Will cost city $100,000; could face pre- and post-election legal challenges due to new legislation possibly making the initiative moot and costing city even more.

By Allen Payton

In response to the direction given by a judge in a court case over two initiatives affecting new home development in the Sand Creek Focus Area that the council adopted in 2018, the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to place the one initiative sponsored by the environmental community on the November 2020 ballot.

That court case resulted in the judge tossing out the council’s adoption of the environmentalist-backed Let Antioch Voters Decide (LAVD) initiative. It also invalidated both the initiative sponsored by Richland Communities, the developer of the 1,100-home project known as The Ranch, as well as their development agreement. In his ruling, the judge also ordered the city council place the LAVD initiative on the ballot. However, the decisions in the lawsuits by adjacent property owners The Zeka Group owners of Zeka Ranch, and the Oak Hill Park Company are still being appealed by the backers of the LAVD initiative. (See related articles here, and here)

According to a previous Herald news report, following a 30-day study by city staff, their report found the initiative limited the total number of housing units to 2,100 in the entire Sand Creek Area. Since the past and current councils had already approved more than 2,300 homes, then no more homes could be built, including the proposed 301-unit, gated senior home community east of Deer Valley Road, known as The Olive Groves on the Albers Ranch property. However, both Seth Adams of Save Mount Diablo and the attorney for Richland said that the intent of each initiative was to only affect property on the west side of Deer Valley Road.

The LAVD initiative will directly impact the proposed Zeka Ranch project (see related article), west of The Ranch project, on the west side of Empire Mine Road, as well as three other properties directly south of Richland property, including Oak Hill’s. Zeka’s proposed number of homes would be reduced from 300 to 400, down to just one home per 80 acres, resulting in just a total of eight homes.

In addition, since the judge’s decisions, new legislation, SB330, was passed by the state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Newsom, last year which prevents cities from downzoning land already zoned residential, either by council action or through the initiative process.

Yet, according to Derek Cole, the city’s contract attorney working on matters dealing with the Sand Creek initiative, “cities have mandatory duties whenever proposed ballot measures receive the signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot.  In this case, because the ‘9212’ report and approval of the initiative are no longer options, the City can only take action to call an election as to the initiative.  City staff is aware of the SB 330 legislation that took effect this year, but as the Staff Report explains, the City Council cannot assume the role of the courts in deciding any legal issues associated with the measure.  The State Supreme Court made very clear in a 2017 decision that the duty to call an election on an initiative is mandatory, even when an initiative’s legality is questioned.”

“The council could adopt an argument against the initiative,” added City Attorney Thomas Smith.

During public comments Joanna Garaventa, with the East Bay Chapter of the California Native Plant Society, spoke in favor of the initiative. She submitted a letter to the council, but when speaking it was difficult to understand her for the purpose of adding her comments to this report.

Andrew Bassak, an attorney with Hanson Bridgett, representing The Zeka Group, opposed the placement of the initiative on the ballot as “it would negatively affect the development that’s been planned for the past 30 years.”

He referred to SB330, the new residential development law.

“The city lacks authority to place the initiative on the ballot…under the California Elections Code. That passed years ago,” Bassak explained. “There is no authority under the stayed Superior Court ruling. That judgement is currently subject to appeal, by one of the proponents of the initiative. Save Mt. Diablo wants to have its cake and eat it, too.”

“The cost of putting it on the ballot will be over $100,000,” he stated. “Placing it on the ballot will result in more litigation” both before…and after the November election. Those litigations could easily double the $100,000 amount. This is just squandering resources that could be spent elsewhere. The city should wait until the court of appeals decision is over.”

Bassak submitted a letter to the mayor and council before the meeting. In it he wrote, “the Initiative is fundamentally flawed and, if placed on the ballot, will be subject to avoidable costly pre-election litigation.” 06-09-20 Zeka Group Attorney Letter to Antioch re LAVD Initiative

Seth Adams, the Land Conservation Director for Save Mt. Diablo, which sponsored the LAVD initiative said, “Please move forward with placing our initiative on the ballot and please formally endorse the initiative.”

“Over 9,000 citizens signed the petition to place the initiative on the ballot,” he continued. “The courts said to place the initiative on the ballot. It did not invalidate the initiative.”

“Our attorneys have provided information to the city that explains why they can place the initiative on the ballot,” Adams added. Emails from Save Mt. Diablo’s attorney to City of Antioch re LAVD Initiative

All the other thirteen public comments were in favor of placing the initiative on the ballot.

Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock then asked about how SB 330 affected the initiative.

“SB330 is legislation…that became effective in January of this year and is retroactive two years,” Smith said. “Under the new regulation any affected city is precluded from adopting policy…of lesser standard. It is preventing the downzoning of land, from residential to something that would not allow development.”

“It is one of the factors that would have to be taken into consideration if the initiative passed,” he continued. “However, at this time, the council can move forward.”

“There may be a pre-election challenge or a post-election challenge,” Smith added. “SB330 could affect it in determining if the initiative is valid.”

“Not only did 9,000 of our citizens sign petitions to place this on the ballot, but the courts directed the council to place it on the ballot,” said Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts. “I believe it’s an environmentally sensitive, efficient development. So, I am in favor of moving the initiative forward and placing it on the November ballot.”

Ogorchock then moved to place the initiative on the ballot. Councilwoman Monica Wilson seconded the motion.

Smith then asked if the two actions could be separated, with the council deciding if they want to include a ballot argument against the measure.

Ogorchock then shortened her motion to not include a ballot argument.

Thorpe then asked staff to come back with something at a future council meeting, for council to decide whether or not to endorse or oppose the initiative.

However, the council can only submit an argument against the initiative, Smith explained.

Ogorchock and Wilson withdrew their motion and Ogorchock made a new motion and Thorpe seconded it.

“Do we want to make an argument against the initiative?” she asked. Wilson, Thorpe and Motts all said “no”.

“I just need you to make a motion that you do not want to make an argument against the initiative,” Smith explained.

Ogorchock then made a friendly amendment to her own motion that the council will not include an argument against the initiative. Thorpe accepted the amendment to the motion.

That motion passed on a 5-0 vote, that the council will not include a ballot argument against the initiative.

Then Ogorchock returned to her original motion to place the initiative on the November ballot. It was seconded by Wilson and the motion also passed 5-0.

Efforts to reach Seth Adams and city staff to obtain a copy of the letter sent to the City from Save Mt. Diablo’s attorney before the meeting, were unsuccessful prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Claims Thorpe knew Antioch Police already implementing five of eight reforms before releasing his proposal

In a press release on Monday evening, Antioch City Council candidate Mike Barbanica slammed Antioch Council Member Lamar Thorpe, who is up for re-election in November, for his proposal to call for an ad hoc committee to deal with what he labels “so-called reforms at the Antioch Police Department”. Thorpe listed eight reforms endorsed by the national 8 Can’t Wait Campaign and four actions the council can take promoted by the Obama Foundation on its website. (See related article)

“Antioch residents want change – real change – so we can honestly address racism in our community,” said Barbanica, candidate for city council in District 2. “We don’t need another Antioch bureaucracy led by politicians who claim to know what’s best for our community.”

Barbanica stated that the Antioch Police Department has already implemented five of the eight reforms advocated by 8 Can’t Wait and is in the process of reviewing the other three for possible implementation.

He added that Thorpe was advised of this information by the APD before he sent out his press release.

“Shame on Mr. Thorpe for grandstanding on this issue for his own political gain,” Barbanica said. “What we need is more ongoing thoughtful communication between our police officers, our community, Antioch’s faith leaders and business owners – not the establishment of some shill of a committee that exists for the purpose of promoting a politician’s own political agenda.”

Barbanica, a longtime Antioch resident, local business owner and retired police lieutenant from the neighboring City of Pittsburg, said he is proud of the hard work and dedication of Antioch’s police officers, noting that, under Police Chief Tammany Brooks, Antioch PD has been responsive to the needs of our community.

“Can we do better? We can always do better and we need to come together, as a community, to better understand the needs of our African American and Latino residents,” he said. “But establishing a committee of politicians who will use it as a pedestal to pontificate about the causes of racism is not the answer.”

Barbanica added that George Floyd’s murder, and the protests that have followed, have awakened all of us to the need for social justice reform that can only begin in earnest by us initiating honest dialogue, by our listening and communicating with one another, so we can re-create a society that is fair and just for all persons who live here.

6/9/20 UPDATE:  When reached for comment, Councilman Thorpe said “what I knew was that I asked the chief to get clarity on this, and he sent me an email response and he said ‘in spirit we do some of these. We have officially two on the books so far. But I can look into and we can do these things in spirit.’”

“He had some concerns about other ones,” he continued. “What I did was call on the chief to adopt all of them. The issue is not whether not I knew. The fact of the matter is they’re not written in our policies. There’s a difference between researching and considering adopting them.”

“I’m calling for the remaining six to be implemented,” Thorpe stated. “Let’s make it about policy. Five of them doesn’t complete the eight. I’m saying all of them.”

Allen Payton contributed to this report.

Call on state bar to create a new ethics rule claiming it “would help restore the independence, integrity, and trust of elected prosecutors by preventing them from taking donations from police unions.”

“They’re trying to hamper pro-law enforcement candidates who will run against them” – law enforcement official (who chose to remain anonymous)

SAN FRANCISCO – Today, Monday, June 1, 2020, in the wake of mass protests following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, a coalition of current and former elected prosecutors representing millions of Californians in diverse counties banded together to call on the California State Bar to cure the conflict of interest created by police unions’ outsized influence in local elections.  The new rule would explicitly preclude elected prosecutors – or prosecutors seeking election – from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions. (Read letter, here).

“The legal representation of an accused officer is generally financed by their law enforcement union,” said Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton.  “It is illogical that the rules prohibit prosecutors from soliciting and benefiting from financial and political support from an accused officer’s advocate in court, while enabling the prosecutor to benefit financially and politically from the accused’s advocate in public.”

“District Attorneys will undoubtedly review use of force incidents involving police officers,” said San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin. “When they do, the financial and political support of these unions should not be allowed to influence that decision making.”

“When videos emerge like the one depicting the killing of George Floyd or Ahmaud Arbery, the damage it does to the entire criminal justice system cannot be overstated,” said former San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón. “That damage, however, is further compounded by delays in the condemnation, arrest, and charging of the involved law enforcement officers. These feelings, these protests, and the pain we’re seeing, would not be as raw and widespread if we had seen police held accountable by local prosecutors quickly and with regularity.  An important step in curing this pain is curing the conflict of interest that gives, at minimum, the appearance that police do not face consequences swiftly – or at all – due to the proximity and political influence of their union.”

“We have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us to restore trust in our profession, but trust must be earned, it cannot be demanded,” said San Joaquin County District Attorney Tori Verber Salazar.  “The first step to earning that trust back is ensuring the independence of county prosecutors is beyond reproach.”

Prosecutors are in a unique position of having to work closely with law enforcement and simultaneously evaluate whether crimes have been committed by these same officers.  Recent events involving police misconduct in which prosecutors either delayed or failed to file charges have shined a light on the importance of prosecutors making decisions regarding law enforcement officers’ conduct without any undue influence or bias.  Yet when prosecutors initiate an investigation or prosecution of an officer, the law enforcement unions often finance the legal representation of the accused officer. Prosecutors who have received an endorsement from the entity that is funding the defense of the officers being investigated or prosecuted creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest for elected prosecutors.

By precluding elected prosecutors—or prosecutors seeking election—from seeking or accepting political or financial support from law enforcement unions, the State Bar will reduce the presence of conflicts of interest and ensure independence on the part of elected prosecutors.  This proposal also aspires to help reestablish community trust in the integrity of prosecutors at a time when national events have damaged that trust.

For more information, follow #CureTheConflict.

In response, the following questions were sent to Becton’s public information officer, Scott Alonso:

“Is she saying that currently a prosecutor cannot solicit and benefit from financial and political support from an attorney representing a police officer accused of a crime while in court or during the court case? But the police officer’s attorney can support the prosecutor financially and politically when not in court or during the court case?

Please clarify who the accused is in her comment about the ‘accused’s advocate’. I assume it’s the same accused officer she refers to twice before in her comment. But, not sure.

Also, are she and the rest of the DA’s willing to forgo any financial contributions from criminal defense attorneys and public defenders? How about no financial support from any organization and only from individuals who live within their counties? How far should this go to ensure fairness in prosecutions? Isn’t this really one-sided? Also, if the police unions have so much influence in our county and they all backed Becton’s opponent in the last election how did she still win? Isn’t she in effect attempting to violate the free speech rights – which political campaign contributions have been defined as by the courts – of the police unions?

June 2 UPDATE: Alonso responded with, “Any questions about political contributions I cannot answer as a public employee. You would need to direct those to DA Becton’s campaign.”

This reporter then emailed him, “Please pass on my questions to DA Becton. I’m not asking you to answer them. I’m asking for her to.”

Alonso responded, “Her statement speaks for itself. Not sure what else to provide. Her reference to the advocate is the law enforcement union.”

A further email was sent to him with, “Her statement and the effort is clearly one sided and doesn’t answer my questions that I emailed you. Did you pass on my questions to her?  If not can you, please? I really don’t want to have to write that she’s refusing to answer them. Surely neither you nor she expects the media to just run press releases on controversial matters unchallenged and without question.

Thanks for the partial answer to my one question. But it still doesn’t clarify what she’s saying in that quote. How would a prosecutor solicit and benefit from financial and political support of a law enforcement union in court? I seriously don’t understand that.

I really need to hear back from her on the questions I sent. I don’t want to just write she refused to respond.”

Alonso responded with, “With all respect we do answer your questions. Your comment that this ‘effort is one side’ is odd. Not sure what you mean by that. There are standards in place for prosecutors in terms of receiving or benefitting from opposing defense counsel. This is outlined in the letter that you were provided. In terms of any questions on donations I cannot answer that as I have said.”

This reporter further responded by email with, “Yes, in the past you’ve answered my questions and I appreciate that. But I’m talking about this press release on a very controversial, political issue, which is rare if not the only one I recall ever receiving from you.

About the effort being one sided, that’s because all the DA’s and former DA quoted in the press release are attempting to silence one side in the political battle for who should be elected DA. Diana wasn’t backed by any of the police unions in the county, if I recall. They backed her opponent, DDA Paul Graves. Now she’s trying to prevent police unions from contributing to her potential opponents in future elections in effectively silencing their voice during a political campaign. Yet, I don’t see anything in the press release in which she or the other DA’s call for limiting the contributions to candidates from those on the criminal defense side.

Again, I’m not asking you to answer my questions. I’m asking you to pass along my questions to DA Becton, who as an elected official can answer them and should. You sent out on official CCDA letterhead a press release about a political matter. Frankly, that should have gone out on her campaign letterhead if you or she aren’t going to answer questions about it.

Now, please quit being a gatekeeper for her and pass on my questions to her. Another day has passed since you sent me the press release and I still don’t have but one question answered.

I’m trying not to go around you. I do have her cell phone number and have called her before when it was after hours. But I am avoiding calling her. I guess I’ll have to if I can’t get you to simply forward my questions to her.

So, let’s please stop the back and forth. I’m not asking you any questions about a political matter. I’m asking her.”

No response to that email was received.

When reached for comment, Becton said she was in a meeting and to “send questions to Scott.”

Please check back later for any updates to this report and responses from the DA.

Turnage may first be censured and given opportunity to publicly apologize

By Allen Payton

In response to the controversial comments on Facebook by Antioch Planning Commission Chair Ken Turnage, II about ending the shelter-in-place, Mayor Sean Wright has joined with Council Member Monica Wilson who called for Turnage’s removal during Tuesday night’s regular council meeting. (See related article).

In a Thursday press release from City of Antioch Public Information Officer Rolando Bonilla, it states, “Recently, the Chair of the City of Antioch Planning Commission posted a social media communication that does not represent the City of Antioch or the City Council.  The City Council and the public, through comments, emails and phone calls, have questioned the ability of the Chair of the Antioch Planning Commission to represent them and many Antioch residents have called for the commissioner’s resignation or removal.

Mayor Sean Wright spoke to the Chair of the Planning Commission and asked for his resignation from the City of Antioch Planning Commission.  Upon his refusal to resign, Mayor Wright called for a special meeting of the Antioch City Council to discuss the immediate removal of the commissioner from the Planning Commission.

In the City of Antioch, the City Council is committed to maintaining public confidence and trust in our city government.  As public officials in one of the largest and most diverse cities in Contra Costa County, we are called to serve all residents of Antioch; whether young or old, rich or poor, healthy or unhealthy, housed or unhoused.

We wish to emphasize that we remain committed to listening to the public’s concerns, and we recognize that we have an obligation to the residents of the City of Antioch to act swiftly to respond to their concerns.”

Turnage, who it has been rumored was considering running against  Wilson in the November election, responded Thursday morning to her call for his removal with, “I’m not going to step down over a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the City or an opinion that has nothing to do with being a planning commissioner. My opinion isn’t liked, which is fine. But I do find very petty and disheartening that at every opportunity someone like Councilmember Wilson will try and use race! It’s a baiting tactic and is very petty.”

“I’m sorry that this country has the history it does but I don’t see how a virus has anything to do with race, slavery or oppression of any kind. It just shows a low level of mentality that the only thing in someone’s arsenal is the race card,” he added.

When was asked if the council should first vote to censure Turnage and give him the opportunity to apologize before removing him, Wright said he would be speaking with the city attorney about what would be placed on the meeting agenda.

The same question was posed to Councilwoman Lori Ogorchock. She responded “I don’t know. I was just given the invitation for a special meeting. I did speak with Sean earlier and he told me there would be a special meeting.”

When pressed further, she stated, “Not sure at this point if that is a viable solution. The news media has picked it up, Channel 2 reported on it. When you talk about the things that he said, the seniors, the frail, and the weak. Not sure how you can look past that.”

Council Member Lamar Thorpe, who was removed from the Economic Development Commission in 2016 for working against a local business with the card room ballot measure that past that year (see related article), was asked the same question. He responded, “That’s the mayor’s plan.”

“Kenny, as you’ve seen is’nt apologizing for anything as he stands by his comments,” Thorpe added.

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts responded to the same question with, “The mayor spoke with him, apparently he will not back down.”

When asked if she was willing to consider censuring Turnage and giving him an opportunity to apologize, first Motts responded, “I am still deliberating on this. Ken has made no attempt to apologize, to the contrary he has doubled down on his comments.”

Wilson was asked the same question about a vote on censure, but she did not respond.

The special meeting will be held Friday, May 1 at 7:00 p.m. and can be viewed on the city’s website by clicking here.

“We would lose many elderly…loved ones as well…even myself but that is the way of the World!” – Antioch Planning Commission Chair Ken Turnage, II

“My ancestors already died for the sake of our economy through a marked period in our time called slavery.” – Council Member Monica Wilson

By Allen Payton

It appears the 2020 Antioch City Council campaign began earlier than normal, this year as Antioch Council Member Monica Wilson and three members of the public called for Planning Commission Chairman Ken Turnage, II to be removed or resign over controversial comments he made on Facebook about the coronavirus and shelter-in-place orders.

Wilson, as well as the mayor and other three council members are up for re-election in November, and Turnage has been rumored to be taking on Wilson in the race for District 4. Turnage, an Antioch general contractor and business owner, ran unsuccessfully for the council in 2016 placing fourth behind Council Members Lamar Thorpe, Wilson and former Mayor Mary Rocha.

In his Thursday, April 23 comment, using an argument similar to the Malthusian Theory of population control, Turnage wrote, “The shelter in place needs to end, we as a species need to move forward…We would have significant loss of life, we would lose many elderly, that would reduce burdens in our defunct Social Security System, health care cost (once the wave subsided), make jobs available for others and it would also free up housing in which we are in dire need of. We would lose a large portion of the people with immune and other health complications. I know it would be loved ones as well. But that would once again reduce our impact on medical, jobs and housing. Then we have our other sectors such as our homeless and other people who just defile themselves by either choice or mental issues. This would run rampant through them and yes i am sorry but this would fix what is a significant burden on our Society and resources that can be used. Of course we would lose many of the ‘Healthy’ maybe even myself but that is the way of the World!”

During the online Antioch City Council meeting on Tuesday night, April 28, 2020, the three comments by members of the public called for Turnage’s removal from the commission and went so far as to label his comments racist and discriminatory.

Wilson, Council Member Thorpe and Mayor Sean Wright all denounced Turnage’s comments. Wilson also injected slavery into her response.

“I need to comment on this. I do want to take a moment to raise an issue that I believe undermines the great work that our city is doing to protect our citizens,” Wilson said. “Our Planning Commission Chair made some inappropriate comments on social media. He basically made the argument that it was totally OK to allow in our community, from the elderly to the homeless, to die a COVID-19 for the benefit of reopening our economy contrary to our shared values.”

“My ancestors already died for the sake of our economy through a marked period in our time called slavery,” she continued. “Let me be clear, he is entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine. However, as a member of our planning commission his words are merely not consistent of what we are doing and how we care for our citizens.”

“His words do not in any way reflect the values of the city council or city administration,” Wilson continued. “Personally, I find his words…disgusting, inappropriate and extremely reckless. We do not have any place in public discourse for that.”

“I’m also appalled to date none of us on council have responded to this reckless comment. It’s inexcusable,” she stated. “I am beyond disgusted by those remarks. I too am asking either he resigns or we as council need to deal with taking him off of that commission.”

Thorp said, “Councilwoman Wilson, I share your concern and disgust. I thought those comments were inexcusable and they have no place in city government, today. To your point, it’s contrary to the shared values we have as a community and I’m beyond disgusted. So, thank you for your remarks.”

Mayor Pro Tem Joy Motts added her comments on the matter.

“Monica, that was very passionate what you had to say,” she said. “My expectation is that council and staff and commissions all acknowledge their service to the community, and that they act with professionalism and that they take great care for all of the community members.”

“Our grandparents and our parents and generations have fought wars to preserve life,” Motts continued. “Honestly, it’s absurd to think that we would want to take one person’s life as more valuable than another. I thank you for your comments, I think they’re important. I know I am and this staff and this city council will do whatever we can to save as many lives as possible.”

Mayor Wright also denounced Turnage’s comments.

“I have stopped watching and looking at Facebook just because there is so much division. The comments were not brought to my attention until yesterday, through email,” Wright stated. “I think the comments were abhorrent, should not have been said and stated. But I will fight for the right to say things.”

“We do and need to hold ourselves to a higher standard as council members and as commissioners and those who represent the city,” he continued. “So, there is discussion to be had as far as that goes.”

Following are the comments by the three members of the public who emailed the council prior to the meeting:

“I feel compelled to write to you, today about a recent Facebook message by Ken Turnage serving on the Antioch Planning Commission,” wrote Debra Polk, a resident and a self-described “advocate for safe, healthy communities for children ages 0 to 5.” “We know that African Americans are more likely to die of this illness compared to other races. As a mature black woman, I have experienced many examples of blatant racism in my lifetime. Mr. Turnage’s comments are incredibly offensive and reflect an attitude of racist, white superiority. How can someone with those sentiments represent the interests of our city? How are people of color in the Antioch community represented when city sanctioned commission leaders express this type of prejudice and perspective? With such blatant bias I don’t believe this commissioner can represent us. Therefore, he must be removed from his position on the commission. I am requesting that the Antioch City Council take immediate action to resolve this issue. Facebook is often a place for different opinions. However, when you, as a city volunteer representative place your biases and hurtful comments on social media for all of us to see, then you don’t deserve to make decisions for me, other people of color or the elderly. I along with thousands of other Antioch residents deserve to be represented by my city commissioners and not subject to this type of discrimination.”

Rivertown district resident, Christine Clark wrote of “a recent, disturbing comment on Facebook made by Planning Commissioner Chair…I was flabbergasted and in disbelief…someone who represents my City of Antioch could find it in his heart to write such racist and discriminatory comments. His ideas describe the mentality of survival of the fittest. I am absolutely appalled with these comments.”

She mentioned “those disadvantaged by systemic racism and inequity are cast aside” and “hundreds of years of oppression and current injustices that make certain members of our society more susceptible to the drastic consequences of this virus.”

Clark also called for Turnage’s resignation.

Brendan Alasky also wrote about Turnage’s comments, labeling them “disgusting and unacceptable assertions that were reminiscent of eugenics arguments used to justify genocide and atrocities on marginalized people throughout the U.S. history.”

He called for Turnage to resign and apologize for his comments.

Following is Turnage’s complete comment posted on his personal Facebook page:

“This opinion will not be popular and could easily anger some of you so if you are the type of person that only values your own opinion you may not want to read this. Before I start I just want to say I have been obeying the shelter in place orders. The shelter in place needs to end, we as a species need to move forward with our place on Earth and yes it appears our place is changing. The debate about this virus being man made or just happened due to eating a bat is past us (I believe it was eating the bat). This virus is like a human version of a forest fire, a forest fire will burn through and burn off all the dead trees, old tress, fallen brush and scrub shrub sucklings that drain the resources of the forest and causing it to be unhealthy. So what happens in a standard forest fire is all these portions of the forest are burned off turned into ash that fertilizes the ground. The strong trees survive and the forest replenishes itself and flourishes once again. Now when we stop the standard forest fires or natural burn off in forestry we set ourselves up for total devastation such as the recent fires in California they were in destruction in totality all because we were trying to “protect” we caused more harm.

If we look at our population as the forest you will see many similarities. We have our old, we have our weak and we have our drains on our resources. This virus is targeting those sectors of our population. If we were to live our lives, let nature run its course, yes we will all feel hardship, we will all feel loss. I am sure everyone of us would lose a person who we hold dear. But as species, for our Nation and as a Planet we would we would strengthen when this is all settled. We would have significant loss of life, we would lose many elderly, that would reduce burdens in our defunct Social Security System, health care cost (once the wave subsided), make jobs available for others and it would also free up housing in which we are in dire need of. We would lose a large portion of the people with immune and other health complications. I know it would be loved ones as well. But that would once again reduce our impact on medical, jobs and housing. Then we have our other sectors such as our homeless and other people who just defile themselves by either choice or mental issues. This would run rampant through them and yes i am sorry but this would fix what is a significant burden on our Society and resources that can be used. Of course we would lose many of the “Healthy” maybe even myself but that is the way of the World! With all this said now look at all the Worldly resources that would be able to replenish. We are hearing of many levels of Earth repair already happening just due to a lower impact of our Species so think what would happen with a significant population reduction.

The World has been introduced to a new phrase Herd Immunity which is a good one. In my opinion we need to adapt a Herd Mentality. A herd gathers it ranks, it allows the sick, the old, the injured to meet its natural course in nature. With this the Herd is strengthened, and the Herd once again becomes symbiant with the planet!

If you unfriend me because of my opinion that is your choice and I wish you the best and stay safe!”

His post garnered mixed reactions in the comments by 584 others, most of them negative and some comparing his comment to those of Nazis and Hitler during World War II.

Dan Brown was the first to respond writing, “Speak the truth!!”

Seth Porter wrote in response, “I appreciate this opinion. I did notice you didn’t include a list of your relatives you’re willing to watch die though so it seems a little hollow.”

Dan Gross wrote, “Would not unfriend you!! Well written my friend.”

Richard D. Correa wrote, “The nazi’s did just what you described. They took people who they felt were taking up space, elderly, weak, mentally ill, poor, children, and of course, those who were not like them. If you feel that way, gather your family and take them all to a facility where people are infected, that way you can start the cleansing.”

George Wever responded, “99% of the population is forced to suffer and have financial hardships for the 1% fatality rate they have re evaluated the death rate to. Let God sort them out and time to move forward!!!”

Kim Motts Stadtlander wrote, “Wow, we heard and saw something similar in WWII. This virus has taken young people, marathon runners, previously healthy, and yes, the elderly and immune compromised. I doubt you’d feel this way if it came knocking on your door for your child, your spouse, or your parents. This virus is not a flu, it reacts differently than previously seen. I want the economy open just like you. I have 3 unemployed people in my house, but never ever at the expense of what you propose. It’s Hitleresque.”

Aisha Odom wrote “Good ole eugenics huh? Well as long as you are the very first in line.”

Jeremy Motts wrote, “It may not be as severe as the worst case scenario, but it also might be. It’s not okay to play Russian roulette with other people’s lives. I work in healthcare, please abide by the rules until we get this figured out please, for the sake of our families.”

Chris Burton Patterson wrote, “I agree with you on many points. Look at the stores that are open. Grocery, donuts stores, restaurants, home depo, hospitals. They are doing it responsibly. Why can’t others do this? There is no reason. And if you don’t want to, then don’t. Those with weaken immune systems, there are ways to strengthen them.. we can all be careful in our own way. It’s not an all or nothing situation” and “Why can’t the people of this great country do both. Go back to work and protect those most vulnerable?”

In a repost of Turnage’s comment Mitch Brockman wrote, “This is the absolute TRUTH! Ken Turnage II, Very well said sir!”

Efforts to reach Wilson asking her if she planned to place an item on the next council meeting agenda for the council to vote on Turnage’s removal from the commission were unsuccessful. Thorpe clarified his comment that he shared Wilson’s concern did not include a call for Turnage’s resignation or removal from the commission.

UPDATE: When reached for comment, Turnage responded to Wilson’s call for his removal with, “I’m not going to step down over a personal opinion that has nothing to do with the City or an opinion that has nothing to do with being a planning commissioner. My opinion isn’t liked, which is fine. But I do find very petty and disheartening that at every opportunity someone like Councilmember Wilson will try and use race! It’s a baiting tactic and is very petty.”

“I’m sorry that this country has the history it does but I don’t see how a virus has anything to do with race, slavery or oppression of any kind. It just shows a low level of mentality that the only thing in someone’s arsenal is the race card,” he added.

To view the council meeting and hear the comments by Wilson, click here and scroll to the 17-minute mark.

Please check back later for updates to this report.

SACRAMENTO – Governor Gavin Newsom on Friday issued an executive order to permit vote-by-mail procedures to be used in three upcoming special elections, protecting public health and safety during the COVID-19 outbreak.

The order also extends the deadlines for ballot counting, tabulation, and other responsibilities related to the official canvass of California’s Presidential Primary Election that could risk undermining social distancing measures, and suspends the timeframes for public hearings required by political subdivisions that are in the process of changing from an at-large method of election to district elections.

A copy of the Governor’s executive order can be found here and the text of the order can also be found here.

Antioch school district’s Measure T bond fails by just 43 votes.

Other results from throughout the county: 4 other measures pass, 2 fail

By Allen Payton

With the final results in for the March 3rd Presidential Primary from the Contra Costa Elections Division on Friday afternoon, District 5 Supervisor Federal Glover missed winning the election outright by just 54 votes. He will face County Assessor Gus Kramer in a November General Election runoff. (See results here.)

Had any candidate received 50% plus one vote they would have won in the Primary.

With all the votes counted Glover garnered 22,142 votes or 49.88% of the vote. Kramer placed a distant second out of the three candidates, with 11,441 votes or 25.78% of the vote. He was trailed by Martinez Planning Commissioner and first-time candidate for public office, Sean Trambley, by just 637 votes, with 10,804 votes or 24.34%.

The fall campaign has already begun as Kramer wasted no time in attacking the incumbent.

“I’m looking forward to the run-off. It will give me the chance to show the electorate who I really am and who my opponent really is,” he said when reached for comment, while social distancing at his cabin for the next three weeks. “Glover said four years ago and eight years ago that would be his last time running. It’s one of the reasons I’m running against him. He’s not a man of his word.”

“The citizens of Contra Costa deserve a supervisor they can trust,” Kramer said.

“I want to thank all the voters who voted and supported me,” he stated. “And all those who didn’t believe the political hit pieces that were mailed out and the campaign the East Bay Times has mounted against me for the past eight years but, continued to show faith in me. We’re hoping, and will be working to build on that support for November.”

“He doesn’t plan on fulfilling this term, is what I’ve been told by those who are close to Federal,” Kramer added. “Then he will lobby the governor to appoint someone who he supports, to replace him.”

Glover wasn’t ready to engage at this point, but just thanked his supporters and encouraged people to comply with the coronavirus orders.

“It’s interesting, but we’ll gear up for November,” he said. “I really just want to thank the voters for their continued support of my candidacy. Going into November we’re going to continue to ask their support of our efforts. I look forward to continuing to represent the district.”

He is focused on the coronavirus, for now.

“While I’m very thrilled with the election results and the voters who supported me, my major concentration, now is this coronavirus,” Glover stated. “The county as a whole, and my district, it’s really important that we follow the rules, now so that we can flatten the curve to be able to get on with our routine services.”

“But, if everyone does not follow the orders that have been put out there, it’s going to take us just that much longer,” he said. “So, please be obedient to the rules as we’re all in this together.”

“Be safe and stay healthy,” Glover added.

Other Election Results – Four of Seven Measures Pass

Measure T fails in Antioch. The $105 million school improvement bond covering the former Mello-Roos District 89-1 required 55% of the vote. It barely lost at just 43 votes shy of passing with 54.53% of the vote.

Measure J fails countywide. While a majority of voters supported it, the countywide, half-cent sales tax measure for transportation needed a two-thirds vote to pass, meaning 66.7% of the vote. But it only received 51.59%. So, the $3.4 billion measure failed. It would have meant an additional half-cent in sales tax would have overlapped the current Measure J half-cent sales tax for 14 years.

Measure A fails in Pleasant Hill. The bond measure for the Pleasant Hill Park & Recreation District needed a two-thirds vote to pass, but only received 60.15%.

Measure L passes in the Lafayette School District. The parcel tax election, which required a 2/3’s vote to pass, received 73.07% of the vote.

Measure M passes in the Moraga School District. The parcel tax election, which also required a 2/3’s vote to pass, with 70.74% of the vote.

Measure R passes in the West Contra Costa Unified School District. The school bond election required 55% of the vote to pass and garnered more than enough with 58.59%.

Measure Y passes in Danville. The voters of the Town of Danville approved the development of 69 homes on 410 acres. It required a simple majority to pass and received 54.23% of the vote.

From Deborah Cooper, County Clerk-Recorder and Registrar of Voters

The Clerk-Recorder-Elections Department remains open to provide essential services, but access to buildings and in-person services is limited. The counting of remaining ballots from the March 3 Presidential Primary election will continue until complete.

Those who want to observe the count are still welcome, but they need to call to make an appointment. The Elections Division is hoping to certify the election, this week. As of last Friday’s update, there were still 30,500 ballots remaining to be counted in the county.

The Department is urging customers to use online services in an effort to help reduce the rate of COVID-19 transmission. In-person services are currently limited to transactions that cannot be done online, over the phone or through the mail.

Elections Division: Most information and election services are available online at https://www.cocovote.us/

For any necessary in-person visits please call and arrange an appointment. Contact the Elections Division for assistance with voting or election information, state or local petition delivery, or other needs at 925-335-7800.

Clerk- Recorder Division: Customer assistance for Clerk or Recording services is available by calling (925) 335-7900. Normal hours of operation are 8 am to 4:30 pm (subject to change).

Clerk Services: Most Clerk services are available online, with few exceptions. Civil marriage ceremonies will not be performed in the office until further notice. County Clerk services information is available on the department website at https://www.contracostacore.us/

Recording Services: Customers are encouraged to mail documents for recording to Contra Costa County Recorder at 555 Escobar Street, Martinez, CA 92553 or place documents in the drop box at the building entrance. Prior to mailing documents for recording, documents may be emailed for review and fee information to crwebmaster@cr.cccounty.us.

Recording information is available at www.contracostacore.us/

For updates related to the novel coronavirus (COVID-19), visit www.coronavirus.cchealth.org/.