In a surprising move that has left many residents frustrated and disheartened, Mayor Fred Jung and Councilmember Jamie Valencia voted to reopen Wilshire Avenue to car traffic. This decision comes despite strong public support for keeping the “Walk on Wilshire” initiative, which has received numerous calls for its continuation and even expansion to nearby Malden Street. The council’s vote ended in a tie, with Mayor Protem Shana Charles and Councilmember Ahmad Zahra (who joined the meeting from the UK) expressing their commitment to keeping the area pedestrian-friendly. Unfortunately, Jung and Valencia chose to open Wilshire to traffic.
Mayor Pro Tem Charles, who has a degree in urban planning, voted with Zahra to keep WOW and improve it. Residents had a list of 65 businesses that supported it and a petition with over 2000 Orange County residents who wanted to save WoW as an open pedestrian and bicycle-friendly space. Bushala came out against it and named a few businesses that didn’t support it. 32 residents made great comments for WoW.
The mood in the council chambers was tense as community members voiced their anger, and many chose to leave the meeting in frustration. This situation raises important questions about the decision-making process and transparency in local government, as political influences and the interests of specific donors are overshadowing residents’ voices.
Councilmember Dunlap recused himself from voting on this issue due to a family connection with a location on Wilshire Avenue and not because of a campaign contribution from local property owner, Anthony “Tony” Bushala, who has threatened legal action if the street remains closed to cars. California law 1439 is meant to prevent conflicts of interest by prohibiting council members from voting on matters related to their campaign donors for a year after receiving contributions. However, it appears this law has loopholes.
In a troubling development, Councilmember Valencia revealed that she returned campaign contributions from Bushala and 8 Eighty Cigar Lounge located on Wilshire Avenue to participate in the vote, indicating the complicated and often murky nature of campaign financing. Additionally, it’s concerning that George Jr. and Tony Bushala made significant contributions to Mayor Jung’s 2024 campaign over a year ago, which raises suspicions about how much influence these special interests have in local politics.
Neither Jung nor Valencia gave the people a reasonable explanation as to why they voted it down and tried to move on so quickly. The sentiment outside by the people who put all their time and energy into saving WoW was one of disillusion. Many said that they thought they were not treated fairly, or listened to, nor that their voices mattered to the two councilmembers who appeared to have made up their minds before the people even spoke.
This situation reflects a larger issue where decisions may seem to benefit only a few instead of serving the community as a whole. Residents deserve clarity and accountability from their elected officials. Now is the time for the public to demand transparency in government decision-making. With the community’s anger as a backdrop, there is a real opportunity for change to ensure their representatives genuinely prioritize the needs and interests of the people they serve.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Community Voices, Election, Elections, Local Business, Local Events, Local Government, Local News
Mayor protem Charles, who has a degree in urban planning, voted with Zahra to keep WOW and improve it. She mentioned that at the last meeting residents had brought a list of 65 businesses that supported it. Bushala came out against it and named a few that didn’t support it that aren’t even located on WOW. 32 residents made great comments. Can’t imagine why Bushala gang don’t see the worth.
Why? You said it yourself, they’re a “gang”. As long as bushala is in the pockets of councilmembers they don’t have to think beyond “why?”.
I attended this meeting. There were many individuals and businesses who came out from the community to support the WOW – an endeavor that would bring profit and ingenuity to the city of Fullerton. But two people (one of which received endorsement from businesses who opposed the walk) ultimately got to decide its fate. It’s unfair, it’s illogical, it’s short sighted. The community members talked at length outside the hall after the decision, many of whom felt they weren’t being heard. This WOW would’ve brought millions of dollars of revenue and foot traffic to the city, making it a go-to casual outdoor destination- but yeah let’s tank it for the cigar shop. These council members and the mayor already knew their decisions entering this meeting. It was a waste of everyone’s time and energy if they don’t listen to their voters. Mayor Jung and council person Valencia were visibly annoyed and disconnected. I’ll be actively opposing them in elections and motions moving forward.
Thank you for sharing this story
It’s unfortunate that Mayor Jung continues to ignore his constituents. Instead he aligns with the Bushala agenda, which is typically at odds with what the community wants and needs. Does Jung represent the people in his district and in this city, or is he beholden to one family only?
I am a constituent and I supported the reopening of the street. I do not think that Mayor Jung ignored me. Should I assume that Mayor Pro tem Charles and Council member Zahra ignored me? I’ve been frustrated by council votes many times over the years, and supportive of others. That’s democracy. Sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don’t.
Jung has a habit of ignoring the community’s desires in favor of the whims of the Bushala family. See: UP Trail.
I get that you don’t like WoW, but it seems an overwhelming proportion of the city does, as evidenced by the petition that gathered thousands of signatures, dozens of public comments, support from business owners, etc. A number of community events on WoW were also well-attended and well-received. Given this, it’s safe to say that WoW has overwhelming public support and thus should be kept as is.
I’d say that the closure overwhelmingly benefited three businesses over the interests of the rest of the city. And, note, that even those supporting the reopening of the street to traffic were also supportive of closing it sometimes for public events.
Sometimes a city changes in a way that only benefits some parties and not others. More than three businesses benefited, as evidenced by the endorsements from almost 70 local businesses. Plus the public loved it and wanted it to stay. That should be enough – overwhelming positive public sentiment. I don’t see why the public should lose something they love for the sake of a couple businesses misattributing their challenges to WoW.
You think this was about you? Well you weren’t just ignored Matt, the people weren’t even part of the equation.
This is not representative democracy, because those represented seemed to be the least relevant in decision making. This is about a very small group of individuals dumping a bunch of money directly with cash and indirectly with attack ads into our elections calling the shots to the detriment of those represented.
You were aligned with this… group… this time. But you were irrelevant just like the majority of those represented… the people who are supposed to have the influence.
As to the argument about unelected bureaucracy, that unelected bureaucracy… which includes the City Manager who is our equivalent of a mayor… is the least susceptible to the corrupting influence of money in this picture. And according to Sharon, Council approved it anyway. So there you go.
Do you know what my biggest complaint about our democracy is? Lazy voters. Of the half of eligible people who even bother to register, and the smaller percentage of that group who bother to vote, how many do you think take even an hour every two years to seriously research council candidates?
Do you make your decisions based on mailers? I don’t. Are you so easily led astray by a robocall? If not, why assume that the electorate is unlike you? Maybe people voted for Feed Jung or Jamie Valencia because they considered each of them to be the candidate who would best represent their positions in their respective districts.
I think it is condescending to assume that anyone is elected to the council based on mailers.
Bushalas wouldn’t send the mailers if they didn’t think it would move the needle. They wouldn’t give money if they didn’t think it would buy influence.
Do I make decisions based on mailers? No. Am I led astray by a robocall? No.
Do I assume the “electorate” is like me?
LOL. No. I’d guess most people do not follow city hall all that closely, or these guys couldn’t get away with this kind of anti-democratic decision.
Do I think mailers and other form of speech to influence the public have an effect? Yeah, and so do the Bushalas who send them.
I never claimed the council was primarily elected by mailers, that’s a straw man argument. I am certainly claiming that a few people have outsized influence over political decisions, and this is just one example. The question is, why, and I don’t think you have to look further than the money the Bushalas spend on influence, and that influence is in the form of signs, mailers, their blog, and direct contributions.
Most cities reopened their closed streets for the same reasons our city did. And I think many businesses felt somewhat bullied, so they kept their mouths shut, esp. with people threatening boycotts for restaurants who oppose. And I don’t know all that much about different factions here, but it seems like way too many issues revolve around the Activists vs. the Bushalas, whoever they are. it’s like our own Hatfield McCoy feud, and we’re tired of it.
It’s not really Hatfields vs McCoys, and I think you might be mischaracterizing the conflict.
The Bushalas keep trying to tear down things the public love for their own selfish interests. They think they are more important than the general public. They contribute huge sums to city council members’ campaigns. Then council members vote in alignment with their interests even when the public doesn’t want it.
The public can choose where to spend their money just as business owners can choose whether or not to voice their opinions about WoW. But if business owners don’t support the community, can they really expect the community to support them?
“… two people (one of which received endorsement from businesses who opposed the walk) ultimately got to decide its fate…” The road closure was originally ordered by a now departed city manager, who nobody elected to any office, who unilaterally closed the street to traffic with no decision by the then city council at all. Representative democracy is not perfect, but I prefer it to unaccountable bureaucracy.
The fact is that people love it now and want it to stay. The Council members should have respected the public and figured out how to make it work.
I don’t think there’s a reasonable way to make it work there. I’d look toward the Fox Block for something like what people seem to like on Wilshire, and start organizing for it now.
We can have both. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. More pedestrianized spaces would be better for Fullerton. We can have both. It does not need to be one or the other, nor should it.
Matt – You make a couple of errors:
• WOW was created with then council approval not just the City Manager’s action.
• And three councilmembers received Bushala money. Jung got $4,900 from each George and Tony for the 2024 election but didn’t have to return the money or recuse because of the 1 year rule. Valencia said she gave back the contributions she received ($2500 from Tony and $500 from Cigar Lounge) – though without proof of that. I respect that Dunlap recused himself and didn’t vote – of course also because of family connection to Villa del Sol.
Excuse me, but the street was closed by then City Manager Ken Domer without direction from the council. The council later chose to keep it closed and call it Walk on Wilshire and put up a little Disneyland like sign designating it so, but the closure as a complete surprise. I wrote about it in The Observer.
Why do you characterize me as being in error about who funded which candidates? Did I make some sort of assertion about those facts somewhere?
And why shouldn’t a property owner express an opinion about a council decision that has a deleterious effect on the businesses of his tenants?
As a 10+ year resident of Wilshire Ave., I’m failing to see where this would have added value to the street. Currently only 2 businesses utilize the closure. Other businesses that are included in that section of the closure don’t utilize it. If an expansion of the closure means getting rid of the already very limited parking it seems like a not very well thought out idea. The other side of Wilshire is already utilized for the Farmers Market, and I doubt that the Farmers Market would be moved down to this section. While WOW seems like a lovely idea in theory, it doesn’t seem like there has been actual thoughtful planning on the impact to businesses and residents beyond planting a few trees and stringing up some lights. Would love more thoughtful /insightful discourse on this.
WoW occupied 6 parking spaces. There are an additional 2000 in a 2-block radius. So no significant loss there.
Even with the pedestrianization being closed, businesses can still build parklets in parking spots if they so choose, so shutting down WoW still won’t increase parking much.
There is actually plenty of parking in and near downtown. Some of it is located a little further away from your destination. That is fine. Just walk. People park at the back of huge parking lots at Costco, Disneyland, malls, and Wal-Mart, then walk into the store. No different here. If we bulldoze everything for a few parking spots, there will be nothing left worth driving to.
Currently not many businesses have parklets built because it’s an expensive investment for a space whose fate is uncertain. Several businesses already have plans drawn up and are ready to build but are waiting for a final decision before doing so. It is the city council’s waffling that is preventing businesses from building parklets, not business owners’ indifference.
The downtown plaza has farmer’s markets about 24 times a year, for just part of the year. It’s not at all the same as having WoW open full-time, year-round. The full-time pedestrianization – on a street that’s already lively with shops and outdoor dining – lends itself well to all sorts of spontaneous and fun events. The location is actually quite ingenous because it flows so well from the Thursday farmer’s market and other downtown plaza events.
So, no, it wasn’t a poorly-thought-out project. It was actually an extremely well-considered location and idea. Tons of people enjoy it and its presence isn’t causing problems, but instead enhancing the public’s enjoyment of downtown Fullerton.
There is no benefit to shutting down WoW. It is justified only by downsides and selfishness.
This is so upsetting. I am so sick of these 3 dingleberries preventing the city from ever improving. Residents are constantly undermined by reps of districts 1, 2 and 4. Can we please organize to replace the next one that’s up for election? Kitty Jaramillo cane very, very close to defeating Valencia in the last election.
I always thought WoW was a charming addition to the city, sad to see it go back to just another ordinary street.
The thousands of people that signed the petition to save WoW should have been supporting all of the businesses in the area and telling those businesses that they’re there because of WoW.
I didn’t see one business show up to the meeting in support of WoW. Not one. Not even ones that have parklets on WoW. Curiously absent. Maybe their support was only public facing. If WoW was so good for them, where were they???
Advocates brought a TON of revenue to local businesses on and around WoW through both awareness and concrete action. Save WoW events collaborated with local businesses to promote those businesses with coupons and other items donated by business owners. Some business owners reported an uptick in revenue associated with those events.
A lot of business owners on WoW were busy running their successful businesses during the Council vote and unable to attend. (This contradicts the narrative that WoW is empty and businesses are struggling). Others were reticent to voice their opinions publicly due to fear of retaliation from powerful forces in Fullerton.
There were actually several business owners showing up to support WoW at the City Council meeting.
Sorry but your claims are uninformed and factually incorrect.
You’re telling me, a business owner on WoW didn’t have the time to show up for a meeting that would help insure the continued success of their business? A meeting they knew about months in advance? Couldn’t attend by zoom? Send a letter to be read by a supporter?
For some of them, yes. For others, they showed up or called in. Maybe you didn’t notice.
I am disappointed in Jung and Valencia’s decision to vote against the WOW. Apparently Jung and Valencia were unable to articulate their objections – maybe they are political hostages. My vote would be to recall both of them.
Also, it seems unfair to me all city council members vote on this matter when the matter at hand is not in their district. This was local issue limited to one block. And for that matter, does Fullerton have a “Master Plan”. That might help settle issues such as this.
As a resident of down town Fullerton I am familiar with it’s “pulse” and I found the WOW added a welcome neighborhood feel that had been missing. Additionally there is a lot of pedestrian traffic that uses the WOW.
Arguments about the loss of parking spaces is laughable. The majority of parking spots on WOW are 15 minutes (now there’s a subject worth debating) not to mention the large parking lot behind the WOW businesses and the parking structure on the other side of the street.
I lost track of all the meetings on this subject but it seems to me that we had more people involved than were needed and it was not clear that all of those people had a direct stake in the issue.
I think the Fullerton city can do better than this. Shame on them and the city council.
Jim Farvour
Jim, it doesn’t work that way. The full council still votes on all decisions. Personally, I wouldn’t want a single person controlling any district.
Yes, Fullerton has a General Plan that is updated periodically (should be soon, actually). Within that plan are various specific plans.
Jung has articulated his position on the WoW many times over the many meetings to which you refer.
The 15 minute parking spaces are there to benefit the businesses on Wilshire. Removing the would harm those businesses to some degree, I believe.
I suggest working g for a better downtown overall—one rust would attract beneficial pedestrian traffic without a street closure.
A better downtown. Somehow without changing anything, right? Because there’s always going to be someone that has some complaint.
Hopefully voters get tired of a few unelected ideologues throwing money around being chosen over the wider public interest.
No, not without changing anything. I would try to limit the proliferation of bars and more tightly regulate the sound ordinance, such as it is. I’d also like to see the public right of way enhanced by the city taking back our sidewalk on the northeast corner of Harbor and Commonwealth.
If it was a local issue that only people on that block should have a say so on, then all of the people that spoke that didn’t live or own a business within a 100 feet of it should not have been allowed to speak on the matter.
The fact that none of the business on WoW showed up in support of WoW says a lot.
I would like the list of the 65 businesses that supported WOW. I want to support them. Could the WOW committee make that list public?
A couple business owners on or near WoW did show up. Others wrote letters of support. Still others showed up the first time around.
Still others legitimately fear retaliation from the hateful, vindictive forces that control Fullerton politics.
Amy, Fullerton business owners have expressed to you that they declined to voice support for WoW because they feared some sort of retaliation from influential political forces (who?). How many business owners? I find that allegation disturbing. I think you ought to write that up for The Observer.
You know what, I’m done discussing this with Bushala followers. They reject overwhelming evidence for things they don’t like, but scoff at requests for evidence for things they do. If Bushala hadn’t gotten involved in WoW, it would have breezed through Council approval, because the public so clearly loves it. It seems to me that it’s only because of him that it came under threat.
I’ve given enough good-faith responses and evidence in this thread, not for any personal benefit but only to defend something I know the community loves. But it’s clear your mind is closed, and you won’t listen to any of it.
Jung raised $300,000 for his last race. He won 70% of the vote. He is obviously well liked in his District.
$300,000? That’s a lot of cash. It’s only impressive to me if it came from small, direct contributions. Did it?
Out of the 16,615 registered voters in District 1, Jung got 7,432 votes.
The council majority postponed the WOW vote until after the election at Jung’s request that the city look into expanding WOW all the way to Malden. Then after the election, even though the report said that was a viable option he voted to open the entire street (even the 200-foot existing WOW) to cars.
BTW – although Fullerton residents Tony and George Bushala each gave him $4900 and the Cigar Shop $2500 – most of the nearly $300,000 he raised came from out of town in large contributions. No idea what they want.
All this info is available on city website under elections/campaign disclosures and OC Registrar of Voters website.
How many votes did Kitty receive?
District 4 has 13,173 registered voters and had 4 candidates.
Valencia won at 3,489
with 53 votes more than
Kitty Jaramillo who got 3,436 votes
Whitaker got 1,736 votes
And the ineligible candidate Markowitz got 1,020
Dunlap left the discussion to avoid a conflict of interest accusation because his father owns one of the buildings where Walk on Wilshire is. By doing so, and with Valencia being Jung’s new bestie, there was no way Zahra and Charles could get a third vote to save the walk. It was dead the last time it came up before council, but they wanted to wait and see who got voted into district 4. Instead of a woman who fought for the masses, they got Valencia, who accepted money from known problematic donors who unfairly have power within city council.
The citizens wanted the walk to stay as it was. The less than handful business owners wanted it closed. Guess who won? It’s the old Golden Rule: Them that’s got the gold makes the rules.
Expect protests to come.
If one of those handful of businesses was yours, and the road closure was having a deleterious effect on it, wouldn’t you hope that the council would listen to you?
Exactly how were they affected? Can’t park there? The cigar store has parking spots right in front of it!
During Covid, the place was packed with tables and chairs for the restaurants to use and keep going. Because WoW has been up in the air for so long, instead of continuing to invest in the parklet, they pulled back.
There’s a saying “if you build it, they will come.” WoW needed better lighting. WoW needed funding.
Instead of a place to gather and eat, and more, we are going back to a street, with more cars, more pollution, more problems. WoW was something special and Fullerton could have made it a destination place. Instead, it’s just another street.
Let’s see if the removal of WoW helps to fill the vacant storefronts prevalent in Downtown Fullerton.
Why would it help?