• Home
  • About The Herald
  • Local Agencies
  • Daily Email Update
  • Legal Notices
  • Classified Ads

Contra Costa Herald

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

  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Business
  • Community
  • Crime
  • Dining
  • Education
  • Faith
  • Health
  • News
  • Politics & Elections
  • Real Estate

Payton Perspective: How did we allow unelected officials to make decisions affecting millions of Americans?

April 2, 2020 By Publisher 1 Comment

As most Californians and Americans shelter in place, the children are being homeschooled with online learning, high school and sports tournaments and championships have been cancelled, professional sporting events postponed, movie theaters closed and churches holding online services, the question that comes to mind is how did we allow unelected officials to make these decisions that are not only negatively affecting millions of Americans, but limiting our God-given, constitutionally-guaranteed, First and Second Amendment rights of freedom of religion and assembly, and the right to bear arms. Plus, their decisions are creating potentially long-term devastating effects to our economy.

There have been some positive results and responses to our current situation, from the outpouring of generosity and hospitality from Americans both old and young, rich and poor, as well as the quick response by many in the American business sector to retool their manufacturing capabilities to meet the demands of the healthcare industry.

Yet, it’s the county health officers, not the elected members of the county Board of Supervisors who issued the shelter in place orders. It was the state health officer who, a few days later, issued the statewide stay at home order, which our elected governor announced and issued an executive order to support. It wasn’t our elected school board members who closed the schools, but our superintendents who – I was surprised to learn – have that authority and exercised it.

So far, 10 million Americans who have been thrown out of work as a result, have filed for unemployment, because millions of businesses are closed. That means they can’t pay their employees, their rent to their landlords, nor pay their suppliers, who in turn can’t pay their employees or bills.

Now, we have a conflict over which businesses and workers are considered essential, among the county, state and federal governments. Can residential construction continue or not? Are Realtors essential or not? That depends on which county you live in based on the determination of that county’s health officer. Should that be the way it’s decided and who should be deciding it, and affecting two of the major industries in our nation?

The statistics show most people won’t contract the virus, because most of us are generally healthy. Most of those who do won’t need to be hospitalized and the ultimate fact is very few of those who are hospitalized will die from it. Plus, many who have died had other, underlying health challenges.

Add to that the fact there are conflicting projections of how many people will actually be affected by or die from the Wuhan/coronavirus/COVID-19. Also, it’s not affecting each county, state or even each nation, the same.

The bottom line is, too much power has been placed in the hands of those with no accountability to “we the people” and all of them who have made such decisions have a guaranteed, government salary and benefits. So, their decisions of closing businesses and ordering most of us to shelter in place aren’t affecting their ability to earn a living and pay their bills.

This is a democratic republic, a government of law with elected representatives who pass and implement those laws. Once this is over, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later, we the people need our elected representatives to take back control of our county, state and nation, and change who gets to make these decisions in the future. We need our elected officials to make the common sense, balanced decisions, and protect our collective interests, instead of abdicating their rightful leadership roles to non-elected officials.

In our country and with our form of government, non-elected officials are supposed to make recommendations to our elected officials who answer to “we the people”. Then it’s the elected official’s responsibility to make the final decisions. 

Yes, good health is number one. But being able to provide for ourselves and our families, now and for the long-term, is a close and possibly equal second. There must be a balance between protecting the public health with the ability for individuals to meet their own needs and those of their families.

Here’s what we need our elected leaders to do as soon as possible, to get us back to our lives: require those who are vulnerable, over age 70 or with health challenges, to self-isolate and shelter in place, while the rest of us get back to work, while being careful to wash our hands, sneeze and cough into our elbow bends, social distance as much as possible, wear masks, and wipe down surfaces, etc.

Elected officials, it’s time to step up and take back control of the government we elected you to lead.

 

Filed Under: Opinion

OP-ED: COVID-19 mitigation is not vacation

March 29, 2020 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Don Amador

With hospitals and emergency responders running out of masks and other PPE in California and elsewhere, it should come as no surprise that local, state, and federal land managers are expanding the scope of their COVID-19 temporary access restrictions to popular destination recreation sites that – are or have the potential to -attract large crowds of visitors.

For example, California State Parks issued a news release late last night that stated, it is taking additional safety measures to reduce crowds and help prevent the spread of COVID-19 (coronavirus). Many state parks and beaches received record visitation over the weekend which made it impossible for the public to implement appropriate social distancing practices.

LINK TO STATE PARKS ANNOUNCEMENT

https://www.parks.ca.gov/NewsRelease/945

The Nevada BLM issued a temporary closure order for the Sand Mountain Recreation Area near Fallon, Nevada.   As many of you know, the Sand Mountain OHV Area is a popular destination site for families and clubs that enjoy riding dirt-bikes, ATVs, SxSs, and 4WD vehicles.

LINK TO NV BLM CLOSURE OF SAND MOUNTAIN

https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/Emergency%20Closure%20Order.pdf

Based on photos and stories posted on social media, it appears that many motorized and non-motorized recreationists have misinterpreted various “shelter-at-home” orders from state or county government as authorization for them to take a short or long-term vacation – often with large groups – on public lands.

Until we collectively “Flatten the Curve,”   recreationists should honor the stay at home directives and if they do go out for trail activities it should be close to home and/or in dispersed areas sans large crowds where social distancing is practiced. Respecting the seriousness of this issue will hasten its resolution and help expedite the withdrawal of closure orders and the reopening of public lands for both casual use and permitted events.

The professional healthcare workers, law enforcement officials, and park maintenance staff that I know, will be greatly appreciative of us doing our part to address the coronavirus.

Amador has 30 years in the recreation management and advocacy profession. Don is president of Quiet Warrior Racing, a recreation consulting company located in Oakley, CA. Don is also CEO of the Post Wildfire OHV Recovery Alliance, a non-profit group that works with volunteers and land agencies to recover, restore, and reopen recreation facilities damaged by wildfires. Don may be reached via email at: damador@quietwarriorracing.com

Filed Under: Health, Opinion, Recreation

OP-ED: Gov. Newsom’s Executive Order for 40 million Californians to Shelter In Place is not an order, it’s a recommendation

March 21, 2020 By Publisher 6 Comments

By Mark Meuser

Thursday, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20. The Office of the Governor of California’s official Twitter account said that “Governor Gavin Newsom issued a stay at home order to protect the health and well-being of all Californians and to establish consistency across the state in order to slow the spread of COVID19.”

However, a more careful look at the Governor’s Executive Order shows that he actually made no such order. (https://covid19.ca.gov/img/N-33-20.pdf). The Executive Order reads “To preserve the public health and safety, and to ensure the healthcare delivery system is capable of serving all, and prioritizing those at the highest risk and vulnerability, all residents are directed to immediately heed the current State public health directives, which I ordered the Department of Public Health to develop for the current statewide status of COVID-19.”

The word “heed” is the important word in this order. According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the word “heed” means “to give consideration or attention to”. As such, Governor Newsom has not actually ordered the people of California to obey the Public Health Officials but instead ordered “all residents are directed to immediately [give consideration to] the current State public health directives.”

While the Governor of California has broad powers to suspend laws and regulations while the state of California is under a State of Emergency, he does not have the power to abolish citizens constitutional rights. (Gov. Code § 8571).

California Constitution Article 1, Section 1 states “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

California Constitution Article 1, Section 7 reads “A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws …”.

The problem for Governor Newsom is that the Public Health Officials do not have the authority to quarantine someone who has not been infected. This violates Californians’ Constitutional Rights. The California Courts have held that people have a right of liberty from being quarantined unless the public health official has probably cause that they are infected. In Ex parte Arata, the California Court of Appeals ruled that “A mere suspicion, unsupported by facts giving rise to reasonable or probable cause, will not justify depriving a person of his liberty under an order of quarantine.”

Furthermore, in the case of In re Shepard the California Court of Appeals ruled that “Mere suspicion that an individual is afflicted with an isolable disease was not sufficient to give a health officer ‘reason to believe’ that such person was so afflicted, … making it the duty of health officers to protect the public against spread of such disease from persons whom such officers have ‘reason to believe’ were afflicted with such diseases.”

Public Health Officials do have the authority to quarantine someone who they have reason to believe has been infected by the virus. California law actually permits the Public Health Officials to quarantine such individuals without a court order. In Ex parte Johnson the California Court of Appeals ruled that “One infected with a contagious disease … might be subjected to quarantine regulations by the health commissioner of a city, without its first being judicially established by some proceeding in court that he or she was so infected.”

The reality of the situation in California is that Gavin Newsom has ordered the Department of Public Health to develop a policy for how to deal with the Corona Virus. However, the recommendations by the Department of Public Health are unconstitutional. Rather than ask the Department of Public Health to go back and rewrite the policies, Gavin Newsom tells everyone that he is ordering them to obey the directives of the Department of Public Health. However, regardless of what Gavin Newsom says with his mouth in press conferences or says on his social media accounts, the actual text of his Executive Orders are the laws. (Gov. Code § 8567).

The text of Gavin Newsom’s most recent Executive Order is merely a suggestion that the people of California obey the unconstitutional directive being published by the Department of Public Health. Whether or not it is advisable for people to stay home is not the question, the Department of Public Health does not have the authority to pass such a law, and Gavin Newsom does not have the authority to suspend Californians’ Constitutional Rights just because California is in a State of Emergency.

Meuser is a Constitution and elections law California attorney with the Dhillon Law Group. He is a former resident of Contra Costa County and 2018 candidate for California Secretary of State. You can follow him on Facebook.

Filed Under: Health, Legal, Opinion

Writer supports Supervisor Burgis for re-election for her “integrity, brilliance and imagination”

February 27, 2020 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

I writing to express my genuine respect, admiration, and appreciation for Supervisor Diane Burgis and whole-heartedly support her re-election.

We are blessed to have a leader with the level of integrity, brilliance, and imagination that Diane has demonstrated in serving the people of Contra Costa. She is a woman who is relentless in her efforts to bring innovation to our region and has made significant strides towards job and business creation to support our local workforce.

I have witnessed first-hand Diane’s wisdom and her dedication to regional improvement through her work on business-based drone development in far east Contra Costa, the creation of a multimillion-dollar light industrial park at the site of the former DuPont plant in Oakley, and the launch of the Family Justice Center in Antioch that includes job training and support for people who have been victims of human trafficking as well as those who seek skills training in technology employment through the work of the “Love Never Fails” project that has made significant impact throughout the Bay Area.

Diane is accessible and genuinely loves our communities and those of us who live here. Please cast your vote for Supervisor Diane Burgis, so she can continue with the amazing work she is doing for the benefit of our families. My husband Keith is fully in support of this statement.

Iris Archuleta

Antioch

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Politics & Elections

The Herald recommends Martinek for Congress in District 9

February 19, 2020 By Publisher 4 Comments

William Martinek

There are two candidates challenging six-term incumbent Congressman Jerry McNerney, retired U.S. Marshal and L.A. police officer Antonio “Tony” Amador who is running for his third time and newcomer, financial advisor and decorated combat Army veteran William Martinek. I’ve compared the two to decide who to support and vote for. Both are good men and have already served our nation. Both want to serve our country, again as a member of Congress. Both offer a serious contrast to McNerney.

Martinek is from Brentwood and jumped into the race early, showing a sincere interest in serving the people of our district. Amador, from Lodi in the San Joaquin County part of the district, only entered the race after he met Martinek and thinks he would be the better Republican candidate. They have similar views on the issues: national security and defense, transportation, jobs and economic development, and working to solve the problems of illegal immigration and homelessness. So, the main differences are age and life experience, but also commitment to run a serious campaign.

Amador is in his 70’s, married, a father, grandfather and great grandfather, and has a long history of public service, which is great, and I applaud him for that. Martinek is a much younger, married father who served tours in Iraq and Afghanistan defending our national interests, which I also applaud. He wants to take his energy to Washington, D.C. to work for us.

They both believe they can do better for our district than McNerney who is now in his 12th year in the House of Representatives.

But, the final, major difference I had to look at is which of the two Republicans will run a more serious campaign to replace the incumbent. In his first run for Congress, in 2014, Amador only raised and spent about $60,000, yet came within 5 percent of McNerney. Had he run a more aggressive campaign and raised more money to get his message out to the voters, Amador might have won. But, then in 2016, again waiting until the last minute, while the San Joaquin County Republican Party Chairman, he jumped in the race against Kathryn Nance, who had been campaigning for several months. Amador came in second in the primary, beating Nance by 2.6% of the vote, and making it into the general election. But, this time – during the presidential election year – he lost to McNerney by almost 15%.

If the Republicans hope to take the most winnable Congressional district in the entire nine-county Bay Area, plus San Joaquin County, it’s going to take a candidate who will be aggressive and raise the necessary funds, like Ricky Gill did in 2012, who raised and spent almost $3 million. But the candidate needs more life experience than Gill had, having just graduated from law school.

Martinek is that candidate. He’s serious about serving our nation and has already done so in the Army, and he wants to make things better for his family and ours, in both Contra Costa and San Joaquin Counties. And he’s willing to do put in the hard work to campaign aggressively and raise the needed funds to get his message to the voters so they can become familiar with him by the November election.

Please join me in voting for Republican William Martinek for Congress in the 9th Congressional District. For more information read the Herald article, here and visit www.williammartinekforcongress.com.

Allen Payton, Publisher & Editor

Filed Under: Opinion, Politics & Elections

East Bay Leadership Council offers five reasons to vote yes on Measure J

February 12, 2020 By Publisher Leave a Comment

The East Bay Leadership Council is proud to endorse Measure J in Contra Costa County and wanted to share a few reasons why we believe it deserves a YES vote on March 3.

1. All the Money Raised Here Stays Here

That may sound simple, but recent transportation funding initiatives have pooled revenue among all nine Bay Area counties and then divvied it up based on a number of factors. In these situations, the East Bay has not always received an equitable share.

Measure J is a chance to raise $103 million per year for Contra Costa County that is guaranteed to go back into our community to ease bottlenecks, improve transit access, and make roads safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

2. Funding for Bus, Bike, and Pedestrian Improvements

If Contra Costa County is ever going to get off the “worst commutes in the nation” lists, then we must make it easier and more efficient for commuters to opt for alternative transportation options like express buses, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian over-crossings.

These investments will ease congestion on our roads and improve air quality. It is one of the reasons why the East Bay Regional Park District, Save the Bay, Bike East Bay, TransForm, and Save Mount Diablo all joined us in support of Measure J.

Did we mention free and reduced fares for students, seniors, and people with disabilities? That too!

3. Innovate 680

If you were a fly on our office wall, you would hear a lot about innovation opportunities on Interstate 680.

Measure J will prioritize this critical commute corridor by helping to get express buses running on the shoulder of the freeway that could connect BART stations to job centers in the Tri-Valley. Other 680 innovations include smart freeway signs and metering lights, express lane extensions, and self-driving shuttles.

There is so much we can do to make commutes on 680 more efficient and Measure J will help us get there.

4. The Economy

We cannot expect businesses to attract and retain employees while Contra Costa County makes headlines for long and inefficient commutes.

Investing in the transportation system is an investment in helping businesses start, stay, and grow in the region. That means more jobs close to home for Contra Costa residents.

5. Matching Funds Get Projects Done

Money raised at the local level will not be enough to pay for every transportation improvement that Contra Costa County needs. The good news is that there are state and federal funds available to help complete important projects.

The secret to winning that funding is that the state and federal government both prefer to contribute the last dollars for a project, not the first.

By raising funds locally first, Contra Costa County will be able to win more grant funding and make more efficient use of every dollar for decades to come.

To learn more about Measure J and its benefits visit www.friendsofcontracostatransportation.org. To learn more about the East Bay Leadership Council visit www.eastbayleadershipcouncil.com.

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Politics & Elections, Transportation

Contra Costa Taxpayers Association: vote no on Measure J transportation sales tax increase

February 8, 2020 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

The chief selling point to Measure J on the March 3 ballot is to “reduce congestion”, a laughably empty promise. The 75 words on the ballot create a smokescreen for a 1/2% sales tax increase.

Measure J allots $148 million to BART, who has their own mega-budget and a long history of wastefulness. Only Contra Costa would shoulder the additional tax to be handed over to BART with no assurance that Contra Costa would benefit.

This measure contains hiring restrictions that will drive up costs of taxpayer-funded projects. It requires that all apprenticeship labor must come from certain politically favored sources, rather than the largest qualified pool of applicants. Construction labor short supply due to recent wildfire rebuilding efforts. As a result, projects everywhere are currently facing massive cost overruns. This is the wrong time to impose even further hiring restrictions.

Residents may see signs on the highway referencing Measure J for current projects. This refers to a Measure J generously passed by voters in 2004. The suspicious letter designation is confusing, but clearly this is not the same. This is an additional increase for 35 years.

We encourage a no vote on Measure J.

Susan L Pricco

President, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Politics & Elections, Transportation

Writer shares reasons to re-elect Diane Burgis supervisor

February 3, 2020 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

Political tribalism is a growing danger to our country. People select their Party/tribe and can then retreat into in a bubble where they believe that their Party is right about everything and the other Party is universally wrong. That mentality leads to elections where candidates often stop trying to win votes from around half the population to have a chance at victory. Those officials who legitimately try to represent everyone, and who work each day to improve the lives of all of their constituents regardless of Party are rare and valuable. Supervisor Diane Burgis is one of those precious public servants.

I’ve had the pleasure to be a constituent and a nearby neighbor of Supervisor Burgis for years, and I have found her accessible, accountable, and devoted to her community. She doesn’t pay lip service to the ideals of non-partisanship, hard work, and of legitimately wanting to serve her community: she lives those ideals. Supervisor Burgis puts the needs of her constituents over the desires of her Party. And most importantly, she is committed to serving every person in her district regardless of whether that person voted for her in the past or is likely to vote for her now; she will never sell us out in order to stay in office. Personally I know that if I make Supervisor Burgis aware that I need her help, she’ll be there for me, and I know that I have someone in my corner fighting for me, and not because I’m a Democrat, but because I’m her constituent, her neighbor, and a human being.

All of that is why I support electing Diane Burgis to another term as Supervisor of Contra Costa District 3, why I supported her in the past, and why I will continue to support her in the future.

Heath Lenoble

Oakley

Filed Under: East County, Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Supervisors

OP/ED: PG&E blackout is blackmail

October 12, 2019 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Greg Palast

OCTOBER 11, 2019

The PG&E Blackout Con is all about threatening the judge in the PG&E bankruptcy case. The victims have joined with the bondholders to eliminate the equity of the stockholders who deserve nothing. So in desperation, the power company pigs are turning off your lights. Hopefully, the judge will not be intimidated.

Leaving hospitals, schools and 1 million homes without power — and that means without water — in California is the endgame of deregulation mania.

Jerry Brown, Bill Clinton and other deregulation snake-oil salesmen, and the PG&E greedster bosses, should be imprisoned for the people already burned to death.

Where is the California utility commission?

I’ve written a book published by the United Nations called, Democracy and Regulation, about how to avoid such piggery. When I wrote the book, it was meant only for Third World nations — apparently, Northern California is the third world of electricity.

Public utilities must be publicly owned. Decades back, I investigated power company racketeering for the Justice Department.

As an expert, I can tell you, PG&E is a criminal enterprise parading as a power company. Shut them down — not us.

Palast, a Puffin Foundation fellow in investigative reporting, is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, now a feature documentary. www.GregPalast.com

Filed Under: Opinion

Payton Perspective: If Brentwood voters don’t approve Measure L Antioch should annex the land and approve the homes

October 8, 2019 By Publisher 16 Comments

Area map showing the land for the planned development highlighted in gold that the passage of Measure L would annex to Brentwood. From the planning documents for the proposed Vineyards at Deer Creek development.

In November, Brentwood voters will have the opportunity to do what Antioch voters did in 2005 and that was to approve a new housing development and undo what the five members of the Board of Supervisors did to a few landowners and the plans by Antioch and Brentwood. On the ballot is Measure L, which will annex about 800 acres and approve 2,400 new, upscale homes, 80% of which will be for seniors.

The land in the Measure L plan has been inside both the City of Antioch’s and City of Brentwood’s planning areas for decades. However, it’s not been in either city’s sphere of influence or city limits. It was also inside the voter-approved Urban Limit Line, until the County Supervisors played political games and moved it out, in 2003. That included the land that was planned for the Roddy Ranch housing development surrounding the former Roddy Ranch golf course, as well as all the land north of the ridge line that runs on the south side of the former golf course and continues into Brentwood behind Heritage High School and Adams Middle School. So, it makes sense the land is moved back inside the Urban Limit Line and the homes built.

1998 was my final of four years serving on the Antioch City Council, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and the State Route 4 Bypass Authority. That year, while serving as chairman of the Bypass Authority, we bought the right-of-way for the extension to Highway 4 from Lone Tree Way to Balfour Road for four lanes of traffic and two lines of transit, down the center.

The plans and funding for the Highway 4 widening and bypass/extension, as well as the major roadways in Antioch, included those homes. In fact, a total of 12,000 homes were included in the planning for the regional roads in East County. Now, the plans in Antioch include only 4,000 homes, and the 700 homes at Roddy will never be built because that land was sold to the East Bay Regional Park District and is permanent open space.

The homes in Measure L will not create urban sprawl as some opponents are claiming. I laugh when I hear that about growth in Contra Costa County. I grew up in Southern California and was a chauffeur while attending college in Riverside, driving clients into Orange County and Los Angeles where I saw the results of urban sprawl. But, in our county, the Urban Limit Line protects about 65% of the land in the county from subdivision development. This land is inside the 35% of the land that the voters said could be built on. That’s why the land was purchased by developers years ago – before the Supervisors arbitrarily moved the line in.

It’s time either Brentwood or Antioch voters corrected their action.

If Brentwood doesn’t want them, those are the kind of homes Antioch wants and needs for our housing mix, especially now that Roddy Ranch is permanent open space and the homes planned for the western Sand Creek area might never be built.

Filed Under: East County, Growth & Development, Opinion

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • …
  • 23
  • Next Page »
RepublicServices-Antioch-ad (1)
Monica's Riverview 09-26 A (1)
Celia's-09-26B
Delta-RC-B 07-26
Deer-Valley-Chiro-06-22

Copyright © 2026 · · Contra Costa Herald · All Rights Reserved