Tag Cloud
Monday, May 21, 2012
Citizens speak out on strong mayor issue
by Kathleen Haley, published on August 7, 2009 at 6:59 PM
Storyline: Sacramento City Hall / Politics
The heated debate over the “strong mayor” initiative drew a substantial crowd to Thursday’s City Council meeting. A total of 36 people filled out forms in order to speak on the strong mayor issue. The following comments from nine speakers provide a range of views about the initiative.
Tamie Dramer, Wellstone Progressive Democrats of Sacramento: “I am president of the Wellstone Progressive Democrats of Sacramento, which has, as a body, voted to take an opposing position to the intiative. [We] are especially opposed to bring such an initiative during the middle of the mayor’s term.... The way this initiative campaign has been run has made a lot of people uncomfortable.”
Thomas Hiltachk, Attorney, Sacramentans for Accountable Government: “So, it's clear to me that under the law that 2012 is not an option for you at all. And so, we would urge you to place it on the June 8, 2010 ballot."
Brandon Ruiz, Stop the Power Grab: “I was a volunteer with the Stop the Power Grab group that was formed to oppose this initiative back in January. I brought with me today a copy of an online petition signed by 400 residents within the city. It was created back in January.”
Josh Wood, Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange: “Our board of directors is voting unanimously in support of it. There are many reasons why this item should be put on the ballot immediately — one of which is just the fact that it’s honoring the will of the citizens who signed this petition with the intent of it being on as soon as possible."
Craig Powell, Land Park Community Association: “It is not their expectation that they [the petition signers] have to wait for four elections.”
Devin Lavelle, Communications Chair, Democratic Party of Sacramento County: "It is far more important to get the job done right than to get it done quickly.”
Jeff Tucker, Resident, Sacramento: “I am in support of the charter change. One of the things I’m very concerned with is that it seems like we’ve lost focus about ... the charter change. And it seems as though we’re getting involved in personalities and people, instead of the issue.”
Pastor Darryl Heath, St. John Missionary Baptist Church: “We elect you to serve us, not for us to vote and then you decide. The people are saying: ‘We want to vote. We want the right to vote.’ And the council is going to decide whether or not we have that right.”
George Raya, Member, Sacramento Parks and Recreation Commission: “Give the citizens time to have input on charter revisions.”
Thanks to Assistant City Clerk Dawn Bullwinkel for quickly providing the names of the speakers. – Kathleen Haley
Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Thank you Steve Cohn and Kevin Johnson for getting your acts together and making it move forward.
This measure received more than 50,000 signatures of registered voters. It's unfortunate that Mr. Burg discredits the voters of the Sacramento like he does in the comment above. Initiatives -- including Prop 2 (animal protection), childrens hospital improvements, and environmental protection -- are all put on the ballot by signature gathering firms.
The citizens commission was only developed in REACTION to this initiative. To suggest that the commission was formed to better our government is bogus; it was simply cover for the business-as-usual members of the Council. Most of the appointees are political contributors to council members and/or former Mayor Fargo and individuals who had already expressed their views on the initiative. Their last meeting had a grand total of 9 people attending. So much for "citizen input."
Signature gathering firms may be a standard practice in the initiative process, but deliberately choosing one that uses unethical practices, lies and manipulation to gather signatures is positively sleazy. Considering that you fought an initiative using their services, you had to be familiar with their dishonesty--but you hired them anyhow! What does that say about you, Steve?
The charter commission meetings are totally open to the public--they just don't have big-dollar contributors flogging their efforts door-to-door, and they don't steal other people's email lists to promote their own events.
Do we know who the big developer is who is responsible for this drive for change here?
The donors:
Fulcrum Properties Group-Mark Friedman 50,000
West Lakeside LLC-Agent– Angelo K Tsakopoulous 25,000
North Natomas 575 Investors,LLC-Agent-Brian Vail 25,000
California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC 10,000
Capitol Station 65 LLC- AKA Township 9 7,500
CNM Construction Company,Inc.-Agent-Sotiris Kolokotronis 5,000
Fite Properties Inc-Agent-Peter Halimi 5,000
K.Hovnanian Forecast Homes Northern, Inc.-Agent C. McAlister 2,500
Serna Consulting, LLC-Agent-Phillip R Serna 1,000
Bagatelos, LLC-Agent-Chris Bagatelos 5,000
Bagatelos Family Trust 2,000
Bagatelos Architectural Glass-Nicholas Bagatelos 2,000
Commercial Window Systems-Geoff Bagatelos 1,000
Townsend, Raimundo etal Political Consulting firm- Loan 20,000
Over $100K from individuals, PAC’s & developers, MOST OF WHOM CAN’T VOTE ON THIS SINCE THEY DON’T LIVE IN THE CITY!
Perhaps Mr. Burg can enlighten us about the contributions to the opponents who have put up websites, rented rooms, sent out mass emails, lobbied groups, etc. Unfortunately, they have failed to file a campaign spending report. Talk about keeping things in the dark.
I said that the vast majority of donors to your enabling act were DEVELOPERS, not Republicans...although sometimes it can be hard to tell the difference, even if they register Democrat. I suppose that's why the Sacramento Democratic Party has spoken out against your measure. And the ones that aren't developers are in the real estate and construction trades, aside from a couple of "consultants."
And the other question is, how many of those donors live in the Sacramento city limits?
It does seem that your measure seems designed to attract conservatives, though...folks like Jim Knapp just love it because they see it as a chance to, as they put it, vote a conservative into the Mayor's seat...how does that sit with Sacramento's mostly liberal constituency?
You do your own homework about the opposition to your measure, Steve--I'm not working for anyone but myself, I'm not even a "volunteer."
And I'd still like you to attribute actual quotes from the people you claim support your measure, Steve, because I haven't seen them yet, and I still think you're lying.
You apparently think "developers" is an evil word. You know, those men and women who are creating jobs, restoring Midtown, and helping the many great small businesses open in our city.
The "Democratic Party" is more concerned with opposing Mayor Johnson than anything else. They opposed him in the last election (despite a majority of VOTING Democrats supporting him). Did the "Democratic Party" allow any public input on their vote.
I don't consider "developers" a dirty word, I know plenty and they come in all types, like anyone else, and they tend to be nice folks. Like anywhere else, there's some good ones and some bad ones. Some do great projects, some are out to turn farmland into stucco suburbs as cheaply and as fast as possible, and some are out to turn city landmarks into piles of rubble and empty holes to (maybe) be replaced by taxpayer-subsidized boondoggles.
The big problem comes when some of them (of the latter sort) decide they want to run the city--and that's what this initiative is, an effort by a select group of developers to manipulate Sacramento's city government to their own ends. The irony is that much of their support came from people who considered the previous mayor too beholden to developers--when apparently the main problem was that the previous mayor wasn't beholden enough to developer interests!
You are right; it's unfortunate that this has become a political football.
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/content?oid=918882
The city's study looked at the powers of strong mayors in different cities and found that Sacramento's variant includes fewer checks on mayoral authority, fewer controls on power, and no Ethics Commission. It turns the Mayor into a nearly unstoppable bully.
It was drafted by a GOP insider law firm which also orchestrated the phony front group Sacramentans for Accountable Government, which is about as grass roots as Exxon, even to the extent of providing office space for them in their own comfy corporate digs on Capitol Mall.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out whose motives are being served by this proposal, including in-name-only Democrats whose actions smack of good old Republican dirty tricks ,especially since the law firm representing this proposal is nationally known for representing the GOP for its electoral 'lapses' from past elections, including 2000 and 2004...
This proposal was drafted in secret with no public input or due process, which, if passed, could potentially lead to constitutional lawsuits against it implementation, not only for its lack of due process, but also because of its gaping unresolved hole about a 9th city council seat... and the 9th circuit court of appeal is already particularly predisposed to favor those in opposition to such power grabs, especially those as cloaked and daggered as this machine-engineered policy was.
What is most troubling is watching this mayor and all his yes-men clumsily marching in lock-step behind this flawed measure, torturing English and rationalizing their leader's past and present, while drawing hefty private interest lobbying salaries unreported to the city council's oversight authority in an almost, if not in fact, criminal act of aggression on what used to be a rather peaceful political process.
This is ugliness at its worst, and though this battle has just begun, with all of past and present acts of these wanton few at the expense of the rest of us, surely, surely reason will out the sinister nature of this proposal, for its benefits only serve those who brought this charlatan to office.