"Mr. Peterson, who is your District 2 candidate?" Comments on Stories, posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Nov 28, 2011 at 8:57 am
A letter is now being sent to District Attorney Peterson with copy to Sheriff Livingston asking for their proposed candidate for district 2 supervisor. Discovery of polling of potential candidates with strong public safety positions has occurred during the past two weeks and 4 recognizable individuals have emerged.
As a journalist, 24/680 south neighborhoods are inviting you to discover who is that candidate that will oppose the machine politics' candidate, Tomi van de Brooke?
AS a CDSI Research/allied news service courtesy, email@example.com
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 28, 2011 at 12:34 pm
There you go again!
Unless a candidate has already declared you are simply asking a silly question which will most likely not be responded two by either the DA or the Sheriff. (Serious candidates would have already declared and both of these elected offices know that). Running for County Supervisor is not a last minute decision and requires early effort. In case you have not figured it out, the clock has already struck midnight.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Nov 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm
As we shared with Tomi and you today by private e-mail, you might explain the power of e-viral campaigns as today's tools for a majority of voters, in their neighborhoods forums, to elect local and regional candidates of their choice.
A decade ago public campaigns ruled voters' choice, but with the advent of social media, intranet and e-viral campaigning their simply is no need for ancient public campaign tactics. A majority picks their candidate quite privately and votes that choice on election day.
In the present campaign for district 2, endorsements label candidates more than identify them with a majority of voters. The overlay of machine politics simply amplifies opposition among a majority of voters to such chosen candidates. It becomes the majority of voters opposed to the political choice.
Quite amazing and a great story for your particular talents.
CDSI Research courtesy to Corridor Neighborhoods Forum
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 28, 2011 at 7:27 pm
The advent of social media, intranet and e-viral campaigning?
Seriously, why is everything political such a conspiracy to you? Have you ever given any consideration to the possibility that you just may not be seeing the forest for the trees?
You got waxed in the last election cycle with your predictions. What makes you think this one will be any different?
As often as you, and/or CDSI Research cite figures, < and > signs, I would think you would know the difference between a majority and minority. It appears to me that you are just angry that you are on the wrong side of the equation.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 28, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Fair question? Really you think so? On a blog where people use anonymous names, initials, and post under multiple monikers? Sorry friend, but I don't give out personal information. Just one of those funny little rules of mine regarding the internet.
But thanks for indirectly answering a question that I had about you.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 8:18 am
Informed Resident(s) authors and supporters are known and published by multiple news sources. As a function of the "ONE Campaign" described in this morning's subscriber distribution by news services, Informed Resident(s) are identified as residents of Alamo and Danville and linked to Mark DeSaulnier's plans to maintain the status quo in Contra Costa County and Tri-Valley politics. Like many front organizations for such campaigns, Informed Resident(s) are focused on efforts to restrict opposition to Tomi van de Brooke and Mary Piepho in the June 2012 primary elections.
In preparation for release of the "ONE Campaign" feature this morning, we posted this exchange topic to invite readers' examination of efforts to restrict Mark Peterson from supporting a competitive campaign for District 2 supervisor.
News service members of CDSI Research are available at firstname.lastname@example.org to answer your readers' further questions.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 10:58 am
I agree with the comment regarding " status quo ". It is the " status quo " my wallet is afraid of. I applaud anyone who promotes competition in this political arena. Our county debt needs better trustees. All the proposed NEW taxes will only put a bandage on the hemorrhage of our revenue bleeding unless we choose people other than Tomi van de Brooke and Mary Piepho. Mr. Petersons political win has shown the residents of Contra Costa County are tired of the status quo. I would be seriously interested in anything Mr. Peterson has to contribute. Contra Costa needs change. 2012 is a great year to continue that change.
Posted by Steve B. , a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 12:35 pm
East County Watch,
The current Board of Supervisors with direction from Mary Piepho (who you love) have cut the county's debt in half (by over 1 Billion dollars) isn't good enough for you?
I know you like to blame Ms. Piepho from everything under the sun, even if the counties debt has be generated for years before Ms. Piepho...
What new taxes are you referring to? I am aware of no new "taxes" unless you are complaining about your local taxes which are being proposed from you east county elected leaders and not the Board of Supervisors.
Are you that detached from reality or just on your own personal mission to discredit those whom you disagree with.
Your ongoing crusade simply falls flat on those of us who pay attention to the issues. Don't forget, Peterson came from the DA's office and the city council. So much for your innuendo of change versus status quo. It's getting really sad to watch to be honest...
Posted by Steve's cousin, a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Lots of assumptions here. I do not know anyone who does not love Mary Piepho. She is a genuine diamond in the rough. Steve don't be so pestimistic about Mary Piepho. She can hold her own. look at all this attention she has generated for herself. It is all about Mary.
You know cousin, we could use some new leaders to help Mary out.
This is why I'm for Tomi. Those two can really take us places.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm
"Contra Costa Deputy Sheriffs Association has ratified its contract with Contra Costa County, according to union spokesman Jim Bickert. The Board of Supervisors will likely vote on the compact on Dec. 6. Deputies will take pay cuts and pay more for pensions, but will share the increased cost of health care premiums with the county."
Sound like new taxes, Mr. East County Watch? I think not.
It looks like they are fighting once again for you even though you continue to give them no credit and show no appreciation. I am sure you will be the first one in line to thank them right?
A well-deserved thanks goes out to our county Board of Supervisors. Keep up the good work!
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Informed only tells half the story. The gibberish and propaganda cake serve is to make the high maintenance supervisors look good.
Everyone else in the private industry including senior citizens has taken hits on health care. This is a recession. Look up the definition. The housing market is down by half. That means costs for housing are lower. That means lower wages for public employees is logical. Instead the special interest has bought the taxpayers more debt through the Supervisors.
The Deputy Sheriff's make some the highest pay ( along with the Firemen ) in the entire bay area. They should take a concession like everyone else in this economy. The County should not pay an extra nickel in times like these.
I do not think the Supervisors did well at all in this deal. They should have done much better. Now the local 1 public employee union want some of the same gravy the Sups are serving up.
The end result is taxpayers will pay more. The unfunded debt climbs. Less emergency services will continue because of the poor negotiations by the Supervisors. The Supervisors and you, informed resident always blame someone else. The buck stops at the Board of Supervisors. It is their duty and responsibility to stop the out of control costs of overpaid labor. This includes them.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 3:16 pm
In the messages received at CDSI Member Information, email@example.com, today related to this exchange, the comments focus on the anger of Tomi’s and Mary’s proponents and the lack of content justifying their support. What your readers want are campaign supporters to detail support for Tomi and Mary based on their history together and their plans for future service to communities and neighborhoods.
This really is a great story and timely:
** Interview Mark Peterson for his plans
** Interview Karen Stepper and Abram Wilson for their plans
** Interview Alamo MAC members for what support for Tomi they expect from Alamo voters.
** Interview David Bowlby about the overall support for Mary and Tomi by Contra Costa Council and member corporations.
** Interview Informed Resident(s) and other Express proponents about their reasons for supporting unopposed campaigns by Mary and Tomi.
** Be sure to ask Mark DeSaulnier about efforts by Mark’s ONE Campaign to keep Tomi and Mary unopposed.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 4:13 pm
East County Watch,
One can only take from your response that you are challenged by many things. Reading comprehension being one of them.
You wrote; The Deputy Sheriff's make some the highest pay ( along with the Firemen ) in the entire bay area. They should take a concession like everyone else in this economy.
My post said; “Deputies will take pay cuts and pay more for pensions,”
…What part of that was lost on you? The facts or the truth?
You make this sooooo easy!
P.S. It is a matter of public record that Contra Costa Sheriff’s Deputies are amongst the LOWEST paid in the Bay area, and Fire Fighters in East County (where East County Watch is from) are the lowest paid in the Bay area-by far. It doesn’t take much effort to research that, then again you are probably too busy blogging misleading info.
• The agreement is the latest in the county's push to settle with its unions and to cut personnel costs as its revenues continue to decline. Negotiators earlier reached a hard-fought deal with midlevel managers and continue to talk with a five-union coalition of its largest public employee unions.
• The deputies' last contract expired in mid-2008, but with nothing on the table except concessions and no right to strike, union leaders had little motivation to settle.
• The county ratcheted up its leverage in October, threatening to force upon the deputies a one-year contract with even deeper pay and benefit reductions.
And the factual cherry on the cake;
The wage cut will cost a top-step deputy earning $81,504 a year about $2,300. Contra Costa deputies are the lowest-paid among their Bay Area peers.
In case you missed it Mr. East County Watch: Contra Costa deputies are the lowest-paid among their Bay Area peers. That is LOWEST PAID AMONG THEIR BAY AREA PEERS.
So much for your commentary on the matter. Maybe it is time for you to stop trying to (purposely) mislead readers?
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Nov 29, 2011 at 6:00 pm
With the lack of candidates to oppose the ONE Campaign of Mark DeSaulnier, it seems mortals must run. Without Pat Paulsen, it seems it is left to a few of us to fulfill the majority of voters' desires for intelligent representation. I shall gather contract staff of public law counsel and public budget analysis to fulfill my registration as a write-in candidate. There will be no other public campaign to challenge.
Among the neighborhoods' choices as candidates with thanks to Ralph N. Shirlet.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 30, 2011 at 9:14 am
Informed Steve plays the stage of propaganda. Steve's selective twisting of truth shows he is part of the problem. He is probably a campaign promoter or relative for one of the incumbants. No one in their right mind thinks our current Supervisors are doing a good job except for the unions. Overpaid public employees are the direct result of the Supervisors mismanagement of funds for labor in ratio to income. The fallout comes to me the taxpayer. Taxpayers have no recourse other than to elect NEW Supervisors who can put the ratio of income back to a proportionate level. They need to do this in spite of special interest endorsements, political contributions, and favors. This would allow the County to hire more emergency service personnel. Instead the lack of proper attention has become financially critical. It has also placed residents at serious risk. We the people are left with understaffed services. Now these same leaders shuffle to create more revenue through taxes and fees instead of correcting their error. This is why we need NEW Supervisors. Even write in candidates would be a better choice.
Posted by Watching the Watcher, a resident of another community, on Nov 30, 2011 at 10:15 am
ECW, do you have any facts to support that liberal dose of innuendo you lay down in here?
When presented with facts(ie. the 50% OPEB liability reduction) you simply go back to droning on in abstract. Election choices should be fact based, pragmatic and a little more intellectual than the "throw the bums out" approach you are promoting here.
The new contract for the DSA is a major cost saver for the county and the taxpayers. Just because you can't comprehend that doesn't change the fact. This savings will provide more headroom for future SO budgets and effectively allow more cops on the street.
As noted, Deputies in this county are paid less than those in other Bay Area counties. So explain what "ratio" it is you are looking for. Explain what fees or taxes are being proposed to support "overpaid" employees within the county as you claim.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Nov 30, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Getting back on track, let us ask your readers to actually name their preferences for Districts 2 and 3 candidates and ask a question, in Stan Wharton fashion, "Is it important to voters to have a competitive campaign for districts supervisors' elections?"
As your readers suggest answers to that question, it would be informative to have such commentary explain how important is for voters to choose who runs for office versus candidates chosen by political consortiums, or is that important?
It will make a great streetwise topic, don't you think?
**A CDSI Research courtesy to allied news service subscribers**
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Nov 30, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Watching me should actually read the facts that are presented on a weekly basis by Dan Borenstein of the CC Times. He is one of the very few that seeks out real truth. He presents the grim facts to the public in a way we can all understand. I think the man is a genius and an excellent journalist.
I would truly welcome his suggestions for the next election. My checkbook is ready to contribute to campaigns that he endorses.
Dan Borenstein's articles should be taken to heart by all.
He is genuine and realistic. Informed Resident Watching Steve B. Watching could learn from Dan Borenstein.
I think we should ask Mr. Borenstein who he feels is right for bringing Contra Costa out of this crisis the current Supervisors put us in.
Posted by Watching the Watcher, a resident of another community, on Nov 30, 2011 at 6:02 pm
ECW, the facts that I alluded to were presented in the very paper that Borenstein works for.
Was that not obvious?
If you truly live in East County, I have to wonder why you would take the advice of someone who does not live in your District for your representative. I doubt that Borenstein fully understands the issues that are most important to East County constituents.
Blindly following an outsider's endorsement doesn't strike me as something a properly informed voter does.
Posted by East County Watch, a resident of another community, on Dec 1, 2011 at 10:55 am
So are you saying that Borenstein reports false information against his own newspaper? I tend to doubt that. What he does is report what the Supervisors hold back when letting information out to the media.
I think Mr. Borenstein knows precisely the important issues.
The difference between him and you is transparency. Mr. Borenstein is an open book with no agenda. The gibberish I see here from you, steve, and informed (probably from the same Piepho/Van de Brooke
Puppet promoters) are distractions from the real result of the current Supervisors decisions. Huge costs to taxpayers with fewer services. This is precisely why change is needed now. Mr. Borenstein, with his wisdom and knowledge can help.
Finally, I am not blindly endorsing anyone. I have researched Mr. Borenstein for several years. I have spoken with him. I have debated with him. It is that trust that Mr. Borenstein has earned unlike the incumbent Supervisors. The current east county supervisors have created a huge distrust.