilmember Quirk. Mr Meyer said, “we have an eight block area that is costing us over million and a half dollars a year. We have to do something.” Councilmember Quirk also spoke of a BID paying for the excess costs of maintaining the restaurant overlay district.

This is not the appropriate use or purpose of a BID! And it is by law supposed to arise from the grass roots business people, not top down from the city to get tax money for maintenance.

What I see happening is that if a BID were established for downtown, the only people who would have time or interest to serve on the board of directors will be restaurant/bar owners. Then they will vote to spend the taxes raised for maintenance so the city will not be so burdened by the bar district. (Which burden the city council created by abolishing CUPs for restaurants downtown.)

The Downtown Fullerton Restaurant Association is a non profit listed as c/o Cameron Irons, 118 North State College Boulevard, same address as Vanguard Investment Properties.

April 24, 2011April 24, 2011Dead heads

Well, At Least We’re Not Alone

by Mr. Peabody57 Comments

If that provides any satisfaction.

It seems that downtown Huntington Beach suffers the same dysfunctional symptoms as downtown Fullerton: drunk driving, rowdyism, vandalism, etc., etc. The cause? Too many bars churning out too many inebriated patrons. Sound familiar?

DT HB has even more bars than DT Fullerton, apparently, and that’s saying something. Looks like some citizens are finally fed up with the trouble and the reputation all the bars bring to town. The City has no idea how to fix the mess they’ve made.

Here in Fullerton we have the answer to the problem: declare victory, legitimize the troublemakers and subsidize their fire sprinkler infrastructure. Why? ‘Cause this is the New West, dagnabit, ‘n we’re open fer bidness!

March 22, 2011March 22, 2011Redevelopment

The State of Redevelopment in California

by The Fullerton Savage43 Comments

Remember State Controller John Chaing’s review of “Selected Redevelopment Agencies” in California?

His office’s five week study of a sample of 18 agencies (Fullerton was not in the sample of agencies) in the state has released a report:

http://www.sco.ca.gov/eo_pressrel_9789.html

The authors have come to some disturbing, but not unexpected conclusions beginning with “The Controller found no reliable means to measure the impact of redevelopment activity on job growth because RDAs either do not track them or their methodologies lack uniformity and are often arbitrary.” No one who follows the travails of redevelopment in our state should be surprised by this revelation.

The full report is replete with examples of agencies in different cities improperly filing required reports or not filing them at all as well as using funds improperly. Chiang concludes that “The lack of accountability and transparency is a breeding ground for waste, abuse, and impropriety…”.

Even this short term study confirms what many people in Fullerton and elsewhere have maintained for years, that redevelopment law in California has allowed local agencies to abuse their mandates with impunity from the very start with the dubious establishment of the areas themselves.

“The report notes that the 18 RDAs share no consensus in defining a blighted area.” The definition of blight was, of course, at the very crux of challenges against the unjustified expansion of the Fullerton Merged Redevelopment Area. It is encouraging to see the state government challenging agencies to define the blight in their cities in clear terms instead of allowing laughable images of gum wrappers and aluminum cans in a vacant lot to stand as justification for the wholesale diversion of tax dollars away from vital city services.

March 1, 2011Fullerton City Council

Quick, Hide Your Assets!

by The Fullerton Savage22 Comments

Tuesday night’s city council meeting includes an agenda item asking the council to approve transferring all assets owned by the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency to the City of Fullerton. Agenda item number 12 asks the city to take ownership of a soup to nuts inventory of everything the Redevelopment Agency has been using our bond money to buy for the last few decades.

In an urgent sounding letter to the council Acting Redevelopment Director Romona Castaneda explains that the council may only have a few weeks to move these assets from one pocket to the other if the state adopts Gov. Brown’s budget plan to eliminate redevelopment agencies. If this happens, it seems, the agency will be forced to sell the properties “expeditiously” and turn over the proceeds to the county.

One has to wonder what would happen if Redevelopment was indeed forced to sell all eighty of its properties, including the Fox Theater, the empty lot where four craftsmen era houses were torn down just east of it, Union Pacific Park, the site of Costco, a 2001 Chevrolet Malibu (?), the Santa Fe Depot, and some fencing around the Police Department. It’s a fun list.

The city would still be required to move forward with projects already approved for these properties, including affordable housing projects. Anybody have a guess about how legal this maneuver is?

February 16, 2011February 16, 2011About Us

A New Repuglican Scam

by The Desert Rat19 Comments

Today the ever-increasingly pathetic OC Register ran an editorial trumpeting the creation of something called the Association of California Cities, a homespun effort to replace the California League of Cities. The Register wants us to believe that anything that replaces the League is a good thing. To which I respond: not so fast.

Here’s a quote from the article, the first couple of paragraphs dutifully and immediately passed along verbatim by Red County repuglican flunky Matthew J. Cunningham:

Orange County cities often have stood for sensible, taxpayer-friendly municipal reform in a state where fiscal sanity is the exception rather than the rule. So, while we applaud the 21 O.C. cities that left the League of California Cities (and its Orange County division) and started their own Association of California Cities Orange County, we also want to ask, “What took you so long?”

We’ve long had a beef with the Sacramento-based League, which is essentially a taxpayer-funded (dues come from city coffers) lobbying organization that tilts toward big government. Currently, the League is battling Gov. Jerry Brown’s sensible plan to close down the state’s 425 redevelopment agencies – those fiscally profligate entities that abuse eminent domain and dole out corporate welfare to companies that build development projects hatched in City Hall.

I can’t remember any OC cities that “stood for sensible, taxpayer friendly municipal reform…” so that’s a load of manure right there. But notice the anti-Redevelopment hook there at the end of the second paragraph. Cunningham obviously did. But he didn’t bother passing along the very next tidbit from the editorial:

Certainly, one finds support for redevelopment among Orange County officials, including some whose cities have fled the League…

Well Jesus H.Crisco, that’s the understatement of the freaking year! Is there a single municipality in OC that isn’t addicted to Redevelopment like a low grade junkie is to black tar heroin?

fartboy — Maybe I can do facebook for the Association @ $200 buck an hour!

The Rag pathetically goes on to cite as some sort of local OC accomplishment the totally discredited Anaheim “Freedom Friendly” policy of “upzoning” property, a conspiracy that put dozens of businesses out of business, hundreds of workers out of work, that was engineered to produce vast profits for Kurt Pringle’s clients, and that has left the Anaheim city scape cratered, dark and dismal. The editorialists who are employed by The Register may think we can’t tell the difference, but boy are they wrong.

Of course you can check out the leadership of the new Association. It doesn’t inspire any sort of confidence. In the roster we find a sad collection of small town political hacks, bag men (and women), and poseurs whose only true resentment of the League is likely based on the fact that it precludes them from cashing in on anything. Oh, yeah we know the sort: the brain dead, yet greedy city council members who make up the boards of things like the OCTA, the Vector Control District, and the Sanitation District: just the perfect sort of drones who can be manipulated to direct “policy” in the direction of the Pringles, Dick Ackermans and John Lewises of the oh, so conservative Orange County.

Cunningham claims the inaugural dinner was the scene of near euphoria. Eu-effing-phoria. For him and people like him who cash in on government largess there was probably every reason to feel giddy.

The real question is why should we poor plantation hands substitute one collection of overseers for another?