Mike Barbanica is a lifelong resident of Antioch, a local small business owner and a retired police lieutenant. He is the kind of person who isn’t afraid to stand up to make the changes needed to GET ANTIOCH BACK ON TRACK. CLICK HERE to read Mike’s Five Ways to Get Antioch Back on Track.

The Antioch Police Officers’ Association highly recommends MIKE BARBANICA for election to the Antioch City Council in District 2. Will you join us?

Antioch Police Officers’ Association

“Barbanica, a real estate broker and retired police lieutenant, emphasizes curbing crime but appreciates that law enforcement transparency is important, starting with body cameras for all officers. He is not averse to more housing but emphasizes that controlling crime and attracting jobs must come first.

Tony Tiscareno lacked basic financial knowledge when he ran for reelection in 2018 after six years on the City Council. Last week, he said he was out of town and too busy for a video interview.”

EAST BAY TIMES EDITORIAL – September 26, 2020

 

Speaks of the need to “tear down” most of these systems of policing and “start over or maybe not start over, at all”.

Campaign slogan, “The Right Choice for Change” should instead read “The Far Left Choice for Change Antioch Doesn’t Want”

By Allen Payton, Publisher & Editor

As part of her platform in her campaign for the City Council in District 1, Tamisha Walker is proposing Antioch become a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, the first and only candidate to ever do so. She also proposes “Reimagining Public Safety”, which is code words for defunding and reallocating funds intended for more police to social programs, and ultimately abolishing policing. She also claims that Antioch Police are frightening to people, and that “There is so much disfunction, harm, trauma and toxicity in the relationship between police and people.”

Most of what Walker writes in her platform are general statements without specifics, leaving a lot of room for interpretation and for the voters to unfortunately wait to find out what’s in it until after she’s elected.

One specific she does offer is that she wants “to make sure we do not cooperate with agencies associated with separating families such as I.C.E.” Then she better not have the Antioch Police cooperate with the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s and Sheriff’s offices, because they separate even American families every day, since they don’t put the spouses or children in jail with the spouse or parents who commit crimes. Walker must not  realize that Antioch Police don’t and can’t do that, anyway since California became a SANCTUARY STATE and state law prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources on behalf of federal immigration enforcement agencies.

Frankly, reading her platform it appears she’s running in the wrong city or for the wrong office, and shows just how out of touch she is with regards to the issues facing our city and is a bunch of Leftist rhetoric that might sell in Berkeley, but not here.

She mentions nothing about the major issues affecting most everyone in Antioch, which are bringing well-paying jobs to our city, cleaning up blight, solving the homeless problem, and continuing to hire additional police, as we the people voted twice to do by increasing our sales tax, to fight and decrease crime in our city.

Nevertheless, here is Walker’s platform as it appears verbatim on her website with a variety of questions that arise from the various planks:

Invest in Antioch

“We are in an unprecedented moment unlike we have never faced before. I know how important fiscal responsibility is.

I have a proven track record of being able to analyze complex public government financing and organize a base of community supporters and academics to develop research and policies to identify and fix harmful and wasteful spending.

With the economy and restructuring of budgets I want to make sure our community is going to have a representative in Antioch City council that is going to make sure Antioch will not be forgotten but invested in.”

What does that mean? With what money? Invest how? Where has she been since she’s been out of jail and lived in Antioch to analyze the city’s budget and make recommendations? She could have been doing that every year during the council’s budget sessions. I don’t recall ever hearing her speak up and offer proposals for the city budget and how our tax dollars can be spent differently.

School

“School is different this year, I know as a parent I am concerned about my child’s education and balancing school amidst a pandemic has already proven to be challenging. I want to let you now that I want to be open and able to find collaborative solutions towards making sure everyone’s needs are met. I know this is going to take hard work and I am ready to take that on.”

Question: Does she not understand that the city council doesn’t oversee the school district and has very little to no impact on the education in Antioch? That’s for the AUSD school board. Walker’s running for the wrong office if she’s looking for solutions to the current education situation.

Sanctuary Antioch

“‘Know our Rights’

I want to work as hard as I can to make Antioch a Sanctuary City. I want to make sure we do not cooperate with agencies associated with separating families such as I.C.E. I believe our city and if elected as city councilmember I will make sure we take a stance on protecting families not separating them.”

Had she merely picked up the phone and called Antioch Police Chief T Brooks – which she has yet to do – Walker would have learned, as he said to the Herald, “We have not, nor will not assist any federal immigration enforcement efforts. SB54, which went into effect in 2018, makes clear our responsibilities with respect to these matters, significantly limiting our cooperation with federal immigration authorities. We cooperate with all our local, state and federal partners when responding to criminal cases, which is completely different than immigration enforcement.”

Candidates need to do their homework before proposing a plank in their platform that sounds good to some voters and tickles the ears of Antioch residents, but does nothing and will actually have no effect, such as with this issue.

Youth

“I believe that resourcing our youth is investing in our future. I want to make sure our city is doing what they can to make sure there are youth services and programs and resources so our youth have options and choices for their present and future. This is such an important strategy to violence prevention and curbing the school to prison pipeline. I have experience doing it when my family lived in Richmond and I want to do it here in Antioch for generations.”

So, she wants Antioch to become like Richmond, huh?. Didn’t many of our residents move from that city and come here because they didn’t like it there? This is also code for her opposition to School Resource Officers – police on Antioch campuses, that were approved earlier this year by both the city council and school board.

Housing

“I want Antioch to be a place anybody can make a home. I know we are in a double crisis for renters and homeowners. I believe the solution is going to come with immense collaboration with people from all levels to coordinate aid from the federal government and the state. As your representative I want to make sure all of our voices and concerns are being heard and do everything with the City Councilmember’s power to leverage solutions that are inclusive for everyone.”

Who can’t “make a home” in Antioch? Who isn’t welcome, here? This is code that she wants more low- to moderate-income, government subsidized housing in town even though Antioch has met its state requirements for years to come and already has more than its fair share. Where was she when the recent apartment complex on Delta Fair Blvd. was voted on by the council. Did she speak out in favor of that market-rate, multi-family housing project?

Covid-19

“As we continue toward a possibility of 2021, Covid -19 is still a responsibility that requires us to make sure we are active and ready to respond in ways that preserve life.”

What does that even mean? It’s so general that it says nothing. Besides, the City really doesn’t have anything to do with COVID-19 as it’s a County Health Services issue.

Environment

“I do not want to make Antioch an environmental sacrifice zone. We all deserve clean healthy air, water, land and that sense of safety and sustainability. I want to be a good steward of the environment. That makes sure preserving our natural resources and ensuring our investment goes towards communities that have been underserved and underrepresented.”

What does that mean? Does she oppose bringing industrial and manufacturing jobs to Antioch? Does she oppose more housing development? What “investment” is she referring to and what “communities that have been underserved and underrepresented”? We have had Hispanic and African American elected officials on our city council and school board for years. What “communities” haven’t been represented in Antioch?

Reimagining Public Safety

“Too often our communities’ stories and experiences are not heard on mainstream television. Safety means feeling safe, not under threat and terror. There is so much disfunction, harm, trauma and toxicity in the relationship between police and people that the only sensible conclusion is to re-imagine this relationship with the value of feeling truly safe in our communities. This has been a big part of my life’s work to re-imagine public safety. With several communities undergoing this right now, I believe my combination of experience, compassion and hard work can help Antioch make the right choices and become a leader in transforming our community.”

What city is she referring to? It sounds like Walker is projecting the problems in other cities onto Antioch. How is there “so much disfunction, harm, trauma, and toxicity in the relationship between people and police” in Antioch? Maybe there’s harm and trauma for those who are committing crimes, as should be expected. Perhaps that’s her perspective if that’s with whom Walker spends much of her time.

It’s interesting she doesn’t want Antioch residents to actually enjoy safety, only that we are feeling safe “in our communities”. Why the use of the plural? What communities? She should be focused on the Antioch community. Or is she saying Antioch is made up of multiple communities, thus serving to divide us.

The most radical thing she mentioned about police was during an interview on EastCountyToday.net when Walker said, “I definitely have my ideas around, you know abolition and you know the root of all of these systems and how most of them we need to tear down and start over or maybe not start over at all.” That right there is reason enough to reject her candidacy.

But, Walker needs to be much more specific as to what she does and doesn’t like that the current council member she’s running against, Joy Motts, has done and what she would do differently.

Except for a few things like abolishing police and unnecessarily making Antioch a sanctuary city, all of Walker’s general statements in her so-called platform have no real meaning. It’s like when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said about Obamacare, “we need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.” Antioch can’t take the risk to find out what are the details in Walker’s platform until after she’s elected. She should tell the voters, now. But, frankly, there’s enough there, already to reject her radical, Leftist agenda and not vote for her for city council in District 1.

While I applaud her work as co-founder and executive director of the Safe Return Project which has the goal of helping those coming out of prison to get jobs, etc., Walker should remain focused on that, instead and leave the governing of Antioch to people with more common sense views and values.

The following email was sent to Antioch residents on Monday from the Antioch Police Officers Association regarding their endorsement of Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock for re-election.

1. Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock helped locate funding to approve 20+ new police officers to deal with crime in our neighborhoods. Nichole Gardner was on Facebook supporting an effort to FIRE ALL POLICE OFFICERS, which would be devastating to our community.
2. Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock is working to disband homeless encampments and opposes Lamar Thorpe’s plan to permanently house the homeless in an Antioch motel. Nichole Gardner is leading the effort to bring more homeless into Antioch and is supporting Lamar Thorpe’s plan to house homeless in a motel close to homes and 1/4 mile from 4 schools.
3. Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock voted to accept a Department of Justice grant of $750,000 to bring School Resource Officers back into 6 of our Antioch schools. Nichole Gardner officially opposed this proposal.

As the police officers whose job it is to protect our community, we need leaders who will work hard to lower crime in Antioch – not make it worse than it is. That leader, we believe, is Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock. Please join us in voting for her on or before November 3rd. Thank you.

Antioch Police Officers’ Association

P.S. Please CLICK HERE to learn more about Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock.

Unnecessary fourth vote by the people could have at the most only stopped 877 homes remaining to be approved; would have downzoned private property by over 97%, from 2 homes per acre down to 1 home per 80 acres – unfair, unAmerican, and an “illegal taking” of land

By Allen Payton

Antioch residents have the opportunity to vote on Measure T on the November ballot because a judge told the Antioch City Council they had to place it there. But, since that ruling, Gov. Newsom signed into law SB330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

According to the Legislative Counsel’s Digest, “This bill, until January 1, 2025, with respect to land where housing is an allowable use, except as specified, would prohibit a county or city, including the electorate exercising its local initiative or referendum power, in which specified conditions exist, determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development as provided, from enacting a development policy, standard, or condition, as defined, that would have the effect of (A) changing the land use designation or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan or specific plan land use designation and zoning ordinances of the county or city as in effect on January 1, 2018.”

What that means is even if Measure T passes, it will have no effect on the remaining four parcels of land on the west side of Deer Valley Road in the Sand Creek Area that have had a 2-home per acre zoning designation since the 1980’s and officially since 2005.

So, why is Measure T on the ballot?

Because in early 2018 out-of-town environmentalists with a few Antioch residents who supported their efforts, pushed forward the Let Antioch Voters Decide: The Sand Creek Protection Initiative. They were trying to stop about 2,000 homes by moving in the city’s Urban Limit Line and downzoning all the property west of Deer Valley Road to just one home per 80 acres – a 97.4% decrease in housing units and devaluation of property.

But the proponents lied to Antioch residents to get them to sign the petitions telling them they could stop 8,000 homes. Yet, they knew that only 4,000 homes were allowed in the Sand Creek Area since the city council voted for that amount in the City’s General Plan in 2005.

The fact is by 2018, 1,174 homes had already been approved on the east side of Deer Valley Road. Plus, another 350 are planned on the eastern edge of the area, 121 homes planned north of Kaiser, and 301 senior homes are planned in a gated community in the hills south of Kaiser, for a total of 1,946 homes. That left only 2,054 homes that the initiative might have been able to stop – because it only affects the west side of Deer Valley Road.

Richland Development, the proponents of The Ranch project with its 1,177 homes on the west side of Deer Valley Road, launched their own initiative to get the voters to approve their project, but also threw their neighboring four properties under the bus downzoning them to one home per 80 acres, as well. Although they gathered enough signatures and the council adopted their initiative in 2018, a judge threw it out. Instead, in June of this year, the city council voted unanimously to approve The Ranch project and the environmentalists did not oppose it. In fact, they praised the project for protecting hillsides and the 250-foot setbacks to Sand Creek. (See related article)

So, that leaves only 877 homes that can still be approved in the Sand Creek area. Not 8,000 or even 4,000.

History of New Homes Planned for the Sand Creek Area

The bottom line is homes have been planned for the Sand Creek Area since the 1980’s when the city council and staff started drawing up plans and communicating with the landowners. Then we the people voted – three times, telling the landowners homes could be built on their property. Developers started making option payments on some of the land as early as 1989.

Beginning in the mid-1990’s 8,950 homes were planned in the Sand Creek Area, then known as Future Urban Area 1 (FUA-1) and 700 homes were proposed for the Roddy Ranch development for a total of 9,650 homes. But that number was reduced to 4,700 homes total by the City Council in 2003.

1990 – First Vote of the People Allowing New Homes in Sand Creek Area

Yet, what they call open space has actually been owned by developers for 20 or more years, since we the people of the county voted in 1990 for an Urban Limit Line and placed it along the ridgeline on the south side of the former Roddy Ranch Golf Club. That vote cut off 65% of the land in the county from subdivision development. The Sand Creek area land is inside the other 35% of the land where it’s allowed.

2005 – Second Vote of the People Allowing New Homes in Sand Creek Area

Then after the Board of Supervisors moved the ULL in and cut out the Roddy Ranch property, in 2005, we the people of Antioch voted to move the ULL back out and establishing Antioch’s own ULL. Known as Measure K, it passed by almost 60% of Antioch voters.

2007 – Third Vote of the People Allowing New Homes in Sand Creek Area

Then in 2007, the county had another vote on the Urban Limit Line to confirm its location. The line remained in the same place. So, once again we the people voted to allow new home construction in the Sand Creek area.

Land is Owned by Developers, It’s Not Open Space

That’s why for over 20 years the land in the Sand Creek Area has been owned by developers, waiting for the right time in the market to get their projects approved and build their voter allowed new home subdivisions.

But they missed the market, twice and faced the 2008 economic downturn. Yet, in the meantime, Highway 4 was widened through Antioch, the Highway 4 bypass/extension was built to Balfour Road in Brentwood and BART opened in our city. All the internal major streets in Antioch and highways were designed with 12,000 homes planned for the Sand Creek Area and south. Yet now that the Roddy Ranch is permanent open space, so those 700 homes planned for half-acre lots inside a gated community on 900 acres inside the ULL, will not be built.

11th Hour Effort to Stop the Sand Creek Area Homes

Then, just as three of the remaining five property owners were ready to move forward with their plans for final approval by the City Council, the environmentalists tried to stop them with their initiative. Worse, even though the Zeka Ranch was ready to submit plans in 2017, they were advised by City staff to hold off until The Ranch project on the east side of the old Empire Mine Road submitted their plans, so they could coordinate on road alignments. So, The Zeka Group held off. In the meantime, the two initiatives moved forward, and both gathered enough signatures to be placed on the ballot. Instead the five members of the City Council chose to adopt both initiatives instead of placing them on the ballot.

Why Can Brentwood Have Nice Homes & Gated Communities, But Not Antioch?

They didn’t stop the nice, upscale, senior and gated communities, and even million-dollar homes from being built in Brentwood. But they don’t want Antioch to have them? Why not? People who live in Antioch want to live here, move up to a nicer home, or to a senior community and not have to move out of town, like some of our former city leaders have actually done – to Brentwood.

Plus, the homes in the Sand Creek Area on the west side of Deer Valley Road won’t be built for five to 10 years, because the sewer line has to be extended from the east end of the valley. Also, all the homes will pay the regional traffic impact fee of $15,000 each, and a new, annual police funding assessment, yet they won’t have the impact on crime and police services as other parts of Antioch. That’s just a fact.

The best part is that the types of homes planned for the Zeka Ranch project will attract business owners and executives to Antioch to bring their companies and jobs to the 200-acre area near Laurel Road, that the city council I was a part of set aside in 1998 for employment and commercial uses.

Here’s What’s Really Been Going On

The environmentalists and the East Bay Regional Park District lust for the Zeka Ranch and its 640 acres adjacent to the Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. Although they could build 1,280 homes on the property based on the two homes per acre zoning designation, The Zeka Group, owner of the Zeka Ranch, originally planned about 1,100 homes. The park district threatened to sue the City of Antioch if they allowed that, so Zeka chose to be a good neighbor and reduce their total to 750 homes. But that wasn’t good enough. Park district representatives drew an arbitrary line on Zeka’s property and said they could build homes in that area. (See map top). The Zeka Group, led by Antioch homeowner Louisa Zee Kao, chose not to fight and scaled down her project again, this time to just 337 units on 200 of her 640 acres. Yet, that’s still too many for the environmentalists and what they’ve written into Measure T which would downzone the property to just eight homes, total! Why? So, the park district can buy it for pennies on the dollar. That’s what the environmentalists tried to do a few years ago by asking The Zeka Group to sell their land at a deep discount to another developer to be used as open space, at a price much lower than the $30 million they’ve spent to purchase it, as well as the costs for creating the plans and going through the city approval process.

Taking of Land

That’s what is called an illegal taking of land. That’s why The Zeka Group won in court twice and both The Ranch initiative and the environmentalists’ Sand Creek initiative were thrown out in 2019. The judge said the council couldn’t adopt The Ranch initiative the way it was written. He also said the Let Antioch Voters Decide initiative, (which is ironic, since the environmentalists got the five council members to decide by adopting it in 2018, circumventing the voters) had to be placed on this November’s ballot. (See related articles, here and here)

SB330 Makes Moot Measure T

But the initiative is moot – has no meaning and will have no impact – due to the language in SB330. Even if Measure T could go into effect, it’s just wrong, unfair and frankly unAmerican. How would you like it if you followed the rules, bought some property, spent money on plans within the limits allowed and just as you’re ready to get your approval to build, the rules are changed on you and now your property is worth 2.5% of what you paid for it? I doubt you would like it or think it’s fair. But, that’s what Measure T is attempting to do to four property owners in Antioch.

Fortunately, that can’t happen and the Yes on T campaign is really a waste of time and their supporters’ funds. Yet the environmentalists are still trying to deceive the voters of Antioch hoping that you’ll vote for Measure T to send a message to future council members to not approve the remaining 877 homes. However, if a future council votes against the Zeka Ranch project or any others on the remaining parcels in the next five years, the City will be on the hook for having to purchase the land at the fair market. That could cost Antioch taxpayers millions of dollars. So, save our tax dollars, don’t take their land, and vote No on Measure T. To learn more, visit the No on Measure T page on this website.

In an email on Sunday, the Antioch Police Officers Association sent out the following message to Antioch residents:

Voters may have received a mailer from Mayor candidate Lamar Thorpe claiming he is for greater law enforcement efforts in Antioch. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

There is a reason the Antioch Police Officers’ Association has endorsed the re-election of Mayor Sean Wright and NOT Lamar Thorpe. Mr. Thorpe’s vision for the future of Antioch will INCREASE CRIME, increase our HOMELESS POPULATION and lead to further blight in our City. Here’s what we know:

Lamar Thorpe is the leader in the effort to DEFUND the Antioch Police, which would be devastating to our effort to fight crime in our community.

Lamar Thorpe initiated the proposal to turn the Executive Inn Motel on E. 18th and Cavallo into permanent housing for the homeless. This motel is 1/4 mile from 4 Antioch Schools and the Antioch Youth Sports Complex. We think this will only attract more crime to this vulnerable area.

Lamar Thorpe voted against accepting a Department of Justice yearly grant of $750,000 to return School Resource Officers to 6 Antioch schools where we need them most.

In contrast, Mayor Sean Wright has added 20+ new police officers (we’re now at 118) to the Antioch Police Department. He opposes Lamar Thorpe’s homeless motel and voted to accept the grant to further protect our students.

What happens this election is extremely important for the future of Antioch. Please join us in supporting Mayor Sean Wright’s re-election. Thank you.

Antioch Police Officers’ Association

Dear Editor,

I have followed the Antioch City Council for years (and I am certainly no stranger to the public comment podium). Experience teaches that the important issues facing our city are surprisingly complicated. Success requires being open minded, communication, intelligent decision making, and experience seeking solutions that are right for Antioch. Taking into account these vital qualities, and in light of the challenges facing our city, I am certain that the right person for Mayor of Antioch continues to be Sean Wright.

Sean Wright’s only political ambition is to be Antioch’s mayor; he is not using our city as a steppingstone for future political aspirations. In other words, he puts Antioch’s interests first. Mayor Wright is not beholden to any political party bosses, hence we need not worry about our city becoming a hobby horse for outside interests that will force Antioch down failed paths and someone else’s agenda. I have always been impressed with Mayor Wright’s in-depth knowledge of the issues, no doubt the product of his ability reach out and listen to people. His livelihood is here in Antioch, his children attend Antioch public schools, active in the Chamber of Commerce – these are just a few examples of how Sean Wright is deeply rooted in Antioch and committed to its success.

Especially important in these difficult times is that Sean Wright is transparent. There are no hidden agendas, no backroom deals, no maneuvering to pack the City Council with allies or employees, and no smear campaigns promulgating lies. Such antics will only serve to divide our city and call into question the motivations of their perpetrators.

I am voting to re-elect Sean Wright as Mayor of Antioch. With all sincerity I ask that you vote for him too. I guess you could say, “I like Wright.”

With Kind Regards,

Dr. Jeffrey Klingler

Antioch Resident (22 years)

Dear Editor:

The following letter was sent to our mayor and councilmembers in time for their next meeting, Tuesday night.

Mayor and Councilmembers:

In an effort to support and assist our restaurant owners in Antioch, I am proposing the City Council immediately adopt an emergency ordinance to support our small business restauranteurs.  How?

I am proposing that the City limit the amount that third party food delivery companies can charge our restaurants to 15% of the sales amounts.  Currently, food delivery services can charge as much as 30% to provide this service to people ordering from our restaurants.  This temporary measure will help support our local restaurants, cost the City zero to adopt and implement and help during this pandemic time as some people continue to order food delivered to them, instead of venturing out for pick up.

Large conglomerate restaurants can usually negotiate a smaller delivery charge, but our local business owners are at the mercy of the delivery firms, and their high charges.  Our local small restaurants are often dealing with a 20% to 30% charge

Longevity for this ordinance?  Why not have the ordinance terminate when the City Council and County lifts emergency orders related to the pandemic.  Restoration of normalcy seems vague at this point, and the ordinance to support our restaurants should not terminate prematurely.

This is a quick way to support our restaurants in Antioch.  As we approach the fall and winter, we need to be proactive in supporting our business community.  I am available to share my research with you, and expect our City leaders to be responsive in helping our small businesses, restaurants in particular.

Manny Soliz, Jr.

Former Mayor Pro Tem and Councilmember

Current candidate Antioch City Council District 1

P.S. I also support waiving late fees on Antioch business licenses, this year to help all businesses in our city.

 

Dear Editor:

How about you do a long story or set of stories and publish the salaries of the Antioch Unified 2,700+ employees collecting outrageous pay amounts while the children in the district are getting sub-par or no services. It’s all on TransparentCalifornia.com. The district has contractors “providing services” for special needs children through “distance learning”. Services for mentally handicapped children through a computer screen. Children that cannot talk and do not have fine motor skills to operate the computer.

Yet, these same contractors also work for doctor’s offices and provide in-person services through medical insurance. The kicker is medical insurance won’t pay for these services after three years old because the public schools are required under federal laws to provide it free. But they’re not providing it either, as Sec. 504 of the ADA requires.

https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2019/school-districts/contra-costa/antioch-unified/?page=1&s=-gross

Thomas Giles

Antioch