• Fullerton Rag

    Dean Ramirez, thank you for attending the May 17th meeting of the Fullerton City Council. Your comments above represent a generalization of the proceedings, and would benefit from the inclusion of other salient facts:

    Although it is true that most attendees who spoke that night either supported map 2B or 8, map Map 10 also had supporters, and for this reason was included in the final four maps to be considered by the council on June 7.

    Map 8 is a disaster, and, as you note, was driven by late-to-the-game businesses trying to look out for their own comparatively narrow interests, but Map 2B has its own problems. Map 8 fragments the downtown residents by splitting up their voices, but Map 2B absurdly lumps most of them with Cal State Fullerton. Not a single supporter of 2B that night acknowledged this poor mapping to be a problem, let alone offered a remedy to it. They too, have their own interests in mind, to the exclusion of the interests of others.

    Map 2B itself is a revision of an earlier map offered at one of the public meetings. This revision resulted from a PRIVATE meeting with the city’s hired demographer, David Ely–a meeting to which not all participants in the many public meetings were invited. I believe not all of the people who worked on 2B even live in Fullerton.

    Paid political organizers from the Orange County Congregation Community Organization (OCCCO) are working on behalf of 2B. When I met with one, and pointed out how 2B stretched nearly all the way across the city for a forced marriage of CSUF and Downtown Fullerton, he had nothing to say other than that no map was perfect (twice!).

    The item was originally scheduled to be heard on June 7. It was the OCCCO organizers themselves who asked for an earlier date because they were concerned about the item conflicting with election day (perhaps OCCCO organizers will have other professional duties that night (?). There was an option to move it to a later date than June 7, but the OCCCO organizer involved chose the earlier date of May 17. Tough luck. It was a gamble that didn’t pay off.

    It was not a bad idea to refrain from making a decision on May 17. It should have been obvious to anyone watching that the City Council members were not adequately familiar with the maps or the process to make a responsible decision that night. Instead, they asked that the four maps that had received support from the public that night (2B, 8, 10, and 11) be considered on June 7, and set May 24 as a final date for revisions to these plans that might ameliorate concerns with problems expressed about each respective maps. Has there been a revision offered to 2B to address the concerns about it expressed above?

    Fortunately, there is a free Public Forum scheduled to discuss each of these maps on June 1, 7:00 p.m., at the Community Room of the Fullerton Public Library, 353 W. Commonwealth Ave. The authors of all four maps have been invited. I hope all of them, and you, will choose attend.

  • Scott Smith

    Witness Westminster who has not respect for their citizens to talk about the ballot measure for November 2016. Fullerton is way ahead of the game.

    • Fullerton Rag

      Way ahead, perhaps, but not there yet.