Measure O opponents spend over $137,000 on campaign “full of lies and half-truths”
No on Measure O mailer #1, front
No on Measure O mailer inside #1, top.
Compared to $15,000 for the Yes on O committee
By Allen Payton
Two campaign mailers opposing Antioch’s Measure O arrived in residents’ mailboxes, recently, and has supporters upset.
One mailer states “Here’s what the Antioch City Council did with their $3.4 million a year tax increase” referring to the passage of last year’s Measure C half-cent sales tax measure. When you open the mailer it states “Absolutely nothing.” Then further down it states “The City Council didn’t expand the police force” and “The City Council has nothing to show for Measure C.”
Those statements are blatantly false, since the city has hired 25 more officers, this year. However, the city has lost 19 officers due to retirement or transfers to other departments, this year, leaving the city with a net six new officers.
The city began collecting the additional sales tax on April 1, this year, so it’s had six months of additional revenue, not a full year of the projected $3.4 million.
City Manager Steve Duran provided the following information about Measure C funds:
“With approval of the 2014/15 budget, the City Council directed 100% of the projected $4,300,847 Measure C revenues to hiring more Police Officers, which is well in progress, and augmenting Code Enforcement services. The City allocated $4,111,947 to the Police Department and $188,900 to Code Enforcement.
As of September 1, $949,591 of Measure C funds had been received by the city.
Since August, 2013, the City has gone from 82 sworn Police Officers to 90 sworn Police Officers. 97 are budgeted for this year and 104 for next year. Measure C is paying for this increase in Police Officers.”
No on Measure O mailer #2
The second mailer shows a photo of 69-year-old Measure O opponent and Antioch resident Wayne Cook, with a quote by him stating “Measure O will make it harder for senior citizens to pay their rent…Measure O will hurt senior citizens.”
“It’s unbelievable,” said Don Freitas, former Antioch Mayor and chairman of the Residents for Fairness – Yes Measure O committee. “Their campaign is full of lies and half-truths.”
He shared that the 2010 U.S. Census determined a senior was 62 years and older, and that 81% of seniors in Antioch are homeowners in.
“If you include assisted care facilities, it’s closer to 90 or 95%,” Freitas said. “So, none of these people will pay a single penny if Measure O passes.”
“I don’t know if you know Kevin Reikes or not, but the truth has never gotten in his way,” he added.
Reikes is the political consultant being paid to run the No on O campaign
“Besides, if the apartment complex owners were going to pass on the cost of the tax to their tenants, why would they spend so much to try to defeat it?” Freitas asked.
So far, the Sacramento-based No on Measure O committee, which has been funded mostly by apartment building owners, has raised $137,075 to defeat the measure.
As of their last full financial report dated September 30 (which can be viewed, here: No on O Form 460) the No on Measure O committee had received $75,000. Then, as of October 7, an additional $35,000 was received, according to another report (which can be viewed, here: FPPC497 10-7-14). Then on October 9, another financial form was filed, showing a contribution of $7,075 from Antioch-based E.E.N. Property Management, Inc. (which can be viewed, here: FPPC497 10-9-14). On October 16, another Late Contribution Report showing $20,000 was received from Sequoia Properties – Cross Pointe Apartments (which can be viewed, here: FPPC497_LCR 10-16-14).
In contrast, the Residents for Fairness – Yes Measure O committee had raised “a little over $7,000 as of September 30,” according to Treasurer Nancy Fernandez. (That report can be viewed, here: FPPC Forms due 100614 – Yes on Measure O). However, on October 6, the Yes on O committee received $2,500 from U.A. Local 432 and $1,000 from GBN Partnership, LLC, then on October 10 a $1,500 contribution was received from the Plumbers Union Local No. 159, and on October 12, a $3,000 contribution from the Electrical Workers union. Those reports can be viewed, here: FPPC Forms 497 – Yes on Measure O 10-13-14.
So, as of October 20, the Yes on O campaign had raised a total of $15,012.
A regular council attendee for 10 years, Fernandez added her thoughts on the No campaign.
“It’s full of lies,” she said. “The original group that wrote the measure before it was turned over to the city, was made up of people ranging in age from 58 to 85. Some of them have lived here all their lives. So, seniors do support this.”
the attachments to this post:
FPPC Forms due 100614 - Yes on Measure O
FPPC Forms due 100614 – Yes on Measure O
FPPC Forms 497 - Yes on Measure O 10-13-14
FPPC Forms 497 – Yes on Measure O 10-13-14
FPPC497_LCR 10-16-14
FPPC497_LCR 10-16-14
FPPC497 10-9-14
FPPC497 10-9-14
No on O mailer 2
Mailer 1 inside 1
Mailer 1 front
FPPC497 10-7-14
FPPC497 10-7-14
So in the spirit of fairness and balanced reporting, which I would expect from a newspaper, why don’t you also post the campaign finance filings of the proponents of Measure O.
Also why did you not reach out to landlords or the No on O committee asking them for comment?
It’s clear, the Herald is biased and is the mouthpiece of Don Freitas and the Friday Morning Breakfast Club.
I will be voting No on O—the city does not need the money, regardless of the source, until they can show to me that they can live within their means and live up to the promises they made.
The financial reports for the Yes on Measure O have been posted. Please see them in the article.
As for needing comments from the other side, that’s unnecessary as they’re included in their mailers, of which we’ve provided copies above and in the middle of the article.
Allen Payton, Publisher
In reply to John (Anonymous), Allen Payton has clearly presented the “No on Measure O Coalition’s” positions with a sampling of their slick mailers and hard documentation verifying their huge campaign donations. The individual landlords with large rental real estate holdings behind the Coalition have refused to participate in public debate, instead hiding behind a pile of money and Pinocchio on their slick mailers (four so far) and a few misguided token seniors featured on their mailers and in their online video clips and TV ads. Also, I doubt if Mr. Payton could have found any of the actual contributing landlords willing to be interviewed.
While Payton is known to personally support Measure O, as a professional journalist he is not biased toward Don Freitas and the Friday Morning Breakfast Club (FMBC). If that were so, you would see many more letters published from the FMBC members and other proponents of the measure, while opposing opinions from Barbara Zivica, John A. and others would be excluded. It is my observation the Herald publishes factual opinions on all sides of issues, but it is not under any obligation to publish blatant lies no matter how convincingly they are packaged.
John is free to vote however he wants to on Measure O; this is a democracy. However, before voting, he should seek out the truth to be an informed voter and not blindly drink the lie-flavored sweet tea offered by the No Coalition.
Larry L. Harrison
Member: “Friday Morning Breakfast Club” and “Residents for Fairness – Yes on Measure O” Campaign Committtee
The finances of both sides ARE presented in the article. I have been proud to be a part of the FMBC and watch everything unfold and fit together as we worked on this project for a couple of years. We had a wonderful talented attorney working with us, Dave Larsen. If this doesn’t pass, Mr. Duran, the City Manager is correct we will see bankruptcy. This is true, I have been part of every budget workshop for 10 years. I would rather pass Measure O and continue to have growing police services and city services to clean this city up after 6 years of doing nothing.