Thursday, October 30, 2008

Galloway Gets Desperate

Lorri Galloway’s arrogance has turned to desperation to keep her seat on the Anaheim City Council, now that she realizes she is not as popular as she thought. Today’s mail delivered a nasty hit piece against Planning Commisioner Gail Eastman, the candidate most likely to take Lorri out in this race. The mailer essentially repeats the same incorrect information that Lorri Galloway fed to Orange County Register reporter Frank Mickadeit several days ago. Fortunately Mickadeit was able to speak with Mayor Curt Pringle and get the correct information ,which he later repeated in his column.

In addition, Mickadiet has since met with Gail Eastman, who clarified that she never makes a decision without a full presentation of the facts, including staff reports and public comments so that she can make an informed decision. But of course Lorri is not going to let voters know that. Galloway follows the standard playbook and lifts the bits and pieces of information she find useful, because her goal is not to benefit her City, her goal is to benefit Lorri Galloway.

For those looking for clear information on the hotel issue, we offer here a piece from Mayor Curt Pringle, shamelessly lifted from the RedCounty blog without the permission of Matt Cunningham, but we are crediting him, and hope he forgives us. Below is the entire quote from Mayor Pringle, unedited, and we hope it clears up some confusion about hotel development, and the way in which Galloway is abusing information to suit her own need for re-election. We would also like to restate that Gail Eastman has not expressed an opinion one way or the other regarding the hotel development. For more information our readers can also contact the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce at

“I appreciate all of the Anaheim talk on the Blog over the last few days about our incentives for four/five star hotel properties. I would like to share my perspective on this.
It is always interesting that some wish to immediately be negative about what they hear on one issue, and from that, seek to claim that their interpretation of the situation defines conservatism or proper government management. I know there are opposing views, but one point of non-agreement does not define an entire political philosophy.The city of Anaheim takes great pride in its Resort district. It is an important economic engine to our city. We have fought hard this year to preserve it!
Even with 20,000 hotel rooms in our city, new hotel development is vigorous in Anaheim. At this moment in time, nearly 1500 new hotel rooms are under development in Anaheim. Many other developers are coming to the city expressing interest in developing hotels.
So we have seen in managing for our city’s future that many additional hotels are necessary. But in all cases, except the current construction of the 250 room expansion of the Disney Grand Californian, all of the new hotels are three star properties.
The current market conditions allow for the development of three star properties in our city, even with their current high property and construction costs.
But in planning for the future of Anaheim, we have considered how we could grow the Resort district, both in number of rooms and the average nightly rate.
We do not need to do anything to encourage three star properties. But four star properties and the additional construction costs that are required to get these properties to that level are much higher and they may not be built at the current cost of construction.
Four star properties can add to our opportunities to bring additional conventions to Anaheim and can assist in the growth of the Resort area.
On Tuesday’s agenda, we voted to provide a potential tax reimbursement to hotel developments if they seek to build four star properties. Our plan would be to require the full 100% of the bed tax be collected on the three star property equivalent rates. But we would consider, based on need, if we would reimburse for the first 10-15 years, the additional amount of taxes collected from the three star rate equivalent to the four star rate.
We are not reimbursing what the market will provide – in this case a three star property. But we see the value in growing the Resort for the long term. And a mix of high end hotels, even with higher construction and development costs, will insure that we have the mix of properties that will continue to grow the Resort.
At the council meeting, I respect that Councilmember Harry Sidhu wanted to delay this discussion for a few months in order to get more information.
And I also respect that Councilmember Lorri Galloway joined with HERE (Hotel Employee/Restaurant Employee Union) in opposing this plan. The HERE representatives were the only ones who spoke against this proposal.
I see a similarity in the council action on Tuesday, to when, in the Legislature, we provided a manufacturer’s tax credit on the purchase of new manufacturing equipment or when we provided an R&D tax credit to encourage more high tech research firms to locate to California. Some people didn’t like any type of tax credit or incentive programs. And I can respect that.
But with these incentives in Anaheim, I feel we are taking steps today to prepare for the long-term fiscal health of our city.
Sometimes planning for the long term is not seen by everyone in the short term.
But I will hold Anaheim’s fiscal position up as an example of a fiscally responsible and secure government even in these economic times. This year we have made a mid-year budget reduction of 2 ½%; we have maintained a 13% general fund reserve and are truly in a strong budget position.
I will proudly match our city’s planning and budget position to any other local government from Rancho Santa Margarita to Riverside. “
April 24, 2008 5:21 PM

Monday, October 27, 2008

Galloway Caught With Her Hand in the Affordable Housing Cookie Jar

Lorri Galloway robs from the Poor to Give to the Rich…and the Rich Remember her Campaign

Today’s photo is the Elm Street Commons project. It is a 100% affordable housing project, located on Elm Street just west of Anaheim Blvd. To make way for these enormous apartments, a single family, historic home was removed, and another lot was absorbed. At first, we just felt sorry for the poor saps who were left behind on the street, to be forever dwarfed by a gargantuan stucco box. But wait, there’s more!

It seems the funding on this project got a little creative. On November 28, 2006, SADI, the developer for Elm Street Commons, came to City Council to have their standard DDA approved through the Housing Authority. Standard practice in Anaheim is to give the developer money, to be paid back over time, 85% to the City, and the developer keep 15% as profit. The 85% is then recycled into more housing projects, which keeps Anaheim building apartments for the working poor. Whether you agree with building subsidized housing or not, it is an efficient system. In the development of the Elm Street Commons, the City offered many millions of dollars in direct funding, plus incentives added later such as a sewer project the developer decided the City should do. Rather than approve the otherwise ordinary deal, now-convicted-felon Richard Chavez pulled the development from the Consent Calendar, allowing discussion. In the end, the City Council, led by Chavez and backed by Lorri Galloway, changed the condition of the agreement, bumping the developer’s profit from the standard 15% to a whopping and unprecedented 50% profit for a private corporation!!

Mayor Curt Pringle admonished Council not to approve this deal, saying, “By taking money out of that pot and not returning it to that pot it limits the amount of affordable housing we will do in the future.” The change meant that the developer would not be paying back 35% of the cost of the project to a revolving fund, and therefore that 35% would not be available for housing the working poor in the future. Why would Chavez propose such a move? Seems the same folks had filtered money through a shady PAC (Hometown Voter) just before the vote, funding an Independent Expenditure on behalf of Richard Chavez’ failed re-election. Why would Lorri Galloway take money from the very people she claims to champion? Perhaps the answer is in her Council statement, as she looked at the developer and admonished him, “I hope you acknowledge how much Council has been supportive of you.”

Well the developers at Elm Street Commons sure did remember to acknowledge that 35% jump in their profits, funded by robbing Anaheim’s working poor. Again funneling money through PAC filings with Treasurer Kinde Durkee, who is frequently under investigation by the FPPC, a donation of $15,000 was made by Elm Street, which funded the Clear Channel billboards Lorri has all over the City. They also underwrote a large mailing, and the graphic arts for the mail piece

But wait, it gets stickier. Jump over to the filings for Orange County Leaders for Change, and you see Elm Street money mixed with a donation from SunCal, administered by the same Treasurer, Kinde Durkee, and spent on the campaigns of both Lorri Galloway and Diane Singer. If you recall, both Diane and Lorri backed SunCal’s attempt to strip the Resort District of an income-producing parcel in exchange for affordable housing subsidies. Developers, developers everywhere, and they all seem linked to what they can take from Anaheim, through the "leadership" of Lorri Galloway.

Watch the City Council meeting yourself here at

This item begins about 38 minutes into the meeting. We are trying to pull the section of video to make it easier to view, and will post it here if we can get that to work.

Lorri Galloway used her position on the Anaheim City Council to take money from affordable housing funds and increase the profits of a developer who is now financing her campaign expenses. She does not deserve another four years on the City Council. This race is getting down to the finish line, and the polls show it will be a tight race. No matter whom you might support for City Council, we ask everyone who reads this and is as disgusted as we were, please forward this page to every Anaheim voter you know. Felon (and Galloway employee) Richard Chavez was defeated by roughly 200 votes. Lorri Galloway can be defeated, if we all work together. Please help.

Join your neighbors by voting No On Galloway on November 4, and share this information with every Anaheim voter you know.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Is Lorri Galloway Really Who You Think She Is?

We here at No On Galloway pride ourselves on being truthful, and use only primary source material for our posts regarding the poor leadership and ethical lapses of Councilwoman Galloway. And yet, her supporters continue to scream the standard line of, "You're lying, you're evil, you're tearing the City apart." It is getting old. So let's up the ante. Prove us wrong. Since Cynthia Ward handles much of our research, and has a professional reputation for accuracy to protect, she has offered to make a donation to Lorri Galloway's campaign, and congratulate her, in exchange for anyone using primary source material to prove us wrong. Do you really believe Councilwoman Galloway was the same Lorri Galloway who graduated CSUF, despite having a different Social Security number? Seems like after working so hard for an adult degree one might take a photo at graduation, but none of us have seen one. Ought to be easy enought to get one from Lorri. We will have photos examined for alteration. Do you dispute any of the other claims here on this blog? Bring us primary record proof. The thrill of seeing Colony Rabble having to humilate herself in front of Lorri should be enough to motivate you. Post proof directly to the blog's comments section, so that nobody can dispute Clementine having received it. It is time. Put up or shut up.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Mortgage Shell Game at Eli Home

We are being asked to trust Lorri Galloway with four more years of overseeing the City of Anaheim’s budget. Let’s review how she has managed the finances of the Eli Home. This information is from public records, and open to anyone through the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Lest the usual suspects cry “liar”, we are including the Document Numbers and numbers of pages, and you may look these up yourself online at and just for verification, we include images of one Grant Deed to show we are telling the truth. We can send the rest if you email us at

The property located at 100 S. Canyon Crest Drive was purchased on June 2, 1994 Doc # 1994-00374291 (2 pages) The purchase price was $125,000.
The Eli Home had received grant money from several sources, including a sizable grant from United Parcel Service. While the Eli Home had been given funding to purchase the property, they recorded a Deed of Trust Doc # 1994-00374292 (3 pages).The disposition of the grant money intended for the purchase is conjectural. In theory, the Eli Home should have had a mortgage free base of operations. Over time, the Eli Home has not only taken in donations for their costs, but stripped the properties of their equity.

Within the last year, the Eli Home Inc. has completed the following transactions related to the Anaheim Hills property:

Doc # 2006-0000864080 (2 pages) On December 20, 2006, The Eli Home Inc granted the Canyon Crest shelter property to Robin and Kimberlee Tulleners. According to the Eli Home website, Robin Tulleners serves on the Board of Directors as Treasurer. Robin also works in the mortgage industry. Kimberlee Tulleners serves on the Eli Home Advisory Board, as Program Director.

Doc# 2007-0000055038 (19 pages)
Robin and Kimberlee Tulleners sign a Deed of Trust with National City Bank (Robin’s employer is National City Mortgage Company) in the amount of $582,000.00, essentially stripping the house of its remaining equity.

Document # 2007-000045747 (2 pages)
On May 30, 2007, the Eli Home Inc and Robin and Kimberlee Tulleners granted the Canyon Crest property, now worthless, back to the Eli Home Inc.

Similar transactions have taken place with the Orange shelter, which we will post at another time.

While none of us is expert in real estate, and we are hesitant to scream “mortgage fraud”….we are left with the undeniable knowledge that the National City Bank now holds a mortgage for a property that the trustees no longer hold the Deed to. There is also the issue of donations for the purchase and upkeep of the property not being used as promised by the Eli Home, Inc. It was the practice of stripping properties of equity until payments became unmanagable that has destroyed our current ecomony. Eli Home, under the direction of Lorri Galloway, has shown extrememely poor judgement, spending beyond their means, with equity obtained through questionable mortgage practices. We are now to trust this same leader with our General Fund at a time when Anaheim has no money to lose on speculative practices. November 4 is coming quickly. Do you trust Lorri Galloway with Anaheim’s future?

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Lorri did WHAT?

Lorri Galloway’s campaign materials claim that as a Councilwoman she has added

1 New Police Station

2 New Libraries

2 New Community Centers

Let’s look at those claims, beginning in West Anaheim.

1 New Police station has indeed been added to the streetscape of West Anaheim. The West Anaheim Police Station on Beach Blvd. held its groundbreaking on September 13, 2002. Lorri Galloway was not elected to office until November 2004. She had nothing to do with the planning or funding of the new Police Station and her only connection was in attending the Grand Opening on March 31, 2007.

1 New Library was indeed added in West Anaheim while Galloway was in office. The Haskett Branch Library was demolished in September 2004, a month prior to Galloway’s election.

Plans for the new library were underway before Lorri Galloway even filed papers to run for City Council, and the grant application shown here reveals that funding was requested in the year 2000, without involvement from Lorri Galloway. Lorri did attend the opening. Maybe that is what she takes credit for.

The West Anaheim Gymnasium, attached to the West Anaheim Police Station, was constructed with the Police Station, and funding was approved before the election that put Lorri Galloway into a City Council seat.

Lorri Galloway’s campaign, from mailing to website, is built on the lie that she created these improvements in Anaheim. Lorri Galloway simply sat back, watched the work of others completed, and then took a bow for the work. If these are her reasons for being re-elected, she does not deserve the seat.

It is time to look for integrity and truthfulness in our candidates. This blog will not promote any one candidate, and indeed those involved in this blog differ in their support of candidates. But it is certain that Lorri Galloway does not represent those character traits that the people of Anaheim are looking for.

Lorri has lied about her work in West Anaheim. Coming soon, East Anaheim claims of improvement.

Opposing Views Invited

Editor's Note:

We recently had a run of comments, and while postings claimed to be from various pseudonyms, they looked suspiciously like the same person. To be fair, we did allow these posts of opposing viewpoints. We also invited the posters to dispute any claim we made, and offered to give equal time and space to opposing views. To date we have not received any communication even attempting to rebut anything we have posted here as untrue. Again, it is our stand that Lorri Galloway has been such a bad leader, both in the public sector and as a non-profit director, that we need not invent charges against her, it is simply our intent to educate the public regarding those actions that are provable. We again invite anyone with an opposing viewpoint to share it here, in a respectful manner. It is never our intent to slander or defame with false information. Those reluctant to post here on the blog may email information to, and opposing views will be treated with respect.

Thank you.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Lorri's Lawsuits

Why are we so careful about verification of statements regarding Lorri Galloway? Lorri’s history tells us she has no problem with suing those who stand up to her, even when they are speaking the truth.

Case in point:

In 1995, Lorri Galloway as the Eli Home Inc, filed a lawsuit claiming slander, against defendants Gene Secrest, Jeannie Averill and Vicky Conway.
Case # 746160 Santa Ana Superior Court. In time, the Eli Home amended the lawsuit four times to add defendants including the Orange County Register, Freedom Newspapers, and reporter Marla Jo Fisher.

After years of stressful and expensive legal defense, each of the defendants were dismissed under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the “SLAPP” (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. All of the lawsuits filed by Eli were found to be “meritless”, and “filed solely to punish the defendants for their criticism of the Eli project and to impose litigation costs upon them for exercising their right to free speech and to petition the government”

The judges involved, under the SLAPP statute, awarded attorney’s fees and costs of filing motions to each of the defendants. In addition, the Eli Home’s own attorneys, Faran and Kievet, filed two separate Motions to Withdraw as Attorney of Record, citing that “the Eli Home Inc. has failed to maintain their financial obigations relative to the payment of fees, costs, and expenses.”

No On Galloway has obtained those public records related to the lawsuit, and while the file it too large to post on Blogspot, we will share that information with those concerned, if contacted directly. We will also be sharing smaller files as we continue the education of Anaheim voters concerning who Lorri Galloway is, and how she conducts herself as a leader, both in the public sector as an elected official, and in the non-profit sector, as the Executive Director of a charity that claims to serve Anaheim’s children. Her behavior in both areas gives us a view on whether she is fit for re-election to City Council.

If you have information to share, please email to, please provide primary record information, as we cannot post information without documentation. This keeps our credibility high with voters, and hopefully our lawsuit exposure low.

Thank you.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Identity Theft? Or just borrowing?

Thanks to alert reader DixQuartz, we do have confirmation of the CSUF rumor. While the Cal State website claims Councilwoman Galloway graduated with a degree, it appears that the Lorri Galloway who earned the degree is not the Lorri Galloway who is running for re-election to Anaheim City Council. The search was reportedly based on the Councilwoman's Social Security number, which did not match the Lorri Galloway listed on the website.

Today's Anahiem Bulletin reports on a young Anaheim Hills man named Ian Galloway, whose parents are Lori and Greg. So it does certainly appear that there are TWO Lorri Galloways in Anaheim Hills. One holds a degree at Cal State Fullerton, the other simply claims to. The problem is, one is running for re-election to Anaheim City Council, can we trust someone this ethically challenged to run our city?

Childish Games

While this is not earth-shattering news, it is an example of the type of petty games Galloway and her followers will play in this election. This signage was spotted and reported in by a Realtor on his rounds in Anaheim Hills. This photo was shot at the northwest corner of La Palma and Imperial Highway.

Friday, October 10, 2008

Mailer Misleads with Ancient News

In the time honored tradition of liberal politicians redefining what “is” is….Lorri Galloway is recycling old kudos to appear as current endorsements. Take the mailer that landed in Anaheim mailboxes recently. Lorri box quotes lines from Curt Pringle as follows, “…This year, with Lorri’s commitment and that of the Police Department and Chief Welter, we look to take steps to open a Family Justice Center. Thank for all your contributions, Lorri.”

This clearly refers to gearing up for the Justice Center, in its initial planning stages. The Anaheim Family Justice Center opened in October 2006, making this quote a minimum of TWO YEARS OLD! This is not a current endorsement of Galloway by Mayor Curt Pringle, but an ancient pat on the back for a specific project.

Lorri continues this theme, using a YouTube video endorsement from local philanthropist Bill Taormina, shot in early 2007, when he was still on her Eli Home Board of Directors, prior to leaving, and prior to openly supporting another candidate for Council in 2008. Yet she still uses the misleading endorsement from Taormina. Where are the current endorsements from those who support her today?

The recent mailer lists endorsements from individuals who are politically active outside the current City Council. Lorri Galloway has served on the City Council for 4 years; time enough for her fellow Council members to know her and her work very well. Yet not a single member of the current City Council endorses her in this mailer. Lorri Galloway cannot muster active and relevant support from her own Council peers, and must reach into the past to drag out dusty old press releases for the appearance of support from Mayor Curt Pringle. The voters of Anaheim need to reach the same conclusion as Lorri’s current Council peers, that Lorri Galloway is unfit for public service in the City of Anaheim.

Vote No on Galloway.