Redevelopment Archives - Page 19 of 23 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

July 6, 2009December 30, 2009Dick Jones

Jeff Oderman: The High Price of Bad Advice

Rutan T3661222739_afe6cd6f9b

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.

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.

July 6, 2009December 30, 2009Downtown Fullerton

Fox Block: The Missing Slide

by Travis Kiger16 Comments

At a recent Fox Block community workshop, the Redevelopment Agency made every attempt to direct public discussion away from the height and scale of the proposed commercial structure. The agency even went so far as to not show any elevational drawings, although they did pepper the room with 1st and 2nd floor plans. Even the blunt question of “how many floors will it be?” was answered with reassuring answer “We don’t know, we’ll figure that out later”.

Well Friends, we have discovered the elusive drawing in Arteco’s proposal that was submitted last year. This is what the audience should have been shown:

fox-missing-slide — Click to enlarge - 68 feet of glorious redevelopment

Why didn’t the public get to see this important drawing at the meeting? There were plenty of concerned neighbors at the meeting who would have loved to see what their neighborhood will look like should this project be completed.

After the nasty battle over the height of the Amerige Court boondoggle, don’t you think they would bring this issue into the light at the very beginning? Why can’t Arteco Partners and the Redevelopment Agency be honest with the citizens of Fullerton?

July 5, 2009July 8, 2009Don Bankhead

Time to “Rethink” The Fox

by The Fullerton Shadow7 Comments

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 in Fullerton — 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.

July 4, 2009July 4, 2009Dick Jones

Would You Trust This Guy to Spend Your Money?

by admin9 Comments

Dick Jones can’t seem to understand that it is ILLEGAL to expand Redevelopment for the bogus reasons he babbles about. “Blight” must exist in order to legally expand Redevelopment, and it doesn’t exist. This clip is 7 minutes long, but it’s well worth the watch.

July 3, 2009January 5, 2010Don Bankhead

City Council Hearing on McDonalds $6 Million Subsidy

by admin6 Comments

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, 2009Downtown Fullerton

Fox Block: Fullerton Rejects Fake Old McSpanish Architecture

by Travis Kiger10 Comments

The room filled with cheers and applause at last night’s Fox Block community meeting when a citizen stood up and pronounced that the Redevelopment Agency should avoid creating more buildings that are meant to look like fake old clones of existing historic buildings.

The developer who was giving the presentation wanted to make sure that he was hearing this right… he asked for a show of hands – who wants Spanish/Mediterranean-style architecture that mimics the current Fox Theater? Two people out of 50+ raised their hands. Judging by the earlier applause, the vast majority of citizens were in support of creating long-lasting buildings in a contemporary style that would one day become historically significant themselves. The developer even went on to openly mock existing redevelopment buildings in Fullerton, at which point Redevelopment Director Rob Zur Schmiede stood up and absolved himself of responsibility, saying that the fake old buildings were created before his tenure.

Where did this sudden hatred of fake old design come from? We can only surmise that the audience was filled with citizens who have been reading this very blog, which has been loudly criticizing these projects for several months.

There are still many serious problems with this development project (we’ll get to that later), but it’s good to see that FFFF is having a positive impact on the future of architecture in downtown Fullerton.

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, 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 30, 2009June 30, 2009Dick Jones

If there is Blight in Fullerton, Who’s Responsible For It?

by The Fullerton Harpoon4 Comments

The proposed redevelopment expansion in Fullerton hinges upon on the city councils ability to discover “blight” in this vast area. Two of the biggest cheerleaders for this expansion of government power are councilman Dick Jones and Don Bankhead who are happy to make the necessary “finding” of blight.

you mean to tell us that blights been going on?

Let us reflect for a moment on the irony of the situation. Bankhead has been on the city council for over 20 years, and Jones has been on it since 1996, 12 years and counting! So what have we got going on here? According to Jones and Bankhead “blight” has been proliferating at a record pace on their watch! So what does this suggest about their competency to fight blight, are these the guys we want running even more redevelopment?

The whole thing would be sort of comical if the potential consequences for the property owners in the proposed expansion area weren’t so serious.

June 27, 2009December 30, 2009Former Fullerton Councilmembers

What Is It About Molly McClanahan And Football Stadiums?

by The Fullerton Harpoon7 Comments

Dick Ackerman, Fullerton Redevelopment boondoggle history, college football, and Molly McClanahan.

It’s not often that so many local topics intersect, so when they do this intersection should be scrutinized and at the very least enjoyed for it’s entertainment value.

And so Loyal Friends, climb into the FFFF way back machine and travel with us to the not so distant year of 1990.

Supposed conservative city councilman Dick Ackerman had just help orchestrate a fiscal finagle in which the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency would finance a football stadium for Cal State University at Fullerton. Councilwoman Molly McClanahan voted for this blatent abuse of redevelopment although titan football folded and the bogus fundraising program was exposed she was heard to take credit for “asking all the tough questions!”.

Fast forward now to 2009: a football stadium sits at CSUF with no football team in it. A stadium financed by the tax payers of Fullerton, all of whom are residents of the North Orange County Community College District of which Molly McClanahan is now a Trustee. The NOCCCD is caught red handed trying to illegally slip a new football stadium into it’s bond expansion plan at FJC!

Now, that’s ironic ! How many football stadiums will Molly McClannahan oversee before she wraps up her political carreer? And why can’t FJC’s football team use the CSUF football stadium for its 5 or 6 annual home games? Maybe Molly can answer that since she approved it in the first place. Let’s ask her. Molly?