by Marilyn Bardet
My long experience of Mr. Silva's judgment as a politician forms a cautionary tale and reminder of what your June 3rd vote is worth, and why I believe it's time for change up county, where Mr. Silva now assumes leadership of what can only be called a "good ol boy" majority on the Board of Supes supported by big development interests.
At the League of Women Voters forum here, Mr. Silva appeared gruff and annoyed that, after 12 years, he was having to run "opposed". He never looked at Linda Seifert, as though she didn't exist at the table beside him. This is beyond an observation of absent civil decorum for a career politician. Mr. Silva doesn't tolerate well being opposed. He stiffens when challenged, and his best retort on a topic that gives him discomfort is silence, or a distortion of fact. This is a major pitfall for any politician, unless he or she has amassed so much power there appears to be no need to acknowledge differences of opinion, let alone facts that come to light that cast shadows on the illusion of a sterling record.
Mr. Silva's outright advocacy, in 1995, of Koch Industries' bid to build six giant petroleum coke storage domes at the port--adjacent to our Arsenal Historic District and artists' quarters--thankfully failed, but only by enormous effort of an alarmed, and finally united, community. Despite research to the contrary, much of which I and others worked hard to assemble, Mr. Silva vociferously pleaded how beneficial it would be to bring coke storage capacity and a 24/7 transport shipping terminal to our city that would serve six Bay Area refineries including Exxon at the time. He suggested the domes could fit directly below the Clocktower--a spot identified as a remaining army landfill--the only problem he saw being that stretch of Adams Rd., which he'd thought could be closed off.
He touted that the project would bring "good jobs for Benicians" (27 - 64 jobs all told), such benefit, in his opinion, apparently outweighing any public health, or environmental or cultural costs. He never once worried about the health risk: coke dust particulate has nickel in it and so is a carcinogen when inhaled, penetrating lung tissue, reaching the blood stream, this according to EPA, which also says soot aggravates asthma. He never seemed concerned about the devastation the project would instantly bring to the historic district and neighborhoods. He believed what Koch Industries told him: that he'd get a "state of the art", dust-free operation, with tons of revenue for the city. He lobbied hard for a mighty illusion, until citizens across all constituencies forced the project out--by petition and constant work to counter the falsities promoted by Koch Industries, and Mr. Silva, and others tied to him.
I also was exposed to Mr. Silva's stubborn refusal to acknowledge that, as a former city manager, he had any responsibility for the lack of oversight over the removal of the Braito dump and the subsequent construction of houses on lower Rose Drive atop wastes that had not been removed to the remaining East Canyon landfill, as had been ordered by the county. In 1991, a viscous stew of toxic "black material" was found below ground in several backyards, about which the negligence of Mr. Silva's alleged vigilance began to add up: an expensive, EPA-led 7 year investigation and final cleanup commenced. The anguish of many families on Rose Drive and those living on other streets where landfill wastes had been "moved to" and re-buried was barely acknowledged by Mr. Silva, if not outright dismissed.
The story that finally emerged to explain the mysteriously empty, methane-laced Blake Court, which nevertheless had been paved and readied for housing with street lamps and sidewalks, must have been known to Mr. Silva, much earlier than 1991: the city attorney had written a letter to the developer, refusing their offer of Blake Court for a city park, because of the "uncertainty of the land's condition". (I've saved a copy of that letter, this is a paraphrase.)
This may seem "old history"; but as we know, if we don't learn history, we're doomed to repeat it. I'd really like to believe Mr. Silva has changed his stripes with regard to development issues. But he didn't support Measure J that would have re-affirmed the county's "Orderly Growth Initiative" to protect county ag land from housing development and subdivisions. He's not helped Benicia be fairly represented in drafting the new county general plan. Why?
I'm voting for Linda Seifert.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Environmental Leaders Call Supervisor John Silva A Liar
Fairfield—Local environmental leaders expressed outrage today at a campaign mail piece sent to voters by Solano County Supervisor John Silva, who is currently seeking re-election. The mailer was sent to households throughout the 2nd Supervisorial District of Solano County, which includes Benicia, parts of Vallejo, Green Valley and Cordelia. The mailer asserts that "John Silva has a strong record on the environment." It also attempts to discredit his opponent Linda Seifert, and falsely portrays her as being overly pro-development.
Former Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm takes Silva to task for the falsehoods peddled in his mailer.
“I served with John on the board of Supervisors for eight years. It is sad to watch a career politician lose focus and try to portray himself as something that he isn’t. I respect someone who has different goals and vision, and stands on them. When John now tries to become the environmentalist it is just pathetic. He isn’t an environmentalist and never has been. He simply lost sight of what is important to his District and is now trying to convince people that the developer’s friend has put on a green coat” explained Duane Kromm, former Solano County Supervisors from district 3.
"The only green John knows," continues Kromm, "is from the dollars developers and speculators are investing in his campaign," a reference to the over 25,000 dollars in campaign contributions Silva has taken from land developers like Albert Seeno.
Local Sierra Club president Jim DeKloe also takes offense at John Silva's portrayal of himself as an environmentalist. "It is a sad day when the anti-environment candidate puts out a mailer that inaccurately paints him as pro-environment," DeKloe says. "John Silva has opposed our efforts to create a Regional Park system with protected areas and hiking trails. John Silva stated during a Board of Supervisors meeting that he does not think global warming is a serious problem. John Silva supported the expansion of the garbage dump into environmentally sensitive marsh areas. John Silva is trying to open up 30,000 acres of county land (an area larger than the City of Fairfield) for development. If John Silva is an environmentalist, Donald Trump is modest."
The Solano County Orderly Growth Committee's Jack Batson is equally critical of Silva's claims.
"John would have you believe black is white and white is black," says Batson. "It is reasonable to disagree on issues and have policy debates, but this is outrageous. Obviously, he is ashamed of his real record, and therefore has no choice but to invent lies and distortions."
John Silva will face challenger Linda Seifert in the June 3rd election.
Former Solano County Supervisor Duane Kromm takes Silva to task for the falsehoods peddled in his mailer.
“I served with John on the board of Supervisors for eight years. It is sad to watch a career politician lose focus and try to portray himself as something that he isn’t. I respect someone who has different goals and vision, and stands on them. When John now tries to become the environmentalist it is just pathetic. He isn’t an environmentalist and never has been. He simply lost sight of what is important to his District and is now trying to convince people that the developer’s friend has put on a green coat” explained Duane Kromm, former Solano County Supervisors from district 3.
"The only green John knows," continues Kromm, "is from the dollars developers and speculators are investing in his campaign," a reference to the over 25,000 dollars in campaign contributions Silva has taken from land developers like Albert Seeno.
Local Sierra Club president Jim DeKloe also takes offense at John Silva's portrayal of himself as an environmentalist. "It is a sad day when the anti-environment candidate puts out a mailer that inaccurately paints him as pro-environment," DeKloe says. "John Silva has opposed our efforts to create a Regional Park system with protected areas and hiking trails. John Silva stated during a Board of Supervisors meeting that he does not think global warming is a serious problem. John Silva supported the expansion of the garbage dump into environmentally sensitive marsh areas. John Silva is trying to open up 30,000 acres of county land (an area larger than the City of Fairfield) for development. If John Silva is an environmentalist, Donald Trump is modest."
The Solano County Orderly Growth Committee's Jack Batson is equally critical of Silva's claims.
"John would have you believe black is white and white is black," says Batson. "It is reasonable to disagree on issues and have policy debates, but this is outrageous. Obviously, he is ashamed of his real record, and therefore has no choice but to invent lies and distortions."
John Silva will face challenger Linda Seifert in the June 3rd election.
Too Many Skid Marks
By Peter Bray, Benicia
While John Silva may have been working "behind the scenes" at the county level for the past 12 years, his earlier track record in Benicia left some serious skid marks:
• When I arrived in Benicia in 1983, we had a bad joke for a post office on the west side, and a less-than-laughable library on the east side. Who then later as city councilman voted against the new library?
• Where was Benicia's City Manager while the "hides and tires" were being "reburied" in the Rose Drive area? While Blake Court was being capped? While the "methane wells" were active and general toxic chaos ran down from the East Canyon and into the Strait?
• Who was our city manager while IT's toxic ponds were leaking in the hills above Benicia, and why did it require then Mayor Marilyn O'Rourke to take action that eventually resulted in their final closure?
• As city councilman, who supported the Coke Domes Project that would have turned the Benicia waterfront into the petroleum coke waste armpit for all of Contra Costa County's refineries? Fortunately someone did the numbers and showed that there was no employment or revenue gain for Benicia or our residents, only a degrading of our local infrastructure, and a genuine risk to the global environment. Duh?
• A new County General Plan is in the offing which would allow for developer's growth outside the existing city limits in the county. No thanks, John. And there's no Benicia representation on the committee that overviews this plan?
Just who is representing Benicia at the county level?
• How long does it take to balance a county budget? Four weeks? Five weeks? It's gotta be read and added up and subtracted from, That is not rocket science.
That leaves 47-48 weeks per year for other work. And for 12 years? Gimme a break!
• Contrary to some of John Silva's campaign literature, he did not single-handedly build the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge. That was a Caltrans project.
I'm voting for Linda Seifert. Period.
While John Silva may have been working "behind the scenes" at the county level for the past 12 years, his earlier track record in Benicia left some serious skid marks:
• When I arrived in Benicia in 1983, we had a bad joke for a post office on the west side, and a less-than-laughable library on the east side. Who then later as city councilman voted against the new library?
• Where was Benicia's City Manager while the "hides and tires" were being "reburied" in the Rose Drive area? While Blake Court was being capped? While the "methane wells" were active and general toxic chaos ran down from the East Canyon and into the Strait?
• Who was our city manager while IT's toxic ponds were leaking in the hills above Benicia, and why did it require then Mayor Marilyn O'Rourke to take action that eventually resulted in their final closure?
• As city councilman, who supported the Coke Domes Project that would have turned the Benicia waterfront into the petroleum coke waste armpit for all of Contra Costa County's refineries? Fortunately someone did the numbers and showed that there was no employment or revenue gain for Benicia or our residents, only a degrading of our local infrastructure, and a genuine risk to the global environment. Duh?
• A new County General Plan is in the offing which would allow for developer's growth outside the existing city limits in the county. No thanks, John. And there's no Benicia representation on the committee that overviews this plan?
Just who is representing Benicia at the county level?
• How long does it take to balance a county budget? Four weeks? Five weeks? It's gotta be read and added up and subtracted from, That is not rocket science.
That leaves 47-48 weeks per year for other work. And for 12 years? Gimme a break!
• Contrary to some of John Silva's campaign literature, he did not single-handedly build the new Benicia-Martinez Bridge. That was a Caltrans project.
I'm voting for Linda Seifert. Period.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
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?
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?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
What has Silva done for us?
Dear Editor:
What has Mr. Silva done for us in the past 11 years?
Health Issues: According to the State, as reported on the County website, Solano has the highest rate of asthma in California. Over my career as a middle school teacher in the County, I’ve watched the number of my students with asthma, increase alarmingly.
Air pollution is a well-known contributor to asthma problems. Recently, the Bay Area Air Quality District gave the County a grade of C (down from B) for summer air pollution and a grade of D for winter air pollution.
Concerning other health issues, a recent Study reported in the Fairfield Daily Republic found that our County ranks 9th for obesity and 6th for diabetes, among counties studied. The article suggested that this could be connected to the fact that we have five times more fast food/convenience places as grocery stores. A note here: some of these fast food/convenience places were built in the past 11 years.
Finally Mr. Silva voted to use tobacco money—NOT on health related issues—but, rather, to build new County buildings.
Transportation: Recently Mr. Silva has said he will work to repair our roads. Great! The problem, though, is that Mr. Silva was supposed to be ensuring that these roads were maintained over the past 11 years. Also, during those 11 years, nothing has been done to improve perhaps the biggest road problem in Mr.Silva’s District: the I-80/680 interchange.
Listening to Constituents: Mr. Silva’s home town is Benicia—yet he removed the only two Benicians who were on the General Plan Citizen’s Panel. In addition, the General Plan Public Outreach Forum—which visited five County locations—skipped Benicia.
Attempt to Raise Taxes: Mr. Silva attempted to raise taxes at least three times. In 2002, 2004 and 2006 he supported Measures E, A and H respectively. Each of these Measures would have increased our sales tax.
Open Space: Mr. Silva was the deciding vote against a Solano Regional Park System a few years back. In addition he opposed Urban Growth Boundary Measures in Benicia (Measure K) and Fairfield (Measure L).
Budget Balancing: Mr Silva claims he has balanced 11 budgets. Yes, the County has had a balanced budget for the past 11 years. The thing is, State law requires a balanced County budget. Therefore, the County’s budget will always be balanced—no matter who sits in the Supervisor chairs.
Crime/Attracting Jobs/Survey Results: Finally, the results of the County’s own Survey, released this month—report that Benicians and Vallejoans are less satisfied with the County than other County residents. Also, despite Mr. Silva’s 11 years in office, the Survey reported that Vallejoans feel the County is, according to the Vallejo Times Herald, “barely doing enough to address” youth crimes, chronic diseases and attracting businesses and jobs. Benicians were also concerned about youth crimes as well as, according to the Benicia Herald, County government organization and environmentally friendly land-use practices.
After 11 years in office, it does not matter what John Silva may say he will do—but what he has done.
Mr. Silva has had his chance. It’s time for someone new, like Linda Seifert.
Jon Van Landschoot
Benicia, CA
What has Mr. Silva done for us in the past 11 years?
Health Issues: According to the State, as reported on the County website, Solano has the highest rate of asthma in California. Over my career as a middle school teacher in the County, I’ve watched the number of my students with asthma, increase alarmingly.
Air pollution is a well-known contributor to asthma problems. Recently, the Bay Area Air Quality District gave the County a grade of C (down from B) for summer air pollution and a grade of D for winter air pollution.
Concerning other health issues, a recent Study reported in the Fairfield Daily Republic found that our County ranks 9th for obesity and 6th for diabetes, among counties studied. The article suggested that this could be connected to the fact that we have five times more fast food/convenience places as grocery stores. A note here: some of these fast food/convenience places were built in the past 11 years.
Finally Mr. Silva voted to use tobacco money—NOT on health related issues—but, rather, to build new County buildings.
Transportation: Recently Mr. Silva has said he will work to repair our roads. Great! The problem, though, is that Mr. Silva was supposed to be ensuring that these roads were maintained over the past 11 years. Also, during those 11 years, nothing has been done to improve perhaps the biggest road problem in Mr.Silva’s District: the I-80/680 interchange.
Listening to Constituents: Mr. Silva’s home town is Benicia—yet he removed the only two Benicians who were on the General Plan Citizen’s Panel. In addition, the General Plan Public Outreach Forum—which visited five County locations—skipped Benicia.
Attempt to Raise Taxes: Mr. Silva attempted to raise taxes at least three times. In 2002, 2004 and 2006 he supported Measures E, A and H respectively. Each of these Measures would have increased our sales tax.
Open Space: Mr. Silva was the deciding vote against a Solano Regional Park System a few years back. In addition he opposed Urban Growth Boundary Measures in Benicia (Measure K) and Fairfield (Measure L).
Budget Balancing: Mr Silva claims he has balanced 11 budgets. Yes, the County has had a balanced budget for the past 11 years. The thing is, State law requires a balanced County budget. Therefore, the County’s budget will always be balanced—no matter who sits in the Supervisor chairs.
Crime/Attracting Jobs/Survey Results: Finally, the results of the County’s own Survey, released this month—report that Benicians and Vallejoans are less satisfied with the County than other County residents. Also, despite Mr. Silva’s 11 years in office, the Survey reported that Vallejoans feel the County is, according to the Vallejo Times Herald, “barely doing enough to address” youth crimes, chronic diseases and attracting businesses and jobs. Benicians were also concerned about youth crimes as well as, according to the Benicia Herald, County government organization and environmentally friendly land-use practices.
After 11 years in office, it does not matter what John Silva may say he will do—but what he has done.
Mr. Silva has had his chance. It’s time for someone new, like Linda Seifert.
Jon Van Landschoot
Benicia, CA
Saturday, May 10, 2008
A win-win situation for Seeno?
To the editor: (Benicia Herald, May 9, 2008)
We want our City Council to keep downtown alive, to reap the most revenue possible, and leave an inheritance for Benicia for the 21st century; a legacy of intelligent land use planning, development, and a reputation for smart growth.
Benicia can be the leader in Solano County, situated perfectly between Davis and UC Berkeley for a high tech, green, campus style development in the Benicia Business Park. But Seeno wants us to wait for him to build his passé commercial development as a first phase, and wait for the second phase, proposed for 5-8 years from now…..that will be too late.
A huge opportunity for Benicia has arrived. There are investors RIGHT NOW ready to invest in and facilitate green technology and there are companies RIGHT NOW looking for places to build imaginative, clean-tech developments. There are also countless numbers of bright, educated people right here in this town, that are willing to help forge a vision for the Benicia Business Park, aka the Seeno Project.
The trick is what to do with the old project we have now. There is precious little to be recommended in terms of the needs of Benicia and the 21st century. The conditions recently styled by the City Staff are easily dodged or ignored. And we are not equipped to establish a development agreement (although that would be preferable to nothing at all). Seeno has said that they will not accept a development agreement anyway.
Maybe there is way to find a win-win solution here.
First, the Council must insist that Seeno give it time to learn about alternative, profitable possibilities.
Second, the Council needs to work with Benicia First in helping to create a forum with speakers from the field of clean-tech, with examples of cities working with these concepts of green industry and research and development campuses. Let’s listen to the experts.….let’s learn together.
Third, given that the future of Benicia’s well-being lies in Council’s hands, they must negotiate with Seeno from a position of strength and accommodate both the town and Seeno….. by opening their minds to the possibilities and find an alternative where Benicia AND Seeno can win.
This is not an easy task, but I sincerely believe that the Council has the ability to accomplish this for Benicia. The challenge is this: Why settle for second best? A brand new, clean tech project is the right choice for Benicia.
Susan Street
Benicia, CA
[Note: to learn about the Seeno Project and what it means for Benicia, go to www.beniciafirst.com , and to keep up to date on rapidly evolving developments in the approval process, go to www.beniciafirst.blogspot.com ]
We want our City Council to keep downtown alive, to reap the most revenue possible, and leave an inheritance for Benicia for the 21st century; a legacy of intelligent land use planning, development, and a reputation for smart growth.
Benicia can be the leader in Solano County, situated perfectly between Davis and UC Berkeley for a high tech, green, campus style development in the Benicia Business Park. But Seeno wants us to wait for him to build his passé commercial development as a first phase, and wait for the second phase, proposed for 5-8 years from now…..that will be too late.
A huge opportunity for Benicia has arrived. There are investors RIGHT NOW ready to invest in and facilitate green technology and there are companies RIGHT NOW looking for places to build imaginative, clean-tech developments. There are also countless numbers of bright, educated people right here in this town, that are willing to help forge a vision for the Benicia Business Park, aka the Seeno Project.
The trick is what to do with the old project we have now. There is precious little to be recommended in terms of the needs of Benicia and the 21st century. The conditions recently styled by the City Staff are easily dodged or ignored. And we are not equipped to establish a development agreement (although that would be preferable to nothing at all). Seeno has said that they will not accept a development agreement anyway.
Maybe there is way to find a win-win solution here.
First, the Council must insist that Seeno give it time to learn about alternative, profitable possibilities.
Second, the Council needs to work with Benicia First in helping to create a forum with speakers from the field of clean-tech, with examples of cities working with these concepts of green industry and research and development campuses. Let’s listen to the experts.….let’s learn together.
Third, given that the future of Benicia’s well-being lies in Council’s hands, they must negotiate with Seeno from a position of strength and accommodate both the town and Seeno….. by opening their minds to the possibilities and find an alternative where Benicia AND Seeno can win.
This is not an easy task, but I sincerely believe that the Council has the ability to accomplish this for Benicia. The challenge is this: Why settle for second best? A brand new, clean tech project is the right choice for Benicia.
Susan Street
Benicia, CA
[Note: to learn about the Seeno Project and what it means for Benicia, go to www.beniciafirst.com , and to keep up to date on rapidly evolving developments in the approval process, go to www.beniciafirst.blogspot.com ]
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.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Fiscal Conservative John Silva?? Facts from the past speak for themselves!
January 24, 1997
Contra Costa Times Editorial -- regretting their endorsement of John Silva...
Contra Costa Times Editorial -- regretting their endorsement of John Silva...
Solano supe’s costly raise
Compared with others they are not underpaid
[Reprint of January 1997 editorial from CCTimes]
Solano County Supervisors did something last week [January 1997] we probably all wish we could do. They gave themselves a 41 percent raise. On a 3-2 vote, supervisors raised their salaries more than $14,000 – from $34,932 to $49, 399.
Supervisors contend they are underpaid when compared to supervisors in other Northern California counties, specifically Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Stanislaus.
This raise is outrageous. First, they aren’t comparing apples to apples. Solano is smaller, more rural and the cost of living is less compared to Contra Costa, for example. Check these numbers. Solano: 2,500 employees, population 375,000. Contra Costa: 6,800 employees, population 868,600, supervisor’s pay $50,328.
Although Alameda wasn’t used in Solano’s comparison, here’s how it’s numbers compare: 10,000 employees, 1.3 million people, supervisor’s pay $63,000.
Besides having fewer people to manage and a smaller population to serve, it cost less to live in Solano than Contra Costa and most of Alameda. And it’s far less than Marin.
Disappointingly, newly elected Supervisor John Silva of Benicia voted for the raise. Silva won the Times endorsement when he told our editorial board before last spring’s primary that he would consider hiring freezes, early retirements and even reducing supervisors’ pay to meet budget demands. Silva’s vote on this issue makes The Times regret its endorsement of him.
Besides embarrassing themselves, the supervisors have opened the floodgates. The county’s largest employee union says it wants equal treatment when its contracts expire in October. They make a good point. Supervisors can hardly claim to be fiscal conservatives now.
If supervisors truly believe they are underpaid – which they aren’t – at least they should have approved the raise incrementally. Supervisors were wrong to give themselves this raise. They should rescind the action and apologize to county taxpayers.
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.
County's draft general plan deserves scrutiny
To: The Reporter Editor:
03/04/08 www.thereporter.com
submitted by Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.
After reading recent letters regarding the Solano County general plan update process, we felt that a few other points should be made about what occurred with the process during 2007.
First, let's not forget that the original Citizen's Advisory Committee, a well-balanced committee consisting of four people appointed by each supervisor, was disbanded shortly after Supervisor Jim Spering took office in 2007.
The supervisors claimed that the committee wasn't getting enough done; however, the original committee - as did the second committee - followed agendas designed by consultants, with some input from an agenda subcommittee.
Additionally, the original committee was developing a vision plan and attending a number of field trips to various county locations to be better informed when making decisions.
The criticism that the original committee was not doing enough was a "smoke screen" by those who wanted an excuse to remake the committee.
The board, chaired by Supervisor Mike Reagan, directed Supervisors Spering and John Silva as an "ad hoc subcommittee" to review the structure of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Supervisors Spering and Silva met in closed session, without public input or public viewing, and hand-picked the vast majority of the new members for the second committee. Each supervisor was allowed only one appointment in addition to those selected by the subcommittee. This was a move to change the original, well-balanced committee and replace it with a more development-oriented group.
The timeline is another point of contention.
The committee was forced to make important decisions, often with insufficient data, just to meet the timeline. In fact, the timeline was clearly more important than careful study of the issues. Only Supervisor Barbara Kondylis has shown the wisdom to question this overly hasty process.
As members of both the original and second citizens advisory committees, we wanted the public to hear more of the story.
A new Solano County general plan is a critically important blueprint for how and where Solano will develop during the next 20 to 30 years. The new plan is quite different than the original plan and it deserves a thorough public airing and discussion.
We urge the county, in addition to the circulation of the general plan's Draft Environmental Impact Report for review and comments, to thoroughly and publicly present the draft general plan to solicit input from throughout the county and consider the concerns and comments expressed.
Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.
This letter also was signed by Patrica Gatz of Vallejo, Eva Laevastu of Green Valley and Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, all of whom, like Ms. Byrd, served on both the original 20-member and the second 16-member Citizens Advisory Committee; as well as original committee members Marti Brown of Vallejo, Jeanne McCormack of Rio Vista and Ian Anderson of Birds Landing.
03/04/08 www.thereporter.com
submitted by Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.
After reading recent letters regarding the Solano County general plan update process, we felt that a few other points should be made about what occurred with the process during 2007.
First, let's not forget that the original Citizen's Advisory Committee, a well-balanced committee consisting of four people appointed by each supervisor, was disbanded shortly after Supervisor Jim Spering took office in 2007.
The supervisors claimed that the committee wasn't getting enough done; however, the original committee - as did the second committee - followed agendas designed by consultants, with some input from an agenda subcommittee.
Additionally, the original committee was developing a vision plan and attending a number of field trips to various county locations to be better informed when making decisions.
The criticism that the original committee was not doing enough was a "smoke screen" by those who wanted an excuse to remake the committee.
The board, chaired by Supervisor Mike Reagan, directed Supervisors Spering and John Silva as an "ad hoc subcommittee" to review the structure of the Citizens Advisory Committee.
Supervisors Spering and Silva met in closed session, without public input or public viewing, and hand-picked the vast majority of the new members for the second committee. Each supervisor was allowed only one appointment in addition to those selected by the subcommittee. This was a move to change the original, well-balanced committee and replace it with a more development-oriented group.
The timeline is another point of contention.
The committee was forced to make important decisions, often with insufficient data, just to meet the timeline. In fact, the timeline was clearly more important than careful study of the issues. Only Supervisor Barbara Kondylis has shown the wisdom to question this overly hasty process.
As members of both the original and second citizens advisory committees, we wanted the public to hear more of the story.
A new Solano County general plan is a critically important blueprint for how and where Solano will develop during the next 20 to 30 years. The new plan is quite different than the original plan and it deserves a thorough public airing and discussion.
We urge the county, in addition to the circulation of the general plan's Draft Environmental Impact Report for review and comments, to thoroughly and publicly present the draft general plan to solicit input from throughout the county and consider the concerns and comments expressed.
Nicole Byrd, Fairfield.
This letter also was signed by Patrica Gatz of Vallejo, Eva Laevastu of Green Valley and Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson, all of whom, like Ms. Byrd, served on both the original 20-member and the second 16-member Citizens Advisory Committee; as well as original committee members Marti Brown of Vallejo, Jeanne McCormack of Rio Vista and Ian Anderson of Birds Landing.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
_______________________________________________
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Suburban sprawl: a costly, inefficient way to build a community
by Will Gregory
Jan. 23, 2008
"Sprawling suburbs are arguably the most economically, environmentally, and socially costly pattern of residential development humans have ever devised."
From Urban Sprawl to Sustainable Human Communities
Mark Roseland and William Rees
" Walking in Benicia’s downtown helps me keep a promise. I want to see the world in green, or walk more gently in the world and prevent further irreversible damage to the planet.’
Benicia Mayor- Elizabeth Patterson
" They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Singer,song-writer, Joni Mitchell
Recently, out of curiosity I was going over the final thoughts and comments on the elizabethformayor.com web site. I read an interesting note from Councilman Tom Butt from Richmond. He mentioned smart growth and something called the Ahwanhee Principles. Being the curious type, I looked it up. I thought it might be interesting to share this data with the community.
But first I wanted to comment on this idea that mayor Patterson brought up on Dec.4th in the council chambers." Patterson addressed‘ fears’ that she was ‘a zealot tree hugging conservationist,’ by saying that she is zealous about the environment and has a vision of Benicia becoming the green gate to Solano County." (Benicia Herald- "New city council takes over" 12/6/07)
One of the biggest myths is that environmental protection hurts the economy. It doesn’t take much research to prove this wrong.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Stephen Meyer posed the question : Does environmental protection and regulation hinder economic growth, job creation, and overall production, as some business groups maintain?
He evaluated and ranked the 50 states based on two sets of criteria: Economic prosperity (gross domestic product, total employment, and productivity); and breadth and depth of environmental programs. Meyers found that:
* States with stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all economic measures.
* the pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development.
* there appears to be moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth; and
* there is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards will produce economic growth.
Mayor Patterson idea of a green gate to Solano County is buttressed by another study- by the Institute of Southern Studies- Briefly stated: " The states that do the most to protect their natural resources also wind up with the strongest economies and the best jobs for their citizens."
(Source: Better not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Eben Fodor. 2001.)
It would seem that Mayor Patterson has her hand firmly on the- environmental stewardship- rudder and is steering the community in the right direction.
With Solano County in the process of updating its General Plan and with counties like Marin and Ventura adopting the Ahwanhee Principles- I thought it might be of interest to community members to know about these innovative ideas. ( Note: there are no members of the Solano County GP Committee from Benicia ?)
The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-efficient Communities were presented in 1991 at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite National Park and written by members of the Local Government Commission. ( Excellent site: http://www.lgc.org/ )
These principles provide a blueprint for elected officials to create compact, mixed use, walkable transit oriented development in local communities; cities and counties across the nation have adopted them to break the cycle of sprawl.
Community Principles:
1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit shops.
4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the communities residents.
6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
9. Public spaces should be be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees, and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to energy efficiency of the community.
Finally, the late Jane Jacobs in her book -"The Death and Life of Great American Cities"(1961) sums it up best if we don’t control sprawl and excessive growth.
" Traffic arteries, along with parking lots and filling stations, are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction. To accommodate them, city streets are broken down into loose sprawls, incoherent and vacuous for anyone afoot. Downtowns and other neighborhoods that were marvels of close grained intricacy and compact mutual support are casually disemboweled. Landmarks are crumbled or are so sundered from their contexts in city life as to become irrelevant trivialities. City character is blurred until every place becomes like every other place, all adding up to Noplace."
Jan. 23, 2008
"Sprawling suburbs are arguably the most economically, environmentally, and socially costly pattern of residential development humans have ever devised."
From Urban Sprawl to Sustainable Human Communities
Mark Roseland and William Rees
" Walking in Benicia’s downtown helps me keep a promise. I want to see the world in green, or walk more gently in the world and prevent further irreversible damage to the planet.’
Benicia Mayor- Elizabeth Patterson
" They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
Singer,song-writer, Joni Mitchell
Recently, out of curiosity I was going over the final thoughts and comments on the elizabethformayor.com web site. I read an interesting note from Councilman Tom Butt from Richmond. He mentioned smart growth and something called the Ahwanhee Principles. Being the curious type, I looked it up. I thought it might be interesting to share this data with the community.
But first I wanted to comment on this idea that mayor Patterson brought up on Dec.4th in the council chambers." Patterson addressed‘ fears’ that she was ‘a zealot tree hugging conservationist,’ by saying that she is zealous about the environment and has a vision of Benicia becoming the green gate to Solano County." (Benicia Herald- "New city council takes over" 12/6/07)
One of the biggest myths is that environmental protection hurts the economy. It doesn’t take much research to prove this wrong.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Stephen Meyer posed the question : Does environmental protection and regulation hinder economic growth, job creation, and overall production, as some business groups maintain?
He evaluated and ranked the 50 states based on two sets of criteria: Economic prosperity (gross domestic product, total employment, and productivity); and breadth and depth of environmental programs. Meyers found that:
* States with stronger environmental policies consistently out-perform the weaker environmental states on all economic measures.
* the pursuit of environmental quality does not hinder economic growth and development.
* there appears to be moderate, yet consistent, positive association between environmentalism and economic growth; and
* there is no evidence that relaxing environmental standards will produce economic growth.
Mayor Patterson idea of a green gate to Solano County is buttressed by another study- by the Institute of Southern Studies- Briefly stated: " The states that do the most to protect their natural resources also wind up with the strongest economies and the best jobs for their citizens."
(Source: Better not Bigger: How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Eben Fodor. 2001.)
It would seem that Mayor Patterson has her hand firmly on the- environmental stewardship- rudder and is steering the community in the right direction.
With Solano County in the process of updating its General Plan and with counties like Marin and Ventura adopting the Ahwanhee Principles- I thought it might be of interest to community members to know about these innovative ideas. ( Note: there are no members of the Solano County GP Committee from Benicia ?)
The Ahwahnee Principles for Resource-efficient Communities were presented in 1991 at the Ahwahnee Hotel in Yosemite National Park and written by members of the Local Government Commission. ( Excellent site: http://www.lgc.org/ )
These principles provide a blueprint for elected officials to create compact, mixed use, walkable transit oriented development in local communities; cities and counties across the nation have adopted them to break the cycle of sprawl.
Community Principles:
1. All planning should be in the form of complete and integrated communities containing housing, shops, work places, schools, parks and civic facilities essential to the daily life of residents.
2. Community size should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other.
3. As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit shops.
4. A community should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries.
5. Businesses within the community should provide a range of job types for the communities residents.
6. The location and character of the community should be consistent with a larger transit network.
7. The community should have a center focus that combines commercial, civic, cultural and recreational uses.
8. The community should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens, and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design.
9. Public spaces should be be designed to encourage the attention and presence of people at all hours of the day and night.
10. Each community or cluster of communities should have a well defined edge, such as agricultural greenbelts or wildlife corridors, permanently protected from development.
11. Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully-connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees, and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic.
12. Wherever possible, the natural terrain, drainage and vegetation of the community should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts.
13. The community design should help conserve resources and minimize waste.
14. Communities should provide for the efficient use of water through the use of natural drainage, drought tolerant landscaping and recycling.
15. The street orientation, the placement of buildings and the use of shading should contribute to energy efficiency of the community.
Finally, the late Jane Jacobs in her book -"The Death and Life of Great American Cities"(1961) sums it up best if we don’t control sprawl and excessive growth.
" Traffic arteries, along with parking lots and filling stations, are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction. To accommodate them, city streets are broken down into loose sprawls, incoherent and vacuous for anyone afoot. Downtowns and other neighborhoods that were marvels of close grained intricacy and compact mutual support are casually disemboweled. Landmarks are crumbled or are so sundered from their contexts in city life as to become irrelevant trivialities. City character is blurred until every place becomes like every other place, all adding up to Noplace."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
