WatchSonoma Watch

Longtime political foes Gorin, Sawyer now election rivals


Susan Gorin and John Sawyer long have been rivals on the Santa Rosa City Council, staking out contrasting positions on land use, fiscal issues and neighborhood involvement.

But the election to decide who takes over the 1st District seat on the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, held for 10 years by Valerie Brown, marks the first time the political opposites have become opponents on the ballot.

Susan Gorin, John Sawyer.

The bruising runoff, now more than a year old, is being fought along familiar fronts for the candidates and their dueling political camps.

Gorin is the more liberal figure, supported by the county’s largest environmental and labor groups.

Sawyer is the more conservative politician, with support from business and agriculture interests, as well as law enforcement and firefighter unions.

Both claim credentials across that divide, but Gorin accuses Sawyer of “greenwashing” his environmental record, while Sawyer says Gorin’s votes against some development have been “short-sighted.”

Their rivalry has been bitter at times, factoring in power shifts on the Santa Rosa council and sparking protests by their supporters on the steps of City Hall.

What’s different in the race for Brown’s seat is that the fight is being waged in what is mostly new geographic terrain for the two candidates.

Both are well-known within Santa Rosa city limits, but the 1st District encompasses a much wider swath of the county to the east and south, including the city of Sonoma and Sonoma Valley.

Since June, when they topped a primary field of four other challengers, all of them from Sonoma Valley or Sonoma, Gorin and Sawyer have been in a high-octane scramble to broaden their bases.

“I think the numbers would show that it’s the voters south of Santa Rosa city limits that are going to determine the next supervisor,” said Sawyer, 57, who was first elected to the council in 2004 and ran his family’s downtown news store for decades until it closed in 2010.

Santa Rosa residents make up 52 percent of the 1st District’s voters, but those in Sonoma and Sonoma Valley are more likely to be undecided, the candidates said.

“Santa Rosa voters know the records of John and me, for the most part” said Gorin, 60, a councilmember since being elected in 2006 and a former city planning commissioner and school board member. “Sonoma folks, less so. They’re still trying to figure out our core values and voting records.”

The campaigns have filled the region’s mailboxes, radio waves and farm fields with their messages, an election-season blitz escalating what is already the biggest showdown among local government races.

No other county seats are on the ballot this fall. Supervisors Shirlee Zane and Efren Carrillo easily claimed second terms in the June primary. The Board of Supervisors’ two other seats, held by first-term members Mike McGuire and David Rabbitt, are not up for re-election until 2014.

All eyes have turned on the Gorin-Sawyer race, seen as pivotal in determining the direction of county government during a critical period.

It could produce the swing vote on controversial land-use issues and factor heavily in decisions about economic development, pension system overhaul and spending on county services, including roads, parks and open space and aid programs.

“There is a dramatic difference in the direction of the board based on who wins between these two candidates,” said David McCuan, a Sonoma State University political scientist.

The winner will join a board reconstituted over the past four years. Gorin’s victory could lead to a more liberal majority on some issues, joining Zane and McGuire. Sawyer’s victory would assure a solid moderate-to-conservative majority, joining Carrillo and Rabbitt, as well as McGuire, who can swing right on some issues.

Either board makeup could stand for years, with their policy reverberating even longer.

“I wouldn’t expect this board to look exactly the same in 10 years,” McCuan said. “But the direction of the board will be projected forward a decade.”

The stakes for the 1st District are especially high.

This election marks the first time since 1980 that 1st District voters get to decide who fills a vacant seat on the county board. Both Brown, who is retiring, and Mike Cale, her predecessor, were appointed to fill vacancies.

Whoever wins also has a good chance of keeping their seat: It’s been 28 years since a sitting supervisor was ousted in Sonoma County.

“I would expect that whoever wins that race, I would think they would be there for a while,” said McCuan.

Regardless of who wins, however, it will be a Santa Rosa resident representing the 1st District — and joining two others from the city, Zane and Carrillo, on the county board. Brown, who is retiring after two decades in state and local politics, lives near Kenwood.

The change in board composition has more than a few 1st District voters dismayed about their choices. The district’s geopolitical center has historically been Sonoma Valley, they argue.

“Neither one of them (Gorin and Sawyer) showed their face around here until they started running for supervisor,” said Gina Cuclis, a Boyes Hot Springs resident who was the top vote-getter in the June primary among the Sonoma-based candidates. “Do they really care about us or not? That’s the bigger context.”

Both candidates, of course, say they are dedicated to serving the district.

Gorin cites her present service as a local government representative on regional boards and panels overseeing planning, air quality, and water. Other roles have dealt with county libraries, youth issues and bicycle and pedestrian safety countywide.

“I started out as a community volunteer representing the entire county,” Gorin said. “Did I do this thinking ‘Gee, I’m going to be elected supervisor?’ No, I did that because of who I am.”

Sawyer, who also serves on countywide panels overseeing solid waste and airports, cites the connections he has made with valley interests in the past year, including farmers and ranchers, as evidence that he would be an effective representative. He lives in the Santa Rosa portion of Bennett Valley on the 1st District’s west side, but will have no problem getting to know the entire district, he said.

“It’s no different for me than how I serve on the council,” he said. “It’s a matter of access and seeking the right people out.”

Of the two, Gorin is most vulnerable to the outsider complaint. Her former Fountaingrove home is four blocks outside the 1st District boundary so she had to move into the district to run.

Sawyer has pounced on that move, saying it “smacks of political gamesmanship” and runs counter to Gorin’s support for district elections, currently proposed for Santa Rosa.

“I don’t believe she wants to be the supervisor for the 1st District,” Sawyer said last week in an interview. “I believe she wants to be a supervisor.”

But Gorin, who is leasing a home in Oakmont, said her opponent is just trying to score political points. Sawyer himself lives just inside the district, she noted.

“When I made the commitment to run for this seat, I moved as far into the district as I could,” she said. “It reflects my commitment to serving this district.”

While the territory is fresh for the two candidates and the battle lines familiar, the issues they would face as a county supervisor are a blend of old and new.

They range from such hot-button topics as where to allow new medical marijuana dispensaries, the county proposal to serve as a power supplier to homes and businesses and decisions that could determine the spread of new wineries and vineyards in the region.

Asked for his immediate priorities, Sawyer advanced a long-held complaint of building interests — that county land-use regulations are stifling business growth.

He called the county planning department “broken,” saying it too often approaches development projects with an adversarial attitude.

“They are the gatekeepers and I believe their job should be to find the key to success, not slamming it in your face,” he said.

Gorin, who generally favors tighter land-use oversight, said improvements were needed in county permitting. But she cited current measures to improve customer service at the planning department, saying those efforts ought to be given more time to work.

“John just wants to slash and burn everything,” Gorin said.

Not true, said Sawyer, saying he favored “meaningful regulation” that is “consistent and fair.” Asked what he would change, he said “it’s not the regulation that necessarily needs to change, but the process and attitude.”

The debate on land use involves past and future county votes on a long list of projects, including two currently in litigation — the Roblar Road quarry west of Cotati, and the the Dutra Materials asphalt plant south of Petaluma — and Preservation Ranch, the large forest-to-vineyard conversion proposal outside Annapolis.

Both candidates declined to publicly stake out positions on those projects, saying they would not do so until presented with a vote on the county board.

But supporters have lined up on both sides based on how they see the candidates’ decisions.

Building interests have backed Sawyer for what they call his “balance” of economic needs and environmental protection.

“We really believe that (Gorin) has a history of not being what we would call business-friendly,” said Keith Woods, chief executive officer of the North Coast Builders Exchange, a Santa Rosa trade group. “John fits that bill so much better than (her) that it was a slam dunk for us to endorse him.”

Environmental groups, meanwhile, have assailed Sawyer for what they say is his failing grade on land-use and neighborhood issues.

“John Sawyer consistently scores Fs and Ds,” said Dennis Rosatti, executive director of Sonoma County Conservation Action, the largest local green group. Gorin, he said, consistently gets top ratings. “Susan’s record stands for itself,” he said.

How Gorin, Sawyer voted on key Santa Rosa issues

John Sawyer and Susan Gorin have been on opposite sides of some contentious votes on the Santa Rosa City Council over the past few years.

Here are five such votes and how the candidates explained them at the time.

City Manager

When Jeff Kolin left Santa Rosa to become city manager of Beverly Hills in early 2010, the searches for his temporary and permanent replacements further polarized the ideologically divided council.

Gorin, then mayor, and her allies on the council passed over deputy city manager Greg Scoles for the post of interim city manager, instead tapping former advanced planning director Wayne Goldberg.

Sawyer was livid, blasting Gorin for her “lack of leadership” and calling the process an “unnecessary, embarrassing, destructive, destabilizing and outrageous exercise.”

Later that year, as the council began considering permanent city manager applicants, Sawyer and allies Jane Bender and Ernesto Olivares pushed for the decision to be put off until after the November election. They argued that the pool of candidates wasn’t good enough, in part because of the decision to pass over Scoles.

The three walked out of some closed-session meetings on the subject and boycotted others.

On July 21, on a 4-3 vote, the council hired the longtime city manager of Clovis, Kathy Millison, with Gorin voting in favor, and Sawyer against.

Bicycle Bridge

In the 2010 election, the balance of power swung back to candidates supported by the city’s business and development interests.

Sawyer quickly took aim at what some considered an expensive pet project of the bicycling community, a pedestrian and bicycle bridge over Highway 101 estimated to cost between $13 million and $20 million.

After the election but before the new council members took office, Sawyer and Gorin voted to spend $100,000 to further study the project. But Sawyer did so only as a tactical move to preserve his right to seek reconsideration of the issue at the council’s next meeting, when once again he would be in the majority.

Gorin, who recounted the dangers of the Steele Lane freeway underpass for cyclists and noted the project had been a city priority for years, was outraged. “This is penny-wise and pound-foolish! I am shocked, I am absolutely shocked!” she said.

In a shrewd parliamentary move at the following meeting, Gorin and her allies voted to reconsider the prior week’s vote before incoming council members were seated, knowing it would fail on a 3-3 vote. The move blocked Sawyer and the new majority from re-voting later in the meeting to deny funding for the study.

Police contract

Gorin and Sawyer this year were on opposite sides of a key vote with the March 20 approval of a two-year labor contract for the Santa Rosa police.

The new contract contained several changes to pension benefits for officers, including the establishment of lower benefits for new officers and requiring current officers to begin paying more toward their pensions.

The package was expected to save the city about $685,000 over two years.

Gorin didn’t think the savings went far enough. She noted the officers were going to begin paying the 9 percent of their salaries the city had been paying on their behalf for pensions, but the contract gave them 8 percent pay raises to cover most of those costs.

“At some point the council needs to say ‘Sorry folks. You’ve given up good things, you’ve come before us and made some serious recommendations, and it’s not enough,’” Gorin said.

Sawyer supported the new contract, saying that it fell short of what some might want, but “moves us in the right direction.”

Bodean silos

Sawyer voted June 20 with the council majority to deny an appeal of the approval of a West End asphalt plant operator’s plans to add three 82-foot silos.

He said the project should be allowed to move forward without a full environmental review because the Bodean Company had demonstrated the upgrades would improve air quality, reduce energy costs and not have significant impacts on the neighborhood.

“Isn’t that what we want right now? An operator that is responsibly complying with our environmental regulations?” Sawyer said.

Gorin voted in favor of the appeal, arguing that the West End neighborhood’s concerns about dust, traffic and air quality were enough to require additional studies. She also expressed concern that the upgrades would further entrench the operation in a residential neighborhood where zoning doesn’t allow industrial uses to expand.

“We know that long-term this is not the place for an asphalt plant,” she said.

Lowe’s site

In 2009, both candidates voted against the Lowe’s Home Improvement project on Yolanda Avenue, citing the traffic on Santa Rosa Avenue and impact on local businesses.

But last month, they split on whether the 11.8-acre property should be rezoned to make it easier to develop in the future.

Sawyer supported the city-sponsored effort, which was promoted by the majority as a way to streamline a future large-scale development on the site. He called the rezoning “a true investment in our future.”

But Gorin objected to the city spending money to proactively rezone the property, noting that developers typically bear such costs.

She also said the traffic impacts from such a large-scale project are far from understood.

— Kevin McCallum

17 Responses to “Longtime political foes Gorin, Sawyer now election rivals”

  1. James Bennett says:

    Andrew Simpson: I don’t know what music you like, but you rock.

    The elitist, superior, entitled attitude and monopolization of energy, water and other resources. The hoarding and clandestine appropriation of funding. The empowerment of unelected boards and agencies.
    The art of synthesizing “consensus” and constant shortages and lack are skill sets that, forgive me, most aren’t smart enough to contrive on their own.
    They are dictated to them through the UN globalist NGO to which our County and Cities are charter members.
    ICLEI: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. These are the kinds of things they initiate. They give them everything they need; training, written material, software, seminars, etc.. Even a sense of belonging to something bigger and better and more important than their allegiance to us.

    The ICLEI model would ultimately have them controlling energy (electricity; n.gas is too plentiful and cheap), water, land use, travel, commerce, media and everything else.

    An ICLEI town could be next to the Great Lakes and there would be a water shortage. Many ICLEI counties are blowing up dams, letting the water flow to the ocean at the detriment of farmers, ranchers, ag. and dairy operations.

    The two political factions in many areas (incl. Sonoma Co.)
    are “the pro business people” or the “green”, “environmentalists”, the folks that wish to be “sustainable”.
    Again, polarizing the populace.

    What it’s really about is carefully orchestrated oppression. What it’s really about is: Are they going to suck on the teet of oppression and allow their very purpose to be subverted? Or. Finally realize that the temporary gain will cause us ALL more pain.

    It’s been written that 15% of Americans are now mindful of UN Agenda 21 Sustainable Development…

    Maybe soon we’ll see what’s really “sustainable”.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  2. Snarky says:

    Anyone notice the same bonehead is posting under multiple names with the same shallow anti-Sawyer statement ?

    No specifics.. just accusations.

    Hey bonehead …. WHAT real estate developers are “funding” Sawyer?

    Thumb up 16 Thumb down 8

  3. andrew simpson says:

    This 1st District Supervisors’ debate brings to mind an epic quote. Mark Felt, late of Santa Rosa, gave this advice to Bob Woodward: “follow the money”. Mr. Felt, a senior FBI official at the time, was trying to help Woodward understand that the Watergate break-in was not merely a third rate burglary. It was in fact about lying, law breaking, misuse of public resources and a breach of the public trust on a wide scale; by the most powerful people. Woodward’s initial reaction to Mark Felt’s advice was stunned disbelief.
    One wonders, If Mr. Felt’s advice were followed in today’s Sonoma County, how this Supervisors’ election—or possibly the next—may be framed. What if we were to follow the money in the governance of Sonoma County? Would we be bored to tears with accusations of petty misdeeds? Or is there is something more significant afoot?
    Here are some smoke signals, wafting up from the executive offices at 404 Aviation Boulevard, home of the Sonoma County Water Agency.
    It’s a series of seemingly disparate lies and payoffs authored by the senior management of the Water Agency.
    Nothing new about that. Remember in 2010 when the Water Agency paid a Santa Rosa Planning Commissioner $95,000 for his vote on a rezoning on Water Agency property?
    That was business as usual.
    Here’s where it gets interesting.
    This time it’s not $95,000. Nor the $115,000 the Water Agency is paying a local political operative , right now, for a sham consulting contract that’s camouflage for an outright gift of public funds for services unspecified.
    This time it’s a billion dollars. That’s $1,000,000,000.
    If you’re shaking your head in disbelief—like Bob Woodward doubting that Americans in positions of high office would so betray the public trust—your reaction is completely rational.
    But, as it turns out, possibly misplaced.
    The Water Agency is sponsoring a billion dollar capital project called Sonoma Clean Power. They’ve done their customary workmanlike job of excluding the public’s access to key meetings; they’ve hidden key financial spreadsheet information on Sonoma Clean Power from public review, lied (in writing) to sustain this concealment; they’ve falsely asserted they have no authorship in the $60 million waste of County funds on Clean Power’s precursor, Sonoma County Energy Independence; they’ve sponsored and paid for misleading public opinion survey work that purports to show that Sonoma Clean Power has widespread public support. Which it does not. They’ve concocted a fraudulent feasibility study that overlooks this glaring, obvious fact: while Sonoma Clean Power offers no rate advantage over PG&E, Healdsburg/Northern California Power Authority enjoy rates 10% lower on average than PG&E’s—and that Healdsburg/NCPA would welcome a joint effort with Sonoma County because it would materially enhance buying power, economies of scale and rate reduction opportunities in an existing, not-for-profit locally managed electricity utility.
    The Water Agency has zero intention of exploring a joint venture with Healdsburg/NCPA for this obvious reason.
    Sonoma Clean Power, a potential economic rebirth for Sonoma County, has been hijacked by the Water Agency for a purpose with no bearing on the public interest. For example, it would be in the public interest to consider alternatives that both foster local control of our electricity generation and supply system, even while driving down rates charged to the end users.
    That is not the benefit the Water Agency seeks, in order to justify adding a billion dollars to the existing community burden of underfunded pensions and roads.
    The Water Agency—and its governing body, the Board of Supervisors—will add a billion dollars in community debt, and community risk, because it broadens their scope as disbursing agent for payoffs and fake contracts on a breathtaking new scale.
    Here’s how it works.
    Sonoma Clean Power will increase revenues under Water Agency control by fivefold—from about $50 million to $250 million. But that’s frosting. Here’s the cake. Sonoma Clean Power will increase capital spending under Water Agency control from about $50 million over the next five years to a billion dollars.
    Here’s why the distinction between revenue and capital spending is crucial. It’s hard to skim rate payer fees. Those are carefully audited. But it’s easy to create fake documentation to justify payments to County insiders, campaign contributors and political allies. As painfully demonstrated in the $60 million fiasco of Sonoma County Energy Independence, the Water Agency simply isn’t nimble enough to sponsor a renewable energy financing and investment effort that has to compete against—and has failed against—free market sources of expertise and capital.
    But if the Water Agency isn’t much of an operator in the field of renewable energy, they have a certain flair—a kind of misguided vocation, even—in acting as a conduit and paymaster for the County insiders’ growing appetite for the public’s hard earned savings.
    Unlike the pensions mess and the overhang of unrepaired roads, Sonoma Clean Power is a future train wreck. One we can avoid.
    Our 1st District supervisorial candidates may be unable to suspend disbelief. They may find it incomprehensible that the County they seek to lead is so mired in a culture of lying and theft. Bob Woodward got over his disbelief, and wrote a new chapter in American politics. The challenge in Sonoma County isn’t that consequential. We just want clean governance.

    Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6

  4. Desiray says:

    Beware the support of “The Sierra Club.” What it means w/Gorin as a Supervisor is that she will press forward for HER passion, the Climate Control/Change Act, which sounds Very Healthy, Very Planet Protective, until the fine print states: No homeowner may sell their own home WITHOUT first making the house comply with all Green specs for Energy Losses, etc. instead of making it incumbent upon the Buyer(s) to throw some new money in the home which will be their residence OR investment/rental. Our homes are the largest asset most of us have and most of us have already done what we could AFFORD to do. What’s left after paying off mortgages in this down market is what seniors have to live on AFTER the sale, but not after being mandated to make more upgrades. Enough already! This is NOT a subject for legislation unless those pressing for it are prepared to foot the bills – for all of us! You take care of your homes and let us take care of ours as best we can. If the majority of homeowners could AFFORD to make these changes, they would; it isn’t a question of immaturity and “someone having to tell us what to do;” it’s a question of money and affordability and no one can say what that is for someone else.

    Thumb up 35 Thumb down 10

  5. MOCKINGBIRD says:

    Bill Me-wrong, spouting about something you know NOTHING ABOUT. Since I’m directly involved with this, and I GET A VOTE to endorse or not to endorse, to donate or not to donate for SEIU, I know for a fact that it’s NOT THE UNION BOSSES WHO CHOSE HER. They weren’t even there. I chose her along with my other SEIU union members throughout the county and city. Sawyer did not get even 1 vote. Sawyer did not even BOTHER TO GET SEIU’S ENDORSEMENT because he was so busy kissing up to the county safety unions like he did the city’s and that’s where the REAL money is. He was invited to speak to us and answer questions. He has so little caring about the working families in this county he didn’t even bother to come and state his case. The union bosses do what the members want. Most of us union members know who will speak up for us and keep us in mind when they make their decisions because WE WORK HARD FOR THE PUBLIC and are NOT THE BAD GUYS.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 33

  6. Dan J Drummond says:

    Does anyone have a problem with the fact that John Sawyer sold pornography at his failed business, Sawyers News? Do you remember? The adult material was just to the right of the cash register.

    Thumb up 11 Thumb down 31

  7. Local Representation says:

    @Stephen. It’s worse than that…Gorin still OWNS her Fountaingrove home (3rd District, but RENTS her Oakmont home (1st District). She frequently talks about serving her “community.”

    What community do you represent, Susan?

    In last Friday’s Sonoma Index-Tribune newspaper, Gorin was quoted as saying: “I am unclear about where I would live. I’m undecided about that. Yes, I’m leasing a home, but I could choose to move anywhere.” http://www.sonomanews.com/News-2012/Supes-candidates-face-off

    I’m further miffed on her motives for this office, but I know for certain she is not passionate about serving Sonoma Valley residents, as she falsely claims time and time again.

    Thumb up 28 Thumb down 10

  8. James Bennett says:

    I hate political terms, but John Sawyer could be considered a “moderate”.

    Susan Gorin is a “progressive” (great word, eh?). In local Sonoma County politics speak the word progressive could be substituted for green Agenda socialist.

    I’ve met with John Sawyer, he’s a realist in that he knows if you stand tall in opposition to all this ICLEI/progressive/anti-ism you will have a “lot of tomatoes thrown at you”.
    Unforunatly we are at a crucial cross road in society and Sonoma County in which we have choices to make. Are we going to allow money or social or political acceptance stand in the way of speaking up for, standing up for what’s right? Or are we going to recognize the gravity of the situation and say NO MORE.

    The analogy I think of sometimes:
    If you see a horrific car wreck by the side of the road late at night do you: a) drive by. b)stop and try to help even if you put yourself at risk? EVEN IF your efforts to save the victims in the car are not successful…YOU DID THE RIGHT THING! Even if you get hurt trying, you still did the right thing.

    Isn’t that the purpose of our being here?
    To be the best version of us we can be?
    It is indeed.
    ESPECIALLY if you’re a public servant that took an oath.

    Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That sacred premise is being sabotaged by going along with this ICLEI orchestrated oppression.

    ICLEI’s “model” provides for a “liason” in planning and on city council. I got a hundred bucks that says Susan is our liason on council. We know she is on the Executive Board and adherent to ABAG/OneBayArea.

    If I was on city council and had knowledge of this tyranny I would be desperately trying to warn my constituents that their property rights and freedom of choice regarding where and how they live is being threatened.

    Instead Susan Gorin goes about the business of implementing this “Plan” largely without the public’s awareness.

    John at least spoke out about his opposition at council meetings.

    Sawyer has decided his career at this time and place in which he has much invested is better served by being a moderate. Although I would like him to be a couragous patriot hero…I’ll gladly accept him when compared to a Susan Gorin or Gary Wysocky. Sorry, don’t like to get into mud slinging political crap but this is a globalist oppression that the progressives are spearheading in our community.

    Thumb up 30 Thumb down 9

  9. Bob Andronice says:

    Sawyer belongs to the wineries and cops and public safety unions who he made back room deals with. To find out who else supports him, look at this signs. They are outside of wineries and real estate developers. He’s got thousands of dollars of LA real estate mailers coming to the district every day. I know because I recycle them. I am voting for the Sierra Club candidate, Susan Gorin, I don’t want my neighborhood looking like an LA strip mall thank you very much.

    Thumb up 10 Thumb down 26

  10. MOCKINGBIRD says:

    Susan Gorin’s home was FOUR BLOCKS out of district 1. FOUR BLOCKS. Sawyer’s home was a few blocks nearly out of the district. I am quite happy she’s moved into my district.

    Sawyer catered to the safty unions while the rest of the city employees got a 3% cut in income. Safety unions got a 9% raise which 8% will go into their pension funds. These guys can already pad their pensions with lots and lots of overtime. This is unfair and unconscionable. He’s already made promises to the county safety unions as well. Another bunch able to already pad their pensions at the expense of the taxpayer and other county employees.

    Gorin WILL represent our district and represent it well. Sawyer will represent his rich backers. LOOK WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM. Gorin did receive money from some of the unions, but it is a very small amount in comparison to what Sawyer rakes in.

    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 31

  11. Time for a Change says:

    We need a common sense voice on the Board of Supervisors. We don’t need another big spending liberal who will do nothing to turn the county spending habits around.

    Sawyer offers a vote on the Board to correct some of the sins of the past and get the county budget and county pensions balanced with some good judgement.

    Give the taxpayers of Sonoma County and the residents a chance, vote Sawyer.

    Thumb up 24 Thumb down 9

  12. Bill me says:

    Gorin is bought and paid for by union bosses, not union workers. Dont be fooled by her. She only represents and does what she is told. Sawyer does what his 110 years in this community tells him to do. Big difference.

    Thumb up 31 Thumb down 9

  13. John Pendergast says:

    “I started out as a community volunteer representing the entire county,” Gorin said. “Did I do this thinking ‘Gee, I’m going to be elected supervisor?’ No, I did that because of who I am.”

    What a crock! How many people like this start out as “volunteers” yet somehow find themselves on a government feather bed. I guess that’s just politics, but I would hate to see this wing nut as county supervisor.

    Thumb up 29 Thumb down 7

  14. Stephen says:

    I commented on this before…I keep want to pounding it into peoples’ minds that Gorin sold her house to move into the new district. Who does that? It’s not like she sold her Roseland home to move to Oakmont–she sold her Fountaingrove house to move there. That just has huge implications. I bet if the sup salary were the same as city counsel, she would still be in Fountaingrove. I don’t know Sawyer, but I see a Government leach in her.

    Thumb up 30 Thumb down 10

  15. Steveguy says:

    Gorin’s own words –

    “When I made the commitment to run for this seat, I moved as far into the district as I could,” she said. “It reflects my commitment to serving this district.”

    Oakmont far ? I think that she has a sham address. Check her cell phone to see where she REALLY stays !!

    Then there is this-

    ” Gorin cites her present service as a local government representative on regional boards and panels overseeing planning, air quality, and water. ”

    Regional Boards, Agencies, Panels, Commissions etc ARE a HUGE problem for us. FULL of favors and many $millions$ in CASH MONEY.

    Where do you think that the sandbagging Gorin gets her support ? It IS those that will benefit monetarily from her bought actions.

    Don’t delude yourselves that these are some @ pure people’. They are CROOKS, pure and simple.

    Fix the roads.

    Thumb up 36 Thumb down 11

  16. Juan Lock says:

    Driving through the valley makes it obvious where Sawyer’s support lies. Every vineyard has a sign or three. He’s beholden to the farm and vineyard owners, Gorin works for the farm workers.

    Thumb up 14 Thumb down 33

  17. John Sawyer will bankrupt us says:

    John Sawyer will not be able to say no to the public safety unions. They have him bought and paid for. No big fan of Gorin, but she is the best option.

    Thumb up 20 Thumb down 41

Leave a Reply