<![CDATA[SANTA  ROSA  NEIGHBORHOOD  COALITION - Watch SR Blog]]>Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:35:17 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[NO ON MEASURE C]]>Fri, 12 May 2017 17:31:00 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/no-on-measure-c We oppose Measure C for a number of reasons.  We support needs-based government rent subsidies like Section 8 and believe that the program should be better funded and more efficiently managed.  

Rent control forces private individuals to subsidize other individuals regardless of need for an indefinite period of time. Rather than provide services for its residents, the city will penalize property owners because the city is financially unable or unwilling to pay for housing assistance services.  The City of Santa Rosa spent almost $10 million on the Courthouse Square project and regularly has hired city staff at high wages with pension entitlements

Property owners are referred to as greedy if they make a profit on their business but the fact that there are major costs and risks associated with property ownership is ignored.

Rent control law exempts buildings constructed after 1995.  Most small local rental property owners have older housing stock and will be disproportionately penalized by this law.  The city cut-off at owner-occupied triplexes creates a new class of property and a new issue for valuation and sale of rental property.

Rent control does not create more affordable housing but instead encourages people to stay frozen for years in one place.  

Property owners will be more likely to raise rents every year to the maximum allowable by law.  When tenants move out property owners will raise the new rent as high as possible knowing that this may be the only chance they have to adjust to current market rates.

Properties that are rent controlled are less likely to be well-maintained because the property owner's expenses are rising but the rents stay the same.  We don't see Sonoma County offering to freeze property taxes on rent controlled units, nor will the City of Santa Rosa freeze water and garbage rates.  

The City of Santa Rosa will create a layer of bureaucracy and a Rent Board.  They plan to charge $115 per unit per year. Half of this will be passed to the tenants.  Rent Boards tend to be aggressive with property owners and lenient with tenants even in cases of long term sublet arrangements where the tenant leaves and sublets to another for more money.  In Berkeley this scenario is allowed to continue for a minimum of 4 years and the property owner must prove that the tenant has 'no intention' of moving back into the unit---impossible to prove.

Here in Santa Rosa there are builders with land who would like to construct apartment buildings but are blocked by the Planning Department.  Reasons given have varied from not being close enough to a direct bus line to the train station, to not being within the specific plans of the downtown redevelopment areas.  Although redevelopment was ended the Santa Rosa General Plan rezoned large areas of the city.  Funding, politics, and building restrictions have blocked construction of housing that could be affordable.

There is an ideology espoused by Julie Combs and others in the city and elsewhere that housing is a right and that this right should be enabled by private individuals.  In order to enforce this ideology a large segment of the population will be made to pay disproportionately more than other individuals in the city.  

Again, rent subsidies should be made by government based on need.   

Here are two quotes that describe the direction that Measure C is following:
 
Nazi Land Philosophy:  
'The issue of land ownership is secondary; what counts is the issue of control.  Private citizens, therefore, may continue to hold titles to property--so long as the state reserves to itself the unqualified right to regulate the use of their property.'
Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 1982

Ernst Huber, official Nazi Party spokesman, 1933:
'All property is common property.  The owner is bound by the people and the Reich to the responsible management of his goods.  His legal position is only justified when he satisfies this responsibility to the community. ' ]]><![CDATA[REGIONALIZATION DESTROYS YOUR RIGHTS: NO ON MEASURE AA]]>Tue, 24 May 2016 16:27:39 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/regionalization-destroys-your-rights-no-on-measure-aa

A CLIP FROM MY INTERVIEW WITH FORTUNE MAGAZINE
This will help clarify why Measure AA's new regional entity is designed to destroy your sovereignty behind the green mask of environmental concern for the SF Bay.
]]><![CDATA[NO ON MEASURE AA]]>Tue, 24 May 2016 15:24:20 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/no-on-measure-aaMEASURE AA IS A TROJAN HORSE.  VOTE NO

Never before have the 9 counties been taxed as a single entity.  Why? Because they are NOT A SINGLE ENTITY. THEY ARE NINE SEPARATE COUNTIES. 
So what?

THIS IS A TEST. The environmental issue is a smokescreen, a GREEN MASK, for the major play here: empowering AND FUNDING a new form of government, regional, that destroys representative government. What does this mean for you? The new 'region', the Bay Area, becomes the political and financial gorilla that crushes your ability as a voter to control your life. Instead of working with local, county, and state representatives you'll be subjected to the power of the OneBayArea: 9 counties / 101 cities where you have no meaningful representation. This is what happened with PlanBayArea. We are suing to stop this, but we lost at Superior Court and are appealing, with your help.

Measure AA is a new FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND Parcel Tax in the San Francisco Bay Area. The "emergency" that the SF Bay is facing, the environmental 
devastation in the SF Bay, you are told, must be dealt with, and $500 million is urgently needed.  You were told that this tax concept is new because people of the 9 counties around the San Francisco Bay will have every one of their parcels assessed a $12 tax annually to 'save the Bay.' The ballot measure will is on the June 2016 ballot so that the people of these counties can essentially vote together to empower an obscure new agency (see below*) that has been taken over by powerful Silicon Valley Agenda 21 corporate interests.  

The core danger of regionalization is that you have no vote, no voice, no ability to influence this unelected board / commission. Regions break jurisdictional boundaries and destroy representative government. A region is a supra-governmental organization. Full globalization can only happen with the interim building block: regionalization. The same group sponsoring this, Silicon Valley Regional Forum, hosted futurist Paul Saffo recently, who said that in 50 years the United States would be erased and replaced with Mega-Regions. What voice, what power, will you have if this goes forward? None. These people have an agenda: UN Agenda 21. Before you scoff at it and roll your eyes, take a moment and take a look at the truth behind Sustainable Development. This is not about recycling. This is about full globalization, mega-regions, and handing what little power you have left to an unelected board with a 'vision.'

Now those Silicon Valley corporations that have been using their money to establish their power will be using YOUR money to maintain and grow their power.

VOTE NO ...WHILE YOU STILL CAN.
IDENTIFY IT.  EXPOSE IT.  RESIST.
FIGHT UN AGENDA 21
THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE

QUOTE FROM THE SF BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY WEBSITE
*"The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority(Authority) is a new regional government agency charged with raising and allocating resources for the restoration, enhancement, protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in the San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline. The Authority was created by the California legislature in 2008 with the enactment of AB 2954 (Lieber). It seeks to:
  • Educate the community on the benefits of Bay restoration
  • Solicit feedback on priorities and projects throughout the Bay Area
  • Evaluate support for a November 2014 regional parcel tax measure"

Look at this new agency.  It is a propaganda organ designed to fund regionalization---no other purpose. This is Agenda 21...HAPPENING NOW - See more at: http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/the-way-we-see-itour-blog#sthash.zDWdFa5s.dpuf]]><![CDATA[WHAT DRAWS A CROWD IN SANTA ROSA?]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2015 05:19:19 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/what-draws-a-crowd-in-santa-rosa
]]><![CDATA[What's wrong with this picture?  Santa Rosa Charter School for the Arts]]>Wed, 29 Jul 2015 04:47:20 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/whats-wrong-with-this-picture-santa-rosa-charter-school-for-the-artsPhoto taken at the Santa Rosa Charter School for the Arts a couple of weeks ago.  Perhaps too much emphasis on the arts?  It took them about 10 days to fix it....
Picture
Picture
]]><![CDATA[No on Santa Rosa Rent Control]]>Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:40:34 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/no-on-santa-rosa-rent-controlThe City Council of Santa Rosa, CA has been debating the issue of rent control.  We are against it.

The rent issue is easily satisfied by using existing Section 8 / Housing Authority methods to subsidize low income tenants while allowing owners to recover costs and make a return on their investment.  This way government subsidizes the tenants who are in need.  

Rent control freezes the rent on a unit with a tenant in place who may or may not be low income.  The private property owner subsidizes the tenant---one individual subsidizing another individual who may or may not be in need.  You could have a tenant who has more money than the landlord who is subsidizing him/her. If rent control freezes the rent on a unit then the County should freeze the property taxes, PGE should freeze the utility cost, and the City should freeze the water and garbage fees.  Why should the property owner  be the one to bear the burden?

The concept of rent control is analogous to, for instance, a grocery store that charges a different amount for the same loaf of bread depending upon who is buying it, and that bread price will not increase once it's been established.  This is the role of government, not the individual business owner.  That should be clear and obvious.  The system is in place -- Section 8 --and should be sufficient for those in need.  If the system doesn't work then fix it. ]]><![CDATA[CYNICAL, SELF-SERVING ATTEMPT TO MISLEAD]]>Sun, 01 Jun 2014 20:06:49 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/cynical-self-serving-attempt-to-misleadThe headline here is a quote from US Representative Jared Huffman talking about ERIN CARLSTROM and NICK CASTON's mailer.

Erin Carlstrom, a  new city councilperson in Santa Rosa, spent a couple of months trying to figure out how she could move up in politics--she  toyed with the idea of State Senate, then County Supervisor, and then settled on State Assembly.  She's working with her husband, Nick Caston, (see posts about Accountable Development Coalition and Michael Allen, his cohort, for info on him) to position herself to slurp from the crony trough.  Caston is a new boy on the block, a political consultant who cut his fangs on a few projects (Keep Napa Napa) and showed that he could draw blood.  

Now Caston and Carlstrom have cooked up a project to enrich themselves by stylin' as 'protectors of the coast' and putting out a political mailer 'Vote The Coast'. Caston solicits political candidates to pay him to put them on the mailer.  Carlstrom is on the mailer, of course, and paid her husband to be on it.  So did Gary Wysocky---another wannabe crony.

Here's what the Marin Independent Journal's Dick Spotswood had to say about this yesterday: 

Marin IJ: EXCERPT
Spotswood: County campaigns obscure candidates' plans
By Dick Spotswood

Posted:   05/31/2014 07:39:24 PM

Erin Carlstrom, the Santa Rosa councilwoman running as a Democrat in the Marin-Southern Sonoma 10th Assembly District, was just "endorsed" by "Vote the Coast."
In a widely-distributed ad, "Vote The Coast" appears as a warm and fuzzy sounding environmental organization. That could be a big deal in the green-friendly 10th District.
In reality, the original Vote the Coast organization is long defunct. Carlstrom, acting as the attorney, formed a new corporation called Tidal Voice Inc. It then trademarked the abandoned "Vote the Coast" name. In short, Carlstrom endorsed herself.
The stunt didn't impress Rep. Jared Huffman, a long-time environmentalist and supporter of Assemblyman Marc Levine. The San Rafael Democrat described Carlstrom's "Vote the Coast" advertising as "one of the most cynical, self-serving and shallow attempts to mislead voters that I've ever seen."

This may be one “endorsement” that backfires on the recipient.

http://www.marinij.com/marinnews/ci_25868585/spotswood-county-campaigns-obscure-candidates-plans
__________________________________
ENDORSEMENT: MARC LEVINE
]]><![CDATA[ENDORSEMENT: CHURCHILL]]>Fri, 30 May 2014 02:32:33 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/endorsement-churchillKEN CHURCHILL IS RUNNING FOR SONOMA COUNTY SUPERVISOR
This is from his website and focuses on his opponent, James Gore.  Below his info see more information on how James Gore was relieved of his duties at the Department of Agriculture (he officially resigned).

"Yesterday I received the latest James Gore mailer. It is a well produced piece that I am sure a lot of people will find impressive. That is if you don’t know the true story. In it James talks about his 5 Point Plan.

Number 1 of his Plan is titled Creating Jobs. It says “As Vice President of a successful company, he represented California agriculture on trade and affairs while gaining extensive experience managing staff and budgets.”

The company they are talking about is JBC International, a lobbying firm that represented the wine industry, a chemical company and association of collection attorneys. James never talks about his work as a registered Washington lobbyist, but that is what he was from 2006 to 2010 before he went to work for the government.

To find out more about JBC International I ran a Dun and Bradstreet report and low and behold it turns out that JBC is essentially out of business and has an unsatisfied court judgment against them in the amount of $645,000. One would think James is aware of that, but it does not keep him from touting his accomplishments with the firm which looks like it was run by a family and James was the low man on the totem pole. But if he wants to claim he managed their budgets, I am not going to argue with him.

Number 3 of his 5 Point Plan is titled Reforming Pensions and Fixing Roads. Sound familiar? Yes, one week before the election James has become a pension reformer and will use the savings to fix our roads.

But what he says about pensions shows he knows NOTHING about how they work. He said “The County has made great strides to reduce unfunded pension liabilities”.

There are several problems with this statement. First, the Supervisors have accomplished very little in terms of pension reform. In fact, they simply were forced to adopt the state pension reforms and they changed formulas for new hires.

Second, he obviously does not know what an unfunded liability is. Unfunded liabilities are the retirement benefits that are owed to retirees and employees for work already performed. There are 2 ways to reduce the unfunded liability. The first is to cut retiree pensions, which would be a horrible thing to do and is also illegal. The second and only other way to reduce the unfunded liabilities is for the pension funds investments to return greater than the 7.5% assumed rate of return over many years. That is something the Supervisors do not control.

The most common untruth James tells is that he was a “presidential appointee”. I am not sure how he landed the government job, but he was appointed to the NRCS by the Secretary of Agriculture, NOT President Obama.

I told the Press Democrat they should vet all the candidates when they released the report on Pete Foppiano’s tax problems. Unfortunately, they did not take my advice when it came to James and his false claims.

I have tried to run a positive campaign based upon the issues. But I thought you should all know more about James and how he is suffering from a serious case of resume inflation and in my opinion is not qualified for the job of Supervisor.

Sincerely,

Ken Churchill

www.votechurchill.com

Ken Churchill for Supervisor · United States  
You can also keep up with Ken Churchill for Supervisor on Facebook.
_________________________________


Info on James Gore's abrupt resignation from his appointed position because millions of dollars in payments went to farmers who were long dead.


"A federal audit released last year showed $10.6 million in improper payments were made by NRCS from 2008 to April 2012 while James Gore was Assistant Chief. Both Gore and his Chief resigned."

Links:
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-503

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-government-gave-dead-farmers-more
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/other/audit-usda-has-paid-millions-dead-farmers-f6C10791319
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/30/watchdog-report-finds-millions-in-govt-payments-to-dead-farmers/
http://votegore.com/about-james/

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Agency overview
Formed
April 20, 1932
Preceding Agency
Soil Conservation Service, Soil Erosion Service
Headquarters
Washington, D.C.
Employees
Approx 12,000
Agency executives
Jason Weller, Chief
James Gore, Assistant Chief
Parent agency
Department of Agriculture
Website
www.nrcs.usda.gov

 

]]><![CDATA[ENDORSEMENT: SUNDSTROM  ]]>Tue, 06 May 2014 21:39:59 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/endorsement-sundstromAnyone who is paying attention to local politics knows that Gary Wysocky is bad news.  He's known as a bully, manipulative, and is unqualified for the Tax Collector/Treasurer/Controller position he is running for.  

How did Wysocky get to be 'president of the Junior College Neighborhood Association'?  He bullied the elected president, Kay Tokerud, and hounded her out by gathering a group of minions to take over the board.  Then they appointed him to her position.  Right after that he ran for Council as 'Your Neighborhood President.'  

What does he say qualifies him to be Tax Collector/Treasurer/Controller for Sonoma County?  He's a CPA, big deal.  He's been 'running' for the Tax Collector position the entire time he's been on the Santa Rosa Council, beginning most of his comments with 'I'm a CPA'. He says the county needs a 'fresh pair of eyes'.  Having two eyeballs doesn't qualify you to run the county.  

He says he's a watchdog but he's more like a lapdog.  He appointed Michael Allen to the Planning Commission---Allen went on to be fined for a serious conflict of interest violation and Wysocky continued to endorse him.  

What else?  The position was vacated by Rod Dole (who went to run the Ygrene private venture that he'd been pushing as an elected official---cozy) and the county took applications for an interim appointment.  Wysocky applied but was rejected as being unqualified.  He didn't even get an interview he was so unqualified.

Who was considered qualified out of a wide field of head-hunted financial officers, auditors, fund managers, CPAs, from all over the nation?  David Sundstrom.

Sundstrom is highly qualified, is doing the job admirably well, is liked by staff, is fearless in looking into county issues, is not a crony---this is who we want in the Tax Collector/Treasurer/Controller position.  
We endorse 
DAVID SUNDSTROM for Auditor /Controller/ Treasurer/ Tax Collector  ]]><![CDATA[OUR FIGHT AGAINST PLAN BAY AREA]]>Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:07:45 GMThttps://www.santarosaneighborhoodcoalition.com/watch-sr-blog/our-fight-against-plan-bay-areaFROM OUR LAWSUIT PENDING AGAINST MTC/ABAG:
The Post Sustainability Institute strongly objects to the tremendous overreach of Plan Bay Area in the imposition of regional governance over the voters and their elected representatives in the nine county, 101 city San Francisco Bay Area. The elevation of an unelected, unrepresentative body over the people of these municipalities is a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US and California constitutions.  We assert that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments have taken SB 375 and used it to impose an aggressive ideology of land use restrictions and regionalization. Regional governance inserts a layer of unelected boards between local government and the federal and state grant makers/funders.  This regional layer (MTC/ABAG), unaccountable to the electorate, sets up de facto mandates for local government--effectively using money as a lure and a bludgeon to cities and counties desperate for funds.   As more and more regions are created and imposed on local and state governments across the nation there will be less local control.  Local government will exist solely to implement regional regulations administratively without meaningful input from the voters.

The necessity for government subsidies or changes to Proposition 13 (California property tax) to implement this Plan is clearly stated in the Plan itself on nearly every page.  Restricting development of both residential and commercial uses primarily to highly urbanized city centers even when the real estate and economic markets do not support it is a recipe for failure and debt.  The entire plan is a house of cards based on a financing scheme that does not exist in California: Redevelopment.  Redevelopment debt has had a crippling impact on California; bonded debt for redevelopment in our state had reached $81 billion by 2007 and was doubling every 10 years. (Redevelopment: The Unknown Government, Municipal Officials for Redevelopment Reform, 2007).  The reinstatement or reinvention of tax increment financing for private development imposes a generational debt requiring 20-40 years of payments to bond brokers.  Schemes for assembling and acquiring privately owned fully-developed land parcels in the Priority Development Areas will, as stated in the Plan, require eminent domain.  Eminent domain is intended for public use only, and the perversion of the concept of public use to acquire land for private benefit will not be tolerated in California. In any case, at the time that Plan Bay Area is scheduled for adoption (July 18, 2013) none of these potential funding schemes is in effect, therefore the Plan fails the feasibility requirement of SB 375.

Plan Bay Area and SB 375 are predicated on the implementation of Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development was formally defined in the 1987 United Nations publication Our Common Future written by the UN World Commission on Environment and Development (referred to as the Brundtland Commission).  Sustainable Development is defined as:

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

All that remained was to state that our current activities and means of living were ‘compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ and then decide what to do about it.

After Our Common Future was presented to the UN General Assembly in 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Commission) was tasked with designing strategies for achieving Sustainable Development by the year 2000.  At the Rio Earth Summit in June, 1992, the Brundtland Commission came back with the action plan for implementing Sustainable Development globally: Agenda 21.   Referred to as the Agenda for the 21st Century, this document was agreed to by 179 nations, including President George H.W. Bush. 

William Clinton was elected President in November, 1992, and six months later he issued Executive Order #12852 which created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). It first met in the summer of 1993; and continued until 1999.  The members of the PCSD included Cabinet Secretaries for Transportation, Agriculture, Education, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration, Energy, Interior, and Defense.  Representing business were CEOs for Pacific Gas and Electric, Enron (Ken Lay), BP Amoco, and Dow Chemical, among others.  Environmental organizations rounded out the balance with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, World Resources Institute, the Nature Conservancy, and the Environmental Defense Fund being the most notable.

The PCSD immediately began laying the groundwork for implementing Agenda 21 in the United States. The goal was to change public policy to bring it into alignment with the new agenda for the 21st century.  The PCSD formalized its recommendations in ‘Sustainable America—A New Consensus.’ 

In the PCSD’s list of vital elements to incorporate into their recommendations they included this statement:

‘We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions, more rapid change, and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals.’

A new collaborative decision process.  The new definition for consensus is the neutralization of expressed opposition.

In the old way of doing things, the democratic way, an issue is put before the voters and they vote on it directly, or they have a representative who reviews the issues, debates them publicly, and then votes.  If the voters are not satisfied with the outcome, they can initiate a referendum or vote out the representative.

‘Sustainable America—A New Consensus’ does not allow for actual dissent.  There can be no opportunity for failure in implementing Agenda 21.  In fact the Cabinet Secretaries reported that they could implement approximately two thirds of the PCSD’s recommendations administratively. However, it is not desirable that citizens notice that they are not being given a choice in the most important issues of their lives, so they are given the illusion that they are making decisions for themselves. The real meaning of consensus is to take away your voice and leave you feeling as if you are the only one who has some problem with the results. The President’s Council on Sustainable Development incorporated the Delphi Technique into its recommendations so that ‘more rapid change’ could be imposed on us through clever manipulation.  The Delphi Technique was used by MTC/ABAG and their consultants in their ‘visioning meetings’ in order to manipulate the outcome.  Although they will say that they have never heard of the Delphi Technique they are in fact using it to direct public opinion, ignore or marginalize dissent, and declare ‘consensus’ on their preferred alternative.

Sustainable Development/UN Agenda 21 is exemplified in the Plan Bay Area documents by the push for high density urban development in city centers by any means necessary while starving the rural and suburban areas for funds and development.  Using tactics better suited to criminal gangs, MTC/ABAG is hoping to slam through the most aggressive regional plan in the United States.  UN Agenda 21 is a global plan implemented locally, and this is the Plan for the SF Bay Area.  Similar plans can be found throughout the United States and the world with names like Envision Utah, Imagine Calgary, Granite State Future, PlaNY, One Valley One Vision, Horizon 2025 (Ontario, Canada), and Hanoi (Viet Nam) Regional Center 2030 Plan.  All of these plans are the same plan with the same goal: move people out of the rural and suburban areas into the city centers where they can be more easily managed, controlled, and surveilled. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact.  No amount of government-sponsored shaming, mocking, marginalizing, or lying about those of us speaking the truth can change this fact.  The people of the United States of America and of the State of California will not be a party to this plan to destroy private property and civil rights.  We intend to fight Plan Bay Area and we intend to win. 

]]>