OC Register Front Page - Saturday September 19, 2009
Occasionally we hear of local politicos who attempt to downplay the effectiveness of our efforts here at FFFF, claiming “nobody reads the blog” (while feverishly checking it themselves). Despite our hurt feelings, we have continued our daily blogging efforts to bring long-missing accountability and reason to this city.
Last week alone this blog had 8,228 hits. To put that in perspective, Pam Keller spent a year campaigning in 2006 to come up with 10,494 votes, beating out candidate Leland Wilson by a mere 628 votes.
Further evidence of our influence can been seen in our ability to garner coverage from conventional media outlets. Exhibit A is on the front page of Saturday’s OC Register – our continued efforts to expose the dangers of Fullerton’s school laptop program will also be recognized by the LA Times later this week.
Nobody reads the blog?
8,228 hits in a week. That’s a whole lot of nobody.
UPDATE: A WISE GUY COMMENTER MADE A SNIDE REMARK ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE IMAGE ABOVE. BUT RATHER THAN BE OVERLY SENSITIVE, WE HAVE UNCOVERED ANOTHER IMAGE THAT WE THOUGHTFULLY SHARE BELOW.
Is this better?
Well, it’s official. Linda Ackerman the wife of our former State Senator and Assemblyman, Dick, has decided to run in a special election to replace the Ackermans’ old pal, disgraced perv Mike Duvall, for the 72nd Assembly seat now vacated by the latter.
Mrs. Ackerman has a few things going for her, including a lot of contacts with big money and a husband who knows a lot of people; and she made it pretty clear to Martin Wisckol at the Register that she intends an amicable relationship with all those Redevelopment interests. She also has zero political record so that it would be pretty hard for an opponent to go negative on her record – she hasn’t got any. And as a woman – possibly the only woman on the Republican ballot – she could get a gender boost.
But she’s got some practical problems, too. First off, she doesn’t live in the 72nd District and although she doesn’t seem to think living in Irvine for the past decade is an encumbrance, we’re not too sure that many north countians won’t resent a carpetbagger. So she’s gotta move – presumably to Fullerton – and set up a temporary residence, at least through a primary. Second, her strength of no political record is also a liability: no experience either. Third, any ties with Duvall’s sordid 72nd career are bound to come out. Fourth, her opponent is none other than Chris Norby, a sitting County Supervisor who already has a lot of money in the bank and has pretty high name recognition in the district – in which he actually lives.
Behind all the ifs and buts is one solid truth. Mrs. Ackerman’s spouse detests Norby with a weird passion, and obviously sees his wife’s candidacy as an opportunity to do his enemy a bad turn. Ackerman went out of his way to endorse an unknown ribbon clerk for the County Clerk job when Norby had his eyes set on that dubious prize. And now Ackerman’s plan is perfectly transparent: suck up all of Norby’s money advantage in a special election primary for the 72nd, beat him, and then watch with satisfaction as a tapped out Norby is bested by a politcal novice for the Clerk job. Sayonara Norby, Sacramento here we come. Again.
We recently received an e-mail from our Loyal Commenter Chamber Star, who takes us over his/her knee for undermining the respect due to political officeholders. He/she suggests an alternative approach in a short essay that we reproduce below:
The Friends of Fullerton’s Future has brought up a lot of issues over the last few months and can take satisfaction that many people in town visit the FFFF blog. But I cannot help but think some real damage is being done. Why? Because the blog continually criticizes our elected leaders and does so in a manner that is really just disrespectful. Humor has its place in life but the business of leading government, especially for the betterment of business, is not one of them.
Our elected City Council and School Boards were chosen for their experience and their wisdom, and that is Democracy in Action. Just because you don’t like someone that the majority has chosen, or you disagree with their policies doesn’t mean that they are fair game for ridicule and insult. Why not? because that undermines the very confidence that everyone must have in a system that is so important to maintaining our way of life.
Our leaders have shown their mettle first in getting elected and then at every meeting dealing with issues that would just baffle the rest of us. Their broad experience and wisdom should not be subjected to the rude slapstick of a blog “sound bite” or attempts at witticisms by those who only see the small picture – not the broad and deep policy implications. They deserve our respect, not ridicule.
I am not saying that our leaders are perfect. But they are among the best and the brightest, that’s for sure. Rather than being attacked from the safety of a blog, they deserve a private phone call, or an e-mail, or even a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s as you explain what you think about this or that decision, or upcoming agenda item. They will always meet with you and will always refer you to the appropriate staff member who can explain things satisfactorily.
The City of Fullerton is comprised of a lot of Positive People who want to pull in the same direction to get things done. That is why our Chamber of Commerce is so effective in working with the City for the betterment of the business environment. The Chamber leadership knows that without the City’s help there will be no advancement of the conditions necessary for the very success of businesses throughout Fullerton. With business success comes the sales and property tax revenue we desperately need to hire the very best staff in the State of California.
So it’s time to rethink the negativity and the satire. In the end it will only hamper people from coming together for the common good. I believe we all love our town. Let’s get on the same team, and let’s move forward!
SUCH A LAME APPROACH INSULTS NOT ONLY OUR AESTHETIC SENSIBILITIES, BUT IT ALSO TURNS THE WHOLE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS INTO A CHARADE THAT JUST SECURES FOR STAFF WHAT THEY WANT: BRICK VENEER.
CONSIDER THIS: THE MONEY SAVED BY ELIMINATING THE USELESS BRICK COULD GO TO ESTABLISHING SOLAR PANELS ON THE BUILDING AND ENHANCING ITS SUSTAINABILITY QUOTIENT.
They just can’t seem to help themselves. Not long ago the City held a “stake holder” gathering that was supposed to display three alternative plans for the proposed new parking structure on Santa Fe Avenue. No sooner had the meeting begun than it became apparent it was going to be one of those typical “here’s what we’re doing so sit down and shut up” meetings.
The image above shows what the City wants the building to look like. The architectural elements look okay except for the hideous brick veneer – that tomato soup colored stuff you see on the building. Brick veneer. The lazy Redevelopment bureaucrat’s material of choice. We recently wrote about it in a pithy post here.
Why would anybody put a brick veneer on a concrete parking structure? Who would put lipstick on a pig? Brick panels spanning impossibly long spaces look simply idiotic – even to the layman who could sense intuitively that brick has little tensile strength; but unfortunately this type of masquerade is par for Fullerton’s aesthetic course – displaying once again the curious parochialism of Fullerton’s taste makers.
But brick veneer is not only stupid architecturally, but is a big waste of money, to boot. And it contradicts the General Plan Advisory Committee’s adopted “sustainability” policy in the General Plan Update, since it serves no function and will have to be replaced when it falls off.
Fortunately it’s not too late to make the right choice here. But we’re not holding our breath.
We published a couple of posts a few days ago on the new parking structure planned on Santa Fe Avenue, and how it is proposed to be faced with brick veneer here and here .
You may remember that I got to thinking about why the city staff would tell the RDRC that the $40,000,000 parking structure must have brick veneer; and that I asked one of the RDRC Board members that very same question, and the answer I got was that staff told the Committee that the City has to use brick veneer because it was a “State” requirement to meet the CEQA guidelines. (I also noted that the use of fake brick is in complete contrast to the sustainable design the General Plan Advisory Committee has spend the last 3 years discussing and recommending to the City Council).
CEQA? Yes CEQA he said, because there’s a provision in the CEQA guidelines that requires mitigation of any visual impacts. In other words, since the new parking structure was being built with structural concrete, and the surrounding downtown has many brick-looking buildings, using the brick veneer would cause no visual impact on the environment. I say “brick-looking” because so many of the buildings in downtown Fullerton are faced with fake brick veneers, facades that are not historic, and some of which, in fact, were stuck-on older buildings during the course of Redevelopment in the last 30 years. And many of these were subsidized by the taxpayers of Fullerton.
How do I know this? I did a building facade survey of downtown from the RR tracks to Chapman and from Malden to Pomona. I documented the principal “building skin” of each structure. The results didn’t surprise me, but they may surprise you; they should shock the Redevelopment and Planning Department “experts” who not only have been tolerating, but actually promoting this material over the years – seemingly in an effort to keep downtown “historical” looking. Boy, did they get it wrong.
Here are the results of the survey:
24 Brick veneer
2 Flagstone veneer
9 Real brick & clay block
3 Glazed & fluted brick
24 stucco & plaster
20 Concrete, concrete block & terra cotta
And here is a useful overhead image with the various exterior materials colored in on each of the building’s footprint. Notice how few real brick buildings there are; and of these only a couple are red brick – the crap of choice among Fullerton’s bureaucratic tastemakers. The buildings with substantial brick venerers are pink.
Using CEQA to bolster the poor design choices of the past is pretty bad. Let’s hope this post will help end the travesty of bad and cheap looking architecture based on erroneous assumptions, and that California’s environmental laws will never be used again by city staff to foist this garbage on us.
“To be effective in the 21st century, the Fullerton School District believes that students must be able to develop innovative products and processes using technology, construct knowledge and demonstrate creative thinking.”
Mitch Hovey, Ed.D.
Our previous posts on FSDs Laptop Program have generated a wide array of commentary, some of which has been a bit off the mark relative to the specific posts. So we thought a general recap of problematic issues might be timely at this juncture.
Parents were being coerced into participating in the program
The laptops are way too expensive
Laptops are being lost and or stolen
FSD claimed the laptops were secure
The value of laptops in education is overrated
If anybody wishes to add items or to dispute them – fire away!
The other day we posted about the shameful payoff deal Fullerton’s Redevelopment lawyer Jeff Oderman cooked up with the County in order to get the latter to call off the legal dogs in regard to the City’s proposed Redevelopment expansion plan here . You may recall that the triumvirate of Usual Suspects – Bankhead, Jones, and Keller went for bribe/hush money scheme even though it required an up front payout of $4,000,000 from the City’s General Fund and involved bogus lease back deals in the out years.
Well, we want to thank council members Shawn Nelson and Sharon Quirk-Silva for sticking to their guns in the face of all sorts of institutional and statist pressure to go along with the scam that required the Council to make findings of blight where none exists. This fragile lie was the foundation of the whole rotten expansion superstructure.
It’s good to know we have two representatives who appreciate a concept much-abused by governments in their mania to raise revenue to pay themselves more and more: the truth.
OC Register Front Page - Saturday September 19, 2009
The OC Register ran a story today on our previous laptop post in which a mother came forward to warn parents about the dangers of FSD’s school laptop program.
Overall the reporter gave a fair assessment to both sides of the controversy, although the article made the mother out to be naive about her duties as a parent to watch her children closely. Those who actually read the mother’s statement on this blog know this to be completely false.
The mother accepted responsibility for wrongly believing the school administrators when they told her that the laptops were safe. In her own words:
I felt stupid for being so naïve in thinking that a child should have a laptop with access to whatever she could dream of. I felt safe in believing that a school district would have the best firewalls to protect my child like they promised that firewalls do. I do believe that parents have a responsibility to watch over their children, and this generation requires a new kind of vigilance, but I also believe that a school has the responsibility to be honest in their abilities to protect our children as well.
Had the district been truthful about the risks associated with the laptops, perhaps this incident could have been avoided. This tragedy acts as yet another example of government employees and electeds distorting or concealing the truth to further their own personal agendas, to the detriment of the public whom they are supposed to serve.
Bottom line: These laptops are not safe for kids to use without direct supervision at all times. That includes all the kids accessing neighborhood wireless on the playground, in front of school, at the bus stop, at Starbucks or in their own bedrooms. So now the question is, how does a parent monitor a kid with a laptop 24/7?
The recent edition of the Fullerton Observer did some boohooing and hand wringing about whether or not Pam Keller will get to be Fullerton’s next mayor here . The little article points out some of the nefarious goings on in Fullerton Past and the current council’s refusal to adopt some sort of mechanism to ensure that everybody gets a chance to be mayor.
We believe the person who should be Mayor of Fullerton is the person who can get two other colleagues to vote for him/her. That’s pretty simple. If they can count to three it’s their turn.
Fullerton’s lefties know that come reorganization time (1st meeting in December) local Repuglican bigwigs like Ed Royce make it a point to lean on fellow Repugs (In Name Only) like Bankhead and Jones to keep the gavel away from the Dems. But that’s the way it goes. It’s called politics. Fullerton’s “progressives” like to play politics too, but they just won’t admit it. We wonder if they would be so energetic in the defense of Shawn Nelson’s turn to be mayor.
Is Pam Keller qualified to be mayor? Well, let’s face it – if Jones and Bankhead can do it, so could an orangutan.
Yes. Yes I can...
But we’re still waiting to get some straight answers from Pam and her Collaborative about who foots their bills, and why the money is drip-dried through the FSD; and we were chagrined, although not surprised, to hear her inane defense of the indefensible blight scam behind the recent Redevelopment expansion vote. So maybe she isn’t the best person to be the face of Fullerton.
UPDATE: According to an e-mail we received yesterday, our acquaintance “Tenant” reminded us that he did indeed have a follow up conversation with Ms. Kennedy about his situation. We apologize for that error. However the basic thrust of this post remains. You can’t be a reporter and an advocate for this or that specific cause or organization at the same time.
And just to remind our Friends: we are a blog – not a journalistic endeavor and we have never tried to get anybody to believe otherwise.
To those Fullerton Observer observers who still believe that Sharon Kennedy has an atom of journalist integrity, or any objective standards either, we present the most recent Observer edition as our evidence to the contrary.
Last week we posted a story about how Fullerton Interfaith Emergency Services intended to expand their compound in the 500 block of West Amerige Avenue, and in the process how the current landlord had told his tenants to vacate the premises so he could close the deal.
What we didn’t share was the fact that one of the tenants had actually contacted Sharon Kennedy. According to this individual she evinced considerable interested in his plight; but the tenant never heard back from her.
In the Observer’s mid-September issue she gave an answer. Buried in the middle of an article about unrelated FIES issues the author tucked in a few lines about the FIES acquisition of property on Amerige. The article notes matter-of-factly that relocation help would be available for those tenants who need it. Check out left column halfway down page nine.
Of course there was no mention of the fact that previously none of the tenants had been notified that “assistance was available,” no mention of what the criteria for qualification are, and no mention of who at FIES told her that they were going to help anybody.
It sure looks to us like Sharon Kennedy was trying to help her pals at FIES cover up an embarrassing episode long after the fact. Wow! What a crusading reporter!
Well, at any rate, we are glad that someone may be getting something, sometime, somehow. We’ll check in to see what FIES is doing to make things right for the folks they are dislocating.
In the meantime a whole lotta irony is still goin’ on: several genuine, non-subsidized affordable housing units are taken out of the available housing stock and the property, soon to be owned by a non-profit, will be taken off the property tax rolls. Hooray!
