by Will Gregory, Benicia
In endorsing Linda Seifert for Solano County Supervisor, the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee stated: " Our County’s General Plan, which protects open space and manages sensible growth, is being updated by the Board of Supervisors, ...In order to ensure that we have a new General Plan which both conserves Solano County’s miles of rural land and focuses balanced, sustainable growth within our seven cities, we need a supervisor who will stand up for our environment, not rampant rural development by special interests."
Special to the( Benicia) Herald- 4/3/2008.
In contrast, over the past couple months, I’ve been able to show the community that Supervisor John Silva is well tied to developers and real estate entities by reading, researching and writing about his campaign disclosure statements: Public Documents- Form#460. Secured at the Voters of Registrar office at the County Government building in Fairfield. These files are extremely important because they give the citizen/voter a rare glimpse into the mind-set of our elected officials. Another way to find out how a public official is doing- is to check his voting record.
One issue in particular that caught my attention was the Solano County’s General Plan/ selection process for the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.
This 16 member group was selected by the BOS to update and enhance a document that hadn’t been revised in over 20 years.
Two original members of this group were (then) Benicia Planning Commissioner Bonnie Silveria and (then) councilwoman Elizabeth Patterson.
A letter written by Nicole Byrd of the Greenbelt Alliance and (7) members of the original and second CAC team to the Vallejo Times Herald- 3/15/08- is instructive:
"...the original Citizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC), a well balanced committee consisting of four people appointed by each supervisor was disbanded in Jan.2007. The Supervisors claimed the committee wasn’t getting enough done. However, the original committee- like the second committee–followed agendas designed by consultants, with some input from an agenda sub-committee. Additionally, the original CAC was developing a vision plan and attending a number of field trips to various county locations in order to be better informed when making decisions. The criticism that the original CAC was not doing enough was a smokescreen by those who wanted an excuse to remake the committee."
When you check the Supervisors agenda schedule-what happened next is very revealing.
Here the Supervisors ( Chairman Michael Reagan, John Silva ) moved to send the CAC issue to the Ad Hoc- Land Use and Transportation Committee- See: BOS minutes of 1/09/08.
The senior member of this committee is Mr. Silva: who recommended that the original CAC committee be dissolved and a new CAC selection process be established.
Note: What is interesting is that, because it was "Ad Hoc" they didn’t have to have public meetings. See: BOS meeting 1/23/08. Agenda Item #21 of the Committee Report.
"The supervisors met in closed session, without public input or public viewing and hand picked the ...the new members for the second CAC." From: the above Greenbelt Alliance letter.
Where is the respect for the public process or open and transparent government, here?
Even more disturbing the # 3 item of the new Citizens Membership Report specifically states: The CAC shall not consist of individuals who in their present capacity make decisions dealing with land use such as elected officials and appointed officials. e.g. City Council-persons or Planning Commissioners will not be allowed to serve on the new CAC.
Note: the only two members of the original committee who were either elected or appointed were Ms. Patterson and Ms. Silveria.
In a 4-1 vote the second CAC was formed. Note: Supervisor Kondylis expressed her opposition to the restructuring of the CAC Membership for the Solano County General Plan Update and did not feel that there was equal geographic, gender, or ethnic representation in the new restructuring.
When you check Ms. Patterson’s resume at her web site ( See: elizabethpatterson.com) it is full of the kind of top notch experience that should’ve been a worthy asset to this citizens group. Ms. Silveria has held numerous positions in our city government-again experience is an invaluable tool on a citizens committee.
So why would Mr. Silva, the most senior politician from Benicia, deny his own home town (native son) representation on the CAC ?
It is important to remember: Benicia was the only city in Solano Co., that voted overwhelmingly in favor of Measure J in 2006. The initiative would have extended Solano Co. Orderly Growth law for another 30 years. ( the OG law requires a " vote of the people " on any major development of agricultural land. Since Measure J failed, the OG law will expire in 2010.)
The revised General Plan draft, that has been developed by the CAC ( from which Mr. Silva removed all Benicia representation), " proposes giving the county authority " to develop agricultural land, rather than keeping development within city boundaries.
Benicia and Dixon were the only cities in Solano County that don’t have representation on the CAC.
It is also important to note that Benicia was not included in cities selected to have an Open House to preview the General Plan update. Other Solano cities had open houses, which included a walk through of the document and a question and answer session with CAC members. Benicians were directed to the JFK Library in Vallejo April 28th to be part of this important process.
So Benicia went from having two highly qualified CAC members to zero representation.
Mr. Silva, had many chances to pick another person from our city–he chose – Mr. Anthony Russo from Fairfield, to represent District 2. Mr. Russo, I have learned, is the son-in-law of Mr. Billy Yarbrough who is a major land owner in Solano County. Mr. Yarbrough owns B&L Properties, a real estate development company.
Please note: According to Mr. Silva’s 2007 campaign disclosure statement- Debbe Russo gave $1,000 to his campaign. Louise Yarbrough donated $2500 to Mr. Silva. There was also a $667 non-monetary contribution from B&L Properties.
In closing, Supervisor Silva (the third most senior politician in the county) uses his considerable muscle in closed session –Ad Hoc Committee- to deny his " home town" of any kind of respectable representation on the most important advisory committee affecting our city/ county in the last twenty years!
So we have a public official who has ties to developers-like- Seeno Co. and other special interest groups- on the one hand- and then using his years of experience as a politician and legislative maneuvering to make sure that two of our city’s most known and experienced public officials are fired . See: Mayor Elizabeth Patterson’s e-alerts. Subject: Solano Farm lands at risk-Supervisors and the Solano County General Plan. 3-15-2008 – for her reaction.
With the June 3rd District 2 election just weeks away, it is important to remember- Mr. Silva hasn’t been challenged in over 12 years- I think it is fair to ask, do we really want another four years of this kind of representation?
Showing posts with label campaign finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance. Show all posts
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Friday, May 2, 2008
A deeper look at the Solano County 2008 election
by Will Gregory, April 2008
" Money is the mother’s milk of politics"
Jesse Unruh, Speaker of the California Assembly-1961-1969
" One of my favorite quotations from James Madison in 1822, is that a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy. Or perhaps both."
– Article: Neither Popular Government Nor Popular Information- spotted in Z magazine, March 2008 -
The author of the article is Professor Emeritus Edward S. Herman– He continues,
"By ‘popular government’ I think Madison meant an elected government and by ‘ popular information ’ I think he meant information that would be useful to the citizenry and allow them to make intelligent choices consistent with their own interests and perception of the public interest. Of course if you have an elected government without popular information there is a good chance that you may end up with a government that serves the special interests that control that flow of information. In that case popular government would be a misleading phrase, as the elected government would likely be a servant of those special interests."
In this particular installment I will concentrate on District 5 Supervisor Michael Reagan. Closing with questions and comments about this County election cycle.
Very much like his colleague District 2 Supervisor John Silva, Mr. Reagan has secured contributions from a variety of sources.
Here are some of the highlights: 62 pages of [campaign disclosure statements/ public documents] that candidates are required to file by law.
These are the cumulative totals for all of 2007 up to March 17, 2008.
Mr. Reagan has raised: $117,888. (of this amount- $13,070 came from un itemized monetary contributions of less than $100.)
Mr. Reagan has had 171contributors –"39" of which came from out side the county. The out of county cash totals: $15, 584.
Largest contributors: out of county.
1.) Lodi Gas & Storage...Acampo, CA .$1,500.
2.) Abernathy Valley...... Mt. View ...$1,000.
3.) ENXCO No. Palm Springs .. $500. Wind Power Co.
4.)Ferma Corp. Mt. View ....$500. General Engineering Contractors.
Largest county contributors:
1.) John and Lola Dobles............................ $10,700. Cattle rancher.
2. ) MV Transportation ............................... $10,000 . Fairfield Transportation Co.
3.) Northern Solano Co. Assoc. Of Realtors. $3,000
4.) Yolano Engineers, Inc. ...........................$2500. Land Survey Co.
5.) Jelly Belly Co. .......................................$1,500. Candy Co.
6.) Biggs Realty ..........................................$1599.
Trade Groups:
1.) Nor Cal Waste Management Co. ...PAC #921099. S.F. $250.
2.) North Bay Credit Union Vallejo. $1,000.
3.) Golden Gate Chapter of Assoc. Builders. Pleasanton. $ 500.
To sell himself, so far, Mr. Reagan has spent $46,000 ( Note: That is more than District 2 Linda Seifert and District 5 Skip Thompson have spent on their respective campaigns combined!! See below.)
1.) MMS Strategies ..Sacramento. Consultant fees and polling. $32,000.
2.) Sharp Public Affairs. Vacaville. Video Production; voter link; and consulting fees.
$11,700
3.) Simz Production..Sacramento. T.V. Video. $3,000.
In contrast, challenger Mr. Skip Thompson has raised a modest sum of just over $14,000. From 44 donors. Mr. Thompson has had "5" out of county contributors totaling...$1900.
Here as you can see, Mr. Reagan has raised more money outside of Solano Co.. Than Mr. Thompson has raised in the county. This is the same scenario in the Seifert vs Silva race. ($30,000 vs $52,000)
This outside monetary influence is unfair and undemocratic; (we saw this in our last Benicia election when then Planning Commissioner Mr. Scot Strawbridge raised over $61,000 from out of town sources) I believe if it continues, it will cause the citizenry to lose confidence in the integrity–of what is suppose to be a " LOCAL COUNTY ELECTION."
So this powerful duo of Supervisors (our popular government) Michael Reagan and John Silva have dominated the election process and the politics (political direction) in Solano County.
Or as professor Herman, states," In that case ‘popular government’ would be a misleading phrase, as the elected government would likely be a servant of those special interests."
Here’s the breakdown:
Mr. Silva is just over $116,000 up to: March 2008. Nearly $52,000 came outside the county from 65 donors out of a total of 161 contributors.
Mr. Reagan’s figures of nearly $118,000 raised– with over $15,500 from outside the county.
With yet one more contribution filing set for May 22 for both of these incumbents.
The opposition candidates: Linda Seifert and Skip Thompson have raised a humble $44,000 combined. Outside contributions for Ms. Seifert total: $2500 from 13 donors.
These kinds of figures (over $234,000 in this last election cycle-with well over 25% of contributions coming from outside Solano County ) would seem to indicate a "certain pattern" of special interests money pouring into our county for these incumbent elected officials.
Especially when you compare and contrast senior District 1 Supervisor Barbara Kondylis’ present campaign for another 4 year term on the Board. Ms. Kondylis has raised just over $6,000. With no special interest money,in her file. And only "2 " outside contributors totaling $1200.
This kind of largess is just a microcosm of what the citizens see at state and national elections. They may be smaller amounts, but the influence and impacts are the same. This is only what (the community) knows about through these public documents; what is going on behind closed private business doors is anybody’s guess?
Questions: WHY is so much money coming into Solano County? One astute political observer asked me recently is the county up for sale? Should this be a campaign issue? WHO is really represented by my elected officials? How do modest/grassroots campaigns compete (legitimately) against this onslaught of cash? WHERE is the accountability to the public sector,here? WHAT government agency/citizens group/grand jury(?) oversees this kind of abuse of the electoral system?? Is it time for public financing of elections in Solano County? Do we need a Measure T (Tea Party) in our county. Please See: (google) Measure T campaign in Humboldt Co., for example.
Or go to http://www.votelocalcontrol.org/ .
If as President James Madison states-- "we don’t have the popular information"– i.e. an informed citizenry. For example- not one of the" newspapers in our county" has covered the past contribution filing period of March 22. (As of this writing)
Both of the working clerks I have come to know in the Registrar of Voters office were both astounded that not a single reporter had come in to check for the campaign disclosure state- ments of the candidates and incumbents. They both can’t remember this ever happening in the past.
How can we as citizens of Benica have the "popular information", President Madison considers essential to our democracy; when our own home town paper doesn’t even cover the Board of Supervisors meetings or our most senior politician on consistent basis?
Is this the prologue to a farce or tragedy. Or perhaps both. That Madison warns us of ?
These are serious concerns. I hope the community would agree.
" Money is the mother’s milk of politics"
Jesse Unruh, Speaker of the California Assembly-1961-1969
" One of my favorite quotations from James Madison in 1822, is that a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy. Or perhaps both."
– Article: Neither Popular Government Nor Popular Information- spotted in Z magazine, March 2008 -
The author of the article is Professor Emeritus Edward S. Herman– He continues,
"By ‘popular government’ I think Madison meant an elected government and by ‘ popular information ’ I think he meant information that would be useful to the citizenry and allow them to make intelligent choices consistent with their own interests and perception of the public interest. Of course if you have an elected government without popular information there is a good chance that you may end up with a government that serves the special interests that control that flow of information. In that case popular government would be a misleading phrase, as the elected government would likely be a servant of those special interests."
In this particular installment I will concentrate on District 5 Supervisor Michael Reagan. Closing with questions and comments about this County election cycle.
Very much like his colleague District 2 Supervisor John Silva, Mr. Reagan has secured contributions from a variety of sources.
Here are some of the highlights: 62 pages of [campaign disclosure statements/ public documents] that candidates are required to file by law.
These are the cumulative totals for all of 2007 up to March 17, 2008.
Mr. Reagan has raised: $117,888. (of this amount- $13,070 came from un itemized monetary contributions of less than $100.)
Mr. Reagan has had 171contributors –"39" of which came from out side the county. The out of county cash totals: $15, 584.
Largest contributors: out of county.
1.) Lodi Gas & Storage...Acampo, CA .$1,500.
2.) Abernathy Valley...... Mt. View ...$1,000.
3.) ENXCO No. Palm Springs .. $500. Wind Power Co.
4.)Ferma Corp. Mt. View ....$500. General Engineering Contractors.
Largest county contributors:
1.) John and Lola Dobles............................ $10,700. Cattle rancher.
2. ) MV Transportation ............................... $10,000 . Fairfield Transportation Co.
3.) Northern Solano Co. Assoc. Of Realtors. $3,000
4.) Yolano Engineers, Inc. ...........................$2500. Land Survey Co.
5.) Jelly Belly Co. .......................................$1,500. Candy Co.
6.) Biggs Realty ..........................................$1599.
Trade Groups:
1.) Nor Cal Waste Management Co. ...PAC #921099. S.F. $250.
2.) North Bay Credit Union Vallejo. $1,000.
3.) Golden Gate Chapter of Assoc. Builders. Pleasanton. $ 500.
To sell himself, so far, Mr. Reagan has spent $46,000 ( Note: That is more than District 2 Linda Seifert and District 5 Skip Thompson have spent on their respective campaigns combined!! See below.)
1.) MMS Strategies ..Sacramento. Consultant fees and polling. $32,000.
2.) Sharp Public Affairs. Vacaville. Video Production; voter link; and consulting fees.
$11,700
3.) Simz Production..Sacramento. T.V. Video. $3,000.
In contrast, challenger Mr. Skip Thompson has raised a modest sum of just over $14,000. From 44 donors. Mr. Thompson has had "5" out of county contributors totaling...$1900.
Here as you can see, Mr. Reagan has raised more money outside of Solano Co.. Than Mr. Thompson has raised in the county. This is the same scenario in the Seifert vs Silva race. ($30,000 vs $52,000)
This outside monetary influence is unfair and undemocratic; (we saw this in our last Benicia election when then Planning Commissioner Mr. Scot Strawbridge raised over $61,000 from out of town sources) I believe if it continues, it will cause the citizenry to lose confidence in the integrity–of what is suppose to be a " LOCAL COUNTY ELECTION."
So this powerful duo of Supervisors (our popular government) Michael Reagan and John Silva have dominated the election process and the politics (political direction) in Solano County.
Or as professor Herman, states," In that case ‘popular government’ would be a misleading phrase, as the elected government would likely be a servant of those special interests."
Here’s the breakdown:
Mr. Silva is just over $116,000 up to: March 2008. Nearly $52,000 came outside the county from 65 donors out of a total of 161 contributors.
Mr. Reagan’s figures of nearly $118,000 raised– with over $15,500 from outside the county.
With yet one more contribution filing set for May 22 for both of these incumbents.
The opposition candidates: Linda Seifert and Skip Thompson have raised a humble $44,000 combined. Outside contributions for Ms. Seifert total: $2500 from 13 donors.
These kinds of figures (over $234,000 in this last election cycle-with well over 25% of contributions coming from outside Solano County ) would seem to indicate a "certain pattern" of special interests money pouring into our county for these incumbent elected officials.
Especially when you compare and contrast senior District 1 Supervisor Barbara Kondylis’ present campaign for another 4 year term on the Board. Ms. Kondylis has raised just over $6,000. With no special interest money,in her file. And only "2 " outside contributors totaling $1200.
This kind of largess is just a microcosm of what the citizens see at state and national elections. They may be smaller amounts, but the influence and impacts are the same. This is only what (the community) knows about through these public documents; what is going on behind closed private business doors is anybody’s guess?
Questions: WHY is so much money coming into Solano County? One astute political observer asked me recently is the county up for sale? Should this be a campaign issue? WHO is really represented by my elected officials? How do modest/grassroots campaigns compete (legitimately) against this onslaught of cash? WHERE is the accountability to the public sector,here? WHAT government agency/citizens group/grand jury(?) oversees this kind of abuse of the electoral system?? Is it time for public financing of elections in Solano County? Do we need a Measure T (Tea Party) in our county. Please See: (google) Measure T campaign in Humboldt Co., for example.
Or go to http://www.votelocalcontrol.org/ .
If as President James Madison states-- "we don’t have the popular information"– i.e. an informed citizenry. For example- not one of the" newspapers in our county" has covered the past contribution filing period of March 22. (As of this writing)
Both of the working clerks I have come to know in the Registrar of Voters office were both astounded that not a single reporter had come in to check for the campaign disclosure state- ments of the candidates and incumbents. They both can’t remember this ever happening in the past.
How can we as citizens of Benica have the "popular information", President Madison considers essential to our democracy; when our own home town paper doesn’t even cover the Board of Supervisors meetings or our most senior politician on consistent basis?
Is this the prologue to a farce or tragedy. Or perhaps both. That Madison warns us of ?
These are serious concerns. I hope the community would agree.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Supervisor John Silva’s 2007-8 campaign war chest (as of March 17 filing)
Will Gregory, Benica, CA, March 2008
The District 2 Supervisor’s race of three term incumbent John Silva vs newcomer Linda Seifert is one that promises to give the citizenry of our district a choice of continuing with an entrenched politician, Mr. Silva, or the opportunity to break from the past and start in a new more progressive direction with attorney-public advocate Ms. Seifert ( See: www.seifertforsupervisor.com to learn more about her campaign.)
A concern about Mr. Silva is: Does he really represent the interests of citizens? According to Campaign Disclosure Statements, Mr. Silva has no trouble accepting cash contributions from special interest groups or " out of county corporations". Very often politicians represent, primarily, those who give them money.
Here are some highlights of Mr. Silva’s more than 50 pages of campaign disclosure statements for 2007-8, for the filing period ending March 17, 2008.
** Mr. Silva has raised $116,290 ( Note: Only $5,029 of this money came from un itemized monetary contributions of less than $100.)
** Mr. Silva has had 161 contributors (individuals, organizations and corporations)- 65 of which came from "out of county." (Key fact: the out of county cash totals nearly $52,000.)
** Two out of state contributors were Valero Energy Corp. of San Antonio, Texas ($4,000) and AWIN Management (Allied Waste Industries) of Phoenix, Arizona ( $2000).
** Largest contributors-out of county-
1.) Olney Land & Cattle Co.: Four Bar Cattle Co....Concord...$3,000.
2.) Yolano Engineers, Inc. Napa...$5000. ( Land Survey Co..)
3.) De Silva Gates Construction Dublin. $3000.
4.) Lucas, Austin &Alexander, LLC- Newport Beach .$4500. ( Real Estate Development Co.)
** Largest-in county contributors:
1.) Falati & Associates, Fairfield. $2,500. ( Insurance Co.)
2.) Lindemann Enterprises. Fairfield. $1450 (Suisun Valley Grape Growers Assoc.)
3.) MV Transportation, Fairfield. ...... $2500.
4.) Jelly Belly, Fairfield. ................. $1500. (Candy Company)
** Trade Groups:
1.) IBEW-Local#180 PAC#1259083. Napa... $1650.
2.) Cement Masons Local 400. Pac#68-0444454. Sacramento... $500.
3.) United Assoc. Journeyman Plumbers&Steam Fitters Local 343. PAC # 862309. Vallejo..$3,000.
In addition, Mr. Silva has received money from the Seeno Company called West Coast Home Builders. ($250)
With one filing period to go before the June 3 election- scheduled for May 22nd,2008- Mr. Silva could possibly raise $150 thousand for his supervisor’s seat.
Let me close with a series of questions and comments for District 2 voters to consider:
We know that Mr. Silva is a Benicia Native son. He has served 22 years on the Benicia police force. Was Benicia City Manager from 1979-1987. Spent two terms on the city council. He now has served 12 years as County Supervisor for our district.
Mr. Silva is the most senior politician in our community-third most senior, in time of public service, in Solano County.
As far as I know, however, I’ve never seen a column from Mr. Silva about Solano county politics in any local newspaper. You would think, with his long background in public service, we would hear from Mr. Silva through public discourse. Curious?
I started to think, when was the last time Mr. Silva held a public meeting? For example at the Dona Benicia Room or Council chambers about the doings and happenings (important business that concerns our District) at the upper county level. As far as I know, no meetings have been scheduled.
I started to think when was the last time I received a mailer, flyer or letter from Supervisor Silva letting me know about his job as my representative. Can’t recall ever receiving any mailing from Mr. Silva. Odd?
I started to think, when was the last time I saw Mr. Silva in person (he lives in Benicia) yet he doesn’t seem to attend city functions or council or planning commission meetings. He is not a visible presence in our town.
I started to think what kind of representation is this, when we never hear, see or meet with our District 2 Supervisor at the local level?
I believe these are fair questions and concerns. I hope the community would agree.
As a concerned citizen, taxpayer and voter, I’ve presented key public documents that give the citizens hard facts and figures (discovered truths) about Mr. Silva’s contributors–and have asked some relevant questions about the incumbent’s nearly invisible representation in our city. It is up to us-the citizens- to pay attention to this mid summer election- and make a decision about important change at the District 2 level.
Seifert vs. Silva: Ladies and gentleman–start your engines.
The District 2 Supervisor’s race of three term incumbent John Silva vs newcomer Linda Seifert is one that promises to give the citizenry of our district a choice of continuing with an entrenched politician, Mr. Silva, or the opportunity to break from the past and start in a new more progressive direction with attorney-public advocate Ms. Seifert ( See: www.seifertforsupervisor.com to learn more about her campaign.)
A concern about Mr. Silva is: Does he really represent the interests of citizens? According to Campaign Disclosure Statements, Mr. Silva has no trouble accepting cash contributions from special interest groups or " out of county corporations". Very often politicians represent, primarily, those who give them money.
Here are some highlights of Mr. Silva’s more than 50 pages of campaign disclosure statements for 2007-8, for the filing period ending March 17, 2008.
** Mr. Silva has raised $116,290 ( Note: Only $5,029 of this money came from un itemized monetary contributions of less than $100.)
** Mr. Silva has had 161 contributors (individuals, organizations and corporations)- 65 of which came from "out of county." (Key fact: the out of county cash totals nearly $52,000.)
** Two out of state contributors were Valero Energy Corp. of San Antonio, Texas ($4,000) and AWIN Management (Allied Waste Industries) of Phoenix, Arizona ( $2000).
** Largest contributors-out of county-
1.) Olney Land & Cattle Co.: Four Bar Cattle Co....Concord...$3,000.
2.) Yolano Engineers, Inc. Napa...$5000. ( Land Survey Co..)
3.) De Silva Gates Construction Dublin. $3000.
4.) Lucas, Austin &Alexander, LLC- Newport Beach .$4500. ( Real Estate Development Co.)
** Largest-in county contributors:
1.) Falati & Associates, Fairfield. $2,500. ( Insurance Co.)
2.) Lindemann Enterprises. Fairfield. $1450 (Suisun Valley Grape Growers Assoc.)
3.) MV Transportation, Fairfield. ...... $2500.
4.) Jelly Belly, Fairfield. ................. $1500. (Candy Company)
** Trade Groups:
1.) IBEW-Local#180 PAC#1259083. Napa... $1650.
2.) Cement Masons Local 400. Pac#68-0444454. Sacramento... $500.
3.) United Assoc. Journeyman Plumbers&Steam Fitters Local 343. PAC # 862309. Vallejo..$3,000.
In addition, Mr. Silva has received money from the Seeno Company called West Coast Home Builders. ($250)
With one filing period to go before the June 3 election- scheduled for May 22nd,2008- Mr. Silva could possibly raise $150 thousand for his supervisor’s seat.
Let me close with a series of questions and comments for District 2 voters to consider:
We know that Mr. Silva is a Benicia Native son. He has served 22 years on the Benicia police force. Was Benicia City Manager from 1979-1987. Spent two terms on the city council. He now has served 12 years as County Supervisor for our district.
Mr. Silva is the most senior politician in our community-third most senior, in time of public service, in Solano County.
As far as I know, however, I’ve never seen a column from Mr. Silva about Solano county politics in any local newspaper. You would think, with his long background in public service, we would hear from Mr. Silva through public discourse. Curious?
I started to think, when was the last time Mr. Silva held a public meeting? For example at the Dona Benicia Room or Council chambers about the doings and happenings (important business that concerns our District) at the upper county level. As far as I know, no meetings have been scheduled.
I started to think when was the last time I received a mailer, flyer or letter from Supervisor Silva letting me know about his job as my representative. Can’t recall ever receiving any mailing from Mr. Silva. Odd?
I started to think, when was the last time I saw Mr. Silva in person (he lives in Benicia) yet he doesn’t seem to attend city functions or council or planning commission meetings. He is not a visible presence in our town.
I started to think what kind of representation is this, when we never hear, see or meet with our District 2 Supervisor at the local level?
I believe these are fair questions and concerns. I hope the community would agree.
As a concerned citizen, taxpayer and voter, I’ve presented key public documents that give the citizens hard facts and figures (discovered truths) about Mr. Silva’s contributors–and have asked some relevant questions about the incumbent’s nearly invisible representation in our city. It is up to us-the citizens- to pay attention to this mid summer election- and make a decision about important change at the District 2 level.
Seifert vs. Silva: Ladies and gentleman–start your engines.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Supervisor John Silva’s 1996-7 campaign war chest
Will Gregory, Benicia, CA
Feb. 2008.
" I’ll run as hard as I did the first time I ran for the board and do all of the things that need to be done to be elected to the board." -District 2 Supervisor John Silva
Source: " Touting change, Seifert goes up against Silva," Benicia Herald, 2/12/08.
I received a call on my way home from work on Friday from the Registrar of Voters, that, my request for Mr. John Silva’s 1996-7 Campaign Disclosure Statement Form #460 was ready for pick-up. Requested on Monday of the same week–I was told it wouldn’t be ready until after the Super Tuesday Feb. 5th election. Kudos to Denise Nussbaum, who was very helpful, despite the pressure of the up coming voting period.
This County election was the first for Mr. Silva. He ran against union activist Doris Lowe. I’ve asked a few local- veterans of the political wars who Ms. Lowe was (?) but, I’m still in the dark about this person. Here, I’ve learned, that the late Ms. Lowe ran a low budget campaign-$28 thousand- (checked her file , also) and lost the election by just 600 votes.
What we do know is that Mr. Silva is running for a fourth term as supervisor for District 2.
He has won three elections. Two of the three elections, Mr. Silva ran unopposed. This of course would explain why so little money was spent in the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. $28 thousand and $19 thousand respectively. (Note: spent time going over these files as well.)
I think it is important for the citizens of the community to have a fuller picture of Mr. Silva’s election history. These campaign disclosure statements are PUBLIC DOCUMENTS- that reveal a paper trail of money and influence.
In the 1996-7 election cycle Mr. Silva had 157 contributors, "49" of these came from "outside the county" limits. This is an important statistic. Just like in our local Benicia election, outside interests can play a significant role in determining who will win an elected seat, in county government.
Mr. Silva raised over $60 thousand for this election period.
Mr. Silva’s file of documents was 74 pages- covering the time frame of 1/1/‘96 to 4//16/‘97.
Here are some of the highlights for the community of District 2 to consider:
The most startling information in this packet was that the Seeno Co., and its subsidiaries were a major player in this election. (10 entries)
A. Seeno Enterprises (Pittsburgh) $100.
B. Seeno Financial and Construction (Concord) $298.
C. Albert Seeno (Concord ) $697.
D. West Coast Homebuilders P.O. Box # 4113.(Concord ) $498.
E. Seeway Family Homebuilders, Inc.. P.O. Box # 4113 ( Concord ) $598.
Note: We now know, that this relationship between Mr. Silva and the Seeno Co. goes back to 1996. –What I hope to do in the near future is to check Mr. Silva’s council Campaign Disclosure Statements, to see how this relationship between publicly elected official and private corporate entity has evolved.
Outside Solano County groups contributing to John Silva:
Browning Ferris Waste Management Co.....$1,000.
Sacramento
KSK Management-Property Management....$1,000.
S.F.
James Baird, CEO Bay Area Development Co..$500.
Walnut Creek.
Olney Land and Cattle Co. $1,000.
Concord.
CRE/PAC–BORPAC ( California Real Estate Political Action Committee and Board of Realtors)
Los Angeles $400.
Carpenters Historical Society of the Bay Area....$1500.
Oakland.
Out of State donation:
Pacific Generation Co. $100.
Portland, Oregon
Trade Groups:
Plumbers and Steam Fitters $2,000.
Vallejo
District Council of Ironworkers $200.
Hercules
Operating Engineeers District #4. $200.
Alameda
AT&T West PAC $500.
S.F.
Police And Fire contributions.
Peace Officer Reserve Association, Sacramento (PAC) $250.
Vallejo Firefighters Local #1186 (PAC) $500.
Consultant fees paid.
J Burchill and Assoc., Inc. .........$7,483.
Davis
Miscellaneous person(s) and organizations of interest:
Tom Gavin... (Chamber of Commerce) $150.
Brian Tulloch (Builder/Developer) $249.
Bruce Adams (Owner of the Bottom of the Fifth–Bar Establishment) $1,023.
Charles Britt ( Powerhouse Realty) $200.
Norman Koerner (Benicia Realty Investments) $549.
Virginia Souza ( City Treasurer, Benicia) $198.
VALPAC ( Vallejo Chamber of Commerce) $650.
West Coast Beauty Supply (located in Benicia) $950.
Benicia Plumbing $1150.
Benicia Industries $250.
If as Supervisor Silva states from (the above Benicia Herald article)" I’ve been accessible to the public." These PUBLIC DOCUMENTS also show he has been accessible to PACS’; special interests groups; developers and real estate firms. This kind of pattern shows up again in the 2007 campaign disclosure statements. Stay tuned. I hope to share this information with the community in the near future.
Feb. 2008.
" I’ll run as hard as I did the first time I ran for the board and do all of the things that need to be done to be elected to the board." -District 2 Supervisor John Silva
Source: " Touting change, Seifert goes up against Silva," Benicia Herald, 2/12/08.
I received a call on my way home from work on Friday from the Registrar of Voters, that, my request for Mr. John Silva’s 1996-7 Campaign Disclosure Statement Form #460 was ready for pick-up. Requested on Monday of the same week–I was told it wouldn’t be ready until after the Super Tuesday Feb. 5th election. Kudos to Denise Nussbaum, who was very helpful, despite the pressure of the up coming voting period.
This County election was the first for Mr. Silva. He ran against union activist Doris Lowe. I’ve asked a few local- veterans of the political wars who Ms. Lowe was (?) but, I’m still in the dark about this person. Here, I’ve learned, that the late Ms. Lowe ran a low budget campaign-$28 thousand- (checked her file , also) and lost the election by just 600 votes.
What we do know is that Mr. Silva is running for a fourth term as supervisor for District 2.
He has won three elections. Two of the three elections, Mr. Silva ran unopposed. This of course would explain why so little money was spent in the 2000 and 2004 election cycles. $28 thousand and $19 thousand respectively. (Note: spent time going over these files as well.)
I think it is important for the citizens of the community to have a fuller picture of Mr. Silva’s election history. These campaign disclosure statements are PUBLIC DOCUMENTS- that reveal a paper trail of money and influence.
In the 1996-7 election cycle Mr. Silva had 157 contributors, "49" of these came from "outside the county" limits. This is an important statistic. Just like in our local Benicia election, outside interests can play a significant role in determining who will win an elected seat, in county government.
Mr. Silva raised over $60 thousand for this election period.
Mr. Silva’s file of documents was 74 pages- covering the time frame of 1/1/‘96 to 4//16/‘97.
Here are some of the highlights for the community of District 2 to consider:
The most startling information in this packet was that the Seeno Co., and its subsidiaries were a major player in this election. (10 entries)
A. Seeno Enterprises (Pittsburgh) $100.
B. Seeno Financial and Construction (Concord) $298.
C. Albert Seeno (Concord ) $697.
D. West Coast Homebuilders P.O. Box # 4113.(Concord ) $498.
E. Seeway Family Homebuilders, Inc.. P.O. Box # 4113 ( Concord ) $598.
Note: We now know, that this relationship between Mr. Silva and the Seeno Co. goes back to 1996. –What I hope to do in the near future is to check Mr. Silva’s council Campaign Disclosure Statements, to see how this relationship between publicly elected official and private corporate entity has evolved.
Outside Solano County groups contributing to John Silva:
Browning Ferris Waste Management Co.....$1,000.
Sacramento
KSK Management-Property Management....$1,000.
S.F.
James Baird, CEO Bay Area Development Co..$500.
Walnut Creek.
Olney Land and Cattle Co. $1,000.
Concord.
CRE/PAC–BORPAC ( California Real Estate Political Action Committee and Board of Realtors)
Los Angeles $400.
Carpenters Historical Society of the Bay Area....$1500.
Oakland.
Out of State donation:
Pacific Generation Co. $100.
Portland, Oregon
Trade Groups:
Plumbers and Steam Fitters $2,000.
Vallejo
District Council of Ironworkers $200.
Hercules
Operating Engineeers District #4. $200.
Alameda
AT&T West PAC $500.
S.F.
Police And Fire contributions.
Peace Officer Reserve Association, Sacramento (PAC) $250.
Vallejo Firefighters Local #1186 (PAC) $500.
Consultant fees paid.
J Burchill and Assoc., Inc. .........$7,483.
Davis
Miscellaneous person(s) and organizations of interest:
Tom Gavin... (Chamber of Commerce) $150.
Brian Tulloch (Builder/Developer) $249.
Bruce Adams (Owner of the Bottom of the Fifth–Bar Establishment) $1,023.
Charles Britt ( Powerhouse Realty) $200.
Norman Koerner (Benicia Realty Investments) $549.
Virginia Souza ( City Treasurer, Benicia) $198.
VALPAC ( Vallejo Chamber of Commerce) $650.
West Coast Beauty Supply (located in Benicia) $950.
Benicia Plumbing $1150.
Benicia Industries $250.
If as Supervisor Silva states from (the above Benicia Herald article)" I’ve been accessible to the public." These PUBLIC DOCUMENTS also show he has been accessible to PACS’; special interests groups; developers and real estate firms. This kind of pattern shows up again in the 2007 campaign disclosure statements. Stay tuned. I hope to share this information with the community in the near future.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Martinez: A Cautionary Tale of Urban Development and Campaign Finance
By Norma Fox
The sad tale of once small town Martinez was poignantly described by former Martinez City Councilman Bill Wainwright in a recent Contra Costa Times article (Nov.10,2007, pg. A19). [Wainwright, an incumbent, was defeated in 2006 due, in part, to funding by out-of-town developers who supported his opponents.]
Once a compact community surrounded by ranch lands and orchards, in the1950s Martinez began to meet the fate of many a small town that embraces without restraint the “improvement” schemes of wealthy real estate developers. Over a series of years, the peripheral open lands were annexed to the city and converted into housing developments. Now, just a few decades later, the population has jumped to 36,000 and Martinez struggles with a decaying town core, surrounded by sprawling subdivisions and shopping malls.
Why would the elected leadership of a vibrant community choose to adopt development plans that drain away the town’s charm and vitality? Were they suddenly put under a hypnotic spell by the corporate developers? No, they were gradually replaced. Over time, the outside developers simply poured huge sums of money into the election campaigns of candidates who were inclined to agree with their vision of urban development.
The hijacking of a town begins with the hijacking of elections, relentlessly and methodically, over a series of several election cycles. Here is Benicia, after our recent election, we now have a second chance. Although big money did its best to mesmerize our town with a tidal wave of slick and deceptive mailers (2/3 of all money spent came from outside special interest groups), there were enough alert voters (a mere 178 to be exact) unwilling to take the bait, that their efforts went down to defeat. Now let’s take the necessary steps to prevent the fate of Martinez from happening to our town. “The necessary first step,” says Bill Wainwright, “is to get big money campaign contributors out of local politics.”
Here is the Martinez tale in Bill Wainwright’s own words:
“Martinez is, like many older towns, a divided community. It’s divided between its older town core and the larger periphery that was annexed between the 1950s and 1980s.
Then, real estate developers sold “tax base improvement” to the town “fathers” (no town mothers then), starting a democracy-eroding relationship that continues to this day.
Subdivisions replaced ranch land and orchards. Most of the new residents in those subdivisions never connected with the old downtown core that was losing commercial vitality to freeway-accessible, suburban shopper-convenient malls and the new I-680 bridge that replaced the ferry [in 1962].
The developers needed votes on the council to get their projects through. They continue to contribute heavily to local campaigns, looking for and finding candidates willing to oblige their needs. They now have all five council members on their side.
With 60 percent of Martinez voters now living in the subdivisions periphery, it’s easy to win an election with slick mailers and big signs financed by developers.
The now infamous 2004 Measure M redevelopment advisory vote saw developers outspend opponents 5 to 1.
Voters and their candidates who have an actual connection with the town are regularly outgunned.
To reconnect our city government with its people, the grip of big money on elected officials has to be broken.”
The sad tale of once small town Martinez was poignantly described by former Martinez City Councilman Bill Wainwright in a recent Contra Costa Times article (Nov.10,2007, pg. A19). [Wainwright, an incumbent, was defeated in 2006 due, in part, to funding by out-of-town developers who supported his opponents.]
Once a compact community surrounded by ranch lands and orchards, in the1950s Martinez began to meet the fate of many a small town that embraces without restraint the “improvement” schemes of wealthy real estate developers. Over a series of years, the peripheral open lands were annexed to the city and converted into housing developments. Now, just a few decades later, the population has jumped to 36,000 and Martinez struggles with a decaying town core, surrounded by sprawling subdivisions and shopping malls.
Why would the elected leadership of a vibrant community choose to adopt development plans that drain away the town’s charm and vitality? Were they suddenly put under a hypnotic spell by the corporate developers? No, they were gradually replaced. Over time, the outside developers simply poured huge sums of money into the election campaigns of candidates who were inclined to agree with their vision of urban development.
The hijacking of a town begins with the hijacking of elections, relentlessly and methodically, over a series of several election cycles. Here is Benicia, after our recent election, we now have a second chance. Although big money did its best to mesmerize our town with a tidal wave of slick and deceptive mailers (2/3 of all money spent came from outside special interest groups), there were enough alert voters (a mere 178 to be exact) unwilling to take the bait, that their efforts went down to defeat. Now let’s take the necessary steps to prevent the fate of Martinez from happening to our town. “The necessary first step,” says Bill Wainwright, “is to get big money campaign contributors out of local politics.”
Here is the Martinez tale in Bill Wainwright’s own words:
“Martinez is, like many older towns, a divided community. It’s divided between its older town core and the larger periphery that was annexed between the 1950s and 1980s.
Then, real estate developers sold “tax base improvement” to the town “fathers” (no town mothers then), starting a democracy-eroding relationship that continues to this day.
Subdivisions replaced ranch land and orchards. Most of the new residents in those subdivisions never connected with the old downtown core that was losing commercial vitality to freeway-accessible, suburban shopper-convenient malls and the new I-680 bridge that replaced the ferry [in 1962].
The developers needed votes on the council to get their projects through. They continue to contribute heavily to local campaigns, looking for and finding candidates willing to oblige their needs. They now have all five council members on their side.
With 60 percent of Martinez voters now living in the subdivisions periphery, it’s easy to win an election with slick mailers and big signs financed by developers.
The now infamous 2004 Measure M redevelopment advisory vote saw developers outspend opponents 5 to 1.
Voters and their candidates who have an actual connection with the town are regularly outgunned.
To reconnect our city government with its people, the grip of big money on elected officials has to be broken.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
