6 replies to this topic

[Bob]

Still Think Developers Aren't Trying to Run City Hall?

In 1998 the money spent on Miklos' and Howell's campaigns was staggering. The combination of "Hard" money (contributions made directly to their campaigns) and "Soft" money (contributions made to BIZPAC, the Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee) exceeded

********************************************************
********************************************************
PLEASE READ
********************************************************
The "soft" money regarding BIZPAC contributions reported in this section is incorrect.
Please refer to the following post, dated 10-10-02, for the correct data.
My apologies to BIZPAC, Council members Miklos and Howell, and to the readers of this Forum for this error.
*********************************************************

......................................................................... $142,000!



Amount Spent By, or on Behalf of, Each Candidate in 1998:

......................... Miklos..........Howell.........Total

.Hard Money.......23,788.........17,000.......40,788
.Soft Money........48,976.........52,261......101,237
.Sub-Totals.........72,764.........69,261......142,025


Amount Disclosed by BIZPAC and When in 1998:
However, just as alarming as the unbelievable amount of money poured into these campaigns by the development community is that most of the "Soft" money was hidden from voters until AFTER the election.

......................................Miklos........Howell...........Total
.
...Before the Election.......4,551.........7,736..........12,287
......After the Election.....48,976.......52,261.........101,237
...............Sub-Totals.....53,527.......59,997.........113,524

********************************************************
********************************************************



Typical Candidates Supported by Residents Spend Much Less:

By contrast, Ernie Sheldon, respected Parks Commissioner and youth sports advocate, ran a grassroots campaign against Miklos and Howell. His total campaign was about $9,000 and he failed to win a seat by a slim margin. No surprise when you are outspent by developer backed candidates at a 6 to 1 margin.


The same Scenario occurred in the 2000 election:

In the 2000 election Starsky and Maxfield teamed up to spend well over $100,000 in soft and hard money contributions. Starsky was successful in winning his seat at over $6.50 per vote, while Eric King, spending only about $7,000 on a grassroots campaign, won his seat at only about $1.00 per vote.
(Maxfield failed to win a seat even after spending over $9.00 per vote).


The same Scenario Will Also likely Occur This Election:

Who Will Benefit from BIZPAC Developer Funds This Year?

Although we do not know for sure who will be the beneficiaries of the staggering developer funded BIZPAC money, which pays for mailers, phone banks, signs, media advertisement, etc.) it is a safe bet that it will once again be Miklos and Howell, and joined by Jantzen.

The BIZPAC disclosures to date are true to form by revealing very little prior to the election. Like the previous elections, we do not yet have copies of the final BIZPAC disclosures, and do not expect them to be available until after the election.

What Can We Tell From the Contribution Data That We Do Have So Far?

What we do have is current campaign contribution disclosures from the individual candidates. This is the "Hard" money. The table below provides a breakdown based on who donated (business or personal) and from where (out of Folsom or from within Folsom).

Note the following:
Jantzen has received most of her contributions from OUTSIDE of Folsom with over 80% from businesses/developer interests.

Miklos also has a high percent from outside of Folsom and a high percent from business/developer interests.

Howell, to her credit, has received most of her funding from within Folsom, but still has a high percentage from business/developer interests.

Udell has little apparent support from developers or businesses.

Mitchell is closely split among personal and business contributions, where only about $300 came from developers and two-thirds are form within Folsom.

Morin is 100% self financed.

Fairfield has raised only about $3,100 and has added $4,000 of his own money. Most of his donations are from within Folsom.

Cable has not exceed the minimum amount of contributions and spending (I am not sure what the exact limit is, but believe it is $1000, so put $999 into the table for the sake of argument)



....................Jantzen.......Howell.......Mitchell........Fairchild
..............................Miklos..........Udell...........Morin............Cable

..Raised.........15,418........7,517.........8,072...........7,100
..............................15,685........7,479..........13,000...........999

..Spent...........18,750........7,601.........4,843...........7,100
..............................12,476........7,879...........12,262...........999
% From out of town:
.........Total.......77%...41%...16%..10%...37%....0%...18%...0%
...Business.......64%...29%...10%... 3%...25%....0%.....0%...0%
...Personal.......13%...12%.....6%....7%...12%.100%..18%...0%
% From Folsom:
.........Total.......23%...59%...84%...90%...63%...0%...82%...0%
...Business.......18%...39%...55%.....0%...22%...0%...39%...0%
...Personal.........5%...20%...29%...90%...41%....0%...42%...0%
Totals:
...Business.......83%...68%...66%.....3%...47%....0%...39%...0%
...Personal.......17%...32%...34%...97%....53%.100%..61%...0%

Where:
Percentages are based on the total of the itemized (over $100 each) contributions.
"Business" indicates donations from developers, real estate related businesses, car dealerships, etc.
"Personal" are from individuals, but not those obviously associated with a development company.
(I.e. The last name of an individual donor matches the name of a major development company.)

I have copies of all documents used to produce the above information. I would be glad to share it with anyone who is interested, or one can obtain their own copy from the City Clerk at City Hall.


Summary

There are two main criteria by which to judge a candidate.
Their record and who is supporting them.

Miklos, Howell and Jantzen fail on both counts. Miklos and Howell have an established history of being heavily supported by outside developer interests. In addition, their record, as exemplified by our traffic, sewer, school crowding, and affordable housing problems are evidence of that. Jantzen now seems to rival Miklos for attracting money from interests outside of Folsom and her record of public comments clearly places her as one that is supportive of the uncontrolled growth status quo.

We support Andy Morin, Steve Fairchild, and Keith Cable.
They will put Folsom Families First above all other interests.


For additional information and discussions see:

http://www.folsomreport.com
http://www.myfolsom.com



Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Families First

[LilyPad630]

Although Miklos has done a great job for Folsom in the past, I think it's time for new faces, new ideas, and unbiased decisions on City Council.

After watching the most recent Folsom City Council Meetings, it is clear to me that some candidates are biased on certain issues based on who is funding their campaign.

Kerri Howell stands her ground and makes her decision based on what is good for the residents of Folsom. She may have received campaign contributions from people trying to force her hand on issues but she remains steadfast and has made decisions based on what is best for the people. I will continue to support her.

I'm sad to see that Cyndi Dow is not running for office. She was a true voice for the people.

To answer the question, my opinion and answer to that would have to be yes - developers can "buy favors" in our City Hall.

[SusieQ]

After the election you will be able to find the reports on the money spent to oppose Measure P. Slick, expensive mailers have gone out to all high propensity voters in the last week. These were funded by the Building Industry Associaition, The Folsom Chamber of Commerce PAC (Bizpac), the Sacramento Metropolitan PAC, a research firm in Stockton. The Safe and Realiable Water Supply Committee that is named as the sponsor includes Robert G. Holderness, attorney for developers, and Patrick Maxfield, former Planning Commissioner who never turned down a developer's project in twelve years on the Planning commission.

These powerful interests were able to capture media attention and get the news slanted to scare the public. The federal government does not have the power to cut off Folsom's water. The State of California control water rights. Folsom has 22,000 AF of the oldest water right on the American River. This is a riparian right. Folsom also has a contract for 5,000 AF with the Southern California Water Company. We are all getting the water rights supply now. The 5000 Af is not beingt used as yet. Only after all this is fully allocated will the city be able to take any of the federal water and that amounts to 7,0000 AF acquired for new development. It is this 7,000 AF that federal government could cut out. However, the city can also apply for the contract to be amended given the new circumstances that the charter amendment passed.

Don't be taken in by this outrageous lie. The federal government does not have the authority to cut off a city's water rights supply. The city should be fighting for its citizens, not trying to terrify us in accepting a costly meter retrofit plan.
Spending $6 million to put meters in 6,600 older homes doesn't make sense. Ratepayers do not get any benefit from this plan. The city of Sacramento prohibits meters. The county did not have to do retrofits throughout the county to get federal water. Why should Folsom have to bear this costly burden? And why? So developers can continue building? So the city can expand south of Highway 50?

Vote Yes on Measure P.

[valdossjoyce]

Developers like Angelo Tsoukopous (sp?) don't gamble on land purchases, they make smart investments. Buying land outside the urban services boundary is cheaper than buying land that's legally devleopable. They pay a rancher twice its market value as is (non-developable) and pump money into appropriate campaigns, and voila, after election, get the status of the property changed...inside the boundary, or annexed, or rezoned, whatever is needed. The land is then worth 5 times their investment, and just for chump change (for them). See the Business Journal article last month and another from June 2001 (links available on this website).

They might even throw in a fabulous library to sweeten the pot.

Look out for candidates throwing around terms like "land owners have rights" or objecting to "ballot box planning." This means they don't trust us to make the right decisions and want the freedom to do it for us. Am I saying developers have bought them? Not necessarily, but it's got to be hard to say no to interests that got you elected.

Did you all realize that developers and related businesses pumped something like $50,000 in soft money into the campaigns of Steve Miklos, Kerri Howell and Jeff Starsky in prior elections? Probably not, because the Bee doesn't think it's news when the disclosures are made long after election day. That's how the reporting works. Developers and friends have figured out how to beat the reporting system.

Which leads to the other tip off. Those who can afford the biggest and most signs, slickest brochures and mailers are most likely to have developer support.

That's why I support candidates who do not take developer money and who have raised or are raising their own kids right here in Folsom. Their interests are most likely to be the same as mine.

[April]

I strongly agree that City Hall can be bought and want to thank all who posted here in regards to that fact.
But mostly want to say that I agree also about not voting for any one who has gotten money from developers. Of course they could have gotten that money and then do what they know the community wants, but that is not likely.
Sadly, there are still many who think that more is better, and that money and growth is the only thing that is important.

[cybertrano]

QUOTE (LilyPad630 @ Nov 2 2002, 05:14 PM)

Although Miklos has done a great job for Folsom in the past, I think it's time for new faces, new ideas, and unbiased decisions on City Council.

agreed

[Bob]

PLEASE READ
Important Correction to Previous Post

On November 2nd, I posted a letter from Folsom Families First regarding the influence of large developer contributions on our City Council elections. (See above original post.)

Some of the dollar amounts were grossly incorrect. My apologies to Council members Ms. Howell and Mr. Miklos for this error. While not intentional, it was very careless on my part.

I had noted the difference between “hard” money (direct contributions to an individual’s election campaign) and “soft” money (indirect money spent on behalf of a candidate by others such as Political Action Committees, PAC’s).

The letter included a summary of both hard and soft contributions to the incumbents, Miklos and Howell from their 1998 campaign. The error occurred in the listing of the “soft” money contributions from BIZPAC (the Folsom Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee).

Following is a correction to these tables:

Amount Spent By, or on Behalf of, Each Candidate in 1998:

..........................Miklos.........Howell........Total

Hard Money.......23,788........14,138.......37,926
Soft Money..........5,663..........6,263.......11,926
Sub-Totals:........29,451........20,401.......49,852


Amount Disclosed by BIZPAC and When in 1998:
However, just as alarming as the unbelievable amount of money poured into these campaigns by the development community is that most of the "Soft" money was hidden from voters until AFTER the election.`

....................................Miklos......Howell.......Total

Before the Election.........1,460.......1,960.......3,420
...After the Election.........5,663.......6,263.....11,926



Although the $49,852 total 1998 campaign funds is still very significant, it is only one-third (1/3) of what I had originally reported. The error (not an excuse, I accept responsibility for the error, only an explanation) occurred when tabulating the expenditures by BIZPAC. From each page of the report, I added from the “cumulative to Date” column that I had assumed was only the “cumulative” for that item. This is the way that the cash donations to BIZPAC from individuals are tabulated, but not the expenditures. The expenditures are running totals of all previous expenditures for each candidate.

Note that Council Member Howell has sent me several letters regarding this error and has been as patient and gracious as could be expected under the circumstances. I owe her an additional apology for not taking the time to recheck the documents after her first letter.

The old warning not to “arse-U-Me” has come back to haunt me. Again my apologies to Council members Miklos and Howell and to the members of Folsom Families First for sending out the original message with out their review and back check. Have to run now, the Crow is in the oven and it is bad enough as it is with out having to eat it burned.

Regards,
Bob Fish
Folsom Families First