The Fullerton Collaborative’s candidate forum is available for viewing on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbt-s-MxsZk (click here)
The Fullerton Collaborative’s candidate forum on September 9th was not a useful way to learn much about the candidates running for City Council.
The questions for the candidates were asked by the chairs of the Collaborative committees and were preceded by lengthy introductions; and they were worded to emphasize the work of the committees. Although solicited, only one audience question was asked.
Fair enough, since this was their meeting, and they had already listed some topics that they intended to address. However, for the most part, these questions did not address the issues of greatest interest in this election. They were poorly framed, allowing most of the candidates to give the same vague answers.
The most important of the committee questions was about the homeless, but the answers were not insightful. No questions were asked about the budget deficit and City staffing; or street repair and infrastructure; or street sweeping; or overnight parking; or about WOW; or the automatic rotation of the position of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, etc. The most useful question—one which showed differences among the candidates—was the single audience question asked: about cannabis (two for, two against, one partial waffle…)
Perhaps more interesting were the no-shows: Linda Whitaker, Scott Markowitz, and Jamie Valencia (all from District 4). Perhaps they were not ready for prime time. Only Kitty Jaramillo showed up. Scott does not appear to have raised funds and thus probably not a serious candidate. Linda is well known. Jamie is not widely known but is well-funded and supported by Fred Jung (described in the Orange Juice Blog as her “mentor”).
She is supported by the police union and the owner of Rancho La Paz, who has made the largest contribution to date ($5500). As the Observer has noted, most of her large contributions have come from outside of the city, except for those from Gilberto Vargas and Tony Bushala. Her City service is limited to just over a year and a half on the Infrastructure Committee. She was also placed on the OCTA Citizens Advisory Committee at about the same time by Fred Jung, an OCTA Board Member (Not a significant nor influential committee). Her slick campaign piece lists common places that anyone would support: she “will fight to” make neighborhoods safe, fix streets, make housing and child care more affordable, reduce homelessness and crime, and protect clean air and water (If you think Kamala is vague).
The time was too short for this type of event (a little over an hour), although, in this case, perhaps too long. Panelists were asked to answer questions in one minute. While this meeting was not without value, this format is not the best way to learn about candidates since we now have district elections. For instance, it really does not matter much if Jan Florey (District 2) disagrees with Fred Jung (District 1). More useful would be a forum limited to candidates running in a single district. Perhaps all three districts could be done individually in a single evening (45 minutes each?). I would very much like to hear a debate between Kitty Jaramillo and the three no-show candidates in District 4.
The LVW event on September 23 (Council Chambers 6-7:30) should be more informative, if only because there will be more questions from the audience.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Elections, Local Government, Local News
Cannibis should not be legal. According to the CDC, 10% of cannibis users go on to more dangerous drugs. I cannot support a candidate that wants cannibis sold in our city and neither should any else.
Fritz –
Despite those stats – the reason to “allow” marijuana clinics to locate legally in Fullerton is so they can be regulated and restricted to certain locations.
As it is now they pop up all over town wherever they want to and are a constant problem in trying to shut them down.
Like alcohol- marijuana is legal in California. And according to the 2000 study where I am guessing you got your statistic – alcohol is also a problem
“Illegal drug use by alcohol abusers ranges from 30–60% for cocaine, 20–50% for marijuana, 12–20% for benzodiazepines and 7–10% for heroin (Petry, 2001). This clearly indicates the importance of treatment programs to assess as well as treat both illegal drug use and alcohol abuse.“
That is illogical, of course. They are regulated and restricted NOW and yet there they are.
“They are regulated and restricted NOW and yet there they are. I learn something new every day from you.
Learn the use of a period to separate different sentences,
BTW, both of them are and were on the City Council and didn’t do it, so your miscomprehension actually hit on the truth. Well done “John.”
A period in my sentence or a period in your sentence? You’re difficult to understand as usual, “Zenger.”
“Didn’t do it.” Didn’t do what?
The council doesn’t enforce the law. The police and judicial branch do.
Your statement was “They are regulated and restricted NOW and yet there they are.”
Giving you the benefit of the doubt I tried to make infer your meaning in so that the sentence could make some semblance of sense. But I guess it just doesn’t/
Cannabis businesses are regulated and restricted, so they’re going to exist. So saying “there they are” doesn’t really support an argument.
I think your problem is you’re always at 11 on the outrage scale and just assume everyone is as upset as you and will just know what you’re talking about.
Maybe calm down and use your big boy words.
Correction: “I tried infer your meaning in such a way that the sentence could make some semblance of sense. But I guess it just doesn’t.”
Zenger –
That is truly hilarious from you. You guys should drop those talking points.
This is a pretty small town and many are well aware of who smokes MJ here and who runs MJ business elsewhere and yet accuses others of wanting stores here when all they want is for regulation and restricted location.
Might be different in your town but in Fullerton we are unable to regulate them because we don’t have an ordinance detailing how far from each other stores must be and where they can locate (well away from schools, residential areas, etc.). If we did that would cut down the number opening and operating in south Fullerton especially.
Huh. I wonder what percentage of Book Readers or Pencil Users go on to dangerous drugs. More than 10%? Better ban pencils and books while we’re at it.
The gateway drug concept is no excuse for criminalizing behavior that isn’t dangerous on its own because a) freedom b) neither correlation or causation has been shown c) 10% doesn’t seem high enough to even consider this d) that last 30 years have shown that people use it anyway and it just gives law enforcement something to incriminate people.
Cannabis as a gateway drug is a heavily, heavily disputed theory. Its far from an established truth, and as more research is done, the results seem to show, more and more, that the original conclusion is based on data that was heavily racially and socioeconomically biased. Similarly to cannabis, alcohol also has inconclusive data that it leads to future drug use, but very few if any are arguing we should turn Fullerton into a dry city.
Furthermore, there are already under the table stores in Fullerton, as well as legal stores in cities all around Fullerton. If we decide not to legally open up the market, people will continue to buy from underground sellers and / or in local cities, leaving the city to give up millions in tax sales. For example, Santa Ana generated 50 million dollars from the 4 years following 2018 through taxing the sale of cannabis.
Why would legal outlets push out illegal ones? That makes no sense.
When you enforce the laws against illegal sales and when legal sales are not cost prohibitive, with reasonable tax rates, people will gravitate towards purchasing from legal dispensaries. It’s the same reason why people buy alcohol from places with legitimate liquor licenses and not a random alcohol dealer. Under the table marijuana sales were rampant prior to legalization, but if we continue to allow people to purchase through legal means effectively and efficiently, people will move away from unlicensed dealers. In regards to the city of Santa Ana, I am not aware of their general finances, however hand waving away a policy that appears to be effective in a specific area because of other policies by the city being ineffective doesn’t make much sense; furthermore, if, like you say, Santa Ana is broke, shouldn’t we support means that allow them to bridge the gap in funding rather than just complain about them?
According to The Voice of OC, “Apr 6, 2022 — Recently, the tax money Santa Ana officials collect from sales at licensed cannabis businesses citywide has funded the $884,000 upgrade…”
California Cannabis Tax Revenues: A Windfall for Law …
Also, A Look at What Cannabis Taxes Fund in Orange County; Voice of OC, “May 1, 2024 — The new tax revenue helps fund local law enforcement, supports youth programs, and provides stopgaps for public spaces like parks and libraries.”
According to the Public Health Institute, “Santa Ana is dedicating $3.1 million in cannabis revenues this year to youth services, including tutoring services, internships, and youth enrichment programs.
This is well-said and very true. Most cannabis users I know were thrilled when legal dispensaries opened up. They will never go back to dealers, etc. They say they appreciate having a nice, clean store and a more elevated, above-board experience.
Allowing legal dispensaries and a controlled, taxable experienced for a substance people will use regardless of the options you offer seems like a no-brainer.