Supervisor's Coup

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?

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.

What’s Wrong with the New General Plan?

By Gary Boudreaux
Green Valley Landowners Assn.

The Solano County Board of Supervisors is preparing a new general plan, setting forth principles to guide the evolution of the county in the coming 20 years. Unfortunately, there has been almost no direct citizen involvement in the creation of this plan, raising profound reasons for concern on the part of the average citizen.

So what's wrong with the county's new general plan?

• The proposed plan sets the stage for county-based development, even though our cities have provided effective jurisdiction over residential and commercial development since the county was established. (There is no obvious justification for this change, as the county shares in the fee revenues collected by the cities, and the county would not receive additional tax revenues after the costs of new services were paid.)

• The draft general plan is overly vague in its definitions or intent in utilizing lands within its newly created "municipal service areas," but it is clear that the county intends to encourage development in areas adjacent to existing cities, whether the cities want it or not. This will create poorly mitigated traffic, noise, diminished air quality, uncompensated use of city services, school crowding, and competition for utilities - all with no input from the affected cities.

• The proposed plan puts the county in competition with its cities for development, and interferes with cities' rights of self-determination and their established urban limit lines.

• The proposed general plan runs contrary to all well-known principles of smart or sustainable growth, in which development is planned in areas where there are existing services, not in scattered rural areas with no services or adjacent to municipalities where services must be duplicated.

• The notice of preparation for the plan's environmental impact report was issued before the draft plan was made available. It is obvious that the board is eager to get the plan completed and in front of the voters by Nov. 4 at any cost. The public comment period on the notice was to have expired Feb. 4.

• The proposed general plan clearly favors development interests and large landowners over long-term public interests. It fails to explain the justification for additional development in county areas. It especially fails to explain the general conversion of prime agricultural lands to residential development.

• The environmental impact report assessing the county's draft general plan is being prepared by the same company that was hired to write the general plan itself. How is it possible to objectively critique a work one has just written? Although permissible, the process smacks of conflict of interest and displays the single-minded urgency and profound lack of objectivity of the entire plan.

• County supervisors are establishing mutual sewer and water districts in rural areas to accommodate new developments, yet claim that these measures are not growth-inducing in and of themselves. These proposals, when written into our general plan, will radically and permanently alter rural Solano County.

• The proposed plan sets the stage for future rural land use designation changes by failing to establish concrete measures ensuring the protection of agriculture, habitat or open space. It addresses these critical concerns with vague platitudes.

• The rural character of Solano County is likely to be lost forever. Without public outcry, Solano County will go the way of Sacramento, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties.

The coming Solano County general plan is a plain and simple land grab and opens the door to unprecedented development, inevitably turning Solano County into an overpopulated, densely developed, urban cityscape. Our Board of Supervisors has no business developing the county in ways that are unsustainable by our infrastructure and our natural resources.

What can the average person do?

They can voice their opinions in writing to the Board of Supervisors.

They can vote against the acceptance of the general plan. Vote for those who care about our county heritage and the future of our county as we enjoy it today.

They can attend the Board of Supervisor meetings and speak out against the wholesale unbalanced sellout of Solano County to development interests.

Our children, and their children, deserve no less.

________________________________________________

Information about the general plan and the process for adopting it can be found online at http://solanocountygeneralplan.net/
_______________________________________________

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.”