Search
Polls
Forum Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| Councilwoman unfairly singled out |
|
| Written by Marvin Rothschild / For the Tracy Press | |
| Tuesday, 29 July 2008 | |
|
According to Marvin Rothschild, Councilwoman Irene Sundberg was wrongly characterized in a recent Press editorial. Kudos to you! Saturday’s editorial ("Candidate’s courthouse vision shows leadership") was the best I have read in your paper or any local paper in years. However, there is one thing that I want to clarify. I think it was a terrible injustice to put Councilwoman Irene Sundberg, even partially, in the same category as the other City Council members when it comes to relationships with real estate developers. Sundberg does not work with real estate developers. They work with her, for what she wants for the residents of Tracy. Let’s use her relationship with the Alvarez real estate developers as an example. Sundberg believes that the best place for San Joaquin Delta College’s south-county site is on city property off Chrisman Road. It is best for the students and the town as a whole. But before an institution of higher learning considers a site, they need to know if there is some affordable housing and part-time jobs near the campus. Realizing this need, Sundberg asked the Alvarez developers if they would be willing to build some reasonably priced apartments and a strip-mall type retail establishment for student employment near the Chrisman road site. The Alvarez developers said they would. But she emphasized that no promises would be made and no preferential treatment would be given to any Alvarez plans. They understood that to be fair and said so, publicly, at, two council meetings, the last being in July. Also, the Alvarez developers said they would also be willing to give 50 acres to the city for a park or sports facility. The only promise they want from the city is to be on equal footing with Serpa and Souza when residential growth allotments are given out. No one gets or gives special deals. So Sundberg’s priorities are with the citizens of Tracy and what is best for them. Her voting, often in the minority (1-to-4), is an indication of how she separates herself from the mistakes of the rest of the City Council. Voters, take note. • Marvin Rothschild, a longtime Tracy resident, is a retired business teacher, business owner and former Tracy school district trustee. He is president of the Tracy Democratic Club.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 862 Trackback(0)
Comments
(107)
It may be that Irene is often the 1 vote but so is another. There are no developers in their pockets because Tracy is small potatoes. These developers have more money then God. They will get their houses built.....somewhere if not here.
What does this mean?
Also, the Alvarez developers said they would also be willing to give 50 acres to the city for a park or sports facility.The only promise they want from the city is to be on equal footing with Serpa and Souza when residential growth allotments are given out. No one gets or gives special deals. -amy
Just trying to understand how Keenan developer/Alvarez wants to do business with Tracy.
Residents should have the first priorities? Why the time/hours on the developers? -amy
Oh wow!
What a truly marvelous damage control effort by someone very closely aligned to the Celeste Garamendi for Mayor Campaign and a Democratic Party whip for our area, don't you think? I choose the word closely in the above paragraph because it is also a close relationship between Irene Sundburg and Celeste that exists, and that fact was publically stated as such at Celeste's meeting, what ever you choose to call it. It was also visually verified by hundreds of people who attended the 4th of July celebrations in Lincoln Park despite the referenced Tracy Press editorial didn’t mention those facts to the electorate. Marvin states, "Sundberg does not work with real estate developers. They work with her, for what she wants for the residents of Tracy. They work with her, for what she wants for the residents of Tracy." Oh really now? Let's examine the evidence shall we? Marvin is telling you is that Irene's, “secret backroom developer deal”, (her words not mine) occurred in the July timeframe and brought to the counsel’s attention in the July meetings. What he isn't telling you is that her meetings with Keenan Land Development occurred before the middle of June, well before July, and that she used that undisclosed knowledge and her position on Counsel to sway the Counsel not to approve the Holly Sugar property for a much needed Youth Sports Facility and nit-picked that facility to death, while promoting the deal at the Alvarez facility. Evelyn Tolbert did the same thing but to a much lesser extent than Irene’s elaborate and inexcusable nit-picking of the Holly Site while completely ignoring potential problems with the Alvarez site.
I am not making this up and it is a matter of fact. You can get those unedited DVD copies of those City Counsel meetings from the city at $2.00 per DVD. Mine cost me something like $6.00 to get a complete unedited set of these televised meetings, which were also aired on Channel 26 for at least a week for each meeting.
So Marvin who is working for whom? I’d really like to know the answer to that particular question and I am very sure many of the Tracy electorate would like to know as well. Marvin says, "Sundberg believes that the best place for San Joaquin Delta College’s south-county site is on city property off Chrisman Road." Oh really? Now Marvin seems to be trying to rewrite history by saying to us that Irene was interested in low cost housing on the Alvarez site and in favor of the College facility over on the City owned Chrisman site. But isn't it funny that I and many others can recall her and her supporters being fairly vocal to place the Youth Sports Park Facility at the Chrisman site and wondered why all of a sudden that idea dropped entirely off the political radar screen. Do you wonder this as well? I do. Care to answer Marvin?
Marvin also offers, “The only promise they (The Alvarez developers, Keenan Land Development) want from the city is to be on equal footing with Serpa and Souza when residential growth allotments are given out. No one gets or gives special deals.”
Oh really? “No one gets or gives special deals?” Pardon me for pointing this out, but isn’t offering 50 acres for a Youth Sports Park Facility in exchange for development rights for the remainder of the Alvarez property by Keenan Land Development and discussing it behind closed doors with three city counsel people, one of which came clean and admitted he felt soiled by the offering, a special deal? If it’s not a deal, and one that was secretly withheld from the public, then please Marvin, tell the electorate exactly what it was? I don’t mind that Keenan Land Development talked with these counsel members and am confident no violation of the Brown Act is involved in their discussions. What I take umbrage to is Irene and Evelyn’s failure to disclose this extremely pertinent information to the general public while they were both considering a vote on the placement of a proposed Youth Sports Park facility that eventually ended up on the Holly Sugar property. I also take particular umbrage to Irene in particular for doing everything she could do to torpedo that decision, all the while knowing why the fifty acres of the Alvarez property was being offered in that “secret backroom developer deal.” Say what you will about Serpa, Sousa and the rest. Personally I feel both Les and Mike have offered the best deals being solicited by the city and the other developers are simply crying foul because they cannot offer the city as good a deal. Deals will be offered and made regardless of who the developer is and I expect that. It’s what developers do.
A blogger in a different section is 110% correct in his statement in that if the developers cannot build here they will go somewhere else to where they can. It makes absolutely no difference to the City or the Citizens of Tracy who builds these homes and facilities. But it sure does to the individual developers and the people who individually support them in their “secret backroom developer deals.”
Also, it has been alleged by many that all of the other City Counsel members are guilty of conducting “secret backroom developer deals,” In as much as there are laws about this and violations of those laws might [/b[ have occurred, where is the proof of the statement these “secret” meetings actually occurred? You have proof the Keenan deals were being conducted with several seated City Counsel members and that they factually did affect and sway the vote regarding the selection of the Holly Sugar property with two seated City Counsel members, one running for Mayor and the other seeking re-election to City Counsel and an ardent supporter of a third Mayoral Candidate Celeste Garamendi. The third Counsel Member involved in this secret attempt was Steve Abercrombie. But when asked about it in a public City Council meeting, Steve admitted to the meeting and felt it was not in the best interest of the citizens of Tracy and voted to support the Holly Site, to the chagrin of Councilmember Irene Sundburg and her publicly announced campaign manager Susan Sarvey who both followed Steve into the parking lot, after the Counsel meeting was over, and castigated him for his vote when they accused him of betraying them.
(Sorry for the bold in the above post. Missed and hit the wrong key.)
How do I know about this? Because this is what Councilmember Abercrombie told me that happened immediacy after he escorted Councilmember Tolbert to her car, something he frequently does for all of the ladies currently seated on Counsel as a safety issue of having ladies walking alone in parking lots late after dark. Where is your outrage? Where is the proof of the allegations of “secret back room developer deals” levied against Susanne Tucker and Mayor Brent Ives? Cannot all of you see the hypocrisy in this very dirty little political campaigning to see who wrests control of City Counsel for what ever undisclosed reason? Citizens of Tracy, you are free to make your own decisions about who you wish to represent your city in the future for what ever reason you decide on. I am just simply providing and reminding you of factual information I feel you should consider while making those decisions. Just please please remember the following fact; you deserve the elected officials you place into office. Just think on these things as you cast your ballot this November is all that I am asking. Who you vote for is your own business and I shall never question you as to why you made those decisions. I have no right to tell you who to vote for or question you about why you voted as you have. Dave Hardesty
Who are you talking to Tom? Since you have commented after me, unless someone was deleted, I was refering to the 1 to 4 vote. And if you read it correctly, there is the 2 to 3 vote. That is all.
There are no developers in their pockets because Tracy is small potatoes. These developers have more money then God. They will get their houses built.....somewhere if not here. Doesn't sound like I'm attacking anyone. Actually I asked the hard question and it was the answer I got.
I worry about the type of leadership this candidate would lead:
to the chagrin of Councilmember Irene Sundburg and her publicly announced campaign manager Susan Sarvey who both followed Steve into the parking lot, after the Counsel meeting was over,and castigated him for his vote when they accused him of betraying them. When Abercrombie was thinking of the Tracyites first! But when asked about it in a public City Council meeting, Steve admitted to the meeting and felt it was not in the best interest of the citizens of Tracy and voted to support the Holly Site, Now the next question is: How long has this dealing with Keenan been going on and was anyone aware of it prior to the "news" July 1st or 15th? Now is that open transparency? 8,000 homes, alot of permit and who profits from it? Tracyites? -amy
I believe that is what Tracy Press were referring to, her getting on the developer's side... Keenan?
Make all your favorite candidates understand that you are clear on the open transparency! I demand it even from our President of the USA! -amy
Towhon it may concern:
Dave should open a restaurant and call it, Dave's Buffalo Wings, or better known as Dave's Bull pen. He sure knows how to sling it. t. b
amy
If you actually knew the source of my initial information you would be flabergasted. I am on my honor not to divulge who it was that tipped me off until that person gives me the go ahead. Believe me, I am very anxious to tell the public where this information came from and before I made any mention of it I did check with several other unnamed sources to verify it's truth and accuracy. Hopefully soon I can divulge the source and believe me you will be truly amazed. I know I was and I was stunned by what was given to me. But I have had a trust placed on me and will honor that trust until given the go ahead. BTW, the secret meetings occured before the first June vote on the Youth Sports Park, which ended in a tie vote because Counselwoman Susanne Tucker was absent from the meeting because she was ill and puking her guts out. That fact is why Irene and Susan were so upset because they thought that Steve was going to vote for them and he sensably voted against them, which totally frustrated their plans. You will recall in that meeting it was Steve who attempted to get the vote delayed till Suzanne could be in attendance. The motion failed because Brent couldn't second the motion and the other two counslmembers sat tightlipped like clams until Brent was forced to let the motion die on the floor for lack of a second. Politics at its very worst and not to the benefit of anyone in our community. I feel those two counselpeople should be held accountable for that one dispicable act regardless of how anyone supports the two of them. Dave Hardesty
Well, you have been consistent with your credibility through out the blog as far as I know since I logged on. I have no reason to doubt what you say. Sure wish I could know now! But will respect that persons' wishes and will bide my time for the "revelation".
It is so sad that they have to feel that their party can hide information but it is NOT OKAY FOR OTHER PARTY to do the same? Not right. Sounds like more of "MY WAY or the HIGHWAY!!" without a thought to the Tracyites! -amy
Both parties should be above board and honest with the Tracyites. Serve the people first, if time allows, then the developers?
Up to voters. -amy
Wasn't it Garamendi and Sundberg who coined the term, "secret backroom deals"?
Now is the shoe on the other foot??? How about some of that old fasioned "transparency"???
Nobody is going to ever find out anything about any backroom deals, just like the public never got to see purported emails between a certain council member and LLNL.
Our city government is not transparent. They do things in the dark so the public will never know. Secret meetings? Secret phone calls? Secret deals? Who knows? Now we're faced with the Deal of the Century between the city and Surland. Somebody donate cash so I can move from this city. This voter's question... If Sundberg was "singled out" then why didn't she speak on her own behalf at the July 1st City Council meeting? What was her response to the question of whether or not she saw a "plan"? I didn't hear her say that she didn't see the "plan"? So which is it???
WalMart Employees: Did you hear Councilperson Sundberg say that she didn't see the "plan"? I found it most interesting to watch. Others could ask the WalMart employees. Some of them were there. Or just watch the Channel 26 tape, and make the call yourself. 
To whom it may concern:
It might have been edited out, never know about these people running this equipment. Live or not. t. b
Yeah, that comment is like a slamming the door in one's face in seeking information and answers, want that kind of future leadership?
Be careful whom you vote for. -amy
Tom Benigno,
Did you recall a certain councilperson responding to the question about the "plan" by saying? "Don't drag me into it!" What are your thoughts on that response? Was she really being "singled out"? If so she could have answered the question right there. Why didn't Sundberg answer the question?
Yes, Dave Hardesty, I do recall the aggressive push by Sundberg and Tolbert in demanding that they vote without Tucker after Abercrombie requested later vote when Tucker returns.
Pretty aggressive, in my view. Just a push for the deal with Keenan? For Sundberg and Tolbert's benefits. Maybe even Garamendi? Don't know since all three are so tight lipped! -amy
I am sorry, but maybe I am confused here, didn't irene Sundberg also vote against the Holly Sports Park site, and support the Alvarez site instead? So which is it? College campus or sports park? It seems to me there are more and more reasons popping up why WE the citizens of Tracy should NOT re-elect Irene Sundberg to the city council so she can finish un-finished business.
Is this a transparent example of leadership? I don't think so. A wise man once said,"When you see one mouse, there is usually another one nearby." Some call it rodent infestation. Its time to clean house.
Starting to connect the dots here. Picture don't look too good either. Too many crooked elements at play here.
I can't believe the spin on this one, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,... its a duck.
The irony here is that if it was any other council member, the Sundberg/Garamendi team would be the first to cry foul. How about the council working as a team to make this a better city. Instead what we get back door deals. Hey council, its time to start some real long term planning to make this city a little better. Think outside the box, get in the triangle… whatever you want to call it… but quit the back door deals and petty attacks on each other. The real loser…. Once again is us, the citizens. Also, just because she is the lone dissenting vote doesn’t automatically make her the voice of Tracy. If you want to be the voice of Tracy start taking the “high road” and working as a unified team with real goals, transparency, and a coordinated city vision. It looks to me like the “high road” turnoff was missed for a back door, perhaps its time for all the council members, including Sundberg to get on it. Yes Marvin, the voters are taking note, it’s all getting pathetic.
TP,
Will another lawsuit ensue? Will there be a follow up story on the latest lawsuit against the city? Will this be the third or fourth? I lost count now? Also, would it be conflict of interest if Connolly were to sue the city, given that his wife Garamendi is a candidate for office, now? Also, please run a story on where the money went (if any) from any of the previous lawsuits? Did you guys ever really cover any of that? Need more details, if applicable, please? Thanks! Also, I did notice that Councilperson Sundberg shared a booth with Garamendi at the Forth of July Picnic/Parade, at Lincoln Park. Each candidate seems to be at the others coming out parties and other events. What's the deal?
Really now? Did that article show "Leadership"? Where?
And When does it start? I seem to have missed that part???
Remember that commercial for burgers, and an old lady who said, "where's the beef?" So where is it? and when do we see it? In the year 2015? Read the article, and the commnets: http://tracypress.com/content/view/15352/2244/ Do we want Tracy to have Bail Bond business in the downtown??? Is that where we are being led??? Also why didn't the article mention the problems regarding traffic, parking, and the "social element" in the downtown? IF, if ever really happens (in the year 2015) just put the courthouse with a college, at the Chrisman and Eleventh site. Now, there's an idea that might produce leadership!!!!
Just a thought. I was watching when Tucker started her snare attack and she tried to get Sunberg to admit to something and when she turned to Tolbert and because Tolbert didn't want to play the game Tucker was up to,(bad acting on Tuckers part, like she practiced all day what to say). Tolbert didn't want to be dragged into it. Maybe someone thought up the whole idea and Tolbert refused to go along with it and Tucker threw Abercrombie under the bus because she couldn't drag Tolbert into her scheme. It was like Tucker was the ring leader.
To whom it may concern:
Dave says he has a private connection to information about our city. IT CAN BE READ FROM THE MINUTES OF ALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS BY THE CITY CLERK. IT'S CALLED PUBLIC DISCLOSIER. DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR. t. b
To whom it may concern:
Tom continually cannot understand the difference between a private connection to information about our city as compaired to public information provided in the minutes of all the City Council meeting that by law by Carole, the City Clerk under Public Disclosure. "DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR" in an ability to comprenend the things the average moron is capable of understanding. 9 AM? Glad to see you had a nice night's sleep I hope you have a nice day Tom. You fire them and I'll fire them right back at you and we will let the public decide. Dave Hardesty
maybenotdumBcommenT,
If Tolbert and Sundberg didn't want to be dragged into it then why didn't they say wether or not they saw the plan for 8000 permits??? A simple yes/no response would have let the voters know they where they stand. The fact that Sundberg refused to answer the question speaks louder than your irrational explanation. In your silly argument on Sundberg and Tolbert's behalf; you forget that Tolbert mentioned more than just, "Don't drag me into it!" After Sundberg's SILENCE. Tolbert proceeded to DRAG HERSELF INTO IT ! She said that the alleged backroom deal was not brought to the council meeting. If Sundberg don't want dragged into it then they shouldn't be conducting "secret backroom deals" that they were so VOCAL about in the past. Hiding information about a "secret backroom deal" for 8000 RGU would be - what is called a double standard! Now, have a nice day!
Looks like the supporters didn't hear much from the three of them either, being so tight lipped, keeping to silence as much as possible? Scary way to trust anyone like that?
-amy
maybenotdumBcommenT,
Do you trust someone who can't tell you a yes/no answer to a question? If it were you being asked about a "plan" for "8000" permits, how would you respond? A.) "SILENCE?" B.) "DON'T DRAG ME INTO IT!" C.) No. I had nothing to do with that. D.) "Guilty as charged!" Given the logic presented to you I cannot even begin to fathom why you would put yourself out there to defend Sundberg and Tolbert, when they haven't done the same for themselves??? I see comments here from those who are asking questions and observed that those pointing fingers at the City are not pointing fingers back at Sundberg and Tolbert... You might want to start asking that your councilpersons (Sundberg and Tolbert) to start answering the questions they were asked about the "plan" for "8000" permits. Until you do that, you and your candidate(s) platform's don't have a leg to stand on! Thanks!
Maybe a yes or no would suggested she had something at all to do with it and poor Abecrombe was cringing when he answered. It was humorous that Tucker was trying to follow her lines. She should have practiced in front of the mirror.
I asked my person and there were no back room deals. Thats my answer but of course you won't believe me. I asked the source.
So, you knew of the 8,000 homes prior to the July 1st meeting or the next one?
When did you find out? (If you knew?) Just curious. Thanks. -amy
maybenotdumBcommenT,
So you are alledging that the "source" you referenced (either Sundberg or Tolbert?) would NOT answer with a yes/no question in public. But is freely telling a blogger named "maybenotdumBcommenT". Excuse me while, "I don't believe you!" Was that another "secret backroom developer deal"? Seriously! Need to know more details, there! But Thanks anyway! And, Nice try!
Saw how in their "pride" they gave themselves away by showing us how they would have voted... against Holly! Did it again, even with all the advantages of Holly...
Now that kind of "drive"....is for the Tracyites? or...... "Minimizing" what is best for Tracyites to "maximize" what they will benefit from it at Alvarez with Keenan Development? Good luck with your votes this election. -amy By the way. Your wrong. If Sundberg or Tolbert would have answered "No.", then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Don't you recall the old saying? How does it go??? "I can neither confirm or deny that accusation." The real question is why are you defending someone who tells you one thing in private, but will not state it in public??? Thanks!!!!
maybenotdumBcommenT,
btw, Maybe it was Tolbert and Sundberg who was cringing??? Tolbert seemed to spend an AWFUL lot of time to say very little about it. And I don't even thing you got even a WHIMPER of a response from Sundberg. Cheerio!
Sundberg is Garamendi's "sock-Puppet"...I saw them sitting next to each other in City Council meeting Breaks, and Brainstorming together.
Then Sundberg goes up and reads from Garamendi's "Talking Points" Typical "Birds of a feather"
maybenotdumBcommenT
And that source was? I am not doubting you at your word but you have to admit a comment like this, coming from an unknown person doesn't have much credablility does it? And I am not castigating you because you choose to keep your name private in these discussions either. That is your business for what ever reason that you decide. It just sort of defuses your comments as being totally reliable is all. I believe the term is called accountability to one's actions and comments. I choose to post my real name in these discussions precisely because it makes me watch what I do and say that I should be accountable for. Yes I do get rather rude to some people but if you notice most of that is towards people who are unknown who continually hurl insults at people with one exception I know of.
That exception is Tom Benigno and there I am very careful as to what I say specifically because I am convinsed that if he could he would hold me accountable. He as threatened as much in these blogs and in that I take him seriously, even though he has yet to provide any substancial proof that anything I have said about him is factually untrue.
I also make every attempt to indicate what is my personal opinion, which everyone is intitled to a personal opinion and are free to express that opinion, and what is fact and where I have the facts to substanciate what I have written is factually true. And believe me, I am very sure there are those out there who would jump at the opportunity to hold me accountable if they could factually prove differently. It seems (an opinion) that many people have a lot of difficulty differentiating between what is opinion or alleged from actual fact. Just because someone, especially someone who is unknown and cannot be held accountable for what they say, says that something is or is not true does not make that a fact. That is what many politicians run afoul of when they make statements they cannot back up with solid and substanciated fact.
They call it politics and seem to feel it doesn't make any difference. But eventually the general public looses faith in their credability and loose their faith in those politicians ablility to represent them.
That, my friend, is the entire concept behind "open and transparent government." If they can't be open and honest in reply to the voters questions, they loose their credability and voter confidence and hopefully do not get elected or re-elected. Why? Because our form of government was solidly based on the concepts of "By the people and for the people." You seem to be intellegent and I hope you can comprehend what it is that I am trying to do. Again, I am not running for any political position nor am I paid by anyone to write the things that I do. I am nothing more than a citizen interested in seeing that all citizens are represented by the best possible selection of the politicians they elect to represent them. Not one person or a select group of people but all people have the right to know what their elected represenatives are up to and who they make alliances with. Dave Hardesty.
maybenotdumBcommenT
Ok, here is my long winded reply to an earlier comment of yours so get yourself your favorite beverage, kick back and perhaps you will understand why I feel the way that I do. And any rate perhaps I can lull Tom to sleep. Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker asks a question, Counsel Member Irene Sundburg dodges the question and doesn't answer, Counsel Member Evelyn Tolbert replies with, "Don't drag me into it," and Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie confirms what Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker asked, and you think the entire thing was staged with her as the “ring leader”? Hum? I have to think about your logic on that one. Perhaps, in this particular case, it is a dumb comment. Actually I appreciated and applaud the fact that Counsel Woman Suzanne Tucker asked the question at the July 1st meeting before the Holly Youth Sports Park item was voted on that evening. The responses to her question, given by other Counsel Members, are exactly what launched me on my investigation of the issue. My questions of Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie let me to additional information that confirmed secret meetings , which had not been publically revealed in Counsel Chambers, had factually been held with Counsel Members Irene Sundburg, Evelyn Tolbert and Steve Abercrombie, but not with all present at the same time. This may be an infraction of the concept of “straw polling” as defined by the Brown Act and a possible violation of the law. At the very least, to me, it may be viewed as a violation of the public’s trust in that apparently what was learned by these Counsel Members may have caused them to sway their vote to benefit someone else or some project not known by the public.
amy, no, I just asked what it all meant.
TRN, I was not given a yes or no question. I wanted an explanation of what happened and I was given one. I understood it better, their position and it is not what you all accuse them of. I got it from the horses mouth. Pick what ever horse you want. This person has never kept it private. You choose to ignore the truth. I'm not a liar and my candidate is not a liar. I do remember the camera was focused on Abecrombie and he turned sideways towards the Mayor. I think he wanted to run out. Why is it our Council Members don't work together? They fight over every friggin detail.
These “secret meetings,” where other issues of Alvarez property, other than a park with conditions were discussed , and had occurred with these Counsel Members and Keenan Land Development, who represented the 50 acre “deal” of the Alvarez property “give away” for a Youth Sports Park facility to be installed at that location, with the stipulation , announced in Counsel Chambers by their lawyer, that the city would annex all the attached Alvarez property into the city in roughly five years and allow all of that property to be developed for residential use, while consideration of where to place the final selection of the location of a proposed Youth Sports park was to considered by those Counsel members. This very well may have been a conflict of interest and may be illegal.
These meetings occurred long before mid June and long before the vote on the Holly Youth Sports Park location which passed by 3 to 2, with Counsel Members Irene Sundburg and Evelyn Tolbert voting against the item on the July 1st. Additionally this item passed in that July 1st meeting. However after the June 17th City Counsel meeting had adjourned, where the issue was discussed in Counsel Chambers, and in the parking lot, Counsel Member Irene Sundburg and her campaign manager Susan Sarvey verbally castigated Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie at his car because of his vote in support of the Holly Youth Sports Park Facility, which resulted in a tie vote at that evening. Specifically, they said something to the effect that they had been betrayed by Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie with the way he cast his vote. According to Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie, who walked Counsel Member Evelyn Tolbert to her car that evening, and the source of my information, Evelyn did not appear to be visibly upset and indicated to him that he respected his decision and right to cast his vote the way that he did for what ever reason that caused him to do so.
Sorry for the bold, missed a character. Here it is again in an easier format to read.
These “secret meetings,” where other issues of Alvarez property, other than a park with conditions were discussed , and had occurred with these Counsel Members and Keenan Land Development, who represented the 50 acre “deal” of the Alvarez property “give away” for a Youth Sports Park facility to be installed at that location, with the stipulation , announced in Counsel Chambers by their lawyer, that the city would annex all the attached Alvarez property into the city in roughly five years and allow all of that property to be developed for residential use, while consideration of where to place the final selection of the location of a proposed Youth Sports park was to considered by those Counsel members. This very well may have been a conflict of interest and may be illegal. These meetings occurred long before mid June and long before the vote on the Holly Youth Sports Park location which passed by 3 to 2, with Counsel Members Irene Sundburg and Evelyn Tolbert voting against the item on the July 1st.
Additionally this item passed in that July 1st meeting. However after the June 17th City Counsel meeting had adjourned, where the issue was discussed in Counsel Chambers, and in the parking lot, Counsel Member Irene Sundburg and her campaign manager Susan Sarvey verbally castigated Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie at his car because of his vote in support of the Holly Youth Sports Park Facility, which resulted in a tie vote at that evening. Specifically, they said something to the effect that they had been betrayed by Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie with the way he cast his vote.
According to Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie, who walked Counsel Member Evelyn Tolbert to her car that evening, and the source of my information, Evelyn did not appear to be visibly upset and indicated to him that he respected his decision and right to cast his vote the way that he did for what ever reason that caused him to do so. The item on the selection of the Youth Sports Park facility location resulted in the tie vote during the June 17th meeting because Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker was not present, due to an illness, and Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie had already previously and independently had decided to support the Holly site for selection of the Youth Sports Park facility because he personally felt the Holly site was a superior site for a Youth Sports Park facility, compared to the 50 acre Alvarez site being offered “free” with conditions attached. Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie stated his reasons for supporting the Holly site selection for the Youth Sports Park facility before the vote and said so in that June 17th meeting of City Counsel. It’s all on record.
If you recall, and it’s on record in the June 17th meeting, when the Youth Sports Park item came up on the agenda, Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie also made a motion to delay discussion and the vote, in order to give Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker an opportunity to participate in the discussion and vote, again, before the vote to make the park site selection.
The motion died on the floor because neither Counsel Members Irene Sundburg nor Evelyn Tolbert, the only two people who legally could second the motion, would second the motion forcing the item to a vote that evening. Mayor Brent Ives then had no choice but to let the item be discussed and voted on and both Counsel Members Irene Sundburg and Evelyn Tolbert knew it. They are not stupid. Fortunately for the citizens of Tracy, due to some common sense exercised by Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie, the vote ended in a tie, forcing the item onto the July 1st agenda which precipitated his encounter with an angry Counsel Member Irene Sundberg and her campaign manager Susan Sarvey in the parking lot that evening as discussed above. On the July 1st meeting the now present Counsel Member, Suzanne Tucker, asked her question regarding what her fellow Counsel Members knew about meetings between them and Keenan Land Development.
Counsel Member Irene Sundburg replied something that could not be picked up by the microphones and was not heard by the audience or the rest of the City Counsel Members present.
Counsel Member Evelyn Tolbert angrily replied, “Don’t drag me into it.” Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie confirmed he had met with Keenan Land Development to discuss the development of the Alvarez property and later, privately with me, indicated that he had known other counsel members had also met with Keenan Land Development to discuss the same thing. All of this happened before the June 17th meeting occurred with the exception of when he told me about it on Sunday, June 23rd with another citizen of the public present in a public location. If you recall, during the discussion of the Sports Park Selection item on June 17th Counsel Meeting, Counsel Member Irene Sundburg nit-picked physical problem issues about the Holly Site and said absolutely nothing about any of the physical problem issues with the Alvarez site during that meeting. She continued to nit-pick that site, while saying nothing about the Alvarez site, and in support of the Alvarez site, until the final vote was taken on July 1st, where the issue was finally passed in favor of the Holly site selection. Counsel Member Evelyn Tolbert is on record, during those two public meetings, of not supporting the Holly site and was in favor of the Alvarez site. She never really explained to anyone exactly why she supported the Alvarez site other than she favored development on that side of town and not out towards the Holly site location. But the specifics surrounding that development were not revealed by her prior to her vote on the Sports Park item on the agenda.
Counsel Member Evelyn Tolbert also indicated she felt there might be issues that could not be mitigated with the Holly Site, despite the fact City Engineers had already reported they didn’t see any serious issues that they felt could not be fairly easily mitigated during the June 17th meeting.
Again, this is something Counsel Member Irene Sundburg was visibly shaken about when she queried the City Engineer about problems with the site and he responded that his staff didn’t see anything with the site that would be a serious problem which could not be easily mitigated. Several of the previous “witch hunt” issues from Counsel Member Irene Sundburg and her supporters has long been “open and transparent government” with repeated allegations, which are accusations and not fact, of “secret back room developer deals.” Another “witch hunt” and long standing issue levied against all seated members of City Counsel, by the same people , involved allegations that Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker was guilty of conducting city business, not disclosed to the public or other Counsel Members, and in violation of public meeting laws like the Brown Act.
That allegation, leveled against the City, Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker and other members of Counsel, alleged they had colluded and were secretly conducting business with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and its interests in project on their property known as Site 300.
Tracy Press, under the Freedom of Information Act laws, asked for emails from Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker which they believed might contain public information that had been purposely withheld from the public. They were informed the requested information would not be turned over because all of the communication that had occurred between Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker and the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory was conduced by her acting as a private citizen and informed the Press those emails had been conducted by her using her own personal computer. Therefore it was the opinion of the City’s attorneys that the communication was not subject to the conditions involved in the disclosure of public information as prescribed by the law and their request was denied. In other words, it was the opinion of City Attorneys the communication between Suzanne Tucker and the Lab were private, from her own private computer and therefore did not qualify under the law to be publically revealed to anyone.
Not being satisfied with the City Attorney’s response and Counsel Member Suzanne Tuckers response that she was under no legal obligation to turn over that information, Tracy Press then engaged the services of Attorney Mark Connolly, who happens to be the husband of Celeste Garamendi and one of three Mayoral candidates for election this November, and who also is publically supported by seated Counsel Member Irene Sundburg, who is also stumping for re-election to City Counsel, to sue the City and Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker in court to force her and the City to turn over the requested information.
That suit ended in a failed effort to have Suzanne Tuckers personal computer turned over to them so that they , the plaintiff bringing the suit, could examine the machine and determine if any illegal city business communications had factually occurred. The courts struck down the suit and declined to rule if an elected official’s personal communication using his or her own personal computer would be considered a violation of the public information laws. The judge specifically indicated that she was not going to change the laws by setting up a precedent and that such laws should be discussed and eventually voted into existence by the State of California legislative body and not the State’s Judicial system. Not satisfied with that ruling, Tracy Press, with their Attorney Mark Connolly appealed the issue to a higher court where the higher court denied the appeal, for what ever reason the court finally gave and upheld the lower courts decision. The entire previous “witch hunting” above, occurred before the June 17th vote on the Holly Sports Park facility selection.
Now, given the factual information above, and given that “secret back room developer meetings” did occur between Counsel Members Irene Sundburg, Evelyn Tolbert and confirmed by Counsel Member Steve Abercrombie, who derailed the activity, and the fact that Counsel Members Irene Sundburg and Evelyn Tolbert knew information that had not been disclosed to the public, the City or the rest of the Counsel members in either public or private session before the June 17th meeting, while they considered a vote on the Youth Sports Park facility that also considered property belonging to the Alvarez Family and represented by Keenan Land Development.
Could it be that Counsel Members Irene Sundburg and Evelyn Tolbert were then making their voting decisions that directly pertain public expenditures of monies in behalf of public interest, solely based on information gained in non-public meetings with Keenan Land Development and were actively considering this here to fore unknown to the public information to favor of the development of the Alvarez property? Might the outcome of this vote directly benefitted Keenan Land Development, by having the City accept the “50 acre free deal” with it’s “stipulation” and without revealing to the Public, the City or the rest of the City Counsel their real reasons for supporting the Alvarez site over the Holly Sugar site on an issue which was to select the best location for the proposed development and installation of a long needed Youth Sports Park facility? You are free to make your own conclusions.
And now you say, “I was watching when Tucker started her snare attack and she tried to get Sunberg to admit to something and when she turned to Tolbert and because Tolbert didn't want to play the game Tucker was up to,(bad acting on Tuckers part, like she practiced all day what to say). Tolbert didn't want to be dragged into it. Maybe someone thought up the whole idea and Tolbert refused to go along with it and Tucker threw Abercrombie under the bus because she couldn't drag Tolbert into her scheme. It was like Tucker was the ring leader?”
I find that bit of logic incredible but then again I find a lot of things to be incredible these days. I also find it incredible, given light of my lengthy analysis contained above, that Counsel Member Irene Sundburg could or would do anything that might appear to be secretive in light of her stance on the concept of open transparency of government, and who actively supports Mayoral Celeste Garamendi who has publically announced her support of that concept on numerous occasions at City Counsel meetings with the continuing mantra and allegations of “secret back room developer deals.”
Furthermore, I find it rather unusual that a seated City Counsel member, also in the Mayoral race and an Attorney at Law in her own right, Evelyn Tolbert, would also fail to understand how her involvement in all of this might be perceived by the public she has been elected by and sworn to represent, would distance herself from a public explanation of what occurred with her meeting with Keenan Land Development and the Alvarez properties, and continue to allow the public she represents to believe she might have been using her position on City Counsel to vote on issues directly pertaining to other interests surrounding the Alvarez properties apart from a conditional offer of a “free” 50 acres of a proposed sports park and possibly deceiving the public she represents by a failure to publically disclose her reasons as to why she has elected to do so.
Folks, this has nothing to do what so ever with my likes and dislikes of people. I hope you can all understand this. Who I personally like and who I personally dislike is my private affair just as it is your private affair to like and dislike and associate with those you choose to associate with. That is your private business as it is mine.
But when you enter into the arena of politics, and have desires to gain political power that should be representing all of the citizens, I feel it is important for all citizens to know exactly what is going on with their elected representatives and how the representatives and candidates have acted in the past.
I do not represent you. I do not represent them. I only represent myself and as a citizen of this country, state and city, I have the right to bring these facts and questions to light in a public forum. The representatives and candidates can choose to answer or ignore these things. That is their right. But you, as the voting public that eventually will be paying for all of this have a right to know if these questions and facts are true or now and you deserved to hear that from those who represent you or those who desire to be elected to represent you. Whew! After all of this, I hope you can clearly understand what I am saying and exactly why I have said it. I am not angry with you or anyone else about any of this. Just seeking to understand what is going on and why certain people seem to be dodging the real issues by putting up smoke screens. Have a great day. Not mad, not sarcastic. Just serious, have a great day. Dave Hardesty
Sundberg has got to go...Tracy needs good leadership
Not "rubber stamps" for Garamendi's Socialist Agenda This may be an infraction of the concept of “straw polling” as defined by the Brown Act and a possible violation of the law. At the very least, to me, it may be viewed as a violation of the public’s trust in that apparently what was learned by these Counsel Members may have caused them to sway their vote to benefit someone else or some project not known by the public. It "may be" and "possible". I have stated several times why I can not give my name. My family and I have to remain anonymous because of possible gang retaliation and of people in the public, and because of my significant others position, from things I have mentioned in the past. You all know be by this moniker. Although I have used my real name in the past and you were very nice to me Dave. And the others as well. Just because I don't use my real name doesn't mean I'm not telling the truth as I have been given. Are you saying Dave, that Council person Abecrombie turned himself in to you? Is he going to resign now?
I don't think you have to worry about giving out your name, does that mean you think giving the name of the "source" would endanger you? Who would be the "stooges"?
-amy
If any party does not know who you are with your name, maybenotadumBcommenT, and no one is asking for your name... still bad idea to name the "source"?
-amy
maybenotdumBcommenT
I respect your reasons to keep your identity private and that is solely up to you. I was just attempting to address a writers credibility to others who read it. This is by no means to cast a dispirsion against you and I respect your right to do and think as you desire. Actually, since Steve Abercrombi came forward when asked in Counsel and had discussed this openly in public rather in private with me, (note I mentioned that fact) and he had clear reasons why he supported the Holly site as opposed to any other site and had mentioned that in Counsel, and the fact he attempted to stay any discussion and vote until all Counsel Members were present to discuss the issue before Counsel that night, I do not feel that he did anything wrong that I am conserned with. I don't feel he should be removed and feel he honestly addressed the questions truthfully. For that reason, if I feel he is the best candidate qualified I will most likely support him for re-election to City Counsel. Others many disagree for their own reason. Perhaps they should factually and honestly state them.
Every time I have asked Steve a straight question he has without hesitation given me straight and honest answers. To me that says a lot about the credability of a person and to me that person is then qualified to run a campaign to represent me as a citizen should he be elected.
Believe me, I deeply wish that I could say this about all the candidates. Unfortunately I can't for the reasons I have discribed above. I have questions of them and have received no answers from them. They all know how to personally get hold of me. Mike Maciel has talked to me. Steve Abercrombie has talked to me and Larry Hite has talked to me. Even Mayor Brent Ives has talked to me and answered my questions satisfactorly. They are candidates in the upcoming election.
None of the other candidates have made an effort to contact me even though I am very easy to get hold of. Perhaps they feel I am not worth considering, I don't know. Actually I would much rather they respond to questions in a public forum but they choose not to.
But I am sure even you know how to get hold of me, after being a City Parks and Community Commissioner for over 12 years in this city. If you can figure that out I am quite sure the others can as well. Now, who among seated City Counsel Members, not runing in some election, either for Mayor or City Counsel seats, has contacted me and talked with me? Since I have named other members who are candidates that are already Mayor or currently occupying a seat on Counsel, I can winnow it down to Counsel Member Suzanne Tucker. I use to have direct communications with Counsel Member Evelyn Tolbert but it has been years, since her election to be precise, since she has contacted me. Now before you jump to a wrong conclusion and take my thoughts out of context I will admit that when I bump into these people in a social environment, like the Juneteenth celebration in Lincoln Park, or at public meetings, I treat them civilly and have not discussed issues like I have discribed above with them. I seperate the social from the political and feel they should be doing the same. But they can do what they desire and feel is correct according to their own hearts. Dave Hardesty
amy, I did not say my source would be a danger to me. My anonymity has nothing to do with this subject.
I prefer to keep who I will be voting for private. Some people know who I am on these comment pages including the editor. I have nothing to hide but that is private. BTW, I think the utmost of TP's editor. She has answered questions for me and has never left me hanging. As far as TP goes, it is their newspaper and they can say whatever they want and they allow me to say almost whatever I want. In my business I boot out whoever I want if they are disloyal to me. Thats business for you. Being your own boss has it's perks.
Thank you Dave for your open and honest statement. I don't dislike Abecrombie at all, darn, his name is hard to spell, may swtich to Steve.
I as well run into the candidate frequently and am civil to them, I have no reason to be rude to them. They are not rude to me at all. Maybe I could get a hold of you but I haven't tried. Don't you remember commenter's would say I was you sometimes. Sorry about that. I know you have your own opinions and they are long. I try to get thru them but not always. Yes, we have to separate social from political. written by amy , July 31, 2008 yes, because family, friends and some acquaintances know me by my moniker.
maybenotdumBcommenT,
What exactly are you saying and exactly who do you want us to believe? Unless we get the answer from Sundberg and Tolbert then why do you expect us to believe them, or you? I didn't hear Sundberg or Tolbert state that they didn't have anything to do with the "plan" for the "8000" homes that was mentioned in the July 1st City Council meeting. It couldn't be clearer than that, unless they just answered the question to ALL of us. Hope that helps?
How is that being "transparent"? Not unless it comes from the source. See what I mean? Cheers!
MNDC,
I wasn't referring to the Movie (get your head out of the gutter dude) I was referring to the Watergate informant. Because Dave said we were all going to be FLABERGASTED and if it's Abercrombie I'm NOT.
I wasn't going there either Malcolm, sorry you misunderstood. Altho that would have made me laugh. I wouldn't be surprised either the way Abecromdie looked like he wanted to run.
Malcolm
Believe me, I wish I could divulge the source. But a promise is a promise and I don't break promises unless someone is going to be seriously hurt if I don't. As far as I can see none of this is a life or death matter so I am forced to stand behind my promise. I hope you can accept that. I wouldn't expect any more from anyone else. Dave Hardesty
What does it matter if Abercrombie wants to run for Mayor? What does it have ot do with the article? Did Abercrombie tell you that he looks like he wanted to run? And Abercrombie never mentioned this new information. Please stick to the facts.
Sundberg didn't say she didn't see the "plan"! Tolbert didn't say she didn't see the "plan"! Abercrombie didn't say he wanted to run! Watched it on Channel 26. Did not see any of those. I'm more concerned with what the Councilpersons are not saying. That's all I'm talking about. Hope to see a follow up article! Thanks!
Cheri,
Did you ever review the tape of Channel 26, for the July 1st Council meeting. A "plan" was mentioned? The question was asked by Tucker to Sundberg and Tolbert. Can you verify the number of homes that was mentioned? Was the number in the question stated at "8000", as was commented (earlier)? Thanks! |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
