DOES THE CITY OF FULLERTON HAVE INTENTIONS TO REPLACE ANOTHER SHOPPING CENTER WITH HIGH DENSITY, LOW INCOME HOUSING UNITS? By Barry Levinson


`An anonymous person recently told us that the City of Fullerton would like to place Low Income Section 8 Housing on the southeast corner of Chapman Avenue and State College Blvd. replacing a much needed in place Shopping Center. 

This is a shopping center made up of stores such as Big Lots, Round Table Pizza, 99 Cents Store, Thailandia Restaurant and the Goodwill Store along with many others.   It is one of four corners that makes up most of the shopping areas in that part of town.  Yet the city elders apparently simply do not care what are the needs of our citizens.   You know the ones that already live here and pay the taxes and their salaries.  All the council members seem to care about is their desperate attempt to look for short term fixes for our financial woes, which will make our financial condition worse in the long run and were caused in very large part by very poor decisions by past and current city councils.

We now know that at least two of these stores will not be continuing.   Big Lots will be closing this January 2018 and the Goodwill Store will be closing in April 2018.   Does the owner or owners of that shopping center know something or have assurances from members of the City of Fullerton government that is related to these imminent store closures?   If there are no plans to replace these stores with other retail tenants, we would have our answer.

Retail space is in very short supply throughout the city but is even in shorter supply in that neighborhood. Last year the city itself reported that only 6%of the real estate in Fullerton is either retail, commercial or industrial.  This is way below average for any city in Orange County and it is not a healthy balance of properties as far as our tax base is concerned.  Residential property costs the city much more than commercial properties in service required by the city.   Therefore, a low commercial percentage of properties is not good for the long term financial health of our city. A cities financial health in large part depends on a good mix between residential and commercial/industrial properties.   Everything the city council and the city planning department has tried to accomplish will further reduce the commercial/industrial base in the city, while increasing residential mostly high density, high-rise apartments and/or condos.

another back room deal is in the works

This article is based on an anonymous tip so I can’t vouch that it is accurate.   However, past anonymous tips sent to the Fullerton Informer have overwhelmingly turned out to be true.   Based on their desperate need for an infusion of quick cash, it makes sense that the city would be looking to rezoning retail space to  housing, ignoring the long term negative consequences to our tax base and net revenue collections (remember College Town that would have replaced the current stores on the north side of Chapman Avenue and added housing for nearly 14,000 students, faculty and staff

The idea is to provide low income housing, yet the city will add almost 6 or 12 million dollars to the development cost (assuming 500 or 1,000 units) by adding the Park and Recreation Department Fee of $11,700 per unit (of any size).   If providing low cost housing is the goal, should not the city be reducing normal costs for its building not adding to it extremely high “fees” known by its more appropriate term “a tax”.  Based on the building of 500 units this will bring in a one-time only windfall of $5,850,000 ($11,700 X 500).   Based on the building of 1,000 units this will bring in a one-time windfall of $11,700,000 ($11,700 X 1,000).

Please remember that the city several years ago tried to ram through both the DCCSP (The Downtown Core and Corridor Special Plan), College Town and then the DCCSP Lite Plan.   All going down to defeat with only the College Town Project getting a lot of negative feedback from the public.  We here at the Fullerton Informer were steadfast in letting the good people of Fullerton know about all three of the above boondoggles. 

Six million or 12 million going supposedly to the Parks and Recreation Department, which is already wasting millions on substandard stairs and a bridge to nowhere at Hillcrest Park.  Yet in fact the city needs more than 100 million dollars to help fix our dilapidated roads that have been virtually ignored by numerous Fullerton City Councils for decades.  A citizen brought large pieces of our broken streets to city hall to show our city council members but they want the money I believe for salaries and pensions not for us.  Remember money is fungible so that it can be easily diverted to be used for whatever purpose the city leaders select.   Salaries and benefits now consume approximately 80% of our general funds.   This excludes the hundreds of millions of dollars of unfunded pension and retiree health care liabilities we as taxpayers are still on the hook for.

Where do you think that $100 million or more needed for decades for our Fullerton roads actually ended up?

What we do know for sure is that our neighboring cities all had and spent those dollars for their roads.  It should make you wonder about those running our city both past and present!

I report, you decide!  By Barry Levinson

  1. #1 by Fullerton - The Most Corrupt City in California on November 28, 2017 - 9:46 am

    Why is it that only Fullerton did not and does not today have the money to properly maintain their roads out of all neighboring cities?

    Answer – Fullerton – The Most Corrupt City in California

(will not be published)


Copyright © 2013 TheFullertonInformer.com. All rights reserved. TheFullertonInformer.com is the legal copyright holder of the material on this blog and it may not be used, reprinted, or published without express written permission. The information contained in this website is for entertainment and educational purposes ONLY. This website contains my personal opinion and experience based on my own research from scientific writings, internet research and interviews with doctors and scientists all over the world. Do not take this website, links or documents contained herein as a personal, medical or legal advice of any kind. For legal advice, please consult with your attorney. Consult your medical doctor or primary care physician for advice regarding your health and your children’s health and nothing contained on this website is intended to provide or be a substitute for medical, legal or other professional advice. The reading or use of this information is at your own risk. Readers will not be put on spam lists. We will not sell your contact information to another company. We are not responsible for the privacy practices of our advertisers or blog commenters. We reserve the right to change the focus of this blog, to shut it down, to sell it, or to change the terms of use at our discretion. We are not responsible for the actions of our advertisers or sponsors. If a reader purchases a product or service based upon a link from our blog, the reader must take action with that company to resolve the issue, not us. Our policy on using letters or emails that have been written directly to us is as follows: We will be sharing those letters and emails with the blogging audience unless they are requested to be kept confidential. We will claim ownership of those letters or emails to later be used in an up-and-coming book,blog article,post or column, unless otherwise specified by the writer to keep ownership. THE TRUTH WILL STAND ON ITS OWN AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE-SEEK IT AT ALL COSTS!