Your Voice: Will candidate keep promises?
Aug 02, 2013 | 3963 views | 5 5 comments | 286 286 recommendations | email to a friend | print

In announcing his intention to run for mayor of the city of Tracy on July 22, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Maciel said he did so because people kept asking him whether he was going to run or not. Well, now we know he plans on running.

The next question of Mr. Maciel: Will he keep past promises he made in running for City Council in his run for mayor?

For example, when he was running for council in 2012, at a candidate forum hosted by the Tracy Airport Association in October (at which I was present and which follows I heard with my own ears), Mr. Maciel, along with current council members Nancy Young and Charles Manne, promised to protect the Tracy airport, as they all agreed it was a magnet and engine for economic growth and development. They all agreed with the steps that had been taken by the city just a few days earlier to have Runway 12/30 remeasured and extended to 4,000 feet from the 3,997 feet it had been reduced to months earlier.

Fast-forward to the City Council meeting of June 18: Mr. Maciel agreed — along with Ms. Young and Mr. Manne, as well as Mayor Brent Ives and Councilman Robert Rickman — to have Runway 12/30 reduced to 3,997 feet.

I ask Mr. Maciel, what happened between October and June 18 to change your mind and not keep your original promise to the airport folks when you were looking for their votes in 2012? (The same could be asked of Mr. Manne and Ms. Young.) It appears that the only immediate beneficiary of the decrease in the length of Runway 12/30 would be the Ellis project, as my letter to the editor printed in the July 26 edition of this paper tried to show.

So, the question begs itself again — will Mr. Maciel keep his original promise made back in October 2012 to protect the airport by keeping the length of runway 12/30 at its then (and still current) 4,000 feet when the runway length comes for another crucial vote in the next 30-60 days? Or has he made a new promise to a person or persons that would benefit from an airport with a smaller runway length? And, if a new promise has been made, to whom?

Steve Nicolaou, Tracy
Comments-icon Post a Comment
August 05, 2013
Mr. Flip-Flop
August 02, 2013
When the council reduced the runway length to 3,997 feet, which the Airport Association 100% agreed with, they opened up $$grants$$ from the federal government to improve the deteriorating runway. I would think improving the runway is one way the council is protecting the airport. Would Mr. Nicolaou rather have a long runway that he can't land on because its deteriorating or the same size runway it had now but repaved with federal grants?

It is obvious Mr. Nicolaou is more interested in smearing Mr. Maciel's name before the 2014 election than knowing anything about the airport.
August 05, 2013

Actually, Nicolau has a point. The federal funding for repaving runway 12/30 has no limitations on the length to be paved; the feds are only willing to pave 75 feet of width, and not the current 100 feet in width. Rod Buchanan admitted the feds did not limit the funding for paving the full 4000 feet in length at the June 18th council meeting where Maciel and everyone else agreed to shorten runway 12/30 to 3997 feet from 4000 feet. Look at the tape of the meeting and you'll hear it with your own ears.
August 30, 2013
What everyone keeps bypassing or convenitly forgetting is that the Council members sat on their dias and did nothing about the improper job of coating the runway the contractor did and after the 1 year time limit to complain so they can't sue him now....they have hired him again and all this rucus about shortening the runway.

Put your memory cap on...our former Council is at fault for this mess.

You're welcome.~

We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at