Where Are The Watchdogs?

The OC Register reports that the city is purchasing a 3.073 acre parcel (between Harbor Blvd. and Anaheim Blvd. near the 91 freeway) from Karcher Partners LLC for $3 million, in order to build a regional, year-round emergency homeless shelter.

City officials confirmed Tuesday that they are working toward building a regional, year-round emergency homeless shelter on a vacant portion of property that once served as the home base of the Carl’s Jr. fast-food chain.

While not a done deal, Anaheim city officials are working with their counterparts in neighboring Fullerton to bring a shelter to a 3-acre parcel bounded by Harbor and Anaheim boulevards, the 91 freeway and Carl Karcher Way. Until Tuesday afternoon, the City Council had kept quiet on why the property was purchased this month for $3 million. The shelter would be operated by Orange County.

A decision by the council could come by summer, said Kristine Ridge, an interim assistant city manager.

“I think the time is now,” Anaheim Mayor Tait said shortly after Tuesday’s City Council workshop on homelessness issues.

If that is the case, why was there no mention of building a year-round, regional homeless shelter when the mayor and city council voted on March 25 to purchase the property? Here it is – Item 21 on the consent calendar for the March 25, 2014 council meeting.

If the city bought the property with the intention of building a year-round homeless shelter, it’s interesting that no mention was made of that fact in the staff report or any other accompanying document. And given the repeated lectures on “more transparency is always better” when it comes to police oversight or Angels negotiations or most everything else, why was this matter so opaque?

There’s nothing improper with the city purchasing an available parcel for which it can see one or more potential uses. But it seems clear that the city had a very particular use in mind for these three acres, located very close to La Palma Park – the epicenter of complaints from residents about a homeless get city crowding them out of the intended and proper use of the park. It stands to reason those residents would like some advance notice that the reason the city is purchasing the property is to build a year-round homeless shelter.

And where is CATER on this? Fighting for transparency – especially with the use of taxpayer money — is supposedly their raison d’etre; shining the sunlight of transparency and letting the chips fall where they may? There’s no need here for them to rummage through the legal haystack for a needle upon which to base a lawsuit. At the every least, it’s three known members could engage in well-practiced thundering from the podium during public comments, or filing a blizzard of PRA requests. That is, if CATER is a bona fidepublic interest organization and not just another political interest group pursuing a distinct political agenda.

23 comments

  1. What in the Sam Hill are you talking about?

    • Matthew Cunningham

      What part do you not understand?

      • What part did you?

        • Matthew Cunningham

          You can communicate or be a wise-ass.

          • I’m pretty sure I can do both.

            • Matthew Cunningham

              I know you can but at the moment you’re only doing the latter.

              • Great. Now that we’ve established what I’m capable of and what I’m doing, perhaps you’ll prove you’re capable of answering a question: what are you talking about in this post? It appears to be a bunch of whining over absolutely nothing.

                • Matthew Cunningham

                  Looks like cranky, contrarian Ryan is back after a slumber of many months. Oh joy.

                  • . . . I apparently overreached. Not capable of answering a question.

                  • Come on, Matt. Seriously– what the heck is the point of this post? Do you actually have something to say or is this just 4th grade chest thumping over a personal issue?

                    Let’s hear about it. Connect the dots for me because you’re sorely lacking an answer to “SO WHAT?!”

                    • Matthew Cunningham

                      Geez, Ryan. Calm down.

                    • Ryan, maybe if you stop putting so much energy into being a jerk and a Tait tool, you’d understand what Matt’s saying, which is pretty obvious. Tom Tait makes a huge deal about transparency and public involvement in city council decisions. He made a stink saying there wasn’t enough public notice on Garden Walk and the Angels MOU, cheered on by people like you and Ward. He called a special meeting after the first Garden Walk vote because he said the agenda item didn’t make it absolutely crystal clear there’d be a vote. This is the same Tait who says over and over that you can never have too much transparency in government. Cynthia Ward cheerleads for Tait’s complaints.

                      Now we have the city spending $3 million to buy land for Tait’s pet project, a year-round homeless shelter. No outreach to local residents. No disclosure in the agenda item that the city was buying it for a homeless shelter. The city only admitted what it was doing because of the OC Register forced the answer out.

                      What Matt is too polite to say is that Tait is being a big hypocrite about transparency and public notice because it is his project. And that Cynthia Ward and CATER are big hypocrites for ignoring a secretive city purchase, for an undisclosed purpose, with no public input, because it’s a Tait initiative. If it were Murray or Kring behind this, Ward and her gang would be screaming and threatening legal action.

                    • Matt’s a big boy and can speak for himself, Anaheimish.

                      Even if that is what he’s trying to say, it still begs the question: “SO WHAT?!” Perhaps you can answer that one for him, too.

                    • “So what” that Tom Tait is doing the same thing he accuses his colleagues of doing? “So what” that Ward and CATER turn a blind eye to it because it is their idol’s pet project? Boy, you are so deep in the tank for Tait that your brain has stopped working.

                    • Maybe one of your loony buddies, Daniel Lamb would be willing to call out Tait. Lamb is on a transparency crusade.

                    • If your answer to the question is that this is an example of hypocrisy, that means the entire post is just an ad hominem attack.

                      So while perhaps good for giggles, what that means is this really just a giant waste of space with no real argument or conclusion being presented.

                      Enjoy hanging your hat, and your brain, on that.

                    • LOL! Everything that comes out of your keyboard is an ad hominem attack, Ryan! Pot, meet kettle!

                    • Perhaps you don’t know what it means. What you just did would be a perfect example if you’re looking for one. Attacking the credentials or character of an individual in an attempt to undermine support for their argument is a logical fallacy. In this case, supposing that your right, it still doesn’t address any argument I may or may not be making.

                      So, while it might be good for some laughs on your end, it still lets my claim stand unchallenged: According to your interpretation of Matt’s point, this entire post is a giant waste of space as it levels no real argument, thus no real conclusion.

                      While I regularly drag anonymous posters like yourself through the ringer for not providing an ante in the poker game you and they insist on playing, that’s really the extent that I employ the use of that particular fallacy.

                      But hey, you have a role here, too. Just you, me, and a bunch of your anonymous brethren havin’ a joyful time trying to learn latin.

                      Next?

        • Wouldn’t it be cheaper to put this in Victorville?

  2. BigBoxOfRedWhine

    Come on, Matt Cunningham, come clean, were you really out of town, or just feigning a bipolar episode? First you want CATER to disappear, now you want them everywhere for everything, real or imagined – you can’t have it both ways!
    Isn’t it funny how your “insider” sources also missed this “outrage”, and you, yourself for that matter! Where were you all? If it’s such a big issue that you feel so strongly about, I’m sure the same podium that accommodates Diamond (from Brea), much less Fitzgerald, wouldn’t keep an Orange resident as yourself from expressing your serious ‘concern’ for 3 minutes? IF ‘transparency’ HAS been overlooked, I’m sure YOUR input to the City as to how, would be APPRECIATED by CATER, as well as City residents, and would only HELP Anaheim’s continual efforts at self-improvement! (cough)
    The most glaring (and usual) omission in your diatribe is any question at all about the conduct of the chair-warmers on the dias (whose campaign announcements you regularly promote) who once again, supplied unquestioning majority VOTES for the purchase. Why no questions of THEM, Matt? I’m sure if YOU asked them nicely, you could get a “motion to reconsider” to address your “concerns”?
    Having no medical training myself, I can only speculate if someone who does, might prescribe you Kaopectate. Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

  3. Anaheim Resident

    Matt – please ignore Ryan Cantor – he clearly has more time on his hands than brains! Noone in Anaheim cares what this guy thinks. His voice will count when and if he ever volunteers one hour in our community or moves here. Until then, we should universally ignore him.

  4. I think Ryan believes no one here has caught on to his appointed role with the CATER crowd. Look, we get it. You come here to muddy the water and take comments off topic in hopes that this somehow weakens their impact. Congrats on this pivotal role but I’m pretty sure when it’s this obvious it defeats the purpose.

    • I have no appointed role with the CATER crowd, but I fully expect that everyone here who reads on a regular basis has caught on that the majority . . . the substantial majority . . . of my comments are meant to be annoying to the agenda being driven from this site. The efficacy of what I’m doing is probably more appropriately labeled defeated than any other term. Well, maybe not masochistic.

      Anyway, I hate to break it to you, but asking what the point of a blog post is, by definition, on topic.

      Sorry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*


Skip to toolbar