Tag Archives: Monterey County

Thanks to progressive Democrats

Thanks to the work of Progressive Democrats, the Green Party’s Bruce Delgado won election as the Mayor of Marina.  For that, we Greens thank you.

BTW: according to KSBW Salinas last night, Monterey County had an 85% turnout.  

It is a bit of turn around.  I worked my ass off for McNerney in 2004 and in 2006.  The Republicans handed him re-election this year by fielding a real estate candidate so bad that even the National Board of Realtors put over $500 K into McNerney’s campaign.  

There are a lot of things that Greens and Progressive Democrats agreed on.  If you took the list of recommendations for ballot proposals, the one published on Calitics and the one published on the Green Party of CA site.  The only difference was on Prop 3. where the issue was very much that the money allocated by a previous measure for the same purposes had not yet been spent… $300 Million remaining.

But while this blog is fascinated by why your results were not what you expected, I am turning my attention to NOLA.  There, on Dec. 2, a corrupt Democratic Congressman named William Jefferson will begin his trial on Corruption charges.  Yesterday, Jefferson won a Democratic Primary runoff to keep his seat.  I have been told that his opponent, Helena Moreno, says that she will not support Jefferson.

The Green Party is fielding a candidate: Malik Rahim.  When Hurricane Katrina struck, the government could not keep the lights on. Rahim had electricity at his non-profit.  When the hospitals were flooded and patients were dying, Rahim kept a medical clinic open.  While Jefferson has been lining his own pockets… or stashing $90 K in his freezer… Rahim’s non-profit has built or refurbished 2,000 homes in New Orleans.

I would hope that Pelosi cuts Jefferson loose and lets him swing in the wind.  To do other than that would be to put party loyalty above principles and would tell me a lot more about Pelosi’s character.

I have started a full press to raise additional money for Rahim.  I guess that I am challenging readers of Calitics to put principle above party and help out Rahim.  At some point, I want to see a Democrats for Rahim Committee. There is one month left, to change America, to demonstrate that the old politics of cronyism is gone, that corruption is never again to be swept under the rugs of the ethics committee offices.  

Democratic Unity in Monterey County

The following was written by Shawn Bagley, Central Coast for Hillary 2008, California Democratic Party Region 9 Director and Vinz Koller, Monterey County Democrats for Obama, Monterey County Democratic Party Chair. They asked me to post it here and I was happy to agree – it’s a wonderful model of how Democrats are united for the fall.

We had a deal, and now we’re honoring it. Way back when the presidential campaign was just getting started, Shawn decided Hillary Clinton was the best choice, and Vinz decided on Barack Obama. Each of us threw himself into organizing for his candidate, joining many other volunteers on the Central Coast in working with one of the national campaigns.

This meant that throughout the primaries we would be opponents – working for the success of one candidate inevitably meant working for the defeat of the other. But at the same time, we would be working closely together on the Monterey County Democratic Central Committee. Furthermore, we were friends.

What to do? Was it possible to be opponents and allies at the same time?

Absolutely it was. Early on, we came to an agreement, with these terms:

  • By far the most important objective was to elect a Democrat for president. Especially at this point in US history, any other outcome was unthinkable.
  • And so we agreed that throughout the primaries we would compete vigorously but never destructively.
  • And when it was all over, whoever was the nominee would have our full and enthusiastic support.

That is where we are now. Barack Obama has won the nomination, and Shawn will put all his energy into getting him elected president. And if Hillary Clinton had won, Vinz would have done exactly the same thing.

This is not to say that it’s easy, because it isn’t. Shawn put his heart into the Hillary campaign, helping to organize thousands of volunteers into one of the most effective operations in the state, and even arranging for a visit to Salinas by the candidate herself. Watching Hillary concede, Shawn’s heart broke.

But as the candidates themselves have each said many times, in the end this is not about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

It is about the future of our country. And it has seldom been more clear that the best future for our country is with a Democrat in the White House.

We are not the only two who have this deal. Friday evening, local Obama organizer Quinn Gardner drove with Shawn to Oakland to meet with the Northern California Obama campaign staff. They welcomed Shawn warmly, and he made the same promise to them that he had made to Vinz: he will do everything he can to help elect the nominee.

And, after all, it’s the same deal that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama made, and that they are now honoring: a vigorous competition, followed by unity.

Of course Shawn is deeply disappointed that his candidate didn’t win, just as Vinz would be. But while Hillary didn’t win, it would miss an important truth to say simply that she lost. Because no candidate who has mobilized as much support as Hillary has can really be said to have lost. Hillary’s supporters, in their millions, have made their voices heard. And so the influence of Hillary’s ideas and of Hillary’s supporters will live on in a unified general election campaign to elect Barack Obama President of the United States.

As Hillary said in her speech Saturday at the National Building Museum, “The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand, is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the President of the United States.”

And as Barack said following that speech, “Senator Clinton… has inspired millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to causes like universal health care that make a difference in the lives of hardworking Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I’m a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her.”

As we come together in unity, the competition has made us stronger. Locally and nationally, the Democratic Party is larger, more focused and more organized than ever before.

We are more likely than ever to win in November, so that starting on January 20, 2009, we can start putting this country back on the right course: the course of peace, prosperity, freedom and justice that we all believe in.

And that is the best deal for all of us.

Monterey County Supervisor: Republican Pretends to be Democrat

(reposted from a Daily Kos entry at the suggestion of a commenter there, modified by the author a bit.)

In the “non partisan” race for Monterey County’s District 4 Supervisor — a key swing vote between slow-growth and pro-development agendas — you’d almost think we had two Democrats running. Because one of them, Jane Parker, is a Democrat. And the other, Ila Mettee-McCutchon, appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in February to fill the term of the deceased incumbent for all of three months before the election, Republican, is pretending to be a Democrat and making misleading phone calls and distributing misleading campaign literature. Because of the way “non-partisan” offices appear on primary ballots, she’s abetted in this by a ballot that seems to be a primary run-off between two Democrats.

More on the flip side with a link to a picture of the flier.

First off, let’s make it clear: Ila Mettee-McCutchon is a Republican. You won’t find that fact on her website. She was appointed to her post by Arnold (Republican) Schwarzenegger to fill out a term left open by the decease of the incumbent – just three months before the election. More on this in a bit.


We have seven County Supervisors here, selected in “non-partisan” elections. However, there’s a big Democratic registration advantage in the countydistrict. Somehow, the elections for these Supervisors get piggybacked into our primary ballots under the theory they’re non-partisan, and maybe it doesn’t matter. But if you get a Republican primary ballot, it lists both candidates, and you get a Democratic primary ballot, it lists both candidates. If you didn’t know any better, you might think you were voting in a primary election for two candidates of the same party. Despite the fact there are real serious differences in party affiliations for these ‘non partisan’ positions, voters see the candidates for these jobs as if they were both members of their own party.


County Supervisor matters a lot here. Our County budget is almost a billion dollars. The board is split right now evenly between pro-developer and slow-growth advocates.This particular Supervisor position will be the tie-breaker. County Supervisors in the past have tried to do end-arounds on the voters who clearly voted for the slow-growth approach on multiple voter initiatives through a combination of trickery (illegally competing ballot initiatives) and outright rejection of the voters’ will (by voting for pro-developer county plans right after the voters had rejected them). Whoever wins this election is going to be the decision-maker about the land use pattern for our county, home to both important agricultural areas and some of the most spectacular coastal wilderness in the country, for decades.


The voters in this area are seriously pro-environment. Some may be objecting to growth as NIMBYs, some for environmental reasons, some because they see controlled growth as a philosophy for sustainability. If the voters’ will were adequately represented in the County Supervisors, the debate would be on which slow growth plan to take, not whether we should be chewing up more farm land for subdivisions.


Ila Mettee-McCutchon, Republican, in a “non-partisan” election, is supported by the business and growth interests that favor unrestricted growth. As mentioned earlier, these include prominent vineyard owners, agribusiness interests, developers, and of course the usual banes of California politics, Taxpayers’ “Rights” associations (the same people trying to eliminate environmental regulations and rent control in the guise of eminent domain reform.)


I got a phone call the other day from a worker for the Mettee-McCutchon campaign. Her spiel said she was a “democratic” leader running for “re-election” and she needed my vote in the “primary”. I wasn’t sure I heard her right,so I asked her to repeat it. She said it again. I asked her how somebody appointed by the Governor a few months ago could be running for ‘re-” election when she had never been elected before. The caller repeated her spiel. I asked her whether she was a volunteer or was a paid caller and where she was calling from; the Caller ID said simply, “Monterey County Election”. She said she didn’t have to tell me that. I told her she sure did if she wanted to get a vote. She hung up on me.


Today I got a flier from the Mettee-McCutchon campaign.  It reads, “In the tradition of great leadership….Monterey County 4th district Democratic Leaders Endorse Ila Mettee-McCutchon for Supervisor.” It shows a picture of Col. Mettee-McCutchon shaking hands with Bill Clinton back when she was garrison commander of one of the local army institutions in the mid-90s. The “endorsements” inclue only three current elected officials, whose “Democratic” credentials are spotty.




Link to image is here:

http://i295.photobucket.com/al…


On the reverse, it reads “Join these fine Monterey County Democratic Leaders and Organizatiosn by voting for Ila Mettee-McCutchon for Supervisor, June 3, 2008.” The “Democratic” organizatios it lists aren’t democratic organizations: the best she can pull up are four law enforcement groups and one (only one) of the firefighters’ unions.


NOWHERE ON THIS FLIER DOES IT MENTION HER REPUBLICAN ENDORSEMENTS. Nor, for example, that she wanted to censor rap on the usual grounds (wouldn’t allow Snoop Doggy Dogg to appear due to the bad bad influence music has on our youth), or the $70 million in tax breaks she sought for a developer as soon as she was appointed to office. You can read more about the differences between the two candidates here.


I have no objections to politicians who want to run on a pro-growth platform. Make your case. Frankly I have some of my own objections to extremism in the slow-growth camp, and see developing new housing as a big issue in this county, so it’s not like I myself am immune to persuasion about a smart growth plan.


But I find a candidate who can’t put forth her actual views in campaign fliers, who makes it appear as if she’s a Democrat by mentioning “Democratic Leadership” three times on a campaign flier illustrated with a picture of President Clinton, and who employs misleading and apparently-paid phone workers to deliver inaccurate campaign messages, completely unqualified for office, however. I can’t trust an elected official to be honest in office if she’s not even honest about her political stripes and supporters.


Beware your own  wolves trying desperately to find wool coats. I just hope we have enough savvy voters here to ignore the old switcheroo they’re trying to pull here. Please help me spread the word by Rec’ing this diary, and forward it to any Monterey County voters you might happen to know.


I’ve written to the Monterey County Herald (which endorsed Mettee-McCutchon), we’ll see if they publish it.

Looks Like The Wrong Way for Monterey County, Too

Last week I took Santa Cruz County to task for proposing a transportation sales tax that would fund roads and not rail. Unfortunately Monterey County has decided to follow in their footsteps with a truly reckless plan that would spend over $1 billion for roads but provides nothing for rail projects that have been in the works for a long time:

A Caltrain rail extension is no longer on a list of projects that Monterey County transportation officials hope a sales tax will help fund over the next quarter century.

On Wednesday, the Transportation Agency for Monterey County board approved a 25-year improvement package wish-list that boasts more than 20 road and transit projects at a cost of $1.8 billion.

TAMC is working to place a half-cent sales tax on the November 2008 ballot that would generate an estimated $980 million. The county would seek matching state and federal funding to pay for the rest of the work.

And why isn’t rail included? From yesterday’s Monterey Herald:

Over the summer, officials from the Monterey County Hospitality Association and the Monterey County Farm Bureau withheld their support from an earlier draft sales tax proposal, arguing there wasn’t enough focus on highway and roads projects that would benefit their industries. They also complained about proposed spending on a Caltrain rail project included in the earlier draft.

But after TAMC officials eliminated the rail spending, both groups sent a letter last month indicating they would back the sales tax effort.

This is madness. The TAMC proposal is reckless planning and poor public policy – locking Monterey County into a roads-only future for the next 25 years puts our economy at risk and will cause us to miss out on leveraged funding opportunities. We can become nationwide leaders in sustainable tourism and sustainable agriculture, but not if we believe against all available evidence that the 20th century dependence on roads can be continued for much longer.

image from TAMC

As I explained last week there are two fundamental reasons why rails, not roads, need to be emphasized in any new transportation plan: global warming and peak oil. Freeway widening projects produce significant amounts of carbon emissions, something that supposedly environmentally-conscious Monterey County residents should not be promoting. Peak oil is the name given to the end of cheap oil as supplies begin to shrink and demand continues to rise globally. The peak, which many researchers believe is either already here or just a few years away, is already manifesting itself in sky-high gas prices.

These phenomenon both suggest environmental, economic, and physical factors that should lead us to prioritize rail over roads. Even a “mixed” funding package with some road widening as the cost of a fully funded Caltrain extension and light rail on the Monterey spur line (a line TAMC owns) would be worth it, as Monterey County has a stronger need than most other places of alternatives to the car. 100 miles long, Monterey County would be crippled in the event of an oil shock, either in the form of supply disruption or even more dramatic price increases. In either event the ability of workers to get around, tourists to come to the region, and agricultural products to get to markets, would be negatively impacted.

On that basis alone, dropping rail funding is a truly reckless act. But it gets worse. The proposed sales tax would last for *25 years*. Not until 2033 would we be able to realistically return to voters with a new funding package. By that point it will be too late – peak oil and climate change are already unfolding. This specific package shackles us to our cars at the exact moment when alternatives must be developed.

Further, there is political movement at the regional, state and federal levels for rail. TAMC’s Caltrain plan has been in the works for many years. Caltrain is willing to provide service to Salinas, but only if TAMC can upgrade the track, secure trackage rights, provide new cars, and guarantee that Caltrain will not be financially exposed. The cost of meeting all these requirement has been put at $90 million – less than a tenth of the overall cost of the transportation package. Democrats in Sacramento have long been supportive of rail, and the Democratic Congress has moved to create a federal matching funds program for local rail, similar to that which has long existed for highways. To abandon rail now is to ensure that Monterey County will miss out on these new opportunities to help defray the cost of providing badly needed sustainable transportation.

And then there is the opposition of the Hospitality Association and the Farm Bureau. That TAMC would bow to the pressure of these two groups is itself a disturbing sign. But let’s question the sanity of these groups. By throwing a fit on rail, they are actually hurting their own industry quite significantly.

Monterey’s tourism industry owes its life to rail. In the first decades after the American conquest, Monterey was an isolated town, hard to reach (it took a day just to travel here from Hollister). That all changed in 1880 when the Del Monte Express began service to Monterey from San Francisco. The rail line enabled the rapid growth of the tourist industry here on the Monterey Peninsula. The Del Monte Hotel, the Pacific Grove Methodist retreat, and by the early 20th century, Pebble Beach were all products of rail.

The last Del Monte train ran in 1971, when Californians wrongly assumed that cheap oil would enable automobile-based transportation to meet our needs for many years to come. Now that we face the end of cheap oil, Monterey’s future as a viable tourist destination depends on rail. Without it, we WILL lose tourist dollars as the cost of getting here becomes too expensive for Northern California families and visitors from around the country.

And we would be missing out on a perfect opportunity to take the lead as an environmentally sustainable tourist destination. Much of Monterey’s value as a destination is based precisely on environmental preservation, from the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary to the forests, coastline, and dramatic beauty of Big Sur. Rail would allow tourists to get here in a carbon-neutral, or even carbon-reducing manner, complementing the mission and values of our region. TAMC already owns the tracks from Castroville to downtown Monterey, so all that’s needed is investment to rehabilitate the tracks and buy the rail equipment. And it would take pressure off of Highway 1, which can get congested at rush hour.

It’s not as if the Hospitality Association hasn’t been told this. Just last week, Monterey hosted a conference on sustainable tourism. Speakers from around the nation met with local stakeholders and, from the reports, all agreed on the importance of sustainable tourism:

Many local businesses and agencies employ environmentally conscious practices, said John McMahon, president of the Monterey County Convention and Visitors Bureau.

“A lot of these things being discussed are already going on,” McMahon said. “This is a catalyst to solidify that and to bring together all the entities with an interest in sustainable tourism.”

McMahon said the Monterey area is viewed by potential visitors as a spiritual and environmentally friendly retreat.

“Now it’s being able to validate that viewpoint. We can easily be a capital for green tourism,” he said.

Emily Reilly, former Santa Cruz mayor and candidate for the Democratic nomination in AD-27, who has championed sustainable transportation planning, discussed the importance of collaboration:

“It seems there’s a knee-jerk reaction by cities and counties of ‘what’s in it for me’ when someone else decides to do something different,” said Santa Cruz Mayor Emily Reilly. “I think we’re really at a point here of getting over that.” [quoted in the Monterey Herald article linked above]

For the Hospitality Association to not have gotten this message is, to me, a stunning failure on their part to envision the future needs of our region and to grow their own business. Someone at the TAMC or on the Monterey County Board of Supervisors should have sat down with them and explained the vital role of rail in providing for a viable 21st century Monterey County.

The same holds true for the Farm Bureau. The Salinas Valley, salad bowl to the world, is well positioned to benefit from an improved rail corridor to the Bay Area. Agriculture is especially vulnerable to peak oil, as Cuba discovered in the early 1990s. As fuel costs soar and with the possibility of supply disruptions, every aspect of agriculture – from getting workers to the fields to powering the tractors to producing fertilizer to getting food to market – is imperiled.

The money spent rehabilitating the rail line between Salinas and San José would, even though initially intended for passenger rail, have obvious benefits for agriculture. With the massive population of the Bay Area needing a stable, local food source, as well as offering port facilities tying the region to a world market, expanded rail infrastructure would help secure local agriculture’s future.

Unfortunately, we the people are going to have to educate our leaders and civic groups about this. I wasn’t able to attend yesterday’s TAMC meeting, but there is another in January where the sales tax package will be finalized, and I plan to voice my concerns there.

We have other opportunities to help prevent this disaster. Each city in Monterey County must vote to approve the proposal, and then the Board of Supervisors must do so as well – those votes will take place later in 2008. The city of Monterey has signed the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement and UN Urban Environmental Accords, which are a good starting point for reminding city leaders of the need for a more balanced plan. These votes could be used to push TAMC to restoring at minimum Caltrain funding.

There is, of course, the possibility of voting against the plan itself in November 2008 – the 2/3 rule for tax votes applies here, and a similar transportation plan in 2006 received 57% support, short of the 67% needed for passage. And while that may ultimately be the only way to stop this bad plan, it would be much more preferable to work with county residents and officials to educate them on the need to provide rail and then go to voters in November with full funding for rail.

It is long past time for California to abandon the 20th century fantasy that cars and roads alone can meet our transportation needs. Let’s get Monterey County moving in the right direction.