Friends For Fullerton's Future
FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Redevelopment is Government removing existing homes, businesses, and other buildings and replacing them with something different. The history of redevelopment in Fullerton has lead to a long string of ugly, deteriorating buildings and outright failure.
Former Fullerton Councilman and tax fighter Conrad DeWitte points out why redevelopment expansion is nothing more than a can of spray paint. We can always count on clarity and comedy from Conrad.
Please note the running dialog between DeWitte and our beloved target Dick Jones at the end of the clip. See if you can determine who came out on top.
Several Friends have recently asked that we share with you our Loyal Readers some images of the ridiculous Redevelopment sidewalks in downtown Fullerton. The question that comes to mind is: what sort of ninny would design something so impractical and expensive, other than a Redevelopment bureaucrat, of course; and why?
Discovering the answers to the questions posited above is actually intriguing if you are the sort of person who is interested in the study of the abandonment of critical thought in homo sapiens. People who like this sort of sidewalk have made the foolish and perhaps even unwitting mistake of jettisoning simplicity in the confused belief that anything that is more complicated – in this case a broken versus a straight line – must be an aesthetic improvement. Others have seen in these pointless meanderings an aesthetic “softening” that comes when you replace the rectilinear with the curvilinear (although please note that ours aren’t even curvilinear) a weird idea that can trace its legacy way back to the anti-grid urban movements of the late Nineteenth Century.
F. Paul Dudley, former Director of Development Services (and prominent member of the $100,000 retirement club) once defended his knee-jerk support for these practical monstrosities by taking a different tack, but one guaranteed to win the hearts and minds of ponder-free tree boohoos. He claimed that these zigzag paths actually increase the area available for landscaping next to buildings downtown. Wrong! As any 10th grader taking geometry knows, a straightline is the shortest distance between two points. If you increase the length of a sidewalk through pointless meandering, you necessarily increase the amount of concrete needed to build it. Increase the concrete and you necessarily decrease the amount of adjacent area available for landscaping! That’s pretty simple. Well, this is Fullerton, after all, but still, you have to wonder how Dudley managed to hang on to his job for so long.
Finally we have to wonder what it’s like for somebody in a wheelchair to have to negotiate these sidewalks.
FFFF’s tip of the day: If you walking somewhere in downtown Fullerton, remember to budget some extra time because it will take you twice as long to get where you are going.
(images thoughtfully provided by Travis Kiger)
A while back we made reference in a post to a type of architecture called “HAVE FUN DAMMIT Post Modernism.” See comment #13
Several of you Dedicated Friends had questions about our nomenclature, and rather than inch out any farther onto the thin ice of architectural taxonomy, we have decided to turn the task over to an expert. And so, once again, we rely upon the kind offices of Dr. Ralph E. Haldemann, Professor of Art History (Emeritus) at Otterbein College, Ohio, our Adjunct Arts and Architecture Editor.
Writes Dr. Haldemann:
You have astutely identified a stylistic trend in government subsidized commercial architecture. The outward trappings are meant to induce retail sales through the medium of bright colors, unexpected or weird angles, ostensibly playful and upbeat features and signage; all in an effort to promote a festive, even amusement park-like atmosphere. This mood of jollity is meant to help pry loose disposable income from the local proletarians and thus support a city’s sales tax base. Some of the elements are congruent with the coeval deconstructivism of Post-modern architecture, although any disorientation produced by the former is generally intended to foster a suspension in fiscal responsibility.
Since the have-fun-at-all-cost approach necessarily requires a “hard sell” many have recognized a cruel irony in the attempt to force feed fun, especially in economically distressed areas.
Since many of these structures and complexes have predictably refused to age with any sort of dignity, critics find solace with the prospect that these buildings will soon be “redeveloped” by the same suburban renewal urges that created them in the first place.
Finally, I note that many of the themes of this style have sloshed over in to other non-commercial municipal enterprises with fairly appalling consequences.
Thanks, Dr. Haldemann, for another lucid and enlightening exposition. Your FFFF check is in the mail, but please don’t cash it ’til the end of the month.
Just jotted this comment on another post but it seems to serve as a short, stand alone essay on Redevelopment. So we share it below:
The entire premise behind Redevelopment is that private enterprise doesn’t work – as evidenced in blight. They love to latch on to the concept of property being “under utilized” meaning that it’s not pulling its weight to generate sales tax revenue to pay for staff salaries and benefits! Rather than using code enforcement to clean up real problems they prefer to divert property tax revenue and play developer.
I’m not sure that the dead hand is a good metaphor. Judging by the unaccountable boondogglery in Fullerton over the years that has done real damage to the cityscape I’m inclined to think along the more active lines of “living dead” planning/design and “zombie” land use concepts.
I always love it when Redevelopment proponents point to the existence of pawn shops, etc. as evidence of a malfunctioning economic system. What they ignore are the cheap rents that serve as an incubator to small businesses, especially those created by young entrepreneurs. Look at the history of the SoCo abomination; Santa Fe was a “run down” street by Redevelopment standards and yet Sean Francis used an old, beat-up building shell across from an industrial use to create a vibrant business. It was later that the City tagged along and started with the lame signs and laughable paving – immediately robbing the place of any authenticity.
For some reason the Redevelopment hacklings just can’t understand the concept of business cycles and one very simple fact of business: one man’s difficulty is another man’s opportunity.
FFFF’s seasoned veteran Attorney Bob Ferguson (6-0 record vs. redevelopment scams) knows a blight scam when he sees it, and is relishing the idea of bringing the redevelopment expansion under the judicial microscope. Like a quack doctor intentionally trumping up a diagnosis to jack up his fees, the redevelopment agency’s legal council Jeff Oderman with Rutan & Tucker fabricates blight that doesn’t exist at $400 per hour. Judges will see through this charade, just as they have with many other cities Ferguson has challenged.
One property owner in the affected area said it best–“I’m offended that the City has declared my property blighted, and I just now found out about it. Tell me how it’s blighted and I’ll fix it myself!”
The process limps forward towards a legal battle, with Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk in opposition. At least Nelson and Quirk respect the law that they have sworn to uphold.
A classic example of how the redevelopment agency casts a dead hand on parts of our city can be seen at the Northeast corner of Brookhurst & Orangethorpe. A firm that I know has plans to purchase the properties from 6 different owners and assemble the 8 acres for a new development. They have the cash, the experience, the patience, and the price is right.
Now, however, the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency proposes to include this property into its expanded area. The owners are unwilling to sell now because they think the agency will pay more later than the private firm will pay now–which may be true.
In addition, if the agency does a “friendly eminent domain” scam, the owners get tax advantages the private company cannot offer. Of course, the eminent domain may be unfriendly if the agency won’t pay what the owners’ want.
Then, having assembled the parcels, the agency will sell at a discount–or give the land away–to a politically connected developer who will build what the RDA staff wants. Not what the market demands, but what the bureaucrats want.
This kind of micromanaging of property is what the RDA is all about. Instead of letting the market work on its own, the bureaucrats and politicians intervene. Instead of allowing willing sellers and willing buyers to create a privately-funded project–they want to use your tax dollars.
Instead of letting private enterprises’ make a profit–and of course risk a loss–they want to socialize the whole development. This approached has failed time after time.
Isn’t it time to leave the free market alone?
Apparently, the Redevelopment staff got the word out to those already receiving City funds to get behind this redevelopment expansion if you want to score brownie points and maybe a little more dinero.
Speakers at Tuesday’s hearing in favor of the expansion included Jim Ranii of the Museum Board. Of course, the Museum is not blighted (is it, Jim?) and is not eligible for any funding by expanding the RDA. Muckenthaler Director Zoot Velasco talked of the “hidden blight” in Southwest Fullerton. Let’s hope its not so well hidden when it’s challenged in court. And, Zoot, the Muck cannot receive any future loot, so why allow yourself to be used by RDA staff? Then the folks from OCCLA who want grafitti removal (714-738-3108) and code enforcement (they don’t need redevelopment for either), and the Chamber of Commerce director Terresa Harvey, begging for hand outs for her fellow board members like Scott Dowds (who also spoke in favor). And lastly let’s not forget old Louis Kuntz Sr., who supported the expansion as well. Not surprising, since his son Louis Jr. and the Morgan Company who already got an $18 million public gift (including the gift of a public street–100 block East Whiting) from the Agency for his downtown apartment complex…. maybe there are some more profitable projects looming for him in the expanded area.
Of course, their pleas had nothing to do with blight. In order to legally declare an area “redevelopment” the area must be blighted.
The process limps forward towards a legal battle, with Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk in opposition. At least Nelson and Quirk respect the law that they have sworn to uphold. Stay tuned.
Fullerton residents owe Councilwoman Sharon Quirk a big thank you for her stellar performance at last night’s City Council meeting. Quirk displayed responsible leadership and accountability to the citizens of Fullerton. Furthermore, she made a decision that saved Fullerton taxpayers $6 million while taking the leadership role in quashing the controversial McDonald’s move.
The best part of the night was that she was humble enough to admit error; she had previously supported McD’s McMove, but she realized that move was detrimental to Fullerton taxpayers and she had the courage to stand on principle.
Additionally, she tried to save the city/agency plenty more by voting against the RDA’s bogus blight findings that it is sure to lose in court.
We are proud to have Sharon Quirk as a Friend For Fullerton’s Future.
Residents witnessed another rousing victory for FFFF last night as Councilwoman Sharon Quirk wisely reversed direction on Fullerton’s famous $6 million dollar burger deal that would give away a brand new McDonald’s restaurant at taxpayers’ expense. Pam Keller sensed the inevitable failure of this project and also changed course, sending this turkey down in a 4-1 vote. Nelson and Jones had it right from the beginning, but Bankhead rode this one all the way to the grave.
Now that the taxpayer-funded McDonald’s move is dead, there isn’t much hope for the massive Fox Block redevelopment scheme – and that’s fine by us. The Fox Block had little to do with the popular restoration of the historic Fox Theatre and there was plenty of doubt the that the block would be financially viable even with millions in taxpayer subsidies. Throw in a little public deception about the height of the buildings, and it’s clear that this project needed to be flushed.
Even if you don’t approve of our approach here at FFFF, it’s hard to deny positive results. It’s good to see our representatives fix bad decisions and move forward. We know it’s tough to admit when you are wrong, but that’s part of responsible governance. Thank you, Quirk and Keller, for doing the right thing.
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.
