In driving through Fullerton several times Saturday (on the way to putting up signs elsewhere), I saw the full graphic impact of the jihad against Jan Flory. Signs posted all over the place proclaim “NO FLORY | UNION PUPPET” in a minimalist style that I’ve come to recognize as the hallmark of Tony Bushala’s crew. These signs and Travis Kiger signs and Bruce Whitaker sit illegally on the medians of roads in numerous locations — because what are you gonna do, try to fine Tony Bushala? In addition to Whitaker and Kiger signs and Flory signs and Alvarez signs, there are the “Flory-Alvarez” signs put out by the Firefighters, occasional Rands and Jaramillo and Levinson and Bartholemew and Bankhead signs, you see nothing else in the Council race — specifically no (or almost no) signs for Jennifer Fitzgerald, endorsed Republican party candidate, from the faction of the party that until recently controlled Council.
This has led me — foolishly, I now suspect — to discount Fitzgerald’s chances in the election. She must not be that serious. But, of course, I have the least access to what’s going on in traditional Republicans’ mailboxes. For all I know, she’s gotten out all the mailers she needs — or perhaps, with party support, she doesn’t need them OR signs to win a seat on Council.
Something hasn’t added up for the past months, during which FFFF has gone on an absolute jihad against Jan Flory, on a scale of intensity rivaling that against the previous Council majority. And that is: why worry so much about Flory? Whitaker seems to be a shoo-in; Flory and Kiger could both be elected to the other seats of the Council this week and the Bushala majority would remain intact. Why this ferocious desire to bump off Flory, when the real race would seem to be “if Whitaker and Flory both make it to Council, who comes in third — Kiger or a Not-Kiger?
If Flory is securely in one of the top two spots, Bushala shouldn’t care much about her. His goal should be to split the Not-Kiger vote and elect Kiger — you know, by doing something like promoting Levinson and Rands (but not Jaramillo, just in case) on a “No on W” slate. But that’s not what’s happening. Why?
Oh. Got it.
Bushala probably realizes — and I’d think that he’d have put some money into polls — that Whitaker and someone else actually have the top two spots locked up. (My guess is that that person is Fitzgerald, choice of the traditional GOP.) In that case, the real race on Council is for third place — and Kiger and Flory are the leading contenders for it.
Now it all falls into place.
Tony’s hopes of controlling the Council depend on re-electing Kiger. The real threat to re-electing Kiger is Flory. Therefore, for months now, the almost single-minded purpose of the FFFF blog has been to destroy Jan Flory — and these “NO FLORY” signs are the coup de grace. The “Open Space” PAC is designed to lead Democrats, liberals, leftists, and environmentalists to vote for someone other than Flory. (In retrospect, Tony’s mistake was leaving Kitty Jaramillo off of the “No on W” endorsement list — because one can vote for Rands, Levinson … and Flory as preferential to Kiger. Maybe he just couldn’t stand the thought of that.)
The election will now come down to those who have not already voted — that is, mostly non-ideologues. That’s the point of the Open Space PAC mailer. For Kiger to win, “No on W” people have to be convinced not to vote for Flory. They don’t have to vote for Kiger — he’s probably their worst choice, they realize — but they can’t be allowed to vote for Flory.
So this becomes a test for the opponents on Measure W. If Tony is right — and he is certainly making it appear that it’s true — he has information that Whitaker and probably Fitzgerald will be elected to Fullerton City Council on Tuesday. Your question is — who do you want to join them? Once you vote for, let’s say, two “No on W” people, who gets your third vote? Do you vote for Flory — or do you let Kiger back onto the Council?
Does it matter? Sure it matters. I oppose Measure W (from just across the border, where I don’t get a vote on whether to preserve the last major wilderness space in that part of the county), but I recognize that among its proponents there are those whose positions are reasonable and responsible and those who are just despicable.
At the Church forum last Monday, Flory explained her position on Measure W — which is the same as Molly McLanahan’s, Minard Duncan’s, and other environmentalists of both parties with whom I disagree. Their position is that Chevron is holding the winning cards here and that the environmentalists’ role is to get the best deal regarding Coyote Hills — and that after over a decade of negotiation, the deal we see is the best deal that can be had.
I disagree. I think that, after a negative vote on Measure W by the citizens of Fullerton, we can do better. These are more politically active times — more is possible now than before. But I think that they are absolutely well-intentioned in their support.
Travis Kiger, by contrast, sees this simplyas a property rights issue and, as a hard-core libertarian, apparently doesn’t even think that the city should use its power of zoning to block construction of 750+ new houses on this scarred land. He will give Chevron whatever it is that they want — as a matter of principle.
If you are an opponent of Measure W, are you truly ambivalent between Kiger and Flory <b>on this issue?</b>
You have three votes for Council. Two of them can register your opposition for Measure W. Your third vote is on what is he only competitive race among the candidates for Council — do you want Flory or Kiger on Council?
Some of you will say that you want Kiger. That’s your choice. Most opponents, though, would prefer the moderate and enlightened pragmatism of Flory. You have one vote to choose among them; I doubt that anyone voting for them both.
Tony Bushala doesn’t want you, the opponent of Coyote Hills development, to cast a vote on that question. That’s the point of his new PAC. But you should — for Flory — because if Measure W happens you want an environmentalist like Flory, rather than a property-rights absolutist like Kiger, to be part of determining what happens next. Your third vote — between those two — may determine what ultimately happens to Coyote Hills.
Ugh.
What’s the difference between Bankhead, Flory, and Kiger regarding Coyote Hills?
Nothing, at all. They all voted or would vote in favor of measure W and took money from Chevron or Chevron’s Land and Development Project Manager.
Vote your conscience and not Greg’s conspiracy theory. Rands is the leader Fullerton needs today.
If people want to vote for Jane, they of course should. Kitty too, I hope. They have three choices after all. One likely decides whether the third seat goes to Kiger or to Flory.
The difference between Kiger/Bankhead and Flory is that the former pair do not have a environmental interest in Coyote Hills at all. Flory does. She may be wrong on the tactical aspects of how to minimize the effects of development, but that’s much better than wanting the bad guys to win.
A $500 contribution from Chevron isn’t damning. Being an ideological “property rights” absolutist is.
Whenever I see, compared as though they were our only choices, a conservative (like Travis) and a liberal (like Flory) who both support the same destructive policies – the liberal often with feigned regret – I always remember the passage in “Through the Looking Glass” right after Tweedledee recites the great poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter” to Alice:
‘I like the Walrus best,’ said Alice: ‘because he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.’
‘He ate more than the Carpenter, though,’ said Tweedledee. ‘You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn’t count how many he took: contrariwise.’
‘That was mean!’ Alice said indignantly. ‘Then I like the Carpenter best—if he didn’t eat so many as the Walrus.’
‘But he ate as many as he could get,’ said Tweedledum.
This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, ‘Well! They were both very unpleasant characters!’
http://sabian.org/looking_glass4.php
Yeah. And I think of Ralph Nader and Al Gore in 2000. Also a classic.
Wow, Flory as Al Gore. If you say so.
The race for the third Council seat, judging from Tony’s behavior, apparently involves two people: Flory and Kiger. Yes, for that race, that puts Flory in the Al Gore position and Kiger in the George W. Bush position.
“If people want to vote for Jane, they of course should.”
Wow. Thanks for allowing that.
I think people should vote for whomever THEY want.
That pesky self thinker in me is at it again. I’ll try and be influenced more by others next time??
Don’t be an idiot. That wasn’t my giving permission. Is this the only way you can succeed, by twisting people’s words?
Rhetorical question, no need to answer.
No need to win. Like you I have no dog in the fight. I wasn’t trying to be aurgumentitive, I am just growing tired of watching people tell others how to vote.
At a younger age, I would have considered this noble. Now, with commentary like yours, I am tempted to buy in to the conservative arguements about “the intellectual elite” on the left.
While far from being a simpleton, I can taste a bit of salt in each bite.
My reaction was just that a reaction. I read what you wrote and thats what I took away. your response in kind was to call me an idiot.
Unfortunately, I taste that salt in nearly every article here lately.
No, I asked you not to be an idiot. I know that you aren’t one. If you were one, there would be no point in asking you not to be one.
$500 isn’t damning? Would you prefer 30 pieces of silver?
That’s crass. Perhaps you should spell out the rest of the analogy to make it even more crass.
No, it’s not. You’re the one that used the word “damning” first. If anything, I’m completing your thought. My statement implies a question to you as to what you would find damning.
Come on Dr. D. She’s pro-development, took money from Chevron, and doesn’t see a problem with it. Her actions speak for themselves and she’s no better than Bankhead.
OK, Ryan, let’s make sure that we’re on the same page.
You understand that “thirty pieces of silver” is a reference to Judas Iscariot, who according to the Christian Bible betrayed the person who most people reading this blog (and in my case, my wife and children) believe to be the part of the Godhead and the savior of humanity and directly caused his excruciating death, and who is therefore considered by many to be the ultimate human villain in history.
Jan Flory thinks that Chevron has a winning case in court and that Fullerton should settle for its current offer. She has not returned — didn’t solicit, so far as I know, but merely did not return — a $500 contribution from Chevron, and doesn’t see a problem with it because it’s not a quid pro quo.
Can you fill in some of the details of that metaphor, which you contend that I invited by using the word “damned”?
Chevron’s court case is about as strong as a wet noodle. If she really thinks they have a strong case (I’d encourage you to read their complaint), then that’s probably all the evidence I need to not vote for her.
Thanks for the history lesson. I’ll try to not take it personally.
(Fleece as white as snow)
(30 shades of grey)
(Dante’s very cold inner circle of hell)
Pin the tail on the donkey and pick your shade of grey, sir. I’ve already pinned mine. It’s the shade that looks just like Don Bankhead.
The case that they brought was a weak one — brought simply to give the City Council cover for giving into them. Flory’s stated concern regards the case that Chevron could bring if they ever really wanted to fight tough. With this Supreme Court, who knows how much of zoning laws are even certain to remain constitutional?
Jan’s a smart, fair, and experienced lawyer. Even if I disagreed with her legal analysis about a prospective case, I’m not likely to consider it specious. And frankly, she has more experience in this area, given eight years on Council, then you plus me plus Kiger.
Greg, after what I witnessed and heard at the meet/greet the other day (you were there, you heard) I get the “jihad” against Flory, I was the “chick” from Lake Forest she was yelling about, nice scare tactics, just what Fullerton needs in office.
And you saw her supporters with Larry Bennet sitting with them most wearing gold colored t shirts that had printing on the back that said “The Golden Ticket, Flory and Alvarez”
The little bit I was able to squeeze from Darth Flory about W, was that “THERE WAS NOTHING ANYONE COULD DO ABOUT IT” then I was asked to read her website and email her about it.
She said that you donated $100 to the recall, as the third of three people who funded the effort overall. That was true. So?
She’s not responsible for people preferring her to Travis Kiger. Politics makes strange bedfellows.
“Nothing anyone could do about it” refers to her assessment of the prospects of winning a legal case against Chevron to make it stand down. I think she’s wrong about that. I hope she’s wrong about that. But that sort of assessment doesn’t make her evil. Travis’s absolutist view on property rights is far, far, far worse.
She referred to her derisively as “Some chick from Lake Forest.” No wonder nurse/activist Merijoe took offense. This was in the context of demonizing the recall of the Three Bald Tires, to whom she referred reverently and wistfully as “distinguished, seasoned statesmen,” LOL. When the senile, self-invited Bankhead then stood up and began to drone, WHAT A PUNCH LINE. And what great material for the piece I’m writing today/tomorrow, “The Pro-Fullerton Candidates Jane, Barry and Kitty.”
merijoe has skin thicker than mine.
I realize that you’re supporting those candidates. Unfortunately, it’s the equivalent of saying that someone should cast their three votes for President, if our elections worked that way, for Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, and Gary Johnson — in a swing state! I’d prefer that you cast them for Jill, Rocky, and Barack Obama. (Or, if you’re Matt Munson, then Gary Johnson, Rocky, and Barack.)
Tony doesn’t want you to do that — because, in this analogy, guess who he supports?
Wow, Flory as Obama! If you say so.
Who would be more likely to turn Fullerton into Wisconsin or Righeimer’s Costa Mesa — Obama or Romney?
You can’t logically be against Wisconsin in Costa Mesa and for Wisconsin in Fullerton.
I think it was a bit more $ for the recall-maybe 150 cash, but I wanted to or I wouldn’t have. Didn’t Chevron dump money into her campaign?
It’s not not neccessarily her core belief about the Coyote hills vs Chevron that makes her evil (she said herself to me that she isn’t happy about how Chevron went about it), its her scare drama tactics and the way she speaks to people and about sensitive issues that make her evil, she has to be compassionate about how she goes about things since she claimed to not be insync with Chevron’s way of handling things.
where exactly is fullerton
Greg you know I love you but you seriously do not get it. You keep thinking that Tony Bushala thinks like a political wonk. You see a successful real estate developer and you think he operates like all of the other successful real estate developers you have ever known. (someone hand me that Purell over there please. Thank you.) The thing with Tony is that he spends with his heart, not his head. I would put good money into a bet that Tony has done no polling at all. He does not go after candidates because he thinks (or polling shows) they are winning. He goes after them because he hates them, it is just that simple. Tony Bushala would run a negative campaign on the establishment hacks even if they spent no money and were sure to lose, simply because it makes him feel better. Sick? You betcha, but you can’t say the man lacks passion.
You think he is trying to “control” the Council, but the truth is that he believes in Bruce and Travis (as do I) and wants them in office not because he wishes them to do his bidding (Tony does almost nothing that requires City Hall’s cooperation in the first place) he wants them in office because he thinks they will do a good job for the city he loves. When only mediocre candidates are running, he will settle for those who “won’t fuck it up as bad as the rest” forgive my profanity, but I am channeling Tony here.
Tony does what he thinks is right, and it has no bearing on polls or focus groups or controlling political outcomes for his own benefit, other than not having to tear his hair out when politicians do stupid things he is then forced to take time out to blog about. I get it, one cannot know what is going on at City Hall and not be pissed and once in that state you HAVE to get it out, we are compelled to tell others and see if they are as angry as we are in the hope that perhaps together we can change what is broken. Isn’t that why we all put so much (unpaid) time into blogging?
And I can tell you that if Travis or Bruce or Shawn Nelson or anyone else that has enjoyed Tony’s support steps out of line and does something stupid, Tony will jump on them as hard as he would Flory or the three dinosaurs, possibly even harder because for us idealists the sight of someone we trust doing something stupid and knowing we helped put them in the position to do something stupid is even more maddening than watching the idiots we opposed doing it. We expect nothing better from the establishment, it is frustrating but expected. We expect better things from those we believe in.
You do not get Tony, I suspect you are grateful for that (the inside of Tony’s head is very likely scarier than anything Knott’s ever crafted for October teenagers) but as complicated as Tony can be, he really is a purist, his wallet is linked directly to his heart, not his head. He is not the average developer, he is not looking for taxpayer funded bennies, or special treatment, he is looking for clean leaders to care for his beloved Fullerton. As odd as it seems I wish there were more Tony Bushalas in this world. I suspect our founding fathers were very much the same.
Sam Adams was definitely a lot like Tony. Cheers!
Greg has written some good stuff, but he’s trying really, really hard to sideline Rands here. Hmmm…..
I’m not allowed to endorse Rands.
If I had a vote in Fullerton this year, I would vote for Flory, Jaramillo, and Rands.
That is not an endorsement — it’s just an honest refutation of your point.
No — and actually I agree with half of what he wants and I like him more than I do most self-interested developers on that account.
He’s a purist libertarian ideologue — and I do respect that as well as his dogged activism. My problem with him is less that he is an ideologue then that he’s is one with the means and will to impose his ideology, using the cute marketing and advertising tricks of the business world, on a largely unsuspecting public. I have a lot of respect for him and even more respect for his skills. Unfortunately, he is trying to stick a butter knife into the electrical socket, so he has to be stopped. (Worse, there’s water all over the floor, and rest of us are barefoot, and he’s wearing insulated rubber shoes. Hmmmm — OK, the point of that strained metaphor is that he will not personally be harmed by the tremendous damage that imposition of his anti-government ideology will to for the region.)
Yes, everything you say about Tony could also have been said about John Adams. But it could also have been said about Osama bin Laden. (I mean to compare him to neither.) That someone has an ideology and is willing to put their money where their mouth is and is willing to break more than a few eggs as a result is neither good nor bad in and of itself. What matters is what one plans to do. He’s going to wreck Fullerton and the region around it — and he won’t even discuss it honestly. So yes, I do “get” Tony.
Merijoe
It’s not not necessarily her core belief about the Coyote hills vs Chevron that makes her evil (she said herself to me that she isn’t’t happy about how Chevron went about it), its her scare drama tactics and the way she speaks to people and about sensitive issues that make her evil, she has to be compassionate about how she goes about things since she claimed to not be in sync with Chevron’s way of handling things.
Merijoe–
If you’re looking for compassion and sensitivity, then look anywhere but Travis and Bruce. Two pieces of evidence: First, during the recall, Bruce encouraged everyone to say whatever they wanted about the three old dudes at Council meetings, and would go nuts if one of them dared to try to respond. But now that the shoe is on the other foot, he bullied Mayor Sharon into letting him lash back at anyone who takes him on. (something that made me think twice about my vote for her, by the way). Its not so fun when the vitriol is aimed at you. Second, Travis will also attack anyone for disagreeing with him, either from the dais or on the blog he controls. He uses the First Amendment as an excuse, not a shield.
As for Tony himself, nobody is holding a gun to anyone’s head and making people listen to him. Travis, Bruce, Sebourn, and to a lesser degree, Levinson, chose to pursue his support knowing what he is and what he stands for. That is well within their rights. But when a political view takes on the aura of religious zealotry, as it does in the case, its a very dangerous thing. The “facts be damned, I’m right no matter what” approach has never been successful. It didn’t work in Cromwell’s England and it didn’t work for the French Revolution.
No, Noclib1
All I’m saying is Flory isn’t showing the compassion or sensitivity toward the Coyote Hills issue, she is giving cold, uncaring answers to question the citizens who pay taxes in Fullerton have a right to know-Im not looking for it.
I’ve dealt with Travis and call him a friend, for more than a year and there is no way he’d be anything but compassionate-same with Bruce. You may not agree with everything they say or do but that doesnt mean they don’t have any. I’ve seen it first hand and I know the hoops both of these men had to jump thru to get anywhere.
I don’t know about the council meetings and speaking up etc. all I know is that public comments are just that, public comments – taxpaying citizens can say what they want. please show me the proof that Sharon was bullied by Bruce-link it here so I can see it.
FYI: heres the code I researched shows council can answer briefly to the public comments-
Government Code section 54954.2, subd. (a)(2): “No action or
discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on the posted
agenda, except that members of a legislative body or its staff may
briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons
exercising their public testimony rights under Section 54954.3.
I totally agree with Cynthia re Tony.
Here’s the link to the Council meeting videos.
http://www.cityoffullerton.com/about/meetings_live.asp
To get the gist of what I’m saying, pick any meeting before the recall and watch the public comments section. Then start watching after the new Council was appointed, especially one or two meetings after they took office. First, Bruce and Sharon get into arguments about responding, then a few meetings in, Sharon announces she’s had a couple of closed session “discussions” with Bruce and will allow responses.
State law may allow Council members to respond, but it was this Council’s policy not to respond until Bruce threw a fit.
I. too, agree with Cynthia’s assessment of Tony. The only power people have is what they’re given.
Oh, and just in case you think I’m just being hyper-senstive about Travis and Bruce, please link to this….
http://www.theliberaloc.com/2012/10/18/12-year-old-takes-fullertons-travis-kiger-to-school-on-bullying/
Noclib1-
I don’t see any of it as “bullying” and I have years of being bullied to know the difference, this does not appear to be bullying- that term “bullying” is ridiculous for what’s going on.
This is a couple of members having a diagreement and one of them being passive aggressive -for example, I would have said “no” and stuck by it. Bruce didn’t threaten her with harm and, OMG, I hardly think a 12 year old who has obviously been coached by his parents on what to say to “big bad Travis” is proof of bullying or proof you or anyone who sees this as a big victory, aren’t being hypersensitive.
I just think you all are making mountains out of molehills- I’m not defending the FFFF blog, but I am defending the 1st amendment, how about if madam Keller taught her children about that instead of trying to get everyone whipped up because of her (and others) obsession with the word “bully”?
Its insulting to us that have actually been bullied when that term is bandied about because of any little slight that offends, likens to being politically correct, IMO.
Intersting comment…so plastering a picture of one’s family on a blog known for its viscousness is compassionate behavior? You don’t defend the FFFF blog, but…you do?! You may not agree with my definition of bullying but I sure don’t agree with yours of “compassion”.
Most of us have been bullied in one way (physically, emotionally, etc). or another at some point in in our lives. That’s all the more reason to call it out when we see it. When a taxpayer goes before an elected Council, he or she should be able to say what’s on his or her mind without worrying about a picture of his/her family showing up on a blog the next day, or beiing vilifed by the very people who are supposed to be representing him or her. Its called a chilling effect and goes directly to defending the First Amendment.
I calls em as I sees em, honesty IS being compassionate, self interest rhetoric, pretending there is no elephant in the room, and making things up out of hysteria is not. I happen to be a very kind person too. Just because I don’t go along with your agenda doesn’t mean I’m not.
Its the truth. Whatever you want to call it, I am too, defending 1st amendment-that group who goes to soldiers funerals to picket because they think they were homosexual and deserved to die, was just allowed to do that sort of protesting by a judge/court-I would say you’d call that bullying. Plastering pictures of people on a blog is not bullying.Nice-no, generous-no, kind-no, but its hardly bullying.
Well, I guess we ‘ll just need to agree to disagree. Call it intimidation, suppression (popular word these days), or any number of things. From all of your posts I’ve read on this blog, I will 1) agree you are a nice person and 2) defend to the death your right to take a position I may not like. I just happen to think an elected official should be willing to take what he or she dishes out.
BTW, my predictions, based on a totally unscientific guess based on informal observation and bits of conversation around town, in no particular order:
Flory, Whitaker, and Alvarez
I think a lot of people may agree with Whitaker,Kiger, and Sebourn’s general philosophy, but politics is personal too, and Travis hasn’t done himself any favors. Bruce is more skilled at the game, having been in politics longer.
That’s not a bad read. The vote on the third spot is going to be pretty tight. It’ll be an exciting night with a good chance the vote isn’t decided for a week or two. The final % moved a full two points during the June recall, which I think will cover the difference between 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
Either I’m up past my bedtime or someone needs to reset the server clock!
Like I said, its just a guess, and free of any value statements about the issues. Based more on what I’ve heard people saying. I think Bruce and Jan have the advantage of bench strength, since they both have experience in city government and local politics. Greg and Travis are weaker because neither of them spent a lot of time on other boards or commissions, and some of their decisions appear hasty or not thought out (e.g. DUI checkpoints) well.