Council Race
PATTERSON CITY COUNCIL VOTE FOR TWO
James Leonard
As many of you have noticed, we’re having a tough time keeping up with the upcoming election. One thing is clear in this race for council, you have choices. If you like what see from the rubber stamp council, maybe Buehner is your candidate.
However, if your looking for candidate who seems to be pragmatic, calm and steady, yet willing to dance to his own tune, we think Leonard is a solid pick.
We still have plenty of time to elaborate on why Leonard may be the person to change the anemic vibe coming out of city hall. However, at this moment, we’re focusing on some really interesting stories that may shed some more light on a few candidates running for council and mayor.
When a union backs tea party republicans….well maybe there is something in the water.
Larry Buehner
Doing our best to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, we first turn to Larry Buehner. One thing about Mr. Buehner, he has consistently been a participant in the affairs and concerns of the city. Even if it seems like his presence is guided by his business interest…well you may be right at times. However, he really seems genuinely ready to serve the community. I know what your thinking, but over the years, Buehner has shown generosity, and support for community oriented projects.
The Buehner family has been a household name in this city for quite some time. Larry’s father purchased 131 acres of near the river in 1947. His family focused on commercial grain harvesting and ran a cattle and hog operation. Larry and his father opened Triangle Truck & Equipment in 1966.
While the family had some rental housing habitability issues in the 80s and 90s, they appear to have cleaned up their act and properties.
We have little concern about Larry’s abilities to hold office, our main concerns center around those similar to Ramos, can he be unbiased when a buddy is before him asking for a general plan amendment, zoning change, or use permit. Time will tell.
bluestate said,
September 23, 2010 @ 5:31 PM
Fred:
Love the blog but no one will ever convince me that the Buehner’s aren’t slumlords. A ton of their units are still substandard and they are still sticking it to poor folks who don’t have a pot to piss in. I think Leonard will bring something this council has missed for long time now, a person who thinks. Mr. Cuellar has been a respectful community leader for over 4 decades, he’s never given me a reason to not vote for him. So while my vote will probably go with Cuellar and Leonard, I would still like to learn more about the other two candidates, excluding Buehner. Business already has an overwhelming presence at city hall, not interested in giving them anymore.
Will the Irritator submit a questionnaire to these candidates? I think it would be great to see them answer real questions. May I suggest a funny, less serious one, like what’s in their ipod, cd player, tape deck, record player or 8 track?
Really? said,
October 7, 2010 @ 10:18 AM
I read the candidate profiles in today’s Irrigator, and I have to say, I was thoroughly unimpressed with Buehner’s responses in particular. He only seems concerned with catering to big business’ needs and wants and says little to nothing about what our residents need. Additionally, when asked about the current state of City Hall, Buehner talks about looking forward to working with the next city manager and making sure “he” has the resources “he” needs to keep the city moving forward. Why is he assuming that the next city manager is definitely going to be a “he?” It very well might end up being a man, but let’s it’s not for Larry or anyone else to presume that only male candidates for the position are the most qualified.
He also made it very clear that he’s locked into an alliance with Novelli and Smith, which is exactly what our city does not need at this point. How can we expect the next city council to not have the same issues of divisiveness and infighting if 3 of the mayoral/council candidates have pretty much come out and publicly stated that they’re in an alliance together. It also doesn’t help matters that Buehner chooses to call out Sam specifically, as if Sam on his own is responsible for all of the problems we’ve seen at City Hall.
What made this especially troubling was that this was Buehner’s response to the question about enhancing teamwork among the council. So Buehner’s idea of enhancing teamwork is pushing for a 3-person alliance while simultaneously bashing one of the other council candidates? Sounds like a recipe of more-of-the-same to me.
Speaking of alliances, I found it interesting that Novelli said that the council has an important responsibility in hiring the next city manager and that she looks forward to “providing support.” Support? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the next city council is going to actually select the next city manager, not provide support. Is she saying she’s going to “support” whatever Smith and Buehner want? At best, not exactly a statement of strong leadership; at worst, she’s “supporting” her fellow allies in what they want.
I believe we need new blood on the Council, and we need councilmembers who don’t have built in alliances and/or hidden agendas. And it’s for those reasons that I’m supporting Lustgarden and Leonard for City Council.
Droppin Bombs said,
October 7, 2010 @ 5:31 PM
Amen! I was coming here to post something along the same lines, you did it more eloquently that I ever could have.
I know for sure who I won’t be voting for, Smith, Buehner, and Novelli.
Really? said,
October 7, 2010 @ 6:41 PM
Irritator,
We’d like to see your profiles of the other candidates as soon as possible. We’ve had Buehner’s up for long enough.
fred ross said,
October 7, 2010 @ 10:23 PM
Future profiles will probably respond to Irrigator questions. I’ve been working on some public records request, that have taken more time than expected.
Buehner essentially gives the current council two thumbs up…not exactly what folks are looking for, when city hall is more dysfunctional than some popular reality tv shows.
I must admit, I’ve only read Buehner’s profile so far, I’m hoping the rest of the candidates get it, people don’t want to hear canned responses and oversimplified solutions…people want ideas…Buehner didn’t exactly set forth anything that would support a strong sense of vision and leadership…disappointing answers.
Stop_the_Madness said,
October 8, 2010 @ 6:06 AM
It is apparent the development interests are scared with Molina,Leonard and the other lady (Not Novelli) running. Threre is a concern the council might just say no to their plans and they concerned.
Really? said,
October 12, 2010 @ 2:06 PM
Why isn’t anyone asking Mr. Buehner how he’d be able to vote on any major projects that come before the city council if he’s elected? From what I’ve heard, the Buehner brothers are involved with the property that the city council just approved for the Patterson Logistics Center. I’ve also heard about the possibility of developing a rail spur north of town near 33 and Zacharias. And I pulled up an Irrigator article from a couple of years ago which said that Buehner owns land in that area near Zacharias and the 33. What is he up to, exactly? I’d like to know much more about Buehner’s various properties, what he intends to do with that land, and how he can possibly think that he’d can serve on our city council without huge conflicts of interest. What bothers me is that Buehner says that he’s been opposed to West Park from the beginning. But it sounds to me like he’s opposed to West Park because he’s just trying to create his own mini-West Park on the north side of town. It also makes me wonder why this council is so hell bent on jamming the general plan through before the election. Could it be so that the path for Buehner’s “West Park north” plan will be set before he gets on the council?
And since Buehner made it pretty clear in the Irrigator last week that he’s with Novelli, he clearly thinks that she will vote his way, whether he actually wins or not. I look forward to seeing your other candidate profiles Fred. But I already know enough about Buehner and Novelli to know I won’t be voting for their alliance.
James Leonard said,
October 12, 2010 @ 5:15 PM
That question actually was asked at Candidates Night last night, and I’ll have to rewatch it to make sure I understood him correctly, but I’m pretty sure Larry said he would not be able to vote on the general plan revision or on certain projects that might come up in the future. There were a number of questions posed directly to him, actually (both about his land holdings and his ties with other candidates). It appears there are many who have these concerns.
http://www.leonard4council.com
fred ross said,
October 12, 2010 @ 8:49 PM
James,
Would you support an Ag mitigation amendment to the General Plan? The current regime appears to be convinced by Ron West’s warnings that Ag mitigation is evil, evil, evil. If any other candidates happen to be reading, please weigh in.
Fred
James Leonard said,
October 13, 2010 @ 8:14 AM
As I said Monday night, I do have concerns about mandating ag mitigation and the effects it could have on our competitiveness in attracting businesses and development, but I think we should try to limit the impacts on ag by pushing for higher-density housing preventing sprawl as much as we can. Those who said farmers have a right to do what they want with their land were right … the problem, to me, is when those farmers become too politically involved in the decision-making process regarding zoning and things like that. They have a right to advocate for the outcome that would be to their benefit, but when they are supporting candidates monetarily or are candidates themselves, that’s a concern. And that’s definitely a concern in this election.
blue state said,
October 14, 2010 @ 8:52 PM
Annette Smith flip flopping on Ag mitigation.
Today she says “Ag mitigation is basically a land tax.”
But she had no problem voting for mitigation measures when it’s not her buddies. Which is it Smith? Are you only for ag mitigation on a non-election year?
See this article http://www.pattersonirrigator.com/pages/full_story?page_label=home&id=2461236-Council+votes+to+expand+city+limits&article-Council%20votes%20to%20expand%20city%20limits%20=&widget=push&instance=home_news_second_lead_story&open=&
Stop_the_Madness said,
October 12, 2010 @ 7:41 PM
Buehner by law would have to recuse himself from any votes where there is a clear conflict of interest. If his land was a part of or within a certain distance from any project up from a vote, then he would have to recuse himself. In my opinion, even when there is not a speciifc legal conflict, there is an issue with developers and other real estate interests sitting on decision making bodies related to development. Ron West is a perfect example of someone who can avoid legal conflicts but even so has such a pro-development bias. He is engaged in a business that makes money from development and has represented area landowners. Clearly, he doesn’t belong on a commission that makes recommendations on land use and development. The same can be said for Ramos.
The current general plan is a recipe for sprawl of the worst kind. It has a huge land area. The plan has no controls in place to regulate growth on an annual basis and relies on the market. There is no ag mitigation for the 12,000 acres in the plan. It promises more of the same. The irony is there is still unused land in the current sphere of influence. The Villages would add almost 3,000 houses and has not even broken ground yet. There is also residential land running Ward Avenue and also South of Las Palmas that has not yet been annexed to the City. It seems crazy to add even more land for housing to the General Plan especially West of Highway 5. Now they want the land West of I5 to be ” reserve ” in the general plan. That in itself should cause alarm.
fred ross said,
October 12, 2010 @ 8:40 PM
These guys don’t recuse themselves, ask slick Willey Traina, his property just across the street of the inflated GP update land use map, not a peep regarding any conflict of interest.
Stop_the_Madness said,
October 12, 2010 @ 8:01 PM
Really,
West Park was also used as a smoke screen by development interests to get as much land into Patterson’s sphere of influence as possible. It started with the early General Plan hearings with developers stating that Patterson better get all the land it can under its borders, cause if they don’t Gerry Kamilos and/or the County will develop land around its borders. This phony argument is still being repeated by Ron West and those like him. Ron West stated the City needs to annex west of Highway 5 because if the City doesn’t annex it, the County will develop it. This is flat out baloney. With the exception of the airbase, the County has always cooperated with the City and has been sensitive to the City’s borders. Both Supervisor DeMartini and Grover have publicly stated the County never had any intention to approve development outsiide of Patterson’s borders. This argument is nothing more than a scam to get more land into the City for development interests,
fred ross said,
October 12, 2010 @ 8:45 PM
After that candidates forum, don’t know what’s the bigger scam, the land grab or Smith’s mental state. Does she actually think people want a mayor who reacts to every single word not to her liking…sort of like a large toddler crying because Timmy won’t share. I don’t think anyone’s interested in bringing a Jerry Springer sideshow to City Hall for two years. She’s lost it.
Droppin Bombs said,
October 13, 2010 @ 2:31 PM
Does anyone have this footage online?
Droppin Bombs said,
October 13, 2010 @ 2:40 PM
Never mind, found it on Vimeo. Watching now, thoughts later.
Stop_the_Madness said,
October 13, 2010 @ 7:41 PM
James,
Great responses. Regarding the ag mitigation, developers alwaya complain about fees. Their objective is to maximize profits and their interests don’t always align with what is best for the community. Especially the developers that come from outside of the area. Just look at Village One in Modesto. In the early 1990′s, the developers complained that the fees were too high and the council lowered the fees. When the boom occurred, developers were making out like bandits. Of course, they didn’t have an issue with the fees then and the City was left underfunded. Developers always complain, that is what they do. Sometimes just gotta be firm with them.
In regards toThose who said farmers have a right to do what they want with their land were right” I get peeved whenever I hear developers and real estate interests spout this. First of all, the Supreme Court settled this many years ago ruling public agencies have liimited police powers through zoning and the General Plan process. No landowner has a legal right to have his/her land annexed into the City. That is the City’s decision made through its local leaders. Landowners who own land with a designated use do not have an absolute right to convert the land to another use if it conflicts with City or County zoning. No landowner lives in a vacuum. If one landowner wants to convert his land from farming to houses, is he/she going to provide sewer, water, police, fire, and other City services himself/herself for perpetuity? What about the effects on traffic, noise, pollution that affects the City overall? What about adjacent landowners who might not want to develop their properties? What about the effects of the urban encroachment on their property rights? What about the landowner who had walnuts west of town who lost his water when the City annexed his land into City. What about his rights?
If a landowner has te right to do whatever he wants with his property, then I should be able to purchase several acres of vacant land in the Patterson Gardens subdivision and build two huge skyscrapers. Maybe a shooting range or motorcross track. If a landowner has a right to do whatever he wants with his land, then zoning laws and ordinances aren’t enforcable and the General Plan process is a complete waste of time.
James Leonard said,
October 13, 2010 @ 8:05 PM
You make a lot of good points, and I agree that the landowners should not be making the decisions on what gets annexed or rezoned — nor have undue influence on those who have been elected to make those decisions. I might not have been clear enough on that, but I do agree with you. Zoning changes and things like that must be made with only the city’s best interest in mind.
fred ross said,
October 13, 2010 @ 9:49 PM
To her credit, Annette Smith did push for ag mitigation on the last project on the south side of town. There will always be “edge” landowners, who put pressure on local hacks to keep pushing city limits/sphere of influence, out, and out, and out. We need an urban boundary line, so everyone knows the rules, it will set forth where we will develop and where we won’t, this may keep expectations in check.
Denny Jackman out of Modesto is pushing this hard throughout Stanislaus County.
An Urban Boundary line would allow us to build the type of housing that leonard is talking about, it will allow us to plan for grand parks, not the micro pocket parks Ron West takes credit for whenever given the chance. It will allow us to divert development back inward to the city core. It will allow to adequately and with some damn sense, plan a real transportation system plan that gives, walkers, cyclist, electric street a chance to thrive. We can still help the edge landlord by zoning land just outside the boundary to allow for alternative energy projects, that could buffer farmers from urban dwellers. The possiblities are great if we zig when everyone else is zagging.
If things remain the same, and there are no constraints on edge landowners, we’ll continue to sprawl out, build more than we can service (public safety/roads) and we’ll always ask ourselves why we let it happen.
If you want to repeat what is going on up and down the valley, we’ll I guess it’s the people’s choice, but when we look back twenty years from now, we’ll wonder why we chose a walmart over a nice big park, warehouses/large corporations over small locally companies, drugstores over community centers.
When we want to visit a cool small town, where do we go? Twaine Harte, Woodbridge, maybe Knights Ferry…these towns all have something in common, in the face of fast developer money they zigged, while the rest of us zagged. Now on a nice sunny weekend day, we visit these places, not Tracy.
Droppin Bombs said,
October 13, 2010 @ 9:07 PM
Thoughts after watching the video :
Buehner – Gets 5 minutes to open, speaks for 45 seconds? Can barely use the microphone, comes off as inept. Says the new Council won’t hold grudges, does he not know Smith? One of the 3 Stooges.
Lustgarten – Breath of fresh air, enthusiastic, exactly what Patterson City Council and the City need.
Leonard – Levelheaded, comes across as a statesman. Same compliments as Lustgarten above.
Novelli – Says she wants City Council to be unbiased, impartial. Funny, she’s in bed with Smith and Buehner. Claims her magazine is for the community? All ads, no substance. Mirrors her personally?
Cuellar – Elder statesman. Been voice of reason on the council for a very long time. Has best interests of the city and its residents in mind.
Smith – Disclaimer, am not a fan. She claims Campbell and Patterson have similarities, she moved here 21 years ago. I lived in San Jose/Campbell from 1974-2001, very few similarities. If Patterson and Campbell had half the things in common, this city would be rocking. She talks about swallowing land and not paving everything over, expanding growth, not been her track record on council votes. Boasting about the Highway 33 crossing for students, yet she was one who cared less about it for years. She claimed she was an “independent voice”, yet was in cahoots with Campo and Farhina, has been extremely friendly to landowners and developers, and now in cahoots with Buehner and Novelli? Said she is against West Park because of the traffic and congestion it will bring the city, yet is for Wal Mart smack in the middle of town? She’s been a advocate for planting a casino in our backyard, and has been a huge Wal-Mart supporter, before it was even announced. Also did it using her alias, Sarakobiatch. One thing I did find funny was pretty much every candidate said they wanted “communication” “civility” “compromise” “respect” “trust” “tone” , except Smith. She was more worried about the word decimated than any of the critiques of how she has come across. My only regret is that someone didn’t bring up the Grand Jury inquisition.
Molina – What the city needs for mayor. Someone who will take charge, will listen to what the city and its residents need. Not someone there to make a name for himself, has the best interests of our city first and foremost, not developers.
Ramos – Where was this clown? Probably drinking and writing more of his fiction for tomorrows Irrigator.
Really? said,
October 14, 2010 @ 12:06 PM
Droppin Bombs,
Just watched the forum video too, and I gotta agree with a lot your assesements. Lustgarden and Leonard definitely had the strongest nights of all the candidates. Loved what they had to say about both not having any alliances or agendas. It was also pretty clear from the questions that a lot of people don’t want to see the alliance-driven politics that we’ve had at city hall for the last few years.
In terms of Novelli, you totally read my mind, especially about her “Community Magazine.” Are you kidding me? A magazine has actual content beyond coupons. And let’s not forget that her “magazine” is not a public service; she’s getting paid for it and that’s her only priority. Virtually all of her answers, once you get past all the “ers” and “ums” had no substance behind them. Just lots of talking points there were probably fed to her. I also loved watching her squirm through the question about alliances. First saying that she can work with anyone but then saying that she “believes in the ideologies” of Smith (whatever that means) and wants to work with Buehner. Later, she also talked about her and Buehner being a “co-council” with Smith. But they’re not in an alliance, though. Ha! They might as well just admit that theyre in bed together with Buehner and the other money people.
By the way, did anyone else notice that Smith, Novelli and Buehner all seemed to be aware that the city’s about to hire a new interim city manager from outside of town, even though nothing about that has been discussed in open council meetings? Whoever it is they were talking about may be totally fine. How do you think Novelli and Buehner would be keyed in on something like that when it hasn’t yet been discussed publicly? Hmm….
Speaking of Buehner, it looked like he did absolutely no prep for the forum, garbled through his answers and had no idea how to use his mic. Also loved his response to how he would deal with all the conflicts of interest that will come up if elected. He basically said, “well, the general plan will be adopted before I’m elected so don’t worry about it.”
Speaking of conflicts, did anyone notice how quickly Buehner popped up on the West Park question to say that he’s been opposed to West Park from the beginning but then went on to say that there may be a need for a rail spur at Zacharias and the 33? What he didn’t mention was that he OWNS the land near Zacharias and 33. Given that the Council just approved a new logistics center on the north side of town (quietly slipping that one through after the 3-hour Walmart hearing), who do you think stands to benefit from a “West Park North” distribution center, complete with a rail spur that runs right through his property? In a question about ag, Novelli mentioned that “a local farmer” who owns land in that area told her that he can’t wait to sell his land because of the profit margin. Could that local farmer be her buddy Buehner?
As far as Smith goes, she was quick to tout the endorsement that she, Novelli and Buehner just got from the firefighters union. But ask yourself this question. If you look at her campaign material, she touts being on the Patterson Fire District executive board. Isn’t it interesting that she’s been active with this particular board, and then this year the union decides for the first time to make endorsements? And surprise, surprise, guess who the firefighters end up endorsing? Smith and her cohorts Novelli and Buehner. All of the candidates talked about the importance of public safety, so this endorsement really means very little to me.
I could go on and on, but the forum made it clearer than ever that Smith, Buehner and Novelli and locked in as a bloc of votes. Leonard and Lustgarden are clearly the best choices for council in my opinion, and not just because of how they handled themselves at the forum. I’ve spoken to both of them, and I truly believe their only interest is doing what’s best for the entire city.
Elias H. Funez said,
October 16, 2010 @ 11:35 AM
While we’re on the topic of landlords and endorsements…I thought this may be of some interest.
Within the last year and a half I photographed three fires at the same migrant housing development at South First Street and Sperry avenues. I’m pretty sure those properties are owned by the Buehner’s if not solely by Larry, then probably by his brother Ken (who knocked on my door the other day distributing political literature for his brother Larry Buehner, Annette Smith, and Deborah Novelli).
I find it very appalling that the Patterson Firefighters Association would endorse the man whose property they had to save… putting young volunteers’ lives at risk… and on numerous occassions at that same housing development.
And these are only images from fires that were photographed in time. I’ve been to that property on different occassions to see charred remnants of other homes that were once there.
How many fires need to occur there for the landlord/property owner to screen the tenants that live there? Does that person not care?
Maybe the firefighters endorsed Larry Buehner because he’s helping to keep them busy… however, they shouldn’t be endorsing Buehner over someone with an amazing public service record like Sam Cuellar.
As much as I love the firefighters, I was hoping that their endorsements weren’t just going to be a political ploy by the new slate trying to take power, but I fear it is.
Check the images, you’ll see the police walking the property trying to find clues as to who started the fire. Public Safety a top priority? Ha ha don’t make me laugh!
http://www.pattersonirrigator.com/view/full_story/2608142/article-Slideshow–Fire-at-migrant-housing-camp?
http://www.pattersonirrigator.com/view/full_story/2285891/article-Slideshow–Small-structure-fire-Tuesday?
Really? said,
October 24, 2010 @ 4:53 PM
Irritator,
There’s only 8 days left before the election and you haven’t anything on the other council candidates besides Buehner and Leonard. Whats up?
BackInTown said,
October 25, 2010 @ 8:14 AM
You know what I find really funny about election time? A friend brought this to my attention yesterday afternoon.
During election time, the candidates do more public ventures than they do while not running for office.
For instance, my friend tells me that she has been going to Church at Sacred Heart for years. During all that time, she doesn’t recall ever seeing one of the candidates, Deborah Novelli, at Church. Now, she is there every Sunday, trying to look like she belongs. (My friend stressed that she doesn’t recall ever seeing Deborah at Chruch, that she may have been attending the other services they have. She just finds it funny that all of a sudden, during election season, she sees her every Sunday.)
In years past, I have seen candidates do the same type of thing. All of a sudden they become religious and start attending Church, they become active in civic organizations and fund raisers. Last time around, one of the candidates volunteered at two of the community organizations, only to leave and never go back after the elections.
Anyone else have examples of this they would like to bring up?
People should know who their candidates really are and at what level they will stoop to get seen and get votes.
WhatNext said,
October 26, 2010 @ 5:14 AM
Yeah, I noticed Deborah at mass on Sunday a couple of times recently, but don’t remember ever seeing her in church before. I have racked my brains trying to recall seeing her there before, but I come up empty.
I have named the time leading up to the elections as “see-me season”, where all the election candidates do their best to be seen.
I can’t wait to see how many stick with their visibility efforts after the elections.
WhatNext said,
October 27, 2010 @ 5:57 AM
Has anyone noticed who are the latest supporters of Annette? Drug dealers, gang members and thieves.
She has put up two of her posters in the front yard of a house known to be a gang hangout and a nest of drug and other illicit activities.
Not exactly the endorsement I want from someone that tells us that she is for public safety. How can she be for public safety when we now see whose support she wants and has obtained.
We want our streets to be safe again. This is just another example of what you get with a vote for Annette. The continued lack of law enforcement that we have come to know in our community.
I knew that she would stoop to low lows, but this is an all time low in Patterson politics. Words cannot describe the disgust that I feel for the vision that Annette must have for Patterson with her seeking the endorsement of the gangs and drug dealers.
I cannot, and will not, vote for a candidate backed by the criminals of Patterson.
BackInTown said,
October 27, 2010 @ 4:00 PM
It doesn’t surprise me at all that she has their support.
Why would they support Luis, who has indicated that one of his priorities will be public safety.
Can anyone tell me what Annette, or any of the current leadership for that matter, has done for public safety in our community.
As I have written, as has been the talk of the town for a long time, the gangs and other criminals have taken over our streets and the current leadership turns a blind eye to it.
The leadership blames the sheriff’s department, the sheriff’s department blames the city leadership, and the citizens are on the hook for it all. Our homes are broken in to, our kids are offered drugs, the women in town are harassed, there are more and more drive-by shootings going on, all because nobody in power will do anything about it.
Since hearing and then seeing the sign showing us that the criminal elements in town support Annette, it just strengthens my resolve to not only vote against her and her slate, but to encourage everyone I know to do the same.
Until she showed us who she really has in her corner, I have only been supporting Luis. Now, not only do I support Luis, but I am strongly encouraging my friends and family, and anyone that will listen, to know who is in Annette’s corner.
As a friend of mine told me this morning at Starbucks (where the topic of the signs came up), and I quote: “A vote for Annette is a slap in the face of every law abiding citizen in our community.”
If you agree, then you need to repeat WhatNext’s last statement above in your posting. I’ll start:
I cannot, and will not, vote for a candidate backed by the criminals of Patterson.
Really? said,
October 27, 2010 @ 7:12 PM
Well, this certainly doesn’t surprise me. Although if I had to guess, she probably put a sign there without their permission, as we already know has occurred in other parts of town with her signs. There’s a lot that can be pointed to regarding the inaction and lack of leadership from city hall when it comes to public safety, and that’s certainly a reason to vote against the slate.
But for me, the reasons go much deeper. My biggest issue is the extent to which the current council, and the slate, are in bed with our community’s major landowners. It’s bad enough that Buehner himself is a major landowner who thinks it’s appropriate to now become a policy maker. I personally don’t have a problem with anyone with an interest in the political process making their case to their elected officials. But it’s another thing all together to think it’s appropriate for someone as financially vested as Buehner is to put himself forward as someone who can genuinely but the city’s interests ahead of his own. And for Smith and Novelli to align themselves with a developer in this way tells me all I need to know about the 2 of them.
I couldnt go to the city council meeting last night, but from what I heard, they went ahead and allowed staff to negotiate with Larry and his brother Kenny to make payments to the city for what they still owe on the general plan. I have lots of issues with the program the city set up in the first place to allow developers to help pay for the general plan and all of the conflicts of interest that creates. But riddle me this Annette. How is that going to work if your buddy Larry gets elected but he still owes the city money? Do we really want one of our city counciilmen in hauk to the city? What happens if Larry wakes up one morning and says to himself, I think I’m going to stop paying today? Will the city council then be forced to take legal action against one of their own? I sure hope the Irrigator covered the meetiing last night and makes it clear in the paper tomorow what this council just did with the Buehner boys and their payment plan to the city.
It would have been bad enough to have a slate of candidates who have the clear financial backing from the town’s landowners. But to have a slate which actually includes one of the landowners is even more troubling. People in this town better open their eyes very quickly before we lose control of our city forever.
One last point. While I enjoy reading the postings on this site, I’m a little disappointed that we haven’t had any candidates other than Buehner and Leonard profiled for the readers to consider. We are now only five days from the election and there’s been nothing done about Cuellar, Lustgarden and Novelli beyond reader postings. I know that the Irritator team has been spending time dealing with the Logan lawsuit and pursuing public information requests from the city. But time is getting very short before election day, and i think it’s important for the readers of this site to hear what the Irritator thinks about all of the candidates running. But short of that, I urge all of the readers who are still trying to decide who to support to do your homework the next few days. This election is incredibly important, and the residents are our only chance to take back city hall from the special interests.