Redevelopment Archives - Page 20 of 23 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

June 26, 2009June 27, 2009Downtown Fullerton

Redevelopment, Destroying Downtown Fullerton

Downtown Fullerton was once an enchanted part of the city, complete with significant buildings and full of character. Comparing a photo of downtown in the late 1950’s to the same street today is like looking at two completely different places. The before pictures depict a hip and high-energy part of Fullerton. As opposed to the after snapshots, which show mundane building colors and sparse streets. An apparent combination of incompetence and ignorance has ruined the urban feel of our city and possibly the last piece of originality that Orange County had to offer. Where are we supposed to look for our city’s history and former glory, if not in our downtown area?

We need to take a look at our city’s recent history and begin holding people accountable for their mistakes and in turn, create a new thought process that can revive Fullerton to it’s original state.

June 26, 2009June 27, 2009Fullerton City Council

A Typical Redevelopment Light Fixture

by admin9 Comments

June 25, 2009July 1, 2009Fox Theatre

Sharon Quirk Spinning Like a Top

by The Fullerton Harpoon23 Comments

doesn't it make you feel dizzy? — doesn't it make you feel kind of dizzy?

After receiving a barrage of criticism about her support of the McDonald’s relocation fiasco, Fullerton council member Sharon Quirk informed us and others about her decision to change her decision.

Our Redevelopment sources at city hall have told us that at the latest closed door session of the city council Quirk was dissuaded from her decision and in effect signaled her decision to changed her decision to change her decision.

We weren’t there, but we will bet anything that staff used there favorate standby “you cant do this he’ll sue us” to which we say, “let him“. Once again the bureaucrats at city hall have chosen to stay the course believing as they do that in Fullerton it’s better to hide the boondoggle later than to admit a mistake now, and with feeble council members like Sharon Quirk, they may be right.

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 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 18, 2009June 18, 2009Dick Jones

VECTOR WATCH – BIG DAY FOR FULLERTON

by admin6 Comments

Today, all eyes—and ears—will be on Fullerton’s representative at the OC Vector Control Board meeting that will take place in Garden Grove. There are three scenarios as to what might happen. Here they are, from best to worst:

Best: The City Council appoints a new Vector Control representative who will take the job seriously.

So-so: No one will show up representing Fullerton, leaving us without a voice.

Worst: Councilman Dick Jones will take his seat on the Vector Board and continue to embarrass the city with his Texas-twanged outbursts.

Stay tuned!

You may have trouble sorting through the man’s mangled syntax so we are providing a transcript of his remarks:

“I would like to compliment you all on the extensive report you gave, however when I get on an airplane I’d like to think that some agency says it’s air worthy, I don’t want to know the percentage of the materials that make up the wing spars, your intentions are laudible and so forth. I think this was over done, when people come to me for an operation I did not give them 4 years of surgical information during my residency, this was excellent. It’s nice to be baffled by brilliance, and it was baffling”.

June 17, 2009December 30, 2009Dick Jones

An Open Letter to McDonald’s Franchisees Mr. / Mrs. Frisbie

by admin4 Comments

Do not enter into negotiations with the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency to move your McDonald’s restaurant 150 feet west to the Chapman / Pomona corner. Stay put.

There are many reasons for you to stay where you are. You some of them you know better than we do. But we have some political insights that might be helpful.

To force you to move against your will, the agency must use eminent domain, which requires a 4/5ths vote. With Nelson and Jones already having voted against the move, the votes for eminent domain aren’t there.
Besides, there’s every indication that Sharon Quirk will change her vote. That would make it 3-2 against granting $6 million for the move.
The reconfiguration of your restaurant will hurt business, confusing regular customers who will have to access your drive-in window from Pomona Avenue.
The agency will confine you into a “new-to-look-old” building that will look nothing like a traditional McDonald’s. Many of your patrons will not be able to recognize you.
McDonalds’ trademark signs and golden arches will not be allowed in the new building provided by the agency, confusing and discouraging regular patrons.
You have been, are and will be criticized for accepting $6 million in public money. We know you don’t want to move, but if you accept it, the public will see it as corporate welfare.
The move will likely result in down time, costing you money and customers.
When there are cost overruns (inevitable in public projects) the Agency may be slow to reimburse you for your costs. Those costs may be disputed.

This move is completely unnecessary for you from a business standpoint. You’d said during the hearing that long ago then-Redevelopment employee Terry Galvin told you the city wanted you to move. Galvin didn’t speak for the council then and he certainly doesn’t now.

Terry Galvin has retired. There is a whole new council majority. Nothing obligates you to go along with this deal.

And, there are not the 4 votes needed for eminent domain. You cannot be forced to move. Stay Put!

June 16, 2009June 18, 2009Dick Jones

“NO TO BIG GOVERNMENT!”

by admin5 Comments

In response to County Counsel’s objections to the original blight findings, the staff report asserts that “these parcels if developed will need to be assembled with adjacent properties to create a sufficient development parcel. Because these parcels are in multiple ownerships it becomes more difficult to assemble into a desired development site.”

My brother and I assembled 27 irregular shaped parcels along Truslow & Walnut Ave. without any RDA assistance. No subsidy, no eminent domain. The result is the Soco Walk transit-oriented condo complex.

OC's Priemier Transit Oriented Development — OC's Premier Transit Oriented Development

Many subsidized in-fill projects made possible by eminent domain are failures, because they respond to government hand-outs rather than market realities. Up and down California there exist many Ghost Malls (Triangle Square / Costa Mesa, Carousel Mall / San Bernardino) built on the backs of dispossessed property owners and fleeced taxpayers.

Let’s not suffer the fate of Santa Ana’s “Renaissance Plan” with numerous agency-owned vacant lots (where home and businesses once stood) have festered for years of bureaucratic inertia. There are many other such examples.

Redevelopment staffs abhor small business districts with multiple ownerships, because they cannot control them.

I will have a fundraiser for you after you vote on my project — Remember, staff always knows best!

They tarnish them with the blight label and threaten them with eminent domain to benefit some politically-connected developer who makes a killing before selling out and moving on.

Who thinks that government officials can do a better job of redeveloping areas than private individuals using their own money and taking their own risks? Bottom line: Do you trust the free market or city staff to make crucial development decisions for Fullertons future?

June 15, 2009June 15, 2009Dick Jones

Let Commonwealth Be Commonwealth

by admin10 Comments

There are 154 small businesses along West Commonwealth in the 2 1/2 miles stretching from Euclid to Dale. Many are run by entrepreneurs who own their own property. This variety of small business owners is why City Staff is declaring it blighted in their attempt to hoodwink the council into including it into a new redevelopment area.

Huh?

These parcels already ARE developed into a variety of small businesses, ranging from coffee shops to body shops, from florists to machinists, from preschools to flight schools. Staff sees this as blight. The new RDA seeks to “assemble” (under threat of eminent domain) these parcels, clear out the small businesses to “create a sufficient development parcel” under one ownership. And that’s not good for Fullerton.

One Commonwealth business owner (Aeromark) has already opted out, fearing consolidation of his small parcel. Other owners, beware!

No, West Commonwealth is not Irvine. Some planners may dislike the very variety that makes it interesting. But there is an edgy realism there, of small hardworking people actually producing goods and services for their customers–not because of some government mandate. The report goes on to say “development proposals are not financially feasible because acquisition costs have increased over the years rendering in-fill projects to be infeasible in many cases without redevelopment assistance.”

Let Commonwealth be Commonwealth!