Mayor Andersen will run for District 2 supervisor Comments on Stories, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on Dec 10, 2011 at 7:15 am
Danville Mayor Candace Andersen has announced that she will be running for District 2 County Supervisor. If successful, Andersen will begin as county supervisor in January 2013, following the completion of her current term as mayor.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, December 9, 2011, 11:12 PM
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 10, 2011 at 11:09 am
Hal has a lot to learn. Some lessons are learned the hard way. Remember, Hal is the same guy that thought Uilkema was going to do Alamo justice. Either he has never seen Uilkema in action or it was just wishful thinking.
It will be interesting to see if Andersen can raise the kind of $$$ that it takes to run for a County seat. She has a lot of catching up to do. This will not be a small town election.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm
I highly doubt journalists need you to tell them what their job, responsibility or duty is. You appear to have a difficult time with your own issues so maybe it's time to stop attempting to direct the roles of others.
In what has become a regular irony, you comment about your own behavior while trying to shed it onto those you disagree with.
Case in point; you suggest journalism over drivel. Hal, YOU provide no journalism. On the flip side YOU provide more than your fair share of “drivel” to the point of what many would consider infatuation.
I failed to see any insults to Candace or Tomi with the exception of those provided by you. Candace and Tomi are both women who have been involved in politics for quite some time now. One must draw the simple conclusion that they are both accustomed to journalism, campaign rhetoric and yes, “drivel” that is associated with politics and campaigning. Just like the journalists, they really don’t need you defining their campaigns into your rather unique philosophies.
If you don’t come to grips with how democracy works locally, statewide and even nationally, you are in for many more years of frustration.
With that being said, why don’t you try posting positive efforts and accomplishments about your candidate of choice? Maybe even donate some time or money to the one that you support so they could get their OWN message out to the voters. Or does that just make too much sense? I guess time will tell how you best spend your time and effort.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 11, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Wrong again. My commentary was meant as a challenge for you.
I thought I clearly spelled it out; “Why don’t YOU try posting positive efforts and accomplishments about YOUR candidate of choice? Maybe even donate some time or money to the one that you support so they could get their OWN message out to the voters.”
I can speak for myself and I know that candidates also can and do speak for themselves.
As far as the “roles of commentators” here on this forum that too is also clearly defined; “Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration! Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion.”
The rules are pretty straightforward for most people, even those with a sense of humor.
Posted by [removed}, a resident of another community, on Dec 12, 2011 at 8:12 am
Let me suggest you conclude welcoming Mayor Andersen to a district 2 competitive election that will allow voters to make a choice for the candidate that best suits their will and interests. Distractions from that result can be put aside and Forum commentators can move on, as voters, in making a choice of candidate beyond campaign endorsements and dollars that are meant to make the choice for voters. We all can be more intelligent voters and do our own research prior to making such an important choice for our communities and neighborhoods. Now candidates must step forward and explain their intentions to engage district residents in the important issues and decisions during their term in office and illustrate their independence from political consortiums that would disserve communities and neighborhoods.
Democracy is WE, the people, and WE must be assured that WE will be served before any candidate earns our vote.
Posted by Voter, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2011 at 10:34 am
What bothers me is that she just accepted the position of Mayor of Danville, and then immediately announced she is running for board of supervisors. Clearly, her primary focus and energy will be on getting elected to the board of supervisors, not on running our town properly, and thus us Danville residents suffer for her career aspirations. She needs to immediately step down from Danville town council and mayor, if she plans to run for supervisor. If she does this, I might vote for her for supervisor. If not, no way I would vote for her for supervisor, and it shows lack of character and putting her own goals ahead of our town goals.
Posted by the realjjjj, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2011 at 8:19 am
danville's last politician. millie greenberg was never elected she was selected and lost when she was forced to run... bad for alamo if this candidate should win danville takes from alamo but never gives. no vote for any danville politician is the best vote
Posted by Treetopper, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2011 at 11:40 pm
You folks sure seem to like to trash each other Opinions are like that dark spot that sees no sun. We all have one. For those folks that just like to ramble on....I guess it's OK. But for us old guys who would like to see something constructive in the "Comments", that would be more than OK.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 16, 2011 at 11:51 am
What remains is that while we all have opinions (comments)some are more valid than others. It is up to the individual reader to decide which ones are relevant and which ones are hyperboles.
Personally I would not take much of what I read posted here very seriously. Much of it is assumption based and driven by conspiracy theories of a very few.
I have no problem reading so much conjecture. For the most part it serves as an opportunity to set the record straight which for the most part is like shooting fish in a barrel. The truth never hides, you just need to know where to look.
Posted by askidoo, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 17, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Does it make a difference to Alamo residents that the Town of Danville and the County/Piepho redid a longstanding Hap Magee joint agreement taking Alamo out of the equation on input but keeping them to foot the bill of half the co-owned park? And without notification as well! A real neighborly act.
If it doesn't matter then Andersen should be a welcome addition. If it does matter that the 'good' (not) neighbor to the south engineered this and their Town Council including Andersen was okay with it, then Tomi Van de Brook is a better choice: more often than not she worked with the community of Alamo and didn't knife them in the back behind the scenes!
Posted by [removed], a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 18, 2011 at 1:16 pm
The roles in Danville by Tomi van de Brooke, as District 3 Chief of Staff and Candace Andersen as Mayor, Vice Mayor and council member of Danville's government have had limited impact on Alamo. We have an unwanted, unwelcome and non-supported CCC-MAC based on Tomi's efforts on behalf of Mary Piepho's unilateral decision to impose a MAC on Alamo residents.
Fact-checking Hap Magee Ranch Park shows that Danville was requested by the county to manage operations due to lack of county personnel and resources to directly manage operations. Most of the financial relations were defined during Mary Piepho's term in office, including her reconstitution of the R-7A committee, and it appears without actions by Candace or Tomi.
It would appear that neither candidate warrants review for actions in Alamo beyond the arbitrary actions of Mary Piepho. As editor, you might add to this commentary so Alamo voters know the impact of Tomi and Candace during their time in Danville politics.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 18, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Wow, you sure have an infactuation with Mary Piepho! From what I have read, could it be that she did more for Alamo than all the supervisors that came before her? I guess you never have had that much attention and were not used to it. Don't worry Hal, I am sure Tomi will carry on Piepho's work and give Alamo the attention it deserves.
You are lucky, you would have been completely ignored by Gayle Uilkema...or is that what you were actually hoping for?
Posted by Ralph N. Shirlet, a resident of another community, on Dec 19, 2011 at 3:56 pm
You must know how research editors love to fact-check public comments. This morning at coffee with news service researchers and CDSI researchers, the topic of Informed Resident(s)' commentary came up and all the fact-checking that has been done of such posting to the Express Forum. In humor, researchers referred to such fact-checking as "infactuation" as a quite appropriate new word invented in this exchange.
The great news discovery among neighborhood, business district and community groups' boards, committees and individuals is they have had contact with Gayle, Tomi and Candace in interactive discussion of issues and referral to government resources for resolution.
By contrast, Mary has spent more than six years deciding what is appropriate in Alamo with little or no contact with neighborhood, business district and community groups in any form of direct meetings. News researchers documented 13 meetings with Alamo groups, their subjects and the lack of rational consideration from 2005 to present. In every circumstance except one, the result was exactly to Mary's design and, for the most part, at odds with Alamo community interests.
Posted by Alamo Gets Justice, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 21, 2011 at 9:09 am
Informed appears to have nothing constructive to say. It’s funny when commenter’s like informed resort to this level of communication. It reminds me of dodge ball in junior high.
The fact is that Supervisor Mary Piepho is the sole cause of these actions that affect everyday lives in Alamo. When you Supervise like a dictator and focus on control issues you’re going to get this type of result. Since Tomi is a direct associate of Mary Piepho, voting for her is like voting for Mary. The best part is that other choices are available. Everyone should research the kind of governing person they feel is best for the Town.
Myself, I would not vote for Mary or Tomi based on their history.
In this case now it's only not voting for Tomi now.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:25 am
Alamo Gets Justice aka; “East County Watch”, aka; “Watching”,
You were caught posting as such and you think I just forgot about it?
I have nothing constructive to say? Really? Isn’t this really a case of the pot calling the kettle black? I have been reading and “watching” your posts and it is clear that by your own contrived vendetta that you have never posted anything constructive, while in turn I have batted down your innuendos time after time with fact. I really don’t care to change your opinion but rather expose you for who you are and where your motives are based. Your postings all resemble that of a drive by shooting and it remains my belief that the casual reader picked up on that a long time ago. You are indeed very transparent.
I have little doubt that Piepho and VandeBrooke put you in your place at some point and you can’t get past that. Your cowardly acts are limited to posting hit pieces on various blogs to the point that you have been banned from some of them. Try as you might, your attempts to hide under various pseudonyms aren’t fooling anyone into believing your conjecture and character assassinations. Obviously you don’t comprehend what the job entails with comments like; “Supervise like a dictator and focus on control issues” which is exactly what elected officials, namely County Supervisors are elected to do. While they are not dictators they are elected to make numerous decisions which you might not agree with and is most likely the cause for your disrespectful attitude. You don’t even reside in the district, so I’ll bet VandeBrooke could care less about your actions. I’ll bet you got beat in a lot more than just dodge ball a lot in Jr. High which might explain that cavernous chip on your shoulder. Good luck with your vendetta, check the record because so far it is not working very well.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Dec 22, 2011 at 8:07 am
News service researchers provided coverage of Gina's actions to bring this exchange back on topic in featured information on District 2 and 3 campaigns. This morning, Mayor Andersen, Tomi van de Brooke and Supervisor Piepho were profiled as candidates plus two potential candidates for district 3 supervisor. The issues our county faces in District 2 and 3 were defined for subscribers' consideration.
A fitting conclusion to this exchange is for the Danville Express to create their own feature on the impact of these campaigns and the approach each candidate will likely take as supervisor in our region that is divided among district 2 and 3.
AS a CDSI Research courtesy, Let's invite your readers to consider what that feature might include.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 22, 2011 at 9:46 am
Back on topic, I do believe the two comments (below) will harm Andersen’s campaign. It is well known that Supervisor Uilkema has been less than effective and was destine to be beat in the election. Her decision not to run was a smart move at saving some dignity. She clearly lost whatever edge she had years ago- many of the county’s current problems were created under her watch and with her input. This is no secret in Martinez. Because Andersen touts working with Uilkema, there is no excuse for not knowing of her reputation on various other boards and dismal record. Dignity and integrity? Not even close.
The second statement speaks for itself and is going to be very problematic during the election.
"I have the privilege of working with Supervisor Uilkema on various county boards. She serves the community with dignity and integrity. I look forward to following in her footsteps," Andersen said.
"I'm looking forward to a very full and active year being the mayor of Danville this year, which definitely takes priority over campaigning," Andersen added.
Posted by Alamo Gets Justice, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Dec 22, 2011 at 10:43 am
I think Candace Anderson is an excellent candidate. She would do a fantastic job working for the residents in District II. I believe that Tomi's association with Mary Piepho will hurt her campaign in a huge way. The connection between to two in addition to Tomi's endorsement of Mary Piepho on her website is of serious concern. Then there is the loyalty to the public employee unions that causes one to wonder who she will be holding to, the public or the public employee unions. Beholding to the public employee unions could affect the unfunded debt negatively in the millions this county is committed to. Anderson has shown no preferences or personal debt to the public employee unions. This I think would make her a better candidate for the people and a better candidate to control county give debt.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Dec 22, 2011 at 11:20 am
What could be better proof of Mayor Andersen's ability to be supervisor than to perform well as Danville's Mayor in engagement and outreach to our region's neighborhoods impacted by Danville government decisions and development. Candace has illustrated her commitment to such engagement and communications in her years as mayor, vice mayor and council member and today is fulfilling her further effort to redouble that engagement and communications.
Fact-checking will illustrate to you that Mayor Andersen's role in regional government activities has served the interests of district 2 voters. Such detail is publicly available and would interest your readers in feature presentation on your home page. Such review will certainly deny any blind claims that Gayle was less than effective and solely responsible for our county's current problems.
Tomi van de Brooke is very enjoyable to meet in person and deserves more consideration than the disapproval she gains from Mary Piepho's negative reputation in the 24/680 south corridor. As editor, your readers could profit from knowing Tomi's specific approaches that separate her from Mary's arbitrary lack of relationship with Alamo/SRV voters.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Dec 23, 2011 at 9:03 am
Dear Gina and Editor,
The subject of this exchange is Candace Andersen’s announcement as a candidate for district 2 supervisor and the overall impact of that announcement. The scope of the exchange including the removed [removed] commentary was to examine impact on Tomi van de Brooke and her sponsorship by a political consortium documented in her endorsements and circulated by Mary Piepho campaign supporters. Informed Resident(s)’ commentary attempts to disqualify positions that are held by many about Mary Piepho’s impact on Tomi van de Brooke. Informed Resident(s) responses have been disrespectful, defamatory and condescending attacks on other commentators and misrepresentation of Mary’s role in what is now district 2, 2005 to present.
After meeting with Tomi and enjoying an hour’s conversation with her, I am supporting her opportunity to separate herself from Mary’s arbitrary and antagonistic approaches that alienated much of the 680 south corridor neighborhoods as Tice Valley to Dougherty Valley. Tomi must win a majority of voters in that corridor to be elected and she must prove that she is not Mary to achieve that majority. Those voters have detailed distribution of seedy politics by Mary provided by news services including BANG so there is no value to Tomi in Mary’s supporters, including Informed Resident(s) authors and sponsors, denial of Mary’s actions and reputation.
Certainly, you could close this exchange and know you would see a new exchange started to further provoke the blind claims and antagonism of Informed Resident(s) authors’ commentary sponsored by the Express.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 24, 2011 at 9:43 am
Sorry if the facts confuse you. I mean no disrespect, but you certainly put the "H" in hypocrite. You chose to quote; “You agree to be respectful of others, be truthful and be solely responsible for all postings you make.” And then follow with YOUR unsubstantiated comment about an individual’s “seedy politics”? Wow…
If my defense of public officials bothers you, then YOU might want to consider posting fewer attacks.
Posted by Resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 24, 2011 at 9:48 am
After reading many of these threads I have come to the same conclusion as [removed]. Apparently the " informed resident " is focusing on personal attacks to others point of view. Coincidently they all revolve around Mary Piepho. While Tomi did work for Mary this does not mean she shares Mary's views or style of management. There is a negative perception of Tomi based on her connection to Mary. If Tomi is to show any lead in the polls she will have to prove to the public she has no association to Mary Piepho. I will continue to place no merit to informed residents unsolicited personal attacks.
Posted by Informed resident, a resident of another community, on Dec 24, 2011 at 11:31 am
The real coincidence is driven by your obsession to continually to attack Mary Piepho (and Tomi VandeBrooke).
Your continued attacks, with no substance come across as a fixation. The constant innuendo’s are very shallow and never offer any valuable content.
I am pretty much fed up with the same individual(s) attacking public officials that are undeserving of such negative remarks and then crying foul when a clarifying rebuttal is posted. Attack anyone else with the same hyperbole and lack of fact and I will defend them with equal vigor. Piepho’s record and VandeBrooke’s candidacy speaks for itself. Go to meetings, get involved, you might actually learn something about the people that you take shots at from behind your keyboard. Your continued veiled attacks serve no purpose except to try to mislead and invite bickering.
Either back on topic (Candace Andersen) or go outside and get some fresh air. Either would be a welcome change.
Posted by [removed], a resident of another community, on Dec 25, 2011 at 7:51 am
In the peace and goodwill that is the Yule Tide season, corridor neighborhoods commit to opportunities for Candace and Tomi to illustrate their abilities to represent the will and interests of WE, the people and be independent from political parties, relationships and consortiums. In the new year, Candace and Tomi will individually be invited to participate in neighborhoods' discussions of such will and interests surrounding critical issues we all face now and going forward.
For those wanting detailed summaries of district 2 and 3 candidates and references to media articles, county reports, CCLAFCO documents, state/federal reviews, CCC grand jury reports and more, please send your request to Research Editor, Subscriber News Service, at CDSI Member Information, email@example.com.