Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

Former Superintendent writes in support of Barr for Supervisor

By Leave a Comment

Editor:

This letter is to enthusiastically support Steve Barr for county supervisor! As a former superintendent of the Liberty Union High School District, I had the very good fortune to work with Steve when he provided dynamic leadership as a member of the Board of Trustees.

In all regards, I found Steve’s honesty, integrity, intellect, optimism, compassion, and determination to make a positive difference to be truly exceptional qualities.

The LUHSD Governing Board is fortunate to have outstanding, dedicated, and committed members. Steve not only continued that tradition — he significantly enhanced it. His unwavering focus on providing the best academic education and personal growth for ALL students was inspirational.

Fiscal responsibility was another of Steve’s major emphasis. His leadership helped to create policies and procedures that ensured the efficient management of all finances. Accountability and transparency were of the highest priority for Steve.

During times of high stress and high stakes decision-making, Steve was at his best. After seeking and considering input from all stakeholders, he was able to objectively, and thoroughly, analyze all aspects of issues before making an informed decision.

Steve was an incredible advocate for all students. He promoted safe schools in which all students could flourish in an atmosphere of mutual respect and trust. College prep, vocational, special education, and agriculture programs were all strongly promoted by Steve.

I am confident Steve will exhibit these same qualities and provide the same high quality leadership as a member of the County Board of Supervisors.

Dan Smith

Retired Superintendent

Liberty Union High School District

Writer supports Barr for Supervisor for understanding local farm economy, issues

By Leave a Comment

Editor:
As a Brentwood farmer, I have watched Steve Barr work through many East County issues, and his thoroughness and balance has always impressed me. Steve has always had the ability to see the greater picture, and make decisions which will work most effectively for the community at large. Steve’s decisions have helped East County’s quality of life through his long-time support of the establishment of agriculture conservation easements which will help ensure the future of agriculture in the East County.

Steve has also voiced strong support for value-added agricultural enterprises such as wineries, farmers’ markets, fruit stands and u-picks. These enterprises will help the local farm economy develop their own markets and increase sustainability. Steve’s volunteer work as lead organizer of the Brentwood Cornfest helped cement his relationship between the ag community and the urban city.

Steve’s experience as an independent businessman has given him an understanding and perspective of the greater community’s relationship between business, jobs and government. As Contra Costa County Supervisor, Steve Barr will use his experience and his insightfulness to make decisions which will be best for the entire community now and in the long run.

Mark Dwelley

Partner, Dwelley Famly Farms

Brentwood

Fellow councilman says Barr best choice for fiscal responsibility in Supervisor’s race

By Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

Fiscal responsibility are nice buzzwords for most politicians. Unfortunately, few practice what they preach during election season.  Council Member Steve Barr has proven with his voting record at the City of Brentwood that fiscal responsibility is a belief versus a talking point.

Fiscal sustainability is a primary pillar of being fiscally responsible. Without sustainability the public entity can’t allocate the resources to where they’re needed most, such as public safety and maintaining a great quality of life.  As we slowly came out of the recession Steve was instrumental in adjusting the budget to allow us to hire more police officers that can be sustained during challenged times.

To the community’s detriment, most politicians view public finance through the short-term lens of ‘What can I do during my term?’ or ‘How will I achieve my campaign promises?’  Steve has shown his ability to view finance in the only way to sustain a great quality of life in a community, through long term conservative budgeting such as the 10 year fiscal model which he helps direct as part of the finance sub committee on the Brentwood City Council.

I’ve had the opportunity to work with Steve to help position Brentwood to build a new library, hire more police officers and most important to improve the quality of life in Brentwood for our residents.  I have no doubt his proven record will end in similar results for the residents of East Contra Costa County.

Sincerely,

Erick Stonebarger

Council Member

City of Brentwood

Letter writer gives reasons he can’t vote for Jim Frazier this year

By Leave a Comment

Editor:

This year, we are voting to decide the future of our nation and state.  California is headed down the wrong path, with our legislature following under the Liberal direction of Governor Jerry Brown.  California’s 11th Assembly District elected Democrat Jim Frazier in the last several elections.  Frazier’s votes on key bills have devastated our State and our children’s futures.  As a citizen in this district watching Jim Frazier’s vote on bill after bill, I have been deeply troubled and shocked by his actions in the name of our district.  Check out his votes on the following bills and see if you agree with my opinion that he does not represent the values of our district:

*AB 1266:  Jim Frazier voted ‘yes’, in favor of transgender access to whatever bathroom they feel like using that day.  If a boy ‘feels transgender’ that day, ‘he’ is now entitled to shower or change clothes with your daughters in their school gym or locker room.

*AB 1461: Jim Frazier voted ‘yes’ in favor of automatically registering people to vote in their DMV renewal.  The intent of this bill was to deliberately register illegals to vote Democrat, fraudulently subverting CA’s electoral process.

*AB 1732: Jim Frazier voted in favor of ending designated ‘men’s’/’women’s’ bathrooms in California.

*AB 1322: Jim Frazier voted to decriminalize child prostitution, by making it harder to take teen prostitutes out of the web of oppression they face, returning them to the control of their pimps.

*AB 1671: Jim Frazier voted to criminalize undercover journalists, like the ones who revealed the Planned Parenthood ‘profits for baby parts’ ghastly horror brokering scheme.  Message conveyed by Jim Frazier and Jerry Brown: mess with Liberal causes, and they hunt you down and punish you.

*SB 443: Jim Frazier voted against this bill designed to limit asset seizure.  Jim apparently felt you should have to give up your assets to the government, whether you’re found guilty of a crime or not.

*ACA 4: Jim Frazier proposed reducing the % of votes needed to change Proposition 13 from 2/3’s, down to just 55%.  This would allow a Democrat controlled legislature to weaken Prop 13 protections for poor, middle class and elderly, likely resulting in dramatically increased property taxes paid to the State.  Jim Frazier was listed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Assn as one of the biggest threats to Prop 13 in CA History.

*AB 1176 Jim Frazier abstained from voting on this bill, which made theft of a firearm ‘Grand Theft’, punishable as a Felony with State Prison time.

Several of Jim Frazier’s other ‘great ideas’:  Jim recently co-authored a bill to raise the gas tax by .17 cents a gallon for regular gas, and .30 cents a gallon for diesel, with unlimited, annual upward readjustments without voter input.  Jim just bumped up his Chief of Staff’s pay $18,000 to a ‘modest’ $120,000 a year (even more than Jim Frazier makes).

Jim Frazier has refused to debate Republican Challenger Dave Miller.  With a record like Jim’s, is it hard to see why?  What has Jim Frazier done to lower taxes or encourage business/job growth in Solano or Contra Costa Counties?  At every turn, Jim Frazier’s votes show he supports raising taxes, crushing liberty, and expanding Big Government at the expense of transparency and accountability to the taxpayers.  Jim Frazier says ‘People Over Politics’.  His voting record shows just the opposite; he’s all about politics over people.

Dave Miller stands for a much smaller, less intrusive State Government; one where personal liberty and small businesses can thrive and California Dreamin’ can once again become a reality.  Dave’s priority is to bring common sense back to Sacramento, in a way that makes California better for generations to come.

The choice is very clear this year.  Join me in supporting Dave Miller for CA’s 11th Assembly District.

Erik Elness

Brentwood

Miller criticizes Frazier for giving Chief of Staff $18,000 annual raise

By Leave a Comment

Editor:

My State Assembly campaign has discovered another breach of the public’s trust, as it relates to Jim Frazier’s stewardship of the 11th Assembly District. Last month, it was discovered that Mr. Frazier’s Chief of Staff, Jay Day, according to State Assembly publicly compiled State Employee salary records, received a $102,000 per year salary. In 2016, his salary went up to $120,000 per year, surpassing the base salary of his elected supervisor, Mr. Frazier.

Members of Assembly can appropriate Salary dollars any way they see fit, within their staff. Assembly Chief of Staff salary range, anywhere from $68,000 in Bakersfield, to $135,000 for Members of Assembly with leadership positions in the Chamber. A standard cost of living adjustment (COLA) for an employee earning a $102,000 wage would be about 3-4% or in Mr. Day’s case, around $3,500. This $18,000 raise Mr. Day received, that Mr. Frazier approved, is what some people in this district are lucky enough to earn working their fingers to the bone in a year’s time, thanks in large part to regulations placed on small businesses by Democrats.

This salary announcement comes conveniently two weeks after Mr. Frazier proposed the single largest per gallon fuel tax in the history of the Golden State. Mr. Frazier drew the criticism of voters from San Diego to Shasta with his proposed 17 cents per gallon fuel tax increase, which is 30 cents per gallon for diesel and also adds an additional $38 per year DMV Registration Fee. The criticism of his fuel tax has been loudest in AD-11, where voters not only drive literally hundreds of miles a day, to get to work, but also enjoy evening and weekend boating on the various waterways surrounding the San Francisco Bay Estuary.

I can’t answer as to what Jim was thinking when he approved this bump in salary. I can tell you that as your Assemblyman, I will fight to give my per diem back to the State Treasury, as Assemblywoman Baker, has done. I’m told per diems are optional to Members of the Assembly, and as such, I will get on the highways, and come home to my family just like many of you who work in Sacramento do every evening.

As someone who has worked in Government for nearly 30 years, and plans to once again, I will be available to take your call, respond to your emails, invite you to meetings on issues that are important to you, help refer you to the proper government agency to help solve your problems, inform you of my vote in the chamber, using social media almost instantly, hand out my personal cell number to those who ask for it.

Twenty-eight years of government service does that to a person. And I can assure you as I sit here, My Chief of Staff will not make more than I do. As a taxpayer, I’d like to know what I’m getting for my money right now. You should also.

Dave Miller

Candidate for Assembly, 11th District, California

 

Writer likes Davis column about police, hate crime and America’s real enemy

By Leave a Comment

Editor:

I wanted to start off with saying that I believe his (Lou Davis’) article in this past herald about the treatment of Police Officers was great and to the point. My wife and I think it was very well put, no B.S. and with knowledge of the situation. We feel that this article should be offered out to all local Bay Area newspapers so they to can publish it and get it out to thousands more so they can read it as well. I would love to see it on the internet as well.

I hope that this can happen because we feel this should get out to many more readers.

Thank you,

Mike de Luna

Antioch

Letter writer: Sandoval challenging Enholm for college board to make Brentwood Center a reality, instead of campus in Antioch or Oakley

By Leave a Comment

The existing Brentwood Center is costing $68,000 a month and its location is not suitable as it sits in a high density retail establishment.

The new center is planned to be completed and open approximately Sep 2020 to support student needs in a 17 acre environment in the Trilogy/Marsh Creek Road Location.

I support the Governing Board’s decision to go ahead with the center as part of phased plan for enrollment with the first phase planned to support forecasted enrollment with a future phase to increase capacity as enrollment increases.

The initial facilities that are being constructed will provide what is required for the existing student population and is not expected to reach capacity for many years, at which point the 2nd phase of the project will be reviewed for additional construction. This is a smart approach as it ensures that the costs are aligned with the needs of students when it opens and for future students.

Mr. Enholms position’s has resulted in numerous delays. Delaying the construction of the center would not serve the needs of the district or its students and would ultimately result in higher costs with no benefits to the district, its students and its taxpayers.

Delays also impact the jobs of workers who would contribute to its construction.

Mr. Enholm who was an instructor at DeVry and Heald, the two failed for-profit institutions, four years ago ran on the platform opposing the 17-acre campus and advocated for a 110-acre campus.

He voted for the Brentwood Center as part of the Governing Board recommendation and helped in its bond passage, but continues to pursue a bigger campus even though no location is available and a bigger campus is not approved by the Community College Board.

If a bigger campus were to be built it would mean a tax increase for working families. The need for a larger campus is not practical or a wise use of taxpayer dollars. The LMC campus has unused capacity and forecasted enrollment trends shows that an extension Center will meet the needs of future students as enrollment starts to creep up. The trend of on-line classes also continues to grow reducing the need for increased facilities.

There were discussions early on to move from the planned Trilogy and Marsh Creek Road location, however a feasibility study concluded there is no reasonable alternative to the original site, and the governing board voted 4-1 not to move the site, which it had already purchased. BART had urged possibly moving the site to Highway4 and Mokelume Trail, however, the BART Board had made no official decision to pursue property for a future eBART station near the intersection of Highway 4 and the Mokelumne Trail.

We have no secured land for a site near an eBART.

It would take an additional three or four years and cost an additional $750,000 or more in site-selection processing expenses alone. The move would also need to be approved by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors or the district could risk losing lose $1.1 million per year in current revenue. Pursing a new larger campus could result in a 10 year delay at a minimum and impacting the services that are required for students.

The existing construction at planned facility at the 17 Acre center is estimated at this time to be $43.6 Million dollars. The costs to move to a 110 Acre campus would be astronomical in comparison with the taxpayers footing the bill for this increase, with no current basis for its usage based on enrollment needs and trends compared to the approved 17 acre campus.

Mr. Enholm’s delaying tactics in stalling the construction has already cost the district thousands of dollars.  Mr. Enholm continues to advocate for a larger campus for Antioch, Oakley and Brentwood. However, unless those communities are willing to pay an increase in taxes, as the entire District taxpayers would not support it based on past tax increase elections. A key reason Measure E passed was because there was something for every taxpayer.

Mr. Enholm continues to advocate for a campus in Antioch and Oakley and stated in part that the reason he won his first election was that he went before those communities and told them he would help build a larger campus. However, these communities were informed that Mr. Enholm did not have the authority of Board approval for such a statement.

Mr. Enholm’s desire to move the campus may be more in self-interest as these new campuses would be in Ward 5, which he presently represents. The planned Brentwood Center is located outside of his ward.  Self-interest is never a reason to lobby for change that is not beneficial to the larger community, especially our students.

We need fresh eyes, new ideas, and a leader who can bring people together in order to solve problems with practical ideas and future thinking.

Fernando is listening. Fernando has the education, experience, and commitment to bring needed change.

Vote wisely November 8th.

Valerie Romero-Lopez

Resident of Ward 5

Pittsburg

Guest Column: Assembly candidate Grayson addresses flaws in UC System

By Leave a Comment

By Tim Grayson, Councilman, City of Concord

This year, it seems Californians cannot turn on the news without hearing about another scandal at the University of California.

In August it was the shameful resignation of Chancellor Linda Katehi at UC Davis after she spent $175,000 on “consultants” to eliminate bad press and troubling videos of an incident when campus police pepper sprayed student protesters.

Then her counterpart at UC Berkeley, Nicholas Dirks also resigned after it was discovered that he spent $700,000 of taxpayer dollars on a fence around his official residence.

Months ago, state auditors reported that many qualified students from California were denied entry, while University admissions favored out-of-state students because they pay higher tuition.

Enough is enough. Who is standing up for the taxpayers who are paying for the University system year after year?

Californians are sick and tired of hearing about the excess and greed demonstrated by University of California officials. We are tired of hearing stories about our neighbor’s daughter, the honors student and champion athlete who was denied admission to the Berkeley campus.

We are tired of hearing more about the troubling admissions policies that favor out-of-state students who pay top dollar over exceptional California resident students paying in-state tuition. And we are tired of reports of waste and impropriety from University officials. It has to stop.

The University system has changed over the years.

Many of my neighbors and friends recall a time in our state when the University system made California the great land of opportunity it is today. Hard work at one of our best UC institutions provided access to a job at one of the best companies in the world or acceptance into a competitive medical school. Qualified California students were admitted when they demonstrated their ability to compete and this resulted in prosperity for generations of families across the state who benefited from our exceptional institutions.

Today, things have changed. UC leaders have become greedy. From reports of salaries over $400,000 for executives to blatant preferences for out-of-state or foreign students paying higher tuition rates, the focus on making money has to stop.

Our state leadership needs to help the University reset its compass and focus on goals that will continue to serve generations of Californians to come.

The resignations of two UC Chancellors should begin a fresh start, a time when our state refocused our priorities and set forth a higher standard of conduct for University officials.

State leaders need to set strict policies that ensure University officials are held accountable to admissions standards that honor their obligation to California taxpayers.

In the Assembly, I will stand up for legislation to ensure qualified California students have an opportunity to succeed in one of our top institutions and I will work set policies in place to ensure the University is fully accountable to the public so that taxpayer dollars are spent to benefit students, not University administrators.

Grayson has been a Concord resident since 2001 and was elected to serve on the Concord City Council in November 2010. He served as Redevelopment Agency Chair in 2011 and Vice Mayor in 2013. Grayson was Mayor of Concord from 2013 – 2015.

Letter writer supports Frazier transportation bill

By Leave a Comment

Editor:

Thank you to the Herald for its recent coverage of the Frazier-Beall transportation plan, a smart, sensible bill that addresses our state’s transportation issues and provides a fair approach to funding provisions that will fix our roads and strengthen California’s economy. It is inarguable that our transportation infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating under the pressure of population growth that puts more vehicles on the road than the system was designed to manage safely.

The transportation funding plan put forth by Assemblyman Jim Frazier and Sen. Jim Beall offers a practical solution. It calls for an equitable distribution of funding responsibility among multiple sources, including gas and diesel tax increases and an annual fee for zero-emission vehicles. The bill encourages the use of public transit and other transportation alternatives. Frazier and Beall exhibit a commendable vision by balancing modes, understanding their net positive impact on relieving congestion and carbon emissions while off setting their impact on a corresponding net loss of gas tax receipts under the current program.

California’s transportation network serves as the lifeline for our personal mobility as well as an economic engine that makes the state the preferred originating point to move goods throughout the U.S.  We must fund consistent, long-term maintenance and expansion now to keep our lifeline open and ensure a safe, reliable transportation system that we can count on.

Art Hadnett

President, West Division at HNTB Corporation

San Francisco

Letter writer upset about Frazier’s proposed state gas tax increase

By Leave a Comment

Editor:

Assembly Member Jim Frazier wants to add a 17 cent per gallon tax on gas in addition to our already outrageous cost of living. He wants this tax increase to cover transportation costs. This tax would generate $7.4 billion.

Illegal aliens cost California taxpayers more than $25 billion per year. Here is a novel idea, stop supporting these illegals (in some cases they receive far more than U.S. citizens), and many problems would be solved at the same time, by the same action. Most illegals would return to their country of origin or go elsewhere. This would relieve the strain on the state budget, the strain on the water supply, the strain on the judicial system, education, jail systems to name a few.

All of these positives and more could be achieved by actually enforcing current, existing laws. By doing so, we would not need a 17 cent per gallon gas tax increase and would still have more than $17.6 billion left from the $25 billion that illegals cost California taxpayers annually.

In an honest system, we could even receive a tax cut, but I just do not see this happening. By myself, I have supported more families than I have actual family members. I, for one, am growing extremely weary of it.

We are no longer citizens or constituents, only taxpayers or dollar signs.

Steven Payne