Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

State taxpayers association warns of two tax impacting bills in CA legislature

Monday, August 21st, 2023

Urges voters, taxpayers to call the Capitol to protect Prop 13, see committee members phone numbers below

ACA 1 would make it easier to raise local special taxes by removing the Prop. 13 taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass

ACA 13 was just introduced last week as a devious attempt to stop the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from passing when it’s on the ballot in Nov. 2024.

By Jon Coupal

Prior to the successful passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, Howard Jarvis tried several times to bring property tax relief to beleaguered California homeowners. While coming close, it wasn’t until 1978 when voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 13 over the opposition of virtually every political institution and newspaper in California.

As they say, timing is everything. What changed the political dynamic so abruptly in 1978 was the fact that thousands of California homeowners were being taxed out of their homes. That also explains why, to this day, Proposition 13 retains its popularity even as the state has become more “progressive.”

Last week there were two competing press events over Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1 (ACA 1), a proposal that would erase part of Proposition 13. As the head of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, I was joined at a news conference on the Capitol’s west steps on Wednesday by several legislators who have unequivocally expressed their continued support for Proposition 13 and opposition to ACA 1. Also present were several representatives of other taxpayer groups as well as business organizations suffering under California’s excessive tax burdens.

ACA 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 because it would cut the vote threshold needed to pass local special taxes, dropping it from the current two-thirds vote required by Proposition 13 to only 55%. That change would make it easier for local governments to raise taxes.

Since Proposition 13 was enacted in 1978, voters have continued to support the important two-thirds vote protection. That support was reaffirmed with the passage of pro-taxpayer initiatives in 1986, 1996 and 2010.

Many people may not know that the two-thirds vote requirement did not originate in 1978. It has been in the California Constitution since 1879! For more than a century, local property owners have been protected against excessive bond debt by the requirement that local bonds – repaid only by property owners – need a two-thirds vote of the local electorate.

ACA 1 repeals the two-thirds vote protection for tax increases to support “infrastructure,” a term so expansive that local governments would be able to raise taxes for almost any purpose with a vote of just 55% of the electorate. This is a hatchet that chops away at the taxpayer protections in Proposition 13.

ACA 1 proponents are aware of Prop. 13’s enduring popularity, so not once in their over one-hour press event did they mention Proposition 13 by name. Instead, they talked about “protecting democracy,” “local control,” and taking on “right-wing interests.” (Are Californians “right wing” for wanting to keep their home instead of being taxed out of it?) Nor did the supporters of ACA 1 provide any specific example of exactly what lowering the two-thirds vote would purchase, other than to claim that it was essential to address California’s dual crises of housing and homelessness.

Opponents of ACA 1 have noted that making it easier to raise taxes makes no sense in one of the highest taxed states in America. No other state comes close to California’s 13.3% top marginal income tax rate, and we also have the highest state sales tax in America as well as the highest gas tax, not to mention gas prices. And even with Prop. 13, we rank 14th out of 50 states in per capita property tax collections. Californians pay enough.

This is a critical time. As of this writing, ACA 1 has cleared one legislative committee and may be heard by the full Assembly as early as this week. However, its main proponent, Assemblymember Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, admitted at her press conference that she didn’t quite have the votes yet. For that reason, the time is now for all defenders of Proposition 13 and advocates for limited taxation to contact their Assembly representatives and let them know that a vote for ACA 1 is a vote against Proposition 13.

This issue is so important to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association that we will withhold our endorsement from any current legislator who fails to vote no on ACA 1.

Committee Hearings this Week, Taxpayers Urged to Call the Capitol

Your immediate help is needed to fight against two proposed constitutional amendments moving fast through the state Assembly. Both of these measures are attacks on PROPOSITION 13. We’re asking all HJTA members and supporters to please call the members of two committees that will be hearing these bills on Wednesday. Please call as soon as possible! Here’s all the information:

NO on ACA 1 – Hearing date: Wednesday, 8/23, Assembly Appropriations Committee

ACA 1 is a direct attack on Proposition 13 that would remove the taxpayer protection of the two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local special taxes. If this measure is enacted, local taxes and bonds for “infrastructure” (nearly everything) and public housing projects would pass with just 55% of the vote instead of 66.67%. This makes it easier to raise taxes, and your taxes could go up after every election.
Please call the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and urge a NO vote on ACA 1:

Chris Holden (Chair) – (916) 319-2041
Megan Dahle (Vice Chair) – (916) 319-2001
Isaac Bryan – (916) 319-2055
Lisa Calderon – (916) 319-2056
Wendy Carrillo – (916) 319-2052
Diane Dixon – (916) 319-2072 (Please thank Assemblywoman Dixon for opposing ACA 1)
Mike Fong – (916) 319-2049
Gregg Hart – (916) 319-2037
Josh Lowenthal – (916) 319-2069
Devon Mathis – (916) 319-2033 (Please thank Assemblyman Mathis for opposing ACA 1)
Diane Papan – (916) 319-2021
Gail Pellerin – (916) 319-2028
Kate A. Sanchez – (916) 319-2071
Esmeralda Soria – (916) 319-2027
Akilah Weber, M.D. – (916) 319-2079
Lori Wilson – (916) 319-2011 – Represents portions of Eastern Contra Costa County

NO on ACA13 – Hearing date: Wednesday, 8/23, Assembly Elections Committee

ACA 13 was just introduced last week as a devious attempt to stop the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act from passing when it’s on the ballot in November 2024. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act is our initiative constitutional amendment that will restore the Proposition 13 protections that have been eroded by the courts. 

Some of the measure’s key provisions include:

  • Require all new taxes passed by the Legislature to be approved by voters
  • Restore two-thirds voter approval for all new local special tax increases
  • Clearly define what is a tax or fee
  • Require truthful descriptions of new tax proposals
  • Hold politicians accountable by requiring them to clearly identify how revenue will be spent before any tax or fee is enacted

But ACA 13 would create special rules that make it harder to pass citizen initiatives like this one. If ACA 13 is enacted, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would require a two-thirds vote to pass, instead of the simple majority vote that has been required for all other constitutional amendments since 1849!

Please call the members of the Assembly Elections Committee and urge a NO vote on ACA 13:

Gail Pellerin (Chair) – (916) 319-2028
Tom Lackey (Vice Chair) – (916) 319-2034
Steve Bennett – (916) 319-2038
Bill Essayli – (916) 319-2063
Alex Lee – (916) 319-2024
Evan Low – (916) 319-2026
Blanca Rubio – (916) 319-2048

Please also call your own state representatives and urge them to vote NO on ACA 1 and NO on ACA 13. You can look up their names and contact information at findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov.

Thank you for your help in this critical fight to protect Proposition 13. We greatly appreciate you!
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

Op-Ed: Illinois joins California in offering law enforcement jobs to noncitizens

Tuesday, August 15th, 2023

By Joe Guzzardi

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker caught up with California Gov. Gavin Newsom to see which of the Democratic leaders that oversee sanctuary states can do the most to accommodate their immigrant community at citizens’ expense.

Prior to Jan. 1, 2023, candidates for California police officers’ jobs were required to be either citizens or permanent residents to qualify. But a law Newsom signed, Senate Bill 960, opened law enforcement positions up to any California resident who possesses either a green card or a valid visa. The new law took effect January 1, 2023.

In July 2023, Pritzker signed HB3751, a bill similar to California’s, that will allow individuals who are legally authorized to work in the United States to apply for the position of police officer, deputy sheriff or special policeman, subject to satisfying that job’s specified requirements. Illinois’ applicant pool would, like California’s, include deferred action for childhood arrival recipients (DACAs), lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and temporary protected status (TPS) holders.

Illinois has more than 35,000 DACAs and about 30,000 LPRs. By-state statistics on TPS are unavailable, but because that program has expanded dramatically since President Biden’s inauguration, it represents a significant total. Currently, 15 nations have been granted TPS, and if history is a guide, their status will never be revoked. Instead, the TPS designees’ list will grow longer. Pritzker’s folly will begin January 1, 2024.

Founded in 1915, the Illinois-based Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers, strongly objected to HB3751. The group noted that police officers’ main function is to enforce the law and to ensure that people in their jurisdictions abide by all applicable laws. The union promised that it will “welcome these potential police recruits with open arms once their citizenship status is solidified, and look forward to the unique perspective they can bring to our profession.”

But the FOP asked what message does the legislation send when noncitizens become enforcers of our laws? “This is a potential crisis of confidence in law enforcement at a time when our officers need all of the public confidence they can get.” Making an important point that the FOP overlooked, Republican Illinois State Sen. Chapin Rose added: “It would be a ‘fundamental breach’ of democracy to allow noncitizens to arrest American citizens.”

Pritzker, in a half-truth-filled defense of his controversial legislation, said that about 20 years ago, post-9/11, Chicago and Illinois went on a hiring spree to safeguard against terrorist attacks. Those officers are now eligible for retirement and are leaving the force. Although Chicago’s crime rates are trending down this summer, they remain dangerously high. During a recent weekend, six people were shot and killed, and 27 others were wounded by gunfire, including innocent pedestrians.

Chicago’s police are increasingly frustrated by former Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s illogical limitations on their ability to carry out their duties. For example, officers can’t give chase to fleeing criminals because they’re suspected of having committed minor offenses. Under new Mayor Brandon Johnson, the road ahead for cops may be even rockier. Johnson promised during his campaign to eliminate Chicago’s gang database, a vital tool, and to redirect police funding to social services agencies. Johnson avoided using the phrase “defund the police,” but the end result will be the same. He also recently called events tantamount to riots just “large gatherings .”

If Newsom, Pritzker and Chicago’s administrators governed with more commonsense and less WOKENESS, Illinois and California wouldn’t have driven so many citizens out of those well-paid police jobs that include generous benefits packages. Often noncitizens’ backgrounds are murky; perhaps their ties to their homeland governments will outweigh their fealty to the U.S. If so, the bill put forth by Newsom and Pritzker will create long-term security risks.

Joe Guzzardi is a Project for Immigration Reform analyst. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org.

Letters: Former councilwoman blasts Antioch Councilmembers, resident for taking swipes at other public speakers

Wednesday, August 9th, 2023
Antioch Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker and Mayor Lamar Thorpe respond to public criticism during the council meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 8, 2023. Video screenshots

“you do not have a right to admonish people publicly and where they cannot respond.” – Joy Motts

Editor’s Note: At the Antioch City Council meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 8, 2023, comments were made by Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker during the City Council Committee Reports and Communications portion and by Mayor Lamar Thorpe during his Mayor’s Comments, responding to public criticism, and by a resident, directed toward another public speaker. In response, former Antioch Councilwoman Joy Motts, a Rivertown resident and president of Celebrate Antioch Foundation sent the following email to the five council members Tuesday night. It was shared with the Herald, Wednesday afternoon. (For context, see the 1:35:10, 2:16:15 and 2:48:45 marks of the council meeting video)

Mayor and Council,

It was clear tonight, that some on Council are not aware that City Council meetings are held in public not for your benefit, but because these meetings are the business of the people. Whether you like what the people of your city have to say or not, they have every right to communicate to you, their feelings. And to admonish them publicly for expressing their views is to undermine their 1st Amendment rights and discourage residents to participate in our government.

And to say that prior Councils were not blamed or admonished by residents for Antioch’s current problems at that time is absurd. From the minute I was on Council I felt like everything that went wrong, the last 50 years was my fault. And the community let me know and all of us know. It was hard and it’s not easy to take but as a representative of all the residents of Antioch, it is your job.

And what is even worse is you have taught some that support you to bully and embarrass those that don’t agree with them. Andrew Becker should be admonished. He is a bully, how dare anyone disagree with him. He has no right to disparage residents that come to speak their mind at the people’s meetings! You have allowed that. This is not good or fair governance. You have become so accustomed to this behavior that I do not even think you realize it or maybe you like it this way.

You speak of unity, but you are actively discouraging this community to participate unless they agree with you. This never happened when I was on Council or prior councils. Lamar, we sat there and took it, and respected people’s rights. You have the ability to communicate your feelings on your personal pages, or Op Ed’s, or websites but you do not have a right to admonish people publicly and where they cannot respond.

I do not know why anyone who disagrees with a policy, or has a grave concern, or has an idea other than yours would attend a council meeting. And from what I have seen tonight no one will. There were people that came that wanted to speak tonight… but they left. Who would want to suffer the consequences of speaking up? A tragedy for Antioch.

Joy Motts

Antioch

Payton Perspective: We need innocent Antioch Police officers in text scandal back to work

Sunday, July 9th, 2023

Those who merely received the offensive texts need to be protecting us; DA must release all pages of texts

By Allen D. Payton

It’s time the Antioch Police officers caught up in the scandal of racist and other offensive texts who merely received but didn’t send any of the texts got back to work. With 35 sworn officers currently on paid administrative leave in both the FBI and DA investigation from last year and those included in the text scandal this year, that’s more than one-third of the current officers on the force.  The understaffing is putting us all at risk. In addition, for the purpose of transparency, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office needs to release all pages of the texts so the public can read what was sent and the context.

As of June 12th, there were 98 sworn officers on staff with the department out of 115 authorized in the budget, and 49 on full duty. That’s 0.43 officers per 1,000 on duty. The goal has been 1.2 officers per 1,000 for the past 25 years, which has never been achieved. Minimally we should have 1.0 officers per 1,000 population.

The officers in the text scandal have been on leave for about three months and the investigation has been under way for almost two months – leaving our community less protected and less safe.

Those officers who didn’t send any of the offensive texts, but merely received them and didn’t respond – which is most of them – should have been interviewed, first during the investigation. Unless other information has been discovered during the process, those officers need to be cleared and put back to work protecting Antioch residents and businesses.

For example, as previously reported, on Independence Day, Tuesday, July 4th it took officers an hour to respond to a dangerous sideshow at the intersection of Lone Tree Way and Blue Rock Drive/Golf Course Road because those on duty were dealing with two shootings on the other side of town. In addition, according to a Con Fire spokesman, an ambulance transporting someone to a local hospital had to be diverted around the sideshow. Fortunately, it didn’t have an impact on the patient. But minutes can make a difference in saving someone’s life.

All 35 officers should not be fired, as Mayor Lamar Thorpe twice wrote should happen immediately, first on May 19 then again on June  12, Mayor Pro Tem Tamisha Torres-Walker wrote on May 18 and other members of the public have called for. That’s irresponsible and dangerous for our city with a population of over 115,000 residents. Besides, the council members have no say in which officer will or won’t be fired and it’s out of their area of responsibility to call for such a thing, and merely pandering to the public and grandstanding. Frankly, the council members’ calls for the termination of all officers involved could serve to undermine the effort to terminate some of the officers and give them a legal argument that it was done due to political pressure.

The councilmembers know or at least should know better, and that the City must follow the Skelly Hearing disciplinary process and the investigation must be done in accordance with the California Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.

As the East Bay Times’ Editorial Board wrote, “they are entitled to due process. Not all of them have equal culpability. And if their rights are not respected, the city risks undermining the ongoing criminal and internal affairs investigations into their behavior, which would set back the quest for racial justice. Which is why City Council members, especially Mayor Lamar Thorpe, need to step back and let investigators do their work — and stop making politically charged comments that could jeopardize the outcome.”

As I wrote in April, those in APD leadership who received the texts, as a form of discipline for not paying attention to what the officers they were in charge of were doing, need to be demoted. But they should still be put back to work, also.

The focus of the council, police department and investigators must be two-fold: one, terminating and/or disciplining the guilty officers, and two, keeping Antioch safe.

DA Must Release All Pages of Texts

It’s also time the DA’s office released all the pages of the texts to clear up the claims that the the two reports by the D.A. Office’s Inspector Wallace were “misleading and distorted” according to the APOA’s attorney, and the texts included were cherry picked and edited, so the public can see the context in which they were all written. (See related articles here and here)

One text message specifically in question is the following: On 04/24/2020, at 5:49 p.m., APD Sgt. Josh Evans text APD Officer Amiri, “I’ll bury that n****r in my fields.” APD Officer Amiri laughed at the above comment.

A Public Records Act request by this news organization was made on April 27 and denied on May 2.

Deputy District Attorney Sophea Nop denied the request claiming “these records are exempt from disclosure under the California Public Records Act pursuant to GC (Government Code) §7923.6000(a) and §7927.705.”

According to law.justia.com, the first section referenced “does not require the disclosure of records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” The second section referenced “does not require disclosure of records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.”

Nop was informed that those close to Sgt. Evans have said that his text was taken out of context and was in response to a joke about another officer being with Evans’ wife in their yard and Evans was referring to that make believe officer who doesn’t actually exist.

She was then asked to at least provide the complete text exchange between Amiri and Evans prior to that message which was included in the first report.

Nop was asked via email, “How can the public know the context of some of the messages – which officers and others are claiming were taken out of context – if the complete text message exchanges are not provided?” She did not respond.

While I don’t believe it will change much regarding the outcome for the five or six officers who sent the offensive texts and are being sued, for the purpose of transparency, all the texts in their original form must be released.

All pages of the texts are expected to be made available to attorneys representing the officers during the discovery phase of the lawsuit. Perhaps at that time they will also be made available to this and other news organizations for the public to read.

Letter writer says beware shopping at Slatten Ranch

Friday, June 2nd, 2023

Editor:

Our “new normal” seems to require acceptance of crime.

California’s Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (prop. 47) served to decriminalize theft below $950 and embolden thieves. 

Politically correct society now pretends: a) criminals don’t exist; b) criminal acts aren’t in fact criminal: or worse, c) criminals are actually victims; and d) unhoused persons don’t commit crime.

Case in point: Slatten Ranch has a large homeless encampment behind the fence near Target. This fence has openings to allow foot traffic. Occasionally the tents get removed, but they always come back.

Target combats theft by storing products in locked cases (inconvenient, much?), but shoppers need to beware, too. Cars should be parked in a visible place with any valuables hidden from view. Cyclists can just expect to have their bikes stolen. There is no real security, just a disclaimer that stores are not responsible for customers’ lost or stolen property.

Certainly, we can choose to avoid shopping at places that become too slum-like, but the real issue is the amount of lawlessness our community accepts.

Who is in charge? How long before people say enough is enough?

Annie Ray

Antioch

Payton Perspective: Rombough and Co. have to go

Friday, April 28th, 2023

The five remaining Antioch Police Officers being sued in the racist text scandal must resign or be fired

It’s a sad, frustrating, embarrassing and difficult time in Antioch, right now. People are angry, want something done, especially our Black residents and rightfully so. The people of our city must have accountability from those paid to protect us and assurances that the racist and offensive texts sent by several Antioch Police officers will never happen again. Plus, our community needs healing. But things need to be done in a way that is fair to all concerned. (See related articles here and here)

The scandal is the real-life fulfillment of what’s written in the Bible verse, Numbers 23:32, “you may be sure that your sin will find you out.” After reading the texts sent on their personal cell phones and reading the federal lawsuit against them, it’s clear that one officer in particular, and four others should resign immediately to start that healing process and if they’re ever going to be considered men of integrity, again in their lives. Furthermore, they need to find another career path, seek counseling and guidance to become better human beings, be required to publicly ask the forgiveness of the people they texted about, as well as of the people of Antioch that they were sworn to protect, not cost us taxpayers any additional money on investigations, salaries or benefits, and not embarrass us any further. If they don’t quit, they must be fired as soon as the investigation is completed.

Antioch Police Officer Eric Rombough following his hire as a lateral officer from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office on Feb. 14, 2017. Photo by APD

Clearly, the worst of them is Officer Eric Rombough, followed by Sergeant Josh Evans and Officer Morteza Amiri, as well as Officers John Ramirez and Scott Duggar, plus Timothy Manley Williams, who already quit in 2021. It’s no surprise they’re the officers listed in the lawsuit filed last week as they clearly have the most culpability. What they wrote is so disgusting, the fact they found humorous injuring suspects and violating their rights is horrendous, and offering a reward to anyone who would shoot, even with a non-lethal weapon, to injure a sitting city council member is horrific.

Others, including Sgt. James Stenger and Detective Robert Gerber, need to be demoted as a form of discipline within the department for their responses to the texts and not doing what was necessary to stop them. Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver retired last November, so he can’t face any discipline for his part in commenting on the texts and apparently not doing anything to stop them.

To be fair to the officers, the texts in the two reports were clearly cherry-picked by the DA’s Office Investigator out of all the pages of text messages. (The Herald requested them on Thursday, April 27, 2023. They have 10 days to respond.) Since some mistakes have been found in the two reports, any and all texts between officers during the timeframe of September 2019 through April 2022 should be released. Plus, we should know if there are any texts from any of the department leaders telling the officers to stop what they were doing.

The officers who remain in the department must hold each other accountable, as well – be the first check and balance on the misbehavior and bad attitudes of other officers. They need to remember who pays their very generous salaries and benefits and who they are hired to serve – we the people!

But not all of the 44 APD officers named in the reports, including 13 to 15 remaining department leaders who received the texts, should be fired, nor should they lose their pensions. Nor does the department need the U.S. Attorney General or his Department of Justice to provide oversight. All such demands by officials and residents are a serious and unnecessary overreach. The politicians need to help calm things down and be voices of reason, instead of further stirring up emotions trying to appear sympathetic and pander to certain audiences to get votes.

For most of the others included in the text threads, there’s been an overreaction, specifically blowing out of proportion one text message sent by Antioch Police Officers Association president Rick Hoffman, who is also a sergeant in the department. He merely made fun of one of his fellow officers who claimed he was called a racist. Hoffman didn’t write any texts that were racist or offensive about any citizen.

Here’s that exchange:

On 05/04/2020, At 8:59 p.m., APD Sgt. Josh Evans text, “Kardell’s mom was yelling how we shot and killed someone today. That rumor getting around quick.”

At 9:00 p.m., APD Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver text, “Laughed.” APD Sgt. Evans replies, “That was right after she called me a racist as cop….” APD Officer Rick Hoffman laughed at the above listed comment and stated, “Well she has a point.

——————–

While he and other leaders and officers were included in some of the group text threads, to be fair, how can they be held accountable for something they received, and didn’t respond to, as they may have not read those texts?

Ask yourself if you’ve ever been part of group text threads, group chats in Facebook Messenger or even participated in comments made below the post by someone else or yourself on Facebook or Twitter and may not have seen and read all the texts or comments. Just because somebody included you doesn’t mean you took the time to read what the others wrote. I know I’ve been included in text threads, in Facebook Messenger groups and in posts on Facebook, including my own posts, and haven’t had time to read all the texts or comments nor did I respond to all of them. Maybe I’ll respond to only one or two texts, or even a thread of comments under my own Facebook posts. But who has time to read all of them? I know I don’t. So, how can I or anyone be held accountable for something somebody else wrote that you or I didn’t even see, read or respond to? We can’t. Nor should any of the officers who merely were on the receiving end of one or more of the texts. Lumping all the officers into one group of the guilty is wrong, irresponsible and unfair.

Furthermore, had annual reviews been done for each officer – which haven’t been done for anyone in the department since 2017 – the texts sent or received using their personal cell phones would not have been included. So, the leadership would never have known about them anyway. So, that’s a non-issue as far as the text scandal is concerned. But I believe some of the leaders had to know at least the content of some of the texts and didn’t do enough to stop them.

There are what are referred to as sins of commission and sins of omission. While those leaders who received the texts may not have committed any wrongdoing because they didn’t send out any texts, they are guilty of either not doing what they should by reading the texts to know what those who serve under them were sharing or if they did, not doing something or enough to stop it. There’s only one text referenced in the reports in which one officer said to another that one of the leaders, Sergeant Matt Koch told them to knock it off.

The second report reads, On March 31, 2021 At 3:11 p.m., APD Officer Adams texted…“Haha. I forgot that Koch wanted us to stop sending dumb sh-t. Oops.” (a comment that Rombough “laughed” at)

——————–

As for Hoffman, he needs to be a good leader, fall on his sword and at least resign as APOA president for his sins of omission. Because as a sergeant, some of the officers, including Rombough, served under him.

But let’s all slow down a bit, and for all but the five officers still with the department who are listed in the lawsuit, let the investigations be completed before passing judgment. Everybody who screwed up needs to be held accountable however they can be, and that includes those in the Antioch Police Department, as well as the DAs office. That includes disciplining the staff members who merely semi-redacted the first report revealing officers’ phone numbers and the names of the officers included in the FBI investigation as well as the charges they’re facing, as well as to whom the redacted reports were sent and by whom. (See related article)

New Personal Cell Phone Use Prohibition Policy Must Be Implemented

According to Chief Ford, a new policy was implemented last year regarding use of personal cell phones and a restriction on the discussion of police business including suspects with anyone outside of the department. But he said officers can still use their personal cell phones, not just their department issued cell phones, while on duty. I believe that’s wrong, and a new policy must be implemented prohibiting the use of personal cell phones while on duty, and only on their lunch and other breaks, except in a family emergency. I don’t know what other employees are allowed to use their personal cell phones when they’re at work. Officers shouldn’t either. They should be focused on police work and only use their department issued phones while on the job.

Let’s be clear the racist and offensive texts are wrong, horrible, vile, offensive and hurtful whether they were sent on personal cell phones or not. They were egregious, shocking and the entire thing is embarrassing to those of us who live and/or have a business in Antioch and no doubt to the officers who had nothing to do with sending or receiving the texts, and I’m sure to many who merely received the texts and didn’t read them. The bottom line is the five remaining officers named in the lawsuit must be fired and frankly, if they’re going to demonstrate any kind of remorse, responsibility, maturity and respect for the residents of Antioch, resign immediately. Rombough and Co. have to go. That’s what’s necessary to improve the department and begin healing our community. Please join me in praying for that to occur.

Contra Costa, other councilmembers warn SB 423 is state’s “endgame” to eliminate local control over development

Thursday, March 30th, 2023

Our Neighborhood Voices, a growing statewide coalition of communities, claims the bill is a permanent extension of SB 35, gives developers unlimited ability to develop nearly anything, anywhere in California

California lawmakers recently introduced legislation that would permanently strip local communities of nearly all important land use decisions. While the legislation – SB 423 – is touted as a tool to solve our affordable housing crisis, local elected leaders say that the legislation undermines local democracy by removing the ability of communities to plan and prepare for what is built in their neighborhoods. It also can accelerate damaging ‘Builders Remedy’ projects across the state that see massive projects built in residential neighborhoods without adequate planning for water, schools, transit, safety fire danger and other priorities.

SB 423 also removes vital protections in our Coastal Zones – something no other housing bill has dared to do. Californians have consistently supported protecting our coasts – this bill removes many of those protections forever.

“I was hoping SB 423 might be a tool to help us solve our affordable housing crisis, but it is not,” said Susan Candell, Lafayette City Councilmember. “Instead, it is the state’s final end game to undermine local democracy in cities and counties, and unleash unlimited development, including the ‘Builders Remedy,’ even in our treasured coastal zones.”

SB 423 can potentially release the ‘Builders Remedy’ where developers can just about build anything, anywhere. SB 423 is a permanent extension of SB 35 – a 2018 law that forces local governments to approve certain developments under a streamlined process if they fail to build, not just approve, but build enough housing to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers. Complex interactions with many other bills lead cities again to be subject to the ‘Builders Remedy’ in 2025 for Southern California and 2027 in Northern California.

The RHNA numbers – which are set every eight years – “laid out impossible goals this cycle,” explains Jovita Mendoza, Brentwood City Councilmember. “Virtually no cities or counties will be able to meet their RHNA numbers. Cities and counties are now set up to fail, and as a result, local governments will lose their ability to have a say about what gets built in our communities. Instead, under SB 423, that approval process will be turned over to developers permanently.”

Coastal zones have been protected from profit-driven overdevelopment since the passage of the California Coastal Act of 1976. This new proposed legislation would virtually undo decades of work to protect California’s coastlines.

“Now local oversight, those who are the stewards of the coastal zone, is removed. Instead, those decisions are handed over to developers and their allies in Sacramento. We all know we need affordable housing in every part of California, but this bill drastically reduces the required affordable units,” said Redondo Beach City Councilmember Nils Nehrenheim.

Our Neighborhood Voices is a non-partisan coalition of residents and elected officials from every corner of California who believe that land use decisions should be determined by local communities and their elected leaders – not one-size-fits-all laws from Sacramento and for-profit developers.

To get these important questions in front of voters, Our Neighborhood Voices is organizing to qualify a citizen-led ballot initiative that would protect the ability of local communities to adopt laws that shape local growth, preserve the character of neighborhoods, and require developers to produce more affordable housing and contribute to the costs associated with it.

Op-Ed: Administration scheming to keep U.S. tech workers unemployed

Tuesday, March 28th, 2023

By Joe Guzzardi, Project for Immigration Reform

Within less than 72-hours, President Joe Biden bailed out the Silicon Valley Bank and the equally insolvent Signature Bank. The banks’ abrupt failures caused a withdrawal rush on other banks across the nation that Social Science Research Network analysts fear could force nearly 200 depositories to shut their doors. Even insured depositors – those with $250,000 or less in the bank – could have problems withdrawing their cash if these institutions faced the same run-on cash that Silicon Valley experienced a week ago.

The hastily contrived plan included providing SVB’s depositors with access to all their funds, effectively averting painful financial uncertainty and the threat of heavy losses for thousands of venture-backed startups. Signature Bank, which had followed SVB into insolvency, received the same guarantee.

More important, the Federal Reserve will provide a massive lifeline to the nation’s banks that would assure that similarly reckless lenders have access to funds that would keep them afloat and, hopefully, subdue any growing nationwide panic. Biden has since called for Congress to impose stiff penalties on executives at mid-sized banks whose ineptitude leads to bank collapse.

In short, the administration’s bailout plan handed SVB a blank check to cover all its depositors who not coincidentally are mainly Bay Area venture capitalists, Biden’s donor and voter base. All accounts are now covered with FDIC insurance, even those above the $250,000 limit. S&P Global, which provides intelligence and assessments to worldwide corporations, found that tech companies had $151.6 billion in uninsured deposits at SVB, or 93.9 percent of the company’s total holdings.

The SVB fallout has been headlines since Day One; the story is evolving. But, behind the scenes, the Biden administration is working feverishly to grant more favors to his tech pals. The tech industry, led by Lyft, Meta, Twitter and Amazon, has fired at least 150,000 workers. Among those laid off were foreign workers in the U.S. on temporary H-1B visas. The visa allows for a grace period of up to 60 days for those laid off to find another employer sponsor or they must return home. Before coming to the U.S., each H-1B visa employee knew and agreed to the guidelines which included the possibility that, if laid off and unable to find another job, they would have to leave.

Suddenly, however, the H-1B visa’s reasonable conditions are unfair and unacceptable. Led by Biden’s 25-member Advisory Commission on Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, lobbying to extend the job search period from 60 to 180 days has intensified. The Immigration and Citizenship Status Subcommittee’s final recommendations included not only extending the 60-day time allotment, but also granting the foreign nationals employment authorization documents (EAD), and travel permits to those who have approved I-40 employment documents in the E-1, E-2 and E-3 categories, and have waited in the immigrant visa backlog for five years, regardless of whether they’re able to file for adjustment of status applications.

To have meaning, immigration laws must be adhered to, enforced and not changed to satisfy the whims of special interests. Distributing EADs, mostly to Indians, before green cards become available would incentivize more foreign nationals to flood the immigration sponsorship program and increase the years-long backlog.

The tech layoff – with more to come – should provide employment opportunities for U.S. workers, displaced or denied opportunities for more than three decades since Congress created the H-1B visa in the Immigration Act of 1990. Instead, U.S. tech jobseekers will have to compete with the recent 85,000 H-1B visa winners in the just-completed 2023 lottery, and the recipients of the administration’s pending green card giveaway largess.

Consistent with its open border policy that puts migrants first, the Biden administration ignores U.S. tech workers’ needs and protects legally deportable aliens even though settled immigration law calls for their removal.

Big tech’s insistence that it needs an ever-higher H-1B total has always been suspect. But this year, with massive industry layoffs, the lottery should have been canceled. Furthermore, circumventing immigration laws to create more loopholes for fired H-1Bs, as the expansion lobby is doing, is indefensible.

ABOUT JOE GUZZARDI

Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Project for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania.