Taking Office

"So when do you take office?"  That seems to be the big question on many people's minds.

It's needlessly convoluted so stay with me.

Thursday morning, June 28, at or about 9:00AM, a City Council meeting was to be held in the Council Chambers to accept the results of the recall election.  However, the City Manager reports that recalled council member Dick Jones backed out.  Mayor Quirk-Silva and Member Bruce Whitaker were willing to be there.

As of this morning, Mayor Quirk-Silva was planning on calling for a special meeting on Monday morning, July 2nd, at 9:00AM.  I have been told by City Manager Felz and City Attorney Jones that recalled council member Pat McKinley has promised to participate.  According to City Manager Felz, Mr. McKinley has planned to be out of town this week for perhaps several months.

Regardless of whether the July 2nd meeting occurs, I have been told that Mayor Quirk-Silva will have a meeting Tuesday night.  This would be a normal meeting but it had been canceled due to the July 4th celebration on the following day.  So, if Monday's meeting is canceled, perhaps Tuesday's meeting will result in the new council being able to act.

If Monday's and Tuesday's meetings fail to have a quorum and seat the new council, I have asked City Attorney Jones to take the matter before a judge on July 5th.  If that does not happen, I am preparing to take the matter before a judge on July 6th myself.

July 17 is tentatively scheduled to be the first regular City Council meeting though will be largely ceremonial including public ceremonial swearing in of the new members.  There may be an item or two that will be addressed but I don't know what those will be.

As we approach this tumultuous transition in Fullerton's governance, I reflect upon President George Washington's Farewell Address and the elegance with which he stepped down.  With quiet dignity and gentle words of wisdom, he stepped aside to allow someone else, John Adams, to preside over the United States.  It is too bad that some of the recalled council members appear to have neither dignity nor wisdom to do what is right.

Election Day - June 5, 2012

Today is the June 5th election that Fullerton voters have been waiting for.  Please take a few minutes to hit the polls and cast your ballot.

On a similar note I want to share with you some of what I saw throughout the campaign.

First of all, I believe that ALL of the replacement candidates ran a clean and honest campaign.  I know many of my signs were taken but do not believe that any of the candidates took them.  Throughout the campaign all of my interactions with other candidates were congenial and professional.  I tip my hat to all of them for their willingness to step up and represent their city.

Leading up to today I have heard a small minority blindly lay the blame for for the Fullerton Recall on Tony Bushala.  Blaming Bushala for the council majority's collective failings is tantamount to a child blaming their parent for scolding them after being caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  It just goes to show the depth of denial that some people have when it comes to failed leadership.

It also is a prime example of deflecting responsibility.  Instead of defending themselves and showing that, somehow, Tony Bushala is wrong, they chose to just cross their arms and pout about how mean Tony is for calling them out as poor leaders.

So, while many might think the Fullerton Recall is about Tony Bushala, the fact remains that it was Don Bankhead, Pat McKinley, and Dick Jones who saddled Fullerton taxpayers and water ratepayers with $27 million in illegal overcharges (they're still over charging us!) for the last 15 years, cultivated and protected the culture of corruption that lead to the beating death of Kelly Thomas, gave hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to out of town developers to build low-income apartments around Downtown Fullerton, dozens and dozens of bars in Downtown Fullerton, and MORE THAN $1.2 BILLION OF DEBT!!!!!

Blaming Tony Bushala for these huge failures in leadership by the City Council majority is wrong.  Larry Bennett, the Recall No manager, is more culpable as a Fullerton Planning Commissioner than Tony Bushala, a private citizen.  Yet Bennett's own campaign continues to ignore the failed leadership and has actively campaigned to maintain the status quo by blaming Tony Bushala.

Today, I ask that you weigh the City's future, our massive debts, the culture of corruption, and the overwhelming failure to lead by the council majority and vote YES ON THE FULLERTON RECALL!

Attempted Kidnapping...8 days ago!

Below is a notice I received from the Fullerton PD's iWatch Alert System that sends subscribers  emails or text messages about criminal activity in your neighborhood.  I signed up for all of the neighborhoods so I could understand how much crime there is in Fullerton.

What troubles me is that a kidnapping is among the worst crimes a community will face and the fact that one was attempted and the public not notified has me asking why.

Why didn't the Fullerton Police department send out a press release on this attempted kidnapping?  Was the department too distracted by other events?  Which events?  

Anyway, in the interest of protecting the public from crazed murderous kidnappers, here is the alert, albeit 8 days old:

There was an attempted kidnapping of a woman on May 8 at approximately 10:50 AM in the 400 block of S. Lemon St.  As the woman was walking to school a large white truck containing 2 occupants drove past her. One of the occupants yelled at her and said “hey” out of the window. The truck passed her a second time and nothing was said. When the victim saw the truck for the third time it was parked. A suspect walked up from behind her and grabbed her arm. The victim hit the suspect and walked away from him very fast. When the suspect caught up to the victim again he put his hand underneath her jacket and said "if you run or if you scream I am going to shoot you." The victim was able to run away safely.

I am glad the victim was able to get away on her own.  Perhaps if the FPD would have released this IMMEDIATELY, the public could have helped be the eyes and ears for the officers.  The crime should have been on the news that afternoon.  Radio stations should have been reporting it.  But instead the FPD keeps the event quiet until a week has passed.  

Why did they wait?  

Was it fear of creating fear?  

Was it just not important?  

What reason could they have for not telling us about this?  

I thought the people, you know voters and taxpayers, were pretty pissed off at last night's council meeting.  Blunders like this won't help the public's perception of our police department or restore the lost trust.

Preview of Tonight's City Council Meeting - What's in it, what's not

Tonight's City Council Agenda is spectacularly huge.  There are 23 items on is and that doesn't include the study session for the Task Force On Homelessness and Mental Health Services or the Closed Session conferences with legal counsel.  One of the countless law suits alone could cost Fullerton taxpayers more than $10-million and no one was killed.  Indeed, it is a strange world we live in.

I'm not sure what to expect for the Task Force's study session and the agenda is void of information.

The Consent Calendar is where we often see expensive plans put quietly in motion and tonight is no different.  The 15 items consist of General Plan update, legal contracts, labor contracts, insurance report with recommendations from staff, November's general election, Successor Agency debt update (more on this in a moment), Measure M funding, custodial services contract, agreement with Brea for sewer replacement, rezoning, property acquisition, sewer lining, Chapman Ave (at Fox Fullerton) right-turn lane, and the Walnut/Lincoln sewer replacement.

All told, these represent $647,106,698 in spending.  Of that, $641,969,234 is from the Redevelopment Agency's debt courtesy of the City Council.  That leaves $5,137,464 in new expenditures/allocations.  And where is this buried?  The Consent Calendar.

There are Public Hearings on four items.  
Agenda item 16 is the OCTA Bike Share Pilot Project.  This is a 66-month trial run to see if people will use bikes dispensed from an automated bike rack like a vending machine.  The staff report claims huge success in major metropolitan cities like Boston, Chicago, and Mexico City.

Item 17 proposes the use of tax dollars to subsidize a low-income apartment building proposed for 345 East Commonwealth, dubbed the Alexander Senior Housing Project.  Besides the issue of using public funds for private housing, there remain discrepancies in the City's numbers.  The Joint Powers Authority that the City wants to partner with has approved $14,000,000 while the City seems to think they will get $14,500,000.  I have repeatedly brought this up and City staff just shrug.  I oppose the project for several reasons including substandard parking, zoning, and open space, as well as the use of public funds for private development.  Deals like this are bad for taxpayers and ultimately bad for the real estate market.  It gives one developer, The Richman Group or TRG, an unfair advantage by giving them $14,000,000 and numerous development concessions as noted above. And TRG has little to no risk.

Item 18 is the tow franchise and repeal of a chapter from the municipal code.  This is the by-product of the Fullerton Police Department's failed attempt last year to ramrod a contract through to Anaheim/Fullerton Towing and To' and Mo' Towing.  Last year you may recall that the FPD compiled and reported to the Council the nitty-gritty details of employees who worked for the other responding tow companies.  Most saw the report for what it was, cheap shots to justify keeping a 40-year contract in place.  The FPD then pushed through a commercial truck route law that punished tow operators on City streets.  Everything the FPD has had to do with towing seems to be under a dark cloud of cronyism and special favors.

Item 19 is the proposed revised budget that was continued from the last meeting.  City Staff were ordered to return with a balanced budget.  Although the balance sheet works, the premise behind the more than rosy numbers is questionable.  For example, the budget assumes the City will receive $20,000 in outdoor dining fees for restaurants with patios in the public right of way, like Florentine's bar on the northeast corner of Commonwealth and Harbor except Florentine's won't be paying a dime for their use of the sidewalk.  Ask the council members being recalled why.  The budget also shows a "potential revenue from citywide fee study" with $50,000 generated.  Since when does a study in and of itself generate tax revenue?  Then there are the so-called cuts or savings.  Staff assume that there will be a $260,000 reduction in contract costs for legal services, graffiti, animal control, and custodial service.  The proposed custodial contract is $16,430 less than the current contract which allocated $425,801 to cleaning City Hall.  Strange how we can get the contract workers to take a 4% cut but not our own employees.  There are several other glaring issues that should have been addressed but weren't.

And finally, Regular Business...
Item 20 is All the Arts for All the Kids Heart Project.  This allows those big decorated hearts to be placed all around town without going through the permit process.

Item 21 tackles the skate park and its operations.  It asks that the Skate Park Ad Hoc Committee pick up the slack and help with cleaning and maintaining the park.  That's a first and not a bad suggestion if their are community members interested in taking on that role.  I'm glad to see it opening up again (pending approval by the Council).  there is an estimated $50,000 cost to make some much needed upgrades and maintenance.

Item 22 is the Boys & Girls Club lease agreement.  The deal looks a little shady.  The City asked the Club to lease the facility in exchange for a $1,000,000 contribution.  The Club will purchase their own furniture and computers ($300,000) and will pay the remaining $700,000 in monthly payments of $3,333.33.  At that rate, it will take the Club 17.5 years to make their "contribution" to the City.  In the mean time, Park Dwelling Funds will be used to backfill the shortfall.  I like the Boys & Girls Club but this creative financing is not good.

Outdoor dining is last on the list as item 23.  Aside from playing with the numbers, one of the proposed price lists uses type of beverage served.  No alcohol means you will pay $0.30/SQFT, beer and wine will cost you $0.60SQFT, and full liquor means you get saddled with a $0.90SQFT cost to use the public's right-of-way.  As noted above, Florentine's seems to be immune to these taxes despite his outrageous encroachment onto public property for the consumption of alcohol.

So what's missing?  WATER RATES!!!  Why aren't they being adjusted?  

There is a lot to cover tonight and I hope you come out and speak.  Speak from your heart and be heard.

Fullerton and Hercules, More Reasons to Vote YES On Recall

Here is a press release from State Controller John Chiang.  His office audited the City of Hercules and found poor record keeping and accounting practices that called into question how the City spent State and Federal grant funds.  

After learning that Fullerton has similar issues, I cant help but wonder how long it will take for State and Federal officials to take notice and followup with action.

Here are two quotes from Chiang that can be as easily applied to Fullerton as they were to Hercules:

"During my time in office, this could be the worst set of city accounting records I have seen," said Controller Chiang. "The City’s books were so poorly managed, that I must question their use of every single federal and state dollar granted to the City."

"The manner in which city officials approached their fiduciary responsibilities falls below every reasonable standard of care and begins to explain why Hercules is under water," said Chiang. "The longer the City goes without accounting for its taxpayer dollars, the greater the risk that federal and state authorities will withhold money from the City, further increasing Hercules' difficulties." 

More reasons to recall Don Bankhead, Dick Jones, and Pat McKinley!  

Water Tax Repealed, Rate Decrease Anticipated

The City Council voted 5-0 to do the right thing: Rescind the 1970 City Council Resolution that granted an automatic transfer of 10% of gross water sales to the General Fund.  The money was then used to cover General Fund obligations, 80% of which is for salaries, benefits, and pensions.

The end of the water tax does not mean the automatic reduction of 10% of ratepayers water bills.

That will be explored by the Water Rate Ad Hoc Committee in the coming weeks.

For now, though, let's savor the moment.

One year ago I said that ending the water tax would allow for ratepayers' money to go where they had intended it to be spent, the water system.  "Oh no.  That would mean a $2.5 million cut to the General Fund" said the tax's supporters.  "We can't have that!"

The fact is, that money was not supposed to be going into the General Fund and reliance on those funds demonstrates a clear disregard of fiduciary responsibilities by our city officials.

The money was earmarked for water purposes and any other use is a clear misappropriation of public funds.  Suddenly with the water tax gone, the Water Fund has all the money necessary to begin replacing 4 to 6 miles of pipe per year instead of 1 mile per year.  This is a leap in the right direction.  However, there is much more work ahead.

You can expect another tax and spend plan to come forward to try to make up the $2.5 million annual cut in illegal funding.

Keep a wary eye out for gimmicks, games, and gambling with your money by city officials and vote June 5 to recall Bankhead, Jones, and McKinley.

Lack of Leadership and Responsibility

A year ago the City of Fullerton was poised to nearly double water rates in order to keep up with the cost of running a municipal water agency.  So what happened?  Public outcry and a serious legal question put the rate increase quietly on the back-burner and out of public debate, at least until now.

The thought of a double-digit rate increase brought the issue to the forefront of Fullertonians’ minds. 

The legal question was raised when the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association reviewed the City’s Water Fund franchise tax and pointed out that the blanket 10% fee that the City was skimming from the Fund was inconsistent with California ’s Proposition 218.  In essence, the City would skim 10% of the Water Fund’s $25-million and use it to back fill the City’s General Operating Fund, nearly 80% of which pays for benefits and salaries.  There was no justification for the tax, which was implemented in the 1960s, nor was there ever any accounting as to how the money would or should be used.

Typically, franchise fees or franchise taxes are levied by municipalities against other utility companies as an in-lieu fee for property taxes.  Think of it as the City renting out a strip of the city’s street for buried electrical line or cable TV line.  Fullerton ’s water utility is one and the same as the City of Fullerton . 

City staff have indicated that they are wrapping up a study to see just how much money they can justify taking from the Water Fund.  Under consideration is the City’s loss of property tax revenue and potential leasing fees for each of the City’s reservoirs.  This after-the-fact attempt to justify decades of skimming, now valued at $2.5-million per year and growing, is a slap in the face of rate payers.  The sting is particularly bad when one realizes that the other side of City Hall, our water utility has been unable or unwilling to provide detailed meter costs.   

The Fullerton City Council’s lack of leadership and clear direction has allowed City Hall to get by skimming the Water Fund and not having to articulating the true costs of operating, managing, and maintaining the City’s water system in a transparent and open manner.  This lack of leadership and accountability is just one more reason to consider recalling Dick Jones, Don Bankhead, and Pat McKinley.

Fullerton Mayor Dick Jones Doesn't Work for Fullerton Voters

FULLERTON - “I don’t work for you!” shouted Fullerton Mayor Dick Jones at the October 18, 2011 City Council Meeting.  The Mayor’s statement was directed at a Fullerton resident and voter who pointed out that the Council works for the voters.

On Tuesday, November 1, the Fullerton City Council approved the employee associations’ MOU.  In it, the City agreed to end the 2009 across-the-board 5% salary reduction which took the Fullerton Fire Department almost a year longer than any other of Fullerton’s employee bargaining units to agree to. 

Clearly this is not a raise, but a reinstatement of employees’ full salaries. That gives me little comfort however, because the effect on the City’s budget is the same as a raise. 

The current budget (FY2011-12) allocated 80% ($53,433,457) of the General Fund’s $66,641,741 to Fullerton’s public safety.   85% (31,740,804) of the Police budget and 87% ($14,803,561) of the Fire budget covers the salaries and benefits of public safety employees.   Combined, police and fire employee salaries and benefits account for 69.8% of Fullerton’s General Fund.  All of these percentages seem very high. 

Even the City’s own Administrative Services Manager, Julia James, pointed out these costs in her April 26, 2011 report to the City Council.  She said, “the Proposed Budget for 2011­‑12 and 2012-13 projects a General Operating Funds deficit of over $8 million over the next two years due primarily to increased employee retirement and group insurance costs.”

James goes on in the same report and explains how the City plans to make up the $8-million shortfall. “Unfortunately, expenditures continue to outpace revenues despite the extensive cost cutting measures implemented in the last budget year.  As the majority of increases relate to employee benefits it is anticipated that the budget deficit will be closed primarily through employee negotiations in the coming months.”

After these failed negotiations and other questionable increased revenue estimates, the City will still have a multi-million dollar deficit.  

Considering Mayor Jones’ public outburst, the Fullerton City Council has shown taxpayers and voters who they really work for, the public employee unions. 

As Fullerton’s City Council continues to ignore the multi-million dollar deficit and shirk their fiduciary responsibility, I find even more reason to recall Mayor Dick Jones, former police captain turned council member Don Bankhead, and former police chief turned council member Pat McKinley.



L to R: Bruce Whitaker, Don Bankhead, F. Dick Jones, Pat McKinley,
and Sharon Quirk-Silva (Photo courtesy of TheFullertonian.com)

 





Ackerman's Death-Grip on Fullerton Taxpayers

The same three Fullerton City Council Members who are being recalled voted on August 16, 2011 to give a multi-million-dollar contract to St. Anton Partners for an "affordable housing" project in Downtown Fullerton.  Why does any of this matter?  St. Anton Partners' legal representation for this specific project is none other than the same employer for long-time Irvine resident and former Fullerton Mayor Dick Ackerman, Nossaman LLP.

Click HERE and view page 16 of St. Anton Partners' "winning" proposal where they list Nossaman.

Dick Ackerman is also spearheading "Protect Fullerton - Recall No" on behalf of those same council members who just voted for his client's big ($9.5-million) contract.  (see image at left)

Any one who thought Mayor Jones, Mayor Pro Tem Bankhead, and Council Member McKinley were going to live up to their "transparent and open government" platform are sorely mistaken.

Jones, Bankhead, and McKinley have nothing to offer Fullerton but more law suits, failed policies, and a legacy of corruption. 

Image borrowed from FullertonsFuture.org and blogger "Nipsey"



Editorial - Toxic Waste Dump In Fullerton

By Joe Sipowicz for FullertonsFuture.org 10/1/2011

In yesterday’s OC Register, Councilman Pat McKinley, the chief architect of the Fullerton Police Department ‘s profound culture of corruption, responded to the news that KFI’s John and Ken are coming to Fullerton to promote his recall.

“They are toxic people who create problems for a lot of folks. I wish they would stay away.”
More PR gold from the man who ran the FPD into a moral cesspool during his 16-year stint as Chief of Police.

Oddly, McKinley has offered no public opinion as to the comparative toxicity of:
1) police officer sentenced to jail for fraud to support his pill habit.
2) police officer arrested in Miami airport for iPad theft.
3) police officer who smashed recording device on jail wall to avoid complicity in jail suicide.
4) police officers beating up and falsely arresting Veth Mam.
5) police officers lying on the witness stand about Veth Mam.
6) police officer beating up and falsely arresting Edward Quinonez.
7) police officer sexually assaulting a dozen women in the backseat of his patrol car, with recording device turned off.
8 ) police officers issuing traffic citations to harass protesters.
9) police officers ambushing and murdering a helpless homeless man.
10) police officers turning off recording devices during murder.
11) police officers colluding to falsify reports about said murder.
12) superior officers coaching said falsification.
13) return to street of said miscreants.
14) police officer spokeshole deliberately issuing lies to the media to misdirect, temporize, stall and otherwise obscure said murder and cover up.
15) councilmembers insulting protesters as “lynch-type mob.”
16) councilmembers discounting injuries of murder victim.
17) etc., etc. etc.

Good God! What a litany of toxic behavior, and the really scary part is that this is only the stuff we know about. And the chowderhead McKinley has the nerve to call anybody else on the planet “toxic?” The level of denial of responsibility is remarkable. Of course being given a $215,000 a year pension may create an unavoidable attitude of arrogance and self-entitlement.

However, Mr. McPension has a generous streak, to be sure:
“Councilman Pat McKinley said he supports the radio hosts right to stage a rally, but the former Fullerton police chief certainly disagrees with the pair’s opinions…”

Well, thanks awfully, Pat. You support the First Amendment. Well, you support it when people are watching, obviously. No elaboration about what he specifically disagrees with John and Ken about.

Is there a doctor in the house?

If you have watched either of the last two council meetings, you may have noticed the absence of our resident physician and mayor, Dick Jones, from the dais.  No word from City Hall on his condition or location.

Mayor Pro Tem Makes Sexually Suggestive Remark At Council Meeting

At Tuesday's City Council meeting (1/18/2011) Fullerton Mayor Pro Tem Don Bankhead said "Mayor, if you need any help, I would be more than happy to help you!"  At that moment Mayor Dick Jones had his arm around a Miss Fullerton contestant while the Mayor Pro Tem seemed to study the young ladies.  You can watch the exchange here.  Forward the video player to 0:20:00.

The unsavory comment, captured on the City's cable TV feed, reflects a good example of poor leadership and disgraceful public service.  Mayor Pro Tem Bankhead was first elected to the Fullerton City Council in 1988.  If he can complete this term without a sexual harassment law suit and another recall election, he will have served for 26 years.

Fullerton's Municipal Code Unconstitutional?

Does Fullerton's recent amendment of the city's municipal code regarding tattoo parlors violate the First Amendment Rights of artists? 

Could we see a reversal of the amended sections of the municipal code or will Mayor Jones hold to the false accusation that tattoo parlors spread hepatitis B?

A Reason Foundation story by associate editor Damon W. Root is out that just might cause our council some heartburn (emphasis added by me).

"The tattoo designs that are applied by me are individual and unique creative works of visual art,” the tattoo artist Johnny Anderson claimed in a 2006 lawsuit. They are therefore constitutionally protected speech, he argued, so the courts should strike down a ban on tattoo parlors within the city limits of Hermosa Beach, California.

In September a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed, holding that “the tattoo itself, the process of tattooing, and the business of tattooing are forms of pure expression fully protected by the First Amendment.” It’s the highest-profile victory yet in the tattoo trade’s long battle against the regulatory state.

New York City, where the electric tattoo machine was invented and patented in 1891, legalized the practice in 1997, lifting a 36-year-old ban imposed after tattooing was falsely linked to a hepatitis B scare.

Massachusetts legalized the practice in 2000 after state Superior Court Justice Barbara Rouse struck down a similar ban. Unlike previous precedents on the topic of tattooed speech, the 9th Circuit’s ruling limits state action from Alaska to Arizona and is likely to influence other jurisdictions around the country. 

Damon W. Root is an associate editor at reason.

Fullerton City Council Got It Wrong

The Fullerton City Council got it wrong.  The ire is not over the low-income housing as council members suggested before they stuck us with a $45 million bill; it is the fact that they busted out the taxpayer’s credit card.  Like Councilman Jones analogized at Tuesday’s Council/Redevelopment Agency meeting, Council went to the bank and took out a loan.  And the collateral is the future property tax increment on properties in Redevelopment Agency zones.  That property tax increment should be going towards the infrastructure, public safety, and education.  Instead, the tax increment will go into other redevelopment boondoggles with at least 15% of it annually being used to pay off the $29 million bond plus the interest and fees totaling around $45,500,000 over the next 16 years.  Shame on the Redevelopment Agency staff for taking taxpayers for a ride and shame on all four council members for growing our debt.  To say that the end justifies the means is unacceptable.  Council members have a fiduciary duty which was clearly neglected by the intoxicating allure of taxpayer MONEY. 

And council members point their fingers at “mandates” from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).  They point to the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that SCAG performs.  Who is SCAG?  As the name implies, our city, our county, and neighboring agencies.  Who runs it?  Our council members along with those of the member agencies in much the same manner that our council represents Fullerton taxpayers on water and sanitation boards.  SCAG is a governmental agency which receives taxpayer funding from, among others, Fullerton residents and businesses. 

Let’s not forget that the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency was ready, willing, and able to spend $6 million to move a McDonalds 150 feet.  Succumbing to public scrutiny and pressure, Fullerton City Council backed out of the deal. Let’s also no forget that the Fullerton Redevelopment agency spent $22.7 million to move 600 low-income residents out of the Richman Park area so that they could build fewer units than those bulldozed.  According to project manager Charles Kovac, “…the agency doesn't know yet how many more properties it will acquire or how much money it will spend. It depends, in part, on what funding is available.” (July 2010, OC Register)  Pushing our low-income problem onto another community through a taxpayer-subsidized mass relocation is one way to do erase Fullerton’s problem from SCAG’s tally sheet, but it certainly isn’t ethical. 

There is no end in sight for the insatiable appetite of the Fullerton Redevelopment Agency under the direction of our current council. 

For more informmation on Redevelopment Agencies go here:
http://www.ocregister.com/news/agency-256370-kovac-housing.html
http://www.coalitionforredevelopmentreform.org/references/morrreport.php
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redevelopment-20101002,0,1187883,full.story
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/me-redevelop-housing-20101003,0,3080263.story