Claycord – Talk About Local Politics

June 22, 2018 19:00 pm · 15 comments

voted1

This special post is “Talk About LOCAL Politics”.

Please use this post to talk about LOCAL politics, and keep state and national politics out of this thread.

Thank you, and be kind to each other.

Please Note: Users who use multiple names will be deleted. Please choose a name so others can easily chat with you. Users must provide a name in the ‘name field’, please do not use the ‘@’ symbol in the name field.

Concord Mike June 23, 2018 at 7:41 AM

Here is the news article about the leaked draft Navy memo which is creating so much angst:

http://time.com/5319334/navy-detainment-centers-zerol-tolerance-immigration-family-separation-policy/

The city of Concord, our council members, and Mark DeSaulnier would be wise to restrain their responses until more is known. Telling the puplic to call the Navy and vent at them could seriously backfire. We need a cooperative relationship with the Navy if we want CNWS developed in our lifetime.

PandoraHD June 23, 2018 at 9:17 AM

Proof AGAIN liberal Democrats are coveting illegals while ignoring the homelessness of our own citizens.

PandoraHD June 23, 2018 at 9:14 AM

U.S. Navy is reviewing plans to potentially build large-scale detention centers for undocumented immigrants in various parts of the country, including Concord.

Proof yet AGAIN, Democrats covet their illegals and are opposed to helping our crisis of homeless citizens.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Report-Huge-tent-city-to-detain-immigrants-13018523.php

Nature Lover June 23, 2018 at 9:48 AM

Delaying the buildout of the CNWS is fine with me.

Hope Johnson June 23, 2018 at 10:49 AM

The Navy plans to sell it eventually so best for it to be sold to Concord. The Navy could sell it to a private developer, and then Concord would have very little control over planning what is built there. Or, as we see now, the Navy could use it to build detention centers or even a prison. Considering the most powerful union in the State of California is the prison guard union, we could end up with Trump’s detention center becoming a private prison if the Navy refuses to sell to Concord.

Buster June 23, 2018 at 2:35 PM

Let me see if I have this right. Trump will be providing room and board for all that come here illegally while they are being processed? This can only help with our housing shortage at no cost to Concord. We just have to make sure they use local union labor.

Concord Mike June 23, 2018 at 8:04 PM

I believe Hope is right. The Navy hasn’t signed off completely and could change course. So why did the City of Concord send out a public communication wagging fingers at the Navy and giving out the BRAC public relations officer, Bill Franklin’s direct phone number? Poor guy.

I think the city communication was premature and inappropriate. The city manager or mayor should call Bill Franklin on Monday and apologize.

KAD June 24, 2018 at 1:22 PM

I agree that the City should not be giving out the BRAC’s direct phone number. They needed to wait until they can talk to the Navy.

Forsythe June 25, 2018 at 6:47 AM

Is Mark DeSaulnier getting his marching orders from Nancy Pelosi?
Recommended reading: two books by Victor Davis Hanson

Mexifornia: A State of Becoming
https://www.amazon.com/Mexifornia-Becoming-Victor-Davis-Hanson/dp/1594032173/ref=dp_ob_title_bk

Corporations, contractors, and agribusiness demand cheap labor from Mexico, without regard for the social consequences.

Progressive academics, journalists, bureaucrats, and La Raza, see a vast new political class. And a means to pitch the notion that victimhood, not citizenship, is the key to advancement.

/ AND /

The Decline and Fall of California: From Decadence to Destruction
https://www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-California-Destruction-Collection-ebook/dp/B018Q83YNM/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1529933149&sr=1-4&keywords=hanson+victor+davis

Out-of-touch liberal leadership has made life worse for both the poor and the shrinking middle class. For all their talk about the people, the environment, and the proverbial “little guy,” few in government craft policies to help most Californians.

On matters of illegal immigration, water policy, and culture, elites rarely face the logical consequences of their own ideology.

And then there’s transportation. The liberals have wrecked BART, while refusing to add new parking lots. They have added toll roads on Hwy 680. The Hwy 680 toll roads are causing more car accidents. But you can pay around $8.00 to drive a few miles. Coming soon: toll roads on Hwy 80 and 880.

Hope Johnson June 26, 2018 at 1:10 PM

Concord City Council will vote tonight on sending a response to my cease and desist letter for Brown Act violations at its meeting on June 5. Here is a link to the item:
http://www.cityofconcord.org/pdf/citygov/agendas/council/2018/0626/6C.pdf

Posting my response to the item for anyone interested:

Dear Concord City Council & City Attorney:
This email is a response to the supporting documents for Item No. 6c (inadvertent Brown Act violations) on tonight’s Council meeting agenda.

Council’s proposed response to the cease and desist letter for violations of the Brown Act on June 5, 2018, agrees to not repeat these violations. Please be reminded this is at least the second time Council received a cease and desist letter for discussions of items not on agenda during this same Reports section of meetings. During the Council meeting on January 26, 2016, Council engaged in a discussion on the merits of an elected mayor without that being an agenda item. This leaves the current promise not to do so again somewhat difficult to believe, especially since it is couched in a lack of taking responsibility for the current actions leading to the violations.

The City Attorney’s memo emphasizes that the discussion referred to was not brief but fails to address the fact the Council held substantive discussion on the merits of an ad hoc committee and the topics a committee would discuss when this was not on the agenda. Let’s be clear: the brevity of the discussion is only a part of the violation. Council substantively discussed a matter not on agenda.

The City Attorney’s memo also states that any member of the public can speak on an item on agenda. While this true, during the subject meeting, Mayor Birsan specifically asked the City Attorney if he needed to call for public comment after the substantive discussion on potential CNWS ad hoc committees (both the PLA initially mentioned and the full CNWS then requested by the Mayor). He was advised he does not. There was no follow-up explanation to members of the public that they could comment on the Reports item, leaving anyone without experience with the Brown Act potentially under the impression Council does not have to allow public comment.

Whether the violations were inadvertent or not, the real question is whether Council knowingly violated the Brown Act. Staff advised Council several times that the discussion they were having on June 5 should wait until the subject was an item on an agenda. In addition, this is at least the second time this issue has come up for improper discussions under the Reports section of the Council so Council knows substantive discussion during this item is not allowed under the law. What’s more, the discussion was initiated by Vice Mayor Obringer who advised voters during her campaign for Council that she trains people in the Brown Act as part of her regular employment. Council appears to have enough experience to know not to discuss items not on agenda.

If Council cannot refrain from “inadvertent” violations of the Brown Act, this may be cause for a creation of a policy that governs the Reports section of meetings. Perhaps requiring Council responses to public comments be completed during the general public comments section, limiting any responses to public comment to one minute, or limiting the Reports section to reports, announcements, and one minute requests for future agenda items.

Hope Johnson June 26, 2018 at 1:31 PM

One more item on tonight’s Concord City Council meeting is the formation of an ad hoc committee that includes two Councilmembers to facilitate discussion of a PLA (project labor agreement) at the CNWS. Ad hoc committees do not meet in public session – the last thing we need at the CNWS. Agree with a PLA but enough with the backroom deals.

Here is the agenda item:
http://www.cityofconcord.org/pdf/citygov/agendas/council/2018/0626/9A.pdf

Posting my opposition sent to Council:
Dear Concord City Council:

I write to oppose the formation of an ad hoc committee to facilitate discussions on a PLA between the CNWS developer and unions (Item 9a on tonight’s Council agenda).

While I do support a PLA, the last thing Concord needs is another committee that meets outside of the public view to discuss negotiations on the CNWS. This is especially true since Council proposes having two Council members sit in this behind-the-scenes committee. We don’t need two very political entities – Lennar and the building and trades unions – privately negotiating with Council members. Enough with the backroom dealing. The public doesn’t need to wonder how much will be contributed to the campaign coffers of participating Council members.

From what I have observed, developers frequently delay entering into PLA agreements until they have an “ask” in trade for it. We could end up with Lennar asking union members to show up in mass to support some aspect of the Specific Plan that is unpopular with residents in exchange for a PLA on the base. These types of deals are common, and don’t require special help from Council members in closed sessions. The unions are a powerful group and Council already has the ability to reject a DDA with Lennar that doesn’t include a PLA; we don’t need a special Council-sanctioned committee that meets in private for this.

A better option is to require updates on the PLA negotiations from Lennar during open meetings of the Council. Enough Council backroom dealing on the CNWS project.

Hope Johnson June 27, 2018 at 1:32 AM

It seems like the ad hoc committee set up by the Mayor this evening to allow Councilmembers to meet in private with Lennar violates the negotiating agreement. Here is my question to the City Attorney and City Manager:

Dear City Attorney and City Manager:

At tonight’s City Council meeting, the Mayor formed an ad hoc committee to discuss the PLA at the CNWS consisting of only Councilmember McGallian and Vice Mayor Obringer. This was done at the request of Vice Mayor Obringer. How is this not a violation of the Agreement to Negotiate?

The agreement states the City Council and Planning Commission cannot discuss or negotiate with Lennar unless requested to do so by the LRA Executive Director or the City Designated Team. The ad hoc committee formed this evening will discuss the PLA, which is part of the DDA, and was not requested by the either the Executive Director or the Team. It was requested by a member of the City Council.

It also says Council can meet from time to time provided the meetings are set up by the LRA Executive Director. The ad hoc committee formed this evening was set up by the Mayor, not the Executive Director. In fact, the Executive Director did not appear to have a concern over the the PLA negotiations at this time other than mentioning that one union member did not feel he had yet had a satisfying meeting with Lennar. The committee is not intended to meet from time to time but on a regular basis.

The negotiating terms were set up this way to keep the decisions makers, the Council and Planning Commission members, from undue influence and lobbying by the developer. The ad hoc committee set up this evening appears to violate both the spirit and specific wording of the agreement since the committee was requested by Council and set up by the Mayor. It seems an end run around the intent of keeping the decision makers from the internal negotiating process.

Forsythe June 27, 2018 at 6:48 PM

Interesting. Thank you for the post. And now my rant:

This week I discovered that the Contra Costa library system has censored books authored by Trump — by withdrawing all of them from their catalog. OF COURSE, Contra Costa County carries lots of anti-Trump books.

Try searching for yourself at http://ccclib.org

So while you won’t find any books authored by Trump in the Contra Costa Library System, the following Bay Area counties each carry at least a few of his books:

Alameda County — even with Berkeley in their midst.
Marin County — in spite of their population of flakey, affluent trust fund babies.
San Francisco — far more left wing than Contra Costa County.
Santa Clara County — even with Google in their midst.

Question: does anyone care? Does anyone still read, for that matter?

Jojo Potato June 28, 2018 at 3:14 PM

Maybe you don’t realize that the CCLib system is a member of the Link+ system and can access books from other members. Free. A quick search that included Link+ members found lots of books authored by our President. I read and I take advantage of our excellent library system. Why don’t you?

Forsythe June 28, 2018 at 6:39 PM

I tried the Link+system several years ago. It was not very user friendly, but maybe it has improved. So thanks for the tip, I will try it again.

But remember, the Link+system is just a way to share books between counties. Contra Costa County still does not have any books authored by President Trump.

They have basically banned President Trump’s books.

Pure and simple.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: