Why I am voting Don Perata for Mayor of Oakland
So, I told you guys yesterday why I am not voting for Jean Quan or Rebecca Kaplan for Mayor. Today, I’m going to tell you why I am proud to be voting for Don Perata.
I like Don Perata
I should probably start out by saying that although it took me a while to come to a decision about the Mayor’s race, it was never because I bought into that whole “anyone but Perata” thing. I admire Don Perata. I have admired him for many years.
The fact that he works for the CCPOA does not bother me. When politicians retire, they become lobbyists and political consultants. They all do it. Before Ron Dellums returned to Oakland to run for Mayor, he was a lobbyist for defense contractors and prescription drug companies. There were many reasons I thought that Ron Dellums would not make a good Mayor, but that wasn’t one of them.
I know that it really bothers some people. And to them, all I can say is that if it upsets you so much, if you think it’s more important than his record and his platform and his ability to lead Oakland, well, then you probably should not vote for him. It’s not like I’m some huge fan of the prison guards union either. But for my part, I don’t begrudge people for needing to make a living.
Maybe that’s because of how I grew up — my father is in the oil business. He became a geologist because he loved rocks. And he got into oil because he had a family to support. Where I’m from, lots of people are in this industry, and growing up, it never occurred to me that working in energy made you a bad person. But since I came to the West Coast 13 years ago, I have gotten more earfuls than I would have imagined possible about how everyone in the oil industry is completely evil and soulless. But you know what? I spent my whole life growing up surrounded by people who are part of it. And most of them are very nice people who do good things for their communities. So I’ve learned not to make broad judgements about people’s character based on their careers.
The fact that Don Perata eats dinner at Oliveto using campaign funds? That also doesn’t bother me. When it comes to the way public money is handled? I believe that is absolutely sacrosanct. But campaign donations? I don’t care. That’s not my problem. If Perata’s donors don’t like the way he’s using their money, they can stop giving it to him.
The Raiders deal? That doesn’t bother me either. Yeah, it was a bad deal. But the fact is, every single City Councilmember and every single Supervisor at the time supported it. The press supported it. And people were clamoring for someone to find a way to bring the Raiders back. When you have been in public service for decades, you are inevitably going to have made some bad calls. That’s just life. And what matters to me is not whether someone has ever made a mistake (because the only way to have an error-free record is to have never done anything), but whether or not they are able to acknowledge when they’ve made one and learn from it so they can do better in the future. And Don Perata has done that.
So while I know those are big issues for some people, I just wanted to say right from the beginning that they never have been for me.
It’s a tough State
One thing that has been really striking to me over the course of this election is learning how many people are just completely tuned out of news about the State.
I mean, I’m not like, obsessive about State politics or anything. But I do try to keep up with what’s going on. I read the Sacramento Bee RSS feed. I subscribe to some State blogs. And while there are plenty of people engaged on the State level who have legitimate beef with Don Perata based on policy disagreements (and I respect that), that is not, for the most part, what I have been encountering around here. What I have been running into is person after person who is convinced that they hate Don Perata and that he was bad for the State, but knows absolutely nothing about his record. I mention this because I think that one’s perspective on Don Perata is very different if the only things you know about him come from reading local stories about the FBI investigation or listening fearmongering from supporters of other candidates.
So if you don’t follow the State, I have two things to tell you. First, you should immediately start listening to the Capital Notes podcast from KQED California Report Sacramento Bureau Chief John Myers and Capitol Weekly’s Anthony York. You can listen to it on your headphones on the bus, it only takes half an hour a week, and it is by far the easiest way to keep yourself in touch with State politics. Second, it is rough up there in Sacramento. The two-thirds vote requirement to get a budget has created a truly insane situation where the minority party has all the power when it comes to spending, and because the budget is the only thing they have power over, the hold every other thing in the whole damn State hostage to it.
A tremendous legislative record
And ever since Arnold Schwarzenegger came to office, he has been submitting budgets that rob transportation, education, and social services. And Don Perata has been there fighting to protect these things that I hold dear. It took compromise, leadership, and concessions to get budgets passed. And he did it. It wasn’t always pretty, and the results weren’t always great, but he took the hand he had been dealt and did what he needed to do to get the job done.
And Don Perata has been there on issues I care about.
When the Governor decided he wanted to put tens of millions of dollars in infrastructure bonds on the ballot, and came up with a plan that was all about building dams and highways in the Central Valley, Don Perata stood up and fought to make that package work for cities and the for the environment. And it was hard, and it took months, and it took compromise, but it happened.
And we got Proposition 1C, which funded affordable housing, emergency shelter, down-payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, environmental remediation to support urban infill, and high-density, transit-oriented development. We got Proposition 1D, which funded badly needed upgrades to school and university facilities. We got Proposition 1E, which protected watersheds and wetlands. And we got Proposition 1B, which provided funding for air quality improvements at urban ports and public transportation. These things matter to me.
I care about the environment. Without Don Perata, we would not have AB 32. (For those who aren’t aware, AB 32 is landmark climate change legislation that mandates dramatic greenhouse gas emissions reductions. It is a huge deal.) You think that getting that passed was easy? You think everyone liked it? Well, obviously not, since they are trying to get rid of it on the ballot right now! At the same time, although to less fanfare, Don Perata also authored successful legislation to create emissions standards for electricity used in California (i.e., make your energy cleaner).
I care about public transportation. When Bay Area public transit agencies were bleeding, Don Perata made sure that operations funding was a part of RM2. Again, this is a big deal. Nobody ever wants to include operations money in anything!
And I care about Oakland. And Don Perata has been there for Oakland. Whether it’s stepping in to help save a skate park or supporting literacy for Oakland school children, Don Perata has consistently remembered the people he represents and delivered on the home front. He got us the money to build Mandela Parkway. When we were struggling with the sideshow problem, he changed State law to help. When violent crime in Oakland skyrocketed, Don Perata stepped in to bring people together to look for solutions, and then went out and raised the money to do something about it.
Local Issues
So, for me, my initial reluctance to support Don Perata was never an issue of being dissatisfied with his work on the State level. Rather, I was concerned how that would translate to Oakland. After all (and yes, I do realize there are big differences between the two, chief among them being that Sacramento is a hell of a lot closer to Oakland than Washington DC), that didn’t work out so well the last time around. I thought he had been a good leader of the State Senate, but wasn’t sure if that would make him a good Mayor.
But after watching his campaign for the last several months, I feel confident that he knows what Oakland needs and is prepared to lead this City in the right direction. I agree that we need to prioritize health care and green industry when it comes to business attraction and job creation. I agree that we need to improve our partnerships with schools and not decimate our police force. And I agree that we need to take a hard, line-by-line look at the budget and stop just endlessly chipping away at every damn service this City provides. If we keep doing it the way we have been, there’s going to be nothing left.
I read through his questionnaires for the Sierra Club (PDF) and Make Oakland Better Now!, and I agree with what he has to say. I watched his responses to the Great Oakland Public Schools video voter guide, and I was impressed by those as well.
I know that a lot of people criticize him for not going to all the debates, but honestly, that doesn’t bother me. The number of candidate forums this year was truly ridiculous. If it was me, I wouldn’t have gone to them all either. He went to (I think) nine of them, which is more than the total number of Mayoral candidate forums there even were in the last election. And I personally don’t find these forums with a ridiculous number of candidates particularly useful. The answers are such short sound bites that you don’t really learn anything.
His reluctance to spend every night at a candidate forum mostly attended by supporters of one candidate or another (there tend to be not very many undecided voters at these things) might have bothered me if Don Perata had not made himself accessible to voters in any other way. But that’s not the case. He held eight large, widely advertised public events where he stood up there for an hour and a half and answered unfiltered questions from anyone who wanted to ask. So I just don’t see how you can reconcile that with this thing people keep saying about how he doesn’t want to talk to voters. I mean, to me, that seems a lot more informative. And I really appreciate that he did that, especially in comparison to certain other candidates who only have events where you have to pay to hear them talk.
What Oakland needs
Oakland needs a leader. We need someone who face problems head on. Not only does Don Perata have a long history of doing exactly that in Sacramento, he has also demonstrated a willingness to to it here. Of all ten candidates running for Mayor, Perata is the only one who has actually put out a proposed package of budget cuts. I don’t think all of them are the right thing to do, but I think that many of them are, and I have tremendous respect for the fact that he did it when no one else has been willing to. It takes courage and leadership to put your ideas out there and open them up for criticism like that.
Oakland is in crisis. It needs a leader. It needs someone who is not afraid to make hard decisions, or to make cuts that are unpopular. It needs someone who can pull together the votes for tough decisions, and Don Perata has many years of experience doing exactly that.
I want Oakland to grow, so I want a Mayor who can attract development and will support it. I want someone who is willing to make priorities about the budget and about our core services and stick to them.
The Best Mayor for Oakland
I have no second thoughts about this decision. I don’t feel any hesitation about it. It took me a long time, and a lot of thought to get here. But I want to be absolutely clear that my vote for Don Perata is not a hold my nose choice. No, Don Perata is not my fantasy Oakland Mayor. I want our very own Cory Booker. But you can’t always get the fantasy. In fact, usually, you don’t. And I do believe, based on his record and his vision, that Don Perata will be a very good Mayor. And I definitely believe that he is by leaps and bounds the best of the choices we have.
I don’t expect all of my readers to agree with my choice. My opinion is just that — the opinion of one person. I like to hope that I’ve earned enough respect from my readers over the years that you’ll at least take my thoughts into consideration as one of the many factors you consider when making a decision. I do think that it would behoove everyone to try to put the endless vitriol and half-truths being spread by Jean Quan and Robert Gammon and take an honest look at Don Perata and his tremendous record of tangible accomplishments.
I know my readership includes many devoted Rebecca Kaplan supporters, and you know what, I sympathize. I really, really do. Like I said yesterday, I wish so much that I could vote for her and feel good about it. Her energy and her optimism and all of that is very appealing. I spent months trying to find a way to convince myself that she could be an effective Mayor, and looking at her record, I just couldn’t do it. If you’re already sold on her, well, I don’t have a lot of hopes about convincing you to change your mind — after all, having been a Kaplan supporter myself, I know what it’s like to have drunk that kool aid. So, you know what? Go for it. Make Rebecca Kaplan your first choice. But I really hope you’ll consider marking my guy number 2.
One final note
So. I have something I want to say in anticipation of comments.
The decision to support Don Perata has been very difficult for me personally. Not because I personally feel bad about it (see above), but because I have taken such incredible amounts of shit for it from people I know, almost all of whom are supporting Rebecca Kaplan. People I thought were good friends won’t even speak to me anymore, and those who will seem to feel like my support for a candidate they don’t like entitles them to say all sorts of horrible, nasty things about my character and my values, and…well, it has just been really, really hard for me.
And you know what? I’m sure I’ll take more shit for it here. But all I can do is what I believe is right. And I believe that Don Perata is the best person to be Mayor of Oakland.
If you want to ask me honest questions about that, I welcome them. I do have limited time, but I think that this is important, and I know a lot of people are predisposed to be against Perata, and I want them to open their minds. So I will do my absolute best to answer any questions and respond to any comments that indicate genuine curiosity and invite honest debate.
But if you want to leave some nasty comment about my integrity, or craft some ridiculous elaborate conspiracy theory about why I would support Perata — well, you know what? I can’t stop you. But I’m going to say right now, just so we’re all clear, that I am not going to dignify any comments like that with a response.
I have been putting myself and my opinions out there for public criticism and debate for more than four years, and I have given tremendous amounts of time to trying to help Oakland move in the direction I believe it should go. And I think that, through my work, I should have established a certain level of trust — if not in my judgment, then at least in my integrity. And if you disagree? Well, if my history isn’t enough to convince you of my honesty of heart, then there’s nothing new I can say that is going to.
Get Updates
Newest Comments
- len raphael: Unconfirmed that MJQ laid off 100 employees today, blaming RDA court case. How much did she and the CC waste in legal fees betting against Jerry’s lawyers?
- ralph: No, Livegreen, Occupy Oakland is doing plenty good. They are the poster children for the new, “This is Your Brain on Dope” Campaign.
- Livegreen: They seem to b determined to shut down Oakland and little else. They’ve forgotten Wall St. I can’t help but think the Officers who were preventing them from breaking in to City Hall could have spent...
- gregory mcconnell: The Occupest disrupted City Hall today. They managed to make it difficult, but not impossible, to go into City Hall. They demanded that people who accosted cops on Wednesday should be released. I was out...
- livegreen: I watched the M-Y mtg last night, & it was painful. Jose is a nice guy, but he has difficulty running a meeting that gets anything done. They debated for about 1 hour whether they should discuss recommendations...
- len raphael: The murder of 5 year old Gabriel Martinez. Got a call from an acquaintance who lives in East O and often gets supper at his family’s taco stand. She asked where she can sign up to help on the recall.
- Ravi: I’m sure that all of those Quan diehards (“a recall would be a waste of time and too expensive”) are very gratified that this lovely and deserving woman is having such a good time. No doubt they prefer...
- len raphael: JQ “”I’m actually having a lot of fun,” she said after rehashing many of the lower moments from her first year in office.” “http://www.insidebayare a.com/news/ci_19651889R...
- Ravi: And regarding police reform and the crime thing, Judge Henderson could decide to put OPD under Federal jurisdiction because the terms of the NSA haven’t been fulfilled by the City Administration. Those folks in City...
- len raphael: Harbinger of things to come to the City Council when they eventually have to make similar decisions. But they won’t. The Fed bankruptcy judge will do it for them.
- livegreen: Yeah, but OUSD has to do something. There are way too many schools for the school population. There’s simply no choice. At least they’re willing to make the tough decisions. Unlike the City of...
- len raphael: Are those school board recalls entirely over the school closing decisions? Different groups or one umbrella?
- Ravi: Two recall petitions for Quan; five recall petitions for five school board members.
- len raphael: City says there are now 7 concurrent recall petitions. Not clear how many are for Quan and how many for Council Members. Direct democracy at work.
- Ravi: Can the Oakland City Council lead? Nope, nor can the Mayor. It’s up to the citizens, who are deeply divided and have been for a very long time.
- len raphael: Oakland Local is the only on or offline general circulation media that shows understanding of the depths of our fiscal situation and understands that it’s causes precede the real estate crash. One of these...
- Mkilian: Related to the Cal Supremes haircut to Oakland with respect to RDA and the immediate need for a “fiscal operations plan” is another issue put forth in Oakland’s internet newspaper, Oakland Local, is...
188 Responses to “Why I am voting Don Perata for Mayor of Oakland”
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
October 27th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
V., as the enthusiastic supporter of the League of Women Voters of Oakland I know you to be, I’m surprised that you don’t address the exploitation of the loophole in the Oakland Campaign Reform Act that allowed the campaign-spending cap to be blown up.
I think you’d have to agree that an examination of the amount of money Perata raised and the speed at which he spent almost up to the cap demonstrates that he knew a group that supports him would trigger the loophole and, indeed, that he was relying upon that to happen.
Does that give you no pause?
Just for the record, I disagree strongly with this endorsement but I certainly respect your sincerity and the huge amount of thought you put into this (and into just about everything you write).
October 27th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
If people cannot respect you for having an honest opinion, they probably aren’t friends, let alone good ones. Insightful piece.
October 27th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
While I respect your opinion, I don’t agree. The biggest issue, in my mind, is his on-going, close relationship with the the current City Council. If one subscribes to the belief that the City Council is the problem, then it is a big leap to think that Perata is the solution. Will he get things done? Yeah, I think so. Will he get the right things done? That is the question.
October 27th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
There really isn’t much more to say other than Don Perata is my choice for mayor. You are my one and only pick.
Don has the courage to lead when others would rather let the voters decide or not make a decision at all.
October 27th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
i appreciate what you have written regarding who you are and are not voting for. i am wondering who are your 2nd & 3rd choices and why. are you willing to share that? thanks!
October 27th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
There’s definitely too much character assassination in politics today. It seems to have “trickled down” from national politics to the local level. But people who sling mud end up covered in dirt.
Thanks for your thoughtful analysis, V. As you said, it takes courage to put your ideas out there. I’m learning a lot from reading this blog.
October 27th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
Admire?
October 27th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Excellent, V. Well-reasoned and it’s clear you made an informed and serious choice. Here here! Perata 2010
October 27th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
I won’t say whether I agree or disagree – I still have some more research to do
But, this site is one of the few blogs I read regularly, and I rely on it for good primary source information links and secondary source information from you with integrity even if my concerns aren’t yours and I disagree.
I believe the integrity is there and I really appreciate the work you put into the city and the site.
I’ll also say most of the commenters here are fantastic, even in the disagreements – there’s some really good primary source info batted around here and that’s the stuff good decision-making’s based on. Thanks most (but not all!)
I don’t do anything else for the city right now, but I do take my voting seriously so all this info is important to me.
Thanks V
October 27th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
V.
It is difficult to stand up for your beliefs when people give you shit for it or friends are lost. Since we are coming down to the end of the political season, I wanted to share some final words.
I was really ticked off about the Joe Tuman blog. I really didn’t like it and I still don’t. But I’m not going to try and counter point you on Perata nor pitch for my candidate. I wanted to say you expressed yourself and this forum allowed me to express myself. I had some great debates with other people and read some great comments. Overall, I learned a lot and am now hooked on local politics.
I appreciate how hard it was to create this blog and to maintain it. So thanks V. and good luck to all the candidates. Maybe I will see you around City Hall.
October 27th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
V, I appreciate your courage. One criticism I have heard a good deal is that Don Perata is the king of special interest politics. Robert Gammon of the EB Express recently published 25 reasons not to vote for Don Perata. (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/25-reasons-why-you-shouldnt-vote-for-don-perata/Content?oid=2120020)
October 27th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
I just want to thank you for writing up such detailed and well thought statements about the candidates. I think it’s terrible that you’ve taken so much heat for it from “friends” and associates, but I have a great deal of respect for anyone who would still be willing to stand up for your opinions and make the case as thoroughly as you have.
Are you still planning on writing up endorsements about the other measures on the ballot? I’d still be interested to at least hear your thoughts about some of them.
Hope that the pneumonia (or whatever other affliction it turned out to be) is calming down now!
October 27th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
Thanks, V. You’ve said it better than I ever could. I support Perata and have attended his community clean ups. I’ve even met a few of his former students at these events (all grown up now!), and they told me that Mr. Perata was the best teacher because he got them engaged in the community. They realized that their participation mattered. I really feel that Perata’s career in public service started sixteen years before he was in politics — when he was a teacher.
October 27th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Excellent and well reasoned arguments! I also support Don although I do not live in Oakland.
Your article was one of the best I have read recently. I have come to know Don Perata over the past few years as we have worked hard on a number of reforms to help the underserved in Oakland and throughout California.
I am more of a conservative than republican, but I am registered as republican and I have found his approach to any issue focused intensely on the pragmatic not ideological or special interest driven. As I got to know him I have found his integrity to be of the highest caliber in all of our dealings. He clearly h had the interests of Oakland at heart as he has pursued this office.
I find it interesting that people bring up the FBI investigation that took so long, kept negavitisms in the press for years, and in then end w dropped with no legal actions. How many of his detractors could withstand such investigation and scrutiny and end up with nothing for the law to sue us for?
I can only speak of my experiences and opinion and in both cases I strongly support him!
October 27th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
Ditto! Believe in Oakland!
October 27th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Kudos for elucidating your reasoning on these three frontrunners. You’ve convinced me to look harder at voting for Perata and not Kaplan. (Already had made up my mind not to put Quan down at all…)
Thanks for all the hard work V!
October 27th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
As one who has felt the sting of V’s sharp wit for leading the crack team that supported Kerry Hamil and misspelled homicides turning it into “homocides”, I must say that this is the best blog out there and your integrity is beyond reproach. Anyone who states the contrary is full of BS.
This series of articles on the candidates was excellent. The biggest problem in Oakland is that it does not have leadership that can get things done.
I believe Don can get things done.
October 27th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
V,
I’m disappointed. I didn’t expect to agree with you, but I’m surprised by what you’re willing to gloss over in your support for Perata. You seem to dismiss any suggestion that he’s ever engaged in corruption because, I guess, you think only a Quan supporter or – god for bid – Robert Gammon could belive that. But the FBI didn’t choose to investigate him because Bush was in office, they decided to investigate him because there were ligitimate issues in the way he was doing business. You don’t bring it up. I assume it’s not an issue to you, but I don’t understand how that could be.
The problem with Perata working for the prison guards isn’t that he’s a lobbyist – that’s a little distasteful, but you’re right that it does happen all the time. The problem is that he shielded them from budget cuts when everyone else was getting cut and then took a consulting job from them for which he gets lots of money and does nothing.
Then there’s the money laundering. It’s hard to call it anything else. You obviously don’t think that exists, but I cannot fathom why and would be curious to hear you explain it. The rent and housing shuffle with his son, the long-running Staples payoff scam… None of that is an issue for you. The Hope Campaign in particular really sticks in my craw – using a cancer funding group as a front (and it’s hard to consider it anything else) is particularly cynical coming from a cancer survivor.
As far as your examples of what makes him a great and effective leader go:
Without Perata there most likely would have been AB 32. I paid a lot of attention to that bill and at no point did he do anything that made him seem central to it passing. Arnold would have gotten it through with or without Don. Nunez was the person putting in the leg work on the Democratic side of the isle, not Perata. And while there is currently an attempt to repeal it, it has never stood much chance and is clearly sponsored by out-of-state interests. It was and will continue to be a hugely popular bill in CA.
The fluff about the budget negotiations you link to is all fine and well, but at no point did he manage to get a budget in on time or that wasn’t padded out with unrealistic math. I would hardly cite those as an example of his strong leadership. Yes, the situation in the senate is ridiculous and the Republicans deserve far more blame than the Don, but that doesn’t make his failed budgets an example of him working hard to reach tough compromises, especially when those compromises only result in get-out-of-town budgets that need to be revisited 6 months later. And I think Don can take a large share of the blame for the fact that only radical republicans get elected – he’s been a frothing advocate for gerrymandering since the first day he got into office.
The video you link to saying Don has a plan and nobody else does? It doesn’t show that. It shows Don standing in front of cameras with a stack of papers in his hand saying “there’s money all over the Oakland government that could be used to pay cops.” While I believe there is a lot of validity to that argument, everyone says the same thing at election time and yet these savings never appear. He also claims that the mayor’s assistant is the same thing as a city council member, which it’s obviously not (hint: one works for the mayor, one is a city council member). Bonus points on that video, though, for him working up a lather about money being shifted back and forth through departments – the pot has never looked so indignant when discussing the kettle.
One other thing: I don’t support Kaplan because I drank the koolade as you suggest, and I’m not predisposed to disliking Perata. Your characature of those you disagree with doesn’t exactly encourage civil disagreement. I came to my opinions the same way you did – by spending a lot of time and researching the issues. I think you deserve respect for your opinions, but I’d appreciate it if you not deride me for mine.
All of that said, I do hope that if your candidate wins that you are right and I am wrong. And that your friends come around. I’m opposed to Perata until November 3rd, then I’m in favor of whomever is Oakland’s next mayor.
October 27th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Wow, V. I’m sorry to hear things got shitty and personal. That’s uncalled for.
Thanks for this great series of posts. I don’t agree with all of it. Or even most of it if we’re just looking at conclusions. But regardless, I feel more certain about my views as a result of having my choices questioned. Kaplan’s still my #1 and I’m now certain I don’t have a #2.
The thanks is entirely sincere, though — I find in this particular piece some reasons not to be totally bummed if Perata does end up winning. I appreciate your taking the time to explain that to me
October 27th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
1. Good government issues require a willingness to throw down on those principals, at least when there are enough issues over a long enough period of time to show a candidate has a deep and abiding problem with fundamental concepts of fairness and playing by the rules. Yes, I agree it can’t be an issue all of the time, but between the revolving door with the prison unions, huge multi-million dollar deals to friends (that do come at the expense of the public treasury), and what appear time and again to be pay-to-play politics, just understand that the critical mass is far, far more than with any other government official in the recent history of California. One person I know who I greatly respect and who’s been involved in litigation on environmental and civil rights issues for decades concludes that “Perata is the most corrupt politician I’ve ever seen, by far.” Not having been watching local and state politics that carefully for the last 25 years, I have to accept some third party information at some point. The people I know who are most informed also feel that while Gammon’s articles on Perata are complained about, if these articles were lies, the party he comments on could and would win lawsuits on some of these stories. The fact that the stories stand unrefuted says something substantial. Do you think Perata doesn’t have the guts or resources to sue EBE and Gammon if they were false stories? To take one very small story, but big to me, the kind of person who would send their donors to back Marcie Hodge, who I don’t believe for a second those folks really want or think can win, is for the worst and most cynical of purposes of splitting the minority vote and confusing them, pushing Quan and Kaplan and perhaps Tuman off of their ballots. I can see no other reason for those folks to support Hodge with large donations.
So yes you can apologize for or dismiss individual cases, but if you don’t pull the trigger on refusing Perata in this election, I believe you are saying that you won’t ever really stand behind any good government principals you might hold, that any such hand wringing is all talk. For me the critical mass is far too great, indeed, I challenge you to name a single person for whom it is even close to this bad a record of demonstrated issues – I’d rather accept someone honest who has a learning curve, like Tuman or Kaplan, and take my chances.
2. Perata has a long history of involvement with the exact same budgetary issues that have been bankrupting the city and the state, and all on the wrong side. He’s been pushing for far more liberal compensation and retirement policies. Is that because he’s implicitly paid off or just because he really values them? To me it doesn’t really matter – he has had about the biggest hand in making current budgets and policies for the state, and where are we – nearly bankrupt, and getting worse. For the same reasons I didn’t want the architects of the national financial catastrophe put in charge of cleaning it up (and how’s that gone for us? I’d say not so great personally), I would never want Perata involved; as far as I’m concerned we are in crisis to a large measure specifically because of him and his policies. This issue trumps everything else, and by large measure, and his performance on state employee compensation has to me been nothing short of a complete disaster for the taxpayers.
I admit I don’t know the details of specific issues like Mandela Parkway, but to me his failures on the issues of good government and absurd compensation for state employees that seem the largest and most important to me vastly outweigh some limited successes, successes I must point out that are almost always seem to be intertwined with property deals and the like that are just excuses to transfer yet more public funds to his family, friends and patrons. If this is the best we can come up with, I say let’s declare bankruptcy now get it over with and start over.
October 27th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
V – I respect your opinion and what you have done with this blog. It is easy to see how you arrived at your decision once you decided that ethical behavior wasn’t a prerequisite for you when it came time to make your decision. How can we entrust the City to a career politician with no moral compass? Do you really think that Perata will handle public funds any differently that he handles campaign contributions? I think his misuse of campaign funds is a very telling barometer. That’s why I’m voting for Tuman.
October 27th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
mfraser,
On pay to play, I believe Kaplan is at the top of that deck. Unless one came with checkbook in hand, her meet and greets were a closed party affair. People without ducats need not come.
October 27th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
I decided to do some research on the issues that V. raised in her blog.
Regarding AB32 the climate change legislation. V. states that without Don Perata we would not have this legislation. Here is a very interesting article authored by the environmental law center at U.C. Berkeley on the history of AB32. Don’s name never shows up. Don was not the author of this bill it was Fran Pavley (although Don was part of a team trying to get the law passed). In addition this scholarly article states that AB32 almost didn’t pass because the democrats were duking it out with Schwarzeneger over some language in the bill. The bill passed 30 hours before the session ended almost losing the bill. According to this article it was the intense media pressure that helped get the democrats to compromise and get the bill passed.
If you have the fortitude to read this highly technical article you will see that AB32 only came about after the many, many years California worked on ever evolving emissions and climate change legislation that came before AB32.
The father of many bills that successfully passed that preceded AB32 (AB4420 and AB1771) was Byron Sher. He successfully passed legislation back in 1988. Even before that California began this work in the 1960′s and 1970′s when it won the right to have more stringent emission standards than the federal standards.
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/envirolaw/capandtrade/speakers/PDFs/Hanemann%20paper.pdf
October 27th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
V
As I said on your Kaplan piece, I agree with your Perata endorsement.
But may I also ask, like my namesake Mary, who are you advocating Perata supporters rank as numbers two and three, given the tactical importance of such choices under ranked choice?
Seems to me this election may be decided by the second choice elections.
October 27th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
A little background on the Oakland sideshow problem. Perata co-sponsored a bill with Assembly Member Wilma Chan and proposed by the City of Oakland. It was titled the Ukendra Johnson Act of 2002. It allowed officers to impound cars for 30 days for reckless and dangerous driving and excessive speed. Few cars were actually impounded under the law (25 cars to be exact). The City of Oakland failed to keep statistics on the law’s effects and the law expired. Perata authored the 2007 law, which passed and the sideshow law was re-enacted.
October 27th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
If memory serves, V has previously stated she is not choosing a #2 or #3.
October 27th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Here is an article about a skate park. Don’s name does not show up. However, there may be other skate parks he has helped to build, initiate or find funding for but I couldn’t find anything. I hope someone in the know can bring that information forward.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/paffairs/news/pressrel/05pr17.htm
October 27th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
As I mentioned in a previous post Don Perata did support the 2006 Statewide Propositions, specficially Prop 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E. These were for the very things that V. mentioned in her blog and very worthy Propositions. However he used over $2MM of the Hope2010 Ballot Initiative contributions to help make sure that Props 1A – 1E passed. The contributions collected from Californians to help put Hope 2010 on the ballot and fund cancer research was diverted to help pass these propositions.
October 27th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
The appearance of impropriety is not actual impropriety. That seems to be the key point that so many of those who dislike Perata are unable to grasp. You may decide that you don’t like the appearance and don’t want Perata in office because of it. I guarantee you that if there had been actual violations of the law, that FBI investigation would have yielded indictments. Chances are none of you have ever been on either side of the investigative resources that the FBI and a federal prosecutor can bring to any issue. Even when you’re innocent, trying to fight them can often bankrupt you. It’s part of why federal attorneys have such high conviction rates. For most people, it is infinitely easier to take a plea on some small, technical charge than to fight. The simple fact that no one involved did that in the Perata case speaks volumes to me about there being no actual crime.
October 27th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
More Conflict of Interest discovered in CEDA. Arthur Young gets preferential treatment from City Employees! I cannot believe how gutsy these guys in CEDA are. NO ETHICS!
Prime blight abatement contractor for CEDA pays piddling permit fees for personal residence
October 27, 2010
CEDA Building Services staff gave preferential treatment in permit fees for an addition to his personal residence to Arthur Young, owner of Arthur Young Debris Removal Service, the number one contractor used by CEDA to abate blight. Building Services records show that in 2008, Young paid only $353.66 for permits to build a 2,361 square foot addition to his home at 13811 Campus Drive. By contrast, permit fees for a comparable project — a 2,700-foot home at 556 Fairbanks, in 2006 – cost over $17,000, or roughly 5% of the estimated cost of the project. Had Young been charged this more-customary percentage, his permit fees would have totaled in the thousands.
To see the rest of the story got to:
http://www.auditoaklandceda.com/index.php?news&nid=28
October 27th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
somehow my post on a correction to the skate park didn’t post — The skate park I mentioned above is the one and the same V. mentioned. It appears Don Perata was part of a team that helped keep the skate park permanent.
October 27th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Those who are politically active in Oakland politics have challenged this writer because of my support of Don Pirate for Mayor. My response is I support him because he is the best person for this job at this time. The conservative Oakland Tribune and the progressive weeklies are all opposed to Don Perata.The Tribune disparages Don, because they claim he is ethically challenged. Our current mayor has few ethics problems. I argue that most politicians are ethically challenged. The political profession requires its practitioners to do what it takes to get elected. Their highest priority is to get elected.
I am not comfortable with some of Don’s relationships. I have been highly critical of some of his actions. No person is without warts. I am not looking for a saint to be Mayor of Oakland. If Don were a lawyer none of the actions for which he is being vilified would ever come to light. Most of our politicians are lawyers. They are allowed to hide their relationships behind lawyer client privileges.
The city of Oakland needs a leader who is decisive, pragmatic, courageous. and politically well connected. Don Parata meets those requirements. I cannot defend Don’s ethics, or the ethics of others in this race. As a voter I am not seeking Oakland’s most ethical person. I am looking for a leader who can stop the killings. I am looking for a leader who can grow the tax base and balance the budget. I am looking for a leader who can improve the quality of the Oakland public schools. I think Don Perata is that person.
In 1995, I alone stood against the ill-fated Raider deal. Which Don Perata was paid to support. He and I fought in the newspapers and on the TV over this issue. All 14 elected officials at the county and the city supported this deal. As we all know it was a very bad deal. We as taxpayers are still paying. It appears that most of its political supporters have been forgiven, except Don. None of the people who are now running for Mayor would take a public stand on this issue. All of the newspapers who now oppose Don, supported this disaster. Most elected officials who voted for this deal have been promoted.
Over the past thirty years, I have opposed Don on many other issues, just as I have opposed Jerry Brown. I now think this is their time. They are both ideally suited for the jobs they seek.
October 27th, 2010 at 9:16 pm
DeSilva/Gallagher for Mayor?
October 27, 2010
Is a vote for Don Perata really a vote for DeSilva Enterprises?
Perata for Mayor top-level staff is Anne Willcoxon, wife of Michael Willcoxon, attorney for DeSilva Enterprises.
Perata supporter Oliver DeSilva, doing business as Gallagher & Burke, is the number two Public Works contractor according to the 2007 Low Bidder Response Analysis.
Gallagher & Burke recently won a competitive bid between four contractors for a $1.4 million street resurfacing project. The item was never discussed by City Council; it was on the “consent calendar,” meaning batch-Ayed.
DeSilva, doing business as DeSilva, is the number two blight abatement contractor for CEDA.
http://www.auditoaklandceda.com/index.php?news&nid=30
October 27th, 2010 at 9:17 pm
V Smooth knows this already….
October 27th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Agree w PW on the fbi investigation. When the feds get rolling, they deploy massive resources of investigators and attorneys, wire taps, subpoas, document requests that will turn up evidence that you wore the same pair of sox for two days in a row, 3 years ago.
The other aspect is that once they get rolling, they can’t stop quickly even after they realize no law has been broken.
There’s too much political pressure on them, which they themselves usually have created to justify their investigation, so they’d lose credibility with the public if they stopped too soon without any proof of wrong doing.
All of which is to say, the fbi would have turned up prosecutable wrong doing if there had been any, and the fact that they kept investigating for 5 years doesn’t imply that Perata was guilty of anything.
-len raphael
temescal
October 27th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Thanks V.
There is a reason you are the number one blog in Oaktown–well-reasoned, informative, and honest.
We Fight Blight also supports Don Perata and think he is the best candidate for the job. We like that Don has a commitment to core services, including public safety, and a willingess to cut non-public safety jobs before going after police. He is tough, committed, and can roll up his sleeves and get the job done.
Many of the Perata detractors point to the FBI investigation and are all too willing to convict Perata even though the investigation was dropped. It’s easy to sling mud. But does it stick?
We Fight Blight appreciates you providing a thoughtful assessment of each of the candidates. After reading your blog, our decision to cast only one vote for Don Perata has been reinforced.
As you have pointed out Jean Quan has driven the City to the point of bankruptcy and is an apologist for crime. Rebecca Kaplan lacks true leadership qualities and has not been able to bring home the bacon. And Joe Tuman is an unknown quantity with little political experience.
We need someone who can make the tough decisions and who can work with the City Council to generate consensus on core issues of major concern to Oakland. Don Perata has a record of achievement unmatched by any other candidate.
V. Any idea who Don is considering as the City Administrator? A critical task for any new Mayor would be working with the new City Administrator to replace Department Heads and possibly Deputies who may be at will employees with new staff who are committed to making changes and carrying out the Mayor’s vision.
October 27th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
JD, I can agree with many of your points. I found myself voting for Jerry despite knowing full well he was the co-enabler of many of our States budget problems.
point of info: wasn’t there also one local cpa who also opposed the Raider’s deal? do you remember his name?
I met him at the time and he told how residents and council members essentially threw rotten tomatoes at him for speaking up against the deal. Which is why it’s funny now for voters to criticize him for carrying out the council’s mandate to bring back the Raiders at any price.
-len raphael
No on Q(an)
Yes on P(erata)
October 27th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
John Adams on Corruption:
“The nature of the encroachment upon American constitution is such, as to grow every day more and more encroaching. Like a cancer; it eats faster and faster every hour. The revenue creates pensioners, and the pensioners urge for more revenue. The people grow less steady, spirited and virtuous, the seekers more numerous and more corrupt, and every day increases the circles of their dependents and expectants, until virtue, integrity, public spirit, simplicity and frugality become the objects of ridicule and scorn, and vanity, luxury, foppery, selfishness, meanness, and downright venality swallow up the whole of society.”
From Common Cause, a little information that would predict Perata has odds of about 32 to 1 of wining:
“In, California, the candidate who raises the most money wins 97% of general elections.
Most races aren’t even close from a fundraising viewpoint — 86% of winners raise more
than five times what their opponent raises.
California’s money-driven elections can be compared to three other states which have
implemented full public financing for legislative campaigns: Maine, Arizona, and
Connecticut. States that have full public financing, also known as Fair Elections
programs, see low disparities in spending between winning candidates and their
opponents, with two-thirds of candidates outspending their opponents, and by much
smaller ratios than in California. Just a third of the races featuring a candidate who
outraised their opponent by a greater than five-to-one ratio (usually in uncontested races)
and overall winning candidates raised 29% more than all their opponents combined in
public financing states. In California, by contrast, winners raised more than double what
all their opponents combined raised.
Even when winning candidates do have a financial advantage in public financing states,
the funds come overwhelmingly from public funds and private contributions of $250 or
less. So, to the extent elections are “bought” in these states, they are bought by small
donors and the public at large. However, in California, 96% of the funds raised came in
amounts greater than $250 – an amount affordable to only a few wealthy interests.
In short, California elections are bought much more often and easily than elections in
states with public financing, and the ones doing the buying comprise a narrow slice of the
electorate who are unlikely to represent the interests of ordinary voters.”
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7Bfb3c17e2-cdd1-4df6-92be-bd4429893665%7D/TAKINGELECTIONSOFFTHEAUCTIONBLOCK.PDF
And just to answer the total BS that Perata raises so much money b/c he has grassroots support…. almost all the money is from corporate execs and lawyers, not grassroots support. I’m almost certain Quan and Kaplan, and maybe even Tuman, have more actual grassroots funding.
“The Coalition revealed yesterday that it spent $137,000 supporting Perata’s bid for mayor, according to its own finance disclosures.
The group has paid for television spots as well as mailers. Paul Kinney, a longtime Perata associate, is being paid to run the committee.
The coalition was originally being funded by the law enforcement groups, including the prison guards’ union, which employs Perata as a political consultant. The latest disclosures show large donations from longtime Perata supporters in the East Bay. As an independent expenditure committee, there are no limits on contributions.
Jon Reynolds of Reynolds & Brown, which is building a big housing development near the Oakland Estuary, kicked in $10,000. James Falaschi, a real estate developer who’s done projects in Jack London Square, plunked down $25,000. T. Gary Rogers, a former Dreyer’s Ice Cream executive, threw in $10,000, adding to the $20,000 he’d previously put into the coalition.
Another political action committee, called Oakland Jobs, is also dumping money into the effort to get Perata elected. The group, funded by businesses and real estate developers, reported that it has spent a total of $114,000 on surveys, consultants and mailers.
The Perata campaign has $147,000 to spend but had unpaid campaign debts of $184,000. His donations come from businesses, law firms, unions and individuals like former 49ers executive Carmen Policy, who kicked in $700. Perata also loaned his campaign a fresh $90,000.”
http://www.baycitizen.org/oakland-mayoral-race/story/perata-tops-campaign-cash-oakland-mayor/
I believe the simple and obvious truth, for anyone who remotely believe in principals of ethics in government and good government, you will get what you paid for. For those who didn’t pay, don’t worry, I expect that you will.
•“The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our own indifference.”
–Bess Myerson – View Quote Details on “The accomplice to the crime of corruption is frequently our…
•“Money and Corruption Are ruining the land Crooked politicians Betray the working man, Pocketing the profits And treating us like sheep, And we’re tired of hearing promises That we know they’ll never keep.”
–Ray Davies
Modern history is replete with examples voting in direct opposition to what they believe are their most closely held principals. In the mid term election of 2010 nationwide, American’s who were economically brutalized by the Bush economic policies and lack thereof, after giving their primary electoral alternative just 22 months to right the ship of wrongs, will almost certainly return the congress to the hands of those who in the fall of 2008 roughly half of all Americans blamed for causing the crisis, the Republicans. For reasons beyond certain explication, Americans vote against their own interests time and again, often against compelling empirical evidence that the person they are voting for will serve interests which are decidedly contrarary. It is paradoxical and quixotic, but Thomas Frank claims that whatever disadvantaged Americans think they are voting for, they get something quite different:
“You vote to strike a blow against elitism and you receive a social order in which wealth is more concentrated than ever before in our life times, workers have been stripped of power, and CEOs are rewarded in a manner that is beyond imagining.
“It’s like a French Revolution in reverse in which the workers come pouring down the street screaming more power to the aristocracy.”
Good job original poster. I welcome the unfolding of history and how that compares with your vision of what you think you will get. As sure as having 5X the money in corporate funding buys the win, this win will buy you only grief, and while I say that with near certain knowledge, being right will nonetheless bring me no satisfaction.
I suppose I should welcome the outcome of a Perata Mayorship, as I almost certainly benefit more than you do when the closet Republican who a-la-Bush does an occasional large scale handout to quell the foolish masses prevails, but I really don’t welcome it as in the end I put my values above my economic interest and decidedly above concerns about short term efficacy or stability. Ironically, I guess we really are both just voting against our own best fundamental interests. If that’s true, you best hope my side prevails!
October 27th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Has Joe Tuman ever been to East Oakland? Does he Know Where 105th and Topanga is? Check below the 580 for Lawn signs. See how many Tuman, Quan or Kaplan signs there are. Perata is the only candidate that has support below the 580, where half the city lives and thus will win in a landslide.
October 27th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
And to stress what is most important in all of this:
“In, California, the candidate who raises the most money wins 97% of general elections.
Most races aren’t even close from a fundraising viewpoint — 86% of winners raise more than five times what their opponent raises.
However, in California, 96% of the funds raised came in amounts greater than $250 – an amount affordable to only a few wealthy interests.
In short, California elections are bought much more often and easily than elections in
states with public financing, and the ones doing the buying comprise a narrow slice of the electorate who are unlikely to represent the interests of ordinary voters.”
JUST REMEMBER “and the ones doing the buying comprise a narrow slice of the electorate who are unlikely to represent the interests of ordinary voters”
October 27th, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Hey Chuck -
Just saw your comment. Yes, things got very shitty and personal and uncalled for – read the piece on Tuman, a super nice guy who is running to make his community better, not to line one’s own pockets (guess who), or as a springboard to a larger office (guess who), or because of a love of being involved and attention no matter how disasterous for all that person’s involvement is (guess who). A guy who committed to cut the Mayor’s salary nearly in half, which none of the others would come close to committing to.
October 27th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Good God! I couldn’t have said it better myself Fraser. Nicely done! You are 100 percent on this posting! I understand from a very reliable source that Perata’s campaign will break a million dollars. Quan has only spent around 400k? You have to ask yourself one question. Why would anyone spend this kind of money to have a Job that pays so little? WE NEED TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN FINANCE TO LEVEL THE FIELD. The system is FKN broken. PERIOD!
October 27th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
Oh it pays great if you work it right. Mr P made what, between 500k and $1M last year, without an office? Pays just great when all is said an done.
And thank you.
October 27th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Len and We Fight Blight,
Horse Shit! I am a Sr Executive in Internal Audit and Compliance for a multinational Public Company. I report directly to a board of directors and I am the Chief Audit and Compliance Executive and have been in many fortune 500 companies for many years.
The FBI can only catch the dumb fraudsters. The smart one’s get way with everything because they don’t leave a paper trail. Just because Don didn’t get handcuffs doesn’t by any means mean he is not totally corrupt. By the way, how many politicians were found with the cash in the fkn freezer and walked? NO WAY, Don is super bad for Oakland make no mistake about it.
October 27th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
We Fight Blight, yea whatever. As long as Oaklanders are okay with having the Code Enforcement Cronies take property from average families using the illegal blight code and giving it to rich developers. I guess that is one way to clean up blight. The truth is that the City Employees have over enforced the blight code to line there pockets with gold. Arthur Young Debris Removal, DeSilva and on and on…. This is truly bad policy. No business or investor wants to be subjected to this crap. That is why we have blight.
October 27th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
RD, i’m guessing here but wouldn’t violation of public finance laws be a much lower burden of proof for the FBI to get a conviction than financial fraud?
RD, whom do you support for Auditor and why?
-len raphael, temescal
Yes on P(erata) for mayor
Yes on K(ilian) for auditor
October 27th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
We fight blight, be careful how you respond because there a lot of people in Rockridge and Montclair who were just abated for the most absurd blight in the world. A lot of connected people were force to pay fines fees and penalties for nothing more than a small bush growing in their front yard. It is absolutely am revenue mechanism just like parking enforcement. Our City should be helping not hindering
October 27th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
OK, everybody. Picture in your head the profile of a candidate:
He’s a former leading legislator from the East Bay who leaves office and becomes a high paid lobbyist. Then he returns to Oakland and runs a campaign for Mayor that outspends all the other candidates. His campaign message light on specifics, and big on image. He focuses on using his out-of-town, up-ballot fame to cast himself as a proven leader.
Sound like anyone you know?
You remember what happened the last time Oaklanders voted for a guy like that? We got Ron Dellums – the mayor who never showed up.
But guess what? If you haven’t figured it out yet, the profile above also describes Don Perata.
And for my second act, here’s a little list I’ve compiled for you all! It illustrates a little problem Don Perata has had during this campaign…
MGO Democratic Club:
Perata was scheduled to speak, but no-showed, and didn’t even call to cancel. Confused guests waited for him for over an hour. The MGO Club had even paid for a larger room than usual.
Oaksterdam University’s opening gala:
Perata publicly announced he’d be there, his expected attendance even made it into the mainstream press, but he didn’t show up.
100 Black Men of the Bay Area’s First Mayoral Forum:
Perata cancelled with 48 hours notice, after confirming that he’d be there weeks ahead.
Pro Arts Gallery:
Perata cancelled twice. One time, moments after an email announcement of the event was sent out, prompting an embarassing follow up email less than an hour after the first. The other time, he didn’t show up and didn’t call to cancel.
Khadafy Foundation For Non-Violence:
Perata was a no-show to their annual Gala, without calling. The event raises money to help the families of homicide victims.
Airport Area Business Association:
Perata was a no-show to a luncheon where he was supposed to speak. He did not call to cancel.
Mayoral Forum on Jobs hosted at Beebe Memorial Church: Don said he’d come, he didn’t show up.
Pastors of Oakland Mayoral Forum: Didn’t show up.
East Bay Young Democrats Forum: Didn’t show up.
West Oakland Mayoral Forum – Didn’t show up.
OUSD Mayoral Forum (Don didn’t show up to talk about your kids. That was today!)
…And this isn’t even a complete list folks.
Oakland already has a mayor who doesn’t show up.
Vote for Don Perata if you want another mayor who doesn’t show up.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Thanks to everyone for such good information and to the forum host for making this enlightening discussion possible!
Having read these last four threads thoroughly, I appreciate the many knowledgeable posters and all the time such an esteemed and informed group took to share your collective research and thoughts. Echoing some earlier comments particular thanks to mfraser who brings such a scholarly insight and clarity of perspective to the discussion. I found your reasoning compelling and impressive. Nicely done and I concur that you have real talent. You helped remind me of the larger picture and I thank you for that.
Thanks again to all the wonderful folks of this forum and to VS for provocative and important discussion. I wish that all Oakland voters cared as much as you all do, as if they did I’d feel more confident we will all right. I hope when this is done we can all pull together in the same direction.
October 28th, 2010 at 2:14 am
that some people are given little pause about corruption or ethics disgusts me. equating lack of jail time with innocence is a farce. thinking don perata would be “our” crook is like petting an alligators tongue.
diverting money and staff meant for cancer related work to fund a campaign isn’t clever… it’s evil.
intentionally thrusting funds into a campaign using a loophole to gain unfair advantage and putting marcie duh hodge into the mix to dillute the minority vote… cynical and assholish.
i’m waiting for a response from a perata supporter re: ethics/corruption. don’t confuse that with the law or a conviction or we’ll have to bring OJ up.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:13 am
I would like to respond to a few posters:
We Fight Blight – From reading your posts I’m sure you are well intentioned, hard working folk in North Oakland who care about the neighborhood. There are derelict homes and land with absentee landlords and this makes for a blighted neighborhood. I’m sure your group works closely with City Hall to improve your neighborhood. But what you are refusing to look at is the consequences of your actions. Neighbors are ratting each other out. The blight laws don’t allow the offenders to clean up the violations within a reasonable amount of time. The City goes right to fines and hire their approved vendors who charge exorbitant fees which further escalates the financial problems of the owners of the properties. Have you read what Rdwithcypress wrote that a property owner committed suicide because of the way CEDA behaved?
The solution isn’t in the short run with code enforcers running around fining property owners. The solution is in the long run with the City expanding its tax base so that the entire city thrives. Then we will see the rundown properties sold, fixed up and the neighborhood will be lifted up as money will go into neighborhood programs to lift up those neighborhoods.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:25 am
For those people who dredge up the FBI investigations:
All of the posters who have recently complained about Perata’s ethics aren’t even using the FBI investigations as part of their current complaints. The current questions include: the expenditures from the HOPE2010 Cancer Research (millions going to influence outcomes and not funding cancer research); The rumors on how Perata is helping to bankroll Marcie Hodge’s campaign to split the black vote; the constant no shows to public events — no shows even after he promised to attend and did not even had the courtesy to cancel in a timely manner.
I think mfraser’s quote from John Adams is spot on. And one of the comments above is spot on about how we Oaklander’s keep thinking the high profile leaders who are retired or termed out will save us with their political savvy, has not turned out well for Oakland in the past and it won’t going into the future either.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:31 am
And to the poster who believes Joe Tuman has not been in East Oakland. I can guarantee you Tuman has been in East Oakland. He has been quietly talking and meeting with black leaders, including the pastors and preachers. In a recent radio interview he talked about his deep respect for the men and women he met in East Oakland, West Oakland and their hard work in improving the neighborhoods. Joe Tuman really touched me as he talked about how he was humbled, how some of the ego he has (which all leaders have) had to be put in check when he saw that commitment and hard work coming out of some strong women. It was really a moving interview.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:36 am
From Common Cause, a little information that would predict Perata has odds of about 32 to 1 of wining:
“In, California, the candidate who raises the most money wins 97% of general elections.”
I am still reeling from the profound implications of this statistic. Thank you for framing it in terms of the insurmountable odds. It is truly a daunting declaration of what almost seems to be insurmountable forces for the most heavily greenbacked interests. It truly is like getting a spin at the roulette wheel isn’t it?
I can’t help but feel this lays bare that Perata and co likely view the citizen voters as total dupes, almost like keystone cops running around bumping into each other in those old silent movies. It is daunting, but I find it inspires me to fight a little hard as well.
32 to 1. Incredible. It almost makes all the polling and pontificating by us and the press all seem to be almost a welcome diversion by the master planners, and us going like lambs to our predetermined slaughter. After reflecting on this through the night I discouraged, sadly and distinctly discouraged.
October 28th, 2010 at 6:54 am
Want a great laugh to get you through your day?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?entry_id=75492
Marcie Hodge – what a tool. She claims she doesn’t even know Perata very well. She should, he helped finance her campaign when she ran for the Peralta Community College Board. And when SHE FINALLY decides to file her list of campaign donors for her current run for mayor, I believe we will find people attached to the hip to Perata who have donated.
And finally, my last comment on Marcie Hodge. I’ve heard her speak at 2 forums. Let me tell you what she did. In the 1st forum she stood up on multiple occasions, couldn’t verbalize her thoughts very well. At one point she stopped, looked at the audience and said “you people scare me”.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Ralph, The public finance laws are not enforceable by the FBI. They are the domain of the Fair Political Practices Commission, FPPC. Unfortunately the FPPC is a arm of the State Attorney General’s office. This really sucks because Jerry Brown who is best buddies with Don Perata is our Attorney General. I am a life long Democrat but I will never vote for Jerry again because of the mess he left in Oakland.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:11 am
Karen,
Thanks for your posts above. In Detroit where there was a bigger blight problem than anywhere else in the country, the city uses redevelopment dollars to buy foreclosed properties fix them up and sell them. The even help the new owner with interest free loans etc. If you get an abatement in Detroit you have 30 -45 days to fix your problem without any fines fees penalties or special assessments. In Detroit, they offer people due process. They have 4 full time hearing examiners that listen to 40,000 appeal hearings a year. In Oakland you get very excessive fines fees penalties and special assessments. The inspector and his manager are the cop, the judge and the jury. Oakland Municipal code promises due process, however there are thousands of abatements and the city only grants about 6 appeal hearings a year. This equals denial of due process. In my opinion this is not legally defend able because both OMC and the state housing code guarantee an independent appeal process. The situation is ripe for corruption and unfair practices. Too much power in the hands of city employees that don’t even live in Oakland and no real oversight or governance to the process
October 28th, 2010 at 7:15 am
One more vent!
Oakand redevelopement dollars that should be used to fix the blight problems instead are being floated to outside developers to build, Luxury Condo, like the Ellingtion & PPD Or to insiders like SunField development of Orinda, who builds grocery stores for Foods, Co. Millions are going to these cats who are all warm and fuzzy on Don Perata
October 28th, 2010 at 7:17 am
Well, Colin, I’m sorry that you thought I was being disparaging — that wasn’t my intention.
Regarding the CCPOA, I don’t think “shielded them from budget cuts” is a fair characterization. At the very least, it tells only a small part of the story, making something very reasonable sound sinister. The fact is, I agree with Don Perata and Dave Cogdill and fifteen other Senators whose districts include correctional facilities and also the federal receiver that public safety positions, including correctional officers, should not be paid $5.15 an hour or whatever the Federal minimum wage is these days. I agree that it is not to anyone’s benefit to have the staff working without a contract.
The situation with the State prisons is immensely complicated, and quite horrible, and Don Perata has been on the right side. He has been a strong advocate for parole reform for years.
In 2006, he actively supported a prison reform package that included early release for non-violent offenders, but the votes just weren’t there. More prisons was a major priority of the Governor, and while I personally think that prisons are awful and find the idea of building new ones incredibly distasteful, I also don’t know what else the State was supposed to do.
With prisons operating at over 200% capacity and a system that is 4,000 guards short of being fully staffed, you are creating a situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of inmates. And as much as I believe that we need to have fewer people in prisons, I also know that Don Perata didn’t create that problem, — voters did, and most voters are resistant to the idea of releasing prisoners early and you just can’t get the votes for that in the Legislature. So until we can figure out how to get people out, we have a moral obligation to find a way to keep them safe while they’re in.
When the prison reform deal was finally reached, it’s not like Perata pretended he was happy with it. But something had to be done to relieve the situation, and he took what he could get. There are political realities to consider, and I think it takes strength and leadership to put up unpleasant votes because something has to be done.
Was the agreement great? No. Nobody ever pretended it was. But it was better than what the Governor had proposed — fewer beds, an emphasis on beds in rehab and re-entry facilities. If you watch Perata’s floor speech before the vote, I think it’s pretty clear he’s not pretending that he’s happy with the solution. But he makes a cogent case for why it’s necessary too.
And he followed up after, blocking bills that would add sentencing enhancements, pressing the Governor for parole reform, pushing for change on the parole board, and demanding action on prison safety. So based on his record and the facts, I have a really difficult time buying this whole conspiracy theory about how he is just a tool of the prison guard’s union. If he were, I don’t see why he’d be supporting Prop 19, which they are adamantly opposed to.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Karen,
It has occurred to me that Marcie is not interested in winning Mayor. I believe she is trying to get name recognition for the opening that will be Nancy Nadel’s council seat in 2 years.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:40 am
Colin –
You can call it “glossing over” if you wish, but regarding the FBI stuff, I just don’t think that if after a five year investigation, nobody can produce an indictment, then there’s probably not anything there. The Staples thing does not bother me. As I said in my post, I just don’t care what people do with campaign money. The chief counsel for the legislative ethics committee said that what he did wasn’t against any rules. His party says that the investigation was a witch hunt, and even Republican leaders called it a clear example of prosecutorial abuse.
Regarding the budget — it is simply inaccurate to say that under Perata’s leadership, budgets never came in on time or were subject to constant revision. Over the last two years, we have grown accustomed to a never-ending budget cycle (much as we have in the City) and budgets that are filled with scored savings that everyone knows will never materialize. But that is a new development, and didn’t really start until 2008 — it was not the case for most of the decade.
Regarding Perata having no role in AB 32, or AB 32 being widely popular and inevitable, that is also simply not the case. There was serious disagreement about major issues. The Governor, under serious pressure from the business community, was insistent on including a provision that would permit relaxation of emissions limits if it was decided they would have a negative economic impact, effectively rendering the entire thing meaningless. Additionally, there was serious dispute with respect to who would be responsible for implementation.
For a time, it looked like a very real possibility that the bill would expire without action, and the Legislature was only able to reach an agreement the day before session ended. And the Democrats won out on both the issues I mentioned above, and no, that would not have happened without Don Perata.
I’m glad that you feel so confident about Proposition 23 failing, but many environmental groups throughout the State disagree with your assessment. And while I’m very happy that recent polling indicates that voters are turning against it, that wasn’t the case as recently as a month ago.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:47 am
Thank you V. There was never a doubt for me that I was voting for Perata, but I’ll be honest that it was a lesser of the evils choice. I will consider selling my house if Quan wins, and I’m not totally comfortable that Rebecca can pull it off. You have made me comfortable with my choice, I’m sorry that pisses people off that are close to you. But that speaks more to their character than anything. Thanks again.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:52 am
Regarding Hope 2010 — I don’t think everyone who has brought it up seems to understand what it is. It’s not a cancer research fund. It’s a ballot measure committee that Don Perata has maintained for many years. Politicians maintain these committees to raise money to support ballot measures. Perata’s prodigious fundraising for the committee was instrumental in the passage of the 2006 infrastructure propositions.
Most recently, he has used it to place a measure on the ballot that would place an additional $1.00 tax on each pack of cigarettes sold, and the money would go to fund cancer research. I do not plan to vote for the measure — I am not opposed to increased cigarette taxes, but I am not inclined to vote for any new State taxes that do not go to the General Fund.
In any case, the Committee was successful in collecting the over four hundred thousand signatures requires, and the initiative has qualified for the 2012 primary election.
October 28th, 2010 at 8:00 am
Jim –
I am an enthusiastic supporter of the work of the League of Women Voters, but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of their positions. I know that many people feel differently, but I have never thought that expenditure limits have much of a point.
Don Perata did not break any laws by exceeding the spending limit after an independent committee had done so, and I don’t think that any illegal coordination was necessary to anticipate that one committee or another would do so. The fact is that the law was written that way, and I just can’t get upset about people doing things that are allowed under the law. Personally, what I found more disturbing was the attempt by Jean Quan and Rebecca Kaplan to change the law a month before the election.
Maybe I would have more sympathy about it if I believed the other candidates would behave differently were they able to raise that much money, but I just don’t think that. I understand that some people feel strongly about spending limits, and those people should probably not vote for Don Perata. But it has just never been something that I was able to get worked up over, long before I decided I was supporting Perata for Mayor.
October 28th, 2010 at 8:03 am
Mary –
I wasn’t planning on marking anyone for #2 or #3. There just are not any other candidates in the race that I can feel good about voting for.
October 28th, 2010 at 8:05 am
Max, i scanned your post, read the “His campaign message light on specifics, and big on image. He focuses on using his out-of-town, up-ballot fame to cast himself as a proven leader” and immediately thought Jerry Brown.
I voted for JB then and held my nose and voted for him as govenor now.
Many of the people who decry Perata’s ethics haven’t done didly to encourage and financially support competent local politicians. I’m not referring to Max.
If all you do is pay attention at election time and even then don’t shell out your money and solicit money from your neighbors, plus devote days of your time, then no surprise we get the choices we get at election time here.
I’m not discussing Kaplan, Tuman, Harland because they lost the chance to be viable as of two months ago. And no, I don’t think any amount of money would have elected Kaplan this round. A couple of hundred thou might have elected Tuman or Harland, maybe.
Quan’s is the only viable alternative based on her polling numbers.
So the choice comes down to the honest, hardworking incompetent Quan who epitomizes the the so called progressive socially conscious Hills upper middle class coalition with the non profit activists of the flats and Perata, the ethically challenged competent candidate who epitomizes the politician who plays the political contribution game like a virtuoso.
My belief is that that Quan, Brunner, Nadel, Kernighan, IDLF self styled progressive coalition has marched us straight into our mess. No denying Perata helped set that in motion years ago by helping Brunner and IDLF get elected. Now he has to fix the mess, just like Jerry B has to fix the state budget mess he played a big role in creating years ago.
We can monitor and deal with the negatives of Perata. But it will take years, maybe decades to fix the damage that Quan is fully capable of doing by cutting police ever lower, and leading us right into unplanned messy emergency bankruptcy like she did at OUSD.
-len raphael
Perata for Mayor
Kilian for Auditor
October 28th, 2010 at 8:06 am
V Smoothe writes
“I personally think that prisons are awful and find the idea of building new ones incredibly distasteful, I also don’t know what else the State was supposed to do. “
In my mind the obvious answer is comprehensive sentencing reform and rehabilitation. You know something called Prop 5 that was torpedoed last election season by the California Prison Guards Union.
For me, the question of Don Perata all begins and ends with the California Prison Guards Union. In the middle, there are important policy issues that seem to be neglected in this discussion. These include his pushing for a local half-cent sales tax (yes, I know Quan & Kaplan aren’t pure on this issue), his weird fixation on KTOP even though it has its own funding streams, and doing away with boards and commissions. He has flip-flopped on the Public Ethics Commission, but I believe that is the only one that requires non-trivial funding.
The California Prison Guards is not just another union or lobbying group. They were the ramrod behind three-strikes and a host of other policies to increase number of sentences and sentence length. Going to war and Incarcerating our fellow human beings are the two worst things government does in the name of the people. The fact that they are both sometimes necessary is no excuse, but a call-to-action to do better as a society.
The prison guards turn this on its ear as they see larger number of prisoners as a form of job security and more power to their group. As their highly-paid representative Don Perata benefits from the misery of others. When people tell me they don’t have a problem with Perata working for the prison guards, I ask how awful does a group have to be before it is not ok to take their money.
V Smoothe did make a detailed assessment of all the candidates and concluded Perata is tops. I know it is easy for V and others to dismiss my position when I say that Perata’s working for the prison guards means he doesn’t even meet minimum qualification for my consideration. However, other groups made as detailed and comprehensive comparison as V, and found Rebecca Kaplan to be the superior candidate.
If he is so great on environmental matters, why did the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters chose to endorse Rebecca Kaplan over him?
If he is so effectual, why did Oakland Tribune panel find him lazy and unprepared when they chose to endorse Rebecca Kaplan over him?
If he is so right on issues, why did the policy-wonks of the East Bay Young Dems choose to endorse Rebecca Kaplan over him?
While I certainly respect V Smoothe and work with her on a large number of issues, I am proud to have my name listed with these groups and others in our mutual endorsement of Rebecca Kaplan for Mayor.
October 28th, 2010 at 9:31 am
Daniel: for your final questions, I would submit the following:
1) Although our local Sierra Club chapter endorsed Don Perata with a #3 choice, the answer to your question could be as simple as this: “politics” – they may not have even wanted to endorse Don Perata at all, but could not ignore the facts that V Smoothe has outlined so effectively here, that of all the candidates running, only Don Perata has a TRACK RECORD of achieving environmental wins, on a scale unprecedented in this race – AB32, Bio-Monitoring http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4173/ , and other landmark environmental protections – http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/newsroom/other-news/other-news/major-environmental-bills-pass-california-legislature. And he IS the only candidate in this race to receive the state Sierra Club’s Byron Sher Award for Achievement in Environmental Protection by a Public Official http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/1991 So, the only thing I can guess about our local Sierra Club’s endorsement choice is it boiled down to perhaps politics of personality or style. They simply liked Rebecca’s personality or style more – it couldn’t POSSIBLY be by comparison of record!
2) I can’t even respond to your point about the Oakland Tribune’s endorsement – SERIOUSLY?? The Tribune has the temerity to call ANYBODY lazy and unprepared? Well, if that does it for you, then I’m not sure there’s much I can say about this one.
3) The East Bay YOUNG Dems endorsement? Ummmm…you’re kidding, right? First, they are YOUNG Dems – isn’t their purpose and charter to support the growth and involvement of YOUNG Democrats (of which Rebecca may be the youngest – at least by affiliation – didn’t she just change over from the Green Party about 2 years ago?). Then of course they would choose to support one of their own. What could that POSSIBLY mean in terms of who is best qualified to serve as Mayor?
Finally, two last points on the whole prison guards thing – one – I challenge anyone to read then-Senate Pro-Tem Perata’s letter to Governor Schwarzenneger and tell me if you still feel as though Don Perata didn’t fight for the very reforms many of you speak of as necessary in our prisons. In fact, it was Don Perata’s leadership in dealing with the Gov’s prison reform package (AB900) that kept it from being just a spending spree on building new prisons – he insisted on phasing it in two stages, and only AFTER the system achieved a set number of benchmarks, would the Governor be able to touch the money to build more prisons. http://www.pacovilla.com/?p=31694
Second, for those who think that Don Perata was so cozy with the prison guards before he left office, you should check out their vicious attack ads they ran STATEWIDE during the Prop 93 campaign
http://ccpoa.org/news/entry/fabian_nunez_speaks_out_on_election_results/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI1-BISK8_g
They poured millions into the effort to defeat a Proposition fully supported and backed by Senator Perata. Doesn’t seem like a “cozy” relationship to me.
Fact of the matter is that since Don Perata began working with/for the prison guards union (CCPOA), they have adopted policy positions that are a radical departure from their past of simply lobbying for more guards and more jobs. They have a new focus on rehabilitation and reentry services (“New Directions” from their website: http://www.ccpoa.org/issues/ccpoa_on_prison_reform). Now, I am not going to make the logical fallacy trap of post hoc ergo propter hoc and say that it is BECAUSE of Don Perata’s work with them that they are headed in that direction – I honestly have no idea what exactly it is he does for them, but can imagine he brokers meetings, offers advice, all the things that “consultants” generally do. I do know that this is something that I personally have weighed in my own thinking and analysis.
October 28th, 2010 at 9:33 am
As I have been discussing the Hope2010 Ballot Initiative, I have understood it to be a vehicle to get enough signatures on the ballot to tax $1.00 per pack of cigarettes to fund future research on cancer and to use the money for anti-smoking initiatives. While I might not have always stated it that way each time I posted about it, I never thought it was a vehicle to directly fund cancer research.
I am glad HOPE2010 got enough signatures to get it in front of the voters. But if that was all HOPE2010 was supposed to do (and it didn’t cost much to do it) why raise over $12,000,000?
It is not true that HOPE2010 has been around for years. It started in late 2005. And while I will defer to policy experts in this matter, I highly doubt this is the normal thing or morally ethically thing to do: raise $12,000,000 on Hope2010, contribute money to all sorts of campaigns including influencing the outcome of Prop 1A-Prop 1E; attempt to recall Jeff Denham (no matter what your political persuasion is); fund a senior citizen nonprofit in Alameda and a host of other charitable causes that have nothing to do with getting $1.00 tax per pack of cigarettes on the ballot or cancer research.
October 28th, 2010 at 9:38 am
Will the Don Perata who takes over as mayor, be the same Don Perata who was doing the bidding of Mercury Insurance in the legislature?
Just wondering if that episode was just a anomaly that we should overlook?
Clearly the legislative proposal that Don Perata put forth for Mercury Insurance would have directly harmed a great many Oakland residents.
I find it difficult to reconcile that effort with a person who wants to be mayor for those same residents who would have been harmed.
Anyone care to give me a explanation of that action by Don Perata…
I’m still undecided.
October 28th, 2010 at 9:43 am
In regards to AB32, I don’t believe it was noncontroversial or a done deal. There are competing interests on emission controls, global warming, etc.,
I did acknowledge that Don was part of team to help AB32 pass. But to suggest (at least the way I interpreted prior comments about his role in the passing of AB32) that he led the efforts or that without Don the bill wouldn’t have gotten passed I don’t think is true.
I think Don, and everyone, should acknowledge that Don came to AB32 with a history of successful legislation behind this bill that allowed the bill to pass. California has been in the forefront of protecting the environment. And I wanted to point out who was the author of the bill. Some people might have thought it was Don Perata but it wasn’t. It was Fran Pavley.
So while I’m glad Don helped to pass AB32, I think we have to put this piece of legislation in perspective.
October 28th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Dax, I’m glad you raised that point because that reminds me of the Ameriquest political contributions to Don’s campaign several years ago and Don’s opposition to laws that would have been pro homeowner as it relates to foreclosure laws. I’m not an expert on that so if others have more information that would be very helpful.
October 28th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Well done V, I too voted for Perata for much of the same reasons you will or have. I believe he’ll do more for Oakland than any of the others.
October 28th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Yes, rich powerful people never get away with crimes in this country. The FBI knows who runs all of the mafia families in this country, what they make, how they hide their money, and in some cases where the bodies are buried. Those guys aren’t still walking around because the FBI doesn’t know about them or hasn’t tried to indict them, it’s because it’s extremely hard to assemble enough evidence to indict people and they don’t want to take on cases they could lose.
Just because someone hasn’t been convicted doesn’t mean they aren’t acting illegally or unethically.
Once again, following your links shows them not to be convincing evidence of what you’re saying. When you say “His party says that the investigation was a witch hunt”, your link points to an article written by someone who worked for him:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/1593
Not what I would call an impartial source. Or credible – he seems to think that Tan Nguyen down in Orange County shouldn’t have been indicted for sending out deceptive mailers and then lying about it:
http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2008/10/01/former-oc-gop-congress-candidate-tan-nguyen-indicted/5787/
And when you say “Republican leaders called it a clear example of prosecutorial abuse”, you mean a retired republican said that in an article with a byline from Don Perata:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/670
See Don’s name at the top? Bonus points for this article saying dismissing charges against Ted Stevens was a good idea.
You’re right in what you’ve said about Hope 2010, but you’re leaving out some significant details. Like the money was raised to put the ballot initiative on this year’s ballot (hence the name). And that they’ve done no work to that end, instead only collecting signature for 2012 – something they’ve spend an awful lot of money on. That money wasn’t spent on the people standing in front of the Safeway gathering signatures, though, it was spent on consultants. Coincidentally, a lot of the consultants being paid to do almost nothing on the Hope 2010 campaign are also working for Perata’s election campaign. Some of them are even volunteering their time for the campaign – which is easy because they’re not actually doing anything as consultants on the job they’re being paid for, and they are in the same office as Perata’s election campaign. The whole campaign has functioned as a way to pay people to work on his reelection campaign without having to file it as such. Here are some articles on the subject:
http://oaklandlocal.com/article/wheelings-and-dealings-don-perata-short-take-long-subject
http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-01-13/bay-area/17827858_1_perata-s-son-perata-s-hope-ignacio-de-la-fuente
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/05/18/don-perata-keeps-doling-out-the-dinero/
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Dapper-Don-Perata-Dines-on-Anti-Cancer-Dough-jw-84050042.html
Or this:
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/02/10/peratas-campaigns-overlap-in-oakland/
in which a Perata representative claims that allegations about this have left Don feeling personally hurt, and that the mailers that everyone in Oakland got are going to go out to the rest of the state and it’s just a coincidence that they started going out in Oakland first. That was February. No other mailers went out. They don’t even have a website.
So money goes into a state campaign that doesn’t really exist and coincidentally pays the salary of volunteers for Perata’s mayoral campaign. That’s money laundering. I doubt it could be successfully prosecuted, but that doesn’t make it legal or ethical or anything less than slimy. I’m not sure how this is okay with you, V. Based on other things you’ve said, it might be because you have a laissez faire attitude about people donating to campaigns – it’s their money, let them do with it what they want and if they don’t like how it’s spent they shouldn’t give it anymore. The problem with that is that giving politicians large chunks of money often leads to undue influence. In this case, people who give Perata money know they’ll get something back for it. It’s the difference between being hired and elected. I can’t believe I’m trying to explain this to you – you’re obviously bright and you understand it on some level, but you’re okay with it. That’s what I don’t understand. Maybe you think all of these ethical issues are just coincidental or fictions created by Gammon and that he doesn’t even push the limits of legality. I don’t know. Even people I know who are voting for Perata think of him as crooked, something you don’t seem to.
And you still haven’t convinced me that Don had anything to do with AB 32 getting through, and I’m confident in my knowledge about the process of getting that bill through. You could have put ANY democratic leader in those negotiations and it would have gone through. Show me anywhere that details his involvement or evidence that he did anything out of the ordinary to get it through. Something that any democratic Senate pro tem wouldn’t have done. Sure, he sat down in a lot of exclusive meetings on the subject, but that was part of his job at the time.
Budgets: 24 of the last 25 have been late, and the phrase get out of town budget was invented to describe some of the gems Perata put through. Not sure why you think that only started in 2008 or that Perata was never involved in a dubious budget, but history says otherwise.
I know everyone who comes to this blog will dependably get out to vote – you’ve put together a really important place here, V, for which you deserve unending credit – so I’d like to encourage everyone here to start a get your friends out to vote campaign. Even if they do vote for Perata.
October 28th, 2010 at 11:05 am
To think that the prison guard union would require a candidate for city mayor to be in lockstep with them on all statewide propositions is too absurd an idea be called plausible since I don’t think any Mayoral candidate could possibly significantly effect voter opinion. Perhaps even more basically, the CCPOA is certainly more sophisticated than that, and wouldn’t want to unnecessarily tarnish the image of local candidate they obviously favor and Oakland clearly favors prop 19. In short, Perata is a non factor on their campaign against prop 19, and they are well aware that in Oakland going against it could be a blow to their candidate. The apparent assumption that they are consistent in all their efforts to influence the political scene is a new one! I don’t think I’ve ever heard that argument before…
Similarly, to suggest that prison guards either have to make $100k or more PLUS benefits and retirement packages that reward youthful retirement OR be paid $5.00 an hour is an argument so flawed it’s hard to no where to begin to respond. This false dichotomy of suggesting either they must be paid peasant wages or be among the top few percent of wage earners in the state is similarly not rational even on its face. Making 20%, 30%, or 40% less are all perfectly viable choices, just for a few more plausible ideas.
If you are interested in some reading about the basic of how badly we are now off as a result of these union contracts, and how extensively the three major unions control politics statewide, here is some material:
Here’s a broad overview of the three major unions and their history and influence-
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html
In 2006 prison guard base pay had increased to about $60,000, with about 2,400 making more than $100,000 because of overtime
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060228/news_1n28guards.html
Here’s a recent piece on their finances -http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/10/23/2129576/12-million-verdict-hits-calif.html
Here’s Willie Brown being honest about this on the first of this year, that almost the entirety of our state and local shortfalls and deficits are due to outlandish levels of compensation that have been dolled out (by guess who):
Willie Brown
Posted on January 5, 2010 1:45:14 PM PST by GVnana
“If we as a state want to make a New Year’s resolution, I suggest taking a good look at the California we have created. From our out-of-sync tax system to our out-of-control civil service, it’s time for politicians to begin an honest dialogue about what we’ve become.
Take the civil service.
The system was set up so politicians like me couldn’t come in and fire the people (relatives) hired by the guy they beat and replace them with their own friends and relatives.
Over the years, however, the civil service system has changed from one that protects jobs to one that runs the show.
The deal used to be that civil servants were paid less than private sector workers in exchange for an understanding that they had job security for life.
But we politicians, pushed by our friends in labor, gradually expanded pay and benefits to private-sector levels while keeping the job protections and layering on incredibly generous retirement packages that pay ex-workers almost as much as current workers.
Talking about this is politically unpopular and potentially even career suicide for most officeholders. But at some point, someone is going to have to get honest about the fact that 80 percent of the state, county and city budget deficits are due to employee costs.
Either we do something about it at the ballot box, or a judge will do something about in Bankruptcy Court. And if you think I’m kidding, just look at Vallejo.”
October 28th, 2010 at 11:07 am
Oakland Resident,
Not sure why you think the CCPOA was involved in the No on Prop 93 campaign. It was about rejiggering the way our state term limits work and had nothing to do with prisons. Why would they get involved?
Also, you might want to read up a bit on the East Bay Young Democrats. It’s a pretty solid and well-informed group, and being young isn’t what drives their political engagement.
October 28th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
RdwithCypress and Karen
While we do not disagree with the possibility of rogue City staff improperly enforcing the blight ordinance, we don’t think you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. The blight ordinance is an important tool for local government to ensure property owners maintain properties. This is critical for public safety, crime reduction and maintenance of property values. Blight in this case are conditions such as abandoned properties, broken windows, peeling paint, deteriorated roofs, abandoned vehicles, overgrown weeds, and garbage onsite. This is distinct from a code enforcement action wherein a property owner has constructed an improvement without proper permits or has done so inconsistent with the building codes.
RdwithCypress you seem to believe that a great deal of blight enforcement is being done improperly and that fines are imposed right out of the gate. That is simply not our experience. Having worked on hundreds of blight cases, we have found that property owners are given time to remedy the identified blight–sometimes several years. Those who have legitimate excuses or difficulties in meeting the requirements of the ordinance are often given multiple time extensions to comply. We have some properties on our list that have been in the queu with the City for over four years. When a property owner is unwilling to work voluntarily to remedy the problem, the City uses other mechanisms including cleaning up the property themselves and placing a lien on the property. In cases where the property owner wants to fix the problem, but does not have the financial means, the City has worked with them to identify methods to secure resources such as low cost loans that can be repaid upon sale of the property. Of the hundreds of cases we have been involved with, only one has resulted in a fine and then a lien being placed on the property because the property owner refused to address the problem in any fashion.
Blight enforcement is largely a complaint driven process. People in the community complain and the City responds, investigates and then requests the owner comply with City law. Sometimes it is neighbors who complain, sometimes it is homeowner associations, sometimes it is the crime prevention councils. Blight affects everyone. The only other method we see for addressing blight is to have the City staff walk block by block and identify each blighted property and request the property owner comply. Given limited staff resources that’s just not going to happen.
We believe blight enforcement, fines and liens are necessary to ensure property owners are compelled to comply with the law. We do not think fines should be used as a revenue generating mechanism, but as a deterrent. Otherwise, withou fines or liens the ordinance is toothless.
Blight enforcement is but one mechanism to address economic development in Oakland and to stem the loss of foregone revenue because of depressed property values.
We often hear some say that the blight ordinance should not be enforced on those who do not have the financial means to comply. Would they also say that the financially challenged should not be prosecuted for crimes, or traffic violations, or not be required to have their kids in school? Where does that line of reasoning stop. There are plenty of financially challenged people who are responsible property owners and do not create a nuisance of other neighbors. We do believe the City should have a range of options for financially challenged homeowners to secure funding to comply. But the ordinance must be enforced across the board regardless.
In all honesty, we would be interested in knowing the specifics of cases that you feel there has been overzealous enforcement. Like you we believe there has to be due process and an opportunity for residents to reasonably object should they feel the City staff are doing something improper. See our current expose regarding the illegal removal of street trees by Brooke Levin http://www.wefightblight.blogspot.com/
October 28th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Colin: from the CCPOA’s own website: http://ccpoa.org/news/entry/fabian_nunez_speaks_out_on_election_results/
October 28th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Colin: re: East Bay Young Dems – from what I can find out from their own website:
http://www.ebyd.org/site/about-us/ebyd-bylaws/
the EBYD are a VERY new (bylaws adopted on August 16, 2010) – although their “accomplishments” page says they have been around for five years – still very new in my mind, VERY young (18-35 years old), and their biggest accomplishment seems to be monthly social mixers. NOT the stuff that inspires confidence in their ability to address the very real, very serious issues facing Oakland
October 28th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Apparently nobody has anything to say about my epic long list of events and debates that Perata didn’t show up to.
Nor does anyone have anything to say about the multiple times Don not only didn’t show up, but said he’d show up and didn’t call to cancel.
No rebuttal to that. Because it’s all TRUE, and the no-show, no-call incidents are completely unforgivable. Ron Dellums may be invisible, but he has much better manners about it.
I have no assistant to do my scheduling. You know what I do when I can’t make an appointment? I pick up my phone, and I call and say I won’t be there. And I may not be as busy as Don Perata, but my dance card is quite full most of the time.
The first time Don Perata ran for office, I was a fetus. I’ll be 35 soon. One would hope that Don would have learned by now that you do not no-show without even calling to important events, ESPECIALLY when you’re THE ONLY scheduled speaker at those events.
@Len Raphael:
As far as who’s “viable” goes, I’ve heard from multiple sources who’ve seen tracking polls that say that this race is too close to call.
Everybody’s viable. This is the most competitive race Oakland’s seen in a long time.
Even without seeing polls first hand, it’s pretty easy to figure out that this is a close race. Perata’s lead has shrunk every time a new public poll has come out.
Election polls almost always stay on a trend. The line moves one way on the graph, it rarely zigzags noticeably. Plus, Perata has so much money that he must be doing tracking polls. If the polls showed him improving, he would release them to the press. He hasn’t done that.
This is a nailbiter, folks. Anyone can win. Nobody knows the outcome.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I told someone I’d SHOW UP this afternoon and help them out. I must stop typing so I can SHOW UP.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
OK WeFight Blight, here is an example of overenforcement.
Blight inspector Steven Johnson has fined me $48,000 for “the crawl space has been excavated and a concrete floor poured”. Another city inspector has inspected my basement and the city has admited the work was not done. The city’s informant has also admited she lied. I have 4 appeals pending since april 2007. The city refuses to schedule an appeal hearing. Part of the fine has been collected on my tax bill. The city continues to ignore complaints of sewage spilling onto my property from adjacent properties. the case number is 0700992. The city has filed a notice of substandard building with the alameda county recorder. (no appeal hearing allowed) Antoinette Renwick will not respond to my Email.
October 28th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Two more glossy mailings from Quan arrived yesterday.
Saw a TV ad from Perata last night
No mayoral candidate has come to my door.
Saw Quan’s husband about a month ago while he was dropping literature to a neighbor’s house.
Wait… wait… I hear the mailman’s truck …
Hold on, I’ll see what he is bringing today, Thursday.
OK…. today’s haul…
#1) Official Sierra Club voter guide.
OMG, what a ugly organization they’ve become. They say Vote NO on Prop 20.
Guess they want to guarantee that we’ll never get a fair chance to vote for members of congress.
Sierra Club, more than willing to sell-out my right to have fair reapportionment and a real vote, just so they can protect their incumbent congress members.
Makes me want to vote against any candidate they recommend.
No on 20?…. OK, You suck Sierra Club
Anyone who wants fair elections will vote YES on Prop 20 and NO on 27..
———————————————-
#2.) item in the mail
YES ON L….. to raise my parcel tax another $195 or whatever…
The brochure mentions NOTHING about a tax.
NO….NO….NO….NO
That is a “pay-cut” for me folks…NO!
———————————————-
#3) item in Thurday’s mail.
California Democratic Party official endorsements
They say….
NO- on Prop 20
YES- on Prop 27
YOU suck, Democratic Party, trying to keep party hacks in control of the reapportionment process.
(mind you, I am a registered Democrat for the past 39 years)
Vote YES on Prop 20
Vote NO on Prop 27…
Common Cause supports a yes vote on Prop 20 and a no vote on 27.
Democratic Party makes me sick in their support of the status quo.
Thank God we’ll have open primaries the next time around.
————————————————–
#4 item in the mail…
Hidden Quan flier saying Don Perata is a crook. Tiny printed name of Jean Qaun in the text.
—————————————————-
#5 item in mail…
Yes on Measure W….
Sorry, but I’ll vote NO because they fail to disclose to the voter that it will cost us $1.99 per month.
Not disclosing that key feature is the same as lying to the voter.
You hide, you lose my vote. Dishonest.
————————————————-
#6. ) Kaplan for Mayor…
Glossy….tells of Trib endorsement, but says nothing about anything…
as brochures go….its blah
——————————————————
#7. ) From some candidate named Harley Davidson, but unclear what office he is running for.
I guess they are trying to sell me a motorcycle.
I have no idea why. I’ve never owned a motorcycle or ever looked at buying one.
Apparently I’m also a Veteran.
I’d better check my old 4-F draft card.
Seems they’ve given me a $350 off card if I buy a new motorcycle.
—————————————————
OK…….that is today’s mail haul.
Votes shifted…….NONE
Except to make me more inclined to vote against all Democratic candidates as punishment for the party trying steal away our right to vote…
By favoring a NO on 20 and along with a even more deceptive Yes on 27….
That attempt by the Democratic Party makes me furious….
What a bunch of creeps….
Trying to overturn our vote only two years ago where we said we wanted a new method of redistricting.
UGLY, UGLY, UGLY is their devious actions on this.
OK……perhaps I’ll call each mayoral candidate and ask their position on Prop 20 and 27….
October 28th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Dax,
You are a man after my own heart.
No on L. OUSD is currently taking $1000 of my hard earned dollars. Now, they want another $200 for a measure that the teachers don’t support. Vote No on L and you will do well.
Vote YES on Prop 20
Vote NO on Prop 27…
Max,
In all honesty, I am a little peeved that the frontrunners advocated that all candidates be included at the forums, and judging by the look on Randy S.’s face following the Kaiser forum, I am not the only one. Did any of us benefit from hearing Hodge et. al.? The set up was a complete waste of time. But for the fact I could roll out of bed and be at the forums w/in 5 mins, I probably would have skipped the majority of them.
Going forward, when we have a large number of candidates, we need to apply some stds for these forums.
October 28th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Ralph,
I agree about the forums. But that says nothing about how Perata’s total flake-outs on events where he was supposed to be the only speaker. What I listed above was not just debates and forums. Take out the forums and it still paints an unimpressive picture.
Dax,
As for the Democratic Party, on Prop 20 and Prop 27, of course they want to keep as much power as possible.
I happen to agree about no on 20, but my vote is more “not yet” than no. We don’t really know what the redistricting reform will create yet, so I’m willing to say that we should wait until we see in-state results before we bump the process up to managing federal election districts.
October 28th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Randy S. is full of himself and I dislike members in the media acting as though they get to decide how many people are too many at the forum. If we didn’t have IRV, we still would have had a crowded field, then we would have narrowed it down to a couple and then voted again. So either we had 10 people at forums early or we had 10 people at forums later. It really doesn’t matter.
I think reporters, bloggers, everyone should not opine about who can and cannot or who should and should not attend. Let people stand on their merits and the nuts are revealed and the cream rises to the top.
October 28th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Flooded by CEDA, thanks for the example. However, what you describe appears to be a code enforcement action and not blight enforcement. CEDA staff do work on both code and blight enforcement. Ironically, Steve Johnson is one of the City inspectors we have complained about for not enforcing the blight ordinance.
Our experience is that these issues are never as straightforward as your post suggests.
Was any part of your crawlspace dug out and concrete poured by anyone without a permit and/or inconsistent with the planning and building codes? Did you inherit this problem from a prior owner? If not and no work was undertaken, then the simple solution was that when you got the notice from CEDA alledging a code violation, you simply had to respond and show them the space to verify that no work had taken place inconsistent with the planning and building codes.
On the other hand, if work was undertaken by you or a prior owner without appropriate approvals, you would have to pull a building permit and possibly a planning approval depending on the use of the space, assuming approvals could be issued, pay the additional fees for an after the fact permit and then get the work signed off by a building inspector. Case closed.
How exactly did the City come to fine you $48,000? You normally don’t get to $48,000 with one letter from the City alleging a violation. It sounds as if you are omitting some very significant steps/actions by the City or yourself?
If your story is true as you have painted it, have you complained to the City Administrator and/or the City Attorney about the City failure to schedule the appeal hearing? Have you sought the assistance of your City Councilmember in getting the matter agendized?
October 28th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
Ultimately, I am voting for Don Perata because I am absolutely sure that Jean Quan would be the figural nail in Oakland’s coffin. And based on current polls, Mr. Perata has the best chance of beating her. Sad that it has come to this…it’s kind of like a “Saw” movie.
October 28th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
WeFight Blight Thanks for asking.
Nadel’s staffer Starks has pointed out “it is VERY INCONVIENENT” for me to keep asking for her help.
Lindheim refers me back to Mr. fielding, who doesn’t have time to see me.
My basement remains unalterd from the “two story with basement” described in city records. some ashes even remain on the dirt floor from when the lot was cleared in 1906 before the current building was built.
$48,000 and some change is a total of 11 liens Johnson-Renwick have now admited they filed by accident (11 seprate accidents).
I wouldn’t be supprised to hear Johnson is doing no work at all after he was directed to attack me and then got caught.
I have heard I am being attacked because I exposed problems with the sewer rehab program.
This is the tip of the Iceburg.
October 28th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Max,
Can’t speak to the events where Perata was the only scheduled speaker? But on the plus side, unlike Kaplan, Perata did not require you to deposit large sums into his coffers to attend his events.
Karen,
There are metrics which can be used to whittle down the field.
——
On the EBYD, their recommendations are about as useful as Ron Dellums. Seriously, the first and primary consideration for their endorsement is age.
October 28th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Ralph,
Metrics sounds like a code word for keep the incumbents and well connected in politics and the new comer can go home and pound sand.
October 28th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Ralph,
Kaplan didn’t turn anyone away at the door at any event, regardless of their ability to pay. She started her campaign later than everybody else and needed to raise money from small individual donations.
Perata didn’t need to charge people on the street because he already had piles of money from wealthy out of town business interests.
@Patrick M. Mitchell,
Consider voting Kaplan 1, Perata 2. In ranked choice voting, if Kaplan is eliminated, Perata gets your vote to block Quan. That’s what I did.
Also, there is no “recent polling” all the public polls are weeks old and all of them came out before Kaplan landed 5 newspaper endorsements in a week and got a bunch of free evening news airtime in recognition of that.
October 28th, 2010 at 5:44 pm
Kaplan is definitely learning the ropes of being a California pol.
The 148k from movie guy could have made a big difference if it had come in before the absentee ballots arrived. But then RK still would have needed a makeover to appeal to broader section of voters who often go on superficial impressions.
What seriously bothers me, in a different way than than the Prison Guard thing bothers Perata haters, is the California Nurses Assoc spending 66k of their members’ due on an election whose result would have 0 impact on most of the nurses who paid for it.
And yes it bothers me only because my spouse is a dues paying CNA member and despite the CNA’s wierd rationale about how a Kaplan win would help “progressive health care” and that many Kaplan supporters are union members (CNA would have no idea if that were true or false).
-len raphael, temescal
Peratista
Kilianist
October 28th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Where in the world did the CNA come up with the belief that a Kaplan win would mean progressive health care for Oakland?
Karen B.
Lower Hills Resident
Joe Tuman For Mayor
October 28th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Michael L. their political director and Port of Oakland commissioner, must have decided Rk was a good long term investment. Which in turn means CNA thinks she’ll be up and out of Oakland in a few years.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Karen,
The LWV uses good decent metrics to determine who should be invited to a forum. If people want everyone to hear each candidate speak at each forum, then we should not expect anything more than a sound bite and frankly we should not require candidate attendance at all of them.
Max,
When I was still an undecided, I wanted to attend Kaplan events, but at least once and I think twice, I was told that I had to pay to attend. As a result, I attended just one non-pay event. Other candidates were very clear that no one would be turned away for lack of funds. Tis a shame Ms. Kaplan valued the dollar more than she valued engaged people.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
Max,
With less than a week to go before election day, I am not sure what this back and forth will achieve.
You once liked Perata. You got a new horse.
I was once undecided. I am now firmly in camp Perata.
I am officially out of the back and forth game with you and Naomi. I may still give Len a beatdown on Kilian, but I am audi 5K with you and NS on the mayor.
October 28th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Lawsuit filed against City and CEDA officials! Dan Liendhiem, Walter Cohen and
others named for abuse of discretion, denial of due process, and transferring
revenue from CEDA to the general fund. No more attacks on families, no more
abuse using the guise of official right. CEDA is swamp! The next mayor must do
something and must go public about it now!
http://www.auditoaklandceda.com/web_documents/image2010-10-22-151416.pdf
October 28th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
RdwithCypress
Interesting lawsuit. However, there is little to no evidence to support the claims of widespread abuse with the intent of revenue generation. Arguing that cities of comparable or larger sizes do not collect as much in code enforcement fines is one thing, however linking that statistic directly to allegations of widespread abuse is another. There may be valid reasons why the City of Oakland collects more fines than other Cities. Perhaps that will come out in the trial. What is troubling is the allegation of illegal transfers to the general fund. That is highly problematic and perhaps indicative of the City’s wild west approach to managing its (our) resources. In any event, it will be interesting to see how this one turns out. We certainly agree that if people feel our city bureaucrats are abusing their discretion and authority that the courts can provide relief. Our hope is that Don Perata, through wise selection of a strong City Administrator, will do some housecleaning and send some Department Heads and their Deputies packing.
October 28th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
Dear WeFightBlight,
Can you give a little background on Wefightblight. Is this the work of the woman who is pictured on the blog? Is this the work of an organized group of people with a list of names? Do you ever identify yourself by name or names?
October 28th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Looking back and ahead, I don’t see how limiting the number of candidates at any of the forums would have increased the quality of the info the “viable” candidates wanted to give us about how they would handle the budget, economic development, and their spending priorities.
Kaplan is sort of an exception in that she can go on for hours on the minutiae of how she’ll put this form online and automate that procedure. But then that level of detail is
unintentionally misleading; you figure out where RK stands on the forest because she’s describing each tree in detail.
The viable candidates wanted us to chose them based on appearance, warmth reputation, experience, endorsements but not what unpleasant decisions they had planned for say dealing with the budget.
They know voters don’t vote for bad news bears.
None of the top 4 polling candidates could debate worth a darn. Kaplan knew policy but was mediocre speaker when she strayed from her script; Quan sputtered when criticized; Perata ignored criticism. Tuman could speak but used lots of fillers and generalizations because he didn’t know much policy.
I continue to believe that IRV put the kabosh on candidates attacking each others’ positions and records. It’s only been the last week or so that negative mailers have come out from candidates.A month? since the first negative mailer came out from one of Perata’s PAC’s.
Negative is good. Much better than the pablum we heard from the candidates for months. Perata didn’t miss anything from skipping a bunch of the forums.
The moderated forums would have been better if the moderators were better prepared and were allowed to cross examine.
As it were, it was the second tier candidates who contributed some of the best energy to the forums by criticizing the viable candidates’ platforms and records.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All