Wasserman has fundraising lead
By Matt Artz
Wednesday, October 8th, 2008 at 4:48 pm in Uncategorized.
Sorry folks, I haven’t had time to go through campaign finance disclosure forms that were released Tuesday. I really wanted to get to them yesterday, but now it looks like it probably won’t happen until next week.
The Wasserman campaign is not so pressed for time. They looked at the results and announced they have more cash than the other two guys.
Here is part of the release I just got: ciao
According to candidate fundraising reports filed this week, Fremont Mayor Bob Wasserman’s campaign has $71,649 in the bank, significantly more than either of his opponents in the Fremont Mayoral race. Mayor Wasserman reported raising a total of $101,773 as of September 30.
“I’m honored to have the support of so many members of the Fremont community. During my four years as Mayor, I’ve been privileged to work with residents on many issues that have made Fremont a great place to live, work, shop and raise a family, and I will use these funds to talk directly to voters about our accomplishments and my vision for Fremont’s future,” Mayor Wasserman said of his strong fundraising showing.
Wasserman has twice as much money in the bank as his opponents, consultant Gus Morrison and City Councilmember Steve Cho. Morrison reported with $34,130 in the bank and Cho had $36,635 on hand.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
October 8th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Perhaps Mayor Wasserman can use some of his excess campaign contributions to locate a miracle worker to fix his health and begin to perform his duties as Mayor commensurate with a metropolitan city of 180,000 citizens.
Time to stand aside and do the right thing, retire with some dignity and allow a new individual with a diversified perspective to lead our diversified populace into the next decade for the betterment of all.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Good one. Wasserman needs to retire. Better yet, on Nov 4th, Fremonters should send him home.
The last 4 yrs of his tenure has been dismal.
1) Rise in Burglaries, Crime
2) Ill-advised Utility Tax Proposal in 2006, which he still thinks is a good idea given the state of economy.
3) Life-long bureaurcrat, supports good pay-rise for City Manager who is drawing in excess of 250K
4) Supports run-away development which does not generate stable tax revenue but helps his developer contributors. With the increased density housing wherever possible, there is no foresight to the effects on basic city services like roads, traffic, police and schools.It goes on and on.
An incumbent should run on the basis of his 4-yr record which for Wasserman has been truly inept.Time to send Wasserman home so that he can take care of his health
October 9th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I’ve often noticed how wonderful a city Fremont is to live in. The police force runs well. City leaders make themselves available to the public. Our plentiful parks look beautiful. Roads get improved when necessary. Activities keep us entertained. Why all the moaning and complaining? Wasserman has done just fine and I support him.
October 9th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
While we are at it, let us send the other Bob W ie Mr. Wieckowski home too. It will be good for Fremont
October 10th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Anybody raising > 100K in this economy for a City Council race is definitely getting money from developers who will get whatever they want from Mr. Wasserman once elected.
The average citizen will not get fair hearing in City Hall if he is elected. I had seen so many public hearings in the last 4 years and invariably Mr. Wasserman never objects to anything the City Staff comes up for any development. He never even questions them. He is in the tank with the bureaucracy and developers.
Don’t get fooled by Wasserman’s personal calls for votes. I got fooled once.
Time for Wasserman to retire.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Anybody who can raise 100k in this economy must have lots of supporters. I wonder if Palin and McCain ever took money from developers. Find out, and if they did, don’t vote for them!
October 10th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Jon,
Lets talk local and keep it local. Why bring Palin/McCain or Obama/Biden into this discussion. The truth is, 4-yr tenure of Wasserman is pretty dismal and if you want, go to any neighborhood and ask the residents. I already talked to a lot of people. Maybe, if you are so happy, go vote for him by all means.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I really hope Wasserman looses. Wasserman was the most antagonistic and beligerent of the City Council members to oppose the Minutemen.
… Anyone but Wasserman… Plus, my impression at the forums I’ve attended was Wasserman didn’t really know the issues too well. Besides that, he was 180 degrees from what my personal convictions of small government and anti-big business/developer corps. I don’t think people are excited over Wasserman per se. It’s his incumbancy that garners this support.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Message number 3. in this series from Jon Simon I had to read twice. At first I thought Jon S. was making sarcastic humor and I had to laugh. . . but it occurred to me, “No - Jon Simon is SERIOUS.” - and I had to cry.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Fremont Native,
Address my point, not the scope of it. I’m guessing many of these people who curse candidates for taking developer funds are also voting for McCain/Palin, and I bet they’re taking developer funds. Of course Obama has taken them too.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Jon, there’s certain criteria that one considers when electing city officials, and others when electing those for state and national office.
For example, I can care less what our city council thinks about the war in Iraq or our gov’s role in financial markets.
Conversely, I can care less if a presidential candidate took money from a builder in Wasilla, Ak.
Your insistence on inferring that those “who curse candidates for taking developer funds are also voting for McCain/Palin” is as relevant as the likely fact that most pre-op transsexual drug addicts are likely to vote for Barack Obama.
October 10th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Marty,
Palin turned Wasilla into the Alaskan land of chain stores. Darn those politicians and their developer (devel!) worship. Imagine what she’d do to the whole of the US, of which Fremont is a part. Seems pretty pertinent.
I’m not sure about the transsexual part, but drug addicts, like Cindy McCain and Rush Limbaugh, vote Republican.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:24 am
No, Jon. I’m talking about the ones who currently on drugs. They’re probably going to vote for Obama.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Marty -
Your comments to Jon Simon are spot on.
Take a look at his other postings in this blo. He struggles with focus and attempts to substantiate (IMHO) irrational support for current city council and civic leaders.
His comments combine with attempts by others to rationlalize his positions become distractions to the topics at hand.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Regarding Jon Simon, I completely agree with bbox and Marty.
If Jon is the same person who contested for School Board in the previous Election Cycles, I should sincerely appreciate Fremont voters for not putting him in office.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:07 am
Bbox,
For the record, I don’t think that drug addicts are really going to vote for Obama. I was trying reflect to Jon how obtuse he was being. But Palin a dizzying effect on liberal men, as a consequence he didn’t even realize it.
Something I am starting to put together (being fairly new to Fremont) is that Wasserman’s base in Fremont is pretty far left. I also imagine that Jon runs with Beth Hoffman’s wine and cheese club, where at their September meet and greet with Wasserman topics surely devolved into how “Bush lied and thousands Died” and how Sarah Palin is a “sexist stay-at-work mom”.
To their credit, they are very enthused about the national elections. It appears that they have trouble making the separation from our city elections.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Marty - I guess I agree with your original statements re the criteria for evaluating local politicians versus national or state level.
Whether Wasserman and his council supporters are “left” or “right” is inconsequential to me. . .. they are at least very muddled in their thinking, or if not muddled, they are possibly rationlizing motives not clearly understood - And, I believe these same civic employees clearly profit from the business of *operating* a city, with outcomes largely determined by chance as opposed to *plannning* a city where outcomes are largely determined by sound management.
We meed to begin a change in November. Watch out for the Weickoswski-clones who, have fresh smiles, but are joined at the hip to the same economic interests that are currently sucking up RDA funds or who are demanding increasing salaries while delivering ever declining levels of service to the community.
October 11th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Perhaps I’m being a bit obtuse myself, though I do think there is an ideological element people apply when deciding city leaders, and these elements (Iraq, abortion, etc.) are completely irrational. Perhaps one’s position on these issues mask their views on things that apply to Fremont such as development. I think Wasserma has benefited from a base who appreciate his views on national issues.
This, among other factors makes a change in November extremely difficult. I think Wasserman is a lock, and the city council races as well as being particular project by project is the only way to encourage a reasonable view of smart development.
October 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am
BTW- I see Bartlett befitting from the same mode of support now that he is the “conservative guy”. And, I think I’ve made my views on Bartlett’s city position pretty clear.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Hello Marty & Bbox,
I know a lot of people that are not going to vote for Wasserman and Wieckowksi for sure. These are the same people who voted for them in large numbers in last elections and fed up with the the way things are now. So, this election is very dicey and anything can happen. Just don’t give up because they are incumbents.
Thats my take on November Elections.
October 12th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Fremont Native -
No one’s giving up.
Like you, I hear from many Fremont old-timers that have begun to recognize the disconnect between Wasserman/Weicowski words and actions. They see their property values declining as a direct result of mismanaged city budgets/issues and economics and the ensuing “tug of war” over city supplied services.
We need a new Mayor. We need new council members that are NOT endorsed by the same factions that endorse Weickowski and Wasserman.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I heard Bob Wasserman, Sue Chan, and Bob Weicowsk will win the elections.
October 12th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Oh, really, Sandy? What else did your little crystal ball tell you?
October 12th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Sandy,
I also heard that Bob Wasserman, Sue Chan, and Bob Weicowsk will LOSE the elections.
October 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Oh, really, Fremont Native? What else did your little crystal ball tell you?
Sue Chan will definitely win the elections. My family, friends, will vote for Sue Chan. There’re more than 400 Fremont residents will vote for Sue Chan.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Sandy,
I don’t have crystal ball. But I have genie in a bottle who told me that Susan Chan will just get 500 votes and that is not enough to win a City Council election.
Bye-Bye to Bob W’s and Susan
October 12th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
English Teacher: Believe it or not, this city is made up of MORE than Sue Chan’s husband’s dentistry patients…and they will vote in this election. Anyone that actually looks into Dutra’s plan for Chan WILL NOT VOTE FOR HER…You may want to trade in your crystal ball…it’s giving you false information…
October 12th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
“Sandy”…or should I say, “Sue-Chan-dy”…
Did you know there are over 210,000 people in the City of Fremont? And over 100,000 registered voters in the City of Fremont?
I’m glad to hear 400 people are voting for Sue Chan. What about the other 99,600?
Hopefully they are smart enough to know that Sue Chan IS NOT CHANGE…she’s (say it with me)…”More of the SAME”.
So, Sue-Chan-dy…please, stay off the blogs.
And Bbox231…perhaps you should run for office instead of misleading the public with your meaningless rhetoric. In one of your comments, you were foolish enough to ask people to beware of those candidates who…”have fresh smiles”…
I imagine that you are speaking about newcomers. This is one of the biggest pools of candidates running in quite some time. I applaud every one of them (except Sue Chan).
It is not easy - running for public office. It doesn’t pay, and, as you can see from these ridiculous blogs…it is a thankless job. You can NEVER please 100% of people 100% of the time. You need to remember that, Bbox123. And, if I had to look into my crystal ball Bbox, I would say that you probably NEVER please your wife ANY of the time. But we’ll leave that for another blog topic.
Bbox123 - instead of spending your time criticizing, why don’t you run for office yourself, or join a commission. (Although, if you did, you would probably be labeled as an “insider” or a “sell-out” by the very people that you consider to be your friends now, after having to take your first tough vote).
See, that’s what’s so sad with people like you, Bbox. You don’t realize that serving in a public office means making tough decisions, and always, always having to make a choice that will leave at least one group of people pissed off at any given time. So lighten up.
Pull back…and look at the bigger picture.
And to Jon Simon - keep up the good work. You are a smart guy.
October 13th, 2008 at 7:07 am
I noticed that Charles Bartlett didn’t appear in either crystal ball. Likely because he is a good Conservative Christian and doesn’t involve himself in heathen witchcraft.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Debra since you are playing guessing games, you are probably that Anu woman or Trisha. You political insiders (as evidenced by all your stats and figures) are incredulous.
In terms of ‘more of the same’ - last I checked the council majority is backing one candidate - yes i’m sure they are voting for change *eyes rolling*
In Trisha’s own words, the current council (that is backing her) is an embarassment.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Dear Marty,
My guess is not all the candidates recieve the same invites. I have only recieved invites by PTA, LWV, League of Conservation Voters, the SEIU, and a senior mobile home park.
Crystal ball? Are you serious?
October 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Silly, by your ridiculous comment, and your lack of ability to READ, I can tell you are either Sue Chan, or one of her supporters…Trisha NEVER said that about the council. Did you read the article? Please don’t post a comment until you do. She said the number of police officers in our city compared to our population is an embarrassment. Please don’t come on here and embarrass yourself and your candidate (or just yourself, if you are the candidate) with idiotic comments like that.
As well, Silly, (and your name is very befitting, by the way, good job), It is not hard to realize that there are more than 400 people registered to vote in Fremont. You don’t have to be a political insider to know that.
Also, Chan is being backed and financed by developers. Developers want to use Chan once she is on the council to get their agendas passed. Simple as that.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Charles, I brought up the crystal ball idea from the ridiculous comment that someone calling themselves Sandy made. It was nothing serious, just pointing out the stupidity in her comment.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Trisha Tahmasbi DID NOT say any such thing about the current City Council. Her point was that Police staffing is an embarrassment for a city our size. Silly, You are very out of line, and are attempting to spread cheap propaganda. please don’t do this. The more I see the Chan campaign making comments like this, the more i realize I have made the right choice not to support her.
October 13th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
You people are really funny! If you want “more of the same” back the incumbent and the one he and the majority supports. Simple as that.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Marty appears to be the blog’s resident comedian. He is the only one on this blog who is funny.
Silly, you yourself are just silly. Good choice of alias. I have read all of the council candidate exposes. I think you have deliberately misquoted Trisha. There is no way to mistake what she said for what you wrote, so it was obviously deliberate.
I think it is pretty apparent that Wasserman is getting funded by developer money. I don’t think we have to speculate about that. Vinnie and Trisha are the only two candidates that have stated that are not taking funding from developers. Are there any others that have stated that that I missed?
October 13th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Debra S&T -
“Keep up the good work, Jon Simon” ??!!
- wow
Jim - I have another nominee for resident BLOG comedian - I vote for Debra !!!!!
October 13th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Debra Sick and Tired -
You need to pay closer attention . . . I’ve stated in these blogs on more than one occassion that I fully support Vinnie Bacon. So your suggestion that my comment is aimed at all newcomers is in error.
It appears that your poltical cause or position is so weak that you feel a need to resort to personal commentary - Debra S&T says - “I would say that you probably NEVER please your wife..” Wow - I’ll let your personalized and off-topic comment speak for itself - and your guess at sexual orientation or preference is, well, nice try.
To your point, I have been active in a variety of civic commissions and volunteer initiatives. My favorite was a library commission appointed for one of the Bay Area’s largest counties. I personally found it quite englightening - the degree to which the County Supe’s had seemingly attempted an effective “land grab” of the library budgets was fascinating. Our commission was successful in bringing the past actions of the Board of Supe’s into the light of day and as a direct result, library operations were fully funded for another 2 years. . .. .
In any case - your comments are highly personalized to a point of childishness, mistaken and presumptuous. Unfortunately, this kind of diatribe serves to discredit the otherwise valid points you might be attempting to make (if there were any).
Thanks for your thoughts though.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Sue Chan will most likely win for council. It’s a toss up between Wiekowski and Tahmasbi for the second spot. Bacon will probably do the best of the rest. For council, I expect Wasserman to win, with Cho second and Morrison third. Cho could win if Morrison draws enough voters from Wasserman. If more voters learn Cho is a Republican, he won’t stand a chance. For schools, it will be Wu, Gebhardt, and Mei. This doesn’t represent who I voted for, just how I think the results will turn out.
October 13th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Jon, I respectfully disagree. I think the top runners are Tahmasbi and Wieckowski. I see no reason that Chan has any good chance, that is of course unless this city really is made up primarily of her husband’s dental office patrons. Besides having the funding of the Dutras, and a large base that her husband knows, I see no reason why she will have any edge. As well, she has nothing to offer as a candidate that can serve this city. I’ve researched her voting record, I’ve watched her at the debates, I’ve watched her in her videos. I see a whole lot of nothing special, and in fact, she’s got many more negatives than positives. When she didn’t vote against the wellbeing of the city, she conveniently “missed” the vote. That to me says a great deal. Let’s hope that your prediction is not true, Jon.
October 13th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Hey Jim. It’s sad to admit, but my wisecracks have been a bit of a nervous habit. Like most of us, I lost a metric ***load of money last week, and I’ve found myself harping more and more.
Like Jon’s comment about Cho standing no chance because he’s a Republican. That makes me want to point out that Jon Simon had no chance in his school board run because he was Jon Simon.
But the Dow seems to be on an uptick, so maybe I’ll be paying Jon a compliment by the end of the week.
October 14th, 2008 at 12:16 am
Zach,
I’m looking at how Sue’s raising money (not how much). Anyone willing to give money is willing to talk to friends, and that’s a lot of what gets votes in local races where few pay close attention. All three are good candidates. I look forward to Wiekowski running for Assembly when Torrico terms out. Hopefully Torrico will run for higher office. We all lose if he doesn’t. Tahmasbi blows me away and could surpass them all in the long run.
Marty,
Considering the competition and being outspent, I did well. Almost 10,000 votes and 3rd of 6 are nothing to sneeze at. Sorry you lost so much money. Hopefully the rally will continue. I worry about those close to retirement.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
After watching from the side lines, it’s time to jump in with my observations. I see Sue Chan using YouTube a lot to get out her message, Vinnie Bacon has grabbed some good time slots to air his TV commercials (before and after the debates). I gather that Trisha Tahmasbi and Bob Wiecowski are walking a lot of precincts and have Union endorsements. Has any union endorsed candidate lost an election in the past? Do endorsements really matter?
October 15th, 2008 at 6:38 am
Storm Trooper, good question. For me personally, endorsements do not matter. But, I am not a member of any union or organized association. I think independently and base my selection of candidate on their position statements issued before the election, not after it.
I also ignore the character assassinations indiscriminately posted on blogs by individuals whose creditability I have no way of assessing.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Endorsements definitely matter. Many pay attention to certain ones, especially the teacher’s unions and Democratic party endorsements. Some come with people who will walk precincts. Sadly, it’s clear to me that race plays an even bigger factor. Obray Van Buren had excellent endorsements, spoke eloquently, worked hard, and should have won in New Haven in 2004.
October 15th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Doug mentions character assassinations! Very true. It’s time that we focused on issues and a candidate’s ability to address them. Since all the candidates running for City Council tout safety as the primary issue, I have one question: If elected how are you going to ensure that the Police Department is fully staffed especially in view of a tight economy and budget cuts?
October 15th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I wonder if the candidates for council lurk here or actively participate!
My next question relates to City operations. When is the city going to streamline operation to make it more efficient and friendly? I hate the long drawn permit process and reliance on numerous consultants before anything can be accomplished.
October 15th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Jon, I agree. I am very interested in the teacher’s union and Democratic party endorsements.
October 15th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I’ll admit I do lurk here regularly. This is a very interesting blog. I tend to post only when someone posts something about me that I feel a need to reply to. I will reply to direct questions.
As for crime and police funding, I do have a position paper on this on my web site:
http://www.bacon2008.com/crime.html
As for streamlining the operations process, this is a huge issue that no one is really discussing. I’ve heard horror stories from small entrepreneurs who are trying to set up shop in Fremont. They tell me the bureaucratic process is tedious and that the fees are often excessive. Some gave up on Fremont and are now doing business in Newark and Union City. If we really want to get serious about economic development, this is an issue that we must address. We need to be more business-friendly if we really hope to attract new businesses.
Vinnie
October 15th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Vinnie (and other candidates),
That’s good to hear, Vinnie. I’ve also noticed that Milpitas is aggressively campaigning to get tech firms into their city. They hail the streamlined process and assistance the city provides to new businesses. I’m all for small shops, but R&D provides the high value jobs. I hope our city leaders have ideas to compliment Milpitas’ efforts.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Vinnie -
Thanks for taking a few moments to remain involved in this communications venue.
It certainly is not an end-all - but just another forum - one which, interestingly, pro-other-factions choose to discount urging STRONGLY in favor of other forms of communication with a candidate. . . . . go figure WHY it is important to these factions that constituency communicate one-on-one and in a non-public manner but, they seem to feel it is important. . . . usually, so important that the personal commentary and assaults follow on to their arguments.
Anyone following these BLOGS for any period can begin to discern which candidates are supported by individuals supporting these kinds of tactics and which, for whatever reasons, dont feel a need to do so.
October 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Look at you, Bbox. An underhanded attack that I am sure was directed at me, so I’m going to respond. Watch out, Vinnie, Bbox has professed his support for you, so by his own hypothesis, anything he says or does on this Holy Grail source of objective information can be directly associated with you!
Look, as Doug said in a previous post, Argus readership is low. If the newspaper readership is low, then I can only imagine how much lower readership on this blog is.
How many people visit this blog, usually? How many of those that visit are regulars? How many of those regulars are politicos? Now, with that being said, is it wise for a constituent to get ALL or even a fraction of his or her information from a blog like this, especially one that is obviously biased toward one candidate? And, is it reasonable to expect every single candidate that is running for any office in Fremont to come on here and spend their time responding to every single post that comes up? Hmmmm, this blog may be an end-all to you, BBox-o, but it is not to other constituents. I am not going to get into a long discussion again with you about this. We both have better ways to spend our time, as I am sure that most of the candidates do. If you want to use this blog as your complete information repository, please make sure that your oracle, Mr. Matthew Artz, is diligent, and fair with his “version of the truth” patrols and his coverage of all of the candidates running in Fremont, for every single election we have going on. Good luck with that.
Have a good day.
October 15th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Susan -
I agree with you, that my support extends to Vinnie Bacon, my actions and words within this venue I invite you and others to judge all you want.
That you (and others) choose to denegrate this venue and defend other candidates who, for whatever reason, choose not to participate herein, I personally find revealing.
As I repeatedy have stated, the choice to ignore this venue asserts a conscious decision on the part of the candidates and those of you who choose to defend that choice do so (seemingly) only by belittling the veracity of the venue or by assaulting the personalities of the individuals challenging to the contrary. It seems like a legitimate debate would focus on explaining why some candidates CAN and DO participate - but others dont. Instead of intelligent debate - we hear personlized assaults - which I again find revealing as to the character of the individuals involved.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Vinnie - thanks for your response.
what puzzles me is the routine response from elected officials of a “lack of budget” to ensure adequate staffing levels in the Police Department. Would it make sense to “borrow from Peter to pay Paul” - I mean if people are retiring in other departments, look at moving some of the budget to safety services? Especially when the city tends to re-hire retirees as consultants.
October 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
If I understand Storm Trooper’s suggestion, it seems like the practice of “rehiring retirees as consultants” reduces the amount of internal transfer that’s avaiable, presumably the fringe bene’s afforded direct employees is freed up - but, doesnt the consultant garner a big part of the original salary ?
Also, I’m guessing that there’s only so far one can “rob peter to pay paul” in the public sector - I think there’s limits on the internal shuffling. . . . .
but, I certainly dont claim to understand this aspect of the city’s accounting and what limitations may be legally imposed.
October 16th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As election day approaches it is a good time to reflect on the past actions -
This is text of an Argus Op Ed that ran April 12 2007 -
Fremont surplus may doom future tax efforts
Article Last Updated:04/12/2007 07:12:05 AM PDT
WE SUPPORTED Fremont’s Measure L utility users tax on the November ballot, believing it was necessary to pay for essential services in tough economic times.
The majority of voters disagreed with us, however. And given the events of the past few months, it’s easy to see why.
When the $8-million-a-year tax was being pitched in November, city officials were projecting a $1.6 million shortfall for the 2006-07 fiscal year.
But the following month, after Measure L failed, they announced the city actually would have an $8.2 million surplus.
In February, the City Council increased City Manager Fred Diaz’s salary by 10 percent to nearly $250,000, and raised City Attorney Harvey Levine’s salary by 5 percent to $232,565.
Then last month, the surplus was pegged even higher, at $8.7 million, and city officials decided to spend more than a quarter of it by ending the policy of fire station “brownouts” and by hiring 10 firefighters and eight police officers.
It’s great that our public safety services are being funded better, but it’s also deeply suspicious that the city suddenly became awash with cash so soon after the tax measure failed.
In the run-up to the November election, opponents of Measure L blamed the city’s problems on poor management, saying that money was being misspent and that increasingly high compensation packages were draining Fremont’s coffers.
Others went so far as to suggest that city officials had plenty of money stashed away somewhere, or that they were trying to make things look as bad as possible by failing to complete routine maintenance projects until after the election.
We don’t put much store in conspiracy theories without evidence to support them, but the recent revelations are troubling.
Even City Councilmember Steve Cho had concerns about the timing of the announcement.
“Why didn’t we know this earlier? And should we have known this earlier? Why did we go out and propose the utility tax if we did know this?” he asked.
All good questions.
Here’s another one: If Measure L had passed, what would city officials have done with the tax revenue after they found out about the surplus?
Would they have told voters, “Thanks for the support, but because of this good fortune, we’re going to return your money this year?”
We all know the answer to that one.
That’s why city officials’ protestations about how difficult it is to estimate revenue these days — “like trying to hit a really good curve ball … in the dark,” said Diaz — are meaningless. The voters don’t care.
And when it comes to explaining away hefty raises and quarter-million-dollar salaries for public officials — along with generous benefits and retirement packages — the voters really don’t care.
Fremont residents have rejected two tax measures in three years.
We hope the city recognizes the futility of proposing any tax measures in the near future.