Publisher’s Note: This was received in our email on Sept. 21 but was inadvertently overlooked, until today.

Dear Editor:

My name is Sandra White, and I am running for Antioch City Council, District 4.  I want to make everyone aware of the current state of politics in the City of Antioch, and why I am running for office.

Some of our current City Council members are trying to defund the Antioch Police Department, use taxpayer dollars to put homeless in a hotel that is a stone’s throw away from residential neighborhoods and a school; and are trying to divide the residents of Antioch using race-baiting tactics to accomplish the election of candidates who will further the above agenda.

On September 8th, 2020, some Antioch residents received an email that appears to have come from my opponent in District 4.  It seems a candidate for mayor orchestrated a smear tactic directed at Mayor Wright, who came out against District Attorney Diana Becton’s undefined guidelines for the prosecution of looters.

In the article, my opponent implied Mayor Wright’s comments were somehow divisive because he disagreed with the DA’s allege pro-criminal approach to dealing with offenders in our community.  The smear piece suggests that the mayor’s statements were somehow based on DA Becton’s race and gender.  These types of divisive politics are toxic for Antioch, and things need to change.  As an African American woman, I am offended when people try to use race and gender to divide us, as my opponent alleges smear piece tried to do.

For the record, I am pro-police and believe the Antioch Police Department is understaffed.  I am currently a volunteer for the City of Antioch as the Chair of the Police Crime Prevention Commission.  I have met with many of you in my district to assist with making our neighborhoods safer.  When I am elected, I will be better positioned to make our entire community even safer.  I genuinely believe we do not need less police; we need more officers and mental health resources to assist our police department. Our understaff police department is inundated daily with calls that can be handled by a Crisis Prevention Unit.

The safety of you and your family will be my priority.  When I am elected to office, I will ensure our police department continues to model “Best Practices” within the Law Enforcement community. I stand with Mayor Wright and believe that after our police officers arrest criminals for victimizing our businesses, they should be held accountable and prosecuted.

Regarding our Homeless population, we all agree; there needs to be a solution.  Many of our homeless residents have mental health and drug/alcohol addiction issues. The only way the Homeless situation can drastically improve is by getting needed services and funding on a county and state level and laws and policy changes that allow families to intervene to get their loved ones help.  To suggest a Homeless hotel in a residential / school neighborhood (costing at least $1 million) without wrap-around services is reckless and a waste of your tax dollars!

We need to bring back businesses to Antioch taking the approach that our neighbors to the East and West have done.  Do you ever ask yourself why companies are not coming to Antioch? It is simple; we have crime and blight issues that are not my opponent’s concern and other members of the city council.  If we want to attract businesses, we need to lower our crime, beautify our city, and work with county and state officials to get our Homeless population to reduce the number of homeless residents.

If you are happy with Antioch’s current “status quo,” such as the conditions related to blight, low police staffing, increase in homelessness, and crime, then I am not the candidate for you.

We should all want our community in Antioch to become a positive change with a fully staffed police department, businesses returning to Antioch, a thoughtful and focused approach to reducing blight, homelessness, and quality of life issues. In that case, I am that candidate, and I hope you will vote for Sandra White, for Antioch City Council, District 4.

Sandra White

Candidate

Antioch City Council, District 4

 

Women Leaders Condemn Remarks by Antioch Mayor

Antioch, California — September 8, 2020 — Several women community leaders, including two Antioch city councilmembers, today condemned false accusations being spread by Mayor Sean Wright against Diana Becton, the county’s first elected woman, and Black district attorney, in his bid for reelection.

In an email sent to supporters last month, Wright claimed Becton created a policy that says it is OK for looters to steal items if they need them. “According to our DA, if the looters ‘need’ an item in a retail shop, for example, it is ok for them to take that item without being charged,” he wrote. Wright included a photo of a Black man looting a store in Chicago in his email.

Wright shared a September 1, 2020 article by The Daily Wire, a conservative news and opinion website, that supported his accusation against Becton. However, since the article was published, Snopes, an independent fact-checking website, found claims made in the article and shared on other right-wing websites were false.

In June, Becton issued guidelines that encouraged prosecutors to make a distinction between thefts and burglaries that merely happen to take place during a state of emergency and lootings, which are “substantially motivated by” a state of emergency. Contrary to Wright’s claim, the guidelines do not advise prosecutors not to go ahead with a looting charge if a suspect was found to have been motivated by “personal need.”

“Frankly, I’m shocked by the mayor’s comments, especially since he is running on a platform to unite the community,” said Monica Wilson, Antioch’s first Black woman city councilmember. “Fearmongering and spreading lies to drum up votes are not how you unite a community, especially a community like Antioch, where the majority of residents are people of color.”

“For a mayor of a city this size, it is completely irresponsible to make a statement based on unverified information that is later proven false,” said Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Joyann Motts. “At a time when we are trying to bring the community together, this is very divisive.”

Wilson also condemned similar remarks recently made by Steve Aiello, president of the Antioch Police Officers Association. In a September 1, 2020 story published by EastCountyToday.net, Aiello accused Becton of being “reckless” by “picking and choosing the types of crimes” her office prosecutes.

“There is very clearly a double standard going on here,” Wilson said. “Our district attorney has done nothing wrong, yet she has gained nationwide attention for her actions simply because she is a Black woman in a position of leadership. Meanwhile, we have had elected men here in Contra Costa County embezzle money, make unwanted sexual advances, and say inappropriate things, and it barely registers a blip on the radar.”

Other local women leaders who were disappointed in Mayor Wright’s comments included Tamisha Walker, an East Bay activist. “When we find ourselves misunderstanding the actions that are being taken at this moment, it would be more productive to find common ground rather than inferring that the leadership of a woman of color is irresponsible and reckless,” Walker said. “Solidarity is what we need during this time, not separatism that could lead to harm in any form. Black women can lead consciously and with full integrity during these very difficult and unprecedented times.”

“The disturbing part is intentionally misinterpreting DA Becton’s stance for shock value,” said Carolyn Wysinger, an East Bay activist and Board Chair of San Francisco PRIDE. “The mayor wrote, ‘According to our DA, if the looters “need” an item in a retail shop, for example, it is ok for them to take that item without being charged. I don’t agree with this approach — do you?’ That is classic dog-whistle politics, and THAT’S what we are calling out.”

Courtney Masella-O’Brien, attorney and community activist, said the mayor’s comments were reckless. “At a time when tensions and division in our country and our county are at an all-time high, people need to be responsible and make sure they have their facts accurate and complete, especially when it comes to Contra Costa’s first Black and first woman DA,” she said.

Arianna Grady, an Antioch student activist, said Wright’s comments typified the type of undue scrutiny Black women often encounter. “My mother always taught me that there are two things already against you in this world: ‘You’re Black and that you are a woman.’” Grady said. “Every day, Black women and men suffer from hardships. When we have passion in our voices, we are labeled ‘aggressive.’ When our hair isn’t considered ‘professional,’ we are ‘ghetto.’”

“This certain situation goes to show the continuous hardship we face, which causes us to work ten times harder with only half the expected outcome,” Grady added. “Being a Black woman in politics has shown me how hard we have to work for what we want, as many odds are against us. In this particular situation, it goes to show that we should not be misread and blasted by our peers but understood. This situation should only make us all want to continue to fight for and vote in people who will fact check, understand, and seek to empower all.”

“In the 100 years since women fought and won the right to vote, we’ve made great strides,” said Susannah Meyer, another local activist. “Our mothers and grandmothers faced discrimination and challenged gender oppression so that we could vote for women in office and actually have hope that they would be elected to serve. In those 100 years, we have made great strides inequality for women and are living in a world our trailblazing ancestors could only imagine. But we have a long way to go.

“While women leaders and elected officials are still judged on anything other than their integrity, their achievements, and their ability to lead, we still have a long way to go,” Meyer said. “While we calmly accept being treated like our voices don’t matter so we aren’t seen as angry or defensive, we still have a long way to go. Our next generation of women, and the generation after that, will look back and thank us for continuing the fight for gender equality. And we will fight, because we’ve made great strides, but we still have a long way to go.”

References:

Sean Wright’s campaign email:

https://secure.campaigner.com/CSB/Public/archive.aspx?args=NDU5NTMyMDA%3D&acc=NzU5ODM5&fbclid=IwAR2s9TznAap7tm3YOAaHeE14JfULlNEdWdi6FMZKS5_7OJUK-v2VnYMQ4I4

Did a California DA Say Looting Is ‘Okay’ If Suspects ‘Need’ What They Steal?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-da-becton-looting-need/

Antioch Mayor Blasts Contra Costa District Attorney’s Policy on “Looters”

https://eastcountytoday.net/antioch-mayor-blasts-contra-costa-district-attorneys-policy-on-looters/

 

Votes for Measure X will now count; sales taxes in the county could go to 10.75%, highest in California; Glazer’s second tax increase measure on November ballot

By Allen Payton

On the last day possible, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a variety of bills on Thursday, including SB1349 by State Senator Steve Glazer, allowing a countywide half-cent sales tax increase which is designated Measure X on the November ballot in Contra Costa. The votes on that measure will now count. Had the governor vetoed the bill the votes would not have counted. He also had the option of not signing it by the Sept. 30th deadline and the bill would have become law.

The ballot language for Measure X reads as follows: “To keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers; provide timely fire and emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services, shall the Contra Costa County measure levying a ½ cent sales tax, exempting food sales, providing an estimated $81,000,000 annually for 20 years that the State cannot take, with funds benefitting County residents, be adopted?”

Glazer introduced the bill in the State Senate on February 21, 2020 focusing on “State responsibility area fire prevention fees”. He changed it to, “Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa” on April 8, 2020 after the March Primary election was decided and the countywide additional half-cent sales tax increase for transportation failed.

It took some maneuvering in the State Senate Governance & Finance Committee to get the bill to the floor for a full vote. The bill first failed on a 3-2-2 vote on May 21. A motion to reconsider the bill then passed 7-0 on May 28 and a final committee vote was held on June 3 with just enough to pass by a vote of 4-2-1. It then passed the full Senate on June 11 by a vote of 27-11-2 with both Glazer and State Senator Nancy Skinner, who represents all of West County, voting in favor.

In the Assembly, Member Tim Grayson carried the bill which passed 48-23-8, with the other three Assemblymembers representing Contra Costa County, Jim Frazier, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan and Buffy Wicks not voting.

The Contra Costa County Public Managers Association was coordinating the effort to get the bill passed and the City Managers were the ones who endorsed it, not the various city councils.

The state has a sales tax rate of 7.25%, decreased from 7.5% on January 1, 2017, and state law prevented counties from charging more than 9.25% prior to the bill becoming law. That includes the half-cent sales tax for BART and the additional half-cent sales tax for transportation through the Contra Costa Transportation Authority. That leaves 1% remaining by which the county can increase its sales tax.

The Board of Supervisors considered a sales tax increase that would have only applied to unincorporated areas outside the 19 city limits. But that was quietly set aside.

According to the Senate Governance & Finance Committee Bill Analysis the earlier version of the bill that passed the Senate the first time, would have allowed a possible increase in the countywide sales tax rate to 11.75% in cities that already have a 1% sales tax such as in Antioch, and as high as 12.25% in El Cerrito which has a 1.5% city sales tax. However, the governor’s office said that went too far and the final bill was scaled back.

California’s sales tax rate is high compared to other states, especially when incorporating locally imposed district taxes. Tax experts argue that sales and use taxes are regressive, meaning that the tax incidence falls more on low-income individuals than high-income individuals because those of lesser means generally spend a greater percentage of their income on taxable sales, instead of intangible products or services which are not taxed.

By removing the current Contra Costa Transportation Authority and BART taxes as counting against the cap, in the final version of SB 1349, which passed the Senate the second time and signed by Newsom, allows an additional 1% of room for the county and each of its 19 cities to impose another district of up to 1% in sales tax. If voters approve the 1/2% allowed under Measure X, when it states that existing taxes do not count against the cap, the combined rate would increase to 8.75% countywide, plus any current city rates. The bill also grants Contra Costa County an additional authorization for another 1/2% sales tax increase, such as for the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, thereby boosting the maximum countywide rate to 9.25%, plus any current city rates.

That could result in a rate as high as 10.75% in the City of El Cerrito, where an additional 1.5% rate currently applies, and a 10.25% rate in the City of Antioch where they have a current 1% sales tax.

Glazer had the support of his bill from the California Labor Federation, California Professional Firefighters, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21, Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 29, and SEIU California.

Those opposed to SB1349 were the Alliance of Contra Costa Taxpayers, California Taxpayers Association, Contra Costa County Taxpayers Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund.

In spite of campaigning as a fiscal conservative, touting a hold the line approach to new taxes, this is Glazer’s second measure on the November ballot that will increase taxes if passed. The other is statewide Prop. 19, which will increase taxes on inherited homes or commercial property. According to Ballotpedia, “The ballot measure would eliminate the parent-to-child and grandparent-to-grandchild exemption in cases where the child or grandchild does not use the inherited property as their principal residence, such as using a property a rental house or a second home. When the inherited property is used as the recipient’s principal residence but has a market value above $1 million, an upward adjustment in assessed value would occur. The ballot measure would also apply these rules to certain farms. Beginning on February 16, 2023, the taxable value of an inherited principal residential property would be adjusted each year at a rate equal to the change in the California House Price Index.”

Following is the Legislative Counsel’s Digest and text of Glazer’s bill:

Senate Bill No. 1349

CHAPTER 369

An act to amend Section 29140 of the Public Utilities Code, and to amend Section 7291 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation.

[ Approved by Governor  September 30, 2020. Filed with Secretary of State  September 30, 2020. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

SB 1349, Glazer. Transactions and use taxes: County of Contra Costa.

Existing law authorizes various specified cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law. A provision of the Transactions and Use Tax Law prohibits the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in a county from exceeding 2%.

Existing law authorizes the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 0.5% that, in combination with other transactions and use taxes, exceeds the above-described combined rate limit of 2%, if certain requirements are met, including a requirement that the ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax be submitted to, and approved by, the voters. Existing law repeals this authorization on December 31, 2020, if an ordinance proposing a transactions and use tax has not been approved by that date.

Existing law, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Act, creates the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, which comprises a territory that includes the County of Contra Costa, and, among other things, authorizes the board of directors of the district to impose transactions and use taxes in conformity with the Transactions and Use Tax Law for specified purposes, subject to periodic legislative review and amendment, as provided.

This bill would provide that, notwithstanding the combined rate limit under the Transactions and Use Tax Law, neither a transaction and use tax rate imposed in the County of Contra Costa by the transportation authority under the above-described authority nor a transactions and use tax rate imposed by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, as specified, will be considered for purposes of that combined rate limit within the County of Contra Costa. The bill would declare that the changes made with regard to taxes imposed by the Contra Costa Transportation Authority for countywide transportation programs are declaratory of existing law.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Contra Costa.

<hr size=1 width=1209 style=’width:907.1pt’ noshade style=’color:#333333′>

BILL TEXT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1.

Section 29140 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:

29140.

(a) The board shall, by ordinance, impose transactions and use taxes in conformity with Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the purposes specified in Sections 29142 and 29142.2, subject to periodic legislative review and amendment.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) on or before January 1, 2020, that applies within the County of Alameda shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit within the County of Alameda established by that section.

(2) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) on or before the effective date of the act adding this subdivision that applies within the County of Contra Costa shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit within the County of Contra Costa established by that section.

SEC. 2.

Section 7291 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:

7291.

(a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority may impose a transactions and use tax for the support of countywide transportation programs at a rate of no more than 0.5 percent that would, in combination with all taxes imposed pursuant to Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), exceed the limit established in Section 7251.1, if all of the following requirements are met:

(1) The Contra Costa Transportation Authority adopts an ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax by any applicable voting approval requirement.

(2) The ordinance proposing the transactions and use tax is submitted to the electorate and is approved by the voters voting on the ordinance pursuant to Article XIII C of the California Constitution.

(3) The transactions and use tax conforms to the Transactions and Use Tax Law, Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251), other than Section 7251.1.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding Section 7251.1, a transactions and use tax rate imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall not be considered for purposes of the combined rate limit established by Section 7251.1.

(2) This subdivision does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law.

SEC. 3.

The Legislature finds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique fiscal pressures being experienced in the County of Contra Costa.

 

Including drug offenders arrested with small amounts or for other crimes such as shoplifting, petty theft, disorderly conduct   

To “divert low-level recreational users out of the criminal justice system and into health care system”

“Reducing strain in the courts” at presiding judge’s request

By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Office of the District Attorney, Contra Costa County

Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton announced last week, misdemeanor filing considerations for the DA’s Office regarding . Originally initiated as a pilot, the considerations are now formal policy for the Office. The DA’s Office will no longer file charges against most people arrested or cited solely for the possession of small amounts of drugs. The idea is to divert low-level recreational users out of the criminal justice system and into the health care system with the goals of both reducing the strain in the courts and on law enforcement, and also by providing treatment options for the user.

Last year District Attorney Becton and Public Defender Robin Lipetzky were contacted by the presiding judge of the court who stressed the need to reduce the significant backlog of low-level, non-violent misdemeanors in the court system. The backlog of cases was slowing down court operations and proving to be an immense burden on the budgets of various law enforcement agencies and the courts.

Furthermore, there have been significant changes in the laws governing personal drug use that have changed the dynamics of prosecuting low-level drug cases. The aim of these considerations is to stop chronic patterns of arrest and to connect individuals to community based behavioral health services. For a first-time offender we will refer the person to health care services in our community. The policy allows the DA’s Office to focus our efforts on cases that may pose significant public safety concerns such as criminal street gangs, drug dealers, violent criminals, and cases involving firearms.

“When I took Office, I realized we had to change our perspective on filing cases, especially low-level drug cases. From my experience as a judge I saw first-hand how individuals were cycling through our system. Now as the District Attorney, I worked with several law enforcement partners throughout the county to build a plan and gain consensus on how best to proceed with these types of cases. We cannot prosecute ourselves out of this growing trend of low-level offenses being submitted to our Office for a filing decision,” said DA Becton.

Prosecutors will use their discretion on these low-level non-violent offenses to determine if criminal charges are appropriate. Pre-filing diversion is also available for individuals in lieu of a formal criminal complaint.

DA Becton stated, “As I do with all of my Office’s policies, I will periodically review this policy and work with my justice system colleagues to ensure its effectiveness and to modify it when necessary.”

In several situations, the policy may not apply. The exceptions include: the person has been arrested on three previous occasions in the past year for a misdemeanor drug offense, the theft is more than $300 in value, or the subject is on probation.

Misdemeanor Filing Considerations

FIRST-TIME AND STAND-ALONE OFFENSES

For the offenses below, do not file a case predicated upon these statutes if the individual is a first-time offender or this is a stand-alone charge. Consider use of CAPS, Infracting, or a Probation Violation as appropriate.

If an individual becomes a repeat offender, review all cases to include any previously unfiled incidents.

Note: For any of the below offenses, these considerations do not apply if:

• There are multiple violations (2 or more within a 12-month period)
• Theft cases: amount of stolen items is $300 or more
• Defendant is currently on probation
• Low net weight cases of controlled substances will generally not be filed unless there are three or more misdemeanor drug offenses or another qualifying exception within a 12-month period

The misdemeanor charges these considerations encompass are as follows:

STATUTE                 NAME OF STATUTE

BP 4060                      Possession of Controlled Substance

BP 4140                      Possession of Hypodermic or Syringe

HS 11357                    Possession of Marijuana

HS 11364                    Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

HS 11350                    Possession of Controlled Substance

HS 11377                    Possession of Controlled Substance

HS 11550                    Under the Influence of Controlled Substance

PC 415                        Disturbing the Peace

PC 459.5                     Shoplifting

PC 466                        Possession of Burglar Tools

PC 484                        Petty Theft

PC 602                         Trespass

PC 647(f)                    Disorderly Conduct

PROBATION VIOLATIONS

If an individual is already on Probation, consider electing to file a Probation Violation in Lieu of a new docket. Consult with your supervising DDA as appropriate.

SUSPENDED LICENSES

Infract the below vehicle code offenses. Note: this does not apply to VC 14601.2 and VC 14601.5 offenses.

STATUTE                 NAME OF STATUTE                                              ACTION

VC 12500                    Unlicensed Driver                                                       INFRACT

VC 14601.1                 Non-DUI Suspended or Revoked License                  INFRACT

Starting today, October 1, the County will begin offering free flu shots to people who come in for COVID testing at several testing sites in Contra Costa.

Making flu shots available at COVID testing sites is part of the County’s larger effort to get more people vaccinated before flu season arrives. Contra Costa Health Services will also be hosting a series of free one-day flu vaccination clinics in October.

“We want to make it as easy as possible for people to get their flu shots this year,” said Dr. Chris Farnitano, Contra Costa County’s health officer. “Offering flu vaccine at COVID testing sites will let people cross two things off their to-do list at once.”

With COVID-19 and the upcoming flu season overlapping, county health officials say it’s more important than ever to get vaccinated against influenza this year.

Health officials are worried about a so-called “twindemic” or “double surge” in the coming months where hospitals are overwhelmed by having to care for both flu patients and COVID-19 patients.

Flu vaccination is the best protection against influenza. Another reason to get vaccinated: people can get sick with COVID and the flu at the same time, which may increase the risk they will need hospitalization.

Flu season in the Bay Area tends to peak in January or February, but it can be unpredictable – which is why it’s best to get vaccinated as soon as possible.

“Getting a flu shot is one thing we all can do to ease our minds during COVID,” said Dr. Farnitano. “Getting vaccinated this year means having one less thing to worry about.”

Influenza and COVID are respiratory illnesses with similar symptoms, such as congestion, cough and fever. People who have these symptoms when flu season arrives should be tested for COVID to help ensure a correct medical diagnosis. The County offers free COVID testing to residents.

There is currently no vaccine for COVID. The best way to prevent the spread of COVID is to practice physical distancing, wear face coverings when around people who don’t live with you, wash your hands regularly and stay home if you’re sick. These measures also help reduce the spread of the flu as well.

County health officials also recommend that essential workers and others with frequent close contact with people outside their own household get tested once a month for COVID, even if they don’t have symptoms.

A list of testing site offering free flu shots can be found on our Get Tested page. There are currently five testing locations offering flu vaccine: Antioch, two in Concord, Richmond and San Ramon. We expect to make flu shots available at more testing sites in the near future.

For more information about influenza, visit cchealth.org/flu.

 

Approve consent decree for enhanced psychiatric and medical services for county jail inmates

By Daniel Borsuk

With the COVID-19 pandemic having caused 16,896 cases and 209 deaths in Contra Costa County since March, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday passed its third temporary ordinance banning evictions of commercial and residential tenants on Tuesday, the same day the county’s Public Health Department quietly announced its promotion from Purple ranking to Red, allowing more businesses to open.

According to the staff report on the agenda item, the urgency ordinance authorizes a temporary prohibition on certain “at-fault” evictions of residential tenants in the county and continues a temporary prohibition on certain evictions of small-business commercial tenants in Contra Costa County impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Supervisors had previously approved similar temporary ordinances on April 21 and July 14 and voted unanimously to enact a new ordinance that would stay in effect through January 31, 2021.  On a separate vote, 4-1, supervisors rejected inserting additional protections to tenants that Supervisor John Gioia wanted to be included in the ordinance.

“I wanted broader protections,” said Supervisor Gioia of Richmond who cast the one dissenting vote.  “I wanted to limit evictions to health and safety.  There are landlords who don’t exercise good faith behavior.”

But Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, speaking on behalf of both landlords and tenants. wanted to monitor properties that have tenants who don’t put out trash for collection or keep unsafe rental property.

“I am willing to go through January 31, but I am tired of accommodating the bad actors. I won’t support an ordinance that bars landlords from entering property for any reason,” said Mitchoff.

At the same time, the supervisor from Pleasant Hill scolded landlords who do not accept a tenant’s payment for rent. “That is not OK,” she said.

While supervisors listened to a number of renters encouraging the supervisors to provide necessary protections during the ongoing pandemic, the elected officials for the first time heard more landlords loudly object to the residential and commercial ordinance under review.

“You’re taking away property owners’ rights,” Concord property owner Blaine Carter protested. “The sky is not falling.  We don’t need to strip away individual property owner rights.”

Concord homeowner Ed White said he could live with the ordinance.  “I work with my tenant,” said White, whose long-term tenant of his three-bedroom house, has been a good occupant even though the tenant had lost their job due to the pandemic.  The tenant has recently been reemployed and is back making monthly rental payments, White said.

“For someone who has been on both sides of this issue, I can support the proposed ordinance,” said District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover of Pittsburg, who is up for re-election Nov. 3 against Contra Costa County Assessor Gus Kramer.

“This is another way to get property into the hands of government,” said landlord Marilyn Blander.  The long-term economic effects will be terrible because government is a terrible way to provide housing.”

PLO Consent Decree for County Jail Inmates OK’d

In another action, supervisors unanimously approved an agreement with the Prison Law Office that will enhance psychiatric and medical services for inmates held at the Martinez Detention Facility and the West County Detention Facility in Richmond.  Four years in negotiations, the PLO-Contra Costa County consent decree will be in effect for five years.  The consent decree can be mutually ended.

It will cost the county $43.7 million a year to provide improved mental and medical care and pharmaceutical services to prisoners housed in the two county detention facilities.  Those costs reflect the addition of the eventual hiring of 125 fulltime Health Services Department employees and 63 fulltime equivalent Sheriff’s Department employees.

So far, the county has hired 42 fulltime equivalent Health Department and 41 fulltime Sheriff’s Department employees.

“This is a roadmap for positive change, one that moves the county forward in further improving the physical space and services provided” said Board Chair Candace Andersen.  “We want to stop those with mental illness from repeatedly cycling through our jails.  If we can provide them with much needed treatment while incarcerated and ensure that they have supportive services upon re-entry to the community, their lives will substantially improve.”

Prison Law Office Executive Director Donald Spector called and thanked the supervisors for approving the five-year consent decree.

 

County COVID-19 Ranking Expected to Improve to Red Next Week

County to Mail More than 700,000 Ballots for Nov. 3 Election

By Daniel Borsuk

For a county with five major petroleum refineries, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors took a major step in addressing climate change by adopting a three-page climate emergency declaration. 43116_BO_ADOPT Climate Emergency Resolution

About 30 people supported the resolution’s nine items dealing with the global environmental issue during the supervisors’ tele-conferenced Board meeting on Tuesday.  Supervisors also received a positive COVID-19 report from Contra Costa County Public Health Department officials and a report on the Nov. 3 California General and National Election from Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Deborah Cooper.

Upon adopting the climate change resolution, supervisors positioned the county in support of the State of California’s goals to cut greenhouse gases by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, achieve net carbon neutrality by 2045, and provide 100 percent of the State’s electricity from clean energy sources by 2045.

The Board’s action also forms an interdepartmental task force of all county department heads or senior deputies that will focus on “urgently implementing the County’s Climate Action Plan – as currently adopted ….and identifying additional actions, policies, and programs the county will undertakes to reduce and adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.  This task force should report to the Board of Supervisors through the County Sustainability Commission and the Board’s Sustainability Committee on a semi-annual basis starting in March 2021.  Reports to the Board of Supervisors shall be discussion items for the Board.”

The resolution states that “Contra Costa County should develop policies to require all new construction to be fully electric through the adoption of Reach Building Codes.”

“Contra Costa County will prioritize the implementation of its Climate Action Plan in order to achieve greenhouse gas reductions as soon as possible and will consider equity and social justice issues in the implementation of the plan,” the Board’s resolution states.

In addition, the resolution states: “that health, socio-economic, and racial equity considerations should be included in policymaking and climate solutions at all levels and across all sectors as the consequences of climate change have significant impacts on all County residents, especially the young, the elderly, low-income, or communities of color and other vulnerable populations.”

Initially it appeared Board Chair Candace Andersen, who says she drives a hybrid car, was leaning to cast a “no” vote on the resolution, but after listening to about 30 speakers mostly in support of the resolution, the  Danville-based Supervisor voted in support of the resolution.  The Supervisor said she had an issue about the urgency of the state shifting from a fossil fueled based economy to an electric powered based economy that would potentially be more energy efficient and less environmentally harmful.

Jackie Garcia, a Lafayette-based builder, asked Supervisors to pass the resolution because “People want energy-efficient houses. People don’t use gas stoves anymore.  They use energy efficient electric stoves.”

“This resolution requires immediate action,” said Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill who also serves on the commission of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. “I will support this resolution.”

Incoming Board Chair for 2021 Supervisor Diane Burgis of Brentwood, who said she has worked on environmental issues, especially related to water, said “I will support this resolution because it will directly affect our future way of life in Contra Costa County.”

Supervisor Federal Glover of Pittsburg, who was elected to serve as Vice Chair for 2021 by his colleagues provided he is reelected in November’s election against County Assessor Gus Kramer, said “This is a good first step. It gives people notice.”

In passing the resolution that more than 1,000 other California cities, counties and regional governmental agencies have done before Tuesday’s supervisors’ meeting, the Contra Costa resolution “declares a climate emergency that threatens the long-term economic and social well-being, health, safety,  and security of the County, and that urgent action by all levels of government is needed to immediately address this climate emergency.”

“Real Good News” on the COVID-19 Front

Contra Costa County Public Health Department Director Anna Roth informed supervisors there is “real good news” concerning COVID-19.  She expects the state to announce perhaps on Sept. 29 that the county’s COVID-19 status will be upgraded from purple to red.

The color change will mean the county will probably be allowed to open more businesses that have been shuttered since the public health shutdown order went into effect in March.

Roth expects some K-12 schools, as many as 35, could reopen for students with proper health protocols in place.  Roth said Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools Lynn Mackey will oversee the reopening of the schools.

Roth reported there have been 15,156 COVID-19 patients in the County since the outbreak of the flu in March.  There have been 202 deaths in the county since March.  In the past 24 hours there were 52 COVID-19 patients reported in the county hospital and no deaths have been reported, she said. “Our County death rate is less than the national average,” she said.

In a push to increase the number of people who are tested for COVID-19, Contra Costa County Public Health Officer Dr. Chris Farnitano said about 330,000 residents have been tested.  “That’s still not enough,” said Dr. Farnitano, who said the County will open a drive-up test site at the Bay Point Health Center in October.

Dr. Farnitano said the county will start to give free flu shots at the County’s Antioch, Concord, Richmond and San Ramon drive up sites. “Vaccination is important because it is difficult to tell the difference between the flu and COVID,” he said.

More Than 700,000 Ballots Expected for Nov. 2 Election

The Contra Costa County Office of Elections expects to mail more than 700,000 ballots to registered voters for the Nov. 3 election, up from 687,000 ballots mailed last November to registered voters, said Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters Deborah Cooper.

“We encourage people to stay safe and vote by mail,” said Cooper.  There will also be 37 ballot drop boxes around the County so voters can drop off ballots 24/7 from Oct. 5 through Nov. 3.  Official ballots will be mailed to voters on Oct. 5, but if a registered voter has not received a ballot by Oct.  19 they should contact the Elections Office, (925) 335-7800.

Provide additional protections, retroactive to Sept. 1

By John Fout, Community & Media Relations Specialist, Contra Costa County Office of Communications & Media

At their meeting on Tuesday, September 22, 2020, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an urgency ordinance that continues a moratorium on certain evictions for residential tenants in the County through January 31, 2021. Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-25 also continues a moratorium on certain residential rent increases through January 31, 2021. The Ordinance is retroactive to September 1, 2020.

Contra Costa County’s urgency ordinance provides additional protections to the state’s COVID-19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 (the Act), which passed and took effect immediately on August 31, 2020. The Act extends eviction protections for residential tenants experiencing financial hardship related to COVID-19.

“The urgency ordinance demonstrates the Board’s continued commitment to protect residents struggling with the unexpected economic hardship caused by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said Supervisor Candace Andersen, Board Chair. “We continue to seek ways to support renters and landlords, and hope that all parties will resolve to work together during this challenging time.”

This law applies to properties in all 19 cities in the County and in all unincorporated areas. To the extent that a city has adopted a law on the same subject matter, then the city’s provisions would apply in that city.

Protections granted to residential renters:

• Ban on No-Fault Evictions – A property owner cannot evict a residential tenant for any “no-fault” reason except to protect the health and safety of the owner or another tenant, to allow the owner or their immediate family to move into the residential unit or to remove the unit from the rental market.
• Prohibits a landlord from terminating a residential tenancy on the basis that a tenant allowed an unauthorized occupant to live in the dwelling unit, if the occupant is the tenant’s immediate family member living in the dwelling unit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Moratorium on Residential Rent Increases – A property owner may not increase rent on a residential property through January 31, 2021. State law prevents this freeze from applying to commercial tenancies and to certain residential properties, including residences built within the last 15 years and single family
• These prohibitions and the specified exceptions last through January 31, 2021.

Read the full document Ordinance No. 2020-25 (PDF). Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding this ordinance will be available and updated on the County website soon.

For information and resources, visit Contra Costa County at www.contracosta.ca.gov. For COVID-19 updates, visit Contra Costa Health Services at https://cchealth.org/coronavirus. If you have questions about the coronavirus, contact the multilingual Call Center at 1-844-729-8410, open daily from 8 am to 5 pm. For assistance after hours in multiple languages, please call 211 or 800-833-2900 or text HOPE to 20121.

Gioia makes his support conditional on reviewing county jail facilities for closure

Includes funding for the Sheriff’s Office to hire 24 deputies for mental health duties at  Martinez jail

By Daniel Borsuk

On the same day Contra Costa County taxpayers were pinched with a new $3.6 billion 2020-2021 fiscal year budget, supervisors also unanimously approved on Tuesday  a County Clerk-Recorder’s request to boost 2021 election ballot printing and mailing costs an additional $1.8 million to a new payment limit of $6 million.

“This is going to be the costliest election year that I have experienced in my 25 year -career,” Assistant Registrar of Voters Scott O. Konopasek said in reference to the upcoming Presidential election and how the county’s contract extension with K&H Printers-Lithographers, Inc. to print and mail ballots and election pamphlets will alarmingly rise again by $8 million for elections held in 2021.

Konopasek said Governor Gavin Newsom’s Emergency Order instructing California counties election officials to mail ballots to every registered voter for the November election means an additional 160,000 Contra Costa voters, or 25 percent of all registered voters, will receive ballots in the mail thereby driving up costs linked to printing and mailing.   That Emergency Order applies to any and all elections conducted in 2021.

 

While supervisors ignored the Registrar of Voters expense item, they unanimously approved the $3.6 billion 2020-2021 budget that garnered the support of all the supervisors, including Supervisor John Gioia of Richmond, who several weeks ago had said he would vote against the budget when it was ready for formal adoption.  He said he now supports the budget provided supervisors study the closure of the Marsh Creek detention facility, and to have a study conducted on the future of the Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility in Byron and Juvenile Hall in Martinez.

When Supervisor Karen Mitchoff of Pleasant Hill questioned Gioia why he switched his initial negative vote on the budget, Gioia responded, “I support the county budget as a whole that is over $3 billion and as long as these three issues – Marsh Creek, Orin Allen Youth Rehabilitation Facility and Juvenile Hall are studied and come back to the supervisors for consideration.”

County Administrator David Twa said supervisors can expect Covid-19 related costs to continue to increase over the next 12 to 24 months.  The county spent $131 million overall in Covid-19 connected expenses because it operates a hospital, health services for the homeless, provides Covid-19 testing and numerous other public health services.

Twa said operating costs will increase $28.4 million because of the newly opened County Administration Building and the Emergency Operations Center/Public Safety Building, both located in Martinez.

Supervisors provided funding for the Sheriff’s Office request to hire 24 deputies for the Martinez jail to handle mental health duties, a budget item that met public criticism especially in the summer aftermath of the George Floyd murder case.

Because of rising expenses, the county has placed on the November ballot a half-cent sales tax measure, Proposition X, that county officials counts on to generate new revenues, some $81 million a year for 20 years to fund hospitals, health centers, childhood services, and other community services.