FFFF supports causes that promote intelligent, responsible and accountable government in Fullerton and Orange County
Category: The Observer
The Fullerton Observer is a “progressive” publication based in the City of Fullerton. It is edited and published by Sharon Kennedy. The Observer is often criticized for the subtle interweaving of editorial content within news coverage. It doesn’t cost anything so you get what you pay for.
FFFF has received the following communication from a Wilshire Avenue resident who has asked for anonymity to avoid persecution from the Walk on Wilshire pressure group, stirred up by the Fullerton Observer:
The mob looked a lot bigger than it was…
This past Tuesday, Fullerton City Council permitted the reopening of Wilshire Avenue to auto traffic, removing the annoying impediment known locally as “Waste on Wilshire.” Starting January 31, the street will reopen to through vehicular traffic, marking the end of the Wilshire Avenue experiment in frustration, deception, and stupidity.
Yesterday, at the invitation of the Fullerton Observer, a handful of self righteous dopes gathered at the Waste. The Observer had encouraged them to show up and “join the peaceful gathering and protest the decision,” bringing “Save WoW” signs to show solidarity.
Their cult followers were asked to mislead passersby into believing this is an overwhelmingly unpopular decision driven by selfish or ego-centric motives. They framed the post as a “fight” against two corrupt of council members and a couple selfish businesses – implying that the WoWers represent a vast and unified community sentiment when, in reality, it was never more than a core handful of ideologues with nothing to lose.
While the Observer statement expresses appreciation for the supporters of the initiative and “incredible” individuals met throughout this process, it purposely suggests that only those who supported Walk on Wilshire are the only the ones truly connected to the community—ignoring those with valid concerns that didn’t align with the narrative of “saving” the space.
Thank God Vivian Jaramillo was not elected to the City Council, otherwise the City would be looking at a lawsuit that would only end with a big payday to the City Attorney defending another losing lawsuit, leading to yet again, a big loss for the taxpayers of Fullerton.
We have recently communicated with the City of Fullerton, via our attorney Kelly Aviles, that FFFF wishes to put a periodic publication for dissemination in the lobby of City Hall; naturally other City buildings such as the Community Center and the Library could be included.
You’ve got mail!
Here’s the letter to City Manager Eric Levitt:
Dear Mr. Levitt:
I hope this finds you well. I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Fullerton’s Future, who’s in the process of launching a new newspaper publication to serve the residents of Fullerton. As part of the marketing and distribution efforts, my client seeks to place a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall, similar to the arrangements that have been made with other local newspapers.
We respectfully request the City Council grant approval for my Client to install a newspaper rack in the lobby of City Hall. My Client has secured a financial commitment from a local businessman for a significant amount of private financing to launch this new business endeavor committed to contributing to the local community by providing important local news, restaurant reviews, business advertisements, and information that reflects the diverse interests of our city’s residents and their needs for alternative news sources. In addition, an application to form a new 501-c4 will soon be filed with the IRS for this venture.
Please let me know if there are any specific procedures or requirements that need to be followed to facilitate this request or if the Council has any preferences regarding the placement of such a news rack at City Hall. We are eager to comply with any guidelines you may have.
Thank you for your time and consideration and we look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Kelly Aviles
Of course deploying an attorney suggests we mean business and might have to use legal redress if our request were to be denied. Why? Because the City currently permits the distorted and warped Fullerton Observer access to City premises.
No news is good news…
I can’t see the City employees being too happy about this, at least not the department heads who have so often embroiled the taxpayers in boondoggles and losing litigation.
Then there’s the likely apoplectic response from “Drs.” Zahra and Charles, should our request be approved
I don’t know how long it’s been since City Hall faced real scrutiny of its activities. The denizens thereof must love them some obsequious Fullerton Observer. But the public deserves a new and much more objective option.
At the last Fullerton City Council meeting, newly elected 4th District representative Jamie Valencia proposed reducing the time allotted to each general public commenter from three to two minutes. Her reasoning was to produce more efficient meetings. The motion failed 3-2 with Nick Dunlap, in what seems to be a trend, voting with Ahmad Zahra and Shana Charles – the Council’s two obnoxious moralistic pontificators.
The speakers present at the meeting objected, as well they might. That’s because many of them are constantly haranguing the Council majority about this or that, enjoying three minutes to blather away.
And of course the semi-literate Skaskia Kennedy at the Fullerton Observer couldn’t resist angry editorializing:
“In an apparent disregard for public engagement, newly elected District 4 councilmember Jamie Valencia made a motion to reduce the time allotted for each public commentor (sic) to speak at the start of city council meetings from three to two minutes.“
The general thrust of the opposition to the motion was that this proposal was an affront to public engagement, public participation, etc., etc.
Now, these are the same people who, if given three minutes will use it up, in pointless repetition, non sequitur, and in one recent case, a minute of silence just to annoy everybody.
On the face of it, Ms. Valencia’s proposal seemed like bad politics, and maybe it was.
What seems to be missing here on the part of Dunlap, Zahra and Charles is the understanding that these speakers are members of the public, but are not “the public.” They have been chosen by nobody but themselves, and represent nobody but themselves. Some of them are driven by some inner impulse to share their mental gyrations about something or other and, if given 180 seconds, will use them all.
But, hey, wait just a second. Why must all the other members of the public in attendance, or watching online be subjected to 180 seconds of the same nonsense over and over again? Why can’t everybody else enjoy shorter, better run meetings?
No one is claiming that the right to speak at a meeting be eliminated, or that “engagement” be ended. But why not make these folk distill their comments into something more concise, more relevant and more intelligent? My own attitude is that if you can’t express a general observation, complaint, or even irrelevant philosophizing into two minutes, then there’s something wrong with you.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
By now FFFF readers know that the truth and the Fullerton Observer, run by Kennedy Sisters Skaskia and Sharon, are often at odds. These two dimwits seem to think their editorializing and narrative peddling go hand in hand with reporting news.
Well, they’ve done it again.
Thoughts and prayers…
While alerting their readers of the upcoming “Walk on Wilshire” vote on Tuesday, they lead off with this gem:
The city council is set to determine the fate of Walk On Wilshire on Tuesday, January 21, with a session at 5:30pm at Fullerton City Hall, 303 W. Commonwealth Ave. The recommendation is to accept a proposed motion to permanently close W. Wilshire from Harbor to Malden to vehicular traffic, thereby expanding Walk on Wilshire or to open the entire street to traffic by February 2025.
I seen the light!
This is not only completely backwards, but it omits the most important part of the agenda staff report, to wit: closing the whole block is not recommended; rather opening the street back up in February 2025 is the proposed action. There is a back up option to close the street, among several others should the Council decide not to follow the recommended action.
Giving honesty the middle finger…
This statement is tantamount to a lie, and at best can be considered intentional disinformation, the scrofulitic handmaiden that closely follows the Kennedy Sisters where ever they go. It’s clear they want to drum up support for the stupid boondoggle they have come to cherish, and are willing to mislead their fellow travelers into thinking that staff has actually recommended the street closure for the whole block. No, now that I think about it, this isn’t “tantamount” to a lie. It is a lie.
Hmm. Did we lay an egg recently?
But the standard of objective honesty among Fullerton Observer readers seems to be so consistently low and the casual acceptance of subjective ideology so high, that this sort of bullshit passes as journalism among them.
Yes, Friends, the so-called Walk on Wilshire is coming back to the City Council this Tuesday. For the fourth or fifth time this annoying street closure is being reconsidered. I really don’t know how often this mess has been rehashed. But I do know that City staff has turned this temporary remedy for COVID relief into a stupid, near permanent boondoggle. The bureaucrats in City Hall love them some Walk on Wilshire. It offers an opportunity for them to program things there, to collect what little rent comes in, and hide it all under the nonsensical concept of “business development.”
Of course it has nothing to do with business development. No one in City Hall has ever presented a comprehensive cost or budget analysis on this nonsense, and its adherents in the community who want to claim the street and block off cars don’t care. It’s another liberal gesture in which misplaced feelings are ever so more important than cost/benefit study.
One step ahead?
Last fall Mayor Fred Jung added a caveat to a Shana Charles proposal for another three month extension to do even more studying. Jung proposed to take the street closure all the way from Harbor to Malden – the whole damn block. To anybody with any sort of brains this was a non-starter idea meant to spike the 200ft closure one and for all. Naturally, the dopes Charles and Ahmad Zahra greedily went for it, the love the anti-auto gesture so much.
Tuesday’s staff report includes traffic crap bought from consultants by staff (our money, of course) to make the closure seem plausible, one conclusion being that impacts to traffic would be minimal. This is pure bullshit, of course. The comparison numbers between the 100 W. blocks of Amerige and Wilshire are based on the current Wilshire closure, the analogy being that botched surgery has already so weakened the patient that a little more cutting won’t make much difference anyhow.
Did City Manager Levitt see the light?
Fortunately, the City Manager seems to have brought some commonsense to the project. Citing staff’s inability to guarantee there won’t be a traffic impact, and noting the problem of access to businesses and residences on Wilshire, the recommendation is to drop the whole thing. There is also the potential of legal action lurking in the future, so there’s that, too. Staff recommends reopening the whole street to auto traffic and letting businesses on Wilshire pursue the “parklet” option of outdoor dining, a fairly reasonable approach.
Well, Fullerton BooHoo will be out in force on Tuesday to moan and wail about the absolute criticality of the Walk on Wilshire, despite the fact that except for a few silly events planned in desperation, the place is empty most of the time; and the Downtown Plaza, perfectly suitable for this sort of thing, is only a few hundred feet away.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
But appreciation of facts and deployment of common sense can’t be listed among the skillset of people like the Kennedy Sisters and their ilk. But things aren’t looking good for The Walk. Nick Dunlap will recuse himself again, leaving four councilmembers to provide the three votes necessary to keep the boondoggle on life support.
Well, the answer to that question depends on who you are and what you want.
Last Tuesday’s Fullerton City Council agenda featured an item to modify some of the current roster of committees and commissions. The idea was to schedule fewer meetings for some, get rid of “at-large” members in others and in one case, the Active Transportation Committee, roll it into the Transportation and Circulation Committee. The Planning Commission was to be expanded to seven members by adding two at-large members.
Naturally, the true nature of these committees and what they actually accomplish was not part of the discussion.
Almost no city committees are legally necessary according to State law – except, I believe, Library Boards and Planning Commissions. The rest are there, presumably, to give the public a chance to contribute to the charming swindle known as participatory government. This is almost always a fiction, as anybody who has spent any time watching these shows, knows. The committees are little better than rubber stamps.
Never in doubt…
City staff likes committees because it gives them a chance to build momentum behind one of their pet projects – to create an aura of inevitability about this or that. It’s an opportunity to go to the City Council and explain the unanimous support for their item. And if, perchance, a committee shows a little independence then their ideas and their votes are mere suggestions with no legal standing.
Some of the bureaucratic enthusiasm for committees must have waned a bit when Fullerton went to direct Council appointments a few years back. Previously choices were made by review panels made up of council and committee members who could be relied on to pick “sound” people, that is, folks who could be trusted not to rock the proverbial boat.
Application denied…
In the olden days staff liked larger committees. The reasoning seemed to be that the more members you had the more impotent the commission really was.
City Council members like to put friends and allies on committees, and, in the case of the Planning Commission, maybe even someone moving up in Fullerton’s political arena. This is how you build a political machine: you help people, they help you.
It is not uncommon that if there is an annoying member of the public, an irritant at Council meetings, he or she might just be shut up by being put on a committee, becoming part of the team, so to speak. It worked shockingly often. John Henry Habermeyer, Estelle Geddy Professor of Political Science and Economics at RPI for many years, describes the scenario eloquently:
“The answer is to asphyxiate the irritant in a smothering embrace; to draw said miscreant into the circle of government itself by appointing this him to some footling committee or other, thereby causing him to voluntarily silence himself in deference to the grand fraternity to which he has been officially welcomed. He has a name plate; perhaps even a coveted parking space! Many an underdeveloped and agitated ego has been assuaged by such a maneuver and its proprietor thereby silenced.“
Committee members who are not impatient with bureaucratic doubletalk like to be on committees, especially if they can sit up on the dais in the City Council chamber. It makes them feel good about things, an ego boost.
Of course the public is completely unaware or even interested in committee meetings which are almost always held in empty rooms.
Since almost everybody seems to like the current set-up, why the proposed alterations? The staff report referred to economies, efficiencies, and such-like. The verbiage didn’t sound very heart-felt or persuasive and the reader gets the impression of a top down diktat from Mayor Fred Jung to clean things up.
In the end most of the proposed reductions to five directly appointed members of certain commissions was approved, which is basically a smart move. The inconsistent proposal to increase the Planning Commission membership to seven (actually the way it used to be) failed. The motion to keep it the way it is passed 3-2 with Fred Jung and Jamie Valencia voting no.
On a side note, Fullerton Boohoo was at the meeting to display their unhappiness. Why not? The altar of probity, the Fullerton Observer had tried to stir up opposition earlier with one of their editorial/news mishmashes. The funniest part of this effort was to explain that these committees help keep staff “accountable,” an obvious misdirection from the Kennedy Sisters who have never cared about staff accountability before.
Whether or not the changes would have saved anybody time or money is debatable. What is not debatable is that these footling committees are there to look like public participation is going on, when it hardly ever is.
Why write about news when you can try to make your own! (Photo by Julie Leopo/Voice of OC)
In the the online edition of their rag, the Fullerton Observer sisters, Sharon and Skaski explain their behavior in intentionally defaming named individuals as purveyors of lies. These were some of the people who contributed to Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, a group that made it its mission to educate the public about the candidate Vivian Jaramillo in the 2024 City Council election.
Skaskia doubles, triples down on her assertion of slander and defamation against poor Cannabis Kitty Jaramillo by Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, but claims there was no intent to “harm the reputations of its contributors.” Well, of course there was intent to harm; the inclusion of individual names directly linked to accusations of distributing falsehoods was obviously intentional.
Hmm. Did we lay an egg recently?
It is comical that if you think about it, the Kennedy Sister’s underlying excuse must be that they didn’t know what they were doing. Exculpation through ineptitude! That phrase should be prominent on their Observer header.
Is this a sufficient “full retraction and public apology?”
In an article at their censored Fullerton Observer “blog,” the Kennedy Sisters, Sharon and Skaskia, have posted a story about misleading political advertising in the past election, to wit: political mailers aimed at their darling, Vivian Jaramillo by Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform. Tellingly, they didn’t use their names, but rolled out their favorite “staff” byline, when clearly there was an author. Journalism at its best. The theme is “Is there truth behind negative ads?”
Lies, lies, lies. And facts.
This effort is clearly meant to reinforce their position that Fullerton Taxpayers For Reform did indeed engage in “lies” about Jaramillo, and that they, therefore, are not subject to legal rebuke for saying so in print.
Giving honesty the middle finger…
The only problem is that the sisters didn’t address their basic problem. Their assertions that lies were told requires some sort of effort to show it. But they didn’t. Can’t, or didn’t want to. They do want their gullible, low IQ readers to believe that Jaramillo’s “team,” a team that clearly included Jaramillo endorser Diane Vena, was not a participant in creating the fraudulent candidacy of Scott Markowitz, the fake Trumpy, newly minted Republican, dredged up by one or more Jaramillo supporter to draw votes away from presumed threat, Linda Whitaker. And that/those someone(s) wanted Jaramillo to win; and wanted it so badly that they suborned patsy Markowitz’s perjury.
Yes, I was a phony from Day 1. And it was obvious…
Comically, the Kennedy Sisters claim that Vivian Jaramillo knows nothing about the Markowitz scam and it must be true because Jaramillo is honest! And that’s funny, too, because some of her supporters were in on it; Diane Vena, also a writer for the Fullerton Observer, signed Markowitz’s nomination papers, she supposedly told Sharon Kennedy, at the behest of a “friend.” A friend Kennedy later described as a “conservative friend.” And we’ve said it before: Diane Vena was either in on the fraud it or is the stupidest person in Fullerton.
There is no doubt that some member(s) in the team Jaramillo circle large or small, created the Scott Markowitz candidacy, and the assertion is therefore true.
The shoe fit…
Then the Kennedy Sisters turn the problem of Jaramillo as a running dog for the marijuana dispensary cartel that has been tryin to get its hooks into Fullerton via Ahmad Zahra for years.
Claims were made by FTFR that Jaramillo supported the short-lived ordinance pushed through at the end of 2020. She did. And she also supported its reinstatement the following year. And that ordinance would have allowed a dispensary 100 feet from a residential zone. The Sisters try to explain that away by reminding us that the ordinance was a whopping 32 pages long, presumably excusing accountability for having supporting all parts of it. Whatever. There’s a reason the dispensary cartel laundered $60,000 through the national grocery store union to pay for an “independent” committee dedicated to electing Jaramillo, a situation the Observer Sisterhood still hasn’t mentioned.
The Kennedy Sistren doesn’t seem to get it. They are still peddling the same dodges, misdirection, and disingenuous (or dumb) arguments they made during the campaign on their stupid blog. If you’re going to call somebody a liar, the burden of proof is on you to show it. Relying on the alleged moral fiber of your friends Vena and Jaramillo doesn’t cut it. You may believe gentle and kind Diane Vena; you may hold up Jaramillo as a pillar of probity. But that doesn’t entitle you to call anybody else a liar, in print. That could well be libelous.
I’m not talking…
Lots of truths can be ferreted out under oath by aggressive lawyers from people like Ajay Mohan, the Democrat operative who helped create the newly MAGA-tized Markowitz. Good Old Ajay knows where lots of bodies are buried.
I don’t know how serious FTFR really is in pursuing its demand for retractions and apologies. Is it just a little inexpensive irritation aimed at the Kennedy’s at this point? Maybe, but If I were the Kennedy sisters I’d be inclined not to say anymore.
FFFF has received the following demand letter to the Kennedy Sisters of the Fullerton Observer from Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, via their lawyer Alexander and Briggs. It seems these good folk don’t take kindly to being called liars from people who daily refuse to acknowledge what everybody else can plainly see.
When not disrupting City Council meetings Skaskia Kennedy is the editor of the still Yellowing Fullerton Observer. A few days ago she published a piece, which I reproduce below, verbatim. See if you can tell what immediately jumps out to me.
The City of Fullerton is working to establish limited inclement weather shelter options for families and seniors (62+) as temperatures drop below 40 degrees or during heavy rainfall. According to City Manager Eric Levitt, efforts have been made to collaborate with various agencies, but securing a provider to operate a dedicated shelter for this winter has proven challenging.
“Unfortunately, there are no similar shelters in Orange County due to the high costs and complexities involved,” Levitt stated. In response to these difficulties, Levitt and his colleague Housing Manager Daniel Valdez have developed alternative options following directives from recent City Council meetings.
The city plans to work with two local hotels to offer shelter specifically for families and individuals aged 62 and older when weather conditions reach critical levels. However, Levitt acknowledged that the initiative will have limited scope due to resource constraints. “We currently have approximately $5,000 allocated from the Housing Fund to assess the effectiveness of this program,” he added.
Council Member Ahmad Zahra sent an email thanking Levitt and Valdez for the update on cold weather shelter for the unhoused and agreed that this is a good alternative option. He wrote, “How would families or individuals over 62 know about this program? Also curious, why 62 specifically?”
In response to Council Member Zahra’s inquiry, Housing Manager Valdez emphasized the importance of prioritizing seniors, who are often among the most vulnerable populations. Citing federal guidelines, Valdez explained that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines seniors as those aged 62 and over. “While we will continue to utilize our local shelter whenever available, this initiative offers an additional option for those in need,” he said.
To facilitate outreach, the city will rely on the efforts of Community Outreach Specialists, HOPE Center personnel, and Homeless Liaison Officers, all of whom maintain ongoing communication with unsheltered residents.
As the winter months approach, Fullerton’s initiative aims to address the urgent needs of its most vulnerable citizens despite the limitations presented by funding and provider availability.
Thoughts and prayers…
First, we know this isn’t even newsworthy because nothing has happened. The City Manager Eric Levitt and his hard-working Housing Manager Daniel Valdez are thinking about doing something, somewhere to help homeless somebodies. They haven’t actually accomplished anything worthy of alerting the public.
I will get what I want, one way or another…
But hold on a second. How and why is the email correspondence between Ahmad Zahra and the City Manager included in this nothing waste of space? The answers to both questions are easy. The “why” is: a free opportunity for Zahra to posture for his Observer followers – ever active, thoughtful, hands-on – even though his involvement is with…nothing! The “how” is just as easy. It is the ever self-promoting Zahra who has forwarded his correspondence to Skaskia Kennedy to make him look good and to give the Kennedy Sisters another opportunity to promote Zahra in a “news” story.
Legitimate journalism operations don’t let politicians promote themselves, especially when the vehicle is, as yet, a non-story.
On a clear day you can see forever…
Now this can be seen as beating a dead horse, since anybody paying attention already knows that the Fullerton Observer is not a legitimate journalistic endeavor, and the Kennedy Sisters are not purveyors of objective news. Still, we have yet another example of how the they gladly aid and abet Zahra under the cover of journalism – just like they did when they published water articles Zahra plagiarized from an OCWD PR flack.
