City Council Meeting Tonight - Tuesday May 1

Please come to tonight's City Council meeting and be heard!  

DEBT

Tonight's agenda includes a revised debt obligation report (Item 3) showing the City's Redevelopment debt at $625,165,719.  MORE THAN HALF A BILLION OF DEBT!  This gem is in the Consent Calendar which means the report can be approved with other actions in one motion.  Ask for Item 3 to be pulled from the consent calendar so that we can tell the City Council that $625,165,719 is too much debt.

BUDGET

Also on the agenda is the Revised Budget for Fiscal Year 2012-13.  The revised budget relies on using City reserves to close the structural deficit of at least $1.5-million and make the broad assumption that your water bill will remain the same or go up.  It addresses the 10% cut by the City Council when they halted the illegal water tax however it assumes that there will be two new "fees" in the tax's place to "recover costs" that do not exist.  You and I will continue to pay more and as soon-to-be-Recalled Councilman Dick Jones suggested, the illegal water tax has two new names: Right of Way Impact Fee and Property Lease Fee.

You would think after the backlash over these artificially created "costs" that they would have forgone the fees and dealt with reality.  No.  Business as usual.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

The General Plan Update or Fullerton Plan is also on the agenda (Item 7).  Depending on your view of social engineering, the General Plan Update may be great or terrible.

I don't like social engineering and therefore am inclined to disagree with the update.  The update incorporates many of the far left's goals to get people walking and cycling by penalizing those who operate gasoline powered  vehicles.  The word "sustainable" is used about as often as "green".  And we know how well these "green" initiatives have worked for the City with the installation of the Library's solar array.

As the name implies, it's all about "cap & trade".  CAP or Climate Action Plan makes the broad assumption that man has changed the Earth's climate and laws like this will change it back.  For that matter, there are several issues with the CAP but I'll focus on just one today.  The software used to dream up the plan's data for cap and trade, greenhouse gas emissions, and other statistical data was developed and disseminated by the very organization that lobbied for AB32 (the Global Warming Solutions Act- as if we can solve the world's problems with one law in CA).  That sounds like a conflict of interest but I'll let you do your own homework and figure out the particulars.

Tow Trucks and Commercial Routes

After a barrage of complaints of selective enforcement that favored one tow company over another, we have  the issue of "Truck Routes" back on the agenda (Item 8).  According to the staff report, some revisions to the municipal code should resolve the problem.  However, the revisions are minor and do not address the larger problem: are tow trucks "commercial vehicles" and therefor required to adhere to the truck routes?

The revised code references the California Vehicle Code's definition of "commercial vehicle".  Here is the actual language:

260.  (a) A "commercial vehicle" is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property. 

(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3. 

(c) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle. 

(d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.

This means that all tow trucks, delivery vans, maid service cars, ice cream trucks, plumbers, general contractors, electricians, or any vehicles that advertise a company or service and weigh 10,000 pounds or more are not permitted to travel in the City except along designated truck routes.

Of course there is a nice exemption for any vehicles being operated by city contractors, such as their contract tow company.  I see no changes that will resolve the issue of selective enforcement.  The municipal code gives tacit approval for Fullerton Police Officers to chase tow truck competition out of Fullerton and disenfranchising private business.  Only the City's contractor has free reign over Fullerton.

Conclusion

Clearly we are faced yet again with an agenda that supports a select few and contains little connection with the reality facing Fullerton's residents and business owners.  

Voters will have an opportunity to make a difference on June 5th by RECALLING Jones, Bankhead, and McKinley.  

Family Action PAC Takes On Redevelopment

Family Action PAC Urges Orange County GOP Legislators to Abandon Defense of Redevelopment Agencies

Political organization calls support for RDAs an affront to conservative principles

For Immediate Release                                                                                

Orange County, CA (June, 2011) – Today, the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights announced that a prominent conservative Orange County political action committee has joined a coalition of taxpayer and private property rights organizations in calling for the abolition of California redevelopment agencies (RDA).

RDAs have come under considerable public scrutiny for wasteful government spending, eminent domain abuse and, according to independent state analysis, failing to increase the overall number of California jobs. In March, only one Republican legislator, Orange County Assemblyman Chris Norby, joined Democrats in supporting Governor Jerry Brown’s plan to abolish redevelopment agencies. Failing to generate one more Republican vote, taxpayer funding of RDAs continue.

Several Orange County Republican legislators that have been critical of redevelopment agencies in the past, now defend their very existence.

“GOP support for redevelopment agencies is an affront to conservative values,” said Family Action PAC chairman Larry Smith.  “During these tough economic times, providing taxpayer funding for private development, sports arenas and luxury golf courses is not a good use of taxpayer dollars.  It has hard to believe that Republicans are standing in the way of reform.”

In addition to diverting over $5 billion in tax increment revenue annually without any reliable evidence that they create new jobs, a California’s State Controller audit of RDAs concluded that overly broad definitions of “blight” expose private property to eminent domain abuse and invite wasteful spending of tax dollars on dubious redevelopment projects such as luxury golf courses.  In addition, redevelopment funds were inappropriately used to supplement the general funds of local governments.

The Family Action PAC was formed in 2000 to focus on business, family, and social issues.  The PAC supports initiatives and local and state candidates that will affect Orange County and California, and has served a critical role in the outcome of Republican primaries in Orange County.

The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights recently launched a statewide public educationcampaign to build public opposition to RDAs and ask GOP legislators to sign a pledge to abolish redevelopment agencies. The pledge calls on GOP legislators to renew their commitment to conservative values such as protecting taxpayers and private property.

Californians are encouraged to visit www.stopthemoneypit.com to learn how they can join our campaign to protect private property rights, eliminate government waste, and support legislation that abolishes RDAs, SB 77 and AB 101.

The California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights is California’s leading private property rights (non-partisan) organization founded in 2005 and was a lead sponsor of Proposition 98, a 2008 state ballot measure that sought to protect private property rights.

Contacts:

Marko Mlikotin, California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, 916.552.0335

Larry Smith, Chairman, Family Action PAC, 949.955.1191

www.calpropertyrights.com

The City Official Who "Gets It" - Al Zelinka

"Al Zelinka, is the community development director for the City of Fullerton, California. Prior to joining the City of Fullerton, Zelinka was vice president of RBF Consulting and served as principal of RBF Consulting's urban design studio. For the past 20 years, Zelinka has played an active part in more than 150 projects (20 of which have received awards) and has practiced planning and delivered presentations or training in more than 28 states (plus the District of Columbia). He is the coauthor of two APA publications, SafeScape and Placemaking on a Budget. Zelinka received a master of regional planning from Cornell University."

The Cornell grad is a shift from the usual bureaucratic appointments by an otherwise largely failed City Council.   

Last night was the first time I felt that someone at City Hall "gets it".  Not that there aren't a few very talented folks down there but anyone who has had to develop a piece of property in Fullerton knows the frustration and expense associated with the process.

Speaking to the residents and selection committee at last night's DCCSP public meeting Zelinka said something that hit straight to the core of Fullerton's problem with private investment and development.  With about 30, maybe 40, people in the room, Zelinka said "We need to get government out of the way!" 

Holy Hot Tamale!  That was my message during the 2010 City Council election! 

Zelinka is the first to realize and, more importantly, vocalize that City Hall with its commissions and council is actually hindering growth, development, and investment.  For years, perhaps decades, Fullerton has been a difficult place for developers to work.  Between the NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard), a disjointed development code, and a void of leadership few have been willing to invest here.

Zelinka went on to explain that the specific plan which is to be created by the public through various workshops will create a framework for expediting development.

The way it has been explained to me is like approving which Lego's you will allow to be used upfront and then, anyone using those Lego's gets a quick approval.  I realize that is overly simplified but the concept is the same.

Some of the public comments included a strong desire for NEW architecture.  I truly hope those with that or similar opinions and concerns stay engaged in this discussion so that we don't end up looking like Irvine with the same beige stucco facades that seem to be creeping into downtowns across the U.S.

I was not a fan of this project from the start, mostly over concerns of the costs to taxpayers for condemnation and the potential for suppressing property rights. 

Although I still have those concerns, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  That is, if Chevron can request and have their property rezoned then why not the downtown...even if the downtown zone change is initiated by the City of Fullerton.

A major component of the plan is to address the roads and properties fronting certain arteries (corridors) leading into the Downtown "core".  This is where I see our tax dollars being invested first and foremost.  It is also where the largest segment of Fullerton's residents will be adversely affected if it isn't done right.  It will require YOUR input to make it a good plan that is uniquely Fullerton.

With Al Zelinka's clear vision of getting government out of the way, I am optimistic that he and other City regulators will know when (and how) to step aside and allow growth to take place without heavy handed tactics or the use (and abuse) of public funds.

Fullerton just might survive...

AB 1198, The first good thing to come from Sacramento in a long time

The first good thing to come from Sacramento in a long time.  That’s the way I describe Assemblyman Norby’s new bill, AB 1198.

AB 1198 would repeal the requirement that the department determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and other specified provisions relating to the assessment or allocation of regional housing need.

In short AB 1198 takes the MANDATE out of housing needs, the fuel of housing authorities and redevelopment agencies.  If enacted, AB 1198 would take the wind out of the sails of these shadow agencies that have been bleeding taxpayers for decades. 

Fullerton recently approved the formation of the Fullerton Housing Authority to address the housing mandate and waste more money upsetting the free-market of land development.

Not to be mistaken, I think more can and should be done to help the homeless in Fullerton, but housing authorities won’t fix that problem. 

AB 1198 will crush much of the reason the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) exists. 

I commend Assemblyman Chris Norby on his newly introduced legislation and stand ready to help him move it forward any way I can.

You can track California legislation, including AB 1198 HERE. 

Transportation Not Life Support for Urban Growth

Robert W. Poole, Jr. of the Reason Foundation emailed a quote to me that I would like to pass along.  Considering the number of SCAG and transportation-realted visitors to this blog, I thought it was very appropriate to post here. 

“[M]uch available evidence points to the fact that while investment in transit systems may well support, and even strengthen, pre-existing trends toward urban growth and CBD consolidation, it never creates such trends where they do not already exist, and certainly cannot reverse trends toward spatial dispersion. The difference between the two views may appear at first to be merely a matter of emphasis. But on more careful observation, it can be seen that the implications for public transport decisions are very dissimilar. The first position leads to investment motivated by the desire to arrest unwanted trends toward lower-density urban forms, or actively create denser forms of development. The latter view notes that the right time, and perhaps the only time, to invest heavily in urban public transit systems is when underlying trends show that the urban form is already consolidating for reasons unrelated to transport.” —Andrew Marsay, “Capturing Growth Trends Through Investment in Public Transport Interchanges,” paper for University of Johannesburg’s annual “Discourse” series.

And yet the Fullerton City Council continues to approve and subsidize massive transportation and urban redevelopment projects, knowing full-well that there is no demand in the private sector.  

SCAG Safe for Now

The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is safe for now.  As you may recall, I first wrote about SCAG here and later here.  There was even a visit by a SCAG employee who is also a Fullerton resident. 

I have been critical of SCAG, not so much for their roll in slowing down Southern California's economic recovery, which they have, but because the City of Fullerton is a member of SCAG thereby making my home town part of the problem rather than the solution.  The worst part is that you and I as taxpayers contribute to SCAG's existence.  Even taxpayers in Oklahoma, New Hampshire, and Virginia contribute to SCAG because much of SCAG's "revenue" is based on federal grants. 

SCAG has 6 committees, 10 sub-committees, 4 task forces, and 3 working groups. SCAG has 67 districts, each with its own Regional Council member, who is a local elected official, and 3 Regional Officers.  There are as many as 83 Regional Council members who receive $120 per diem for any SCAG sponsored meetings or events up to 6 times each MONTH!  Up to $720 per month to talk about regional planning issues.  Considering that there are 23 various committees and the like, it's easy to imagine how 67 Regional Council members might want to meet frequently to discuss urgent land planning issues.  And just to make sure they can all attend the meetings and events, SCAG reimburses for mileage. 

But why bring all this up?

First, let's consider some of the other organizations in Orange County which our local council members may be appointed to such as the Orange County Transportation Authority, the Orange County Sanitation District, the orange County Water District, and many others.  These are agencies that provide specific services to local communities.  They also pay members a per diem for their involvement and I assure you I will get to those in the near future.  However, SCAG does not provide water, manage our sewers, move people on buses, etc.  SCAG is a publicly funded think-tank of sorts that prepares reports and creates mandates for its members.

Second, you and I are paying for every penny of SCAG's existence which most Fullerton taxpayers know nothing about.  SCAG is a regional shadow government very similar to our local redevelopment agencies.  Both are quite content to mandate and ramrod boondoggle after boondoggle with no regard for the wishes of the taxpayer much less any consideration for personal economic liberty.

Rather than improving the economy, SCAG seeks to control all segments of the economy from what is "acceptable" as public transit to where and how we build.  The recent Redevelopment Agency meeting which rezoned several city blocks is exactly what SCAG wants to see more of: vertical development over transit centers.  2010 Green Party state assembly candidate Jane Rands pointed out at the meeting that the entire purpose for the area was public transportation and here we are hiding the buses in an underground garage (of a massive publicly subsidized business and housing project, I would add).  And that is the least of our worries.

SCAG is trying to put the breaks on urban sprawl and personal automotive transportation through their regional planning efforts.  I suggest that they lead by example and have all directors and employees move into one of their planned and subsidized apartments above a transportation center.  I know some of them do and I commend them for their efforts to live the way they talk. 

The most important point I can make here is that no one, especially our government, should be sticking their nose into my home or my life and telling me how I should live.  If I wanted to live in a high-rise apartment, I would have moved into one.  My wife and I chose to live in a single-family home on a quarter-acre so that we can live as we see fit while raising our children.  I don't have to ask permission from anyone to have a party or cook a burger on my grill.  I don't need special permission to own a dog or cat. I can hang the flag of my choice on my flag pole without an HOA telling me otherwise.  I pay my fair share for my residential footprint and lifestyle via high property taxes.  Those tax dollars are used to subsidize many of these failed projects.  If everyone stopped living in the suburbs, how would local governments be able to afford some of these boondoggles?  I’m sure they would find something else to tax, such as the air.  Oh but wait; the State of California already taxes air via the California Air Resources Board and the AQMD.  Maybe its time to sprawl to another state, but that would be too easy.  

We cannot give in to those who want to take away or tax our liberties. 

SB 375 (Steinberg) - More From SCAG

 

 

 

"SB 375 (Steinberg) is California state law that became effective January 1, 2009. This new law requires California's Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. California's 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating "Sustainable Community Strategies" (SCS). The MPOs are required to develop the SCS through integrated land use and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035."

If it doesn't bring tears to your eyes, it will certainly make a dent in your wallet!

Vote YES ON 23 and fire your city council representatives who sit on SCAG's Regional Council Districts this November 2nd.

Campaign Update - Grand Opening and a Visit by SCAG

Last night we were joined by many supporters, friends, and family members for the grand opening of our campaign headquarters.  The tremendous show of support and encouragement from well-wishers was and is deeply appreciated. 

I would like to thank Assemblyman Norby for his generous donation of exquisite Mexican food and Mr. Chris Thompson for his donation of beverages.  While we ate dinner, the Brown-Whitman debate was tuned in on a donated TV.  Among those joining us was congressional candidate Phil Liberatore and several other candidates for local races.  Of course the Sebourn for Council balloons were a hit with the many children present and a distraction for those still working on their homework. 

Although I wasn't planning the event as a fundraiser in and of itself, many of you chose to make donations in spite of the struggling economy and personal hardships.  Others offered to take time out of their busy day to work the phones and call voters or walk precincts.  Thank you.  Unless a candidate is swimming in money to pay consultants and workers to walk and talk to voters, candidates like myself must rely on the charity of friends and family who are willing to sacrifice their time for the campaign.  If you would like to donate money, time, or materials, please email me at gregsebourn@yahoo.com.

Also on hand was the assistant to the president of SCAG.  You may recall SCAG from an earlier blog post I wrote here.  Based on their own website, SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments) is the Big Brother everyone warned us about.  SCAG infringes upon and nullifies the autonomy of municipal governance and creates a publicly funded government agency which voters have little to no control over.  It would appear that my earlier blog post grabbed their attention sufficiently.  The assistant to the president said she was conservative, which is neither here nor their.  She then wanted to know how I planned to implement AB32. 

First, let's look at an overly simplified summary of AB32, a.k.a. the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  AB 32 requires that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The process of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state is slated under AB 32 to begin in 2012.  The economic effect of AB32 is controversial. In March 2010, the California Air Resources Board ("CARB") issued a report claiming that the law would create about 10,000 new jobs for California in the next ten years. A parallel study, performed by consulting firm Charles River Associates for CARB pursuant to a 2008 state law and released at the same time using the same raw data, claimed that the program would cost between $28 and $97 billion dollars over the same decade and would cause a decline in California household income in the range of 0.6% to 1.0% per capita. The bill is currently being challenged with Proposition 23 on the November 2010 ballot, which aims to suspend AB32 until state unemployment stays below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters.  VOTE YES ON PROP 23!

My answer to SCAG:  You are assuming that Prop 23 will not pass.  Whether or not it passes, I intend to cut about 1/3 of the council's 2010 expenditures which I think will have a substantial impact on the City's carbon footprint.  This is particularly evident when you see how much pollution the Redevelopment Agency's bulldozers belch out while they bulldoze homes.  Let's also not forget the amount of various trips by staff to the Superior Court to fight law suits and condemn property.  Nor can we forget about the bits and bites of data transmitted for those purposes, the lights under which the staff work, and all of the paper used to file law suits, motions, and exhibits. 

But what I am wondering is why the assistant to the president, who introduced herself as a planner, would ask about AB32 and not issues pertaining to zoning and the general plan.  For an agency with a mission statement of "developing and fostering the realization of regional plans that improve the quality of life for Southern Californians" they seem to be focused on an issue having little to do with land development or land planning.  Rather than asking about AB32, she should have asked why I feel SCAG is Big Brother.  Or why do feel SCAG is the embodiment of big tax and spend government.  Instead, it was a bad law that will be impeded this November and eventually repealed or significantly amended which she chose to ask me about.

SCAG's existence while under the radar of taxpaying voters is coming to an end.  It's time the taxpayers realize the breadth and depth of waste within this publicly funded special interest program known as SCAG.

Big Brother Has a Name: SCAG

I've heard two general sentiments regarding SCAG:  They are a wonderful organization that improves the quality of life for everyone; and, SCAG is the Big Brother regulatory body we were warned about.  But which is right?

Since I am running for election to represent the taxpayers and voters of Fullerton, a member agency of SCAG, I thought it was time to do a little more homework on SCAG to see if the organization is beneficial or detrimental to the residents and business owners of my hometown.  I started by going to http://www.scag.ca.gov/about.htm.

I found a wealth of information from which I conclude the following:  SCAG is HUGE;  SCAG is a taxpayer-funded organization;  SCAG seeks to destroy the autonomy of a city's incorporation; SCAG is the embodiment of big government gone horribly wrong; SCAG is an unnecessary bureaucracy that makes housing MORE costly by over-regulating development.  Sound a little harsh?  Let me explain.

Let's begin with the organization's Mission Statement: An international and regional planning forum trusted for its leadership and inclusiveness in developing plans and policies for a sustainable Southern California. I am always suspicious when I read "sustainable" in a mission statement.  Not that I want an unsustainable Southern California but because I think we need to focus on creating a system for sustainable governance before we worry about everyone else.  Sustainable governance is a system of governing in which a government utilizes only the financial means available without burdening the residents, business owners, and tax payers with increased taxes disguised as fees. 

Next, let's consider some of SCAG's history and why I think they really exist.  From their website we have this: The fundamental question of why SCAG was created is best answered in the words of Ventura County Supervisor John Montgomery back in 1966, who said, "Regional planning is not a matter of if, but rather when and who. Regional planning must come via cooperation and mutual assistance. Regional planning will (either) be accomplished through local governments working together or by big brother mandates from state and national governments."

So, in order to avoid mandates from State and Federal agencies, our local governments got together to implement their own mandates upon one another.  That's absurd.  Cities incorporate to free themselves from County/State control and to have some autonomy.  Why then would cities like Fullerton, Brea, and Anaheim create and/or join SCAG?   To be a de facto government agency that does not answer to voters but is financed by tax payers.  They get to create all sorts of regulations for its members, some of which may be good and some are detrimental to the civic well being of the community.  

SCAG boasts that, SCAG is mandated by the federal and state governments to develop regional plans for transportation, growth management, housing development, air quality and other issues of regional significance. 

And the most telling information regarding SCAG is found in the following paragraph:
SCAG was formed on October 28, 1965, when elected officials from 56 cities and five counties met at the Biltmore Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. SCAG, initially governed by a 20-member Executive Committee, was charged with conducting growth forecasts and regional planning. To help accommodate new responsibilities mandated by the federal and state governments, as well as to provide more broad-based representation of Southern California's many cities and counties, SCAG's Bylaws were amended in 1992 to expand the Executive Committee to a 70-member Regional Council. SCAG changed its regional representation to correspond to population size and established districts based in part upon population.

There is some very important information to consider.  First, they met at the Biltmore.  That's a pretty classy place even in 1965 that you and I (ok, technically my parents and grandparents) paid for through taxes.  Second, it mentions of state and federal mandates, but it leaves out which mandates those might be.  Third, SCAG has created districts to be more representative of the population.  And SCAG continues to grow. 

During the past four decades, SCAG has become the largest of nearly 700 councils of government in the United States, functioning as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for Southern California. SCAG is mandated by the federal and state governments to develop regional plans for transportation, growth management, housing development, air quality and other issues of regional significance.

Notice how proud SCAG is of its own growth.  Much like a redevelopment agency that consumes a city, SCAG is consuming whole counties! 

In addition to the six counties and 189 cities that make up SCAG's region, there are five County Transportation Commissions (CTCs), the Tribal Government Regional Planning Board and the Imperial Valley Association of Governments that have primary responsibility for programming and administering transportation projects, programs and services in their respective jurisdictions.

I would like to see how much these public employees earn as directors and board members and what their pensions look like.  It's time we pull the veil of mystery off of this monstrous regulatory body and see it for what it is: a government within a government that is not accountable to the taxpayers who fund its existence.

MONEY BOMB STRIKES FULLERTON!!!

 I have just launched a Money Bomb and need your help!

I have recently received a barrage of endorsements from individuals, partisan organizations, and bi-partisan community groups who believe in sustainable governance and my vision.  However, endorsements alone don't win elections.  I need your help getting my message to voters by walking neighborhoods, distributing yard signs, mailing letters and fliers, community forums, and electronic media.  Yard signs, letters, and fliers are costly.  To that end, I have a PayPal donation button on the right side of the campaign webpage as well as a Donate Page to make it easier than ever to support limited government, personal liberty, and property rights. Please take a moment and help make Fullerton the jewel of North Orange County! I need your money to get the word out that City Hall’s business as usual is no longer acceptable! 

Your contribution is an investment in Fullerton’s future!

Checks can be sent to 1824 Rosalia Dr., Fullerton, Ca. 92835 and made payable to Greg Sebourn for Fullerton City Council 2010.

As always, I thank you for supporting my campaign for Fullerton's future.

Greg