Redevelopment Archives - Page 21 of 23 - Friends For Fullerton's Future

June 14, 2009December 30, 2009Dick Jones

New Blight Report: “Fullerton Airport Unsafe”

fullerton-airport19945787_8d67ff580a — "Breaker breaker there 1-9...it's unsafe to land here, over"

Lawyers for the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency have a tough job in trying to defend the bogus blight findings that have been so effectively demolished by County Counsel Attorney James Harman and Friends for a Livable Fullerton‘s & FFFF Attorney Robert Ferguson.

They just came out with a weak 14 page response to the blight objections, in preparation for the scheduled hearing this Tuesday, June 16 (Item 14). If the council has any sense, they’d shelve this turkey project now.

"but we need the money" — but, we need the money

Imagine, Fullerton Council Members, some of whom have been in office since the 90s, spending public money to prove that blight in Fullerton is growing. Blight growing on their watch!

One Page 11 of the Agency’s response, the report reads “Significant improvements are needed at the airport and its vicinity, including safety upgrades. The airport is affected by the lack of safety upgrades…”

Huh?

Admitting that its own airport is unsafe opens the City to serious liability. And if it is true, upgrades should be paid for by internal airport revenues (leases, tie-down fees, etc.) Property tax increment shouldn’t pay for airport upgrades, any more than for municipal golf course improvements. The airport is setup as an enterprise fund—self supporting.

The report clearly asserts that Fullerton Municipal Airport is blighted—and dangerous. If true, who allowed this to happen? If the airport has to be subsidized by redevelopment, than perhaps it should be shut down and sold off.

On Page 12 of the report, the crack Agency legal minds write: “Sam’s Club—This store is completely surrounded by properties with at least one significant condition of physical blight.”

Well, tell that to the Home Depot, which is adjacent to Sam’s Club, and one of the City’s biggest retailers. The City’s biggest home improvement center is now a source of blight!

The report is so full of blanket and sweepingly false statements that is difficult to fathom the legal minds behind it. But, then, if the facts aren’t on your side, you have to make them up!

June 8, 2009December 28, 2009Fullerton City Council

More Proof That The Redevelopment Expansion is Pure Baloney

by admin12 Comments

Just in case any objective person needed more evidence that the basis of the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency’s proposed land-grab is unadulterated hog wash, we share a letter from an individual whose property is currently within the proposed boundaries; and of course we include a copy of the response from the City.

In his letter to the Agency, longtime Fullerton resident and businessman Mr. Paul O’Neil of AEROMARK, provides a rather comprehensive indictment of the entire expansion process and its ultimate conclusion of “blight.” He concludes his letter with a request to have his property deleted from the project area. In response Agency Director Rob Zur Schmiede agrees that the property can be excluded because it is near the boundary, because it not necessary to further the goals of the project, and because Mr O’Neil wrote a letter!

Well, Mr. Zur Schmiede’s missive begs several pertinent questions that go to the very heart of the Agency’s competency and honesty in this whole matter. First, if the property in question is on the edge and not necessary, why was it included by the City’s “expert” consultant in the first place? Second, why does the fact that Mr. O’Neil wrote a letter asking to be removed have any bearing on the supposed “findings” necessary to include it? This response gives every indication of being nothing but a way to shut up potentially vocal opposition to the expansion by an obviously informed, and unhappy property owner. If the mere fact of “writing a letter” is a germane to exclusion of a property, then it seems like every single property owner ought to have the same right.

We also note that exclusion of Mr. O’Neil’s “edge” property from the project would simply create a new “edge” property right next door. At the very least that property’s owner should have the same opportunity as Mr. O’Neil to have his property deleted from the expansion – thus creating another edge property!

This whole process of Redevelopment expansion, including both analysis and notification, seems to have been undertaken in an incredibly haphazard way. Who can say whether this was intentional. Not us. But we have our suspicions – as do a growing number of affected businesses and property owners.

May 26, 2009March 27, 2012Dick Jones

Roscoes at it Again, Temporary Nuisance, Permanent Arrogance

by admin82 Comments

Just what exactly does “temporary” mean? “Roscoe’s Famous” Deli,” and famous noise polluter in downtown Fullerton is back to the Planning Commission Wednesday night to try to get a “special event permit” for outdoor amplified music.

"lyrical elements of apocalyptic fears and collective oppression" — Oh yeah! Mixed-use, baby!

The Planning Commission and City Council already agreed that outdoor amplified music is not a good thing for our community. Allowing loud music to be permitted on a permanent basis will stump Fullerton’s bright future of continuing to become a center of mixed-use commerce and residences as defined by the current downtown zoning (C3.) If we want our downtown to unfold in a positive direction it’s imperative that we as a community find a balance between business, entertainment and living in the downtown. Its real simple: if you want loud noise you need to put it inside. In fact the city required Tuscany Club to keep it’s door shut during the hours it has its loud entertainment- that sounds like a reasonable idea doesn’t it ?

As usual the City staff has gotten everything ass-backward.

it all depends which way you're facing... — From where we're standing it looks reasonable...

Instead of establishing an objective code and requiring that businesses abide by it, they are actually justifying a likely nuisance as way to experiment with amplified music outdoors, and thus circumvent the existing Code. The taxpayers have just paid for an acoustical study. What are the results? Those results should be used to amend the Code or leave it as is. Then it should be used as a mechanism to approve or deny permits – “special event” or otherwise, and if necessary, code enforcement. The special event permit also strangely omits hours of operation. That’s pretty negligent, and we wonder why.

Roscoe’s didn’t get approved for a permanent permit to play amplified music outdoors; now they are trying to get a temporary permit to do that very same thing…. Hey that’s very creative, but we don’t think a special event permit should evade that original denial, and we don’t think a temporary permit was ever intended for eight events spanning an entire summer! Can you imagine having a neighbor that continues to have a backyard party with a loud electric band every weekend ? That’s how a lot of Roscoe’s neighbors feel…

It could be worse. It could be Speed Metal!

This is the Municipal Code that deals with temporary event permits in the City of Fullerton:

The Fullerton Municipal Code defines a special event as “an event that will be conducted outdoors to which the general public is admitted or invited. Such an event includes a carnival festival tent or car show, circus parade, auction rally or similar kind of temporary outdoor exhibit or performance” (Accents added).

As follows is the roster of Roscoe’s “special event” application-

Roscoe’s Special Events Request List:
Sunday June 14th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Saturday June 20th Silvia’s Engagement party. 7-12 pm
Sunday June 21st Fathers Day Celebration. 4-9pm
Sunday June 28th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 12th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm
Sunday July 26th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 9th Bootlegger Bike Fund Raiser. 4-9pm
Sunday August 30th SOCO Guest Bartender Fund Raiser. 4-9 pm

Friends, you decide if this is just a way to get around the rules that all the rest of us are supposed to abide by. Let’s not forget that in the original permanent use hearing the City ignored its own environmental review obligations. Why is Famous Roscoes and its owner, Jack Franklyn, receiving all this special consideration and hand holding from the City? The law is the law. We all live by it everyday, and so should he.

May 25, 2009December 28, 2009Fullerton City Council

Jane Reifer For Fullerton City Council in 2010?

by The Fullerton Harpoon23 Comments

Well, why the hell not? We were immensely impressed by her statement at the recent City Council meeting where she stared down the establishment in its headlong rush to expand Redevelopment in Fullerton. She was courageous and knowledgeable – a far cry from the Pam Kellers and Sharon Quirks of Fullerton who have gone along with monstrous development projects with the casual complicity of politicians who have higher aspirations. While the Redevelopment goons and shills like John Phelps and “Fullerton Positive” jackasses were trying to grease their own skids, Jane was at the podium defending the interests of the people of Fullerton from further Redevelopment demolitions and styrofoam construction.

Jane Reifer has been a dedicated advocate for true preservation and sensible development for years. She has embraced progressive ideas without falling into the brainless trap of liberal cliches and shibboleths. She has learned the hard way that City staff has its own agenda that is not necessarily congruent with the interests of the people.

Maybe most importantly she would truly listen to voices not connected to issues via their own self-interest; she would bring a geniunely independent perspective to those issues; and best of all she would demand accountability on the part of City staff.

And so we say: Jane Reifer in 2010! Why not? It’s time for a real change.

May 23, 2009January 5, 2010Don Bankhead

George Giokaris: School Snitch/Team Player. But Which Team Is He On?

by admin12 Comments

Just what does Fullerton H.S. District Superintendent George Giokaris owe Fullerton City Manager Chris Meyer? What compels him to be a tattletale on his own Board? Unlike Mike Escalante, his predecessor, Giokaris apparently wants a McDonald’s right across from Fullerton High.

Here’s what we’ve gathered from credible sources:

Last week, County Supervisor Chris Norby (FHS ’68) spoke with former district Superintendent Escalante and current Boardmembers Dutton and Singer. All confirmed their opposition to the $6 million McDonald’s move across the street from FHS. Escalante recounted an earlier conversation with Meyer opposing the relocation on traffic and safety grounds.

Unfortunately, these concerns were kept from the city council.

This week, Norby wrote a letter to Dutton and Singer suggesting they communicate their position to the city council, while there’s still time. Giokaris saw the letter, then quickly dispatched a “heads up” email to Meyer warning of a possible lobbying effort by members of the High School Board against the McDonald’s relocation fiasco.

Is there something we should know about these two?

Imagine that – a warning from a Superintendent that his own bosses on the School Board may actually stand up for their students’ safety and their taxpayers’ wallets! Instead of tattletaling to Meyer, he should repeat the opposition of his predecessor and oppose this super-sized boondoggle!

And we say to Dutton and Singer–if you really do oppose this $6 million move, say so now. Don’t be intimidated by Giokaris’s little intrigues behind your back – be outraged by them!

Me: Long walks on the beach and cuddling by the fire... — Long walks on the beach and cuddling by the fire?

May 22, 2009November 29, 2011Chris Norby

Fullerton Gov’t Hates Property Rights – and Kids on Bikes

by Grover Cleveland16 Comments

What’s going on in Fullerton? Many city officials seem intent on “redeveloping” a city that has no blight — even as they have wasted $20,000 in bureaucratic expenses to make sure kids don’t ride their bikes in a vacant lot. As the economy worsens for everyone, the city just can’t get its priorities straight.

First, the redevelopment absurdity. The city claims West Fullerton’s commercial areas and East Fullerton industrial areas are “blighted” and wants to redevelop them. This could mean using “eminent domain” to forcibly take property from its rightful owners, then give it to other private owners for a supposedly “better” use. And it could mean using our hard-earned tax dollars to “help” the new owners redevelop the property.

At a recent City Council meeting, City Councilman Shawn Nelson ripped the redevelopment “argument” to shreds. “Clearly, the data has been manipulated, and it’s been manipulated for a purpose,” he said, referring to a report that supposedly proved the areas were “blighted.” He added, “This is not an objective report…. I don’t think that any… objective report would have reached the conclusion that there’s blight.” He pointed out that the supposed “blight” in Fullerton “doesn’t come anywhere near” the threshold set by the California Court of Appeal for imposing eminent domain. Click here for the YouTube of Shawn’s comments:

Second, the Fullerton Code Enforcement Department spent $20,000 and countless hours of staff and attorney time prosecuting local businessman Tony Bushala (admin) for allowing his sons and their friends to ride bicycles on three acres of vacant land he owns behind the Brea Dam. The bureaucrats grandiosely called the vacant lot “outdoor recreational facilities.” Will they next also call every home driveway in the city “outdoor recreational facilities” — and ban kids from using driveways to ride up to park their bikes in the home garage?

How silly. Isn’t it better to have kids riding their bikes on private property owned by one kid’s dad, than to have them hanging out somewhere else, possibly getting into mischief? And that $20,000 in wasted tax money could have meant half a year of work for someone in the private sector — instead of staying in an unemployment line in this severe recession.

After various bureaucratic wranglings, the Appeals Board found that “no nuisance exists.” But the bike incident produced an incredible 47 pages of documents. What a waste.

These are serious economic times. The go-go days are over. We need to save our money, both private and public. The city needs to stop attacking the private-property rights of citizens, whether by threatening to take their property through eminent domain, or by stopping kids from having innocent fun on family property.

Leave us alone!

May 19, 2009May 20, 2009Big Brother

Judge Jim Gray on Marijuana

by admin9 Comments

Marijuana. Decriminalize, tax and regulate. Makes a lot more sense than ban, spray and incarcerate. Of course, it’s just the dark-skinned ones that we jail mostly. For middle class kids, it’s just “experimentation”!

That was the message of retired Judge Jim Gray at last night’s packed meeting of the Neighbors United for Fullerton at the main library. Gray told the supportive NUFFsters that imprisoning marijuana offenders costs California taxpayers $1 billion yearly and taxing it would add $4 billion to state coffers. That’s a net of $5 billion!

Who are the big winners in the drug war? Prison guards, prison builders, drug lords, dumb politicians and Big Pharma. (Tough to profit from a plant that grows in the wilds!)

Elected officials attending–and positively responding–were Supervisor Chris Norby and Anaheim UHSD Board Member Katherine Smith.

Gray talked about all the costs of the entire drug war, but concentrated on cannabis as the one most likely to see real reform. AB 390 by Assemblyman Tom Amiano (D-San Francisco) would legalize and tax marijuana in California, to take effect only after federal law was changed to respect state autonomy on the issue.

How ’bout it Barack? Would society really have been better off had you been jailed back during your experimental youth?

There are just enough pro-freedom Dems and Reps to form a coaltion. Reefer Madness might soon be replaced by Reefer sanity!

May 19, 2009July 1, 2009Fox Theatre

Pam Keller Appears to Like Fake Old Buildings

by admin32 Comments

Pam Keller seems to think it’s a good idea to make the new 6.5 million dollar subsidized McDonald’s look “more like the high school” than a “fast-food joint.” She appears to believe that a visual “upgrade” helps justify the huge expenditure of public money. We don’t think it’s an upgrade at all, but just another example of Redevelopment shoving crappy architecture down our throats. Strike two.

On the other hand, maybe Keller is hoping the architectural “blend” will keep people from noticing that the city spent 6.5 Million dollars on moving the McDonald’s 150 feet closer to the school!

Because of the health concerns caused from fast food, Sharon Quirk is said to be considering changing her vote. Maybe Pam Keller will too.

Read this Recent comment from:

#15 by The Enabler at May 16th, 2009

Right on, Frazier. And thank you Supervisor Norby, for your Fullerton legislative history update on the importance of vote-changing, when changing one’s vote is simply the right thing to do.

In one corner, a huge corporation, under guise of a local businessman; in the other, City of Fullerton, hoodwinked into abetting the feeding of malnutritious food to its young residents! On this issue, I must entirely side with Council members Jones and Nelson. McDonald’s shouldn’t receive ONE DIME from City of Fullerton! Long-term costs upon Fullerton’s citizens to provide financial assistance to this global firm are catastrophic!

By eating this food, Fullerton students become less prepared to excel at school, less productive citizens, and will suffer crippling long-term health problems! Obesity, cardiac distress, diabetes! This isn’t idle speculation, but medical fact! Our Latino population’s particularly susceptible to these complications! Not even to mention high civic costs to clean up paper and plastic waste, which is daily generated from this eatery!

I defend, though not happily, McDonald’s or any firm’s rights to build wherever it wants; pay the going rate, meet all governing local, state and federal rules and requirements.

But it’s just wrong for Fullerton to subsidize McDonald’s operation, in any way. Wrong for Fullerton to favor one company over another. Wrong for Fullerton to justify such future ugliness, in the name of civic beautification. Wrong for Fullerton to victimize its young, to enable old people feel good about themselves. Wrong. Wrong Wrong.

I strongly urge Council members Keller, Quirk, Bankhead to carefully reexamine their votes, and put Fullerton first! Put Fullerton first; provide a safe, healthy environment for its young! Put Fullerton first; cautiously rein in civic waste! Put Fullerton first; focus not on global corporate greed, but on local civic virtue!

Every time Fullerton citizens drive by Fox Theatre, and marvel at its future apotheosis as local cultural shrine, please think of thousands of Fullerton young children, teen-agers, young adults who’ll have paid the price to make this happen. Very soon, they’ll have even fewer steps to pick up their Egg McMuffins, Mcfries, and six dollar dollar Super-sized Big Macs.

It hardly seems possible!

Sorry to be so cranky. But I’m truly flabbergasted by this civic-inspired fiscal imprudence and grave social justice.

The Enabler

May 18, 2009July 1, 2009Don Bankhead

Burgers or Books

by admin7 Comments

A McDonald’s eatery near Fullerton Union High School, where one-third of the ninth-graders in a multiyear study were found to be obese.

(Christine Cotter, Los Angeles Times)

March 12, 2009

Sharon Quirk, we promise you one thing, you will never regret changing your mind on this one.

May 18, 2009December 30, 2009Chris Norby

The “Paseo Park” Chronicles: The Park That Never Was. Or Is. Part 3

by The Fullerton Shadow7 Comments

So far we have chronicled the story of a city park that nobody needed, with a proposed name no one wanted. Once construction was done, what had heretofore been a waste of time and money was soon to take a new twist.

chubby-checker-twist_l — No, not that kind of Twist, Chubby.

It was discovered that a flume of toxic material contaminated the west half of the park.

Oops. They're all empty. Now that's not very good, is it? — Oops. They're empty. Now that's not very good, is it?

Nobody in City Hall had bothered to do an environmental assessment before buying an old piece of industrial zoned property: not Gary Chalupsky the Redevelopment Director; not Susan Hunt the Community Services Director; not Bob Hodson the Engineering Director. All these Directors and nobody was directing anything. Perched atop of this shaky pyramid of incompetence sat Jim Armstrong, just waiting to bug out for the soonest better deal that offered itself. By the time the park was built Armstrong was gone, and his protege Chris Meyers was in charge – and probably damn glad this was Fullerton, where nobody was ever held accountable for anything.

Since 2003 a fence has been set up around the contaminated half of the park. Meanwhile the City has been wrangling with the Gas Company over clean-up costs. This is now 6 years of embarrassing closure, and counting. Half the park has been fenced off.

A lot of chainlink fence and dead grass. Not much of a park, is it?

Meanwhile, too, the few Fullertonians who were actually paying attention found out how little park $1,500,000 in land and $1,900,000 in construction gets you nowadays: a prefabricated toilet building, among other things. And the City continued its tradition of ludicrous design, for instance a monument sign with its own little roof! How precious!

What kind of genius would put a tile roof on a sign? And how come the tiles are broken?

And as predicted, the half-park attracted just the sort of element you don’t want hanging around your parks and your kids – gang taggers, cholos, and neighborhood borrachos. Fortunately few kids seem interested in playing there anyway.

In the proposed Redevelopment expansion this would be proof of blight!

As this park degenerates we wonder how long it will be and how many consultants hired and studies performed to recommend the re-Redevelopment of this park; or to pave it over for Metrolink parking! Since we know that the City doesn’t like to part with territory once they acquire it, we can only speculate about future foibles in the Never Ending Story.

Read the rest of the Paseo Park Chronicles – Part 1 – Part 2 – Part 3