Contra Costa Herald

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

Opinion: Running for office is not easy, candidate responds to other publication’s article

By Leave a Comment

By Rudy Recile, Retired U.S. Army Major, candidate for Congress, CA District 8

Rudy Recile. Source: 2024 campaign

Grassroots candidates running for an office don’t have it easy.  People don’t know your name, you have no money in your campaign account and adding insult to injury, depending on what party you are affiliated with, the media may or may not be friendly towards you or your campaign.

Recently an article was written about my campaign “Rematch race for East Bay congressional seat clouded by disinformation from challenger” by Katie Lauer East Bay Times October 30, 2024.

With a title like that would any challenger have a chance? Depending on whether or not the reader keeps up with current events would determine what type of article they are reading. I don’t know if this was an article, opinion statement or hit piece.

I know Rep. John Garamendi has cancer, and I mentioned to the reporter during the interview I wouldn’t disparage the congressman in any way.  I wanted to run a clean race and not a smear campaign.  Instead of John Garamendi going after me the reporter decided to write an article seemingly attacking me.

All stories have a point of view and there is always some truth in the telling of the story.  When I was being interviewed, I didn’t remember all of the details of the current events we were discussing.  I was able to get most of the information correct and instead of the reporter doing her due diligence she took the negative side and stated I am passing dis-information.

For example, when hurricane Helene devastated the east coast, I stated the Government was restricting air space and it was in fact happening.

Eventually the restrictions were lifted.  The point the reporter emphasized was the lifting of restrictions which means there were restrictions in place.  The reporter failed to mention that FEMA and other federal agencies didn’t show up for almost a week after the hurricane and there were many people posting on social media platforms that they were being restricted from flying.

I spoke about a Veteran being evicted to make way for migrants.  The reporter found an article where some people acted and reported they were evicted to make way for migrants from a hotel which was found to be a hoax.  The article I was referring to was about a New York Army Veteran who was evicted from a nursing home to make way for migrants and not the story she mentioned. https://nypost.com/2023/11/30/news/army-vet-kicked-out-of-nyc-nursing-home-to-make-room-for-migrants/ There are many stories out there she could have chosen but the story she chose to back her story was the one regarding the hoax.

I also mentioned how crime is not being reported based on an article in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Contrary to Media Myth, U.S. Urban Crime Rates Are Up” – https://www.wsj.com/opinion/contrary-to-media-myth-u-s-urban-crime-rates-are-up-violence-cities-9ce714f6. “National Crime Victim Survey (NVCS) 2023 finds no statistically significant evidence that violent crime or property crime is dropping in America…” NVCS. “In the 2023 NVCS, crime victims conveyed that a majority – 55% of violent victimizations weren’t reported to the police,
while 70% of property crime victimizations weren’t reported.”

Since crime is not being reported as it was in the past the statistics seem to be decreasing.  It is so easy to find articles regarding how Prop 47 has affected California. She decided to identify an article which soft plays Prop 47 which I mentioned.

Even with all the negativity the best parts of the article were the parts where she directly quoted my full statement and not just parts of my statements

The bottom line is this, if you’re a grassroots candidate, realize running for office isn’t easy and it won’t be all sunshine and rainbows.  If you’re going to vote, do your own due diligence and be an educated voter before you vote.  Vote the policies the person supports and not the person or the party.

For more information about me and my campaign visit https://rudyforuscongress.com.

Payton Perspective: Backed by the badge, businessman, Councilman Barbanica is best for Contra Costa Board of Supervisors

By Leave a Comment

Mike Barbanica. Source: 2024 campaign

With experience in law enforcement, private sector and government he offers common-sense views unlike his left-leaning opponent

By Allen D. Payton, Publisher

In the race for Contra Costa County Supervisor District 5 seat held by Federal Glover who is retiring after six consecutive terms, Antioch Councilman Mike Barbanica is clearly the best choice to replace him. He faces Pittsburg Councilwoman Shanell Scales-Preston in the November run-off, after both made it past the four-candidate March primary election. The district includes the county’s northern waterfront cities and communities from the Senator John A. Nejedly-Antioch Bridge in East County to Hercules in West County.

Scales-Preston is Too Socialist and Progressive

Scales-Preston has some applicable experience having served as a councilmember and rotated vice mayor and mayor for the City of Pittsburg for the past six years, as well as on the four transportation boards serving East County, three for just the past two years, as past president and current member of the East Bay League of California Cities, and chair of the Los Medanos Health Advisory Committee. That committee worked with the now defunct healthcare district where Antioch Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe was the executive director for which the County Board of Supervisors settled with two of his female employees over sexual harassment claims for $350,000.

According to her bio on the City of Pittsburg’s website, Scales-Preston grew up in the City of Pittsburg graduated from Pittsburg High School and earned a degree in Political Science with an option in Pre-Law from Cal State East Bay. Her career has been in government, working for over 20 years as a staff member for both former Congressman George Miller and now Congressman Mark DeSaulnier.

That’s one of the challenges I have with Scales-Preston. Unlike her current boss, DeSaulnier who was a restaurateur in Concord before getting elected to local, then state and now federal office, Shanelle hasn’t worked in the private sector. So, she can’t truly understand what it takes to create jobs or wealth and grow the economy. That’s what is one of the key issues that needs to be addressed in District 5, especially along the waterfront.

Another issue I have with Scales-Preston is her political alliances and from whom she has accepted and promotes endorsements. They include Our Revolution East Bay, which according to their website, ourrevolutioneastbay.org, is “a progressive political organization that emerged from the historic Bernie Sanders campaign.” Sanders for decades described himself as a democratic socialist and has been the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, except when now-Vice President Kamala Harris was serving. Those are not the kind of bigger, more expensive government views we need on the Board of Supervisors.

That brings up another issue, the blatant injection of partisan politics into local, non-partisan races, which I’ve harped on for the past 12 years, ever since Antioch Councilwoman Monica Wilson put her face and name on one side of a mailer and Obama’s on the other. Scales-Preston’s running a billboard ad on Highway 4 in Antioch with her face on one side of the ad and Harris’ on the other side. That’s completely inappropriate, and unnecessarily, and foolishly divisive. Scales-Preston also touts the endorsements of several Democratic Party organizations, including the State Party which surprisingly is opposing Prop. 36, the anti-crime measure, on the November ballot.

Finally, the other alliance and endorsement Scales-Preston promotes in her campaign is from the nation’s top abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. As I called out District Attorney Diana Becton for doing the same in 2022, I’m calling out Shanelle. Why would a Black woman take the endorsement of an organization founded in racist eugenics which by Margaret Sanger who spoke about and worked to eliminate the Black and brown races, which includes Hispanics, and has been very successful. Because the majority of abortions in the U.S. each year are by Black and Hispanic mothers. That’s why Planned Parenthood continues to focus and located their so-called “clinics” in neighborhoods with high populations of African- and Hispanic Americans. Scales-Preston is literally siding with the organization that continues to work against her own people of color. (Please see Margaret Sanger: Ambitious Feminist and Racist Eugenicist, https://womanisrational.uchicago.edu/2022/09/21/margaret-sanger-the-duality-of-a-ambitious-feminist-and-racist-eugenicist/)

While I like her and find that she’s a nice lady in our few conversations, Shanelle is seriously misdirected in her thinking and views and needs some experience with a job in the private sector before running either for re-election or higher office, again.

Backed by the Badge, Councilman, Former Cop, Business Owner Barbanica is Better and Best for the Board

Barbanica, on the other hand, has a much broader career experience having served as an officer and retired lieutenant after 21 years with the Pittsburg Police Department, where he helped fight against eight dirty cops, one of whom is still in prison for murder. He also worked as a sexual assault detective and a homicide detective, where he “helped women in the worst times of their lives,” Barbanica stated. That included saving a 13-year-old girl from repeated sexual assaults from an older man. He also ran the traffic division, oversaw not only Code Enforcement and all the other specialized enforcement units, including gangs, alcohol and tobacco, and street-level drug dealing teams.

He developed and led a six-officer team for six years, that worked on violent and street-level crime, which was reduced by almost 24% over a few years. Barbanica also ran the K-9 and Field Training Officer programs, and the Emergency Operations Center working with the FBI after 9-11 to prevent any terrorist attacks inside local industrial plants.

For the past 19 years he’s owned a successful, local real estate business in both residential and commercial sales, property ownership and management, the appropriately named Blue Line Property Real Estate & Management. That has given him the experience of dealing with renters and owners, understanding the issues that both sides have to deal with.

For the past four years, Barbanica has also served on the embattled Antioch City Council where he’s been the mature voice of reason in spite of the chaos, cronyism and corruption in which he did not participate. Nor can he be blamed for it, as he was on the short end of a variety of 3-2 and 4-1 votes while at the same time he was able to push for and successfully obtain majority votes in favor of his proposals, such as body cameras for police officers and dash cams for their vehicles, and tougher penalties for sideshows. In fact, Barbanica was the one who found common ground with the mayor to include penalties for advertisers planners, participants and spectators, as well.

He also pushed for expanding Antioch’s Code Enforcement by seven officers, doubling it to 14.

Barbanica has developed private-sector solutions to the challenge of homelessness in our county. He worked to revise the existing HUD contract with the County “to make it more palatable for owners to want to do business with homeless residents,” he said. “The program was actually my wife’s idea. We started with one single mom with her children, one of whom is disabled, and who are still housed with us, today.”

They expanded it to include homeless veterans.

“We work with seven different agencies to get people off the street and today, we have over 575 people housed that were facing homelessness or instability, who now have a roof over their head,” the candidate shared.

Barbanica’s platform focuses on his top priorities which are public safety, homelessness and blight.

Asked about economic development he said, “It’s always a constant. But we have to deal with the other issues, first. If we want business to come here, we have to provide them a place where their business will thrive.”

Regarding the Northern Waterfront Initiative, “It needs retooling,” Barbanica stated. “Because the zoning doesn’t match the long-term plans and developers have struggled and are very frustrated with the County. I’m going to be an advocate to develop that area and work with those developers but balance it with the concerns for the environment.”

He will also work on the Green Empowerment Zone, “to bring green jobs into our county to boost our local economy,” he added.

Barbanica also worked to bringing in 1,100 new, upscale homes in the Sand Creek area of Antioch in which “both sides, the developer and the environmental community, specifically Save Mt. Diablo, were satisfied,” following multiple meetings.

About transportation, he says supports extending BART to Tracy and back to Pleasanton, as well as completing the Highway 4 bypass / extension and building Route 239 from Brentwood to Tracy to connect Highway 4 to I-5, 205 and 580, “an East Bay loop” he said. It will permanently open East County for economic development. “Finally, it’s being planned after being on the books for almost 65 years,” Barbanica added.

Not surprisingly, he has the support of law enforcement, including Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston, the Contra Costa County Deputy Sheriffs Association, Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Association, Contra Costa County District Attorney Investigators’ Association, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, PORAC – Police Officers Research Association of California, as well as the Police Officers Associations of Antioch, Pittsburg, Concord, Martinez, Hercules, Brentwood, Clayton, Moraga, Pinole, Pleasant Hill, Richmond and Walnut Creek and the United Professional Firefighters of Contra Costa County.

Regarding the police scandals that affected both the Antioch and Pittsburg Police Departments, one thing needs to be clarified. When Antioch’s mayor and one councilwoman were irresponsibly and publicly calling for all 35 Antioch officers caught up in the racist text scandal to be fired – most of whom merely received the texts, but didn’t send any, and before the investigations were completed, and most returned to their jobs – Barbanica was again, the voice of reason. He said he, the mayor and other council members needed to shut their mouths and let the investigators work through the process, and not give the dirty, guilty cops anything they could use to keep their jobs, such as claiming their terminations were politically motivated. Yet, his opposition has been attempting to twist his words to mean something he didn’t.

One additional thing I like about him, having dealt and worked with with him in a councilman-reporter relationship for the past four years, Barbanica is available and responds to phone calls, texts and emails including any and all questions no matter how challenging. I respect that in an elected official.

“I truly believe the media’s responsibility is to keep government and politicians honest, and the people informed,” he stated. I completely agree.

On a personal note, Barbanica is married to Kristine, they have three children and six grandchildren, most of whom live in the area. Two of his children have followed him into law enforcement as his son is a Pittsburg Police Officer who “works my old beat with the same call sign assigned to it,” Barbanica shared. His youngest daughter is a prosecutor in another county in California. His older daughter is a physician’s assistant.

For the benefit of the northern portion and all of Contra Costa County, please join me in supporting Mike Barbanica as our next Supervisor representing District 5.

To learn more about him and his campaign visit www.mikebarbanica.com.

Letters: Antioch priest, Lead Fire Chaplain says he didn’t authorize use of his photo by Brentwood councilwoman in re-election mailer

By Leave a Comment

Copy of Brentwood District 1 Councilwoman Jovita Mendoza’s re-election campaign mailer which included a photo with Con Fire Chaplain and Antioch Catholic Priest Robert Rien (see yellow circle).

Claims Jovita Mendoza won’t respond to request to “revoke the flyer”

Editor,

I am writing to clarify the situation of a political flyer that has been distributed including a photograph of Jovita Mendoza and myself.  In my position as a Priest of the Diocese of Oakland, the Pastor of St. Ignatius of Antioch Parish of Antioch, and the Lead Chaplain for the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, I am not allowed to support or endorse any candidate for public office nor give the impression that I do so.  The flyer in question gives the impression that I do support Jovita Mendoza for public office, and it is not true.  My consent and permission to make use of my photograph for that flyer was never sought or given.

More than a week ago, I sent her an email requesting that she revoke the flyer and clarify that she used my photograph with her fraudulently to suggest that as the fire chaplain (and possibly a priest) that I do in fact endorse and support her effort to win a seat on the Brentwood City Council.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.  I write to you today to make sure that my parishioners, the members of our diocese, and the citizens of East County that I have not

violated the directives given to me by both my Bishop and the Fire Chief.  My hope is that this incident would give the citizens of Brentwood pause as to who this person really is and her disregard for ethics, professionalism, morality, and fitness for the position she seeks.

Father Robert Rien

Pastor

St. Ignatius of Antioch Parish

and

Lead Chaplain, Contra Costa County Fire Protection District

Op-Ed: LMC professor supports re-election of Sandoval for Contra Costa College Board Ward 5

By Leave a Comment

As mail-in ballots have now arrived at voters’ homes, I felt it was important to voice why I strongly support Fernando Sandoval for re-election as Board Trustee for the Contra Costa Community College District, Ward 5.

His area of the district includes the communities of Pittsburg, Antioch, Bay Point, Oakley, Discovery Bay, Byron, Clyde and Clayton and Brentwood where I lived for 43 years. I am also a professor of World Languages at Los Medanos College where I have been teaching for nearly 40 years which is the primary campus in Trustee Sandoval’s district along with the Brentwood campus. I personally know the challenges students face in striving to reach their educational goals, as well as the opportunities an education provides in advancing their futures.

I first met Fernando Sandoval in 2016 in the East County community. I was impressed with his commitment to cultural awareness, student success, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds. I also appreciated his understanding of how the college campus, students’ families and the community at large need to work together to ensure that students achieve their goals.

In past years, the district has dealt with budgetary challenges, faculty contract disputes, district leadership turnover and the decrease in student enrollment numbers, to name a few. When Trustee Sandoval was elected in 2020, he brought a high level of visionary leadership, positive collaboration, commitment, integrity and a strong work ethic needed to help guide the District in a proactive pathway.

Fernando also brought over 25 years of professional expertise in the banking, finance and technology industries to cooperatively address the budget deficit issues facing the District, including with members of the Board of Trustees. Through most of his four-year tenure, his financial knowledge and leadership have been extremely valuable in helping to guide budgetary and policy decisions, particularly during the unprecedented impact of Covid-19.

Trustee Sandoval has been open to listening to faculty leadership and classified staff in understanding our key priorities so a supportive learning environment can be created for students. But just as importantly, he has been accessible to students to listen to their concerns and suggestions for improving issues and engaging students in the Board’s policy-making process.  I have met many civic leaders and community residents who have said how refreshing it is to have a college board leader who is so visible and engaged in meeting and listening to their thoughts at neighborhood meetings and community events.

His commitment to ensuring the college district and the community is reflective in his solution- based decision-making and is why he was honored for his public service with the 2020 Cesar Chavez Award for Exemplary Community Service presented by Los Medanos College.

Trustee Fernando Sandoval “walks his talk!” He is totally committed to a “student for success” approach! These past four years he has shown to be a leader we can respect and count on!  He brings strong leadership with an innovative vision for solutions for the students and residents of Contra Costa County.

I encourage my fellow voters to re-elect Fernando Sandoval as Board Trustee of the Contra Costa Community College District on November 5th!

Dr. Laurie Huffman Leyva

Faculty, Los Medanos College

Resident, Brentwood

Op-Ed: DeSaulnier’s opponent Piccinini responds to his comments about Chevron’s departure

By Leave a Comment

Challenger Katherine Piccinini (Source: campaign) disagrees with incumbent Mark DeSaulnier (Source: campaign) on his views about Chevron and their headquarters move from San Ramon to Texas.

By Katherine Piccinini

My pledge to the people of Contra Costa District 10 is to be Putting the People First. The incumbent has made it very clear, as Chevron prepares to leave San Ramon for Texas, he, the incumbent, is putting state and federal policies first. (See related article)

When we think of a large company moving away from its long-term home area, there are many challenges to be considered, such as: loss of revenue from the move, stress of relocating families, children’s emotional and educational issues and the strain on families having to start over. In the incumbents’ words, “I hope as Chevron relocates their corporate facilities, they will keep California’s climate goals in mind.” Really? With all the overwhelming human factors involved, the executives should keep our state’s climate goals in mind. Again, really?

Chevron’s achievements in pursuing and investing in alternative energy sources was have been well defined touching on areas of solar, wind, biofuel, geothermal and hydrogen. Have these pursuits been unacceptable? This is all part of reducing so-called “greenhouse emissions” as we continue to rely on naturally formed, carbon-based oil, often referred to as fossil fuels. Chevron has been at odds with California State regulators and politicians over fossil fuels and climate change for years. Because they want Chevron to be a diverse energy company investing in clean renewable energy does not mean that Chevron has not put forth great alternatives. California is considered to be one of the most progressive energy states but, we shouldn’t allow “cancel culture” to override reasonable considerations.

And that is the problem. It is California policies that are driving residents and companies elsewhere. This move was known since 2022. Chevron has been in California for 140 years and in San Ramon since 2002. Chevron cited that California policies have hurt consumers, and they feel this is not good for the economy so they will seek greener pastures. Also, there appears to be something more ominous on the horizon as California’s Energy Commission is considering taking over oil refineries and operations in the Golden State. May that be the bigger threat to Chevron and possibly other private industries?

We will miss this “oil giant” and all that it has brought to our district in stimulating the economy, jobs and stepping forward to pursue energy alternatives for our state.

Piccinini is a candidate for Congress in District 10 which includes most of the cities and communities in Central and Eastern Contra Costa County.

Guest Column: This little-known federal agency is key to out-competing China

By Leave a Comment

International Trade Commission protecting America’s innovation edge

By Frank Cullen

A little-known federal agency might be our most powerful asset in the race for global tech leadership. The International Trade Commission has the power to deter patent infringement abroad and at home by blocking infringers’ access to the huge American market.

It’s up to policymakers to make sure this asset gets deployed to the full extent of the law.

Here’s the problem: In today’s knowledge economy, ideas are the coin of the realm. But America’s intellectual property is under constant attack.

That’s because a 2006 Supreme Court decision, eBay v. MercExchange, severely curtailed the rights of IP owners. Previously, patent holders could easily stop infringers with court orders, called injunctions, preventing the sale of knock-off products that illegally incorporated patented technology.

But the eBay case changed the procedure for obtaining a court injunction. Patent holders now must prove that money alone can’t make them whole for the damage the infringement caused. Though intended to curb certain types of abuse of injunctive authority, the decision unintentionally made it nearly impossible for legitimate innovators to stop infringement, often leaving them with the sole option of pursuing lengthy legal battles for financial compensation.

Enter the ITC. This body wields the power to swiftly bar infringing foreign-manufactured products from the U.S. market entirely. For a government body, the ITC moves fast, typically resolving cases in 12 to 18 months, compared to the years-long slog of district court litigation.

Its administrative law judges are experts in complex patent issues and can grant exclusion orders now mostly unavailable in federal courts. This combination of speed, expertise, and decisive action makes the ITC an increasingly important venue for companies seeking to protect their innovations from copycats.

Established in 1916 as the U.S. Tariff Commission, the ITC has evolved alongside the American economy as we transitioned from a manufacturing powerhouse to an innovation-driven economy.

This evolved role was on full display in a recent high-profile case. When medical device maker Masimo accused the Apple Watch of infringing its blood oxygen monitoring patents, it turned to the ITC. The result? An import ban on infringing Apple Watch models that held Apple to account promptly. The ban demonstrates the ITC’s ability to check the power of even one of the world’s most dominant companies.

The ITC’s role is crucial to preserving America’s innovative edge. When a biotech startup pours its resources into a potentially life-saving drug, or when a telecom company invests billions in 5G technology, they need to know their intellectual property will be protected. The ITC’s ability to swiftly block infringing products creates a powerful deterrent against IP theft.

Critics of the ITC argue that its powers could potentially be used to stifle competition or harm consumers. But while there’s always a delicate balance between protecting innovation and protectionism, the ITC has built-in safeguards, starting with a public-interest requirement to weigh factors like health, safety, and competitive conditions into its decisions. It’s not a blunt instrument, but a precision tool designed to protect innovation while preserving fair competition.

As we look to the future, strengthening and modernizing the ITC should be a priority. This could involve increasing its resources to handle a growing caseload, streamlining its procedures, and potentially expanding its authority. We also need to educate our innovators more fully about the ITC as a forum for IP protection.

The future of American technological leadership depends on the choices we are making now — in policy, investment, and legal strategy.

Frank Cullen is executive director of the Council for Innovation Promotion. This originally ran in The Hill.

Opinion: Writer wants stricter conditions for government bailouts after corporate stock buybacks

By Leave a Comment

By Neil Sterud

In times of financial distress, corporations often turn to the U.S. government for assistance, as seen with airlines during the COVID-19 pandemic and financial institutions in the 2008 Great Recession. However, the government must implement stricter conditions for firms seeking bailouts, particularly those engaged in stock buybacks before their financial downturn.

Stock buybacks, a practice where firms repurchase their own shares, have garnered controversy. While it artificially inflates share prices, it often neglects vital investments in the company’s growth and resilience. Executives’ tendency to sell their shares post-buyback suggests the share price is overvalued, raising ethical concerns, especially when buybacks are financed through debt, heightening bankruptcy risks.

The historical prohibition of buybacks until 1982 underscores their dubious nature as stock manipulation tactics driven by executives’ self-interest. Instead of bolstering shareholder returns through buybacks, firms should prioritize investments that fortify their market resilience, such as capital expenditure. Government bailouts effectively subsidize shareholder returns at taxpayers’ expense, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift in corporate behavior. Many argue stock buybacks should be illegal altogether.

Executives’ vested interests in buybacks, often tied to their compensation, don’t necessarily translate to enhanced business performance. This bipartisan concern resonates with workers and policymakers alike, who advocate for redirecting working capital toward workforce training and sustainable reinvestment.

While federal tax breaks aim to spur economic growth, the misuse of tax savings for buybacks undermines this objective. Therefore, stricter conditions should accompany government bailouts, emphasizing long-term resilience over short-term gains.

In contemplating bailouts, leniency could be extended to firms severely impacted by mandated government shutdowns. Nonetheless, the overarching principle remains: corporations must prioritize resilience against unforeseen crises rather than fleeting market performance.

Sterud is a Contra Costa County resident.

Opinion: It’s time to take a hard look at public libraries

By Leave a Comment

By Marc Joffe

Like mom and apple pie, the public library seems so intrinsically good that it should be beyond criticism. But like any institution that consumes millions of tax dollars, public libraries should not be free from scrutiny. And the facts are that neighborhood libraries have largely outlived their usefulness and no longer provide value for the public money spent on them.

In this fiscal year, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are collectively spending $270 million to operate their library systems, with some cities chipping in extra to finance extended operating hours. Contra Costa County is spending $20 million of state and county funds to build a new library in Bay Point, and El Cerrito voters may see a sales tax measure on the November ballot, part of which will go to building a new library as part of a transit-oriented development near a BART station.

The public library’s historical functions of lending physical books and enabling patrons to view reference materials are being made obsolete by digital technology. An increasing proportion of adults are consuming e-books and audiobooks in addition to or instead of printed books, with younger adults more likely to use these alternative formats.

In response, libraries have tried to reposition themselves as “third places:” alternatives to homes and offices where people can relax, learn, and socialize. But the private sector offers numerous third places of its own, with coffee houses being the most common.

In Walnut Creek, the public library has responded by adding its own coffee shop, but just a few minutes away, residents and visitors can relax and enjoy free wi-fi at the Capital One Café at no cost to taxpayers and without being required to buy a cup of joe.

While no third place used by the public can be guaranteed to be safe and clean, private operators have a stronger incentive to provide an attractive environment because they otherwise risk going out of business.

They also face fewer legal restraints in enforcing public decorum. A 1991 federal court decision prohibited a New Jersey public library from “barring patrons who are not reading, studying or using library materials, who harass or annoy others through noisy activities or by staring, or whose ‘bodily hygiene is so offensive’ that it is a nuisance to others.”

As the Antioch Herald reported in February, the Antioch library had to be temporarily closed after multiple incidents “including a couple having sex openly in the bathroom, a wanted criminal using a library computer who was later removed by Antioch police, a racist letter left on the service desk and intoxicated library patrons acting aggressively.” The Contra Costa Public Library, which operates the Antioch facility reopened it four days later after negotiating an emergency contract for private armed security and arranging for a patrol car to monitor the exterior.

Library advocates argue that their public terminals offer essential internet access to those in need. But some patrons use free internet access at the local library to view pornographic content, sometimes to the distress of other terminal users including children. And low-income individuals are eligible for the Federal Communications Commission’s Lifeline program which provides a free smartphone with internet access.

Like local post offices, neighborhood libraries once served an important community function but are now becoming increasingly irrelevant. And, as with post offices, libraries continue to receive funding because they enjoy support from a relatively small but vocal segment of the population, while the rest of us are usually too reluctant to question their utility.

Marc Joffe is a federalism and state policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

 

Analysis: Hit piece against Avila Farias in Assembly race stretches truth

By Leave a Comment

Group behind effort to defeat her has spent over $233,000

By Allen D. Payton

Hit piece mailer against Avila Farias.

At least two campaign mailers against candidate for State Assembly District 15 Anamarie Avila Farias were sent to voters this month by a group named “Contra Costa Neighbors opposed to Farias for Assembly 2024”, and the most recent mailer clearly stretches the truth in one of its claims. They’re part of an effort that has spent over $233,000 to defeat her, so far.

The mailer readers “Typical Politician Anamarie Avila Farias’ Double-Dipping Record Hurt Progress on Homelessness” and among other accusations claims she, “Collected salaries and benefits from multiple governmental agencies at the same time.”

The mailer offers a link to “Check The Facts” on the Transparent California website, which lists public employees’ compensation records provided to them by government agencies. – http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?q=anamarie+farias&y=.

First, while I prefer employees for one government agency to not serve as elected officials for another, it’s not uncommon for local elected officials to also work for other government agencies. That was the case for Avila Farias 10 and 11 years ago. Since then, she has worked for a non-governmental agency and non-profit organization, while serving as both an elected and appointed official.

Some of that information is listed on Avila-Farias’ campaign website.

Government Employment

When reviewing the information about the Assembly candidate on the Transparent California website, it shows she previously worked in government positions as a Senior Management Analyst for the City of Oakland in 2013, then a Program Analyst for the City of Concord in 2013 and 2014, for which she was paid a salary and benefits. Those positions aren’t mentioned on her campaign website but are the only government positions she has held.

Non-Government, Elected & Appointed Positions

Avila Farias currently works as the executive director for the Juvenile Hall Auxiliary of Contra Costa County, a non-profit organization, for which she first served on the board of directors. Avila Farias said she stepped down from the board after being hired to run the organization in 2019.

As a member of the Martinez City Council from 2012-16, Avila Farias received pay and benefits totaling $16,552.01 to $18,791.48 per year. She is now serving in her first term as an elected trustee on the Contra Costa County Board of Education, having been elected in 2020, for which she receives about $550 in stipend and $2,500 in benefits per month.

Avila Farias has also served on the Board of Directors of the California Housing Finance Agency since she was appointed in 2015, for which she said she receives a small stipend of $100 per meeting. That was confirmed by agency staff and is also reflected on the Transparent California website. Avila Farias also serves on the Board of Directors of the Carquinez Regional Environmental Education Center, but that is not a paid position.

According to her profile on the Finance Authority’s website, “She held multiple positions at the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County from 1989 to 2018, including Housing Policy and Program Analyst and Central Waiting List Housing Manager.” However, according to the Housing Authority website, it is not a government agency even though its seven-member board includes all five county supervisors.

Transparent California website search results for Avila Farias.

 

Following is the list of Avila Farias’ government position-related compensation from the Transparent California website to which the mailer provides the link, in order of years:

Year     Position                                                                               Pay                  Benefits           Total______

2012    Martinez Council Member                                           $195.97           $294.78           $490.75

2013    Martinez Council Member                                          $7,020.00        $9,532.01        $16,552.01

2013    Senior Management Analyst, City of Oakland        $20,381.66      $8,850.29        $29,231.95

2013    Program Manager, City of Concord                           $60,587.94      $21,271.40      $81,859.34

2014    Program Manager, City of Concord                           $31,087.64      $7,038.95        $38,126.59

2014    Member, Martinez Council                                         $7,020.00        $11,348.02      $18,368.02

2015    Member, Martinez Council                                          $7,020.00        $11,771.48      $18,791.48

2016    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board          $200.00           $ -0-                 $200.00

2016    Member, Martinez Council                                          $6,834.00        $11,523.00      $18,357.00

2016    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2017    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2018    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2019    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $500.00           $ -0-                 $500.00

2020    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2020    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education                $541.97           $ -0-                 $541.97

2021    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $800.00           $ -0-                 $800.00

2021    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education               $6,720.44        $30,590.42      $37,310.86

2022    Member, CA Housing Finance Agency Board           $700.00           $ -0-                 $700.00

2022    Member, Contra Costa Board of Education               $6,857.99        $29,685.26      $36,542.55

Mostly False

So, there were only two years, 2013 and 2014 that Avila Farias received pay and benefits both as a government employee and as an elected official, supporting the mailer’s claim of her “double dipping”. But even that is a stretch as she wasn’t paid a salary for both positions, merely a stipend for her elected position and benefits for both and it was for only two agencies at a time. Thus, the mailer’s claim that Avila Farias “Collected salaries and benefits from multiple governmental agencies at the same time” is mostly false.

Keeping Californians Working Form 497 Late Contribution Reports dated Feb. 20, 22 & 26, 2024. Source: CA Secretary of State’s Cal-Access website.

Group Behind the Mailers

According to the disclosure requirement on the mailers, the group behind them “a coalition of charter public school advocates, insurance agents, technology, energy, and health care providers” and the “Ad Committee’s Top Funder” is listed as a political action committee (PAC) named “Keeping Californians Working.” A search of the California Secretary of State’s Cal-Access campaign finance website shows the committee’s FPPC ID number is 1365806 and as of the Feb. 17, 2024 report has raised $521,500 and spent $658,516.89 this year, with ending cash of $759,206.46. The PAC raised $1.125 million in 2023.

According to the PAC’s reports the coalition has spent over $233,000 to defeat Avila Farias. The PAC’s Form 497 Late Contribution Report number 321801-05 dated Feb. 26, 2024, shows they contributed $30,000 to the Contra Costa Neighbors opposed to Avila Farias coalition. According to the PAC’s Form 497 Late Contribution Report number 321801-04 dated Feb. 22, 2024, the committee also contributed $52,785 to defeat her, and report number 21801-03 dated Feb. 20, 2024, shows they contributed $150,000 to the effort against Avila Farias. Another Form 497 report number 321801-06 was filed today, Wednesday, Feb. 28 for an additional $1,000 contribution to the coalition’s efforts.

The PAC’s major contributors include $125,000 from the Personal Insurance Federation of CA Agents & Employees PAC; $250,000 from the Pharmaceutical Research And Manufacturers Of America IEC (Independent Expenditure Committee); $250,000 from Uber Innovation Political Action Committee; $250,000 from Powering California’s Future, Sponsored by Edison International, the Los Angeles-area energy company; $250,000 from DaVita, Inc., a kidney dialysis company; and most recently, $10,000 from Leadership for California: East Bay Committee, whose ID number was pending as of the date of the Form 49 report on Feb. 5, 2024. The PAC is also spending money to support other candidates in other parts of the state.

The election is next Tuesday, March 5. Avila Farias faces fellow Democrats former Contra Costa County Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson and Republican Realtor Sonia Ledo in the race to replace Assemblyman Tim Grayson who is running for State Senate. The top two candidates will face off in the November general election.

 

 

Payton Perspective: It’s time for reparations for descendants of African slaves in America

By Leave a Comment

“15th Amendment, or the Darkey’s millenium: 40 acres of land and a mule.” Man and boy with cart in front of the Putnam House, Palatka, Fla. Source: The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography Collection, from The New York Public Library. (1850 – 1930). (PUBLISHER’S NOTE: Objects depicting racist and/or stereotypical imagery or language may be offensive and disturbing, but the National Museum of African American History and Culture in which this photo is displayed aims to include them in the Collection to present and preserve the historical context in which they were created and used. Objects of this type provide an important historical record from which to study and evaluate racism).

Using federal land, not cash

By Allen D. Payton, Publisher

During this Black History Month, as I’ve been arguing for several years, I believe it’s time for all Americans to agree the promised reparations to freed slave families following the Civil War in 1865 should finally be fulfilled – but to their descendants.

First, let me point out the fact – especially to my fellow Republicans who might oppose them – that reparations were first, a Republican idea, ordered by Union Army Major General William Tecumseh Sherman, and supported by President Abraham Lincoln, the nation’s first Republican president. As a reminder, the Republican Party was formed to abolish slavery, and Lincoln and the Union Army successfully fought the Civil War to accomplish that goal.

40 Acres & A Mule

You may have heard the phrase “40 acres and a mule”, which was made more popularly known by movie actor and director Spike Lee who labeled his production company “40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks”. But you may not know that the phrase originated with reparations. That’s because Special Field Orders No. 15 were issued by Sherman on January 16, 1865, before the Civil War ended that May, granting “a plot of not more than (40) forty acres of tillable ground” to families, “made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States He also later ordered the army to lend mules to the freed slaves for their farming efforts.

The orders included the confiscation of 400,000 acres of plantation land along “a strip of (Atlantic) coastline stretching from Charleston, South Carolina to the St. John’s River in Florida, including Georgia’s Sea Islands and the mainland 30 miles in from the coast.” The land was to be divided into parcels on which approximately 18,000 formerly enslaved families and other Black people then living in the area would be settled.

The purpose was to provide for the freed slaves both a means to earn a living and support themselves, and the result would have been giving them an asset that could be passed on to future generations.

According to History.com, “The freedmen set out to begin working their new land immediately, with a group of 1,000 settling on Georgia’s Skidaway Island. In subsequent months as many as 40,000 freedmen settled on the redistributed land.”

Order Rescinded

Unfortunately, after Lincoln’s assassination just three months after the order was issued, his running mate on the National Union Party ticket in 1864, Democrat Vice President Andrew Johnson, following his ascension to the presidency, rescinded Sherman’s order. He returned to Confederate owners the 400,000 acres of land. Thus, the freed slaves were denied the land they had been granted and reparations were never offered to them by the federal government, again.

Why Reparations Now?

Some people argue that it’s been over 150 years, so why do Black Americans need reparations, today? My initial response is that they’re long past due. But my main answer is two-fold. One is the fact that a major issue among most Blacks in the U.S., today is a lack of asset ownership, including homes, real estate, investments and businesses. For example, the average Black family has one-tenth the assets of the average white family in the U.S.

Disparity in Household Wealth

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Wealth and Asset Ownership Detailed Tables: 2020, Table 1. Median Value of Assets for Households, from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, Survey Year 2021, the median net worth for all households was $140,800. However, when broken down by ethnicity, the median “Black alone” household had one-tenth the assets of the median “White alone” household, or $18,430 compared to $178,500. The disparity is even greater when compared to the median “White alone, non-Hispanic” household which had assets of $217,500.

My argument for the disparity and second one in favor of why reparations, now is the fact that for nearly 250 years, almost all Blacks in the U.S. couldn’t own property because they were property, nor did they get paid. They also couldn’t get an education. So, the rest of us, whose ancestors were never subjected to the horrors and evil of chattel slavery, in effect had a 250-year head start!

Yes, I’ve heard the arguments about the Irish, which is my ancestry, and how they were mistreated, or others who were indentured servants. But those were not the same as being a slave sold, bought and owned by someone else, as well as their future generations to follow.

A Federal Responsibility, Not State or Local

Second, reparations are not a state or local issue, but a federal responsibility. Long before the day the Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776, and in spite of the fact it enshrined the statement that, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and then from the signing of the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1789, to Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation and the end of the Civil War, our federal government allowed slavey. It continued for another 65 years after the Constitution was ratified on May 29, 1790, for a total of 246 years since the first African slaves were brought to our country in 1619. So, again, reparations are a federal responsibility.

(A side, historical note on the Three-Fifths Compromise and clauses in the Constitution. It was not intended by the framers to further devalue the lives of slaves, but to reduce the influence in Congress by the slave states, by preventing them from having additional members in the House of Representatives and a greater number of electors in presidential elections. The slave states wanted to include the slaves in the census count, while the free states didn’t want them included at all. The compromise determined that three out of every five slaves were counted when establishing a state’s total population. A benefit to the slave states was it reduced the amount of taxes they had to pay to the federal government.

In Article I, Section II, Clause III of the Constitution, the Three-Fifths Compromise is stated as:

“Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included in this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.”

See also James Madison’s writings in Federalist Paper No. 54 in which he argues that slaves were both property and people, and thus required some degree of representation).

But I digress. Back to the issue at hand.

Source: Bureau of Land Management

Reparations Are About Land, An Asset

Third, to my Democrat friends I remind them, reparations were initially land and that’s what they still should be, today, not cash. They should be about helping Black Americans own an asset for their use, from which to generate income and to pass on to future generations.

The federal government owns over one-fourth of the land in the U.S. According to a 2020 report and 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service, it amounts to “roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States”.

Looking at a map you’ll see the federal land is “heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), 3 where the federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area.” That includes 45.4% of California, 60.9% of Alaska, 38.6% of Arizona, 36.2% of Colorado, 20.2% of Hawaii, 61.9% of Idaho, 29.0% of Montana, 80.1% of Nevada, 52.5% of Oregon, 63.1% of Utah, 28.6% of Washington and 46.7% of Wyoming. The federal government also owns 12.9% of Florida.

Much of that land is either in national parks (79.9 million acres), in national forests (192.9 million acres) or is farm and ranch land leased to farmers and ranchers. Five federal agencies administer most of it, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. with the Department of Defense controlling 8.8 million acres, and 4% administered by multiple other agencies.

So, my proposal is to give to all Black Americans, who can prove they are a descendant of a slave in America, some of that federal land. It can either be given out on an individual or family basis.

While not all Black Americans are descendants of a slave in the U.S. – for example, Vice President Kamala Harris, whose father descended from a Jamaican slave, would not qualify – for simple calculation purposes let’s say all of them are. Blacks currently make up about 13% of the U.S. population of about 330 million people for a total of 40 million people.

If we gave every Black American one, two or even five acres, that would be 40, 80 or as much as 200 million acres which would still leave 440 million acres remaining for ownership and use by the federal government. (Frankly, I don’t understand why the federal government needs to own so much land, especially ranch land for grazing, anyway.)

The new owners could do what they want with the land: farm it, drill it for oil, gas or water, mine it, lease it, swap it with other reparation land recipients, build a home on it, borrow against it, or perhaps form joint ventures with neighboring property owners and develop new communities, even cities. But I believe the one stipulation should be the land could only be sold to another descendant of an American slave. Then, it could be passed on to future generations.

Another argument I’ve heard or read about reparations is, why should people today have to pay anything when neither they nor their family ever owned slaves. This approach addresses that concern. By giving out federal land, there would be no cost to current taxpayers. While it might reduce revenue to the federal government from a reduction in leased lands, that’s a small price to pay for addressing this 160-year-old matter once and for all time.

Source: Congressional Research Service

No One Has to Participate

Some Black people have stated publicly they don’t need or want the help and find it offensive that they be offered reparations. Let’s be clear, no one who is qualified has to participate in a federal reparations program. But I believe most would. Who wouldn’t want free land?

Those who chose to participate would, of course, have to prove their status, and some form of reparations commission or government agency would have to be formed to verify their status and manage the distribution of the land grants. Once verified, program participants would be entered into a lottery and the property could be distributed in periodic drawings. It could even be televised nationally as the participants’ numbers are drawn, and advertising could be sold, and the revenue shared with the federal government to make up for the loss of land lease revenue.

One Time Program May Take Several Years

To sum up, I say it’s time, once and for all, to fulfill the commitment of reparations ordered in 1865 and give portions of federally owned land to the descendants of slaves in the U.S. It might take several years to accomplish, but I believe we should and could start right away. Once the land has been distributed and all who want it received their share, then that would be it. We’d be done. Everyone would be happy, and there could be no more complaining. The agency would be disbanded, the issue would be put to rest, and it would be up to the new landowners to make do with theirs what they can.

Now, all we need is for Members of Congress and U.S. Senators to introduce the idea and move it forward.