Friday, February 10, 2012

STORYLINE Sacramento City Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

No high resolution image exists...

Loading images

You've probably heard - but in case you haven't, there are reports that Kevin Johnson's previous alleged misuse of federal funds may jeopardize the City of Sacramento's receipt of federal stimulus money. If this happened, it would be a serious handicap for Sacramento because the city could be denied the expected tens of millions from the hundreds of billions of federal dollars. According to Kevin Johnson, the city won't be denied funds. There doesn't seem to be much certainty at this point, so I won't speculate on what will happen.

However, an important question to ask is what is the best thing for Sacramento if the mayor's predicament causes denial of funds?

If Sacramento is denied tens of millions of dollars, I believe any honorable leader who wants the best for the city (which I believe the mayor is) would resign. In reading about this, I saw a link to an online petition seeking the mayor's resignation. Hopefully, we won't be denied funds and the mayor can keep on doing a good job. If we are denied funds, I don't think any mayor is worth sacrificing the large amount of federal stimulus money. I don't think a "recall the mayor" would be necessary. However, I think it would be appropriate and responsible for the mayor to issue a statement about what would happen if the city is denied federal funds.

Rate

Community

6 Votes up

2 Votes down

Flag

Your Tags

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.

The Parrhesiac

edited on March 30, 2009 | 8:01 PM

Even if KJ did resign, what substantive difference would it make? It would shift the power back to the Fargonians who have controlled this city for far too long. There is no one waiting in the wings that would make a better replacement...other than maybe Grantland Johnson...R.E. Graswich...Katy Grimes...but as long as we have a weak mayoral system, the mayor has very little influence on political outcomes in this city. The developers & the unions own all of our council members lock stock and barrel...unless there are ethics reforms and term limits, nothing will change.

Sacramento has the second highest density of union members in the country, second only to Detroit...With the Democrats controlling over 70% of the vote in the city, and the majority of them being in unions...it really does not matter who runs for office or who is mayor...the unions and developers will always get what they want. What I find really funny is that Democrats are always screaming for diversity, with the exception of who controls power.

3 1

TotalDerelict

March 31, 2009 | 12:26 PM

RE Gasswick for mayor! Hes a good one!

3 1

Jeff McCrory

March 30, 2009 | 10:47 PM

Ryan Lillis got a juicy leak, but it hardly means the levy is going to break. When I read in the papers that Sacramento has actually been denied funds, I'l believe it.

As for this:

"I think it would be appropriate and responsible for the mayor to issue a statement about what would happen if the city is denied federal funds."

Come on, man, you know that no sane politician would do that. Maybe it would be a fair to ask the mayor if he would pledge to step down if funds were denied. (You should call him and pose the question). But as a dewy-eyed appeal to noblesse oblige, well, I hate to use the term, but it's a tad wankerish.

5 0

David Watts Barton

March 31, 2009 | 9:06 AM

Gadfly, that's an interesting statistic. Where does it come from? I'm assuming you mean state employees and teachers unions, since we don't have much of a manufacturing base. I'd be curious to hear more about that if you ever feel like writing an actual article, as opposed to commenting on others. But then, that's not what Gadflys DO, right?
But if you feel like it, I'd be pleased to see it.

5 0

tanyainsac

March 31, 2009 | 1:36 PM

I don't know much about local govt funding but it seems like money going to the city... isn't distributed to KJ..so for that reason...its not a personal govt funding and shouldn't be jeopardized. Kinda like writing a check. Its written out to Sacramento, not KJ. Might be wrong but that's what I would think.

1 0

Jeff McCrory

edited on March 31, 2009 | 1:56 PM

Tanyainsac,

It's been a while since I read the article in the Bee, but as I remember it the mayor is on a list of people who can't receive federal funds because it has been alleged that his charity St Hope misused federal money. The problem is...oh hell, let me just Google it, "The question, he said, is whether federal agencies consider the mayor a "principal" in city financial decisions; if the answer is yes, he wrote, it would "prevent the City from obtaining … federal grants, subsidies, or cooperative agreements." That's one lawyer's interpretation of the law.

0 1

William Burg

March 31, 2009 | 8:00 PM

tanyainsac: The ban isn't limited to money directly disbursed to an individual; it also includes money given to an organization that the person on the ban list is a "principal" of (one who makes financial decisions), like the executive director, president of the board, etcetera. The issue is the misuse of funds that were supposed to be for a public-funded program but were instead diverted to a personal use, or a use that is not legal within that program. So it's kind of like someone took money from a check written out to Sacramento, intended for a specific purpose, and used it for your own gain instead.

1 1

Scott Holbrook

March 31, 2009 | 8:57 PM

The mayor a while ago stated in the sacramentopress.com,

" I'm not going to be shy about using my connections with the Obama Administration to lead the regional efforts to secure funding for our area." - Maybe he can elaborate on how those efforts are going.

0 1

Steven Maviglio

April 2, 2009 | 12:15 AM

Allow me to do the honors:

The City received a $5 million grant from the U.S. Dept. of Energy several days after this lone lawyer's opinion on the subject was made public.

The City has received more than $30 million on top of that since Mayor Johnson has been sworn in.

We're also about to get $20 million in economic stimulus funding for the railyards.

Not a cent of federal money has been denied or delayed because of the suspension. And for the record, the Inspector General who put the Mayor on the suspension list made national headlines last year for "joking" about the KKK at a Mitt Romney fundraiser.

1 0

Susie Shields

April 2, 2009 | 2:38 PM

Isn't it true that the city had not yet notified the feds of Johnson's debarment? If so, bringing up the federal money already received is a moot point.

0 1

Steven Maviglio

April 2, 2009 | 9:30 PM

Not at all. It's not the obligation of the city to notify federal agencies of the Mayor's suspension. It's the obligation of the federal agency making the suspension. As you may recall, the Mayor has been invited three times to the White House for discussions on economic stimulus funds. That wouldn't have happened if the Obama Administration thought the city wouldn't be eligible for these dollars.

0 0

Susie Shields

April 3, 2009 | 4:50 PM

From what I gathered from the article in the Bee, it was the city's responsibility to notify the feds or they could face serious sanctions. It is highly likely that the feds had no idea Johnson was on the list because as with most bureaucracies, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

0 0