Looking down from doggie heaven on you folks I get some interesting perspectives on things. Like right now Fullerton has not a single female liberal running for the city council.
Back in 1982 & 86 it was everyone’s fave featherhead, Molly McClanahan; in 1988 it was Maryevelyn Bryden, a humorless old bat who was trounced by the still marginally cogent Bankhead; in 1992 it was my former broomstick wielding mistress, Jan Flory, who was chain-whipped by the incomprehensible Julie Sa; in 1994, 1998, and 2002 Flory ran again and actually won a couple of times. In 2004 and 2006 Sharon Quirk and Pam Keller emerged, right on cue to claim their liberal XX chromosonal birthright. In 2008 it was the hapless Karen Haluza.
But now, in 2010? Nobody. The closest thing the Fullerton liberal crowd can point to is Doug Chaffee. And he isn’t a woman.
But wait! All is not lost! There’s always the hand-picked Ed Royce candidate and darling of the Dick Ackerman/dim-bulb Federated Republican Women crowd: Patrick McKinley.
On September 7, Jan Flory gave McKinley $200 – more than she spent on dog food for me in ten years. McKinley’s website also boasts the endorsement of McClanahan, too. So what gives?
Are the Fullerton Dems so sad and pathetic that they have to go along with Royce and Ackerman tools, the same repuglican goons who have worked so tirelessly for decades to undermine Democrat candidates and electeds? Remember that Ed Royce was the sole creator of Leland Wilson who knocked off the liberal beloved Flory in 2002.
And you know, now that I come come to think of it, I have to wonder if these endorsements don’t say just as much about McKinley as they do Flory and McClananhan. Hmm.
Looking down from Doggy Heaven at last night’s NUFF forum I noticed my former mistress Jan Flory in attendance. At one point during Shawn Nelson’s observation that County bureaucrats were hardly a necessity to get hitched, my one-time owner blurted a loud ejaculation.
It sounded like “who’s going to marry you?”
Well, that’s a Hell of a stupid question, besides being pretty rude to someone who’s speaking, but that’s my mistress for you. Of course if anybody pulled that stunt on her she would have smacked them with the business end of her broomstick.
Defender of traditional marriage - the kind performed by a County bureaucrat!
Anyway, I’ll tell you who will marry people: their priests; their rabbis; their ministers; their ashram maharishis. Who cares? Why should a civil servant in a plastic robe do it under a dopey arch of fake flowers?
A broomstick across the eye socket does wonders to curb errant leg-lifting
Despite our repeated efforts to assure our loyal Friends that former Fullerton City Councilwoman Jan Flory’s dog is still dead-as-a-doornail, and still out of its misery, persistent rumors to the contrary, and alleged sightings keep occurring. The most recent of the latter happened last week as our own dedicated Friend Ed Peabody claims to have witnessed the hapless mutt peeing in the bushes along Brea Boulevard, directly beneath the new Elks Lodge compound.
While this reaction to the monstrosities on Elk Hill (that we have previously documented here, here, and here) seems appropriate, we cannot, however, lend credence to these wild stories, even from a normally reliable source like Peabody. Although we were willing to cut him some slack when he claimed to have seen Elvis passed out in the West Harbor Alley, now he has just gone too far.
Until we are provided with concrete evidence, we will continue to maintain that Jan Flory’s dog is still dead.
Last night I had my 60 day review at the Planning Commission to review the trumped up “public nuisance” charge brought against me by City staff at the behest of former council member and noted broomstick rider Jan Flory.
Still smarting from her defeat at the December meeting she showed up again and had to swallow the bitter pill yet again – a final 4-1 exoneration by the Commission.
Mrs. Flory held forth in a rambling ten-minute, diatribe the purpose of which was to attack me personally, one more time, as well as the Commission’s lack of proper diligence.
Her rant did include one bit of new information, if Mrs. Flory can be believed, and that’s the fact that she hasn’t had a dog in twenty-five years! That bit of information emerged as she challenged the accuracy of this humble blog!
Jan sure seemed annoyed at having been featured in an earlier post of mine (even though I thought the picture was pretty flattering – considering the subject. You can decide – I’m including it again, below).
Anyway the story has a happy ending. I have been vindicated and Jan Flory’s dog is in a much happier place – away from its owner.
Former Fullerton Councilperson Jan Flory (shown above, after three cocktails) filed a formal nuisance complaint on my property near the Brea Dam because my 14 year old son and his friends were riding their bikes on it. Mrs. Flory lives about half a mile from this property. Maybe she was offended because I put a fence around the area where she takes her dog to do its business. Seriously, Flory has never liked my family, and evidently saw an opportunity to cause trouble for me; but really, to take out her spite on kids is pretty low – even for her.
As ringleader of a phony neighborhood group she got a few folks agitated enough to believe they had a case. And for a while she must have thought things were going pretty well – Public Nuisance Inspector Clouseau agreed with Flory.
Fortunately reason and common sense prevailed over vindictiveness when the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals, unanimously denied Flory’s contention that riding bicycles on my property was a public nuisance. Click here to watch the meeting, scroll forward to 1:53:15.
The sorriest part of this nasty little episode was when Flory insinuated that my 14 year old son and his friends were responsible for a burglary and car theft in her neighborhood after the initial complaint was filed. This insinuation has become part of the record in two public hearings and stands as a permanent reminder of just how sad, bitter and vindictive Jan Flory can be.
No, don’t call FPD. Not because they won’t catch anybody, but because the violation is plagiarism. And the perp? None other than one of the Fullerton Observer sisters, Sakinsia.
And the topic? Of course it relates to about the Orange County Water District.
I am not a crook!
A few years back the Observer let Ahmad Zahra pretend to write informative articles on water topics under his own name. You can still see them, uncorrected, here and here. Jan Flory was fooled about Zahra’s supposed expertise in water issues, but FFFF wasn’t.
How dare you! I’m offended!
We knew the articles were written by an OCWD bureaucrat and stolen by the Doctor From Damascus.
The vacant look of the uneducated…
Here is an “article” clipped from the Observer and purportedly written by Saskina – since she put her own name above it.
The Orange County Water District (OCWD; the District) and the City of Tustin celebrated the dedication of a new PFAS treatment plant, marking a major milestone in ensuring safe and reliable water for Tustin residents and businesses.
The dedication ceremony brought together local, state and federal representatives to recognize the proactive actions of both OCWD and the City of Tustin in addressing PFAS, a group of manufactured chemicals increasingly found in water sources across the country, including the Orange County Groundwater Basin. The new treatment system, implemented at the existing Main Street Water Treatment Plant, uses ion exchange technology to treat up to 6,400 gallons of groundwater per minute. The centralized plant is fed by four offsite wells connected through approximately 2.5 miles of conveyance pipeline.
“This state-of-the-art PFAS treatment plant is a critical investment in our city’s water future,” said Tustin Mayor Austin Lumbard. “By removing PFAS from local groundwater, we help ensure that water delivered to residents and businesses is exceptional and continues to meet all state and federal drinking water standards.”
Since 2019, OCWD has taken the lead in addressing PFAS, in partnership with its 19 cities and retail water districts, to remove them from the groundwater basin, which supplies up to 85% of the water to 2.5 million people in north and central Orange County. The District is funding design and construction costs, along with a portion of operational and maintenance costs for treatment facilities like this one.
“OCWD is proud to support the City of Tustin and our other partners in the construction of treatment facilities that safeguard public health,” said OCWD President Denis R. Bilodeau, P.E. “Tackling PFAS contamination head-on reflects our long-standing commitment to water quality, innovation and regional collaboration.”
The City of Tustin PFAS treatment facility was partially funded by a $10 million grant from the State Water Resources Control Board through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and a $5 million Community Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
For more information on OCWD’s PFAS treatment program, visit the PFAS education center.
Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that this is one of those canned press releases that makes up vacuous quotations and puts them in the mouths of officers of government agencies. But typical Observer readers are not known for their sharpness on the uptake.
Our Friend and sharp-eyed commenter Lab Rat has pointed out that it’s outright theft. And here’s the relevant press release from OCWD:
Look familiar?
Is this just the usual sloppy incompetence, or is it deliberate? Does it matter? It’s just one more instance of the sanctimonious “who cares so long as we believe what we believe, and what we believe is sacrosanct.”
Let’s see if it gets corrected with an appropriate notice.
It only took three days. Not bad for the Observer Sisters. Glad to see some Observer or other reads FFFF!
And last year we were number 29, among Orange County’s 34 cities based on per capita unrestricted net positions (UNP).
FFFF’s Bureau of Data & Statistics (FFFFBDS) was presented the following chart produced by the California Policy Center, a conservative think tank who tracks such things.
Keep going to toward the bottom…
Ouch. Fullerton is way down there at the bottom – each citizen being in the red for $1050 – based on 2023 numbers from the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. We are better off than Orange, Costa Mesa, Anaheim and Santa Ana.
Pretty soon Fullerton is going to have to pay the piper and we will be presented, once again, with a Measure S-type sales tax increase in the 13% range. The question is whether such a tax can pass at an election. A General Tax only needs 50%+1 but may be a tough sell; a special tax – for infrastructure, say – requires 67% a harder nut, but one where people can see what they’re getting.
Accountability? It was never on the agenda.
An infrastructures tax does noting to alleviate Fullerton’s chronic financial mismanagement under Fitzgerald, Flory, Zahra, Quirk-Silva and Charles. It’s very clear that the liberals on the Council want the tax that eluded them in 2020.
Ideas, anyone? Anyone else?
But what about Jung and Dunlap? They are no longer able to distance themselves from Fullerton’s fiscal cliff having now been around for over four years. What have they done to ameliorate the chronic shortfall? The answer is nothing. For years the sleepy Bruce Whitaker voted no on annual budgets and he never bothered to put much thought into solving the problem.
Then there’s newcomer Jamie Valencia who’s not responsible for any part of the problem – yet. Will she go for a tax on the ballot? Her public safety union supporters will push her. Does she even understand the magnitude of Fullerton’s mismanagement? I wonder.
In defeat, malice…
Of course we may be grateful that Valencia’s opponent didn’t win. Then a sales tax would have been inevitable.
Fullerton is a General Law city. The question of studying the costs and the benefits of adopting a municipal charter was on the agenda for the last city council meeting.
To charter or not to charter. That became the debate. But it shouldn’t have been.
Rather than accepting the benign idea of beginning to study the pros and cons of Fullerton being a charter city, numerous public speakers, a claque obviously organized by Ahmad Zahra, and Zahra himself, began reciting a litany of reasons to not even study the idea. Of course they didn’t know what they were talking about, and kept spewing nonsense, like ginned up election costs, scary rejection of State paternalism, mandates, and planning control, and all sorts of drummed up stuff leading to the inevitable conclusion that California state government is benevolent, well-run, desirable, and comforting.
Fullerton Boohoo, old and new…
The speaker list was comprised of the usual suspects: our old, nattering friend (and Scott Markowitz nominator) Diane Vena; the ever-angry Karen Lloreda; the bitter, avian Anjali Tapadia and others.
Cluck.
Good grief, even the superannuated Molly McClanahan appeared, cluck-clucking her disapproval of the proceedings. And there in the audience sitting next to McClanahan, was none other than Jan Flory, looking pretty worn out. Flory didn’t say anything, mercifully, but perfunctorily clapped when speakers questioned the motives and integrity of the council majority. On McClanahan’s other side sat Ms. Lloreda, which was appropriate: two former city councilwomen recalled by their constituents.
Several school district boardmembers showed up, too, trying, and failing to explain the nexus between the municipal charter topic and the welfare of their districts. That was just pathetic lackeyism for Zahra. Boy, have they backed the wrong horse.
Too much coffee?
As noted before, Zahra’s indignant, theatrical and lengthy diatribe was even more ridiculous that the dumb speeches of his little entourage. He began a recitation of how a 15 member elected charter-writing committee would become a political springboard for bad people (i.e. those not chosen by him) funded by bad interests – like Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform, presumably. This was amazing since nobody in their right mind would pursue this approach. I don’t know if any city ever has. But Zahra must have thought it was good obfuscation to help confuse the already dimly lit brains of his followers, I guess.
Still in the second stage of grief…
There was a plot afoot said Zahra, with devious manipulators pulling the council’s strings to buy and sell Fullerton, somehow, sometime, somewhere. Don’t believe what they say, said the master of prevarication.
Ferguson speaks. Fullerton Boohoo is not happy…
One speaker, Joshua Ferguson supported the study, pointing out that the process of voting on a charter was actually highly democratic because it gave people a chance to participate in how their city is governed. The Three Old Ladies shook their heads in disapprobation.
The three councilmembers who voted to simply consider the idea – Jung, Dunlap and Valencia – didn’t try to justify some positive end result, reasonably supporting a study, the sort of thing people like Zahra and his friend Shana Charles normally adore.
The idea here is that actually learning things about something relating to city governance is a good thing.
I don’t know anything about the benefits or drawbacks of having a municipal charter; neither do the people of Fullerton;. neither does our City Council, two of whom, Zahra and Charles voted to remain ignorant.
“Follow the Money” is their headline. But wait. Isn’t something missing?
Indeed, yes. They decided to publish information about the three winning candidates whom the really don’t like. And of course Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform has been the bane of big spending bureaucrats and politicians for years. But where is the information on Vivian Jaramillo?
Missing in action, I’d say.
But I checked all the right boxes!
Jaramillo got lots of campaign contributions from local unions, public employees, and lot from Fullerton’s public pension retiree gaggle. Not too much surprise there, so why not publish it? It’s still relevant.
But what really stood out was the omission of the massive Independent Expenditure Committee created to get Jaramillo elected. “Working Families for Kitty Jaramillo” was the recipient of $60,000 up front from the national HQ of the grocery store workers union. The local union “sponsored” the IE, but the dough came from Washington DC and the smart money was on its origin being none other than the Southern California dope dispensary cartel.
The marijuana money would be real hard for the Kennedy Sisters to explain without reminding folks that Jaramillo earned the nickname “Cannabis Kitty” due to her prior staunch support of Ahmad Zahra’s push for the broadest marijuana ordinance – the one he, Silva, and Flory voted on at the end of 2020.
The look of vacant self-satisfaction…
More even handed “reporting,” right? I don’t suppose anything is going to change from these darlings. The sniping, innuendo and criticism of Valencia, Jung, and Dunlap will continue unabated, with the usual conflation of news and editorial – in violation of any journalistic standards.
