Last month I was walking Independence Mall in Philadelphia and admiring the history and reflecting on what it would have been like in 1776. As I crossed Market Street to go look at the Liberty Bell I looked left and right scanning the streets. Then something caught my eye. The antique cityscape had something shiny and new nestled in between two pieces of historic-looking buildings.
The structure has jutting polished metal forming right angles and contrasts sharply against the backdrop of American history. The building’s unusual placement on the historic Mall speaks volumes of its purpose, though no billboards announce what that may be.
As I circle the Mall admiring the formation of our Country, my mind and camera wander back to the building, now more striking than when I saw it just moments ago. Seeing the building on the Mall and recognizing the unusual beauty of its presence in that location has caused me to question the direction the City of Fullerton has traveled for decades.
A recent FFFF post brought to light the Redevelopment Design Review Committee’s selections of less than inspiring architecture.
I used to have the strong opinion that modern designs just would not work in our downtown. After long debates and discussions with friends and my visit to Philadelphia I am confident that it can work well.
Entrepreneurs looking to raise the bar and make their place in Fullerton should look to innovative designs which will stand in contrast to our old and confused architecture. More importantly, when every other building is a bar or tattoo parlor, business owners need to look at ways of setting their establishment apart from the rest of the herd.
Update from admin: It’s 2011 and we’re still still catching stanky wiffs rising from the bog of mediocrity known as the RDRC. Yep, they’re still slowing and stalling residential additions, nitpicking the architectural details of private projects and using the know-nothing force of government to bear down on hapless homeowners trying to improve buildings that aren’t even visible from the public street. And so again we say…
The Fullerton Redevelopment Design Review Committee (RDRC) must be abolished. The committee was created in the 1970’s along with the Redevelopment Project Areas with the goal of fostering good architectural designs within them.
The trial run period is over. The RDRC and its associated bureaucratic process has failed – failed to improve design in either the project areas themselves, or in the ever growing number of projects in which city staff has required RDRC review. Actually the reverse is true. The failure has been spectacular.
Who says affordable housing has to look good?
The pages of this blog has been nauseatingly filled with examples of RDRC failure-projects dutifully approved by a compliant and complacent RDRC. Rather than promoting innovative and creative work-excellence, in fact, the RDRC has enabled city staff penchant for the phony, stucco, and brick veneered banalities intended to comfort the worst of middle brow aesthetic preferences.
Over the weary years the RDRC has been the precinct of local architects looking to promote their own interests within the city. Numerous examples of conflicts of interest were exposed in the 1990’s. And the city council keeps appointing to the RDRC dingbats, talent-free Pecksniffs, and interior decorators, to whom you wouldn’t entrust the design of a birdhouse. The existence of this committee provides the city council with a little political cover on potentially controversial projects, but accomplishes very little else.
And so we say: Abolish the RDRC! People developing their own property without subsidy or without legislative action by the City should be able to design their projects without city oversight; those receiving subsidy or significant zone changes should be required to use architects who have been published in reputable professional journals. Maybe when this happens we can have increased freedom for private owners and design excellence for City sponsored projects. Presently we have very little of either.
Neighbors around Lemon Park received a letter from the city inviting them to meetings on 5/31 and 6/28 to discuss the old Lemon Park Murals. The Public Art Committee would like feedback from the community…
1. Is there one or more mural out of the group you feel is/are absolutely essential to keep and restore?
2. Is there one or more mural out of the group that you feel is/are absolutely essential to remove or replace?
3. Please rank the murals in order of importance to the park and the community. A number 1 would indicate the most important, 12 the least.
Come Back Again and La Adelita
Fullerton Clasped Hands
Girl with Car
Cross with Crown of Thorns
The Town I Live In and Brown Car
Virgin de Guadalupe
La Mujer Latina
Zoot Suit Riots
Calle Elm
Los Ninos Del Mundo
4. If we are able to produce a new mural in or around Lemon Park, what subjects/themes would you like to see depicted in the mural.
FFFF will be forwarding all comments to the Fullerton Public Art Committee, the Fullerton Museum Board and the Fullerton City Council.
A Public Comment to the General Plan Advisory Committee By Judith Kaluzny
I ask that you remove the reference to a Business Improvement District from your draft of a general plan. I understand the mention is to “encourage” a business improvement district. A business improvement district is a tax on businesses, collected as a property tax by the county tax assessor, in a defined area. It can be based on property ownership–and the owners pass the costs along to their tenants; or on individual businesses in the district.
This is found in the codes of the State of California in the Streets and Highways code. Thing is, a city can assist a BID ONLY AFTER the business people on their own form a group, plan the boundaries, get a petition signed to ask for having a BID. A BID is NOT for paying for regular maintenance of an area, but for improvements. An executive director will be hired, and a board of directors elected–another level of government and taxation for your small downtown businesses in this case.
The redevelopment department, inappropriately, has already tried that for $3,000 paid to a consultant and a balance in the accounts for another $27,000 for that consultant. Four meetings were held; I attended all, as did Cameron Irons and Mr. Terranova. Only at the last meeting did about five other business owners attend. And I had handed out many fliers to alert downtown businesses.
A year or two before that, Cameron Irons sent out a survey to downtown property owners regarding a BID. He gave me copies of the 12 or 14 replies. All were against it, but two said, if you are going to have it, we will participate.
The Nicole Coats had a meeting or two to gin up support for a BID. The two people (me and Henry Jones) who indicated willingness to participate were not invited. Those meeting with Nicole Coats–Cameron Irons, Terranova, Theresa Harvey, and two or three more chose the consultant. Paul Dunlap said he was invited, but declined to participate.
The idea of a BID for downtown arose when Councilmember Quirk asked if there wasn’t some way to get money for paying for the costs of maintaining downtown. Redevelopment Director Zur Schmeide told her that a business improvement district might be a way.
When the consultant was hired, I talked to both the city manager and Councilmember Quirk. Mr Meyer said, “we have an eight block area that is costing us over million and a half dollars a year. We have to do something.” Councilmember Quirk also spoke of a BID paying for the excess costs of maintaining the restaurant overlay district.
This is not the appropriate use or purpose of a BID! And it is by law supposed to arise from the grass roots business people, not top down from the city to get tax money for maintenance.
What I see happening is that if a BID were established for downtown, the only people who would have time or interest to serve on the board of directors will be restaurant/bar owners. Then they will vote to spend the taxes raised for maintenance so the city will not be so burdened by the bar district. (Which burden the city council created by abolishing CUPs for restaurants downtown.)
The Downtown Fullerton Restaurant Association is a non profit listed as c/o Cameron Irons, 118 North State College Boulevard, same address as Vanguard Investment Properties.
I got hold of a press release from LULAC yesterday regarding their “plan” for County redistricting. LULAC stands for League of United Latin American Citizens, and the president of their Santa Ana chapter, Zeke Hernandez seemed pleased as punch with the monster he and cohort Arturo Montex have fashioned. First, here’s their map.
Fugly, ain't it?
And here’s the text of their press release:
League of United Latin American Citizens, Santa Ana LULAC Council #147
Established: National – 1929 | Santa Ana – 1946
Orange County LULAC District #1
PO Box 1810, Santa Ana , CA 92702-1810
PRESS RELEASE: May 23, 2011
Local Civil Rights Groups to Submit Proposed Redistricting Plans to Orange County Redistricting Committee
Santa Ana LULAC Council #147 (League of United Latin American Citizens) has submitted it’s completed county supervisorial plans with appropriate population data to the Orange County Redistricting Committee by the May 18 deadline. The Santa Ana LULAC county plan (Plan #3) and data are included in this press release (see also attachment).
Santa Ana LULAC President Zeke Hernandez states, “There are well-over twenty plans being submitted by county supervisors, community groups and individuals. Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Campbell announced at the May 17th board meeting that he himself is submitting four plans, including one suggested by former county supervisor Phil Anthony. We understand another county supervisor has submitted 10-12 plans through his/her appropriate office or through third party intermediaries. Other local elected officials may also be submitting their own plans.”
Due to population changes following the decennial federal census count in 2010, Santa Ana LULAC has been able to draft two supervisorial districts (1 and 4) with over 50% minority population. These two districts have a community of interest – sharing common social and economic interests. The Santa Ana LULAC Plan #3 is affirmed to stand on its merits for the purpose of a community’s fair and effective representation.
Hernandez added, “We have brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors its concerns that the redistricting committee has not adopted a definitive process on how it will review submitted plans and how it will determine which plans will be recommended for adoption. The committee has acknowledged it may even re-draw a submitted plan by the public to be sent to the Board for approval. Committee members are comprised of staff aides to the supervisors and were appointed by them to act on their behalf. The committee recently revised its writing of the committee meetings, but continues to do its best to provide very little content, thus thwarting public knowledge through written commentary.”
Santa Ana LULAC Public Policy Director Arturo Montez emphasizes, “We have drawn a plan that has ZERO concerns relating to incumbents, political parties and candidates. These plans were drawn, keeping in mind our strong adherence to the U.S. Voting Rights Act and the California Constitution. In addition, we have done our best to take into consideration the public’s concern for transparency and reform in the redistricting process.”
Montez continued, “Santa Ana LULAC feels its Plan #3 surpasses any other 20-23 plans that were submitted by the May 18th deadline. The question that now comes to the forefront: Will the Board of Supervisors recognize the dramatic demographic changes taking place in Orange County ? As proposed, District #1 has an 85% minority population, and District #4 has over 72% minority population. These are most likely the most heavily minority populated county districts in the nation.”
The redistricting committee will hold its first of several public meetings on Thursday, May 26 (2 pm) to review and receive public comments on the submitted plans. This first meeting will be held at Orange County Hall of Administration – Board Hearing Room, 333 West Santa Ana Blvd., 10 Civic Center Plaza, Santa Ana.
Established in 1946, Santa Ana LULAC Council #147 is the oldest LULAC council in California and is an affiliate of Orange County LULAC District#1 and LULAC National – founded in 1929 with its national office in Washington , D.C.
The mission and objectives of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is to advance the economic development, educational advancement, public policy outcomes, housing opportunities, health awareness, and general civil rights protection of Latinos in the United States and Puerto Rico through community-based programs and services through more than 700 local LULAC councils nationwide.
~~ end ~~
The funniest part of this “ZERO concerns” drivel is this gem: Montez continued, “Santa Ana LULAC feels its Plan #3 surpasses any other 20-23 plans that were submitted by the May 18th deadline. Now, Art hasn’t seen any of the other plans, nor apparently, does he even know how many were actually submitted. Yet it’s Plan 3 surpasses any other!
Judging by the map above, LULACs main purpose is to create a Latino-majority district in the Fourth and a near-Latino majority in the First. Well okay, that’s their agenda. But the map necessarily carves up four or five cities, including Fullerton, into two or more supervisorial districts in order to sequester “white” populations out of the districts in question. While ethnic gerrymandering for and against minorities is nothing new for, it flies in the face of one of the main goals of redistricting which is to keep cities wholly in one district.
This means that a decent plan should aim to consolidate Garden Grove and Newport Beach, not create more divided cities.
Another aim of redistricting is to create compact, geographically cohesive units. LULACs plan just makes the current odd shaped districts an even odder hodgepodge.
Earlier this month Terri Sforza wrote about a possible merger between Metropolitan Water District and the Orange County Water District. For years the Orange County Register has pointed out the redundant and ridiculous overlaps in these two agencies and how it makes sense for taxpayers, or rate payers depending on your view of payments to government bureaucracies.
How much money would be saved by such a merger seems to be open to debate but Sforza thinks at least $1-million right from the start. Putting the $1-million in perspective, Sforza notes that it is just a drop in the $300-million revenue bucket for the agencies.
What could go wrong?
Currently, the Orange County Water District is a “member agency” of the MWDOC. These multiple layers of bureaucracy removes the people, water users and voters, further from the decision-making table. Perhaps a merger will bring Fullerton voters and water users closer to the table of managements’ fiduciary responsibility to the people they serve.
As it stands, Fullerton voters get one single vote from Mayor Pro Tem Don Bankhead who represents Fullerton voters on the OCWD Board of Directors. That is one vote out of ten cast on each issue before the Board.
No one knows what a merger will mean for Fullerton. All we can do is wonder if a bigger water agency equates to a better water agency for those who foot the bill. If history has taught us anything it is that bigger government is not better government.
REMINDER: The Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee’s last meeting is tonight at 6:30PM at Fullerton City Hall. Don’t be shy, we’re in this together. Speak now or pay later!
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is spending $571,400 to fund their internal Ethics Office according to the approved 2011 budget.
Sometimes you've got to ask yourself "why?"
According to the District’s website, the Ethics Office “helps maintain an ethical culture at Metropolitan by enforcement of ethics-related rules and laws; education for directors, officers and employees; and enhancement by promotion of the District’s six core values.” Are MWD employees so unethical that they need this office? Maybe, but they don’t seem to be doing a very good job of educating employees and board members. I vaguely recall an attempt 2 years ago to get a 25% retroactive pension spike.
That’s $571,400 to “help maintain an ethical culture”.
The funds pay for one Ph.D. and two others identified as an educator and an administrative liaison. With failed overhead like this, it is no wonder the MWD Operations & Maintenance budget projects an 18.4% increase in salary and benefit costs as well as a 23% increase in construction related costs and a 23% increase in Water System Operations!
It’s also no wonder why Fullerton’s water rates are anticipated to nearly double.
This Monday, May 23rd, the City will be holding a public meeting with an ad-hoc water rate committee in the City Council chambers at City Hall (303 W. Commonwealth) at 6:30PM. I encourage ALL Fullerton water users to attend. You will be given an opportunity to voice your concerns and let committee members know where you stand.
If you would like a copy of the Fullerton Water Rate Study Ad Hoc Committee Briefing, please email me at GregSebourn@yahoo.com and I will email it to you.
Project Islamic H.O.P.E and the NAACP paid a visit to Fullerton today to protest at the home of Marilyn Davenport, the OC GOP Central Committee member who has drawn fire from just about everyone everywhere for sending out an email depicting Barack Obama as a chimpanzee.
An outcry against racism? Sure. Calls for Davenport’s resignation? OK. But these protesters seem to have something else in mind:
Does the office of the presidency demand unconditional love and respect? Should Americans not be “allowed” to insult the President?
Writer and Army wife Kanani Fong provided us with her commentary on the recent controversy surrounding Deb Pauly’s remarks at a Yorba Linda protest:
One of the most disturbing inclusions in Villa Park Council Woman and OC Republican Committee Representative Deb Pauly’s careless remarks at the recent protest in Yorba Linda was that she “knew a few Marines who would….” Of course, the remainder of this threat was that she knew Marines who would act as her personal ruffians to send to a private, peaceful event and do some harm.
Her words are a gross distortion of and do great dishonor to not only The Marine Corps, but all those who serve. The image she invoked reinforces the stereotype of our armed forces as an unthinking, heartless and randomly violent Leviathan force. Nothing can be further from the truth, and it is regretful Pauly brandished this threat as though she were a drunk gunslinger in a lawless saloon.
The Marines do not work this way. Their missions are well planned, involve a great deal of intelligence gathering, planning, and consideration. Perhaps she would not have been so careless with words had she been following The Marines progress in Helmand province, Afghanistan. The fulfillment of their mission has been nothing less than exemplary, showing not only the propensity to live and work alongside them, learn their local language, make it possible for the local Islam girls to go to school, in addition to restoring a climate of entrepreneurship where the local bazaar is thriving again. I have personal knowledge of the efforts being made over there, as my own husband is an active duty soldier, who in the past provided healthcare to Afghan locals in another province, Kunar. This included taking care of many children who were burn victims, and others who had suffered serious injuries due to IEDs.
Female Engagement Team, US Marines, are specially trained teams who work with women and children in Afghanistan.
The fact of the matter is that The Marines along with the world’s armed forces are bringing the first glimmer ofopportunity since the Russians killed an estimated four million Afghans, followed by the killing of 400,000 innocents during the Taliban regime.
I know a few Marines too, and none of them would do as Pauly insinuates. They are not thugs. They are professionals, and a great many have died in the line of duty to protect the locals from thugs who are hired by AlQaeda who come from all countries to work for peanuts for an ideology that results in the stripping away of human rights, torture, and death. Need anyone want a reminder, Dexter Filkins wrotes concisely about what the soccer stadium was used for in Kabul during the Taliban regime.
This is not to say that one does not question organizations such as CAIR. If one wants to look into the checkered past of CAIR, they will find plenty of past actions that run counter to peace. It’s also fair to ask this new offshoot of CAIR: Why didn’t they join up with local organizations that have been addressing homelessness and abuse decades? And of course, as I asked on my own military blog The Kitchen Dispatch, it is entirely fair to ask if they wanted to have a first event: Why invite two controversial and suspect individuals to an area known to be politically to the right?
I do think it is important to address extreme Islam, just as it is to question the actions of a few Christians carrying out extreme acts such as the Westboro church’s hateful protests against victims of AIDS and soldiers, and most recently Rev. Terry Jones’ burning of the Quran in Florida. To this, I would ask CAIR why they did not instead invite Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum For Democracy. Dr. Jasser is a former Navy Officer, who has gone on to speak out against radical Islam. These are the types of questions that are fair to put to the organizers of the event.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser is a former Naval Officer, physician and devout Muslim who speaks out against extreme Islam.
I am also perplexed why Ed Royce would decide to take his stand at this event. It would seem that while there are bonafide concerns about radical Islam, neither politician used common sense, or went about it in an intelligent way. Pauly’s remarks were self aggrandizing and akin to proving herself as “more a military supporter than others, and also more as a conservative Republican than others.” However, she has fallen short, has embarrassed herself and has greatly maligned the honor and professionalism of those who serve. Pauly seems to be a highly risky person for Republicans to include as it tries to remake itself into a timely and current political party.
Good news for OC Republicans who frequent blogs: looks like my buddy Chip Hanlon let my other buddy Allan Bartlett post again. Sha-zam!
Bartlett’s near re-inaugural post makes for entertaining reading. It’s all about some dust up between Mike and Mary and a conservative drinkies hour with Chuck Devore as the featured attraction. Now I personally can’t imagine anything more dreary than drinks and Chuck Devore droning on (except maybe no drinks and Chuck Devore droning on), but that’s a whole ‘nother issue.
What’s really fun is the comments thread where the insiders have at it.
Damn, do we finally have a fun Republican blog in town?
I ask that you remove the reference to a Business Improvement District from your draft of a general plan. I understand the mention is to “encourage” a business improvement district. A business improvement district is a tax on businesses, collected as a property tax by the county tax assessor, in a defined area. It can be based on property ownership–and the owners pass the costs along to their tenants; or on individual businesses in the district.
