There are some things about the local elections that are so
important, they bear repeating.
Four years ago, I wrote to clarify my opposition to two City
Council candidates, one of whom is now seeking re-election. “It's about
economics. These two would shift the burden of growth (water and transportation
infrastructure costs, quality of life) away from those who directly profit by
it (the growth industry) to those who don't (everyone else, including future
generations.)” For me, this is the perennial central issue for local elections.
Unlike other local industries, such as agriculture and telecom, the land
development industry is directly affected by City Council decisions. Thus, a
$5000 investment in getting a favorable City Council majority can yield
hundred-fold returns when the Council approves an exemption from the General
Plan, or allows fewer restrictions on density, grading, or traffic mitigation.
Councilman O’Brien, nobody thinks your vote can be bought
with a $500 donation. That’s not the issue. We do, however, think the amassed
$500 contributions will help you (and others) receive enough votes to secure
seats on the council, where you can continue a voting pattern that is less
development-critical than that of your “greener” opponents. In fact, based on
the first campaign finance reports, you are by far the top fund-raiser,
gathering $57,981. That’s already $7,000 more than the prior record holder Mike
Harris spent in his *entire* 2002 campaign, and $11,000 more than the current
Santa Rosa Council race fundraising leader. According the Press Democrat,
you’ve received “slightly more than half of (your) money from development
interests - such as builders, real estate investors and building supply
companies.” For the record, the developer share of other candidates’ war chests
are as follows: Karen Nau, 49%; Pam Torliatt, 28%; Cindy Thomas, 12% (Skip Spence didn’t raise
enough to require a report.)
Petalumans, don’t you think it’s wrong that
these special interests can put so much money into our election? Mike and Karen
claim that the Campaign Finance Reform Initiative, Measure R, will favor
incumbents by limiting the fund-raising ability of newcomers. But if the
developer-preferred candidates, like Mike and Karen, hold views that would
truly benefit the majority of voters, shouldn’t that majority come forth with a
flood of small donations and volunteers, as well as votes? Challenger or
incumbent, why do Mike and Karen (or anyone else, for that matter) need to
depend on those big blocks of out-of-town special interest money that would be
scaled back by Measure R? By the way, defeating Measure R would only stand to help
development-friendly candidates’ ability to defeat eco-minded incumbents, as
they’ve done in the past two elections.
And please, candidates, be careful how you spend this money.
In the last election, the development-money-swollen accounts of two candidates funded
grossly misleading hit-piece brochures mailed in the final week of the
campaign. Two years earlier, O’Brien and Bryant Moynihan sent a late mailer
showing their pictures next to front-runner Pam Torliatt,
creating the false impression that the three were a slate. I hope all
candidates will refrain from this kind of campaigning.
On the issues, one of the better ideas to emerge from the
campaign, touted by candidate Thomas, is Community Impact Reporting. It’s
simply a way to illuminate non-environmental aspects of large development
proposals: how do they help or harm employment, housing, public sector neighborhood
services, and other community economic and social assets. For example, a CIR on
a new Wal-mart would show how, after cannibalizing
locally-owned business, it’s substandard wage and benefits would drive workers
into government safety net programs (food stamps, Medicare, subsidized housing),
increasing taxpayer costs. Mom and Pop prices wouldn’t look so expensive, after
all.
A national note: once Kerry emerged from Karl Rove’s fog and stood face to face with Bush, the tide
turned. A desperate President is flinging increasingly absurd charges, while
Kerry is cutting through them with strong, clear, and forceful responses. After
two debates, it’s obvious who is cut out to be President. Once again, I ask
you: please get involved in this historical campaign; it’s not too late. Go to www.democrats.org or www.moveon.org. For extra motivation, see www.secondterm.us.