• 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

County organizations ask Supervisors for transparent process in Interim DA appointment

July 6, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Following is an open letter to the Board of Supervisors from the organizations in Contra Costa County, listed below:

Dear Chairman Glover, and Supervisors Andersen, Burgis, Gioia, and Mitchoff,

We the undersigned would first like to commend the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for holding the special June 23rd meeting to discuss the appointment process for our next district attorney and for posting the process and timeline on the county website. While we believe your intent is to engage in a transparent, community-first process to appoint the interim DA of our county, we have serious concerns about the current process as laid out.

In our June 22, 2017 letter to the Board, we expressed an interest in a transparent, community-first and community driven process to appoint the next DA. To us, this means the community is included in ALL decision-making points and is able to weigh in on substantive policy questions posed to each applicant. As currently outlined, we believe the process you have laid out excludes community input and fails to deliver on the promise of transparency.

Specifically, page 2 of the June 23rd press release[1] issued by the County Administrator’s Office states, “With applications due July 21, the Board of Supervisors will select finalists in early August. The Board of Supervisors will host a moderated candidate forum at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 15, 2017.” This indicates that while the community will be allowed to ask questions of finalists selected by the Board, the community will have no involvement in the selection of finalists from the initial pool of applicants. We believe that narrowing the pool to 3-5 candidates is a critical first step and involvement from the community in this step, and all other steps until appointment, is essential to rebuilding trust.

To remedy this, we urge the Board of Supervisors to revisit the interim DA appointment process before July 21 by placing it on a July meeting agenda and consider some options, including:

  • Create a community selection committee comprised of community leaders, reflective and representing the geographic and demographic diversity of the county, as well as representatives from the following constituencies and/or organizations: criminal justice reform, immigrant rights, formerly incarcerated individuals, victims’ rights, the Public Defender Union, the District Attorney Union, labor, consumer rights and law enforcement. This committee will be responsible for formulating questions for applicants to answer as part of the application process. This committee will also work with the Board in early August to select the finalists and the final rationale for why applicants were, or were not, selected as finalists.
  • Host at least two community forums with applicants, one which will include all applicants and a second which will include the finalists.
  • Disclose the following information in a timely manner: any past or present endorsement, campaign contribution, private meeting, and/or personal dealing between any member of the Board of Supervisors and any applicant for interim DA.
  • Require all applicants for interim DA to disclose if they share the same political consultant and/or fundraiser with any members of the Board of Supervisors.

We the undersigned and the residents of Contra Costa County demand integrity from our Board of Supervisors in this process. We will not stand for corruption, closed door meetings or the doling out of favors. It is important to remember that the DA is an elected official and is ultimately accountable to us, the voters. We are fully aware that whomever the Board appoints to be our interim DA will have the advantage of incumbency come the June 2018 election. It is for this reason that the Board must include the community in all phases of the process and why we continue to advocate for a fully transparent and community-first process.

If the Board refuses to modify the process and address the concerns outlined in this letter, the public will not let the Board move forward without significant resistance.

Thank you again for your consideration of our requests and we look forward to re-establishing trust between the community and government by way of a modified process. If you have any questions for our coalition, please contact Sharlee Battle from Safe Return Project at SharleeBattle@gmail.com.

Thank you,

Filed Under: District Attorney, Opinion, Supervisors

Groups recommend process for appointing Interim Contra Costa District Attorney

June 23, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Following is a letter from six groups in the county to the members of the Board of Supervisors:

Dear Chairman Glover and Supervisors Andersen, Burgis, Gioia and Mitchoff,

Our community was shocked and angered last week to hear that former District Attorney Mark Peterson pled guilty to felony charges related to the illegal use of campaign funds, leading to his resignation. This unethical and dangerous abuse of power by the elected District Attorney is deeply concerning to us and we write today in the spirit of working to rebuild trust between local government in Contra Costa, including law enforcement and the District Attorney’s office, and the community they are meant to serve.

We believe a critical first step to rebuilding trust is for the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors to engage in a fully transparent and community-centered process for appointing an interim District Attorney.

On behalf of Contra Costa County voters, we urge our Board to commit to a transparent, community-first process in making its selection of an interim District Attorney. In addition, we believe it is important for the Board to only consider applicants who have not filed to run in the June 2018 primary.

The District Attorney is one of the most powerful elected officials in county government and is the most powerful actor in our criminal justice system. The decisions made by the District Attorney impact every county resident, not just those who are directly involved in the criminal justice system. From determining when and what charges to file in individual cases; to making policy decisions that affect local communities as well as county and state budgets; to holding law enforcement accountable for unfair policies and practices, the Contra Costa District Attorney holds significant power and responsibility for the protection of our civil rights and freedoms.

For these reasons and more, it is critically important that our Board protect and uphold the right of the people of Contra Costa County to an inclusive and transparent process for appointment of an interim District Attorney.

In a transparent, community-first process, the Board of Supervisors should consider the following:

  1. Publicly post a proposed process and timeline for appointment of an interim District Attorney;
  2. Allow for public comment on the proposed process for appointment, consider comments, and post final process;
  3. Only consider applications for interim appointment from individuals who are not currently running for District Attorney of Contra Costa County in 2018;
  4. Solicit applications from lawyers in the community to apply for interim appointment and make submitted applications available for review by the public;
  5. Hold public hearings at times convenient to working people with commute schedules, to receive input about nominees and other recommendations; and
  6. Hold a final public hearing to vote for the interim District Attorney.

Due to the recent resignation and guilty plea by former District Attorney Mark Peterson, the people of Contra Costa County deserve transparency and fairness in the appointment of the interim District Attorney. It is incumbent upon the Board to begin to remedy the breakdown of trust between the community and government by taking the lead to ensure a fair and community-first process. We welcome the opportunity to support the efforts of our Board of Supervisors to achieve these very important goals.

Thank you,

Filed Under: District Attorney, Letters to the Editor, Opinion, Supervisors

Guest Commentary: Even in a deadly public safety crisis change takes time, and people die

May 18, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Bryan Scott

People are dying in East County, homes are burning down, and residents are paying dramatically escalating insurance premiums, often increasing by over 200%.

The fire district serving the needs of over 110,000 people in two cities, half a dozen unincorporated communities, and spread over 249-square miles of Contra Costa County is critically underfunded.

The state of California set-up the funding for these services in the 1980’s, when all that was needed were several groups of volunteer firefighters to serve 8,000 people in a couple of East Contra Costa County farming communities.  The need for fire and emergency medical services in East County has changed dramatically in the last 40 years, and the population has grown to over 110,000 residents.

All fire districts in California are funded with property tax revenues.  A permanent solution to this funding problem requires reallocating some of these property tax funds from the current recipients to the fire district.

Contra Costa County Fire Protection District receives ~14% of the property tax revenue.  The fire district covering the San Ramon Valley gets ~15%, and the fire district serving the Moraga-Orinda area is funded at~ 21%.

The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) gets less than 8%.

A survey conducted last Fall found that on a per-person basis ECCFPD gets about $106 each year, compared to $349 per-person for San Ramon Valley and $366 for Moraga-Orinda fire districts.  This unequal funding is to provide essentially the same services to county residents who pay the same property tax rate.

Gus Vina is the City Manager of Brentwood, and Bryan Montgomery is the City Manager of Oakley.  Combined, these two these public administrators are responsible for managing the safety of 100,000 residents.  They have a moral, if not legal, duty to ensure the safety of their employers, the taxpaying residents of their respective cities.

Both City Managers should be applauded for their efforts in dealing with this crisis.

In 2015 a government-employee task force was formed, under the leadership of Vina, and temporary funding was obtained from the two cities and the County.  This funding kept a fourth fire station open for 18 months.

In 2016 both City Managers helped get a Utility User Tax (UUT) on the ballot in their respective cities, even though public opinion polling said the measures would gather only 40% support, at best, with the voters.  While a general tax measure of this type requires only a simple majority to pass, Brentwood’s vote came in at 39% in favor.  Support for the UUT in Oakley was less.

Both Brentwood and Oakley are now talking about another temporary funding contribution, along with the County.

These temporary band-aide funding measures, do not address the fundamental problem, the structural property tax funding deficiency.

It is too bad neither one of these municipal managers has gotten behind the permanent solution to the funding crisis, reallocating property tax funds.  But perhaps it is understandable.

The challenge here is that the money for a permanent fix comes from the current recipients of property tax funding.  These recipients include the cities both Vina and Montgomery are paid to run, Brentwood and Oakley.

And while they have endorsed short-term financial contributions, they have not worked towards the obvious and final fix to the funding crisis, the reallocation of property tax funds.

So, East County residents will continue to die, homes will continue to burn down, and insurance premiums will continue to go up.

Scott is a Brentwood resident and Co-Chair of East County Voters for Equal Protection, a non-partisan citizens action committee whose aim is to improve funding for the ECCFPD.  He can be reached at scott.bryan@comcast.net, or 925-418-4428.  The group’s Facebook page is  https://www.facebook.com/EastCountyVoters/.  

Filed Under: East County, Fire, Opinion

Writer, MCE manager, clarifies details on Community Choice Energy

May 12, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

My name is JR Killigrew and I’m a community development manager at MCE, the CCE which the County, Danville and Oakley recently joined. I have worked with the City of Antioch on their climate action plan in my previous role. I did want to follow up and thank you for following the CCE movement in Contra Costa County. MCE is always happy to serve as a resource to media to help provide accurate information. We recently saw May 4th article about community choice  and the County’s decision to join MCE. We wanted to clarify a few items in the article.

1) Feeling the heat from environmentalists, residents, and politicians, Contra Costa County supervisors took the big step Tuesday of picking a solar power plant developer that could potentially help consumers on average cut monthly bills up to 55 percent.

MCE strives to keep its rates competitive with PG&E and MCE has lowered its rates twice in the last 12 months. Since MCE launch, MCE has been less expensive 70% of the time compared to PG&E. MCE’s actual generation rate is much lower than PG&E’s but with additional CCE fees that are collected by PG&E, MCE normally is around the same cost as PG&E.

2) Other supervisors were more impressed with MCE’s seven-year track record, financial stability and $25 million in reserves and capability of generating good paying union jobs.

MCE has $50 million in reserves.

3) Some 285,000 residents residing in unincorporated Contra Costa County could see electricity rates decline in comparison to PG&E rates.  For a large solar power project generating 5 megawatts per hour, the average monthly bills could potentially decline from $105 per Megawatt Hour (MWH) to $85 per MWH.

We believe the point that was trying to be addressed was the difference between PG&E’s Feed-In-Tariff rates and MCE Feed-in Tariff rates. MCE currently offers solar developers $115/MWh which we purchase the electricity from the developer. This program is an opportunity to catalyze the local solar market place to create local jobs and ensure energy resilience. There is no correlation with our Feed-In Tariff program and our customers’ rates.

I hope this is helpful and please let us know if you have any questions.

J.R. Killigrew

Community Development Manager, MCE

San Rafael

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Writer says ban on plastic shopping bags was a lie

March 30, 2017 By Publisher 1 Comment

Dear Editor:

The local taxpayers have been lied to, again, by big business, special interests and corrupt politicians. Save the ecology was the cry. Stop the over pollution of landfills with non-biodegradable materials they shouted. Help to save the earth was their mantra. All very noble causes, indeed.

However, when one uses these tactics just to reap a much larger profit, there is something that gnaws at the back of my mind, eats away at my common sense, irritates me to no end. They got their way by tugging at the heart strings of decent people and shaming the rest into falling in line. All done in the name of greed cleverly disguised as a god send to the ecology minded.

I am talking about plastic shopping bags and the fact that they were not banned as promised when pushing this law down our throats (like so many others).

They actually banned the retail outlets from providing these bags “free of charge”. One can get as many of these “demon bags” as one desires for a fee. Let me get this straight. I don’t get them free but I still get them, they end up in the same location and the only difference is that the consumer pays for them directly. Prices have not reflected the retailer’s gain but the profit margin certainly has. As I said, lied to again.

Thanks for listening.

Steve Payne

Antioch

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Guest Commentary: East Contra Costa Fire district funding, what is cost of not participating?

March 24, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Bryan Scott

Here’s something that should scare East County government agency managers:  Losing 9.2% of their property tax funding.

That is one of many potential outcomes possible if a rational outsider, an uninvolved third party, were asked to adjust the East County property tax funding levels to meet the needs of the current community.

The East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) provides fire and emergency medical services to 110,000 residents of 250 square miles of eastern Contra Costa County.  Fire districts throughout California are primarily funded by property taxes, disbursed according to an allocation rate set 35 years, ago.

When the allocation rate was set, there were maybe 8,000 people living in eastern Contra Costa County, and the area was served by four volunteer fire departments.  Back then only about 7.5% of the property tax money collected was spent on fire services.

Today the cities of Brentwood and Oakley alone have about 100,000 residents, with more arriving every month.  The total number of residents within the ECCFPD jurisdiction has been estimated at between 110,000 and 120,000.

And the fire district is losing ground.  As more people move into the area and the cost of providing services increases, the district is able to provide less and less of its essential services.  Area friends and neighbors are dying, and houses are burning down.   A multi-fatality incident is just around the corner as the fire district lacks the resources to respond to calls for help.

Last Summer ECCFPD hired Citygate Associates, a well-credentialed industry consulting firm, to determine how many fire stations the area would ultimately need.  The answer was nine fire stations.  There are now three permanent fire stations.  Only nine firefighters are on duty at any point in time, and 15 are required to fight a structure fire.

The nine-station model is a rational definition of the community’s needs, arrived at after in-depth analysis of travel times, population locations and growth trends, and firefighting resource requirements.  It is also future-oriented, taking into account the urban and rural development planning now occurring at the two cities and the county.

To pay for adequate fire services using property taxes would require shifting 9.2% of today’s property tax money, collected within its jurisdiction, to the fire district.  This is what’s necessary to correct the structural funding deficiency that has been getting worse for the last 15 years.

A group of concerned citizens has put forth a proposal to gradually shift 5.2% of the area’s future property tax money to the fire district, over a period of four years so that no current funding is affected.  Government agency managers have opposed this program, denying any willingness to voluntarily participate in solving this community problem.

This grass roots proposal would bring the ECCFPD funding rate up to about the average of fire district funding rates in Contra Costa County.  It could provide for potentially six fire stations.

Refusing to participate in solving this community problem is dangerous for local government entities.  There is no guarantee that an outside decision maker, perhaps in Sacramento, would make the same decision that locals would make.

By not participating in solving the fire district’s funding problem local government entities run the risk that a solution imposed from afar would cost them much more of their future funding.

Scott is a Brentwood resident and Co-Chair of East County Voters for Equal Protection, a non-partisan citizens action committee whose aim is to improve funding for the ECCFPD.  He can be reached at 925-418-4428. or scott.bryan@comcast.net.  The group’s Facebook page is  https://www.facebook.com/EastCountyVoters/.  

Filed Under: Fire, Government, Opinion

Writer says sanctuary states, counties, cities and facilities are illegal, should be prosecuted

March 24, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Editor:

I believe that publicly financed “Sanctuary” States, Counties, Cities, and facilities for illegal immigrants are illegal, and they all should be prosecuted. In law one cannot harbor, assist, aid and abet, etc., anyone who has committed any criminal act – including of illegal immigrants. Those doing so are criminal “principals” under law, according to both state and federal laws.

The whole nonsense of allowing them to do so, under the guise of humanitarian and social necessity, are but criminally disguised acts that need to be brought to justice asap! We can no longer allow or justify the ‘bleeding hearts’ and illegal immigrants everywhere to dictate to us what is or is not legally right. They have to entirely be cut off from any related public funding, and now. And, any public cfficial criminally involved should immediately forfeit their position, and forever be barred from ever holding public office again.

Sure, give them their claimed “rights” to a prosecution and court system that America still has in place. Then they each should pay the ‘price’ for their violating our laws, to include incarceration, fines, and dispatching the illegals out of the USA. We must insist on upholding the laws against those who commit the crimes.

Ralph A. Hernandez

Antioch

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Payton Perspective: Officials must listen to the people and stop the Delta Tunnels

March 23, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

After watching and listening to the variety of East County and Bay Area residents speak out against the Delta Tunnels at the meeting of the Delta Stewardship Council in Brentwood on Thursday, March 23, 2017, one thing is clear, we don’t want them. All they will do is damage the Delta and the region in which we live. So how is that good stewardship of the Delta?

The proposed tunnels are referred to as conveyances. Well we already have two water conveyances, they’re called the San Joaquin River which flows north into and through the Delta and the Sacramento River which flows south. The two natural, God created conveyances we call rivers, meet at Antioch whose current slogan is the “Gateway to the Delta.”

Plus, there’s another man-made conveyance, known as the California Aqueduct that’s been sending water from Northern California and the Central Valley to Southern California for decades.  We don’t need another two, huge water conveyances to move the water from, around or under the Delta to Southern California.

Speaker after speaker who stood in line in the standing room only meeting – from residents, to activists, to Realtors, to those who fish and others who earn a living off the Delta – opposed the tunnels as the solution to water supply in the state. Instead they suggested more storage, such as maximizing the use of existing reservoirs and building more, and desalination.

One speaker, who said he is a native Californian with three daughters, offered the definition of stewardship which includes “the responsible overseeing of something worth preserving.” Two more speakers challenged the council members on the meaning of stewardship, as well.

“Tell the governor the people in this room know the difference between fresh water and salt water,” said another speaker. “For every gallon of fresh water we divert south, a gallon of salt water comes up the Delta.”

Salt water has encroached all the way to and past Antioch, which has the lowest intakes on the Delta and last year had to purchase 95% of its raw water from the Contra Costa Water District. The city has pre-1914 rights to the river allowing it to pump pretty much whatever amount of water needed for use by residents and businesses in the city. But, during the drought, and it’s believed if the tunnels are built, those rights no longer mean anything as there was, and will no longer be, enough or any fresh water to pump. So, if the salt water has already reached Antioch before the tunnels have been built, it can easily reach other parts of the Delta, if they are.

Assemblyman Jim Frazier had a representative read a letter from him at the meeting, in opposition to the conveyance system, or tunnels.

His letter mentioned the 2009 Delta Reform Act which established co-equal goals of “providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem” and that the proposed conveyance system barely touches on protection of the Delta.

A former Orange County, CA resident said “do the right thing. We want to preserve the Delta for our children.”

One speaker at the meeting got a bit animated. Screenshot of Cal-Span.org website

The final speaker asked “does anyone in this room want the tunnels?”

“No” was the loud reply.

The Council hasn’t yet made their final recommendation on whether the twin tunnels will be the solution to the conveyance of our water. So, there’s still time for the public to give input.

You can provide your comments using the online form at http://deltacouncil.ca.gov/contact-us. All written submissions will be posted on the website at www.deltacouncil.ca.gov. If you were unable to watch or attend the Thursday meeting in Brentwood, the webcast will be available on the website, as well.

Meetings of the Delta Stewardship Council in Sacramento on April 27 and 28th will be the next opportunity to give live, in-person input to the Council and for them to review the progress on the process. It will be held at Park Tower Plaza, 980 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor Conference Center, Sacramento, CA 95814

As was said by council member and Solano County Supervisor Skip Thomson, the Council needs to hold their meetings for the public at night. They can also be held on a Saturday and in a larger venue, so more people can attend.

We must stand united and continue to fight the Delta Tunnels to keep them from being built and damaging the ecosystem of the Delta and the adjacent region where we call home. Hopefully those charged with the stewardship of the Delta will hear us and recommend against the tunnels.

Filed Under: East County, Opinion, The Delta

Guest Commentary: Elected leaders must take action, reallocate funds for East County fire district

February 17, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Bryan Scott

The East County Voters for Equal Protection (ECV), a non-partisan citizens action committee, is organizing a workshop later this month to discuss a proposal to correct the structural funding deficiency that is afflicting the local fire services agency, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD).

Twenty-two local government entities have been invited, including the county, the cities of Brentwood and Oakley, special districts and schools.

The proposal ECV is advocating will improve ECCFPD funding by about $7.8 million, and potentially provide for three additional fire stations, bringing the district’s total to six.  There are now just three permanent stations serving 110,000 people spread over 249 square miles.

The proposal relies on the traditional growth in property tax revenues to avoid any cuts in current funding.  If the proposal is adopted the increased property tax revenues that  22 government entities can expect would grow a little slower over a three or four year program implementation period.

This proposal is a significant one.  It is the type of policy decision that elected officials, the chosen representatives of the public, need to make because it is the general public who will benefit from this program.

Government administrators are naturally opposed to this proposal.  City Managers, schools administrators, the county administrator, have all gone on record opposing the solution because their specific government entity would lose future funds.

These government workers are not looking at the big picture.   All government funds come, in one manner or another, from the public taxpayers.  The money ought to be used to meet the needs of today’s taxpayer population.

That’s why the elected representatives of the people need to make this decision, not those who are paid to operate pieces of the people’s business.

The Ghost Ship Fire occurred in Oakland several months ago.  It was a tragedy that took the lives of 36 people at a warehouse in the city’s District 5.  Noel Gallo is the City Councilmember who represents District 5, and he stepped forward visibly during the crisis.  He is a former school board member who understands the importance of fire and emergency medical response services to a community.  Gallo will speak at the fire district funding workshop.

The structural funding problem that has increased response times and reduced the number of firefighters is not a new phenomenon. It has grown as East County’s population has grown, dramatically since the late 1990’s.  Attempts to solve the problem with new tax measures have failed three times.

This proposal, if adopted, will address this structural funding problem.  It will provide money to East County fire and emergency medical services so that ECCFPD receives an allocation rate closer to the rate that other parts of the county receive for their fire and emergency medical services.  The funding allocation rate will then be at about the average for the county’s fire districts.

Shifting public money to a higher-priority service, in many cases a life-sustaining service, is the right thing to do.  Three lives have been lost due to inadequate response capability, a fire department official has said.

The proposal being brought forth is not new.  It has been talked about for over 15 months.

ECV was formed in January of 2016.  The leaders of this group have made 19 formal presentations to public agencies, civic and social groups.  They have attended over 46 meetings with elected, hired, or appointed officials, and conducted 10 public committee meetings.  Over 75 articles and opinion pieces have been published in local periodicals, online, and in social media by ECV.

It is time for our elected representatives the people to do what’s best for the people.

Bryan Scott is a Brentwood resident and Co-Chair of East County Voters for Equal Protection, a non-partisan citizens action committee whose aim is to improve funding for the ECCFPD.  He can be reached at scott.bryan@comcast.net, or 925-418-4428.  The group’s Facebook page is  https://www.facebook.com/EastCountyVoters/.

 

Filed Under: East County, Fire, Opinion

Writer says Community Choice Energy alternative will create jobs in the county

February 16, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Editor:

Contra Costa County will be in direct coalition to Community Choice Energy (CCE) a sustainable choice to cleaner energy usage. They are pleased to announce their plans to bring more unionized jobs that will benefit the CCCounty.

This local renewable build out scenario, would involve a significant number of mostly unionized and non-union hires.  Also, a potential for 40% of the local build out will be near the Northern Waterfront in Concord area. In return this will be a huge deal for those looking to get hired in today’s economy. As the plans are underway to figure out the details there will be more to come on this future project.

Keep posted for more information regarding the Community Choice Energy (CCE) unionized jobs for hire and their announcements.

Lynette Robinson

San Pablo

Filed Under: Environment, Jobs & Economic Development, Letters to the Editor, Opinion

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • …
  • 22
  • Next Page »
Furniture-Clearance-02-26B
Liberty-Tax-Jan-Apr-2026
Deer-Valley-Chiro-06-22

Copyright © 2026 · Contra Costa Herald · Site by Clifton Creative Web