• 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

Coalition upset County Supervisors eliminated Community Choice Energy option

January 30, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Following is the letter submitted by a coalition of supporters of the Community Choice Energy program:

The CCE Draft Technical Study and the Need for Fuller Consideration of All Studied Options

Dear Members of the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors:

We, the undersigned, represent organizations that have been following the progress made by the cities and County of Contra Costa as they decide how to implement Community Choice Energy. We do not share a preference for any one of the three options outlined in the Draft Technical Study, but we do share the following concerns about the adequacy of that study and the public process that has unfolded in its aftermath.

1) We are highly critical of the current Draft Technical Study prepared by MRW, as well as the very cursory presentations made by the county and the consultants. Neither the study nor the presentations include enough necessary information or the specificity of detail required in order for the cities and the County to make fully informed decisions with lifelong consequences. To cite one such example, when addressing the very basic question of risks associated with the startup costs, the study actually neglects to mention that to date, all CCEs in California have paid back their loans in less than a year.

2) We are, moreover, extremely troubled by the premature decision of the Board of Supervisors on January 17, 2017, to eliminate the stand-alone Community Choice Energy option, which the draft study identified (in Table ES-5) as offering the “greatest” amount of local governance and local economic benefit. The decision to exclude the in-county (stand-alone) option unnecessarily limits the choices offered to residents and businesses in unincorporated areas of the County, and preempts input from leaders, residents, and businesses in the incorporated cities before they have had the opportunity to question and comment on the study. Seven cities contributed to the study’s cost and are entitled to one that fully addresses the impacts to their respective cities—e.g., what amount of buildout is reasonably possible in the Concord Naval Weapons Depot over a ten-year period, and what its economic impact would be. We therefore urge you to reconsider your decision to remove the in-county option from consideration.

3) We would like to know why neither the Contra Costa study nor the presentations have answered this fairly simple question: Why did the study for Alameda County done by the same MRW Consulting firm give a much more robust analysis of the economic benefits of local buildout?

4) We would also like to know why, if the technical studies of six other Bay Area counties (Sonoma, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, and Yolo) show the stand-alone option to be superior, this would not also be the case in Contra Costa.

5) Unfortunately, the Draft Feasibility Study does not enable the reader to determine which option, in the choice between MCE and EBCE, might result in the greater buildout and job development within Contra Costa. In fact, the study does not indicate that any such buildout or job development will occur by joining either MCE or EBCE. We strongly encourage the county to communicate with both MCE and EBCE about these issues.

Attached is a letter from Scott Rafferty addressing in much more detail some additional concerns about missing or misrepresented facts in the current Contra Costa Draft Technical Study, including the paucity of current information about MCE. This is not an attempt to indicate that MCE is a bad choice, but rather to point out that relevant information about MCE that is available to the public is not included in the draft study. We understand that information about both a stand-alone option and EBCE is necessarily limited because neither yet exists.

Here are some of the points that Scott Rafferty makes:

  1. a) He agrees with MCE’s criticisms that the analyst provides “scant analysis of MCE’s operational program,” and “no analysis” of MCE’s local renewable program, customer-sited solar, job creation, and other benefits. But despite some impressive claims about past performance, MCE doesn’t really provide much insight into its forward-looking plan. He suggests that MCE may bring more legacy costs than synergies to our county.
  2. b) MCE wants credit for $4.6m in subsidies from the CPUC for energy development (that have already been fully committed to programs in Richmond or outside CCC). An independent CC-CCE program would probably be better positioned to seek equivalent subsidies from CPUC than MCE would be in getting them increased proportionally, which MCE does not suggest is likely.
  3. c) He argues that the Supervisors have relied too heavily on the consultant’s analysis of the more obvious “first order” effects of piggybacking on MCE—less “effort” and greater risk on “start-up costs,” which the consultant concedes are small. The risk to which the BOS is averse, therefore, might be political. If things go awry, they can share responsibility with the existing local bodies.
  4. d) He also rejects MCE’s notion that El Cerrito and Richmond have an identity of interests with the rest of CCC or that there will be brand confusion. On the contrary, they share the climate and rate structure of Marin and Oakland, which is very different from the rest of Contra Costa County and Alameda east of the I-680.
  5. e) Neither MCE nor, at this stage, our BOS has clear direction on how to weigh competing objectives—low electric rates, GHG mitigation, progressive rate design (including low-income and residential preferences), job creation and economic benefits, worker and public safety and service reliability. MCE is self-regulating and subject to very significant shifts in voting power.
  6. f) The jury is still out on MCE’s effectiveness in dealing with regulators. It settled very quickly with PG&E in a pending rate case, with limited concessions for clean energy or consumer rate relief. At the state level, two voices will likely have more clout than one—a statement MCE itself has made.
  7. g) As the Governor’s attempts at CAISO regionalization have made clear, larger geographic scale does not always increase the GHG benefits. Neither MCE nor the consultants have yet developed a measure of environmental benefit that accurately accommodates displacement to PG&E and other utilities.

For all the above reasons, we strongly urge the Board of Supervisors to reconsider what we believe was a premature narrowing of the choices. We request that more complete information be shared in future presentations, especially as regards the potential for local buildout and the economic benefits of each of the three proposed CCE choices, and that the final technical study include far more concrete information which the cities will need to make a truly informed choice.

Very sincerely yours,
Peter Ericson
Contra Costa Clean Energy Alliance

Lynda Deschambault
Generation Green / Contra Costa County Climate Leaders (4CL)

Peter Dragovich
Contra Costa Progressives

Bill Pinkham
350 Bay Area

Shoshana Wechsler
Sunflower Alliance

Péllo Walker
Pleasant Hill Chamber of Commerce Green Group

Carol Weed
Contra Costa Chapter Organizing for Action

Jan Warren
Interfaith Climate Action Network of Contra Costa County

Filed Under: Opinion

Op-Ed: County’s Urban Limit Line threatened

January 26, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Contra Costa’s Urban Limit Line was established in 1990 and strengthened in 2004.  Its purpose was to prevent urban sprawl into virgin agricultural land and preserve for the county’s citizens open space for their enjoyment.

A developer is now petitioning the county’s supervisors to approve a so called 30-acre development that breaks the ULL and will build 125 homes in rural Tassajara Valley. In 2006, Contra Costa voters approved Measure L that further strengthened the ULL by requiring an election and a majority vote of the county’s voters to approve any development outside the ULL.  An exception was granted to allow the supervisors to approve developments not exceeding 30 acres and if one of seven named exceptions could be cited.

It is very important that this development be stopped.  The developer is offering the county a check for $4 million and to dedicate another 500 acres for non-urban use.  While enticing, this offer should be rejected by our supervisors.  If the county accepts this “deal”, it will establish a precedent for other developers to “break the line”.  The blueprint of a $4 million check and land donation will have been established.

Measure L required five year reviews by the county’s Department of Conservation and Development to determine if the ULL needed to be adjusted for reasons that included population growth and the availability of land for development within the ULL.  This department concluded in their December 20, 2016 report to the supervisors that there was sufficient developable land within the ULL through the year 2036, i.e., no need to build outside the ULL.

Our supervisors, Federal Glover of District 5 and Diane Burgis of District 3 have good environmental records.  Indeed, supervisor Glover has consistently supported the ULL.  In a May 2016 interview by another news source, Glover stated: “I have always contended that the Urban Limit Line was necessary so that our region would not grow more than what our infrastructure could handle.  Traffic, police services and schools are the main services that suffer when growth happens too fast.”The recently elected District 3 supervisor, Diane Burgis, has strong environmental credentials having established them in her position as executive director of Friends of Marsh Creek Watershed.

The proposed development, “Tassajara Parks”, will be coming soon before the Board of Supervisors for a vote.  While this development is not in the eastern portion of our county, the precedent that this development would set will make all lands outside the ULL susceptible to development.  Write or E-mail your supervisor and make your voices heard.  Tell them not to compromise, reject this development project and protect the ULL.  Our supervisors will listen to us, the voters.  E-mail supervisors Glover and Burgis at district5@bos.cccounty.us and dist3@bos.cccounty.us.   More information is available at tassajaravalleypa.org.

Gretchen Logue

Richard Fischer

Tassajara Valley Preservation Association

Tassajaravalleypa.org

Filed Under: Growth & Development, Opinion

Letter writer: Obamacare must be saved or people will die

January 12, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Dear Editor:

For forty years I have dedicated my professional life to helping the mentally ill, the homeless, substance abuse addicts and low income families with children.

ACA – Affordable Care Act has saved thousands of lives.  I know because many of those lives are my clients. Without ACA, those with drug addictions will be on the streets, trying to survive through stealing, breaking in to homes or stores, and other criminal acts that make our community unsafe. With ACA, my clients are in residential treatment programs and practicing full recovery.  My homeless or mentally ill clients have full medical support, getting their prescriptions so they are not delusional or dangerous.  Our clinics and hospitals need ACA to keep their doors open to our citizens, our families and the children. People will die without ACA.

Please contact your Congressman or Senator and urge them to vote to keep ACA or comparable health care for our citizens. You can contact Daily Action call 1-844-241-1141 (user friendly and free) and you will be directly connected with your Representative.

Jerri Curry, PhD Forensic Psychologist 27385, Licensed Family Therapist 19776, Certified Drug Addiction Specialist, Formerly with Contra Costa County

Benicia

Filed Under: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Running Your Money: Are bank account opening bonuses for real?

January 4, 2017 By Publisher 2 Comments

By Harry Stoll

Are bank account opening bonuses for real?

Yes, but you will pass many dark dank alleys in a dicey neighborhood, so take care. Banks often have a third party do the pitch, such as Hustler Money, Money Crashers, and Nerd Wallet. They are very up- front about being paid by the banks. In many of them Chase is mentioned first. Being paid by the banks doesn’t make the offer phony. Often there is promotional code you must use. You can open the account online.

Two bits of advice: Always, always, print a copy of the offer and keep it at least until you have collected the money. And, always, RTFP (definition available in the Suburban Dictionary). I ignored my good advice in a recent deal with Wings Financial Credit Union; I read the fine print but didn’t print out a copy. When it came time to collect the puny $50 gift card, customer “service” said, “Ah, ah, ah, you have to agree to accepting paperless statements to earn the gift card.” I didn’t remember that but I was stuck.

Chase often puts pitches in that envelope of coupons including sewer repair and ridding your abode of rodents. I have taken several Chase offers. I like to open the account at a nearby branch. They always recognize me even though I enter the bank only to open an account; otherwise I go to the money wall.

I recently opened a Chase Business Account, depositing $1,500. The rep won’t be fussy about your business,  E just wants to close the deal and rack up brownie points. Chase will deposit $300 to the account about 70 days after opening, when  It will be available to withdraw. You must maintain a $1,000 minimum balance. To avoid a monthly fee keep at least $1,500 in the account That’s an annual percentage yield 40%. The fine print says if you close the account before 12 months, it will deduct the bonus. Well, nyah, nyah, nyah, what if I take the money and run before I close it? But they might not recognize me when I come in next year with the offer. It’s like guys on Hogs in black leather jackets with an eagle on the back; I don’t wish to incur their displeasure.

For an HSBC Bank: bonus of $350, initially deposit at least $25 dollars, pay two bills a month through them for three months and collect $350. No minimum payment is stated; I deposited $25 and for two months made two payments of $4. Account opening was arduous, I danced to their tune online and it took three weeks to open. They asked questions indicating they were seeking affluent depositors, but I have the account.

BMO Harris offered a $200 bonus and Tech CU a $150 bonus for opening an account and making a direct deposit of a paycheck or government check, such as Social Security. Residents of Northern California are eligible for membership in both institutions.

These offers appear and poof, all gone, but new offers will appear.

Filed Under: Finances, Opinion

Happy New Year from the Herald

January 1, 2017 By Publisher Leave a Comment

As we all look forward to a new year, I want to take a moment to thank you for reading the new ContraCostaHerald.com and following us on Facebook and Twitter, since we launched on March 1st, last year.

We will work in 2017 to bring you more news and information about Contra Costa County that you might not get elsewhere. God bless you, God bless Contra Costa County and may you have a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Filed Under: Opinion

Guest Commentary – 2016: The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Year

December 30, 2016 By Publisher 1 Comment

By John W. Whitehead

“What’s past is prologue.” ― William Shakespeare, The Tempest

What a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad year this has been.

Endless wars. Toxic politics. Violence. Hunger. Police shootings. Mass shootings. Economic downturns. Political circuses. Senseless tragedies. Loss. Heartache. Intolerance. Prejudice. Hatred. Apathy. Meanness. Cruelty. Poverty. Inhumanity. Greed.

Here’s just a small sampling of what we’ve suffered through in 2016.

After three years of increasingly toxic politics, the ruling oligarchy won and “we the people” lost. The FBI’s investigation of Hillary’s emails ended with a whimper, rather than a bang. FBI director James Comey declared Clinton’s use of a private email server to be careless rather than criminal. Bernie Sanders sparked a movement only to turn into a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election. Donald Trump won the White House while the American people lost any hope of ending the corporate elite’s grip on the government.

The government declared war on so-called “fake news” while continuing to peddle its own brand of propaganda. President Obama quietly re-upped the National Defense Authorization Act, including a provision that establishes a government agency to purportedly counter propaganda and disinformation.

More people died at the hands of the police. Shootings of unarmed citizens (especially African-Americans) by police claimed more lives than previously estimated, reinforcing concerns about police misconduct and the use of excessive force. Police in Baton Rouge shot Alton Sterling. Police in St. Paul shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop. Ohio police shot 13-year-old Tyre King after the boy pulls out a BB gun. Wisconsin was locked down after protests erupt over a police shooting of a fleeing man. Oklahoma police shot and killed Terence Crutcher during a traffic stop while the man’s hands were raised in the air. North Carolina police killed Keith Lamont Scott, spurring two nights of violent protests. San Diego police killed Alfred Olango after he removed a vape smoking device from his pocket. Los Angeles police shot Carnell Snell Jr. after he fled a vehicle with a paper license plate.

We lost some bright stars this year. Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia’s death left the court deadlocked and his successor up for grabs. Joining the ranks of the notable deceased were Muhammad Ali, David Bowie, Fidel Castro, Leonard Cohen, Carrie Fisher, John Glenn, Merle Haggard, Harper Lee, George Michael, Prince, Nancy Reagan, Janet Reno, Elie Wiesel, and Gene Wilder.

Diseases claimed more lives. The deadly Zika virus spread outwards from Latin America and into the U.S.

The rich got richer. The Panama Papers leak pulled back the curtain on schemes by the wealthy to hide their funds in shell companies.

Free speech was dealt one knock-out punch after another. First Amendment activities were pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship varied widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

The debate over equality took many forms. African-Americans boycotted the Oscars over the absence of nominations for people of color, while the Treasury Department announced its decision to replace Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. North Carolina’s debate over transgender bathrooms ignited a nationwide fury. Meanwhile, the U.S. military opened its doors to transgender individuals. A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed a Texas law that counts everyone, not just eligible voters, in determining legislative districts. The nation’s highest court also upheld affirmative action, while declaring a Texas law on abortion clinics to be an unnecessary burden on women.

Environmental concerns were downplayed in favor of corporate interests. Flint, Michigan’s contaminated water was declared a state and federal emergency, while thousands protested the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline and its impact on water sources.

Technology rendered Americans vulnerable to threats from government spies, police, hackers and power failures. The Justice Department battled Apple in court over access to its customers’ locked, encrypted iPhones. Microsoft sued the U.S. government over its access to customers’ emails and files without their knowledge. Yahoo confirmed that over half a billion user accounts had been hacked. Police departments across the country continued to use Stingray devices to collect cellphone data in real time, often without a warrant. A six-hour system shutdown resulted in hundreds of Delta flights being cancelled and thousands of people stranded.

Police became even more militarized and weaponized. Despite concerns about the government’s steady transformation of local police into a standing military army, local police agencies continued to acquire weaponry, training and equipment suited for the battlefield. In North Dakota, for instance, police were authorized to acquire and use armed drones. Likewise, the use of SWAT teams for routine policing tasks has increased the danger for police and citizens alike.

Children were hurt. A 17-year-old endangered silverback gorilla was shot preemptively after a 3-year-old child climbed into its zoo enclosure. In Disney World, an alligator snatched a 2-year-old boy off one of the resort’s man-made beaches. A school bus crash in Tennessee killed five children. And police resource officers made schools less safe, with students being arrested, tasered and severely disciplined for minor infractions.

Computers asserted their superiority over their human counterparts, who were easily controlled by bread and circuses. Google’s artificial intelligence program, AlphaGo, defeated its human opponent in a DeepMind Challenge Match. Pokemon Go took the world by storm and turned users into mindless entertainment zombies.

Terrorism took many forms. Brussels was locked down in the wake of terrorist attacks that killed dozens and wounded hundreds. A shootout between a gunman and police wrought havoc on a gay nightclub in Orlando. Terrorists armed with explosives and guns opened fire in Istanbul Airport. A trucker drives into a crowd of revelers on Bastille Day in France. Acts of suspected terrorism take place throughout Germany, including attacks using axes, knives and machetes. Japan undergoes a mass killing when a man armed with a knife targets disabled patients at a care facility. Syria continued to be ravaged by bomb strikes, terrorism and international conflict.

Science crossed into new frontiers. Doctors announced the birth of the first healthy three-parent baby created with DNA from three separate people. Elon Musk outlined his plan to populate Mars.

Tragedies abounded. An Amtrak train derailed outside of Philadelphia. A commuter train crashed through a barrier in New Jersey. Floods in Texas killed nine soldiers stationed at Fort Hood. Heatwaves swept the southwest, fueling wildfires. Flash floods and heavy rain devastated parts of Maryland and Louisiana.

The nanny state went into overdrive. Philadelphia gave the green light to a tax on sugary drinks. The FDA issued guidelines to urge food manufacturers and chain restaurants to reduce salt use.

The government waged a war on cash. Not content to swindle, cheat, scam, and generally defraud Americans by way of wasteful pork barrel legislation, asset forfeiture schemes, and costly stimulus packages, the government and its corporate partners in crime came up with a new scheme to not only scam taxpayers out of what’s left of their paychecks but also make us foot the bill. The government’s war on cash is a concerted campaign to do away with large bills such as $20s, $50s, $100s and shift consumers towards a digital mode of commerce that can easily be monitored, tracked, tabulated, mined for data, hacked, hijacked and confiscated when convenient.

The Deep State reared its ugly head. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government is the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our so-called representatives. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics. These are the key players that drive the shadow government. They are the hidden face of the American police state that has continued past Election Day.

The U.S. military industrial complex—aided by the Obama administration—armed the world while padding its own pockets. According to the Center for International Policy, President Obama has brokered more arms deals than any administration since World War II. For instance, the U.S. agreed to provide Israel with $38 billion in military aid over the next ten years, in exchange for Israel committing to buy U.S. weapons.

Now that’s not to say that 2016 didn’t have its high points, as well, but it’s awfully hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel right now.

Frequently, I receive emails from people urging me to leave the country before the “hammer falls.” However, as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, there is nowhere in the world to escape from the injustice of tyrants, bullies and petty dictators. As Ronald Reagan recognized back in 1964, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”

Let’s not take the mistakes of 2016 into a new year with us. The election is over. The oligarchs remain in power. The police state is marching forward, more powerful than ever. All signs point to business as usual. The game continues to be rigged.

The lesson for those of us in the American police state is simply this: if there is to be any hope for freedom in 2017, it rests with “we the people” engaging in local, grassroots activism that transforms our communities and our government from the ground up.

Let’s get started.

ABOUT JOHN WHITEHEAD

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at www.amazon.com. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Click here to read more of John Whitehead’s commentaries.

Filed Under: Opinion

Guest Commentary: Single tunnel option not a quick fix for the Delta

December 27, 2016 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore The Delta

These are not good times for Governor Brown’s Delta Tunnels (WaterFix) proposal.

The twin 40-foot-diameter, 30-mile-long tunnels would harvest Sacramento River water before it flows through the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary. A vast majority of this water would be sent to Big Ag operations like The Wonderful Company in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. It will destroy the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas.

But as the San Francisco Chronicle recently editorialized, “The tunnel project, now marketed to Californians as WaterFix, lacks community trust and political will and is saddled with a $16 billion (and growing) price tag that appears much larger than water agencies are willing to pay.

“Water districts, rural users, and entire cities like San Diego and Santa Monica are starting to question the wisdom or affordability of such a big project that does not deliver one new drop of new water.

“This November, a coalition of conservation and public interest organizations sent a letter to the Obama administration asking them to terminate the proposal so his legacy isn’t dragged down by a financial and environmental nightmare. The groups explain how the next administration will blame the boondoggle on Obama. They will say:

“We inherited the WaterFix from the previous administration and presumed that they knew what they were doing and had fully evaluated the project in good faith when they determined it should go forward.”
As environmental and financial obstacles continue to mount for the proposal, California water policy wonks are now scrambling for a viable Plan B.

The influential Public Policy Institute of California recently took a step back from support for the Twin Tunnels and offered a scaled back, Plan B. In an op-ed for the Sacramento Bee they offer, A Grand Compromise for the Delta.

PPIC now proposes a smaller plan they believe can settle the water wars over the Bay-Delta. Their proposal includes one-tunnel, managing water flows for entire ecosystems not just specific species, strengthening Delta levees, and letting communities tap into tunnel water supplies where local water is salty.

Restore the Delta is certainly encouraged the Public Policy Institute of California has backed down from support for the highly destructive Twin Delta Tunnels proposal. But the scaled-back project the PPIC now proposes is a completely different and new project. Before it can be analyzed, we still need to figure out how much water the Delta needs to maintain ecological health for the communities who live there and the species who depend on a healthy estuary.

The State Water Board’s flow hearings for the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers must be completed before any project can be analyzed.

Independent fishery experts now say that the San Joaquin River needs at least 50 percent unimpaired flows to stop extinction and achieve legally required doubling goals for salmon.

Any new tunnel proposal would, we hope, include a more comprehensive public scoping process so as to include Delta environmental justice communities, made up of hundreds of thousands of residents. We would also hope for a more transparent environmental and economic review process with better science and better public debate than what was put forth for the current Delta Tunnels proposal. CA WaterFix touts hundreds of meetings over the last ten years, but most were never properly noticed to Delta communities for meaningful participation.

If, indeed, support for the Big Twin Tunnels project is fading, let’s kill that proposal once and for all. Californians who voted in 1982 against the Peripheral Canal assumed we had made that decision long ago.

In an era of climate change and shrinking snowpack in the Sierra, less snowmelt means that by the time the expensive Twin Tunnels project would be finished, it may sit empty most of the time. The same may be true for one tunnel.  We don’t know yet.

Instead, we should invest in California’s water future. Southern California already taking the lead on the cutting edge of a water technology. Stormwater harvesting, conservation, water recycling, and groundwater recharging are reducing the need for imported water to the Southland. Many of these ideas can be found in a report titled A Sustainable Water Plan for California by the Environmental Water Caucus.

The Delta Tunnels, even a scaled back version, may not be the best use of limited funds. Let’s kill off the big Delta Tunnels plan once and for all. Then we can redirect those funds to create local jobs that build water sustainability by adding new water into the system. That is the path to provide real security for California’s future.

Originally published by KCET, December 19, 2016. Republished with permission. Commentaries are the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of KCETLink.

Filed Under: Environment, Opinion, The Delta, Water

Guest Commentary: The time for action in funding East County Fire service is now

December 13, 2016 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Bryan Scott

In a 1987 speech President Ronald Reagan said, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” The speech was delivered at the Brandenburg Gate of the Berlin Wall, which has now vanished into history.

Today, the people of Brentwood say to Brentwood City Manager Gus Vina, “Mr. Vina, reallocate our taxes.”

Today a public safety crisis exists, a crisis that is well known to the elected leaders and municipal administrators paid to run the cities, special districts and schools within the 249-square mile territory of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD).

President Reagan made a bold statement; he issued a clear directive to the leader of the USSR.   Even though the Berlin Wall was not in the USSR, everyone knew where policy decisions on the Berlin Wall were made.

A community-proposed solution to our local crisis includes the redistribution of 5.2% of future property taxes. Today about $165 million in property taxes are collected within the territory of the fire district, and in the most recent year property values within Brentwood and Oakley grew by over 8%.

By phasing-in this tax redistribution program over four years each government entity would receive 1.3% less in new property tax funding each year, cumulatively, while at the end of the program the ECCFPD would be funded at about the county average fire district rate, 12%.  This would be a significant improvement over the current 7%.

City Manager Vina’s procedural steps are simple.  The Brentwood City Council needs to hold a public hearing, pass a resolution, and then forward a property tax transfer agreement to Bob Campbell, Contra Costa County Controller.  It is a simple and eloquent procedure, one used by the county to transfer property taxes just a month ago.

Oakley City Manager Bryan Montgomery, County Administrator David Twa and the other special districts of east county can follow the same procedures, outlined in the California Revenue and Taxation Code, Chapter 6, Section 99.02. School districts would transfer operating funds to the fire district to fulfill their obligation to assure the safety of their students, staff and faculty, using a memorandum-of-understanding method.

Using last year’s numbers as a guide this tax redistribution this would add $7.8 million to the fire district’s funding, allowing ECCFPD to permanently staff and operate a total of six fire stations, up from today’s three stations.

City Manager Vina, as well as his Oakley counterpart, City Manager Montgomery, and County Administrator Twa have all objected to the proposal.  They’ve said there are other uses for the money, or that tight budgets make the funds unavailable.

Using last year’s numbers Brentwood’s contribution to this program would be $150,771 per year, $603,059 in total.  Brentwood’s total budget is about $46 million.  Oakley’s contribution would be $36,218 per year, $144,871 in total.  The County’s contribution would be about $300,000 per year, $1.2 million in total, counting all county agencies. The county’s total budget is $1.470 billion.

The question has been raised, which services are to be cut? The answer is none.  Government expenditures, and the services these expenditures provide, will simply grow at a slower rate for four years.  They need not be cut.

The people of Brentwood and Oakley have said “no” to additional taxes for fire and emergency medical services that are provided to the rest of the county out of current property taxes.  It is time to fund an adequate level of essential services using the current taxpayer burden.

“Mr. Vina, reallocate our taxes.”say the people of Brentwood.

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

Payton Perspective: The basic services of government should be funded first, not with special taxes

December 1, 2016 By Publisher 8 Comments

payton-perspective-logo-2015When will our elected officials get the message that they need to fund basic services of government, first out of the tax money they already receive, instead of using them to get us to pay for more and higher taxes?

President Lincoln once said, “The legitimate object of government is ‘to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves’.”

The number one thing fitting that description that we need government to do for “we the people” is to protect our rights – mine from you and yours from me.

So, the first priority of government in America is and always will (or at least should) be public safety, and at the local level, specifically police. In addition, the other aspect of public safety, fire services, should be next on the list, followed by other things we can’t do ourselves or as well ourselves, which are transportation, education, and of course water and sewer service.

Yet, those first four services are what local and state governments use to try to get us to pass another sales, utility or other tax, or a bond issue, which results in higher property taxes. Those services should be paid for out of city, county and state budgets with the money they already get from basic property and sales tax revenue, first.  Then, if we can’t afford to pay for the extra things, we like and want out of the budget, that we can provide for ourselves such as recreation, then our elected and other government officials should ask for special taxes for those items.

It seems for too long they’ve had things backward in this state and at our local level, as well. A perfect example is the recent effort to pass another tax increase for the East County Fire Protection District, that the people just voted down, again. From the ones I’ve spoken with, it appears the elected officials in that district are getting the message, as instead of thinking of a third way to get the voters to give them more money, the officials will work to reallocate the money the cities, county and special districts already receive and reprioritize them to provide the much needed fire service in that part of the county.

It’s time all of our elected officials got the message and recognize that we’re taxed enough already, and they need to reprioritize their budgets to provide us what their government agencies were formed for in the first place, before trying to pay for other things which aren’t a fundamental requirement and don’t need to be provided by our government. I’ll repeat that – our government.

While it may mean fewer city or county services, so be it. That’s what we want and should get. Just like budgets for your home or business, if you don’t have enough to meet the basics – food, clothing, shelter, utilities and medical care – then you don’t take a trip to Tahiti or splurge on anything else.

Again, if we want the extras then ask us for a special tax for those items, instead. Quit using the highest priorities of government to extract more of our hard-earned money that’s dwindling in our pockets. So, meet our needs, first and if there’s extra money left over, then pay for the wants. It’s pretty basic and simple, folks.

Filed Under: Government, Opinion, Politics & Elections

Op-Ed: Pittsburg Unified fails students over anti-Trump protest

November 28, 2016 By Publisher Leave a Comment

By Fernando Navarro

On Thursday, November 10, an incident took place in Pittsburg and Antioch which illustrated a major failing of our public education system.  Hundreds of Pittsburg High School students, apparently protesting the results of the presidential election, walked out of their classes, off campus, and made their way to Antioch. During their journey, some of them committed acts of violence which resulted in three arrests…and a strain on police resources for both cities, as 23 police officers (15 from Antioch and 8 from Pittsburg) had to be called out to deal with the situation.

Statements by some officers indicated that the PHS principal, Todd Whitmire, joined students in the protest.  This has been disputed by Whitmire and Pittsburg Unified School District (PUSD) Superintendent Janet Schulze, who claim Whitmire was with the protesters only to make sure they were safe.

Neither story speaks well of the PUSD leadership.  The first would indicate that PUSD administrators are actively working to incite students away from learning and discourse and toward yelling and violence.  The second would indicate that PUSD administrators have lost control of their school, and that student whims rule the day.

What we witnessed didn’t come out of nowhere, and didn’t come about because the, “election has been especially emotional,” as a statement by Schulze said.  This is the result of years of inept classroom management, which has led to a lack of respect for authority.  It comes about because, as with English and math, students don’t appear to be learning basic civics.

I recently lost my bid for election to the Antioch Unified School District (AUSD) Board of Trustees.  That doesn’t mean I’ll be silent, though.  I’ll continue to advocate for the change that’s needed to turn our schools around and deliver better educational, and life-choice, outcomes for our students.  And I’ll be encouraging parents to educate themselves about school policies, and to make sure their voices are heard.  But I’ll be doing so by speaking and writing in the appropriate forums, not by disrupting traffic, disrupting classes, or by otherwise impinging on the rights of my fellow citizens.

Finally, I applaud Antioch Police Chief Allan Cantando for speaking out about this incident at the PUSD School Board meeting.  I applaud AUSD Superintendent Stephanie Anello and Antioch High School Principal Louis Rocha for taking swift action to prevent similar disruptions in Antioch schools.

Now, let’s all come together to provide our students with the educations they deserve.

Navarro is a member of the Antioch Unified School District Board of Trustees

Filed Under: East County, Education, Opinion

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • …
  • 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