I’m surprised that no one has posted on the the Del Puerto race yet since it has been such a hot topic for the past year, so I’ll get things started.
I attended the so-called candidates forum earlier this week, and disappointed doesn’t begin to describe my feelings coming out of the forum. Four of the seven candidates did not attend, including the bomb thrower John Ramos and his cohort Becky Campo. Dr. Berry and Ramona East both said that they had work conflicts that prevented them from attending, but there was no explanation for Ramos and Campo’s no-shows. So we basically got an extended infomercial for the 3 candidates running together – Maring, Hill and Sandoval. Of the 3 in attendance, Hill seemed to have the most concrete ideas regarding the future of the health district. Maring clearly came raring for a fight, but since he’s opponents didn’t show, he mosted ended up punching at ghosts. Sandoval seems like a well-intentioned woman, but I question whether she has the experience to serve on the board.
But by far what was most disappointing were the no-shows from Ramos and Campo. I think most in attendance were there to finally see the 2 sides air out their differences so that we voters could make a more informed decision about who to support for the election. But the two characters most responsible for the bitterness and community division over the future of the health care district chose to stay away and not face their foes face-to-face. I was half expecting Ramos to include an explanation for his no-show in his paid Irrigator ad today, but no, just more bomb throwing about the health districts finances. I may be in a minority on this site, but I happen to believe that Ramos has provided a public service at times in terms of the issues he’s raised about the district’s operations and finances. But for him not to show up at the forum and make his case directly to the voters in attendance there was shameful, and dare I say, cowardly. Same goes for Campo, who apparently believes that she doesn’t have to campaign and that she’ll just slide into office on her name alone. I wouldn’t be so sure about that Becky.
I have to question the motives of Ramos, Campo and Dr. Berry at this point. Do they really care about the future of the health district? Or are they motivated more by a vendetta to get rid of Margo Arnold?
There’s plenty to question about how the district has operated, and I certainly didn’t buy Maring’s defensive argument that the district has been open and that it’s just that people don’t attend their board meetings. There’s much more that the district can and do to make sure people are aware of what they’re doing. We’ve seen as much in the Irrigator the last few weeks with multiple ads and stories about the district. I’ll be curious to see if the district keeps up this level of communication once the election is over. But at this point, I’m not so sure that Ramos, Campo and Berry have the solutions to the district’s issues. They seem more concerned with blowing it up than fixing it, and none of them have made a positive case for what they’d do if they’re elected.
Despite the number of candidates running for the district this year, our choices are not great. We have a board president who was already voted out two years ago, only to get reappointed. We have a woman who seems well intentioned but does really have a solid grasp on what running the health district entails. And we have 3 phantom candidates who prefer to hide behind paid ads but who have done nothing to get out into the community and make their case. The only candidate who really seems genuinely concerned with the community wants from their health district is Ramona East. And at this point, East, and possibly Hill, are the only members I would consider supporting. I know we need to vote for 3 candidates, but I’m having a very hard time finding a reason to support anyone else in the race.
I agree. I have been busy with work and have not been able to put my thoughts to words.
While I am not very satisfied with the candidates we have to choose from, I can tell you that I am completely against the current members and the slate as presented by the district. I honestly can not vote for any of the three candidates that are being presented to us by the district. I do not want business as usual. I want our health care district to better manage their money and resources.
We were misled by the district in their fight against John Ramos and I do not want to be misled by them anymore.
The citizens spoke against one of the candidates last time, only to have the district go against our vote and not only put him on the board, but made him the president of the board. I am still waiting to hear how this is a board/district doing what their constituents want in acting this way.
I am also still waiting to hear from any business that would even consider giving an employee the type of deal that they gave Margo. The excuse that the deal given to Margo is comparable to others is hogwash. The people that get that kind of deal are running humongous businesses and it is the norm for the area. I can’t think of one business in our area that has granted an employee such a sweet deal. If there is one, I wish someone would clue us all in. (Industry standard, foo-ey. Usually the industry standard is to NOT lose money, but to perform in a way that one earns the sweetheart deal.)
Back to work – I have a meeting I need to attend. More on this and the other threads later.
The only reason I can figure out that Campo, Ramos and Berry didn’t show for the candidates night is they didn’t want their ignorance of the Health Care District to be so apparent.
While the community and the City of Patterson mourn,Annete Smith and her cronies were behind the scenes planning Sam Cuellar’s replacement.Many citizens of Patterson were not given the opportunity to have an input as to who will represent us.Bhener was not “surprised’ as this was part of his plan for which he paid for. To my knowledge, the “debt”he owns the city is money he promised in reference to the general plan,was a donation.Am I missiing a piece to this puzzle?I thought that in our democracy, a public servant was elected to a public office and buying an elected seat was illegal ,if not criminal.I understand that there is a petition circulating to recall a certain elected official and I guess there may now be two recalls.Maybe I am naive and do not understand the political process in Patterson elections.What little respect I had for Annette Smith as an elected official is no more,after hearing how she totally disrespect the rights of others who attempt to communicate their concerns.
While the city mourned, Annette and Deborah made sure that they were front and center throughout the ordeal, pretending to care. Face time is face time, and when you are about to screw the citizens of Patterson, you might as well get all the face time you can, pretending to show concern.
That was quite a show they put on.
All the while, they were plotting their control grab for more power. Even though she held her three votes in her pocket, she (Annette) wanted more.
Everyone in Patterson can now totally kiss goodbye any chance that we were going to have safe streets. I’ll bet that Annette’s supporters, those that now own the streets, were very pleased to hear that she went with Larry. I’d wager that the gangs and thugs were celebrating their victory Monday night.
Maybe the next round of elections we can get some upstanding citizens, who will actually have the best interest of Patterson as their agenda, buy seats on the council.
Until then, we have to live with the agendas that are forced on us by the select few that now own the city.
As expected, there was no way that the appointment for Sam’s seat was going to be any different.Now the interesting part is how the “conflicts of interest” will be handled.At least some members of the community have communicated to the council that it will no longer allow “business as usual’ and are not ignoring the obvious attempts of some of the council members to vote for their “special interests”without regard to the Patterson community’s best interest.We have only one newspaper in town which reflects a special interest and reports accordingly.There have always been different camps and social groups of the “haves and have nots”.Wealth and prestige are two of the factors involved in decision making.However,” times are a’changing”.Mayor Luis Molina should be commended for moving the Friday address to the community to the Hammon’s Center, a mutual ground for dialogue.
Patterson has its own conflict of interest ordinance, yet the city totally disregards it. CC handbook, while a bit out of date states:
Conflicts And Liability
Conflict Of Interest
State laws are in place which attempt to eliminate any action by a Council member which may reflect a conflict of interest. The purpose of such laws and regulations is to ensure that all actions are taken in the public interest.
At any time a member believes a potential for conflict of interest exists, he/she is encouraged to consult with the City Attorney or private legal counsel for advice. Staff may also request an opinion from the City Attorney regarding a member’s potential conflict. Laws which regulate conflicts are very complicated. Violations may result in significant penalties including criminal prosecution.
While not inclusive, a general summary of conflict rules has been prepared and appears below.
There are two primary laws that govern conflicts of interest for public officials in California – the Political Reform Act and Government Code section 1090. In general terms the Political Reform Act prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in a decision before the official; section 1090 prohibits a public official from being interested in government contracts.
The Political Reform Act prohibits public officials from making, participating in, or in any way attempting to use their official position to influence a governmental decision in which they know, or have reason to know, that they have a financial interest. Therefore, if a public official has a conflict of interest, the official must disqualify him or herself from acting on or participating in the decision before the City and during that discussion must leave the Council Chambers or other are where the discussion is taking place.
An official has a financial interest if “it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from the effect on the public generally,”. . . in a financial interest of the official or a member of the official’s immediate family.
Determining whether a Council member has a financial interest is very complicated and fact specific. Financial interests include interests in businesses worth $2,000 or more, interests in real property, both ownership and leases, worth $2,000 or more, and gifts of $250 or more provided to or received within one year of the decision.
Often the financial interest involved is real property owned or leased by the Council member. In these cases, determining whether the Council member has a conflict requiring disqualification involves an analysis of the distance the property is form the property involved in the governmental decision, the uniqueness of the use property, what is between the two properties, exactly what decision is before the Council, and other factors that would influence whether the decision before the Council would have a material financial effect on the Council member’s property. Generally, if a Council member owns interest in property within 500 feet of the property involved in governmental decision, a conflict may exist.
The Fair Political Practices Commission or FPPC has published lengthy regulations and opinions on conflicts of interest that are useful in determining whether a particular financial interest or decision could give rise to disqualification based on a potential conflict of interest. The FPPC also puts out informational pamphlets to assist public officials in determining what types of situations may give rise to prohibited conflicts of interest.
Government Code section 1090 is similar to the Political Reform Act, but applies only to City contracts in which a public official has a financial interest. The financial interests covered by section 1090 are different than those in the Political Reform Act. Having an interest in a contract may preclude the City from entering into the contract at all. In addition, the penalties for violating section 1090 are severe. If a Council member believes that he or she may have any financial interest in a contract that will be before the Council, the member should immediately seek advice from the City Attorney or the member’s personal attorney.
There are a number of other restrictions placed on Council actions, which are highlighted in the League of California Cities Handbook. Such restrictions include prohibitions on secrecy and discrimination as well as assurance that all City funds are spent for public purposes. Violations of these restrictions may result in a personal liability for individual Council members.
Publication Of City Attorney Conflict Advice
Advice provided to members of the Council or commissions regarding potential conflicts of interest are public information and should be circulated to all members of the City Council. The rationale for this policy is that the City Attorney is employed by the entire Council utilizing taxpayer funds. The findings of the attorney, therefore, should be made public. Members may seek a private attorney to receive advice on potential conflicts. In such cases, no disclosure policy would apply, as the opinion rendered would be paid for by the Council member using his/her own funds.
It is critical to note that while the City Attorney can render advice on the interpretation of state laws and regulations on conflict matters, such advice is solely an interpretation of the law. The only authority that can provide binding interpretations on such maters is the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Members or the full Council may also solicit opinions on such matters directly from the FPPC, however, such opinions often take time to develop and may not readily respond to urgent matters. Members of the Planning Commission may also wish to seek opinions and advice on potential conflicts of interest.
The City Attorney has an affirmative duty to protect the City and City Council from conflicts of interest wherever possible.
Based on what is listed above, Larry will mostly be a non-voting member of the council. In his right mind, there isn’t much that is brought before the council that he can vote on.
Anything related to about 90% of land in and around Patterson he must excuse himself. He has financial ties with other developers (Ramos, Keystone, ….). This means that any item brought before the council regarding land, has a direct financial impact with Larry.
He owes money to the city, therefore, not only should be be excused from any votes regarding the financial status of the city, he should be excluded from the discussions as well.
He owns a whole lot of rental properties in town. He should then also be excused from any discussions on “affordable housing” from a council standpoint, as he has nothing but gain from those discussions.
Thank you “the Recorder”.This is the type of information exchange that will enable Patterson residents to move ahead in a positive way.Patterson has a lot of potential to grow into a receptive community for families who bring in diversity and talents who will contribute to form a heathy,well-informed,cultured and stable community.Checks and balance is a must for the city to lead the way to insure that the positive aweights the negative. Example,the Hammon Community Center is a place where the Senior Citiizens and the Youth may meet.Some of the activities may be limited at the present but with planning and volunteers,we can enjoy more socials, music and artwork.The present photo works of Elias Funez and the watercolors of some local artists are there for residents to enjoy.Downtown Patterson should not be ignore . Despite the hard econmic times,Patterson still has Blues Cafe which offers a place to meet and also has an artwork display.The library, the museum,the downtown park,the small bakery,the few sandwich, taqueria,and chinese food restaurants are all within walking distance and will be greatly missed once gone.The Friday State of the City by our Mayor Luis Molina was such a positive step in the right direction.Dominic Faria expressed such hope for an active and positive Downtown.Patterson Irrigator did an impressive job of reporting for those unable to attend.Residents,let’s support those leaders who spend precious time away from their families just to insure that Patterson has a good future.
THE PATTERSON IRRITATOR IS AN INDEPENDENT WEBSITE AND/OR PUBLICATION AND IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE PATTERSON IRRIGATOR. NO PORTION OF THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS CONSENT OF THE PATTERSON IRRITATOR.
Fix Patterson
Wow said,
October 21, 2010 @ 10:00 AM
I’m surprised that no one has posted on the the Del Puerto race yet since it has been such a hot topic for the past year, so I’ll get things started.
I attended the so-called candidates forum earlier this week, and disappointed doesn’t begin to describe my feelings coming out of the forum. Four of the seven candidates did not attend, including the bomb thrower John Ramos and his cohort Becky Campo. Dr. Berry and Ramona East both said that they had work conflicts that prevented them from attending, but there was no explanation for Ramos and Campo’s no-shows. So we basically got an extended infomercial for the 3 candidates running together – Maring, Hill and Sandoval. Of the 3 in attendance, Hill seemed to have the most concrete ideas regarding the future of the health district. Maring clearly came raring for a fight, but since he’s opponents didn’t show, he mosted ended up punching at ghosts. Sandoval seems like a well-intentioned woman, but I question whether she has the experience to serve on the board.
But by far what was most disappointing were the no-shows from Ramos and Campo. I think most in attendance were there to finally see the 2 sides air out their differences so that we voters could make a more informed decision about who to support for the election. But the two characters most responsible for the bitterness and community division over the future of the health care district chose to stay away and not face their foes face-to-face. I was half expecting Ramos to include an explanation for his no-show in his paid Irrigator ad today, but no, just more bomb throwing about the health districts finances. I may be in a minority on this site, but I happen to believe that Ramos has provided a public service at times in terms of the issues he’s raised about the district’s operations and finances. But for him not to show up at the forum and make his case directly to the voters in attendance there was shameful, and dare I say, cowardly. Same goes for Campo, who apparently believes that she doesn’t have to campaign and that she’ll just slide into office on her name alone. I wouldn’t be so sure about that Becky.
I have to question the motives of Ramos, Campo and Dr. Berry at this point. Do they really care about the future of the health district? Or are they motivated more by a vendetta to get rid of Margo Arnold?
There’s plenty to question about how the district has operated, and I certainly didn’t buy Maring’s defensive argument that the district has been open and that it’s just that people don’t attend their board meetings. There’s much more that the district can and do to make sure people are aware of what they’re doing. We’ve seen as much in the Irrigator the last few weeks with multiple ads and stories about the district. I’ll be curious to see if the district keeps up this level of communication once the election is over. But at this point, I’m not so sure that Ramos, Campo and Berry have the solutions to the district’s issues. They seem more concerned with blowing it up than fixing it, and none of them have made a positive case for what they’d do if they’re elected.
Despite the number of candidates running for the district this year, our choices are not great. We have a board president who was already voted out two years ago, only to get reappointed. We have a woman who seems well intentioned but does really have a solid grasp on what running the health district entails. And we have 3 phantom candidates who prefer to hide behind paid ads but who have done nothing to get out into the community and make their case. The only candidate who really seems genuinely concerned with the community wants from their health district is Ramona East. And at this point, East, and possibly Hill, are the only members I would consider supporting. I know we need to vote for 3 candidates, but I’m having a very hard time finding a reason to support anyone else in the race.
BackInTown said,
October 22, 2010 @ 10:05 AM
I agree. I have been busy with work and have not been able to put my thoughts to words.
While I am not very satisfied with the candidates we have to choose from, I can tell you that I am completely against the current members and the slate as presented by the district. I honestly can not vote for any of the three candidates that are being presented to us by the district. I do not want business as usual. I want our health care district to better manage their money and resources.
We were misled by the district in their fight against John Ramos and I do not want to be misled by them anymore.
The citizens spoke against one of the candidates last time, only to have the district go against our vote and not only put him on the board, but made him the president of the board. I am still waiting to hear how this is a board/district doing what their constituents want in acting this way.
I am also still waiting to hear from any business that would even consider giving an employee the type of deal that they gave Margo. The excuse that the deal given to Margo is comparable to others is hogwash. The people that get that kind of deal are running humongous businesses and it is the norm for the area. I can’t think of one business in our area that has granted an employee such a sweet deal. If there is one, I wish someone would clue us all in. (Industry standard, foo-ey. Usually the industry standard is to NOT lose money, but to perform in a way that one earns the sweetheart deal.)
Back to work – I have a meeting I need to attend. More on this and the other threads later.
Cotman said,
October 30, 2010 @ 1:48 PM
The only reason I can figure out that Campo, Ramos and Berry didn’t show for the candidates night is they didn’t want their ignorance of the Health Care District to be so apparent.
Ida Perez said,
February 8, 2011 @ 7:46 PM
While the community and the City of Patterson mourn,Annete Smith and her cronies were behind the scenes planning Sam Cuellar’s replacement.Many citizens of Patterson were not given the opportunity to have an input as to who will represent us.Bhener was not “surprised’ as this was part of his plan for which he paid for. To my knowledge, the “debt”he owns the city is money he promised in reference to the general plan,was a donation.Am I missiing a piece to this puzzle?I thought that in our democracy, a public servant was elected to a public office and buying an elected seat was illegal ,if not criminal.I understand that there is a petition circulating to recall a certain elected official and I guess there may now be two recalls.Maybe I am naive and do not understand the political process in Patterson elections.What little respect I had for Annette Smith as an elected official is no more,after hearing how she totally disrespect the rights of others who attempt to communicate their concerns.
BackInTown said,
February 9, 2011 @ 9:46 AM
While the city mourned, Annette and Deborah made sure that they were front and center throughout the ordeal, pretending to care. Face time is face time, and when you are about to screw the citizens of Patterson, you might as well get all the face time you can, pretending to show concern.
That was quite a show they put on.
All the while, they were plotting their control grab for more power. Even though she held her three votes in her pocket, she (Annette) wanted more.
Everyone in Patterson can now totally kiss goodbye any chance that we were going to have safe streets. I’ll bet that Annette’s supporters, those that now own the streets, were very pleased to hear that she went with Larry. I’d wager that the gangs and thugs were celebrating their victory Monday night.
Maybe the next round of elections we can get some upstanding citizens, who will actually have the best interest of Patterson as their agenda, buy seats on the council.
Until then, we have to live with the agendas that are forced on us by the select few that now own the city.
Ida Perez said,
March 8, 2011 @ 9:19 AM
As expected, there was no way that the appointment for Sam’s seat was going to be any different.Now the interesting part is how the “conflicts of interest” will be handled.At least some members of the community have communicated to the council that it will no longer allow “business as usual’ and are not ignoring the obvious attempts of some of the council members to vote for their “special interests”without regard to the Patterson community’s best interest.We have only one newspaper in town which reflects a special interest and reports accordingly.There have always been different camps and social groups of the “haves and have nots”.Wealth and prestige are two of the factors involved in decision making.However,” times are a’changing”.Mayor Luis Molina should be commended for moving the Friday address to the community to the Hammon’s Center, a mutual ground for dialogue.
the recorder said,
March 8, 2011 @ 10:21 PM
Patterson has its own conflict of interest ordinance, yet the city totally disregards it. CC handbook, while a bit out of date states:
Conflicts And Liability
Conflict Of Interest
State laws are in place which attempt to eliminate any action by a Council member which may reflect a conflict of interest. The purpose of such laws and regulations is to ensure that all actions are taken in the public interest.
At any time a member believes a potential for conflict of interest exists, he/she is encouraged to consult with the City Attorney or private legal counsel for advice. Staff may also request an opinion from the City Attorney regarding a member’s potential conflict. Laws which regulate conflicts are very complicated. Violations may result in significant penalties including criminal prosecution.
While not inclusive, a general summary of conflict rules has been prepared and appears below.
There are two primary laws that govern conflicts of interest for public officials in California – the Political Reform Act and Government Code section 1090. In general terms the Political Reform Act prohibits a public official from having a financial interest in a decision before the official; section 1090 prohibits a public official from being interested in government contracts.
The Political Reform Act prohibits public officials from making, participating in, or in any way attempting to use their official position to influence a governmental decision in which they know, or have reason to know, that they have a financial interest. Therefore, if a public official has a conflict of interest, the official must disqualify him or herself from acting on or participating in the decision before the City and during that discussion must leave the Council Chambers or other are where the discussion is taking place.
An official has a financial interest if “it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, distinguishable from the effect on the public generally,”. . . in a financial interest of the official or a member of the official’s immediate family.
Determining whether a Council member has a financial interest is very complicated and fact specific. Financial interests include interests in businesses worth $2,000 or more, interests in real property, both ownership and leases, worth $2,000 or more, and gifts of $250 or more provided to or received within one year of the decision.
Often the financial interest involved is real property owned or leased by the Council member. In these cases, determining whether the Council member has a conflict requiring disqualification involves an analysis of the distance the property is form the property involved in the governmental decision, the uniqueness of the use property, what is between the two properties, exactly what decision is before the Council, and other factors that would influence whether the decision before the Council would have a material financial effect on the Council member’s property. Generally, if a Council member owns interest in property within 500 feet of the property involved in governmental decision, a conflict may exist.
The Fair Political Practices Commission or FPPC has published lengthy regulations and opinions on conflicts of interest that are useful in determining whether a particular financial interest or decision could give rise to disqualification based on a potential conflict of interest. The FPPC also puts out informational pamphlets to assist public officials in determining what types of situations may give rise to prohibited conflicts of interest.
Government Code section 1090 is similar to the Political Reform Act, but applies only to City contracts in which a public official has a financial interest. The financial interests covered by section 1090 are different than those in the Political Reform Act. Having an interest in a contract may preclude the City from entering into the contract at all. In addition, the penalties for violating section 1090 are severe. If a Council member believes that he or she may have any financial interest in a contract that will be before the Council, the member should immediately seek advice from the City Attorney or the member’s personal attorney.
There are a number of other restrictions placed on Council actions, which are highlighted in the League of California Cities Handbook. Such restrictions include prohibitions on secrecy and discrimination as well as assurance that all City funds are spent for public purposes. Violations of these restrictions may result in a personal liability for individual Council members.
Publication Of City Attorney Conflict Advice
Advice provided to members of the Council or commissions regarding potential conflicts of interest are public information and should be circulated to all members of the City Council. The rationale for this policy is that the City Attorney is employed by the entire Council utilizing taxpayer funds. The findings of the attorney, therefore, should be made public. Members may seek a private attorney to receive advice on potential conflicts. In such cases, no disclosure policy would apply, as the opinion rendered would be paid for by the Council member using his/her own funds.
It is critical to note that while the City Attorney can render advice on the interpretation of state laws and regulations on conflict matters, such advice is solely an interpretation of the law. The only authority that can provide binding interpretations on such maters is the state Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Members or the full Council may also solicit opinions on such matters directly from the FPPC, however, such opinions often take time to develop and may not readily respond to urgent matters. Members of the Planning Commission may also wish to seek opinions and advice on potential conflicts of interest.
The City Attorney has an affirmative duty to protect the City and City Council from conflicts of interest wherever possible.
BackInTown said,
March 9, 2011 @ 1:03 PM
Based on what is listed above, Larry will mostly be a non-voting member of the council. In his right mind, there isn’t much that is brought before the council that he can vote on.
Anything related to about 90% of land in and around Patterson he must excuse himself. He has financial ties with other developers (Ramos, Keystone, ….). This means that any item brought before the council regarding land, has a direct financial impact with Larry.
He owes money to the city, therefore, not only should be be excused from any votes regarding the financial status of the city, he should be excluded from the discussions as well.
He owns a whole lot of rental properties in town. He should then also be excused from any discussions on “affordable housing” from a council standpoint, as he has nothing but gain from those discussions.
Exclam! said,
March 13, 2011 @ 6:05 PM
Only time will tell how it will work out!
Ida Perez said,
March 18, 2011 @ 10:00 AM
Thank you “the Recorder”.This is the type of information exchange that will enable Patterson residents to move ahead in a positive way.Patterson has a lot of potential to grow into a receptive community for families who bring in diversity and talents who will contribute to form a heathy,well-informed,cultured and stable community.Checks and balance is a must for the city to lead the way to insure that the positive aweights the negative. Example,the Hammon Community Center is a place where the Senior Citiizens and the Youth may meet.Some of the activities may be limited at the present but with planning and volunteers,we can enjoy more socials, music and artwork.The present photo works of Elias Funez and the watercolors of some local artists are there for residents to enjoy.Downtown Patterson should not be ignore . Despite the hard econmic times,Patterson still has Blues Cafe which offers a place to meet and also has an artwork display.The library, the museum,the downtown park,the small bakery,the few sandwich, taqueria,and chinese food restaurants are all within walking distance and will be greatly missed once gone.The Friday State of the City by our Mayor Luis Molina was such a positive step in the right direction.Dominic Faria expressed such hope for an active and positive Downtown.Patterson Irrigator did an impressive job of reporting for those unable to attend.Residents,let’s support those leaders who spend precious time away from their families just to insure that Patterson has a good future.