Keith Sharward comment-62708 2012-01-25T02:17:19Z 2012-01-25T02:17:19Z Proposition 13 (1978) requires voters to approve certain tax increases by a supermajority vote. Proposition 39 (2000) lowered the threshold to 55% for certain bonds. Are you suggesting that voters pass an initiative that would require "all large investments by taxpayers" be required to gain voter approval? What is the definition of "large investment"? While I appreciate the sentiment behind giving taxpayers opportunity to weigh in on decisions involving their tax dollars, a line has to be drawn somewhere that separates "Voters, may we...?" to "Voters hired me to..." Voters have a voice on matters of tax dollar investments -- they can use that voice to vote incumbents out of office when they make poor decisions and can threaten to do so when incumbents are on the verge of doing so. I'm all for taxpayers having a stronger voice, but to cease all "large investments by taxpayers" until they receive election day voter approval is, in my view, a mistake. Ballots in California are confusing enough as it is with their multiple languages and so many propositions -- adding propositions for "all large investments by taxpayers" would make our ballots look like phone books. No thanks -- I'd rather elect smart, fiscally conservative, responsible, community-minded people to represent my interests. Keith Sharward 2012-01-25T02:17:19Z Keith Sharward comment-62701 2012-01-24T20:03:36Z 2012-01-24T20:03:36Z I don't know for sure, but I imagine preliminary polling showed she started with a severe disadvantage and with so many challengers, she either faced losing in June by not placing in the top two (like incumbent Waters' did when he failed to secure a November 2010 runoff position since D. Fong and Ryan Chin ranked as the top two June 2010) OR losing outright to a challenger who would win 50%+1 (ala Ashby's historic 51-42-7 definitive defeat in June 2010 over incumbent Tretheway in a hotly contested three-way race). I think she saw how painful those defeats were to her former colleagues and she decided to end her political career on her own terms rather than subject herself to the humility of a defeat on election night. It's also worth noting that she had no challengers at all in 2008, so she did not have to campaign at all that year. Attending debates, walking precincts, etc., is all very hard work, let alone the emotional investment and the political attacks she would endure along the way. At 68 years old, that's a big commitment with very little down time without any assurance of success at the end of it all -- and even if she did manage to win the election, the council would no longer be the elitist officious impenetrable politically entrenched mob it was over the previous decade, so the four years that followed would probably be more challenging than in previous years. The timing is also interesting because Sacramento Police Officers' Association endorsed challenger Kim Mack a few days ago. It is therefore likely that Sacramento Area Fire Fighters Local 522 will follow suit. Those public safety employee associations supported Ashby very early in the 2010 race and their support was critical in delivering Ashby's grassroots message to voters in what was the most populous council district at the time. Now Sheedy is in the position of a lame duck councilperson between now and November 2012. That's a long time and a lot of damage can be done. She literally has nothing to lose because she has no accountability whatsoever to her constituents anymore. Let us hope she does not do anything too extreme against the wishes of her communities in a Hail Mary pass for the sake of her legacy at the expense of taxpayers. Let's keep our eyes peeled for efforts to have streets, public buildings, and/or parks named after her or her husband. Keith Sharward 2012-01-24T20:03:36Z Keith Sharward comment-62697 2012-01-24T19:25:30Z 2012-01-24T19:25:30Z Do tell. Keith Sharward 2012-01-24T19:25:30Z Keith Sharward comment-62685 2012-01-24T17:58:37Z 2012-01-24T17:58:37Z "And we don't want to see a bunch of sly foxes (Ashby) -- I-will-be-quiet when their [sic] is foul play, misinformation- just to get in office on the council." Care to elaborate on that accusation, Rhonda? Or is it just the usual empty rhetoric? Keith Sharward 2012-01-24T17:58:37Z Keith Sharward comment-61681 2011-12-27T17:59:44Z 2011-12-27T17:59:44Z Interesting article. I knew it was a 1911 bridge and definitely looked it, but I didn't know it had undergone a renovation in 1993 and other interesting facts. I too would like to see the bridge made less, uh, gritty. Cities on both sides of the bridge are trying to develop that area. But if the bridge is privately owned by the railroad, then compelling them to make it more aesthetically pleasing is not a wise investment for them, and I don't think I'd want taxpayer money spent on that endeavor -- so I guess we're stuck with it. Keith Sharward 2011-12-27T17:59:44Z Keith Sharward comment-61078 2011-12-08T05:47:28Z 2011-12-08T05:47:28Z I don't think you can reach that conclusion from the facts presented. I believe you when you say you didn't request emails from Sacramentans for Accountable Government and that the email address might have come from Sacramento for Obama -- but to assume Kim stole the addresses and later lied about doing so can't be proven by the above arguments. It might be true but there could be another explanation. I'm all in favor of holding people "accountable" but if we're gonna assasinate someone's character like this, let's connect all the dots if we can find them and not leap to conclusions without the evidence to support the assertions. For the record, I am not a Mack supporter. I have not made a judgement on her candidacy and I don't live in her district. Keith Sharward 2011-12-08T05:47:28Z Keith Sharward comment-61076 2011-12-08T05:41:45Z 2011-12-08T05:41:45Z OR someone else added the email addresses of people who had not made contact with the group without Kim's knowledge before she sent the email. The question of "how did SfAG get the email addresses of Obama supporters" is a valid one and I don't have an answer for that, but to conclude they MUST have come from Kim defies logic. That may be true but based on the facts presented so far, it can't be proven. Kinda like if x + 2y = 6, x and y cannot be assumed to be 2 and 2 respectively because they could also be -4 and 5 respectively. Keith Sharward 2011-12-08T05:41:45Z Keith Sharward comment-61071 2011-12-08T05:31:59Z 2011-12-08T05:31:59Z Could you post the "full headers" of the email sent on January 2, 2009? Feel free to obfuscate the "to" address and name as you did above. The full headers contain more forensics data that could be helpful in an investigation. It is plausable that she did send the email in question using an email marketing distribution service similar to Constant Contact or MailChimp, and that the "list" was being maintained by one or more volunteers, and that someone added some addresses in a way that violated terms of service. I'm not excusing the behavior, nor am I downplaying it. If she did in fact do what was alleged, it's not only bad, the lying about it is worse. However, I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to say with any degree of certainty that she did what was alleged. There are many scenarios I can think of that could explain what happened in a ways that would leave her completely innocent. I have volunteered on a city council campain in a capacity that involved email marketing, so I have experience with those kinds of programs. One of things I did not like about the service we were using is that there was no way to grant granular permissions to fellow volunteers -- it was "all" or "nothing" with a single username and password. As a result, that function was pretty much "siloed" in my corner. Keith Sharward 2011-12-08T05:31:59Z Keith Sharward comment-60537 2011-11-22T21:03:57Z 2011-11-22T21:03:57Z OK, that's way over the top -- but I know one restauranteur (a legal immigrant from an asian country) who feared for his livelihood based on an implied threat from someone who conducted an investment scam that cost him tens of thousands of dollars, and he feared reporting it to the authorities because the scammer threatened to ruin his business with a barrage of unfavorable online reviews. So while this "jehova" person is way out in left field, I do believe that extortion does happen and it is probably more likely to happen where corruption and extortion is common in the native homelands of the victims. Keith Sharward 2011-11-22T21:03:57Z Keith Sharward comment-53214 2011-07-12T16:33:18Z 2011-07-12T16:33:18Z It is a little pricey but I'm sure that's because of all the ADA retrofits. We all pay for that. We pay for that when businesses large and small are sued or threatened with lawsuits and then legally extorted to settle for thousands of dollars. We pay for that in the form of deprivation when businesses and attractions are shuttered because complying with ADA is too expensive. And we pay for that in the form of lost opportunity when businesses never even get off the ground due to the costs of complying with ADA. I'm looking forward to taking the tour sometime. Keith Sharward 2011-07-12T16:33:18Z Keith Sharward comment-53213 2011-07-12T16:27:26Z 2011-07-12T16:27:26Z ...not unlike some people I've come to know... ;-) Agreed -- nice enhancement. I can think of a couple of pieces I wrote that I should have been more forthright in my personal affiliation and interest in outcome. The inclusion of this field and the expectation of its use will lead to greater transparency and credibility. Keith Sharward 2011-07-12T16:27:26Z Keith Sharward comment-49034 2011-04-12T16:35:36Z 2011-04-12T16:35:36Z "the unrepresented in 10 and 14" -- what does that mean? Keith Sharward 2011-04-12T16:35:36Z Keith Sharward comment-49033 2011-04-12T16:34:15Z 2011-04-12T16:34:15Z One more... "IG: Last, what advise do you want to share with you successor?" Should be "advice," not "advise." But I feel like I'm nitpicking. EXCELLENT work, Isaac. Thank you. Keith Sharward 2011-04-12T16:34:15Z Keith Sharward comment-45843 2011-02-16T22:15:14Z 2011-02-16T22:15:14Z I've been wondering about fleet management lately. It seems most non Public Safety city vehicles I see on the road are relatively new and appear to be in top condition. This is in contrast with some of the vehicle from other agencies I see out and about in our region that appear to me to be much longer in the tooth. Are there opportunities for operational efficiency improvements by stretching our city's vehicle fleet to longer service intervals, and is there a surplus of vehicles today, given the staff reductions that have occurred in the past couple of years? If there is a surplus, could there perhaps be an auction of these vehicles and could proceeds flow to the general fund to help cushion the blow of the next round of budget cuts? We know the State of California was bought fifty Toyota Priuses back in 2009 and then put them into storage (http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2009/10/view-the-state-invoice-for-12.html). I sure hope the City of Sacramento isn't doing anything even close to that with our tax dollars. An independent audit of the city's Fleet Management department would go a long way to give us taxpayers the assurances we deserve that our money is being spent wisely. Keith Sharward 2011-02-16T22:15:14Z Keith Sharward comment-43636 2011-01-14T01:49:32Z 2011-01-14T01:49:32Z I believe it is wrong for any organization to disqualify any individual from any level of participation using one's skin color as a qualifying factor. A policy to disqualify Caucasians is a racist policy, just as it would be racist to disqualify Blacks. Note that the user named darrywh1 has replied to three individuals here who have called this policy what it deserves to be called -- racist -- and in none of those replies did he deny it was racist. It is a racist policy, and no, one need no further facts to reach that conclusion. Keith Sharward 2011-01-14T01:49:32Z Keith Sharward comment-42764 2010-12-28T02:37:06Z 2010-12-28T02:37:06Z "You have a right to have short term guests in your residence that don’t have to be on the lease agreement..." Most rental agreements I have signed in the past limit house guests to stays of three days or fewer. Keith Sharward 2010-12-28T02:37:06Z Keith Sharward comment-42229 2010-12-14T14:37:32Z 2010-12-14T14:37:32Z "The debate on whether property owners should pay the costs of maintaining parks has been put on hold...." CORRECTION: property owners already pay the costs of maintaining parks. This is especially true in North Natomas homeowners, many of whom pay an additional property assessment tax for city park maintenance, and that tax is not even earmarked for use within the neighborhoods being taxed. I would therefore recommend the first sentence be changed to: "The debate on whether property owners should pay AN ADDITIONAL TAX TO HELP COVER the costs of maintaining parks has been put on hold..." Keith Sharward 2010-12-14T14:37:32Z Keith Sharward comment-41811 2010-12-07T18:58:24Z 2010-12-07T18:58:24Z Crime is a function of need? I hardly think that's accurate. It implies -- states outright -- that good people do bad things because they have no choice. No, crime is a byproduct of a moral deficiency. Acquisition of money and stuff may be a factor in terms of providing a motivation, but resorting to crime as a means to acquite simply demonstrates a disrespect of the boundaries of decency. What causes the moral deficiency is arguable, but it's surely not strictly economics. Keith Sharward 2010-12-07T18:58:24Z Keith Sharward comment-41198 2010-11-24T01:21:10Z 2010-11-24T01:21:10Z "Roth may be known to some residents because he was covered extensively by the local media last April, during Tretheway’s campaign against Ashby. The local media reported on a YouTube video that showed Roth watching Tretheway campaign manager Corin Choppin remove Ashby signs. 'Never has standing on a sidewalk with my hands in my pocket caused me so much drama,' Roth said." That says a lot about you, Dan. Still trying to make it about you being treated unfairly, you being the one who "only" stood there on the corner with your hands on your pockets. Never mind the numerous witnesses who saw you tampering with signs a few minutes before I shot the video. Though not caught on camera, you're just as guilty as Corin. Never mind that you lied to reporters about how you were supposedly acting on a complaint sent to 3-1-1 -- such a complaint was never sent. And when you were caught in that lie, you fabricated another lie, claiming to BE the one who INTENDED to send it to 3-1-1 but forgot to?! It's a great metaphor, really -- crap going on right in front of you, but you just stood there "with your hands in your pockets" as you say, refusing to act, refusing to stand up for what is right, refusing to act with dignity for the people of District One. I imagine you'll still manage to schmooze yourself into a job in this town of political hacks... Probably for someone with similar virtues (or lack thereof) as you have. Someone who will stand with his hands in his pockets, or his hands in the pockets of others perhaps, doing nothing whatsoever... Keith Sharward 2010-11-24T01:21:10Z Keith Sharward comment-37699 2010-09-23T10:53:03Z 2010-09-23T10:53:03Z Best-researched article I have seen on Sacramento Press to date. Excellent work, Suzanne. Darned "thumbs up" thing only lets me click it once. Keith Sharward 2010-09-23T10:53:03Z Keith Sharward comment-36925 2010-09-14T14:23:55Z 2010-09-14T14:23:55Z Rhonda, the only "agenda" I have is the truth -- or, rather, to counterbalance when someone (in this case, you) make a false statement to make a point along the way to a conclusion. I find it interesting that you accuse me of taking things out of context when it is you who placed a statistical nugget completely out of context to support your argument. Look: I do sympathize with and support your overall mission of reducing urban violence -- I just can't support your "the end justifies the means" expression methodology. I accept your apology for "lauging at" me. But I do have some advice: please -- for your sake, sit on your posts and replies and mull them over for a day or so before publishing them. Really. You're losing the benefit of deliberacy of the written word when you post so fast without taking the opportunity to proofread, breathe, and reflect. I know you don't because so often you post numerous comments in a contiguous string (e.g., three above). Being "fast" doesn't win you anything, but being thoughtful, concise, accurate, and compelling does. Bottom line: If you're going to make an argument, just use facts that support it, and don't use statistics or restate conclusions of others without citing the sources. That's all. Then you might be surprised to see me getting on board with you. Again, peace... Keith Sharward 2010-09-14T14:23:55Z Keith Sharward comment-36762 2010-09-12T05:48:22Z 2010-09-12T05:48:22Z Thanks for citing, Rhonda. Your Huffington Post article states: "More preschoolers--63--were killed by firearms than law enforcement officers killed [by firearms] in the line of duty--48." Your statement was "it is more dangerous to be a preschooler than an officer. Your statement is false: The number of police officers in the USA is tiny compared to the number of preschoolers in the USA. Plus, as I stated previously, you considered only one cause of death. If you had simply stated "more preschoolers are shot and killed with guns than police officers are shot and killed with guns in the line of duty," that would have been an accurate statement -- though it is admittedly less powerful as it does not support your main assertion that while you acknowledge the dangers police officers face, you believe youth face even more. Don't retract or clarify your statement if you don't want to -- you don't owe me anything -- but honestly, I think you are shortchanging and discrediting yourself when you make your case with assertions that cannot sustain the least bit of scrutiny. Peace... Keith Sharward 2010-09-12T05:48:22Z Keith Sharward comment-36723 2010-09-11T18:04:38Z 2010-09-11T18:04:38Z Come on, Rhonda -- suggesting a preschooler is at more risk of dying than a police officer by using ONE cause of death (shooting) is inaccurate. We all know there's more than one way a cop can be killed while on the job. For example, more police officers lose their lives in the line of duty due to traffic collisions than shootings. Source: http://govpro.com/public_safety/law/police-deaths-low-20100112/ You also wrote: "officer related shootings are usually the officer doing the shooting." That is a very strong assertion -- please back that statement up by citing a source, or retract it. Keith Sharward 2010-09-11T18:04:38Z Keith Sharward comment-36301 2010-09-08T06:49:57Z 2010-09-08T06:49:57Z Great take, Michael. Very nicely written piece. Keith Sharward 2010-09-08T06:49:57Z Keith Sharward comment-35856 2010-08-30T17:16:26Z 2010-08-30T17:16:26Z Actually, that's not quite what I'm saying. What I wrote was: ". . . Natomas will suffer if an arena is built downtown -- UNLESS something 'equal to or better than' Arco exists here. And by 'equal or better,' I would argue that something OTHER than a large entertainment venue might need to be involved, because the entertainment share of the overall pie can only grow so much..." So I'm not necessarily against a new arena being built in the railyards on the basis that it would be bad for Natomas. It depends. I AM concerned about the future of the Arco Arena property if a new arena is built downtown, but IF a plan comes together that convincingly demonstrates to Natomas residents and businesses that Natomas will benefit from proposed changes (i.e., the "convergence" proposal), then fine -- but that is a tall order, and at the moment, there doesn't appear to be anyone at the negotiating table representing the interests of Natomas. I believe that will change in November though. Keith Sharward 2010-08-30T17:16:26Z Keith Sharward comment-35849 2010-08-30T07:00:27Z 2010-08-30T07:00:27Z Yup, that's a quote from the "subjective" ordinance I referenced above. A person can be out of compliance on either or both subjective and objective standards, any hour of the day. So I disagree "there is nothing to enforce." The subjective "reasonable and necessary" standard is just as enforceable as the objective "no more than 'X' decibels for 'Y' minutes per hour" standard. At least that's how I understand the regulations. What say you, Officer Michelle? Keith Sharward 2010-08-30T07:00:27Z Keith Sharward comment-35848 2010-08-30T06:49:56Z 2010-08-30T06:49:56Z I appreciate the perspective, Ben, but many of us compare the property to what it looked like a dozen years ago, and it is a horrible shrivel of what it once was. When I was there a few months ago to pick something up, I was shocked at the number of vacancies and I honestly did not feel safe there. I couldn't imagine most women would have been comfortable there either. The improvements they have made sound good. Not great, but good. It's a lot better than their doing nothing, which is what they have done for a long time. Whether they are investing in a property they intend to keep or they are sprucing it up for sale to another party, it's a step in the right direction. Keith Sharward 2010-08-30T06:49:56Z Keith Sharward comment-35818 2010-08-29T02:53:55Z 2010-08-29T02:53:55Z Thanks for acknowledging the point, guys. I realize that it could be argued at some level that any new development anywhere, even in the 'burbs, might cause harm somewhere else. I try to maintain a "grow the pie" mindset, but I don't think that always happens. It's one thing when market forces cause the shifts -- but I think it's another when our tax dollars are used to subsidize those efforts, nudging the market in ways it otherwise would not move, or not move as much or as fast. Is it appropriate for our government to subsidize projects when those dollars move market forces that result in decay (harm) elsewhere? Decay that might then need more taxpayer subsidies to fund the solution out of? And when the experiment goes wrong, like K Street, taxpayers are left holding the bag again... I'm not trying to hate on downtown fixes or railyards or anything -- I just need to see more benefits for the city at large or less cost to taxpayers to feel comfortable with it. Keith Sharward 2010-08-29T02:53:55Z Keith Sharward comment-35807 2010-08-28T13:10:40Z 2010-08-28T13:10:40Z Very interesting article and commentary. As a resident of a nearby suburb (Natomas), I'd like to raise some points that I believe are not often acknowledged, let alone discussed, by proponents of downtown revitalization efforts -- and this comes from someone who really does want to see improvements in our city's core. To attract someone to spend their money downtown, whether on food, entertainment, or even housing, for the most part, that is money NOT spent in the suburbs. Case in point: Michael Boublé performed at Arco Arena this week. I was at Chipotlé an hour before the show: 24 people were in line ahead of me, which is the busiest I have seen that place. When I finally reached the register, there were about 25 people behind me. Most of that money would NOT have been spent in Natomas if Boublé had performed at a downtown venue. Natomas is losing businesses every month, and I believe, based on today's economic conditions (which is awful, of course), that Natomas will suffer if an arena is built downtown -- UNLESS something "equal to or better than" Arco exists here. And by "equal or better," I would argue that something OTHER than a large entertainment venue might need to be involved, because the entertainment share of the overall pie can only grow so much... But don't JUST focus on the arena in my example. The point is: when suburbanites spend downtown, they're not spending as much back home. That's not an argument against downtown revitalization, but I think we need to remain aware that there will be negative economic impacts elsewhere. Can those areas take the hit? I believe many will, and many won't. Whenever I have an errand on Florin Road, I wonder if I am catching a glimpse of the future of many of our newer suburbs. Florin Road area fell out of favor because there were nicer and safer places to move to and shop in. Few would argue that Florin Road is ill and needs care. I fear Truxel Road could become the next Florin Road, and the narrative at that point would be, "Well of course, nobody wanted to be out there anymore, ever since the arena was demolished and all the great shopping and dining and entertainment was built downtown -- plus there were all those giant apartment low income apartment complexes built back in the beginning of the century..." Hopefully I'm exaggerating -- just please don't lose sight of the bigger picture, including the suburbs often cited as the root of all of dowwntown's challenges. I just hope there's enough market-driven revitalization to go around -- all the way around. Keith Sharward 2010-08-28T13:10:40Z Keith Sharward comment-35806 2010-08-28T12:19:18Z 2010-08-28T12:19:18Z From http://sacnwpc.org/about: "The mission of the Sacramento Chapter of the National Women’s Political Caucus is to increase women’s participation in the political process and to identify, recruit, train and support feminist women for election and appointment to public office. While in pursuit of this goal, SACNWPC will strive to win equality for all women; to ensure reproductive freedom; to achieve quality dependent care; and to eradicate sexism, racism, anti-Semitism, ageism, ableism, violence, poverty, and discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation." Keith Sharward 2010-08-28T12:19:18Z Keith Sharward comment-35524 2010-08-24T20:08:38Z 2010-08-24T20:08:38Z I believe prior to Kevin Johnson becoming mayor, council meetings were held at 2 PM and 6 PM on Tuesdays, and public comment was at the end of the 6 PM meeting, so it appears things are reverting to the the way things were prior to that point. Keith Sharward 2010-08-24T20:08:38Z Keith Sharward comment-35439 2010-08-23T21:26:04Z 2010-08-23T21:26:04Z Yup -- and more than just "talking to" -- rather, bringing them to the table to productively discuss the issues, identifying the ones that are most important/critical, and deciding on a course of proposed action. Keith Sharward 2010-08-23T21:26:04Z Keith Sharward comment-35353 2010-08-22T15:14:22Z 2010-08-22T15:14:22Z How about this as a possible solution/compromise: Public Comment speakers will appear in order that their speaker slips are submitted -- no exceptions. Public Comment on agenda at start of meeting but limited to 10 minutes (four speakers, 2 minutes and 30 seconds maximum, strictly enforced with mic cut off when time is up) -- all four names called in advance, lined up, and ready to go at the start of the meeting. Public Comment also on agenda at end of meeting but limited to one hour, extendable by motion and majority vote of council. Names of up to 24 speakers who are scheduled to appear for end-of- meeting Public Comment are announced at conclusion of beginning-of-meeting Public Comment. If there are more than 24 speakers scheduled to speak at that point, the rest are put on notice that they will only be given the opportunity to speak if Council votes to extend Public Comment at the end of the meeting beyond the 60 minute allotment. Those not guaranteed the opportunity to speak are free to depart and return the following week for another chance, or they can roll the dice and stick around, hoping Council gives them the opportunity or that other speakers leave early before they speak. This may seem complicated at first glance, but I think it would work well for both Council and the general public: - Those who depend on public transit have the option of arriving early to increase their chances at one of the four valuable beginning-of-meeting slots. - Those whose schedules do not afford a 6 PM arrival time can (usually/often) still speak at the conclusion of the meeting. - Matters that draw unusually large crowds will not disrupt agenda timelines. Thoughts? Keith Sharward 2010-08-22T15:14:22Z Keith Sharward comment-35246 2010-08-20T20:02:10Z 2010-08-20T20:02:10Z Feeding giraffes is very cool. :-) My wife and I have done that a number of times at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom: http://www.sixflags.com/discoveryKingdom/animals/Seafari.aspx But it's great that we have this opportunity right here in Sacramento! Keith Sharward 2010-08-20T20:02:10Z Keith Sharward comment-34959 2010-08-17T14:50:33Z 2010-08-17T14:50:33Z Do semi-permanent "taco trucks" inhibit the development potential for new restaurants? I have often wondered that. In free market terms, the absence of food service in an area attracts investors to open a restaurant in the area, and the existence of a taco truck that never moves could, in theory, mitigate interest in opening new restaurants nearby, so areas that have other challenges (e.g., a high proportion of empty storefronts or empty lots) continue to languish. On one hand, I hate to see honest people deprived of their abilities to make an honest living, and they're providing a service that is obviously needed. On the other hand, I am concerned that they bog down the progress of struggling neighborhoods. Keith Sharward 2010-08-17T14:50:33Z Keith Sharward comment-34946 2010-08-17T02:19:44Z 2010-08-17T02:19:44Z Hi Officer Michelle, Would you please cite the city code that supports the following statement: "The general noise ordinance for the city of Sacramento states that between the times of 10:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. the following day are the times in which officers can enforce the ordinance." I'm a hobbyist musician (a drummer specifically) so I am keenly familiar with our city's code on the subject -- at least I hope so! :-) I have gone to great and expensive lengths to stay in compliance. From what I have learned, it basically comes down to what I refer to as "the objective rules" (http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=8-8_68-ii-8_68_060) and "the subjective rules" (http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=8-8_68-iii-8_68_190), all within the general noise control provisions of our city (http://www.qcode.us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=8-8_68&showAll=1). Do you literally mean that the ordinance indicates officers CANNOT enforce the ordinance between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.? Or do you mean that it is your department's POLICY and/or PRACTICE that you GENERALLY DO NOT enforce the ordinance during those hours? Please elaborate on this and cite whatever code or policy that applies. My interpretation of the above-referenced codes is that one can be out of compliance at any time of day, that our police department CAN but is not obligated to enforce them anytime, and that during the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., the rules are only slightly less strict. Thanks in advance! Keith Sharward 2010-08-17T02:19:44Z Keith Sharward comment-32284 2010-07-07T06:20:54Z 2010-07-07T06:20:54Z I think that would depend on how he opened for questions. Did he say "And now I will take your questions..." or "And now I will take your questions on the Strong Mayor Initiative..."? Often reporters will take advantage of an opening like that to ask questions unrelated to the primary purpose of the press conference. Or maybe after the event, reporters were milling about and caught him to ask him about SMI. Keith Sharward 2010-07-07T06:20:54Z Keith Sharward comment-32057 2010-07-02T22:07:18Z 2010-07-02T22:07:18Z To be fair, Tretheway did lead in two the North Natomas preincts: one is in the "Valley View Acres" area, and the other south of San Juan Road west of I-5 and north of I-80. Earlier vote counts did not reflect this, but the final count did. Ashby led in four South Natomas precincts. It had been five but the Fire Station 15 precinct count ended as a tie. Downtown went to Ashby and the Richards Blvd. corridor went to Tretheway. Keith Sharward 2010-07-02T22:07:18Z Keith Sharward comment-31998 2010-07-02T02:32:25Z 2010-07-02T02:32:25Z Yes, I agree. Kathleen, thanks for covering these updates so thoroughly and consistently -- Sacramento Press has, in my opinion, covered the city council races better than all other news outlets. It would be cool if you could research when the last time a challenger beat an incumbent seeking reelection outright in the primary. I heard it's been at least 30 years. That is, I believe, the most significant part of the story, and it did get kind of buried under the "just barely" bit. :-) Maybe a follow-up interview with Angelique on how she and her team pulled it off would be of interest to folks...? Keith Sharward 2010-07-02T02:32:25Z Keith Sharward comment-31983 2010-07-01T21:00:47Z 2010-07-01T21:00:47Z It is not possible (not permitted in the city's charter) for a write-in candidate to qualify in a run-off election. A candidate must receive more than 50% of the vote to win. If a candidate achieves that in the primary (was was the case in Districts One and Three), there is no need for a run-off. However, if that does not happen, then the top two candidates race off in a run-off the following November. Keith Sharward 2010-07-01T21:00:47Z Keith Sharward comment-31982 2010-07-01T20:56:42Z 2010-07-01T20:56:42Z I believe the "just barely" refers to the fact that Angelique won "outright" in the primary without requiring a run-off in November -- and in that sense, the statement is technically accurate because the difference between the 50%+1 she needed and 51% she got is 144 votes. But it is also true that a nine-plus percent margin over an extremely well-financed incumbent and winning outright in the primary is a remarkable achievement -- one that this city has not seen in DECADES. Make no mistake about it: the win in District One is significant in a NOT "just barely" way. Keith Sharward 2010-07-01T20:56:42Z Keith Sharward comment-31478 2010-06-25T20:32:15Z 2010-06-25T20:32:15Z You'll have to ask her that, but I suggest you reveal your identity to her when doing so out of courtesy and respect. I have a feeling I know but it would be unfair for me to articulate her view on that subject without knowing for sure. I am a supporter but not a spokesperson. Keith Sharward 2010-06-25T20:32:15Z Keith Sharward comment-31272 2010-06-24T21:24:59Z 2010-06-24T21:24:59Z Sacramento Press is indeed a gift and a privilege of a place to participate. Having this affirmative assurance that abuse will not be tolerated only elevates my respect and appreciation for this place. Thank you Sacramento Press. And thank you to all, past and present, who engage in respectful dialogue, even if it differs in opinion as my own, and especially so, for I learn far more from the challenger than from the follower. Keith Sharward 2010-06-24T21:24:59Z Keith Sharward comment-30871 2010-06-22T11:04:48Z 2010-06-22T11:04:48Z Perhaps you failed to notice, "thinker," that Angelique patiently waited on the sidelines for Tretheway to concede before announcing to her supporters that she had won outright. That's not arrogant -- that's common courtesy. And as far as any "Tea Party" effort to recall the council is concerned, I seriously doubt that effort would target Angelique who just made history in unseating an incumbent and won't begin her term until late November. I don't know the "we" to whom you are referring is, but I can't imagine it's much of a following. Even the vast majority of those who didn't vote for Angelique would hardly support recalling her, especially considering that she hasn't served a single day of her term yet. Recall campaigns are expensive and devisive and threats of them shouldn't be made lightly by folks who prefer not to look like fools -- unless the latter doesn't bother you...? Keith Sharward 2010-06-22T11:04:48Z Keith Sharward comment-30760 2010-06-19T13:58:27Z 2010-06-19T13:58:27Z Speaking for myself: I never called Ray "evil" and never criticized the MAN. I have, however, criticized his actions, and mostly his inactions. I am a former Tretheway supporter. I had a Tretheway sign in my yard nine years ago. I had high hopes for him. He let me down. He might have lost his reelection bid in 2006 if anyone had bothered to run against him. What I am saying, and what I think others are saying, is that Ray conceded with class and I appreciate that. I am giving the man credit for doing right on that. I have never criticized him for not conceding earlier either. The odds were very much against Angelique losing her 50%+1 lead, but he still had a prayer of a chance at a run-off opportunity. That slim chance pretty much disappeared on Thursday with the latest vote count update, and I believe he did the honorable thing in conceding in the way that he did. Angelique does not fear scrutiny, she expects it, and she has stated she wants to do District One proud. I believe Ray is sincere in his statement that he wishes her and District One the best and I appreciate that he has committed to working with her to ensure a smooth transition. There is no contradiction. I give credit where it is due and I criticize where I see fit, often when the object is the same. That IS the epitome of truth. Keith Sharward 2010-06-19T13:58:27Z Keith Sharward comment-30748 2010-06-19T05:55:42Z 2010-06-19T05:55:42Z bbbbmer has consistently shown blatant disregard for the rules of engagement here and I would like to see him banned. I don't have a problem with a dissenting opinion, and in fact I welcome them, as I tend to learn more from people with whom I disagree -- but his chronic abuse in the form of personal attacks discourages folks from participating in the discussions and I am amazed he hasn't been banned already. Prohibiting certain words isn't the answer -- prohibiting certain behavior is. This site already prohibits personal attacks -- what it needs to do is prohibit personal attackers. Keith Sharward 2010-06-19T05:55:42Z Keith Sharward comment-30736 2010-06-18T22:59:39Z 2010-06-18T22:59:39Z Indeed -- I have a lot of respect for Tretheway for saying that. He also had some nice things to say in public about Angelique on the day before his concession statement -- kind of an "unofficial" concession, also delivered with class. Keith Sharward 2010-06-18T22:59:39Z Keith Sharward comment-30735 2010-06-18T22:54:43Z 2010-06-18T22:54:43Z Thank you Casey & the rest of Sacramento Press leaders who I believe do care about keeping the conversations conducive. I do hope you move forward in banning individuals who blatantly and repeatedly violate your terms of service and community standards. Keith Sharward 2010-06-18T22:54:43Z Keith Sharward comment-30694 2010-06-18T16:09:14Z 2010-06-18T16:09:14Z Here is her response: http://www.angeliqueashby.com/tretheway-concedes Keith Sharward 2010-06-18T16:09:14Z Keith Sharward comment-30358 2010-06-15T18:01:37Z 2010-06-15T18:01:37Z Indeed. The number of chances bbbbmer is afforded to straighten up his act is nothing short of a farce. He needs to be banned from this site -- not for his views, but for the outrageously disrespectful and abusive manner in which he consistently expresses them. He deserves no further opportunities. Sacramento Press will be better for it. Keith Sharward 2010-06-15T18:01:37Z Keith Sharward comment-30356 2010-06-15T17:51:50Z 2010-06-15T17:51:50Z "...to help us kick SMUD back into a reliable source of electricity." How is SMUD not a "reliable" source of electricity? Keith Sharward 2010-06-15T17:51:50Z Keith Sharward comment-30285 2010-06-15T00:28:37Z 2010-06-15T00:28:37Z Great article, Mark. Just one point I'd like to make in defense of some (but not all) retail/restaurant/theater managers -- sometimes it's hard to maintain a good temperature when crowds and door openings are not consistent. Anyone who has been in a meeting room or classroom or anywhere there are a large number of exhaling bodies can attest to how it can get "stuffy" really fast, and it sometimes takes a while for the A/C to catch up when that happens. I am with Dr. Bill Wattenberg and Bob Brinker, two longtime respected radio hosts, who advocate more clean-burning nuclear power plants and more low-emissions natural gas vehicles. http://bit.ly/dg5Ulq Keith Sharward 2010-06-15T00:28:37Z Keith Sharward comment-29879 2010-06-10T19:34:15Z 2010-06-10T19:34:15Z I think the ~86,000 figure is countywide and not specific to city council races. The "82 votes behind" statistic is apparently correct, but the "Tretheway needs 83 votes to push a runoff" statistic is technically not correct. Technically, "Tretheway needed to have had 83 votes more than he got at this point for Ashby to have 50% or less." That's because there are uncounted Ashby votes as well. Nobody at this point is apparently willing to declare outright victory or admit defeat. "The show's not over 'til it's over," as I believe Yogi Berra quipped. However, statistically speaking, I'm sure Tretheway and his campaign are praying for a miracle, as odds are clearly favoring Ashby prevailing with the "50%+1" threshold needed to be victorious in avoiding a Fall runoff and will be our next city councilperson starting in late November in accordance with city charter. Keith Sharward 2010-06-10T19:34:15Z Keith Sharward comment-27725 2010-05-22T15:00:51Z 2010-05-22T15:00:51Z I think this whole episode comes down to this: Tretheway held a news conference to proclaim he is honorable and a man of his convictions duly representing the best interests of the City of Sacramento, and that he was threatened by six prominent developers and businessmeen with not receiving the mayor's endorsement and support in his re-election campaign if he did not vote to put a more modest form of the strong mayor initiative on the ballot. He then changed his story, saying it was actually only one man who made the threat. And the man who allegedly made the threat adamantly denies that it happened. Whether you believe Tretheway's version of the story or his key claims of honor are up to you -- but what is clear and what Tretheway himself admits to is that the whole premise of the press conference is invalid. To call a press conferences to announce serious allegations against six people, only to recant the story and scope it down to one, strikes me as an abuse of the trust he has (or had?) with our press. It was a desperate political stunt done within 20 days of Election Day. The man is desperate, confused, inarticulate, and lacks credibility, as evidenced by the circus act he performed. Whether the strong mayor "lite" initiative is worthy of the November ballot is a worthwhile debate and I'm looking forward to participating in the forums and reading the language that comes out of that process. But the people of Sacramento, and District One in particular, will not forget this episode and how what was engineered to make Tretheway appear honorable has actually disgraced him. I'm sure he won no votes this week -- if anything, it put a spotlight on the mayor's endorsement of his rival and showed him to be a liar or very confused, neither of which are fitting traits for an elected member of our city council. Keith Sharward 2010-05-22T15:00:51Z Keith Sharward comment-27671 2010-05-22T02:54:49Z 2010-05-22T02:54:49Z You're welcome, Rhonda. And not to beat a dead horse, but I made a statement and I cited an example via a link that quotes him word for word in a false statement and the evidence to back it up. But I respect the fact that you're not convinced. I too appreciate your respectful tone and look forward to agreeing with or not agreeing with you in the future. Keith Sharward 2010-05-22T02:54:49Z Keith Sharward comment-27595 2010-05-21T21:20:05Z 2010-05-21T21:20:05Z [bbbbmer's insulting comment has been removed.] I thought strychnine's question was a good one and I think it reflects the opinions of many others. Your answer, bbbbmer, is in the form of a good analogy that I can actually appreciate -- but you put it in such an INSULTING context. You need not call people "dumb" and "stupid" and acuse them of being unemployed (of which there are many good people who fit that description these days). Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T21:20:05Z Keith Sharward comment-27601 2010-05-21T17:57:54Z 2010-05-21T17:57:54Z Jim Knapp IS his real name and I respect him for using it. I don't always agree with him (and, for the record, I often disagree with him), but on this Web site especially I have appreciated his contributions. I often learn things from people with whom I sometimes disagree and I put him in that realm. Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T17:57:54Z Keith Sharward comment-27592 2010-05-21T17:25:44Z 2010-05-21T17:25:44Z Thanks for taking the time to transcribe the comments from the March 31 candidate forum that was facilitated by the Sacramento County League of Women Voters. For those who missed the District One candidate forum on May 1, also facilitated by the league and featuring questions from The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento News & Review, and Sacramento State University, they can see unedited video of the entire forum at on Angelique's Web site, broken into segments: 1. Opening Statements 2. Arena Proposals 3. Crime in Natomas 4. City Budget 5. K Street Redevelopment 6. Permitgate 7. Closing Statements It's very fast-paced because responses to the questions are limited to 60 seconds each. http://www.angeliqueashby.com/candidate-forum-videos Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T17:25:44Z Keith Sharward comment-27576 2010-05-21T14:39:11Z 2010-05-21T14:39:11Z I think that terrible flaw is specifically NOT included in the current sketch of the initiative being vetted -- we'll have to wait and see. Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T14:39:11Z Keith Sharward comment-27575 2010-05-21T14:34:59Z 2010-05-21T14:34:59Z You keep asking this and I keep answering -- so you know your argument is without merit... But I will repeat the answer for the benefit of others who may not have seen the Q&A. Angelique has been totally consisteent on the whole Strong Mayor initiative issue: - Favors a charter revision as it is woefully out of date; - Was adamantly opposed to the back-room-drafted fatally-flawed version that qualified for the June ballot; - Spoke before council in opposition of the measure as it was originally written - Favored it being on the June ballot, since postponing it would have exposed the city to a lawsuit on account of the lack of legal precedent for delaying it; - Said she would have voted "no" on that measure and would have advised everyone she knew to do the same; - Is UNDECIDED on the new "watered-down" PROPOSAL because at this point it is only a PowerPoint presentation with bullet points, NOT a written measure that can be studied and scrutinized BECAUSE the public input stage is now JUST BEGINNING and will NOT be written until the public has had its opportunity to weigh in. Angelique opposed the original crappy initiative for all the same reasons you did but is open to considering (but NOT committed to supporting) a new version YET TO BE WRITTEN that addresses all of the community's concerns. You and others seem to be willing to impose a one strike rule on the strong mayor concept: the first measure was so bad that it doesn't deserve a better attempt, no matter how sensible it MIGHT be. Angelique is not willng to dismiss something she hasn't even seen yet -- nobody has because it doesn't exist yet. If it makes sense and the community supports it, fine. If not, not fine. Simple enough! Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T14:34:59Z Keith Sharward comment-27574 2010-05-21T14:05:56Z 2010-05-21T14:05:56Z Rhonda, I appreciate your sentiments and will take them to heart. I am many things in this race: a defender of honor when unfair/disrespectful/untrue statements are made about Angelique, a fact checker when the incumbent makes statements that are untrue (which DOES happen all the time) -- but above all, I am human, and sometimes I make mistakes. When I do, and they are brought to my attention respectfully, I try to take corrective action. In this case, I stand by my comments here. I listened to the recordings and it is clear to me that the "clarification" Tretheway made amounts to a backpedal and it was only done because he was held to account for his false statements. I am convinced that if those he openly accused/defamed had challenged him, he would have let his farce of a press conference resonate. As for my tone and support on JoeSacramento.com where you and I participate regularly, I agree that my comments there are supportive of the publisher's satire. I will take your remarks into consideration in my future participation, but I think there there is a difference between commentary on a news Web site versus a blog that has a long history of edgy commentary of its own. I do think it's OK for one to loosen one's tie in that kind of setting. In short, the owner of the house sets the rules, and I follow them. That said, sometimes restraint is in order, and I'll remember your words as I move forward, Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T14:05:56Z Keith Sharward comment-27517 2010-05-21T02:36:06Z 2010-05-21T02:36:06Z I see an awful lot of BUS stop areas (turnouts) on major thoroughfares, like Arena Blvd. and El Centro Road west of Interstate 5, but no buses ever pull into them because WE HAVE NO BUS LINES AT ALL west of I-5 and north I-80. Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T02:36:06Z Keith Sharward comment-27478 2010-05-21T01:20:31Z 2010-05-21T01:20:31Z " ... he wants SMI supporters on the council. or to punish those who don't support SMI. Hard to grasp that?" Thank you for stating that explicitly, naga. I realize you and others have been inferring that claim, but it is difficult counterpoint vague inferences. Now that you have stated that directly, I can respond directly. Angelique will represent the community and will judge each issue on its merits. She will not blindly "worship" the mayor -- but she will work with the mayor and the council, whoever that may be. Angelique Ashby was advocating for Natomas and was being urged to run for the council seat LONG before Johnson was even elected and before the original (now doomed on account of its many fatal flaws) strong mayor initiative ever saw the light of day. To suggest that Angelique is some kind of "Kevin Johnson puppet" who will follow Johnson's orders not only shows a complete lack of knowing her as a person but a complete disregard of the facts. If she truly were "the Johnson plant," she would have stated early on that she supported Strong Mayor. Instead, she spoke to council on the day of the vote that put it on the June ballot, proclaiming how TERRIBLE the initiative was and that she would be voting it down and telling everyone she knew to do the same thing. I guess for some people -- mostly online commenters and bloggers who don't even live in District One and are thus ineligible to vote for or against her -- this is a "single issue" election. But for those of us who live in District One, the vast majority of whom are are fed up with the lack of representation we have had on the council for many many years, the choice is clear and becoming even more clear as Tretheway grasps desperately at whatever he can to hang onto his power. Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T01:20:31Z Keith Sharward comment-27475 2010-05-21T01:09:21Z 2010-05-21T01:09:21Z Tretheway does this all the time -- he says things that are false (some call that "lying") and then appears to be surprised when people call him on his false statements. I witnessed this myself on many occasions and even wrote about it once -- see http://bit.ly/Tretheway_Denies_Impact_of_RTs_Bus_Service_Cuts_on_Natomas_Residents Keith Sharward 2010-05-21T01:09:21Z Keith Sharward comment-27466 2010-05-20T23:29:44Z 2010-05-20T23:29:44Z "how is it "moot"? he wants SMI supporters on the council." It is moot because the council vote to place the initiative on the November ballot happens in July and the winners of the June council election will not have an opportunity to vote on it because they don't enter the council until AFTER the general election in November. If Mayor Johnson truly ONLY cared about the strong mayor initiative getting on the November ballot and nothing else, he would have endorsed all of the incumbents (including Ray) with the hope that he could change their minds before they vote in July. Of course I realize Johnson cares a great deal about this latest version of the initiative -- but the facts show that, if anything, he was willing to take a RISK in endorsing the person who he truly believes is the best candidate and/or the candidate he believes is most likely to win, at the expense of alienating his swing vote on the council. Keith Sharward 2010-05-20T23:29:44Z Keith Sharward comment-27465 2010-05-20T23:06:11Z 2010-05-20T23:06:11Z Angelique Ashby was advocating for Natomas and was being urged to run for the council seat LONG before Johnson was even elected and before the original (now doomed on account of its many fatal flaws) strong mayor initiative ever saw the light of day. To suggest that Angelique is some kind of "Kevin Johnson puppet" who will follow Johnson's orders not only shows a complete lack of knowing her as a person but a complete disregard of the facts. If she truly were "the Johnson plant," she would have stated early on that she supported Strong Mayor. Instead, she spoke to council on the day of the vote and proclaimed how terrible the initiative was and that she would be voting it down and telling everyone she knew to do the same thing. I guess for some people -- mostly online commenters and bloggers who don't even live in District One and are thus ineligible to vote for or against her -- this is a "single issue" election. But for those of us who live in District One, the vast majority of whom are are fed up with the lack of representation we have had on the council for many many years, the choice is clear and becoming even more clear as Tretheway grasps desperately at whatever he can to hang onto his power. Keith Sharward 2010-05-20T23:06:11Z Keith Sharward comment-27463 2010-05-20T22:50:43Z 2010-05-20T22:50:43Z The title now reads "City Hall at War: Tretheway, Johnson’s office accuse each other of lying" so I think they got the message! Keith Sharward 2010-05-20T22:50:43Z Keith Sharward comment-27449 2010-05-20T20:51:29Z 2010-05-20T20:51:29Z Angelique Ashby's Web site is full of useful content and features... www.AngeliqueAshby.com ...whereas Ray Tretheway's Web site is a half-finished site with broken links and test data that has no business being on the Web... It's as though he started developing a Web presence, realized he had no prayer at competing with Angelique in that realm, and then just threw in the towel. You'd think with a six figure campaign account they could build a Web site, huh? But, then again, people who visit Web sites also know how to use Google and searching for "Ray Tretheway" on Google right now is a real embarrassment to Tretheway. Clearly, Ray's strategy is to reach the newest residents in the district -- preferably non-tech-savvy folks -- who have no idea who he is and who don't have any concept of how bad things have gotten or what the promises of Natomas were. Keith Sharward 2010-05-20T20:51:29Z Keith Sharward comment-27347 2010-05-19T22:54:24Z 2010-05-19T22:54:24Z Councilmembers who win in June won't take office until AFTER the November election, so the issue is moot. Funny how that's always left out of the conversation... Keith Sharward 2010-05-19T22:54:24Z Keith Sharward comment-27010 2010-05-14T03:33:52Z 2010-05-14T03:33:52Z I was wondering! Keith Sharward 2010-05-14T03:33:52Z Keith Sharward comment-26737 2010-05-12T02:39:33Z 2010-05-12T02:39:33Z Thanks for helping to maintain order, Ben. :-) This site is a refreshing change of pace from "you-know-where" where it's very uncivil. Keith Sharward 2010-05-12T02:39:33Z Keith Sharward comment-26736 2010-05-12T02:36:51Z 2010-05-12T02:36:51Z BIG thumbs up to you for your follow-up research, Sir!! Keith Sharward 2010-05-12T02:36:51Z Keith Sharward comment-26666 2010-05-11T14:19:03Z 2010-05-11T14:19:03Z Dan Roth (Tretheway's "chief of staff") was not caught on my camera tampering with Angelique's campaign signs, but he conspired with Corin Choppin to do so -- and there are numerous eyewitnesses who saw him tampering with signs too -- signs that were placed LEGALLY as per city code. And thanks Paul for addressing the laughable conspiracy theory -- but I sometimes think: suppose I had donned camouflage and lie in wait after setting the Roth-Choppin bait. What would that prove? It would only prove I had the forethought to predict Choppin's and Roth's despicable and unethical acts. I knew they were not trustworthy men, but I truly was surprised that they would be so STUPID as to do such a thing in BROAD DAYLIGHT with HUNDREDS of potential witnesses. If Tretheway were an honorable man, he would have fired them both. Keith Sharward 2010-05-11T14:19:03Z Keith Sharward comment-26669 2010-05-11T14:12:47Z 2010-05-11T14:12:47Z Brian, that's not true and/or a gross oversimplification of the sensibilities of tens of thousands of people. Light Rail down Truxel in South Natomas will be extremely disruptive to the neighborhood there. Those who oppose it are largely supportive of other alignments -- they just don't want it going down that road on account of the immense amount of damage it will do. The alignment in North Natomas is better because there is already right of way for it along the west side of Truxel Road, but there are legitimate concerns about that alignment as well, especially now in light of the arena debate. But what bothers me and many other Natomas taxpayers is the OUTRAGEOUS COST of light rail expansion. It's SO expensive to build and SO expensive to CHANGE if ever there is a need to do so. However, there IS a modern alternative to light rail called Bus Rapid Transit which can be deployed at a FRACTION of the cost in a FRACTION of the time and a FRACTION of the cost of changing the alignment later if needed. To proclaim Natomas residents are against transportation in general is, I believe, an inaccurate portrayal of how Natomas residents think. Keith Sharward 2010-05-11T14:12:47Z Keith Sharward comment-26667 2010-05-11T13:57:30Z 2010-05-11T13:57:30Z It seems Tretheway's biggest supporters live outside the district he is supposed to be serving: both monetarily and online. The VAST majority of DISTRICT ONE VOTERS I encounter working on this campaign are frustrated/tired of Tretheway or have no idea who he is. Sure, he has his local fans from his community event appearances and his feel-good pet projects, but the most vocal against Ashby are worried that she is some kind of Kevin Johnson puppet, which is a downright laughable notion for those who know Angelique! Keith Sharward 2010-05-11T13:57:30Z Keith Sharward comment-26055 2010-05-01T17:11:11Z 2010-05-01T17:11:11Z Call me naive, but I have never been comfortable with the concept of parking fees as a "revenue stream." I think money paid into parking meters and city-owned parking lots should cover the costs of operating a parking enforcement program and nothing more. The parking restrictions should be implemented on the basis of what is best for the residential and business communities surrounding them, not a creative way to sieze money in excess of costs to offset budget shortcomings of other departments. The same is true of garbage fees or utilities fees -- they should pay for those services but nothing more. I suppose I could extend parking revenue to apply to transportation as a whole, given the obvious connections... But the idea of adding parking meters or raising parking rates for the sake of paying for PARK maintenance or other city services/programs really makes me uncomfortable. Keith Sharward 2010-05-01T17:11:11Z Keith Sharward comment-26054 2010-05-01T16:58:23Z 2010-05-01T16:58:23Z Here's a compilation of the television news coverage this incident caused: http://bit.ly/signgatetv Keith Sharward 2010-05-01T16:58:23Z Keith Sharward comment-25592 2010-04-25T15:59:14Z 2010-04-25T15:59:14Z I appreciate your stance on this issue, Rhonda, and understand that it does come across as unfair and even disingeneous to suggest that the a forum includes all of the candidates whose names will appear on the ballot when in fact two were not invited. That being said, there is the issue of viability and electability. I have watched a number of candidate forums over the years and can definitely relate to the frustration many feel when equal time is given to candidates who have absolutely zero chance of winning because they have no budget whatsoever for getting their message out to the voters. Case in point: A candidate at one forum I attended a few weeks ago actually proclaimed he had no endorsements whatsoever and that his mother was his biggest campaign contributor. Bless his heart for wanting to make a difference in politics, but we don't need to have our time wasted by someone who raised only $100 in campaign contributions throughout all of 2009 and was incapable of answering many of the questions posed to him by the moderator. It was downright painful for those in attendance to endure two minutes of incoherent rambling each time he filabustered on topics not even related to the original question until the moderator was forced to truncate him. I recognize this is a Catch 22 -- perhaps a candidate might get a decent grassroots following and some campaign contributions if their message can only get heard by a few folks. However, with just a few weeks left before Election Day and only days before absentee voter ballots are mailed, I just think it's too late to start a conversation about minor candidates who themselves do not have realistic expectations of prevailing on June 8. By now, candidates must have a flock of supporters and a campaign nest egg capable of funding advertising to reach all of the voters in their districts -- otherwise, it's pointless to be on the ballot in my opinion. Perhaps there is room for larger pool candidate forums earlier in the election season, but I think the forums at this stage of the game should be limited to only the candidates with a prayer of winning in a sort of World Series showdown. I think minor candidates can bring a lot to the table and can certainly shape a discussion at the start of an election cycle, but voters are busy and need to have their time respected as well. Keith Sharward 2010-04-25T15:59:14Z Keith Sharward comment-25591 2010-04-25T15:16:38Z 2010-04-25T15:16:38Z I definitely think a "back to the drawing board" approach is in order, especially in light of the "fiscal emergency" that Regional Transit is facing these days. Light rail is enormously expensive to build and is inflexible once it is built. The one mile "green line" extension downtown is often cited as a success, but it was one of the (if not THE) most expensive miles of train track ever laid. (Does "green" refer to environmentalism, or the outrageous cost?) On the other hand, Bus Rapiid Transit (BRT) is far less expensive to deploy and brings many of the same benefits that light rail would, with the added benefit of flexibility after the fact and faster time frames to operation. Of course, people like the idea of riding a train and it may seem on the surface to be preferable to riding on a "bus." However, Bus Rapid Transit systems are hardly comparable to ordinary buses. Imagine clean, state-of-the-art multi-section buses that have their own preferential rights of way and traffic signalization priority that get you to your destination almost as fast as a train would, but having the system up and running in months instead of years, with minimal construction interference. That's what cities are doing around the world these days. Given the infamous unpopularity surrounding the current chosen light rail alignment option in South Natomas (Truxel Road), the extreme costs associated with a bridge to span the American River, and dire fiscal conditions at Regional Transit, I believe we cannot afford not to give Bus Rapid Transit a serious (re)consideration. We need new realistic vision at Regional Transit, starting with its board of elected officials who are not married to old ideas and old unrealistic pledges. We need creative, progressive, fiscally conservative thinking to get us out of a place where 70 percent of growth has occurred three times faster than it should have with virtually no substantial improvements in transportation infrastructure. Bus Rapid Transit is the mass transit of the future and we need to recognize and embrace the concept before we waste one more dollar on or one more day waiting for a light rail expansion. Keith Sharward 2010-04-25T15:16:38Z Keith Sharward comment-25242 2010-04-21T00:14:50Z 2010-04-21T00:14:50Z "I'm not up for reelection this year," he said. "So you will have the truth tonight." Granted, I wasn't in the room when he said that, so I hope it was with tongue planted firmly in cheek and that it got a good laugh. But I must say, we really should have higher expectations of our elected officials. That line is a grim reminder that it has come to be expected and even tolerated that their promises to constituents are to be broken and not taken seriously. I don't think that's OK -- in fact, it's very NOT OK in my eyes. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was only a joke, and if so, I don't find find it especially funny. Keith Sharward 2010-04-21T00:14:50Z Keith Sharward comment-25241 2010-04-21T00:04:41Z 2010-04-21T00:04:41Z Well done, Kathleen. I contributed an article a few weeks ago that went into detail on how RT's service cuts affect Natomas in particular and how our city councilperson misrepresented those impacts: http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/24115 Keith Sharward 2010-04-21T00:04:41Z Keith Sharward comment-24887 2010-04-15T22:40:52Z 2010-04-15T22:40:52Z I wrote this piece on my own over my lunch hour the other day. It is not a "Maviglio hit job" -- whatever the heck that means. They are my words and I am using my real name on them. Perhaps you'lll consider doing the same someday... Keith Sharward 2010-04-15T22:40:52Z Keith Sharward comment-24736 2010-04-14T17:46:47Z 2010-04-14T17:46:47Z Great work, Kathleen -- and my hat's off to Gus Vina as well for entertaining and responding to the questions. In my experience, this is not at all out of character for Gus -- he is one of the most (if not THE most) accessible and top management folks at our city. I do not always agree with Gus, but I always walk away from my conversations with him feeling like my positions are acknowledged and understood while at the same time I become more educated and enlightened in the process. I wish Gus the best of success in saving our city from a terrible situation. He understands that job one is stopping the bleeding and job two is starting the healing. I look forward to when we can finally get to job three: thriving. Keith Sharward 2010-04-14T17:46:47Z Keith Sharward comment-24727 2010-04-14T15:32:53Z 2010-04-14T15:32:53Z Wow, great detective work, and nicely written account. Keith Sharward 2010-04-14T15:32:53Z Keith Sharward comment-24619 2010-04-13T15:26:04Z 2010-04-13T15:26:04Z Ron Dwyer-Voss is a contributor to Tretheway's campaign and was on the board at Natomas Unified School District -- well within the Capitol Campaigns circle of status quo politicians. (Capitol Campaigns is running Tretheway's campaign and is who employs sign-puller Corin Choppin.) Dan Roth LIED about the complaint being sent to the City Operator (3-1-1 center) and he also LIED about not touching the signs himself -- there are NUMEROUS eyewitnesses who saw him tampering with signs that were LEGALLY placed as per City of Sacramento Code Section 15.148.600(K), which explicitly allows campaign signs in planting strips adjacent to sidewalks up to 90 days prior to election day. Dan Roth should have referred Voss to Code Enforcement and should have kept his hands off the signs. Dan Roth should have discouraged Corin Choppin from tampering with the signs and distanced himself from such blatantly unethical activity -- instead, he is caught standing proudly next to Choppin as they waited for the pedestrian signal to cross the street so they could do more sign tampering, together, as a TEAM. I believe the only thing these guys regret is BEING CAUGHT ON MY CAMERA and being exposed for their inexcusable unethical acts. The only thing they are truly sorry for is that this incident has gained national attention (the Associated Press picked this up and it has appeared in newspapers nationwide) and that their reputations are deservedly tarnished. Their rationalized excuses to reporters lack credibility and do not stand up to the least bit of scrutiny. I do not believe their apologies are sincere. They are a disgrace to democracy and a disgrace to District One. Dan Roth's and Corin Choppin's actions in this incident and their dishonest rationalizations in its aftermath paint a clear picture of their shameless ethical standards. City Hall deserves better. We all do. Keith Sharward 2010-04-13T15:26:04Z Keith Sharward comment-24505 2010-04-10T00:50:33Z 2010-04-10T00:50:33Z FAR too young to lose such an asset to the community. May he rest in peace and may his accomplishments live on to inspire all of us to do more. Keith Sharward 2010-04-10T00:50:33Z Keith Sharward comment-24405 2010-04-08T06:20:39Z 2010-04-08T06:20:39Z I will try to get something up, but I can't guarantee it. Transcribing answers to just one question was a painful exercise and that was only about 5% of the program. Uploading the video in YouTube-friendly segments will be time consuming with the cheap gear I have... But I will try to get something up, even if only pieces. Thanks for your interest. Keith Sharward 2010-04-08T06:20:39Z Keith Sharward comment-21064 2010-04-06T17:04:10Z 2010-04-06T17:04:10Z I have ridden rail transit systems in several cities in the U.S., including RT. RT's difference is that it is an "open" system, meaning there are no turnstiles or any sort of physical barrier to simply walking onto the trains. If RT were to convert to a "closed" system, with turnstiles that require a valid ticket/pass to go through, I think it would be safer and it would generate more revenue since cheaters would have to be more bold by jumping the turnstiles (modern technology would make that more difficult to get away with). Washington DC's Metro system was clean as a whistle and had none of the riff-raff that our transit system either implicitly tolerates or is ill-equipped to handle. Maybe if we stopped expanding light rail and employed Bus Rapid Transit instead (see http://www.nbrti.org), we could apply the millions saved towards increasing security presence, "closing" the system (meaning securing boarding locations with turnstiles and security measures), and enhancing the feeder bus lines (e.g., there is NO RT bus service in North Natomas west of I-5 at all, that needs to change). Maybe if we got serious about security and service, more people will ride it, which increases revenues to the system, which enhances services, ad infitium. Keith Sharward 2010-04-06T17:04:10Z Keith Sharward comment-23811 2010-03-25T15:22:08Z 2010-03-25T15:22:08Z Those with questions about Angelique's relationship with and support of our mayor can ask her directly. It is a fair question and one that deserves to be asked. The article does touch on this topic -- the question was asked and answered, albeit briefly. Is she a Kevin Johnson "plant" who will robotically vote his wishes? No. Will she vote on matters according to the totality of her experience, constituent input, research, facts, and what she believes is best for District One and the City of Sacramento as a whole? Yes. Does our mayor support or endorse Angelique? You would need to ask him that. I know that he respects her and he appreciates the competition in the District One race. He wishes she had endorsed him when he was running for mayor, but she did not do so. She states in public all the time that she voted for Fargo in the primary and Johnson in the general/runoff, but she did not endorse him. She has stated on numerous occasions that she had studied the strong mayor initiative in depth and had decided to vote against it on account of its many flaws. Does she think a charter review and revision is in order? Yes, she has stated so on many occasions -- but she does not support the specific initiative that would have appeared on the June ballot if a judge had not blocked it. If you are a "single issue" voter and your issue is "not having a Kevin Johnson puppet in District One council seat," then Angelique is your choice. That does not mean she will never support something the mayor does. She was quoted in the article that she will work with the mayor and council, whoever they are. She is not an obstructionist, but she is not afraid of confrontation when it is inevitable. She prefers to collaborate and solve problems but she has the courage to stand her ground -- stand OUR ground -- when the situation calls for it. Keith Sharward 2010-03-25T15:22:08Z Keith Sharward comment-23743 2010-03-24T12:31:21Z 2010-03-24T12:31:21Z I feel your frustration, Rhonda, about the tendency for some candidates to focus on failures of their opponents rather than citing their own successes. The problem is, Tretheway and his campaign staff are dishonest about his accomplishments and even dishonest about his positions. For example, he was present for a press conference by the Natomas Chamber of Commerce and appeared at a podium under the "Keep The Arena in Natomas" banner, yet he voted to advance the railyard arena land-swap deal, a complete 180-degree turn. He also takes credit for good things that happen during his tenure, like our fire station breaking ground next month, even though the only part he played in the process was that of an opponent. Truth is, Angelique and other passionate community leaders are responsible for getting that station finally funded and built. It's unfortunate, but that leaves the unpopular job of straight-setting Tretheway's dismal record up to the community, sometimes Angelique herself. The more Tretheway lies, the more must call foul. Fortunately, the vast majority of District One voters we are reaching are hip to that reality. Keith Sharward 2010-03-24T12:31:21Z Keith Sharward comment-23742 2010-03-24T12:05:49Z 2010-03-24T12:05:49Z Yet another personal attack from the anonymous "bbbbmer" character that is completely devoid of substance. What a coward. Keith Sharward 2010-03-24T12:05:49Z Keith Sharward comment-23614 2010-03-21T16:07:18Z 2010-03-21T16:07:18Z Rhonda, you wrote: ". . . I received an email from someon Gutierrez campaign regarding Treatheway not appearing to the GNNA homeowners meeting a did not approve of what I read. I don't approve of what Ashby has said also regarding Treathe attending." Is that in response to this excerpt that Angelique wrote? "Last week I attended a Gardenland Northgate Neighborhood Association meeting where they told the candidates about specific concerns in their community (gang violence, graffiti, clean parks, access to a medical clinic, etc.). The incumbent did not even attend." Is your issue with the word "even"? Remember, our understanding is that he confirmed he would be there, but then he did not show up. I think it might have something to do with the fact that Tretheway performed very poorly and Angelique performed brilliantly at a councilmember candidate debate held at Heritage Park last month... That's not just my opinion -- ask any of the residents who attended at night and I'm confident they would concur. Honestly, I thought Angelique's statement ("The incumbent did not even attend.") put it MILDLY. Keith Sharward 2010-03-21T16:07:18Z Keith Sharward comment-23613 2010-03-21T15:27:50Z 2010-03-21T15:27:50Z Rhys02, as someone with fiscally conservative values, I agree that govermnent employee pension liabilities, especially those associated with law enforcement and fire, are indeed putting an unsustainable strain on our state and local govermnents and that taxpayers are at great risk if/when the dam breaks (figuratively). But this story isn't about that, and to use a single issue, such as associating the police officer and firefighter union endorsements as the sole reason NOT to vote for someone, is missing the greater picture. You suggest that the reason the public safety associations' decisions to endorse Angelique Ashby is due to an assumption that a quid pro quo pact between them that trades the endorsements for fighting to ensure their retirement plans never change that is completely false and without any basis whatsoever. I'm not suggesting that never happens with any candidate (particularly incumbents), but I am saying that has not happened in this case. The reasons they endorsed Angelique are many and based on the successes that can be demonstrated under her leadership -- the incumbent and other challengers, past and present, have nothing to cite on those fronts except cheap lip service and in fact have bones in their closets that show how their actions or inactions have made District One a LESS safe place for the people who choose to live here. By your logic, Angelique should have rejected the highly valued public safety endorsements, in spite of her many impressive accomplishments on public safety issues. Sorry, that makes no sense. Rather than ignorant speculation about what those endorsements mean and suggesting they are the be-all/end-all negative decision factor in this election, I suggest you check out Angelique's Web site (http://www.AngeliqueAshby.com) to see what she has written on these and many other subjects relevant to District One voters, and if you are unclear on any position, you should have the intellectual integrity to send her an email and ask your question. Keith Sharward 2010-03-21T15:27:50Z Keith Sharward comment-23494 2010-03-18T15:50:38Z 2010-03-18T15:50:38Z Rhonda, when you do meet Angelique in person (and I'm sure you will one of these days), where you can have some quality conversation, you'll be convinced she really IS all about the community and not about herself. I know you want to be fair so I hope you will keep an open mind and form your opinion on the totality of the information and experience. Angelique's "I will listen to whoever has something to say" response is genuine. I have seen it first hand and I have experienced it myself. I was one of those with something to say and it felt like nobody was listening, except others like me trying to be heard, and it was extremely frustrating. She actually helped to transform me from being an agitator fueled by anger to an advocate fueled by passion and input from those around me. She actually inspired me to be a better listener as a leader in my own leadership positions here in the community (I'm a neighborhood association co-founder and a member of the crime and safety team she co-created). I hope that helps to put that remark in perspective. As for your comment about being "selective in her appearances," I can tell you that her appointment calendar is beyond crazy these days, figuring raising a family, running a business (involving frequent travel), and running the campaign. But she's out there and you'll catch her eventually. Oh, one last thing: I heard the incumbent confirmed his attendance at last week's GNNA candidate forum, but then no-showed, citing a fundraiser conflict. Go look at the schedule for that fundraiser -- he could have made an appearance at both events. It's clear to me and many others that he blew off GNNA. Whether out of arrogance or concern for competing with Angelique is open to speculation. Keith Sharward 2010-03-18T15:50:38Z Keith Sharward comment-23345 2010-03-16T14:13:41Z 2010-03-16T14:13:41Z The reason this comment cites no evidence to support the claims is because there is no evidence to support the claims, so he fills the void with sexist and insulting remarks. Having the support of the police officers is something that she earned honestly with her impressive track record of partnering with our police department on a variety of initiatives. Keith Sharward 2010-03-16T14:13:41Z Keith Sharward comment-23344 2010-03-16T13:58:00Z 2010-03-16T13:58:00Z Ashby has my support and I think we all are very fortunate that she is running. She truly has the community behind her, proven by her mile-long listing of personal endorsements from leaders in the community (see http://www.AngeliqueAshby.com/endorsements). The vast majority of Ashby's campaign contributions in 2009 have come from community members and partners within the district, while the incumbent's came primarily from special interests based outside the district (often outside city limits), and the other challenger raised only $100 and cannot gain any traction on his divisive platform. She is a collaborator, not an agitator. She approaches problem-solving with an open mind and intent to build upon strengths. The mistakes and broken promises in District One and the City of Sacramento as a whole didn't happen overnight and won't be solved overnight, but having an energetic, intelligent, articulate, and collaborative representative as our representative on the council going forward is a must, and Angelique Ashby exemplifies those traits. Keith Sharward 2010-03-16T13:58:00Z Keith Sharward comment-21605 2010-02-01T23:33:48Z 2010-02-01T23:33:48Z I attended the open house and I was impressed. I spent a lot of time talking with the probation department employees, asking how the changes affect their safety (all positive). I also spent the most time talking with their food services manager -- he had pictures of meals he and his team made over the past several weeks, including their nutritional analysis. I walked away with the impression that he is very good at what he does and is very quality and cost conscious. I also had some quality time with the school principal. We talked about the challenges and the success stories his school has had over the years. Showers and toilets are individual stalls but they have doors and walls that are lower and smaller. They afford the inmates a respectable amount of privacy while giving staff enough visibility to ensure nothing nefarious is going on. The only thing we didn't see were the inmates themselves. That was, of course, by design. I appreciated the opportunity to have a good long look inside the facility. Keith Sharward 2010-02-01T23:33:48Z Keith Sharward comment-17404 2009-11-06T19:06:25Z 2009-11-06T19:06:25Z Nicely done, Kathleen. Thanks to you and Sacramento Press for the service. There is also information available regarding campaign contribution limits for all the candidates: Home > Office of the City Clerk > Election Information > Campaign Finance & Regulations http://www.cityofsacramento.org/clerk/campaign-information/finance-and-regulations/ (This is the parent page to the "Online Campaign Statement System" entry page that Kathleen points to.) ". . . Generally, a contributor other than a large political committee may not give more than $1,500 to a candidate for a City Council position for a primary, general or special election, while a large political committee may not give more than $5,000 to a candidate for City Council for a primary, general or special election. . ." Keith Sharward 2009-11-06T19:06:25Z