Fullerton Observer Still in Twilight Zone

Somehow the Fullerton Observer screwed up my statement and printed that I said I would be dismantling the FPD and bringing in the Sheriff's Department.

Here is what I said and you can check it out on the Friends for Fullerton's Future website:

"One of the things that has been proposed is basically dismantling the Fullerton Police Department and bringing in the Orange County Sheriff's Department.  Some have said that it would save us a ton of money, and indeed it might, but it may have other ramifications as well.  We might be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire." 

That was my response to a question at the League of Women Voters Forum last week about repairing Fullerton's tarnished and bruised reputation. I also spoke about accountability, something the FPD has lacked for nearly two decades until recently when several police officers and at least one non-sworn employee found themselves on the wrong side of the law.  

So, since the Observer is bent on distorting the facts, I will spell it out:  ALL OPTIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED.

That doesn't mean SEBOURN will toss out Fullerton's police officers nor does it mean SEBOURN will ask the OC Sheriff's Department to serve Fullerton.  It DOES mean that I will look at all of these options and give everyone a voice at the dais to make their case.  Major changes like this should not be made without careful consideration of the facts, and we just don't have all of them yet.

The OC Sheriff's Department has a reputation of corruption as well from the top down.  In all fairness, every police agency struggles with corruption, though some dismiss it as "misconduct".  

And if you read the Observer's mid May issue, you might be wondering who "Doug Sebourn" is.  Me too.  He might be some long lost cousin or just an imaginary candidate.  Hard to say with the Observer.

The Fullerton Observer - Sins of Omission

With the Fullerton City Council scheduled to discuss and vote on the proposed West Coyote Hills development by Pacific Coast Homes, the Fullerton Observer is working overtime to derail the multi-million dollar development.

The Early July issue of the Observer has several stories of woe from authors, some named and some anonymous.

One such story by an anonymous author, “Public Park or Housing Development?”, pushes the notion that the OCTA was poised to purchase the 510 acre site for use as a park.  That is not entirely accurate and here is why.

OCTA never had enough money to purchase the property.  OCTA offered Chevron, the property owner, $27-million for the property estimated to be worth more than $250-million.

In a letter to OCTA dated March 22, 2010, Pacific Coast Homes project manager Jim Pugliese explained as much.

Pugliese goes on to further explain that they intend to open the property to the public, nearly 250 acres, as well as the liability of simply turning over an oil field without indemnification.

The Observer has chosen to omit these important details in an effort to thwart any development of the property.  Unfortunately, their readers may take as whole truths the misleading spin from the liberal paper without doing their own independent research.

Another misgiving is that North OC needs another park.  There are more than 120 parks north of the 91FWY which municipalities are struggling to maintain with deeply cut budgets.  Another park, as nice as it may sound, places a tremendous burden on already strained budgets.  Without a large endowment, like the one proposed by Pacific Coast Homes, we just cannot afford to operate or maintain another park.

The City Council will take up the issue July 12^th, 6:30PM at City Hall.

Republican County? So Says Fullerton Observer

In the Early June edition of the Fullerton Observer an un-named author noted Villa Park Council Member as a member of the "Republican County Central Committee".  The article should probably read "Orange County Republican Party Central Committee".

Observer's Love Affair with Chevron - A love hate relationship

It doesn't take a reader long to recognize that the Fullerton Observer is a heavily biased publication. 

Each issue seems to surround Chevron, that "evil corporation that wants to destroy our beloved nature."  Some stories are emotional appeals while others raise valid concerns.  

Lacking any valid points,

at least in my opinion, the Mid-April issue is rife with emotional appeals, two of which I would like to explore here. 

First is the cover story with the flow chart.

The big fallacy, or dare I say lie, in the chart is where the project is approved with or maybe without conditions.  The project as it stands has MILLIONS of dollars in conditions.  Those conditions will not go away and neither will the law suit if the City chooses to deny the project again.

There are many other issues with the story and the chart but I'll leave those alone for now.

Next, let's look at the letter from Shirley Gregg titled "A Myth On Steroids, Chevron's 'No Money'" on page 3 of the same issue.

The author says that Chevron has refused to work with OCTA this year and that the agency has earmarked Chevron as "unwilling to negotiate at this time."  She later states that Chevron has communicated with OCTA this year but rejected their offers.

You can stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and pretend it ain't so, BUT Chevron sent a letter dated March 22, 2010 to OCTA wherein PCH project manager Jim Pugliese outlines what needs to happen for the County or the City or anyone else to purchase the West Coyote Hills property. 

Pugliese writes:

"...the current allocation amount of about $27 million is not sufficient to acquire, restore and maintain our 510‐acre property even if it received 100 percent of the funding, which is unlikely considering the property is a habitat island and there are no existing wildlife movement corridors between it and other native habitat areas (e.g. Puente Hills, Chino Hills). It is also unlikely to receive all of the funding because there are over 100 projects competing for funding throughout Orange County.

The issue of liability is another concern. Acquisition would have to include satisfactory indemnification of Pacific Coast Homes for any future liability from future public use of the land. It is not clear OCTA is in a position to offer this guarantee.

Lastly, we have made a pledge to Fullerton residents that after project approval we would open West Coyote Hills for public enjoyment through miles of trails, vista points and a nature center. Based on our conversation, it does not appear that public access is a priority for your program, and we are not prepared to go back on the pledges we have made to the community."

See actual letter at left.  Click images for full view.  To date, no one - OCTA, the City of Fullerton, or anyone else - has offered Chevron terms similar to those outlined in the March 2010 letter.

Ms. Gregg goes onto share her perceived deficit in parks in North Orange County. 

The fact remains North Orange County has plenty of parks.  Just to name a few which are all NORTH of the 91FWY:

State Parks:

Chino Hills State Park
County Parks:
Craig Regional Park
Clark Regional Park (next to WCH)
Carbon Canyon Regional Park
Featherly Regional Park
Yorba Regional Park
George Key Ranch Historical Park
Also listed as a "park" but not picnic worthy is the Yorba Cemetery

City Parks:
Constitution Park, La Habra
Corona Park, La Habra
Descanso Park, La Habra
El Centro-Lions Park, La Habra
Estelli Park, La Habra
Guadalupe Park, La Habra
La Bonita Park, La Habra
Las Lomas Park, La Habra
Loma Norte Park, La Habra
Loma Verde Park, La Habra
Montwood Park, La Habra
Oeste Park, La Habra
Old Reservoir Park, La Habra
Old Settlers Park, La Habra
Osornio Park, La Habra
Portola Park, La Habra
Richards Park, La Habra

Terraza Park, La Habra
Town Center Park, La Habra
San Miguel De Allende Park, La Habra
Vista Grande Park, La Habra
Vista Del Valle (Westridge) Park, La Habra
Vista Del Valle Park,  La Habra
Arovista Park, Brea
Brea Junior High School Park, Brea
Brea Sports Park, Brea
City Hall Park, Brea
Country Hills Park, Brea
Founder's Park, Brea
Greenbriar Par, Brea
Lagos De Moreno Park, Brea
Olinda Oil Museum and Trail, Brea
Olinda Ranch Park, Brea
Tamarack Park, Brea
Tri-City Park Maintained by the cities of Brea, Fullerton and PlacentiaWoodcrest Park, Brea
Arroyo Park, Yorba Linda
Box Canyon Park, Yorba Linda
Brush Canyon Park, Yorba Linda
Bryant Ranch School Park, Yorba Linda
Dominguez Trailside Park, Yorba Linda
Eastside Community Park, Yorba Linda
Fairmont Knolls Park, Yorba Linda
Hurless Barton Park, Yorba Linda
Jean Woodard Park, Yorba Linda
Jessamyn West Park, Yorba Linda
Kingsbriar Park, Yorba Linda
Las Palomas Tennis Park, Yorba Linda
Phillip S. Paxton Equestrian Center, Yorba Linda
Rio Del Oro, Yorba Linda
Roland Bigonger Park, Yorba Linda
San Antonio Park, Yorba Linda
Shapell Park, Yorba Linda
Travis Ranch Park, Yorba Linda
Veterans Park, Yorba Linda
Yorba Linda Middle School Park, Yorba Linda

George Bellis Park, Buena Park

Lindbergh Mini Park, Buena Park

Smith-Murphy Park, Buena Park

Acacia Park, Fullerton

Adlena Park, Fullerton

Amerige Park, Fullerton

Bastanchury Park, Fullerton

Brea Dam Recreation Area, Fullerton

Brea Dam Park, Fullerton

Byerrum Park, Fullerton

Chapman Park, Fullerton

Downtown Plaza, Fullerton

Edward H. White II Park, Fullerton

Emery Park, Fullerton

Fern Drive Park, Fullerton

Ford Park, Fullerton

Fullerton Arboretum, Fullerton

Fullerton Creek Greenbelt, Fullerton

Fullerton Sports Complex, Fullerton

Gilbert Park, Fullerton

Gilman Park, Fullerton

Hermosa School Park, Fullerton

Hillcrest Park, Fullerton

Hiltscher Park, Fullerton

Independence Park, Fullerton

Laguna Lake Park, Fullerton

Laguna Road School Park, Fullerton

Lemon Park, Fullerton

Mountain View Park, Fullerton

Muckenthaler Cultural Center, Fullerton

Nicolas Park, Fullerton

Olive Park, Fullerton

Orangethorpe Park, Fullerton

Pacific Drive Park, Fullerton

Plaza Park, Fullerton

Pooch Park, Fullerton

Richman Park, Fullerton

Robert E. Ward Nature Preserve, Fullerton

Roger B. Chaffee Park, Fullerton

Rolling Hills Park, Fullerton

Rolling Hills School Park, Fullerton

San Juan Park, Fullerton

Skate Park (at Independence Park) , Fullerton

Trail Rest Park, Fullerton

Truslow Park, Fullerton

Valencia Park, Fullerton

Virgil "Gus" Grissom Park, Fullerton

Vista Park, Fullerton

West Coyote Hills Park, Fullerton

West Coyote Hills Tree Park, Fullerton

Woodcrest Park, Fullerton

Koch Park, Placentia

Pearson Park, Placentia

Tuffree Park, Placentia

Kraemer Park, Placentia

Parque de Los Vaqueros, Placentia

Parque del Arroyo Verde, Placentia

RiverDale Park, Anaheim

*Recreational trails were not included in the list.

Did I miss any?  I tried to exclude buildings and golf courses though many consider those to be "parks".

122 PARKS NORTH OF THE 91FWY!

How many parks do we need before we have enough?

Chevron Guilty of Blackmail?

In the early March edition of the Fullerton Observer, Fullerton resident David Owen claims Chevron has and is blackmailing the City of La Habra.

Mr. Owen takes issue with an AGREEMENT that was voted on at a PUBLIC meeting wherein the public could tell the La Habra City Council members just how they felt about the AGREEMENT.

Specifically the AGREEMENT stipulates the terms of sale of water rights from Chevron to the City of La Habra. One of the terms specifies that the city of La Habra cannot oppose any part or portion of the West Coyote Hills development in Fullerton. Another term specifies that the City of La Habra must provide water to the new subdivision in the event that the new subdivision creates a burden on the City of Fullerton’s water system. I’m paraphrasing but you get the picture.

The terms and conditions of the AGREEMENT are pretty typical considering the magnitude of the transaction. (I keep capitalizing AGREEMENT to emphasize the mutual accord of the parties)

Concerned that the statute had recently changed, I looked up the most current version of California Penal Code 518, the law which Mr. Owen thinks was violated, which defines extortion, the legal term for blackmail.

The law reads, “518. Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right.”

There are a number of ways to apply extortion and I can’t find any that fit the alleged crime. In consideration of the lack of evidence that a crime was committed and the fact that the allegations were published, perhaps Chevron will consider some sort of legal action against Mr. Owen for defamation. But for Chevron to do so, the courts might first have to recognize the Fullerton Observer as general circulation news paper, which, according to the Orange County Register and court records, it isn’t.

So, as an emotional outlet, much like this blog, I suppose Owen and the Observer are safe from the wrath and vengeance of giant evil oil companies should they choose to crush us.

The anonymous authors of the other Chevron hit-pieces which were also printed in the Observer do bring up one very real and valid point. Fullerton’s contract legal firm is Jones & Mayer, the same firm contracted by the City of La Habra. They are the same firm who has advised both cities on dealings with Chevron. Richard Jones (NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH FULLERTON MAYOR RICHARD “DICK” JONES) of Jones & Mayer is also a board member of Cal Domestic, the water company whose shares Chevron has sold to La Habra. That puts Jones & Mayer in a unique position to play match-maker and earn a little extra spending money. Although no wrong-doing by the firm has been uncovered, Jones & Mayer must disclose conflicts of interest in cases like this.

Fullerton Observer lost in the twilight zone

I have a hard time reading periodicals that swing wildly in all directions, hoping to strike a blow on a non-existent foe.  The January issue of the Fullerton Observer is such a periodical.

Chevron stands in the way of  Chevron
The Fullerton Observer's January 2011 has an odd front headline that is causing a lot of people to scratch their heads.

Even the Fullerton Observer Can See the Problems at Cal State Fullerton

I've been writing about CSUF for about a year after discovering how much of our taxes are, in my opinion, squandered and completely mismanaged.  I brought you CSUF Milton Gordon's mansion which is owned by the taxpayers and the problem with FERPing (it really is as bad as it sounds).  You can read the posts HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.  And now the Fullerton Observer, a local publication, has caught the bug.  Below is the entirety of an article by Mark Shapiro, available HERE.  Enjoy!

============================================================

Half-time Interim Director at CSUF Paid $165,104
by Mark H. Shapiro

Although the California State University system is in the midst of a major budget crisis, a retired Cal State Fullerton administrator who was hired back as the Interim Director of University Planning received a salary of $165,104 this past fiscal year (according to the Sacramento Bee database of state salaries).

Because Michael C. Parker retired from Cal State Fullerton in 2005 where he worked as Chief Information Technology Officer and Professor of Counseling, he must, as a retired annuitant, work less than half-time in order to keep his pension income.

In 2009 his CalPERS retirement income was $105,129 according to information available from Californiapensionreform.com.

On a full-time basis, Parker’s salary would be equivalent to $330,208, which would exceed that of CSU Fullerton’s President, Milton A. Gordon, by some $28,166.

Even Parker’s part-time salary of $165,104, when combined with his CSU retirement income of $105,129 amounts to $270,233.

This would make him the second-highest paid administrator at Cal State Fullerton, just behind Gordon who received $302,042 in 2009, and well ahead of the next-highest paid administrator, head basketball coach Bob Burton, who received $213,007 in 2009.

The position of Interim Director of Strategic Planning probably is an important one. 

Previous efforts at strategic planning at Cal State Fullerton have yielded little in the way of tangible results, in the opinion of many campus employees.

But given the seriousness of the current budget crisis, the current effort at planning may be more successful.

Nevertheless, it seems very unusual that a half-time Interim Director of Strategic Planning would be paid more (not including his retirement pay) than a host of full-time academic deans and other top-level administrators on the campus.

In fact, none of the academic college deans at Fullerton earned more than $160,223 in 2009, even though they work on a full-time basis.

The author has known Mike Parker professionally for many years, and considers him to be a decent and hard-working administrator.

But it still seems strange that he would be paid so much money for a half-time job that is important, but no more important than those of, say, the academic deans.

This is particularly true at a time when the University is working under extreme budget constraints.

One wonders if the taxpayers are being wellserved in these circumstances.

(The author worked for many years as a Professor of Physics at Cal State Fullerton. He also publishes The Irascible Professor, an online journal that covers issues in education. It is available on the Internet at http://irascibleprofessor.com/)

The Fullerton Observer - A Fear Mongering News Paper?

Turn to page 4 of the “Early November 2010” issue of the Fullerton Observer and you’ll be scared into thinking that a gas or oil company is about to start drilling in your own backyard.  

“This means that an oil production company that owns mineral rights to a piece of land, like Chevron, can do anything it wishes, even right in your back yard, and no government agency will step in to protect you.”  No, that is not true.

The problems with the blog-like article are many but let me cut to the chase and give you a piece of valuable advice that I might otherwise charge you a few hundred dollars an hour for.

When you by real property, a.k.a. land, you are given a deed which contains the legal description of the property you are receiving.  Most Fullerton deeds are simple lot and block descriptions such as “Lot 4, Tract 1234, filed in book 5 at page 2, Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County.”   Some are a little more complex and use a system of metes and bounds to describe the property boundary.  That description is generally predicated by a caption which might read “In the City of Fullerton, County of Orange, State of California, more particularly described as…”  The last portion of the legal description contains modifiers and qualifiers.  For example, the deed may have as a qualifier, “Except therefrom that portion conveyed to John Smith by deed dated January 10, 1910 and recorded in book…” 

When it comes to mineral and other rights, look to the qualifier at the end of the description to read what you were granted and, more importantly, what you were NOT granted.  Remember, someone can only grant to you that which they posses title to.  Therefore, if the grantor, the person selling the property, does not have oil rights, then they cannot grant you oil rights.  The same is true with water rights and other mineral rights.

Most qualifiers that except out mineral rights from a grant deed refer back to a parent document, often the initial grant deed for the parent parcel.  Therein lies the terms of the mineral rights which MAY include rights of ingress and egress.  It may also specify that there is NO right to access said minerals from the surface of the junior parcel.  Therefore, Texaco may not have any right to use the surface of your property. 

Subdivision maps that carve up the parent parcel usually include something like this:



Typical acknowledgement of mineral rights reserved by third party on a subdivision map.



So why maintain the right if you can’t access the minerals from the surface?  Because the most common mineral right retained in Fullerton is oil which is in a large pool under you property.  By retaining the right to that pool, they are excluding you from accessing it and thereby benefiting from it.  If I own the mineral rights to two lots that are side by side, I only need to own ONE of them to reap the benefits of both. 

The bottom line is that you should read ALL of those documents that you sign when you are at the escrow office.  Know what you are buying and know what you are not being granted.

And if you are really and truly concerned that a big oil or gas company is about to start drilling in your yard, give me a call.