It is pretty "boilerplate" stuff (after reading the proposed "contract" between the City and the County) that the land is ceded to the County during the building of the bridge or any other project funded by the county. This is done to avoid placing the city in a situation of liability. The county is responsible for the construction and all liability that may occur. AFTER a project is complete (and subsequently inspeceted and approved) it is then "ceded" back over to the entity it originally belonged to, in this case it would be the City of Westminster.

I heard something about an "elevator issue" - there is a pedestrian overcrossing at the UC Irvine Campus that does not have one, it has a circling riser which is the access for handicapped and wheelchairs. That would serve well without as much maintenance required. Just a suggestion.

It appears to me that a mountain was made from a mole hill in Tomahawk's posts yesterday. NO ONE "demands" anything from Margie Rice - and no one "demanded" that she put this on the consent calendar. And had they "demanded" her to do anything I'm quite sure they would have had their head handed to them.

I am glad to see you posted the City's "official" position today after the rather misleading posts of Thursday.

Thank you.

P.S. It is not "Janet's Bridge". It is a bridge that would help alleviate traffic issues on Bolsa. I've been there, its tough parking and walking to the other side - crossing Bolsa. Most folks prefer to drive over. This bridge could eliminate the need to shark the parking lots looking for another parking place, buring up your gasoline. Once you find a parking place, you can leave your car there and get all your shopping done.

Thank you.

Actually Vivian is right! It's not a Janet's bridge but rather... it's a Frank Jao's bridge.

Basically this is a pay back gift to the big political donor/shopping center owner Frank Jao from Supe. Janet Nguyen.

However, it was wrong for Andrew Do from Janet's Fifth Floor to attack Margie Rice as being a rebel to the "good cause" in Viet news media.

Vivian, where is the proof that there is a great traffic concern?

If your professional observation(your 20/20 vision) is correct, I see the need for at least 10 traffic bridges around busy Viet town streets in each every major corners.........hmmm but wait! these shopping center owners are not Janet's contributors. Hence no luck for them.

How about a neighboring city of Santa Ana? I can also find 10 perfect locations for these " Shopping Easy Bridges"!.....but unfotunately if they want one, money needs to come from their own pocket.

Is it fair to build a free $2.5 million shopping bridge to benefit one political backer Frank Jao? I don't think so.

Vivian Pilger,

Where's the beef with credible statistics and numbers that require this pork project? How many people died? How many accidents at this intersection?

Janet Nguyen is having huge problems with this project because she plays politics wih the public's money.

Alaska has a pork project by the name of a "bridge to no where", Janet wants to give Westminster a "bridge to and from Frank Jao's properties".

Shame on Janet Nguyen. Shame on you Pilger for porking at the public trough.

Concern over the traffic in Little Saigon has been spoken of by every side to the controversial bridge; from the Trannies side to the Jannie's side; from the City Council to the shop keepers in the malls. Who ever owns the mall (and frankly I don't have the statistics on that, but apparently you do) the shop keepers are the ones that benefit. Do they pay a flat rate rent on the property they use for their stores or do they pay a percentage of sales to the owner ( I think that might be illegal? ).

This has LONG been a concern of people that actually LIVE in WESTMINSTER. I don't know where you live (could it be GG?), but apparently you don't mind the heavy traffic congestion when you go to shop in Little Saigon...Or do you even shop there?

It's money from the state to alleviate traffic problems. If you have a better place to put the bridge why didn't you bring up that place when you spoke at the City Council Meeting rather than just slamming our Mayor over pot holes in Westminster when neighboring cities have a lot more street problems than Westminster.

Get a life and get over your feud and start working towards something good. If this money is not used for a bridge in Little Saigon, it will be used to alleviate traffic somewhere else. Did you all want that to go to GG? I don't see any thriving shopping areas in GG, as a matter of fact, most of them are usually vacant after a few years.

In Santa Ana? I don't see any places without tearing down buildings you could even put a pedestrian bridge in Santa Ana, might you (since you are so traffic oriented) point out those spots?

I didn't allocate the money to Orange County, I'd just like to see Westminster benefit from some of it after years of it going to Santa Ana and Garden Grove.

Vivian:

Here's a couple very easy to understand message for you and those who want this bridge:

1) No stats and no facts = no need/necessity = no bridge.

2) No cooperation and consultation with Westminster and the stakeholders from your Janet Nguyen = no bridge.

Janet Nguyen and Andrew Do have been exposed for their politicking on this bridge using taxpayers' money. Where's the beef here? Or more correctly. Where's the facts that back up the need for this Frank Jao white elephant?

Lots of hot air and sanctimony, but no facts and info that support the need for a bridge. Read the OC Register article again so that you can understand the games your Janet is playing, even against her own supporter, Margie Rice.

"What Bridge?" - aka "anonymous" -

Here's a couple of things that might be easy for you to understand:

(1) I remember a certain group who wanted to put decorative "archways" over Bolsa which would serve no useful purpose other than to decorate Little Saigon, and make it stand out even more than it already does with its own architectural requirements.

(2)Where are your facts that the rest of the people who live in Westminster really wanted a decorative archway over Bolsa that served no useful purpose, that the CITY would have to maintain?

(3) While the shop keepers in the Asian Garden Mall area would really like to see the pedestrian bridge to increase their business, why are you so strongly objecting to this project?

(4) Are your objections purely a "waste of taxpayers money"? Or are they more deeply rooted in your dislike for the parties that are promoting it?

(5)You call this bridge a "Frank Jao White Elephant". The "White Elephant" euphanism is usually used to refer to something that is "UN-USEFUL", useless, or not utilitarian. The dictionary defines it as: "a property requiring much care and expense and yielding little profit b: an object no longer of value to its owner but of value to others c: something of little or no value".

(6)You didn't respond with other suggestions on where the money could be used. Where would you use it? Or would you send it to another city? It won't be sent back to the Federal Government; so what would you do with it in WESTMINSTER?

(7)I doubt Janet is playing any games. She wants to give the people in Westminster something that is useful and will help businesses. If Westminster doesn't want it, then give it to a city which can use it.

(8)Apparently you are enjoying the "divide" between Rice and Nguyen. That is bad for Westminster and I hope Rice and Nguyen clear up the language in the documents and get on with some project in Westminster; even if it's not the bridge on Bolsa.

(9) I don't know about you, but I've heard some city council persons say "this is the first I've heard of this" and if you watch previous council meetings you can see that clearly - this is NOT the first they have heard of this bridge. For such astute political pundits - many have known about the proposed pedestrian bridge from when it was brought up before at council meetings. Perhaps those members of the council were out of the room at the time?....no, I remember them sitting there.

(10) Again, what would YOU want to see the money be used for IN WESTMINSTER?

Vivian, why can't you get your facts right?

The free bridge for shopping center owner Frank Jao only benefits his business customers without incurring any cost to benefactor Frank himself....other than contributing to Janet's campaign chest!

Frank Jao had a previous plan to spend his own money to construct similar bridge on the same site and I do not see the reason why our large public fund should be spend for this same project.

The $2.5 million can be spend on other important projects benefitting more broad angle of residents living in the district

Vivian, I don't think Janet is playing games with this bridge but her attitude toward Marge is upsetting many city officials.

I undrestand Janet might hold a "higher" office than Mayor Rice does
but our mayor has greater experiences in serving the public and it was totally wrong for Janet to just march in with her bridge agenda demand without proper inputs from the city .

Andrew Do needs to be reprimended for his fiesty and nasty remarks against Marge Rice to the Viet public media.

It appears "Respect" has become a long forgotten word in Janet's dictionary.

What did Andrew do say about Margie Rice? is there any video or audio of this?

TO: CRA Republican
From: Vivian

Let's get some facts from you, if you have some. Just how much money DID Frank Jao contribute to Janet Nguyen's campaign? Do you have a copy of her Form 460 the FPPC Financial Report?

And yes, is there a recording of what Andrew Do had to say about Mayor Rice? And has it been APPROPRIATELY translated if it was in Vietnamese?

And furthermore, the ONLY time I have EVER seen you "defend" Margie Rice is when it serves your purposes. ON all other occasions I have seen you speechless, or critical of her support of Janet Nguyen.

I know the City Officials, and they are only concerned with the language and "negotiations" for the bridge. Margie handles herself pretty well, and no one walks on her.

Janet Nguyen didn't just "march in with her bridge agenda" - in fact the document dates are 8/15 so the City had the information way before the 8/27 meeting. Ms. Nguyen was there to support a project for Westminster. Some of the details of the agreement had been added by the County - boilerplate stuff.

But on one thing I agree - there could have been some open negotiations with the whole city council - but then of course you have a few councilpersons who oppose anything Janet Nguyen proposes so I wonder how productive that could have been?

Vivivan the Sycophant,

You are just a Janet the "immature" Nguyen apologist.

You clumsily twist facts nd lie out right in your immoral defense of the indefensible! Shame on you!!

All of us can see through you so easily. That's why when you run for public office, the public rejected you.

Amazingly, YOU still haven't answered MY questions and continue to twist facts. I will not have this inncessantly foolish conversation with you any longer. You won't even put your own name on your posts! Are you hiding something?

And - what are the "lies" you claim?

Vivian, with your intelligence you won't be a Viet speaker anytime soon.....try it in your next life!

I have never spoken to Marge Rice about "Frank Jao's Bridge" issue or anything related to political matters! . Your pea must be working in over time trying to guess who I am!

Stop defending Janet's flawed personality with your soap opera story tunes because the city of Westminster had enough with her trash attitude.

Why are you lip singing for Janet's uncle Jao's bridge any way?...Is it because you are running for the office again with empty campaign war chest?