OPINION

AUDIO OPINION: Endeavour flyover was an opportunity lost

2012-09-25T22:52:39Z

The people of Sacramento proved that they will come together to celebrate a moment in history last week when the space shuttle Endeavour flew overhead on its way to its new home at the California Science Center in Los Angeles.

It’s too bad that instead of a well-organized festival to commemorate the once-in-a-lifetime event, visitors to downtown Sacramento had to fend for themselves and take their best guess about where and when to look to the skies. The city could have seized the day and done something special; like offer a free parking incentive so that people might stay a little longer and have lunch or go shopping, stay for a parade or festival, or otherwise further explore downtown.

The team at the Forum Podcast lament this missed opportunity in the two-minute clip above. What do you think of our reasoning? Are we right on the money? Or just complaining too much?

More insight and opinions on local affairs can be found on each episode of Forum at www.forumtownsquare.com. New shows each Tuesday and Thursday.

Disclosure: Isaac Gonzalez is a co-host of the Forum podcast.

Many Sacramento 2020 “supporters” don’t live in Sacramento, or don't exist at all

2012-01-18T00:53:16Z

For the past few weeks, visitors to the website Sacramento2020.org have be encouraged to sign an online petition, urging the city council to place the latest of Mayor Johnson’s “Strong Mayor” plans on the June 2012 ballot. ranSACkedmedia obtained the complete list of “supporters” who submitted their petitions to the city clerk, and after review has discovered that many of them don’t live in Sacramento. Even more appear to either work for Kevin Johnson, either as a member of his staff or in some other fashion, and many petitions have been submitted to the public record without any name at all. At least one person notified the city clerk that their name was submitted without their permission.

For example,

Mr. Anderson does not live in Sacramento.

Keith Hart was hired by Johnson in 2010 as the city’s first “Chief Service Officer”.

Joaquin McPeek is the mayor’s press secretary. Who is John?

Another McPeek. Is this a more common name than I thought?

So nice of the citizens of San Francisco to chime in to this debate.

That was the order that those four were submitted in.

This one has no name and is from Roseville.

Ahmed Hamdy submitted the same petition five times.

I wonder if this concerned New York citizen is named David Stern?

This was the last note in the public report. Kathi Windheim told me over the phone that she never signed any petition and couldn’t explain how her name got on the Sacramento 2020 form. The possibility that other names were placed on the petition without the party's permission remains unclear.

Remember this when the Sacramento 2020 group touts the "hundreds of concerned citizens" that urged the concil via email to put Strong Mayor 3.0 on the Jund ballot.

You can check out the entire list for yourself here.

Johnson campaigns gave over $35,000 to create “Strong Mayor” friendly conversation

2012-01-17T16:21:57Z

Tonight, inside the Sacramento City Hall, supporters of Kevin Johnson’s latest “Strong Mayor” plan, this time called “Checks and Balances”, will ask council members to place their measure on the June 2012 ballot. If enacted, the proposal would drastically change the way local government functions in Sacramento, and it vaguely lays out a path towards a citizens ethical advisory committee and separate redistricting committee. Johnson has argued that it is the people of Sacramento need this change to foster a new era of accountability and transparency at city hall, so with that in mind let’s take a look at some of the groups who are promoting the plan in the local media-sphere, and who is funding them.

In June of this year, “Open Sacramento, The Coalition for Accountable, Efficient and Transparent Government” received over $35,000 from Johnson and his reelection campaign. You can read the entire public filling here.

Before they were “Open Sacramento”, the same group was known as “Sacramentans for Accountable Government.” While “Open” hasn’t updated their website in quite some time, “Sacramento2020.org” has borrowed their rhetoric nearly verbatim.

“Sacramento2020.org” is run by Chris Tapio, the president of a company called “Legislative Strategies”. Tapio’s company has the same address and phone number as “The Sacramento Public Policy Foundation”, a non-profit that has worked on five of the mayor’s largest projects; Think BIG Sacramento, Greenwise Sacramento, Sacramento Steps Forward, For Arts’ Sake Sacramento, and Sacramento First. Tapio even lists himself as SPPF’s Executive Director.

If you think that I’m stretching to make the connection between Tapio, the mayor, and Sacramento2020.org, consider this; Tapio was the mayor’s appointee to the Sacramento Charter Review Committee the first time the Strong Mayor plan was presented back in 2009. Plus every single press release that I’ve received from Sacramento2020.org came for Chris Tapio himself.

Tapio was even a featured contributor to the Sacramento Bee’s “Issue of the Week” that covered the Strong Mayor proposal. The Bee, for whatever reason, didn’t feel that it needed to disclose that Tapio works for the mayor.

-----------------------------------------------

Perhaps if this new proposal wasn't so heavily promising to rein in a new era of accountability and transparency WHILE AT THE SAME TIME using all the worst tricks that have caused voters to distrust nearly everything that comes from politicians, observers such as myself would have so much distrust in the motives behind its supporters.

If you would like to see more information visit ranSACkedmedia.com where we have larger pictures and more links to the websites mentioned in this article.

Disclosure: Gonzalez owns ranSACkedmedia.com

Wag the dog: Sacramento style

2012-01-09T22:12:42Z

Have you heard about the new group called “Sacramento 2020”? They’re a “diverse coalition of Sacramentans (who are) putting voters first in the political process (!)” What an exciting concept, right? If only there were a way to find out the names of the people which make up that “diverse coalition”, but alias, there is none. Trust me, I’ve tried.

I attended a poorly advertised “public workshop” on Saturday morning that was reportedly designed to gain “community input” about Mayor Kevin Johnson latest attempt to enact a “strong mayor”-type of government in Sacramento. I say poorly advertised because there were only about 20 people in attendance, and about a fifth of those 20 were only informed at the last minute by another community advocate who thought the timing and method of outreach for the meeting was a bit odd, to say the least. Think about that for a second; there are over 450,000 people in Sacramento, but the members of the mayor’s staff who are charged with engaging with the community are only able to get 20 people to come out for a meeting? Anyways…

At the entrance to the meeting room was a sign-in sheet that had a logo on its header for the group “Sacramento 2020”. Besides the folks attending the “workshop”, there were only two other people in the room; Kunal Merchant, the Chief of Staff to the mayor, and Raihane Dalvi, his assistant. So it’s safe to say that one of these two people provided the sign-in sheet. Both of these people, by the way, are on the city’s payroll.

So, fast-forwards to today. I get the following press release announcing that two former mayors are endorsing the “Checks and Balances Act” which would give the mayor more control of the city council and the authority to hire and fire the city manager. The logo at the top of the page? Oh yeah, that’s “Sacramento 2020”. As I read this note, one paragraph really caught my eye:

“The plan enjoys broad support from Sacramento 2020, a diverse coalition of Sacramentans dedicated to creating more accountability, ethics and transparency in local government. The coalition recently released survey results showing strong levels of public support for the plan.”

So again, I’m left wondering, who is “Sacramento 2020”? Who are the people who make up its "diverse coalition?” And why can’t I find a list of its members anywhere online? No matter how hard I look?

For example:

Their own webpage, sacramento2020.org, makes no mention whatsoever as to who runs the site. It does, however, contain links to their Twitter and Facebook pages.

Their Facebook page, facebook.com/sacramento2020, has no listed administrator and no contact information, but several members of the mayor’s staff have “liked” the page, and three out of the four pages that this Facebook page promotes are groups founded by the mayor; For Art’s Sake, Greenwise Sacramento, and Think Big Sacramento.

The first account that their Twitter (@sacramento2020) followed was @TinyTortuga, the twitter of Raihane Dalvi, the same mayoral assistant mentioned above.

The sacramento2020.org website itself is owned by Danny Rentschlcer, who in turn runs RR Advertising, a firm that does web design work for some of Kevin Johnson’s other groups, including For Art’s Sake.

And despite my repeated requests to Kevin Johnson’s staff for a comment on this matter, I could not get so much as a one-word reply out of both Joaquin McPeek, the mayor’s press secretary, or Kunal Merchant. I also sent an email to Chis Tapio, the person who sent me the press release, to no avail.

So who is “Sacramento 2020”? We’re only left to assume since no one will admit what appears to be evident; they’re members of the mayor’s staff who are attempting to drum up bogus buzz in support of K.J.’s latest power grab, and they obviously don’t think you’re smart enough to figure it out.

Prove them wrong, Sacramento.

Two polls show different levels of support and resistance to Kevin Johnson’s latest strong mayor push

2011-12-30T03:03:47Z

Question: Is there or isn’t there a real desire on behalf of the everyday citizens of Sacramento to see a broad overhaul of the current city charter? One that favors placing most of the power into the hands of the mayor, bypassing the need to find compromises or the coalition-building it normally takes to enact new polices that in the end affect the ordinary people who live in this town? Well, it all depends on who you ask, and who you want to believe.

About a month ago, Kevin Johnson started telling various local media outlets that “many people (are) interested in changing the way things are happening here in Sacramento.” It seemed, at the time, that he was testing the waters to see if the voters would be receptive to another Strong Mayor Initiative, or SMI, a proposal that was somewhat controversial when it was first debated back in 2010. Sure enough, a group of business leaders, a pastor, the head of the city’s police union, and other Johnson supporters held a press conference earlier this month without K.J. in attendance to announce their endorsement of a new plan to change the way the city does business, this time calling it the “Checks and Balances Act of 2012”.

Fast-forward to this week, and Kevin Johnson’s office announces that a poll which was paid for with his own re-election funds shows that 63% of respondents favor the new proposed charter amendments. According to the summary released to the media by the polling firm FM3, a telephone survey was conducted over the course of four days, from October 29th till November 1st, before it was public knowledge that K.J. was planning to try to revamp the city charter yet again. Now, it’s been extremely difficult to fully understand how the polling firm came to this finding, because no one involved with FM3, the mayor’s office, or the group of citizens who believe that passage of the Checks and Balances Act is critical are willing to release the complete study to the press. I sent this email to every person who works at FM3, and copied Kevin Johnson’s press secretary as well:

To the staff of FM3,

I apologize if you have received this email in error, but as I am unfamiliar with your firm and do not know who the best person to ask in regards for the information I am looking for, I do not know what other route to take.

I am a Sacramento resident and a writer who has covered local government issues and many more topics throughout the region on several digital platforms. I am producing an article about the Sacramento Checks and Balances Poll that was conducted by your firm. After viewing the summary that was posted on the Sacramento Bee website, I would now very much like to review a copy of the entire report. Who can I speak to about accomplishing this in a timely fashion?

For example, I would like to see the exact wording of the questions, and the way those questions were presented, similar in fashion to the poll you can find on this site:

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/council/departments/home.cfm?MenuID=5007

One of Mayor Johnson stated priorities has been to create a local government that is transparent and accessible. I'm sure that providing the information that I have requested would go a long way towards accomplishing this admirable goal.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/mayor/actionPlan/effectiveGovernment.html

Thank you for your time, and I await your reply.

-Isaac Gonzalez

www.ransackedmedia.com

After a little more back-and-forth between a researcher from FM3 and a lawyer working on behalf of the mayor, this was the final answer I received:

Isaac:

I checked with some of the folks close to the campaign and it was relayed to me that they are unable to satisfy your request.

Jeffrey K. Dorso

Pioneer Law Group, LLP

I then sent one final message to Joaquin McPeek at the mayor’s office for clarification:

Joaquin,

Would the "folks close to the campaign" like to give our readers a reason why they are unable to satisfy this straightforward request? How does this mesh with the Mayor's goal of accountability and transparency? Since the reelection campaign paid for the poll, I can only imagine that if the Mayor wanted to, he could release the entire text of the study.

Thanks.

-Isaac

After waiting all day, I have yet to receive a reply.

Meanwhile, the Sacramento Business Journal conducted their own non-scientific poll over a period on eight days via their website, and it came up with nearly the exact opposite findings of the FM3 study. Between December 21st and December 28th, 65% of online survey participants said that the new “Checks and Balances Act” is not an idea they want to see enacted in Sacramento, with the vast majority of “no” votes coming from people who also believe that the new executive mayor initiative is just a power grab by Kevin Johnson.

In my opinion, both of these polls should be taken with generous grains of salt. The latter because it is impossible to verify the validity of on-line participants; are they likely voters?, do they live in Sacramento?, did they vote more than once?, etc. And the former because the exact wording of the questions and the full findings of the study are not being made available to the public, an act in itself causes this author to conclude that the producers of the poll are worried about how it would be scrutinized if it were exposed for all to see.

But we do know this much; the Checks and Balances Act is being touted as the way to make Sacramento’s local government “one of the most accountable, ethical, transparent, and citizen-friendly in the state.” Its goals include “establishing higher standards for ethical and transparent behavior.” Those statements were taken directly from the first three pages of the proposal, as they are posted on the mayor’s city website. It doesn’t require any act of legislation to behave in an accountable and transparent manner. Perhaps if the mayor did a better job of practicing what he preaches, we’d would all have an easier time taking him for his word.

The Downtown arena funding plan is a complete mess

2011-12-09T18:49:06Z

ThinkBIG, the group of movers-and-shakers put together by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson to help sell the idea of building a new arena for the Kings, was out in full force yesterday doing damage control as city staffers published the findings of its study that looks into the feasibility of selling away publicly owned parking spaces and garages for the next 50 years for some quick upfront construction cash. Beside the staff comments in the first dozen or so pages of the report, it's the exact same findings that my site, ranSACkedmedia, got a hold of last week; privatizing parking will force Downtown visitors to spend more money to park their cars, taking away parking revenue will leave a $9 million dollar hole in the city's general fund every year with no plan to replace it, and the original value that was earlier thrown around for leasing away the parking rights was probably greatly exaggerated.

The greatest revelation between last week and now is the discovery that leasing away the on-street parking rights to build a new arena is not even legal according to current law. (See it for yourself around page 11 of the newly released report.) It was also announced that the city still has $52 million of bond debt to repay for the construction of some of its parking garages; debt that must be repaid before control could be handed over to any private parking company. Officials are looking at way to bend the law so that the leasing of on-street parking could be used to pay off this debt, but any such attempt could open the city up to lawsuits from taxpayer watchdog groups.

The Sacramento Bee is also reporting that the estimated cost of building the arena has increased by another $19 million over the past few weeks from $387 million to $406 million so that a VIP parking garage can be constructed on site. This figure still doesn't include the costs associated with building up the necessary infrastructure around the site needed to support an arena, such as new water mains, improved roadways, and electrical capacity upgrades.

But don’t expect to hear any of these concerns from anyone with the ThinkBIG group. Members of the committee told the press that the public “should not be afraid” of turning over control of seven parking garages and 5,500 on-street parking spaces to private firms.

A 50-year contract to replace a 23-year old arena? What’s there to be afraid of?

The City Council will discuss the parking report at its next meeting on Tuesday.

Mayor Johnson: “This has never been about an arena for pro basketball” Say what?

2011-11-15T17:57:39Z

Now that the NBA players union has taken serious steps to sue the league and team owners local officials in Sacramento are scrambling to salvage the momentum they’ve amassed with their “Think Big” campaign. In a total about-face to the direction of the movement that started and the end of last season, Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson quickly played down the significance of a prolonged NBA lockout by issuing the following statement to the press:

“I remain hopeful that all parties will come together and reach a solution. From Sacramento's perspective, our focus is on continuing to move forward on developing an Entertainment and Sports Complex. This has never been about an arena for pro basketball.”

Never? Never-ever?

That’s strange, because on April 1st, 2011, Johnson published this passionate blog post on his teamkj.org website about how proud he was that he convinced NBA officials to let him talk at a New York meeting in the coming weeks. Johnson wrote:

“They will want to know about possibilities of a new arena in Sacramento, and whether after all these years, our community can finally deliver.”

Never? Never-ever-ever?

On May 3rd, Johnson celebrated the news that the owners of the Kings had pushed back their plans to move the team for at least one year with the following statement:

“It should be obvious by now that our victory will be brief without a clear path to a new entertainment and sports complex. The Kings and league have given us until March 1, 2012, to identify financing.”

Never? Never-ever-ever-ever?

In case there is any doubt remaining doubt in your mind that the arena has always been about the Kings first-and-foremost, please just take a glance at the Think Big Sacramento webpage where all the concept drawings for the new arena are prominently on display. Whose logo is that plastered all over the place? Oh, yeah. The Kings, a professional basketball team.

Less we forget, on Think Big Sacramento’s home page, the first sentence will remind you that “Think BIG is a regional initiative launched by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson to facilitate construction of a new entertainment and sports complex.”

But it’s never been about pro basketball. Right.

OPINION: Separation Of Church and State in Sacramento?

2010-08-24T19:37:24Z

While driving downtown last week I was surprised to see what appeared to be an advertisement for a religious event on a light pole. A banner stated in large bold lettering: “ONLY ONE HOPE JESUS” and referenced an upcoming event and a website. Advertisements on light poles are not uncommon, and you can find them in many places downtown. Normally they advertise for museums, concerts, and special events. I cannot recall ever seeing one promoting any sort of religious dogma, let alone one that promoted itself to be the “only hope”, inferring all other faiths (or lack thereof) to be incorrect. But what bothered me more than message was the medium: This appeared to be a legitimately erected banner on a city-owned pole. I couldn’t believe that the City of Sacramento would be so short-sighted as to place religious advertisements on public property, but low and behold, I found at least three more banners later that day. Wanting answers, I dialed 311 for the city operator to find out who was in charge of ads on city light poles.

I had a hunch that the convention center or some organization like it had a role in the light pole adverts, and asked the 311 operator if that was the case. The operator conferred with his supervisor, but still couldn’t confirm what department was responsible for the banner. He suggested that I start with the city’s department of transportation, which maintains and services the light poles. I called the department of transportation for the city, and they informed me that adverts were under the jurisdiction of The Sacramento Downtown Partnership. I called their front office on Friday, August 20th, and was told the person in charge of adverts would be out until the following Tuesday. I decided that I would call back then and try to get to the bottom of this.

Over the course of the weekend I found myself wondering why I was letting this bother me and whether or not I should drop the issue. After some soul searching I decided this is an important issue. I believe we should not allow the city to advertise ANY religion over another. I believe in the ideals of our constitution and I believe in the separation of church and state. If this advert were on a private billboard I would not have any objection to its posting. But it was not posted on a privately owned billboard; it is posted on a city-owned light pole. That pole was erected with tax payers’ dollars. It is maintained by tax payers’ dollars. It would be just as unwise to place an advert on them that read “Mohammed is the one true prophet” or “religion is the root of all evil” or “only Catholics get into heaven”. It my humble opinion, the City of Sacramento has no business choosing sides regarding religion, and it would be best for them to stay clear of any advertising that would cause one to infer that the local government prefers one mode of faith over another.

Still curious as to the banner’s origins, I decided to visit the website on the bottom of the advert. I entered www.thecall.com into my web browser and started to do a little reading. In case you weren’t aware that this is a religious website by its name alone, the biblical scripture of Ezekiel 22:30 directly on the top of the web page should leave little doubt in your mind. Further readings lead me to find out that the leader of “The Call” is a man named Lou Engle, who recently proclaimed; “What happened to California will release a spirit that is more demonic than Islam, a spirit of lawlessness and anarchy. And a sexual insanity will be unleashed into the Earth.” in reference to same-sex marriage. This same man has been mired in controversy for his support of Uganda's current Anti-Homosexuality bill, in of which calls for life imprisonment and the death penalty for gays and lesbians in Uganda. Just this last May, Engle traveled to Uganda and organized a 'The Call' Rally at Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda, preaching against "homosexuality, witchcraft, and corruption."

I did not have to spend a great deal of time or money to discover these questionable acts of Lou Engle. In fact, I did this all during my lunch break at work, which made me wonder: What kind of vetting process does one have to go through to place an advertisement on city property? Is any vetting done at all? The simplest of Google searches would reveal that this event and its leaders promote a radical and extremist non-secular agenda. At the very least the verbiage of the advert should have refrained from its explicitly one-side dogmatic tag-line, and in an ideal world I hope city officials would realize it’s best to stay out of religious affairs when it comes to city property. In the sprit of full disclosure I will confess that I do subscribe to the beliefs of any organized religion and voted no on prop 8. I am personally offended by the message that this group hopes to promote by its event, BUT I REPECT THEIR RIGHT TO DO SO. My only complaint is the posting of this religious advertisement on city-owned property.

I understand that this issue can be very “touchy”. It can set off deep emotions in people. I hope that I’ve successfully communicated my distain for the use of city-owned light-poles for religious advertisements, and that my point has not been lost in the ageless argument of which religion is right, or whether or not religion has a place in the world at all. I wouldn’t argue against privately posted advisements, or against the right for this group to assemble and have their event, no matter how strongly I feel against the message of their event.

As I go to press, my calls to The Sacramento Downtown Partnership have gone unreturned. I hope to hear from them soon.