Fullerton’s left wing joined with its Old Timey Republican enemies back in the 1990s in a rather unsavory but comical embrace. The sight of Dick Ackerman and Molly McClanahan on stage, debating as pals was a joy for some to see since it corroborated evidence that the two groups were really no longer that different, and the Main Goal was to defend the walls of City Hall from the obnoxious prying eyes of “unknown” outsiders.
18 years later the two groups found themselves again in desperate solidarity as another recall offered a new and unsettling future with unkempt barbarians at the gate.
Never wound a king…
At the center of both tumults? My old friend Tony Bushala was at the center of the vortex of evil. A fun, self-deprecating video made by a Friend in 2012 was actually stolen by sad sacks Dick Ackerman and Larry Bennett and published on the anti-recall website. You can’t make up this level of Grade A stupidity. Anyhow, here’s the video.
Nowadays, Tony seems once again to be the target of his haters – dipshits that have done an awful lot less for Fullerton than Bushala. These are the remnants of Fullerton Boohooo and a scraggle of uninformed nitwits who actually respond to the delusional Kennedy sisters, Sharon and Saskatoon.
It seems that the name Tony Bushala has once again become a byword for selfish self-interest among a certain segment of Fullertonions. This time it’s the the ultra-liberal boneheads who want to waste public money on stupid make-work boondoggles like the Trail to Nowhere and the idiot Walk on Wilshire, ideas catapulted forward by ideology instead of commonsense.
Pay no attention to the dinosaur behind the curtain…
Last time, it was the the balding Fullerton Republican Establishment that objected to Bushala’s political involvement in creating the 2012 recall. At the time, these sad relics of an earlier epoch claimed that Bushala wanted to buy the City, failing to admit that it would have been an awful lot cheaper to just give the incumbents a few grand and a pat on the head.
At the time, the following video was made. It’s still worth watching 13 years later.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want the abandoned Union Pacific Park reopened. It was a crime-ridden attractive nuisance from the day it opened even without considering the toxic substances that had to be remediated after the damn thing was built.
But there seems to be an interesting reason the park hasn’t been reopened 18 months after the City Council ordered the fence around the vacant land be taken down. And the reason could be that there isn’t enough money in the Park Dwelling Fee Fund to pay for it. These funds are collected from developers to pay for new park facilities, presumably to reflect the new projected increase in population.
This situation emerged at a Fiscal Sustainability Committee meeting a while back. The Fund has about $800,000 to $900,000, according to Assistant City Manager Daisy Perez, and at least $300,000 of that is already earmarked for the delusional “Trail to Nowhere” plan. It also emerged that the massive eyesore project called “The Hub,” on Commonwealth at the 57 Freeway, has not paid it’s Park Dwelling Fees, a number amounting to $5,000,000, staff said.
We gotta go up!
It seems that for some reason the City gave the developer of the project a waiver on the required upfront fees, until the project has a certificate of occupancy. That $5 million is burning a hole in somebody’s pocket, and it sure ain’t our pocket. How this happened is another story, and a good one, too, I’ll bet.
In the meantime, we seem to have some sort of Mexican Standoff – UP Park vs. Trail to Nowhere. The Park is assumed to have been given priority, but there’s no money for it. Meantime the Trail to Nowhere waits in the wings, embarrassingly, having missed several entrance cues demanded by the State, the most important of which were submission of plans by 6/24; start of construction by 8/24; and viable plant life by 10/25.
The idea may have been bad, but it sure was old.
One of the selling points of the Trail to Nowhere is that it connected to the UP Park (of course that was another lie, too – it ends at Highland Avenue). But what if there is no UP Park at all?
Poor, disheartened Diane Vena reminded the City Council about the Trail to Nowhere at their last meeting. Poor Diane, a liberal activist, and a member of team Jaramillo, is best known for her suspicious nomination of the phony Republican candidate, Scott Markowitz, in the 2024 4th District election.
It may be a total waste of money, but it sure is short…
Well, thanks, Poor Diane. It’s about time someone mentioned the Trail to Nowhere, even if in passing.
Friends will recall that the Union Pacific Trail project – funded by the State of California Department of Natural Resources – was finally approved by the City Council over a year ago. The conceptual “trail” goes from nowhere to nowhere and was going to cost $2,100,000 to build.
Nothing left but empty bloviation…
As usual, the idea was cooked up by City staff as a make work project, and was then vigorously supported by the Fullerton Observer Sisters and a few dozen knuckleheads taken in by the ingratiating Astroturfer, Ahmad Zahra.
Maybe the less said, the better…
Anyhow, Poor Diane believes the Trail has been deliberately put on the back burner due to the Council’s desire to first open the Union Pacific Park, more commonly referred to as the Poison Park. This is true – sort of. In August, 2023 the council majority directed City staff to drop or redeploy the grant and re-open the fenced off park. There was no timetable, and apparently no money either, since the empty park site still sits there 18 months later, even though a conceptual plan was drawn.
Pickleball for La Communidad…
Poor Diane believes lack of progress on the park is deliberate – a cynical ploy to delay the Trail until the grant money time allowance runs out. This could be true, and I certainly hope it is. Fullerton did renounce the grant in August, 2023 and then backtracked after months of harassment from Zahra’s annoying claque.
The deadline in the grant agreement was October 2025 for completion of the project – including “plant estabishment.” That’s about eight months away. But there are already original milestones that have been missed. Here’s the schedule from the grant agreement:
Final plans were due last June, and construction was supposed to start last August. Has the State granted Fullerton time extensions? If so why doesn’t the public know about it? If not, why hasn’t the State demanded its money back, per the agreement? Good questions, no good answers.
If working drawings have been completed and submitted, the public hasn’t been favored with a glimpse. And you need completed construction drawings to bid a public works project, let alone build it. There’s the hitch. At this point Fullerton would have only eight months to publish plans, receive bids, get a responsive bid, sign contracts and then construct the trail, a project that would turn out to be a lot more complicated and expensive than any of the conveniently departed Parks officials could have imagined.
Alice Loya’s pretty palette…
Why more complicated and expensive? Because of all the toxic water monitoring wells, the need for new water lines, new storm drain systems, and resolution of cross lot drainage issues – none of which are even included in the grant scope of work! It’s a pretty good guess that the cost of construction in the grant application was woefully underestimated. And nobody in City Hall ever admitted the presence of TCEs along the happy trail.
Well, well, well…
I suppose the City could get down on their knees and sing the blues to the state, asking for more time. Maybe staff already has. Or maybe, just as likely, the Department of Natural Resources and its chief, Wade Crowfoot, don’t even keep track of what happens to their money despite specific performance requirements in the grant agreement. After all, it’s not their money. Remember the $1,000,000 Core and Corridors Specific Plan, paid for by a State “sustainability” grant, that vanished into thin air?
Bon appetit!
Well, I guess we’ll have to keep an eye on this to see what’s happening. I’d hope that the Council provides an honest appraisal of the status of this hairy boondoggle, but that’s unlikely. So far nobody but FFFF has told a single truth about this fiasco.
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.
I say for now because in Fullerton nothing truly goes away if staff wants something. And boy did they want the wasteful, little-used, annoying road blockage.
Still, for the present, staff has been directed to open the street.
Thoughts and prayers…
At last night’s City Council meeting, no majority was present to keep the embarrassing WoW on life support, let alone expand it to Malden. On a 2-2 vote no positive action could be taken. Now businesses and residents who used to use Wilshire to get to and from Harbor Boulevard will be able to do it again.
But oh Sweet Baby Jebus, how the crowd gave it a go. Dozens of speakers cheered for the dumb idea, almost none of whom had any skin in the game, as they say. The nonsense went way over the top, including some who actually said businesses were going to be hurt if the street was opened! The only businesses supporting this were not even located on Wilshire.
My God, their descriptions of this 200ft kiddie chalk surface were rhapsodic. The Garden of Eden. Central Park. Golden Gate Park, doncha know. Cars are frightening. So fun to get off the sidewalk. Peaceful and serene. Back to nature, even!
Naturally a few of the speakers were vitriolic. One, a ill-tempered shrew named Karen Lloreda questioned the integrity of Jamie Valencia for taking campaign money from bad people. Lloreda didn’t bother share with the public that she was an endorser of Kitty Jaramillo, the woman Valencia defeated to become a councilmember, so I’ll do it here.
Diane Vena, proud Scott Markowitz supporter…
Diane Vena, another Jaramillo supporter (and supporter of the felonious Republican candidate Scott Markowitz) showed up to take the usual moral high ground, too, adding some unintended irony to the goings on.
Then there was this acolyte of Ahmad Zahra, a perpetually angry little person spilling her overflow of venom at council meetings in a rapid-fire succession of aspersions. She claimed to be a business owner (of course no details forthcoming) and asserted that opening Wilshire would be detrimental to business! It seems that if your heart is in the right place you can make any claim you want.
The train of thought short, but it sure was slow…
Of course the younger Kennedy sister, Skasia showed up to support the stupid, and yammer about something so far above her head she might as well have been discoursing on astrophysics.
Dancing on the grave of Walk on Wilshire…
We learned three things last night. Jamie Valencia and Fred Jung can demonstrate commonsense in the face of angry, histrionic boohoodom. We also learned that Councilmember Shana Charles appears to be the mastermind behind keeping Wilshire blocked off. Her closing statement was a litany of her special academic qualifications as an urban planner and a public heath expert of some sort. And in retrospect one gets the idea that it was she who rounded up speakers to attend the meetings last year, too. Her completely callous attitude toward Wilshire businesses may come back to haunt her. If Charles thinks she gets to tell businesses whether they are doing well enough to satisfy her, and expects them to buy it, she’s got another think coming.
We also learned that Sunaya Thomas, Fullerton’s was willing to let the Council believe that $50,000 to $250,000 was a price range for closing the block, when in reality it was just the possible cost of the design side of stuff. Zahra jumped at the chance to waste $50K up front and let staff come back for more, a typical, incompetent attitude.
One step ahead.
And finally let’s give another nod to Fred Jung, whose suggestion to close down the whole block gummed up the works, but good.
And let’s celebrate for ourselves. At least for now the taxpayers of Fullerton dodged another losing lawsuit that was surely headed our way.
Good God, the latest diatribe from the unhinged Kennedy Sister known as Skasia is a doozy.
In this editorial she really loses touch with reality. An intervention is necessary, but I’m not sure if anybody in that family is mentally balanced.
Ms. Kennedy claims in her headline that Jamie Valencia has returned a campaign contribution and that there is a controversy. Of course she would like to create one, but other than that there’s nothing noteworthy. The “controversy” is entirely the fabrication of Skasia’s feeble and febrile brain.
It seems that Valencia has come under “scrutiny” (passive voice, of course – no who what why or when) for getting a campaign contribution from Tony Bushala. No news there. Bushala gives lots of money to lots of candidates all over Orange County, including Fullerton. But alas! Bushala has opposed the Observer’s pet project – the dismal Walk on Wilshire. And the vote to get rid of it is tonight. Uh oh.
Slakskia tells us this situation “raises questions” about the applicability of SB 1439 (we have no idea who is asking questions – other than Skasia, of course). Naturally, this is a red herring since SB 1439 has to do with regulations on electeds voting on stuff like permit applications, zone changes, government contracts and the like. It has nothing to do with what Bushala likes, or wants, or dreams about. SB 1439 is completely inapplicable to the Walk on Wilshire as far as Bushala is concerned.
The best line is added out of the blue, a sign that poor Skasia can can’t write something an 8 year old would be ashamed of:
During her campaign, Valencia said the street needed to be open for fire and police (it has been OKed by the Fire Department) and suggested “we can find space elsewhere,” without saying where that might be. In 2024, Fullerton recorded 55 car accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists, resulting in 49 pedestrian fatalities and 6 cyclist fatalities.
This statement of “fact” has nothing to do with Jamie Valencia, or anything else for that matter. It’s thrown in to show why closing a block of Wilshire is important. The other problem is that it is comical. 49 pedestrian deaths in Fullerton in 2024? Why, we’d all be way safer in Juarez, Mexico during the cartel wars. That is so fucking stupid that we now know we have entered the labyrinthine Twilight Zone of this imbecile’s mind.
Oh, but busy Skasia soldiers on. She has contacted the city manager to see if Valencia must recuse herself on the Walk on Wilshire vote. Eric Levitt has informed Kennedy that a return of the Bushala funds is “in progress.” It isn’t. It was done 2 months ago.
Even then Kennedy isn’t finished. She adds this shining pearl:
“As the city council navigates this matter, the implications of campaign finance laws and potential conflicts of interest for elected officials continue to be significant points of discussion among constituents and stakeholders.”
Here again the poor, self-important dummy is caught trying to make news. To whom are “campaign finance laws and potential conflicts of interests” significant points of interest? We are not told who these “constituents and stakeholders” are, of course, meaning that this is just another irrelevant talking point she hopes one of her readers will pick up and run with at tonight’s meeting.
The shoe fit…
The ironic part of this scatterbrained screed is that neither Skalia or her sister Sharon ever reported on the $60,000 of marijuana money dumped into the 2024 election to help their beloved Vivian Jaramillo.
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.
