 |
 |
By KEVIN McCALLUM
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
As the race for four seats on the Santa Rosa City Council enters the final stretch, political observers are focused less on Mayor Ernesto Olivares and Councilman Gary Wysocky and more on which candidates may ride their coattails into office.
Both incumbents are expected to hold onto their seats on the seven-member council, leaving the fight for third and fourth place as the real battleground where the balance of power on the next council will be decided.
“What we have is a pretty solid one and two, and then, frankly, what I think is a pretty fluid three, four and five,” said David McCuan, professor of political science at Sonoma State University.
For the past two years, the council has been deeply divided. Four members backed by business and development interests generally support fewer regulations on business, and three members have more environmental and labor leanings and place greater value on neighborhood input.
But unlike previous years, when the battle lines were more clearly drawn, this year there is “a lot of upheaval” and uncertainty in political circles over the current crop of candidates, McCuan said.
“It’s unclear what the future direction of the council will be because the lack of succession and a clear farm team for each side,” he said.
Incumbents in races across Sonoma County are expected to do well this year, in part because the economy is better than it was two years ago, said Steven Gale, chairman of the Sonoma County Democratic Party.
“I think voters in the cities are feeling like we’ve make it through some tough times,” Gale said.
Among the five non-incumbent candidates, those who have been actively campaigning the longest, namely neighborhood activist Julie Combs and attorney Erin Carlstrom, are showing strong support because they’ve had a longer time to make their case to voters, Gale said.
But with two weeks to go, Gale acknowledges the race remains difficult to predict. “There is enough volatility to make the race very close,” Gale said.
That may be because the other three active non-incumbent candidates have strengths of their own and reasons to be optimistic about their chances, as well.
Don Taylor, owner of Omelette Express restaurants in Santa Rosa and Windsor, has significant name recognition from his public service and three previous council campaigns. He has served on the planning commission and was president of the Historic Railroad Square Association. He believes the best way to create jobs is to reduce the red tape for businesses and better marketing of the city.
Though he got into the race late, Taylor says his campaign is gaining traction, several key endorsements have gone his way, and people appreciate his focus on signs of health in the local economy.
“Even during these tough times, we’ve made pretty significant headway,” Taylor said, citing new restaurants downtown and new businesses locating in Railroad Square, including two bike shops and a dance studio.
Winery executive Hans Dippel believes Santa Rosa needs to capitalize on its location in the heart of Sonoma’s Wine Country to become a destination city for tourists. He also believes in removing barriers to businesses and actively recruiting them to set up shop here, especially in vacant commercial spaces.
One idea he has for boosting business downtown is for free parking for at least two hours, which would bring more shoppers and visitors downtown and eliminate the outrage people feel when they get a parking ticket. A photo he posted on Facebook of a ticket he got for an expired meter got numerous responses, he said.
“I think we have a system right now that’s not working,” Dippel said of the city’s parking program. “You show that picture to people and it stirs emotions more than district elections or binding arbitration or just about anything.”
Caroline Bañuelos, a former homeless services provider, also has significant name recognition from her years on the planning commission and involvement with nonprofit groups.
Bañuelos also strongly supports making Santa Rosa a destination city and doing more to attract new businesses. But she also believes the city should focus on helping its existing businesses thrive, especially small, locally-owned businesses.
“I think they are really the backbone of Santa Rosa, and I think we need to do everything we can to support them,” she said.
Two candidates, Mike Cook and Shaan Vandenburg, dropped out of the race but remain on the ballot.
But not everyone is buying the idea that it’s a five-way race for the third and fourth seats.
Political consultant Herb Williams, who is running Olivares’ campaign, agrees that incumbents should face an easier time this year, but said his surveys suggest not all incumbents are shoe-ins.
“I think what Mr. Gale and others are saying is normally true, but not in the case of Mr. Wysocky,” Williams said. “I think his treatment of people has not gone unnoticed by voters.”
Santa Rosa City Council chambers at city hall.
Williams declined to elaborate or share the data from his survey.
Wysocky called that a “baseless charge.”
“So much for Mr. Williams and Mr. Olivares reaching across the aisle,” Wysocky said. “I’m proud to run on my record.”
Wysocky often takes the lead in questioning city staff and others on issues before the council, particularly on complex subjects such as the budget, contract negotiations, and pension reform. He feels the council hasn’t made the difficult decisions needed to restore the city to fiscal health.
He also has called for greater accountability in the city’s gang prevention programs, feels the council needs to give more weight to neighborhood concerns, and supports alternative transportation initiatives like the SMART train and pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
While he can be strong willed, Wysocky said council members whose campaigns Williams has run have been more prone to outbursts from the dais or rude treatment of residents.
“All I know is when I meet people at the door, I’m getting a very positive response, and people are grateful for my service on the council,” Wysocky said. “I ask tough questions. I do my job for the people of the city.”
Olivares, for his part, says his top priority is to continue efforts to make the city more welcoming to new and existing businesses. He cites the work of two task forces he formed — on economic competitiveness and pension reform — as helping the city make meaningful progress on both issues.
Olivares claims the city has created 1,300 new jobs since he’s been on the council and has 1,900 “on the drawing board.” Those estimates, put together by city economic development staff, refer to some projects that took advantage of economic development measures established by the previous council and assume future projects that are highly uncertain.
If Combs and Carlstrom are both elected, it could set up a dynamic where Carlstrom occupies an influential position on the next council, McCuan said.
Combs, a neighborhood activist, holds positions on issues similar to Wysocky. These include the need for an “honest, balanced budget,” more significant pension reform, bringing good-paying jobs to the city, and giving a greater voice to the neighborhood groups.
She has been sharply critical of Olivares and his allies, often on Twitter, which she uses prolifically to communicate with supporters and issue live updates of council debates in real time.
Carlstrom, on the other hand, has endorsed Olivares, and vice versa. The two pledged to work together, despite their divergent views on issues, to change the tone on the council.
Some viewed the alliance as a refreshing step toward restoring a sense of civility and collaboration on the council. Others saw it as an election year stunt meant to give the relatively unknown Carlstrom a boost and to give political cover to Olivares, who promised to reconcile the council but admits the effort failed.
Whatever the case, if voters react positively and Carlstrom is elected, “she could become that pivotal, critical vote in the middle,” McCuan said.
If that happens, it could make for some very interesting votes.
While she has endorsed Olivares, McCuan believes Carlstrom will show herself be more aligned with the environmental, labor and neighborhood oriented candidates now in the minority.
“She’s closer to the progressives than she is to the mayor,” McCuan said.
A quick review of some key 4-3 votes over the past two years seems to bear this out, with Carlstrom saying she probably would have voted with the majority once and the minority four times.
She said she would have voted:
• In favor of West End neighborhood’s appeal to require more environmental review of the Bodean Co. asphalt plant’s three new silos.
• Against rezoning the Yolanda Avenue site once eyed for a Lowe’s Home Improvement to make the site easier to develop.
• In favor of spending another $100,000 to study the pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Highway 101, expected to cost between $13 million and $20 million.
• Against reprioritizing the council’s goals to reduce the value placed on neighborhood involvement.
• In favor of the latest two-year police contract which included some pension reform measures.
Carlstrom declined to speculate on how her election could influence the council’s direction.
“Right now, all I’m trying to do is to get elected,” she said.
Olivares said he’s been clear that his endorsement of Carlstrom didn’t suggest they would be voting together on key issues, which he says he hasn’t even discussed with her in detail.
Rather it was a commitment to listen to each other in a genuine effort to reach consensus and move the city forward.
“It’s hard to say right now how things are going to shake out,” Olivares said.
Subscribe by Email
Follow us on Twitter
Ah, yes….the “progressives” and Gary Wysocky. If you’re comfortable voting for a sitting Council member who tore down the neighborhood flyers opposing HIS Bike Blvd, then you’re okay with having the First Amendment Right to Free Speech hijacked! Progressives became the buzz word when the silent Dems during the B/C regime decided being called “Liberal” was a dirty word and they needed a new appellation. Progressives haven’t connected the dots. They believe their agendas will protect Planet Earth, the environment, halt global warming – wonderful if they were the bottom line. Sadly, what IS so, is that a Fascist and Totalitarian gov’t is the worldwide goal. It is every nightmarish SCI-FI story coming true. They are in favor of HAARP (High Altitude Atmospheric Research Program) those supersonic, no insignia, high altitude jets that constantly criss cross our skies leaving chem trails that linger for hours. What is environmentally correct about Jet fuel? Note the word “Research” in HAARP. Essentially it means this group has world govts’ license to experiment with our atmosphere on the “chance” it may stop global warming. But they don’t actually know if it will OR blow a hole in our protective layers to allow greater radiation. If that is the outcome, they haven’t a clue how to fix it or even if it’s possible. The planes are NATO. Yes, One Global Gov’t is the goal. What is Progressive about bringing Fascism and Totalitarianism back to life? Wasn’t that the reason for WWII? Nah, actually wars mean money for the industrialized military & munitions mfg, etc. and the continuation of the Pentagon System. Don’t take my word for this; don’t take ANYONE’S word for political agendas. Do your own homework and learn what IS so!
Don Taylor has pledged free parking for Downtown. I want a healthy and FREE parking Downtown, he has my vote.
@Reality Check-
No apology necessary. I too dislike the interuptive and irritating RoboCalls. My wife leaves them on the machine and won’t delete them until I have listened to them. She says it is a constant reminder that serves as motivation not to engage in RoboCalls.
As far as the above story, yes, parking issues are a part of my platform, but not in the top three things that I would like to get done on the Council.
My main goal is to generate more money for the City so that we can address all of the infrastructure concerns that we all face, without putting city services at further risk of being eliminated. Please feel free to see my outline at http://dippelforcitycouncil.org/. If you have any further questions, I am available to discuss with you in further detail. You have my number. My goal is to give the whole community “Reason to Believe” in Santa Rosa as a destination and not a gateway.
Cheers!
Hans
Hans Dippel,
Thanks for the response. Since I neither save nor listen carefully to robocalls, I’ll simply offer my apologies for my mistake.
Still, the above article lists “free downtown parking” as one of your agenda items if elected. After 50 years of favoring our downtown with city taxes via a redevelopment agency, just when do citizens have the right to expect downtown businesses to stand on their own?
This city has postponed infrastructure needs in part because we lavish money on downtown, sometimes for projects of dubious benefit to any but the special interests who clamor for them.
If merchants downtown want to offer free parking to their employees and customers, it is well past time for them to step forward and pay the bill.
@Reality Check
I just want to make it clear- I have not done any RoboCalls. Please do me a favor and go back and listen to the message one more time if you would. I promise you that it was not me or my campaign. You can, however, call me if you like. (707) 953-3911 if you would like to chat.
Cheers!
Hans Dippel
Candidate for Santa Rosa City Council
We actually have a pretty good group of people running for city council this time around. Listening to the League of Women voters debate the majority of the candidates seems informed and intelligent. We need to keep in mind that the city council is a full time job that pays about $10K per year, so it is surprising we get anyone who is qualified.
Because the budget is so heavily influenced by public safety wages and pensions, the progressive are actually the much more fiscally conservative group. Sure they are willing to spend money from outside Santa Rosa on things like the bicycle bridge, but when it comes to the actual city budget they are very clear about what we can afford.
The residents of Santa Rosa deserve much better leadership and city government than the many of the current crop of candidates offer. We have had nothing but a no jobs, no growth economy, high taxes and big spending city council for far too long and it has certainly taken a toll.
Too many of these current candidates only offer a social worker background.
What is needed are experienced, community leaders who will solve real problems and not get side tracked arguing about who is greener or who will spend the most money on bike paths.
Only three of the candidates, Taylor, Dippel and Olivares appear to have the seriousness, maturity, good judgement and leadership that is required.
All aboard the Don Taylor Express!!! Chooooo, choooooo!!!!
Free omlettes for every voter on November 6th!
What a dismal list to choose from. Try as I did to find someone I wanted to vote for, I couldn’t. I almost went went for Dippel, but then I got his robo call proclaiming his great idea for city improvement was free parking. That’s his pitch, something for nothing. Whatever SR needs it isn’t another politician promising free stuff.
@Thorn Clearly you have your facts off. That column was written prior to the voluntary pension concessions from police and fire. Perhaps Carlstrom’s column even contributed to the willingness of police and fire unions to come to the table when their contracts were not even expired and give concessions that benefited the entire city.
Perhaps Ms. Carlstrom has forgotten her own Opinion piece where she complains that police did not conceded enough? Or maybe she just needed the public safety endorsement?
“For a department [police] with 45 percent of the city’s most highly paid employees (in excess of $100,000 a year), it is appalling that the city has not received any concessions from these public servants, and it’s a shame that the proposed revisions don’t treat the rest of our community so kindly.”
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110607/OPINION/110609541?p=2&tc=pg
Kevin McCallum, a progressive, is showing his clear bias as usual. First of all to say that the environmental progressives listen to neighborhood concerns more than the other council members is clearly not the case. Remember who supported the large neighborhood group that opposed the traffic circles on Humboldt Street, it was the business friendly council members. In fact, Wysocky, while in the majority basically bullied the neighborhood with his ideology about the bike boulevard. Our side won out with the support of Ernesto Olivares, Jane Bender and other so-called business friendly council people. When did the progressives listen to neighborhood concerns to that degree? Never. People familiar with Gary Wysocky know about his combative aggressive no-holds barred behavior and will not vote for him again. In addition to the bike boulevard fiasco, Wysocky is constantly pushing for more expensive bike projects such as the 20 million dollar bike bridge that we can’t afford. Shouldn’t an accountant realize that Santa Rosa doesn’t have enough money to pursue that?
And why give the under 30 Erin Carlstrom so much coverage in the article? Who cares how she now says she would have voted on past issues? Why wasn’t every candidate asked the same questions about how they would have voted? Answer, because the PD is supporting her for some unknown reason. And Combs? She is an emotional attack dog as her twitter posts clearly show. You won’t see any bi-partisanship or cooperation from her. She will be 100% progressive. I posted about her erratic bad behavior before and the next day someone wrote a letter to the editor saying how good her temperament was. I guess someone is reading my comments.
Wysocky, what an embarrassment to Santa Rosa. If the progressives win, he will be the next mayor. He said the only number that matters is four when he was part of the 4 person majority on council. He has consistently pushed his agenda and bullied the other side at every opportunity. He won’t compromise on anything and is a strict ideologue.
Banuelos will vote how she is instructed and has nothing original of her own. She is unlikely to win and has lost repeatedly. She and Carlstrom served on the Planning Commission by appointment because they will do what is expected of them by the progressive side. In no way should people think that Carlstrom will cooperate with the business friendly council members. She is married to Nick Caston, need I say more?
There are only 3 candidates worth voting for, Olivares, Taylor and Dippel. Otherwise we will have ridiculous progressive “common good” redistributive policies in complete accordance with the United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development rammed down our throats. Change we can believe in? Voting for progressive candidates will speed up the implementation of Sustainable Development. People may still not be aware of the larger agenda of global governance but everyone will soon realize what is happening to them. It may be too late to do anything about it later. Educate yourselves now before the progressives can advance the globalist agenda. At this point, even if you’re a Democrat as I am, voting for someone just because they’re a Democrat is misleading. Progressives have hijacked the Democratic Party.
For more information go to Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition dot com and Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 dot com