-
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
-
|
| E-Mail Forum |
| RETURN |
| Debunking Richmond Campaign 2008 October 19, 2008 |
|
Election mailers and related campaign communications drive me crazy because they are so often erroneous and illegal. Somebody has to debunk these and expose the sources, and unless someone else wants to take it on, I’ll do it again this time.
In this email, and others on the same subject, I mention several local business persons by name, many of whom I know and count (believe it or not) as friends, or at least convivial associates. These are hard-working and successful people with whom I have often worked on beneficial community projects. They just seem to get on the wrong side of an issue in Richmond election season. Ever the optimist, I hope that one day they will see the light.
Even my colleagues (and opponents) on the City Council, Bates, Marquez and Sandhu, are honorable people with long histories of service to Richmond. They should be recognized for their past service, but they should not be rewarded by being returned to the City Council after the power politics they have engaged in over the last two years to the detriment of our city.
If you have questions about who is paying what to support whom and who is saying what that isn’t true in this Richmond election, let me know, and I’ll try to smoke it out.
Measure T
I’ve received several anti-Measure T pieces, all from the Committee to Oppose Measure T (with generous support from the Committee for Industrial Safety, sponsored by Chevron), all originating out of the Sutton Law Firm, located at 150 Post Street, Suite 405, San Francisco, CA 94108. No surprise - the anti-Measure T campaign is being paid for totally by Chevron.
The most imposing anti-Measure T piece is a 19-page pamphlet mailed in a brown envelope bearing the return address “Committee to Oppose Measure T.” It not only includes the two paragraphs that actually constitute Measure T but also the entire Chapter 7.04 “Business Licenses,” which is not being balloted for changes. Clever annotations have been added throughout to make one think the entire Chapter, which admittedly has some archaic terminology (“Itinerant shows, circuses, carnivals, rodeos and hawkers”) is being voted on, which is not the case.
Signing the cover letter are four Richmond business owners, three of which manufacture very little or nothing – Alan Baer of Armor Locksmith Service, Bennie Wilson of CJ’s Barbecue and Fish, and Barbara M. Diaz of Santa Barbara Jewelry.
The fourth, Paul Levitan of Galaxy Desserts, is the new poster child for anti-Measure T. In an October 15 story on Measure T, the Contra Costa Times wrote: “Paul Levitan, president of Galaxy Desserts which moved from San Rafael to Richmond in 2005, has about 250 employees now and wants to grow. His company pays $8,000 in business fees now; under Measure T, he said what he pays would about double. ‘Richmond certainly needs the revenue,’ Levitan said. ‘But when I started looking into it, we'd be singled out as a manufacturer.’"
Using the statistics attributed to Levitan, Galaxy, with 250 employees, would currently pay a Business License Tax of $11,955. An $8,000 increase under Measure T would mean that his total tax would be about $20,000, which would have to be based on raw material costs of $8 million. Using the average cost of ingredients for a bakery of 15% to 30% would mean Galaxy has to have an annual revenue of $23.7 million to $53.3 million, a little to a lot higher than Levitan claims. (The cost of ingredients for a bakery is typically 15% - 30% of the total wholesale costs , http://www.researchwikis.com/Bakery_Products_Market_Research).
According to press accounts, Galaxy made the move from Marin not for cheap rent but for the unique space which doubled their 18,600 square foot facility in San Rafael, was already fully outfitted for food production and provided plenty of parking (http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2005/01/24/story2.html). A June, 2008, article, indicated the company had grown to 200 employees, was grossing $20 million and occupying 52,000 square feet (http://www.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2008/06/23/smallb3.html).
Now, I am reluctant to poke fun at one of Richmond’s best and brightest entrepreneurs, but an additional $8,000 a year for Levitan would be less than $22 a day, probably less than he spends on lunch. To bring $26 million a year to Richmond, this doesn’t seem like a lot for a guy who lives in Mill Valley, stays at the Ritz Carlton Kapalua, Maui, Hawaii, eats sushi at the Yu Shang in San Rafael and whose sports are tennis, golf, skiing and ice hockey. This certainly tells you what Levitan’s priorities are, and they are not potholed Richmond streets, more cops or better maintained parks.
The Chamber of Commerce is ramping up its anti-T rhetoric, jumping on a rumor it probably started that the Tesla electric car company rejected Richmond as site because of the prospect of Measure T. Tesla, which is planning to build a plant in San Jose on city-owned property adjacent to a sewage treatment plant that is being given away free. There is no evidence that Tesla ever seriously considered Richmond. For one thing, a 100-acre site in Richmond where construction could start in 2009 would be extremely hard, if not impossible, to come by. Despite a perception that Richmond is awash in cheap, developable land, that is not the case for large parcels of 100 acres, and those that are available are typically constrained by environmental issues and toxic contamination – not good news for starting construction within months.
The following is from the Richmond Chamber’s newsletter, which, by the way, is full of other errors, including alleging that Measure T would impact restaurants and florists:
No on Measure TTwo years ago the anti-business, anti-jobs forces that routinely target Richmond tried to pass a business tax on everything manufactured or made here in town. Voters rejected that initiative by a nearly two–to-one margin but we are once again faced with a very similar tax measure. On November 4, Richmond voters will be asked to decide the fate of Measure T, which will raise taxes on everything from restaurants and bakeries to florists and solar panel manufacturers. This new business tax will scare away good jobs and businesses that this city desperately needs. The San Francisco Sentinel provides probably the best critique of why the Chamber of scores of Richmond residents are opposing Measure T:
"Let’s hope Richmond voters see Measure T for what it is: a harmful tax
on every small business in the city that won’t fix Richmond’s real
problems. If Measure T passes, the Richmond City Council’s “green
business initiative” to draw more solar, biofuel and other alternative
energy companies will fail because why would any business want to settle
in a city that will have the highest taxes of any city in Contra Costa
County? Clearly, this must have had an impact on perhaps the most
visible and sought after electric car company, Tesla, and why it chose
San Jose over Richmond." The Chamber recognizes that Richmond has serious problems that must be addressed. However, Measure T does nothing to deal with the long-term challenges that face our community. What Measure T will do is prevent Richmond from realizing its full potential as a city. Then there is the letter from Cal-Tax, the California Taxpayer’s Association, sent to City Council members, which maintains that Measure T is an illegal tax, the same basis on which the Contra Costa Times editorialized against it. For the sake of argument, so what if it does prove to be illegal? Nothing is lost by voting for it, and $26 million is gained if it proves to be legal. Why would anyone in Richmond vote against Measure T, considering the benefits it could bring to our City?
Finally, I got a question today about why the Argument in favor of Measure T, which I signed, shows a revenue of “at least $16 million,” and the city attorney’s impartial analysis “estimates this Measure will generate about $26,462,500 in new revenue…” You may recall that the revenue from Measure T of 2006, which was based on 0.00125 of raw material cost was estimated at $8 million. Early estimates were that the current Measure T, which is based on 0.0025 of raw material cost (twice the 2006 percentage) would result in twice the revenue, or $16 million. The city attorney’s calculations were presumably based on the price of oil at some point, which has vacillated wildly within this year from $70 to $140 a barrel. With such market volatility, it’s almost meaningless to put a value on Measure T projected revenues, except that to place it in the low double digit millions.
After over a month, no Richmond business has taken me up on my challenge to disclose any adverse consequences of Measure T (see Mythbusting Measure T, September 17, 2008).
Chevron and Its Surrogates
Chevron looms larger than many people would believe in Richmond elections. Chevron does not like its name appear in the campaign, so it works through surrogates, including the Council of Industries, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and RichPAC, BAPAC (Black American Political Action Committee) and BMW. Assigning motives is always speculative, but I can have an opinion, and my opinion is that it all boils down to money. Each of these organizations covets Chevron’s money and wants more of it. The only sure way to keep the money flowing is to become a Chevron surrogate.
In addition to working through these local surrogates, Chevron uses the San Francisco Sutton Law Firm to distribute political propaganda in Richmond through a host of “independent committees” with compelling names, including the “Committee to Oppose Measure T,” the ”Committee for Industrial Safety” and the “Richmond First Committee.”
Chevron also takes care of its friends, including Nat Bates and John Marquez, members of the “Chevron 5”who went to bat for the company by approving the Chevron energy and Hydrogen renewal project with minimal conditions and a flawed Community Benefits Agreement.
Recent mailers paid for by Chevron include one for Nat Bates featuring a photo of Barak Obama and the words, “Like Barack Obama, Nat Bates is working for a change…”and one for John Marquez claiming he “…led the effort to bring Sun Power solar manufacturing to the once vacant Ford Building.” One advantage for an independent committee authoring mailers is that they can play fast and loose with the facts without the candidate getting stuck with criticism for resume enhancement. For example, the Marquez mailer also indicated he was “Elected Official of the Year, League of California Cities,” when in fact, Marquez was “Elected Official of the Year, League of California Cities, Latino Caucus,” certainly a noteworthy honor but not the same.
So far, all of the Chevron sponsored mailers appear to be in violation of Richmond’s Fair Elections ordinance, which requires disclosure information more apparent, detailed and readable than that provided. The three Chevron sponsored committees also qualify as “out-of-city contributors.” The committee to Oppose Measure T lists its address as San Francisco in its Form 460 filed in Richmond, and the other two don’t even file in Richmond.
See Section of RMC 2.42.075, below: 2.42.075 Disclosure of contributors to independent expenditure committees.
(a) Any
committee that makes, during the calendar year in which the election is
held, more than three thousand dollars in independent expenditures for
or against for a candidate for city office or more than twenty-five
hundred dollars in independent expenditures for or against the
qualification, or passage, of a local ballot measure being voted on only
in this city shall list the following information in a clear and legible
manner on the bottom one-quarter of the front page of any mass mailing
(delivered to residences by any means including hand delivery) by the
committee in the election for which the independent expenditures were
made.
What is The Sutton Law Firm? It is a law firm located at 150 Post Street, Suite 405, San Francisco, CA 94108, that carries out Chevron’s political work in Richmond. The following Sutton employees are also members of the California Political Attorneys Association:
Gabe
Camarillo
Kevin R.
Heneghan
Melissa
Mikesell
James R.
Sutton
Richmond Police Officers Association and Richmond Firefighters
Mailers supporting Nat Bates and John Marquez indicate they are from “Richmond First Committee, sponsored by Richmond Police Officers Association and IAFF Local 188. P.O. Box 1669, Richmond, CA 94801. Major funding by Committee for Quality Government, sponsored by energy companies (political committee/energy companies), International Assoc. Firefighters Local 188 Independent PAC (political committee/firefighters), Richmond Police Officers Association PAC (political committee/police officers).”
What is it about these two that is so attractive to the RPOA and IAFF Local 188? It’s really not clear. In the end, I think it is just nostalgia that goes back to the era when Darrell Reese was the Richmond kingmaker working for the RPOA and firefighters (as well as himself), and truly owned the Richmond City Council majority. They are dreaming about the future when the Chevron 5 will once again deliver the goods for them like they just did for Chevron.
Clearly, there is Chevron money involved here too. |