5th District Supervisor Race 2016: Noreen Evans vs Lynda Hopkins

[scamperwillow]

But the real point here is the evidence of HOW MUCH MONEY does not want Noreen in office. that has to tell you something - and it is scary!

Linda has publicly denounced these mailers. She is legally prohibited from having any direct communication with the PAC that has produced them. She has publicly stated that she believes they have cost her votes.
She is not culpable here and they shouldn't be held against her.

[larryjhanson]

Yes, this is such an important point that it justifies following up on it.

There seems to be vast sources of money to defeat Evans beyond what is expected in one county race. This points to two conclusions: One, they believe Noreen Evans would be very effective in protecting Sonoma County's environmental resources and public interests verses someone who is nice and friendly and can talk the talk but when tough decisions need to be made, may not have the gumption to go up against her funders.

Two, with that kind of money pouring into this county, what kind of returns are they expecting on their "investments"? What are they planning for Sonoma County's future? Undoubtedly, more of the same. This trend has not been good with mono-cropping in alcohol business and industrializing and commercializing our rural areas, but it is not too late to change course.

You are going to need someone who can take the initiative for sensible protections and someone is not just nice but "nice and tough".

Larry Hanson, Forestville

But the real point here is the evidence of HOW MUCH MONEY does not want Noreen in office. that has to tell you something - and it is scary!

[eeeeeeow]

Indeed. All those Hopkins donors MUST think she'll be good for business, the obvious being big wine. It all comes down to Koenigshofer and Bosco for 5th District Supervisor, AGAIN!!!

But the real point here is the evidence of HOW MUCH MONEY does not want Noreen in office. that has to tell you something - and it is scary!

[Shepherd]

You seem to be saying that Lynda cannot manage her handlers and those paying her bills. That is a bad sign for how she would govern--unable to manage those who support her. Over-the-table public denuniciations are hollow and not enough; one wonders what might be happening under the table and would continue to happen. This is a weak defense for those multiple, offensive mailers.

Linda has publicly denounced these mailers. She is legally prohibited from having any direct communication with the PAC that has produced them. She has publicly stated that she believes they have cost her votes.
She is not culpable here and they shouldn't be held against her.

[podfish]

First,
photolite wrote:
Linda has publicly denounced these mailers. She is legally prohibited from having any direct communication with the PAC that has produced them. She has publicly stated that she believes they have cost her votes.
She is not culpable here and they shouldn't be held against her.


Then followed these two responses --

You are obviously delusional. This is kind of like Nixon saying, "I don't know why those guys were in the office at the Watergate. I was at home, watching All In The Family..."

You seem to be saying that Lynda cannot manage her handlers and those paying her bills. That is a bad sign for how she would govern--unable to manage those who support her. Over-the-table public denunciations are hollow and not enough; one wonders what might be happening under the table and would continue to happen. This is a weak defense for those multiple, offensive mailers.

What about 'legally prohibited' was hard to understand? Plus, let's throw in the implicit claim that the people financially supporting her can be defined as 'her handlers'.

The quality of argument in this unbelievably fertile thread has really gone down. The number of posts on this thread has to be unprecedented on this site. So I guess the amount of recycling is to be expected, along with the non-sequitur responses that don't show any attempt to respond to the substance of the previous post. Of course, here I am contributing to that with a meta analysis!!!

[scamperwillow]

Here is a passionate and eloquent letter sent to the PD editor from John Starkey, regarding his support for Noreen Evans in the upcoming Sonoma County Fifth District election:

The Hopkins-Hernandez op-ed and the huge Hopkins attack ad, both appearing in the P-D on the same day, Wednesday, are the ultimate irony. The Hopkins PAC attack restates all of the distortions and some outright lies about Noreen Evans that have appeared in the deluge of slick mailers to County voters; the op-ed piece piously appeals for "constructive conversation rather than destructive campaigns."

If this was not such an obvious contradiction it would be laughable; however, Hopkins has burnished her innocent boutique farmer (land courtesy of father-in-law) image so meticulously, many readers will be taken in without any notice of the duplicity. Hopkins will say that the PAC ads and mailers from the Koenigshofer smear team has nothing to do with her virtuous campaign. But Koenigshofer, the attorney for "Preservation" Ranch project (intended clearing 1800 acres of redwoods for vineyard and high-end development) was one of her first supporters.

Moreover, it's hard to imagine that she hasn't seen the deluge of dreck nor has any influence to stop or at least disavow it. On the contrary-- the PAC's effluent discharge and the above-it-all pose by Hopkins is straight out of her campaign consultant's handbook. Robert Meulrath, who has received several thousands from Hopkins' bulging war-chest, specializes in deception cleverly designed to hypnotize the electorate. It usually works, maybe not this time.

Meulrath's PR worked for the developers of Saggio Hills, a luxury resort and residential project in Healdsburg, a city desperate for lower income housing. And her buddy Hernandez led the real estate industry's intense war against policies like rent stabilization and just cause eviction, which help low and moderate income people. Yet Hopkins wants us to believes that she will bring affordable housing to the county. Sure.

She'll also protect our coast, where she's a "proven leader." Huh? She's a novice running against an experienced legislator who authored at least eighteen bills protecting the California environment and stood against Schwarzenegger's off-shore drilling plans. On the other hand Hopkins has a mountain of campaign money to spend on brochures and ads that can say anything.

Despite all the calculated obfuscation, the choice for Fifth District voters is actually clear. Would you prefer an untested candidate heavily backed by the monoculture wine industry, conservative organizations like Sonoma County Alliance and the pro-GMO Farm Bureau, gravel mining interests, developers, and the real estate industry?

Or would you prefer a mature protector of the environment and working people endorsed by the Sierra Club, Sonoma Conservation Action, all environmental organizations, unions, the Democratic Party, and others? It's up to you. Good luck.
John L. Starkey

[mouse]

That PAC exists to create the illusion of distance between two arms of the same two-pronged attack. That is the function of a PAC!

The entities that fund the PAC, fund her campaign. Define direct communication. Do you mean she isn't on the phone to Dyson because it's illegal, but she can talk to Koefensinger all day long? Do you think those two guys ever talk to each other? I sure do.

Obviously the wildflower seed$ mailer and the attack mailers were coordinated. And all of it on the same day that the Press Democrat publishes her article against 'negativity." The level of coordinated manipulation is sickening.

Her PAC sends the barrage of negative misinformation out to the voters, while her wholly "separate" official campaign tries to preserve (or at least resurrect) the wholesome farm waif image that they started creating over a year ago. This way she can claim to be against 'negativity,' yet reap its political benefits.

These business entities and the same old local political power brokers have spent half million dollars to get this woman elected. Of course they are organized and collaborating. Follow the money, because it's ll coming from the same place.

$500,000.00.

[podfish]

...Obviously the wildflower seed$ mailer and the attack mailers were coordinated..... Of course they are organized and collaborating. Follow the money, because it's ll coming from the same place

Yet more posting claiming opinion as fact. You assume things that may be reasonable to assume, but have zero evidence. Truthiness has taken over our world. You have a point of view and it lets you create facts from appearances. The "function of a PAC" as defined by law is actually NOT to "create an illusion of distance". Your cynical assumption may or may not be true - you have no way to know except your belief. When you go on to say "of course they are ..collaborating" I hear echoes of people quoted at Trump rallies. Those folks know all about how conspiracies are rampant and behind-the-scenes operators control everything.

How bout the idea that she's actually not in control, because people opposing Evans don't trust her to run a winning campaign, and instead they're doing what they think is in their own interests. Not everything is a well-organized, centralized cabal. In fact, most of what goes on in nature is emergent, and that explains most of what we see here too. But it's simpler to posit an opponent whose well-planned but unethical operations are behind everything. It's possible that it's true. I think it's unlikely that people who assume it exists have enough evidence to know.

[riverosprey]

Thank you Larry Hanson, Shepherd, and WaccoBB’ers for all your good works protecting our waterways and environment. There have been many and continuing improvements in Sonoma County’s vineyards and wineries best practices, due to concerned citizen’s advocacy.

One note having been on the Planning Commission for almost eight years, I have never approved a vineyard; remember most vineyards, timber and ag-lands are under the control of multiple state and county agencies, including the Ag-Commissioner.

The Planning Commission approves or disapproves wineries; usually after a long drawn out process going through the Planning Department, with more than 100 conditions required before final approval. I am sometimes amazed that anyone in their right mind would even apply to run the gauntlet of creating a winery. It is an incredibly expensive and difficult enterprise.

Surprisingly there is a myth that wineries use lots of water. In fact most of the smaller wineries use less water per year than a single family dwelling. The real culprits for water use are the vineyards, the orchards, the croplands that provide food and wine (and beer) for all of us. Larry I know you are an advocate for “dry farming” grapes, I agree…and there are many things vineyard owners are doing to reduce water use. Again vineyards are not under the view of the Planning Commission.

There are definitely positive and negative effects from wineries in Sonoma County, those are issues the Planning Commission tries to balance, and will often find unhappy neighbors who are most affected. The Best Family Winery at the corner of Occidental Rd and Hwy 116 was one such winery that first appeared before me on the Planning Commission my first year (andSupervisor Carrillo’s) back in 2008.

Those were tough times; Sonoma County had seen the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs from HP, Agilent, Optical Coating and more to America’s offshore policies. This along with the Great Recession and the collapse of the stock market and the housing bubble…the unemployment rate was over 10%. It appeared Agriculture and Tourism was among the only industries capable of providing jobs in Sonoma County.

Today the unemployment rate is 3.8%, with 58,000 employed in large part due to these industries. Many of these jobs are not low paying, and due to worker shortages signs at Inn-N-Out Burger offer new workers $12/hr., carpenters that used to get $15/hr are now getting $35/hr. Many of us on this thread are thankful and comfortable, without the day to day grind and stress required of many to make a living and keep a roof over their head. We must be mindful of the importance of everyone having a means to make a living.

Old school environmentalists such as myself, believe we need to provide alternative ways for people to make a living for their families, instead of cutting down the rain forest, or over fishing the seas. We need sustainable agriculture and tourism, as part of transitioning from a resource based economy. Sonoma County Planning and the Board of Supervisors have done a good job, in most cases, of finding that balance and others rightfully disagree.

I believe organic farmer Lynda Hopkins is the best choice for Supervisor, because she has the knowledge and skills, as she said at a Monte Rio forum, “…to drag the wine industry forward into the 21st Century.” Lynda is not a divisive figure, but rather an “agent of harmony”.

On this I am in good company, and look forward to the reconciliation process either way, when this election is over.

Well, I had to reply to this but please don't think this an attack on Tom Lynch, the person but instead a critique of Tom Lynch, the Planning Commissioner.

He is one of the majority who time after time approve winery/vineyard projects without sufficient information to know if these projects impact surface water for fish and groundwater for residents and the community. ...

[Dogenzip]

I agree with John Eder that WACCO moderator Barry Chertov should recuse himself from expressing his personal political views. Barry has many other venues open to publicly express his political opinions other than using his own WACCO site.

I have sat out this firefight, but I am compelled to comment about your participation in favor of a candidate even as you act as "moderator" of this forum. It's not like Hopkins needs another apologist. Really disappointing....

[John Eder]

Linda has publicly denounced these mailers. She is legally prohibited from having any direct communication with the PAC that has produced them. She has publicly stated that she believes they have cost her votes.
She is not culpable here and they shouldn't be held against her....

From today's Washington Post. Does this sound familiar?

A federal jury returned guilty verdicts to two former Chris Christie allies on Friday, finding both Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni guilty on seven criminal counts for their roles in the 2013 “Bridgegate” lane closures. While Christie himself wasn’t charged, the case produced a steady stream of new allegations against the governor that are likely to haunt his future political prospects, Matt Zapotosky and Amber Phillips report.

In a statement, the New Jersey governor continued to insist he had no knowledge of the bridge plan, saying he was “saddened” by the choices of his former allies: “Today’s verdict does not change this for me,” he said. “But let me be clear once again, I had no knowledge prior to or during these lane realignments, and had no role in authorizing them. No believable evidence was presented to contradict that fact. Anything said to the contrary over the past six weeks in court is simply untrue.”

If Lynda truly was opposed to these "independent" mud-slingers, she could have, for example, posted an open letter here or elsewhere, addressed to those people responsible for these advertisements, requesting: "Please stop producing these ads immediately- you are hurting my candidacy, costing me votes and hurting my true goals in this campaign, blah, blah, blah." Instead, after an outburst of "crocodile tears", she pivots to attack her opponent.

Joe Isuzu* would be proud of her...

For the younger demographic: https://mentalfloss.com/article/7751...lies-joe-isuzu

[podfish]

From today's Washington Post. Does this sound familiar?

A federal jury returned guilty verdicts to two former Chris Christie allies on Friday, finding both Bridget Kelly and Bill Baroni guilty on seven criminal counts for their roles in the 2013 “Bridgegate” lane closures.

we've gone a long way from her being a reincarnation of Efren Carillo to being one of Chris Christie!!

I don't think she's a strong politician, I think her supporters have gone overboard, but I also think that there's nothing like the Daley machine at work here (I can use obscure old references too!!).

To combine responses -- another poster requested Barry to avoid commenting on his own site? Why??? He's going to the trouble of running it, he posts under his own name (although I don't know why that matters) and there's no claim that people are being censored. I'm curious as to why anyone finds it inappropriate.

[farmerdan]

I find it quite humorous that Mr. Eder advocates that Lynda break the law by publicly telling the PAC what to do. In case the definition of 'coordinate' is not clear:
co·or·di·nate to bring the different elements of (a complex activity or organization) into a relationship that will ensure efficiency or harmony [as in directing the PAC to do what she wants.]

If Lynda truly was opposed to these "independent" mud-slingers, she could have, for example, posted an open letter here or elsewhere, addressed to those people responsible for these advertisements, requesting: "Please stop producing these ads immediately- you are hurting my candidacy, costing me votes and hurting my true goals in this campaign, blah, blah, blah." Instead, after an outburst of "crocodile tears", she pivots to attack her opponent.

[John Eder]

I find it quite humorous that Mr. Eder advocates that Lynda break the law...

Okay, since we are playing "Dictionary", let's look up "Plausible Deniability", the concept that I was attempting to illustrate with the Nixon and Christy analogies (I apologize if they were too obtuse). You do realize that this concept is employed in politics, correct? And the more "sophisticated" a political operation (read: money invested), the more likely this technique is to be found in their tool box. Please note the last sentence.

"Plausible deniability is the ability for persons (typically senior officials in a formal or informal chain of command) to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others (usually subordinates in an organizational hierarchy) because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions. In the case that illegal or otherwise disreputable and unpopular activities become public, high-ranking officials may deny any awareness of such act in order to insulate themselves and shift blame onto the agents who carried out the acts, confident that their doubters will be unable to prove otherwise. The lack of evidence to the contrary ostensibly makes the denial plausible, that is, credible, although sometimes it merely makes it unactionable. The term typically implies forethought, such as intentionally setting up the conditions to plausibly avoid responsibility for one's (future) actions or knowledge. In some organizations, legal doctrines such as command responsibility exist to hold major parties responsible for the actions of subordinates involved in heinous acts and nullify any legal protection that their denial of involvement would carry.

In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a powerful player or intelligence agency to pass the buck and avoid blowback by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party ostensibly unconnected with the major player. In political campaigns, plausible deniability enables candidates to stay clean and denounce third-party advertisements that use unethical approaches or potentially libelous innuendo."

[b.w. rose]

Oh, pleez, spare us all any more of this “naive farm waif” drivel.

As chair of the Sonoma County Democratic Party, I met with Ms. Hopkins at TinyTown in Forestville on Jan. 15, 2016 at 10 am and outlined to her what I thought the course of events would be when she pursued election to the 5^th District position as Sonoma County supervisor.

This was when Eric Koenigshofer was still a candidate and Noreen Evans had not entered the race. It was my opinion at that time that Eric was simply stalking the grounds seeking a candidate to replace Efren Carrillo, that Evans would enter the race and that the contest would break down on the usual lines of enviros and unions vs. biz interests. She had met with Eric, she acknowledged he was influential and she acknowledged there were drawbacks to her campaign retaining the services of Rob Muelrath as her media consultant. She maintained she could remain objective and separate from those influences.

Based on my short experience as Democratic Party chair and my 10 years experience covering Sonoma County politics for the Press Democrat, including the Board of Supervisors, I said the usual course of events was for supporters of one candidate to form an independent expenditure committee, for the candidate to appear to maintain distance from this committee and for that IE to wage a negative campaign against the opponent. Of course,there is no overt collusion between the candidate's campaign and the IE. You merely have to look at the similar sources of funding and that's all this election is about.

Ancient history, but worth repeating at this point.

(The Sonoma County Democratic Party endorsed Evans as long ago as last April, but that's probably obvious.)

Bleys W. Rose
Chair, Sonoma County Democratic Party

I find it quite humorous that Mr. Eder advocates that Lynda break the law ...

[Shepherd]

I disagree. As a professional journalist who has taught journalism to college students, it is not unusual for editors, or in the case of social media, moderators, to express their personal political views. This is why Doug Bosco and his Boys endorse candidates, as do the Bohemian, the Sonoma County Gazette, etc.

I do not always agree with Barry, but I support his right to communicate his personal political opinions. I also appreciate that he provides us a forum to communicate different points of view.

I agree with John Eder that WACCO moderator Barry Chertov should recuse himself from expressing his personal political views. Barry has many other venues open to publicly express his political opinions other than using his own WACCO site.

[scamperwillow]

That is exactly right! And if they don't trust her to win a campaign, why exactly are they investing these huge amounts of money? Just think about it for a moment. These are the people that will surround her as her advisors. How do you imagine they might advise her when the chips are down?

How bout the idea that she's actually not in control, because people opposing Evans don't trust her to run a winning campaign, and instead they're doing what they think is in their own interests.

[pbrinton]

I took your advice and skipped to 5, since this seems to be your favorite. I found a letter to the editor that contained no references, and completely misrepresents Noreen's proposal to use some union pension funds for housing specifically for the workforce who are being priced out of the county. Already your main point is looking pretty shaky. He also describes how Noreen, apparently singlehandedly, forced pension increases through the Santa Rosa City Council. In fact the contracts were negotiated by city staff under the direction of the then mayor, and presented to the council for approval. They were considered at the time to be in line with what other similar public administrations were offering (you will note that this problem affects countless cities and counties). It was passed unanimously by the council, and at least two people who voted along with Noreen are now prominent Hopkins supporters. Even if Noreen had voted against it, it would still have passed. So how exactly was she to blame for this?

As far as her record in the state legislature is concerned, Noreen has covered this on her website. I recommend checking it out. A couple of critical articles from Republican oriented newspapers about a bill that was still working its way through the process, and if I am not mistaken anyway never became law, hardly constitute a case against her. Your examples are long on unsupported allegations, and short on fact.

Patrick Brinton

...5. This letter to the editor is the real capper. Written on 9/29/16 by Ken Churchill :
Thursday Sept 29, 2016

Ken Churchill • a month ago
Thomas, another one of Noreen's votes was to increase pensions in Santa Rosa when she was on the City Council. When she arrived in 2000 the pension cost that year was $1.5 million and the funding level of the pension plan was 122.6%. (See page 46 of the City's 2002 financial statement). Here is a link: https://srcity.org/departments/...

When she left the City Council in 2004 after approving retroactive increases in 2002, the pension costs were $7.5 million, a 500% increase in 4 her years. ....

[photolite]

On the up side,

"You are obviously delusional."

this is the most civil thing a Noreen supporter has said to me on this thread in 686 posts .

[larryjhanson]

I disagree. As a professional journalist who has taught journalism to college students, it is not unusual for editors, or in the case of social media, moderators, to express their personal political views. This is why Doug Bosco and his Boys endorse candidates, as do the Bohemian, the Sonoma County Gazette, etc.

I do not always agree with Barry, but I support his right to communicate his personal political opinions. I also appreciate that he provides us a forum to communicate different points of view.

Yes, I agree with this. Furthermore, I respect that Barry was forthright about his view and continued to fairly moderate the site. Some publications and editors feign objectivity but have deceitful ways to slant their information. In my book, Barry has put himself above all that.

Larry Hanson, Forestville

[Shandi]

This is a beautiful, clearly written piece that honestly express the realities of our community's challenges, (Sonoma County at large) and the desperation that many of us face, as we, and those we care about, join the ranks of the increasing homeless, living in cars or without shelter of any kind.

Is Sonoma County just another pretty face, like "arm candy" to the 1% that are guided by greed, and dis-regard for the environment that sustains all of us? Doesn't our leadership realize that they're soiling their own bed? Even animals know better than that. Money will not be able to restore what has been destroyed, or the hearts that have been crushed under the heels of those who have hardened their hearts, and sold their souls to the highest bidder.

It's inspiring to see that someone sees clearly, and is willing to speak up about the reality of some of the most difficult truths that face our community. This is the kind of leadership we need to survive, and possibly, at some distant future....even thrive.

Thank you scamperwillow for sharing this. Since I don't read the paper or watch TV, I would have missed this important and empowering heartfelt message.

Close to Home: Let’s get real about the 5th District campaigning ...

[Max777]

So which of our two choices for Supervisor of the 5th District has taken the most political donations over the course of their political careers (not just this election cycle)? And which one is most likely to have perfected her "Plausible Deniability" skills? The answer to both of these questions is Evans. Lynda Hopkins has much less political baggage, a much better attitude (in my humble opinion) and my vote! The fact that other experienced politicians (such as John Eder), are going out of their way to support Evans, is one of the reasons I have chosen to support Lynda.

Okay, since we are playing "Dictionary", let's look up "Plausible Deniability", ...

[sambacat]

It is extremely disingenuous of you to say that Noreen Evans, rather than Lynda Hopkins, has "taken the most political donations over the course of their political careers". Evans has been working for the good of the 5th District in the State Legislature and for Sonoma County environmental causes on the Santa Rosa Planning Commission and City Council for a decade or more. Hopkins just registered to vote in the 5th District in August 2015 for heaven's sake. What a ridiculous argument. Hopkins has no "political baggage" because she has ZERO experience in the political world. The only baggage Evans has, after doing so much good for our county's environment, is that she supports labor unions. Since when the they become the bad guys?

I have one question: Who would Bernie vote for? Someone funded by the 1% or someone funded by the 99%? I live in west County and thought WACCO was my "tribe". Maybe not. I've been here long enough to see Healdsburg go from a farm community to a precious wine county getaway for millionaires. Guess that's you want to happen here.
(And what the heck is "Plausible Deniability" anyway.)

So which of our two choices for Supervisor of the 5th District has taken the most political donations over the course of their political careers ...

[KittyW]

Hi Patrick, In this crazy election cycle of mudslinging and deceit, I have been looking for facts and people with well-informed opinions that I can trust. They are few and far between.

Your "facts" disagree with Ken Churchill's "facts." But you've not quoted any sources either. I'm not familiar with your credentials, but as the author of a very in-depth report on Sonoma County's pension crisis, I assign Ken a good bit of credibility. I gave you the link to it in my previous message.

Apart from pension issues, I'm finding other things about Noreen that I just don't like.

Her so-called affordable housing proposal seems like a big fat mis-focus to me. There's no there there, as far as I can see. No tangible vision or strategy, just a floaty idea with little merit.

That's just my opinion and you may disagree. I base my opinion on actually reading facts and opinions from experts like David Sundstrom, former auditor-controller for Sonoma County, and John Lowry, former executive director for Burbank Housing in Santa Rosa. You can read their article on why "Pension Funds are a Bad Fit for Housing" at: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinio...ans?artslide=0

Noreen was pretty snarky in debunking Lynda's support of 2nd dwelling units, saying "When is the last time you heard young parents dream about raising their children in an apartment above someone’s garage?" (Sonoma Gazette)

Well, I don't think they dream about living in cheap housing projects either.

Having the ability to build an apartment over the garage may make owning a home more affordable for many people, so they can derive income from the investment in their home. And it could even offset the property taxes which are inflated by county measures imposed on homeowners because the county budget is so choked by pensions.

Noreen also jabs at Lynda's position saying that Lynda "wants homeowners to build 2nd units at their own expense." She tries to make it out as a bad thing. (Flyer paid for by Noreen, not her PAC)

Well duh. Plenty of homeowners would love to build a 2nd income unit were it not for zoning and permitting restrictions. Noreen seems out of touch with homeowners on that. It's working well in places like Santa Cruz. I think Lynda's proposals on housing are far more practical and in touch on a grassroots level.

On river health, Noreen pulls a comment Lynda made out of context and twists it to sound like Lynda supports environmental degradation of the Russian River by gravel mining.: "Hopkins said that extracting gravel from the banks of the Russian River could actually help restore it to a more natural state."

This comment also came from a flyer paid for by Noreen, not her PAC.

Well guess what -- Lynda's position is supported by biologists and river advocates including Don McEnhill, executive director of the nonprofit Russian Riverkeeper. He says: “Today, the river is stuck in a straitjacket. Most mining prior to today was done in a way that was very harmful for the river, but we are open to gravel mining if it can help the river spread out to bring down the natural flood plain.” (Press Democrat)

That's coming from the Riverkeeper folks. Are they now evil too in this crazy fact twisting? Gravel mining DONE RIGHT can actually help.

Noreen's camp is fear-mongering that Lynda is out to consort with gravel miners to rape and pillage the Russian River. I think that Lynda probably knows enough science to help spearhead sensible restoration. And I bet she could build a coalition of miners and environmentalists to make it happen.

So her funding from gravel miners could turn out to be a really good thing for the environment.

I bet she's got some great ideas for reducing the toxicity of vineyards as well.

I took your advice and skipped to 5, since this seems to be your favorite. I found a letter to the editor that contained no references,...

[JanetLee]

I’ve lived here for only a few years and this election for 5^th District Supervisor has been a real eye-opener for me. I’ve gotten to know many local people, a long list of community leaders and volunteers, and everyone whose opinion I respect supports Noreen Evans. Yet almost all of the media prefers Lynda. (Press Democrat, Sonoma West, Gazette and WACCOBB.) I was shocked to see several rather mean and petty attacks on Noreen in Sonoma West. Only the Bohemian supports Noreen, as do all of the progressive and environmental organizations that I know of.

[Lisa Maldonado]

The huge cracks in the Hopkins epic greenwashing campaign keep gettting wider. Hopkins' use of republican lobbyist Rob Muelrath and endorsement by Carrillo were the first head's up to voters that this was a stealth #greenwashing camapign. The obscene amount of money given by gravel miners and real estate developers and Eric Koenigshofer's big money PAC were next big clues. After seeing Hopkins signs all over big wineries and gravel business and real estate voters have seen the real face of the Faux Folksy Hopkins Campaign- and as this picture from the 5th district shows... it's not a pretty one!

[KittyW]

...The obscene amount of money given by gravel miners ...

Lisa,
Perhaps you should review more facts concerning the current state of gravel mining before making such sweeping condemnations.

In 2012 Russian Riverkeeper, the non-profit environmental steward of the river, and environmental group Redwood Empire Chapter of Trout Unlimited (RETU) won a big battle against Syar Industries over gravel mining.

Going forward, Riverkeeper and RETU staff will be expressly included in all annual adaptive management program meetings to review future mining plans, whether Syar's performance criteria are met and how to address exceedance of performance criteria and Syar providing funds for RRK/RETU to hire experts to help in the review process. Read about it here:

https://russianriverkeeper.org/about...gravel-mining/

What does this mean?

It means that Syar is forced to participate in restoration and the restoration funds will provide one of the largest sources of fish restoration funding for the Upper Russian River.

Frankly, I don't think Lynda will be un-doing that.

However, the Noreen camp is frantically stumping the gravel mining boogey man. As a career politician, she probably knows that much of the public is very swayable with shallow accusations and fear-mongering. The reality is far more nuanced and many people are too lazy to dig deep into the deep issues.

Noreen has tried to paint Lynda as the handmaiden of environmental apocalypse and that Lynda is out to consort with gravel miners to rape and pillage the Russian River. I'm not buying it.

In a flyer paid for by Noreen – not her PAC – she tries to set herself up as the protector of river health and Lynda as an idiot. Noreen pulls a comment Lynda made out of context and twists it to sound like Lynda supports environmental degradation of the Russian River by gravel mining. The contrasting points Noreen makes are:

Noreen: "Worked with our community to stop gravel mining and get Santa Rosa's waste water out of our river."
Lynda: "Hopkins said that extracting gravel from the banks of the Russian River could actually help restore it to a more natural state." (Press Democrat, 10//10/16)

Noreen must cynically assume that no one will actually read the article.

Because if they do they will see that Lynda's position is supported by biologists and river advocates including Don McEnhill, executive director of the nonprofit Russian Riverkeeper.

In that article he says: “Today, the river is stuck in a straitjacket. Most mining prior to today was done in a way that was very harmful for the river, but we are open to gravel mining if it can help the river spread out to bring down the natural flood plain.”

That's coming from the Riverkeeper folks. Are they now evil too in this crazy fact twisting? Gravel mining DONE RIGHT may actually help undo some of the damage.

Instead of fear-mongering they are looking for real SOLUTIONS to deal with the mess that has been made since the Russian River gravel mining began back in 1900. That's over 100 years ago!

REAL SOLUTIONS are needed, and real solutions require a broad collaboration between environmentalists, business and government.

I think that Lynda probably knows enough science to help spearhead and participate in sensible restoration. And I bet she could help build a coalition of miners and environmentalists to make it happen.

BTW, Lynda served on the Board of Farm to Pantry alongside Doug Lipton, an environmental scientist who also serves on the board of the Russian Riverkeepers and Sonoma County Open Space District’s Advisory Group and Agricultural Task Force.

Perhaps birds of feather do flock together?

[jenielson]

So now you must see more clearly where the lines of power run in Sonoma County. The power elite owns the media, and collaborates with forces hoping to cut more trees, plant wine grapes on the Coast, and keep workers poor and unable to afford housing here. Sad, but there it is.

... Yet almost all of the media prefers Lynda. (Press Democrat, Sonoma West, Gazette and WACCOBB.) ...

[O.W.]

Russian Riverkeepers cannot endorse a candidate but I do know that no one in the office is voting Hopkins. I find this thread on the river very disingenuous. Noreen has held panels on lowflow and trying to save the river and Lynda is just against in stream gravel mining which is rarely ever done anywhere anymore.

The Hopkins people also used a horrible mailer than insinuated Elizabeth Warren was voting for her as well. Many called Warren's office and registered complaints. The good ole boys and Hopkins will say anything to get elected. Her lack of leadership with the terrible campaign she has run has turned off many. She has to know her super pac has lost the election for her and yet very little coming out that I can see on media sites.

And why do you think serving on a Farm Pantry board gives her cred? She was "let go" from Farm Trails after 9 months (no Apple Fair that year) and her CAFF Leadership Council is also phony......just means she came to a few meetings, not elected, not selected. Just admit it, there are underlying reasons for your supporting Lynda and none are based in reality.

Lisa,
Perhaps you should review more facts concerning the current state of gravel mining before making such sweeping condemnations. ...

[Barry]

...Yet almost all of the media prefers Lynda. (Press Democrat, Sonoma West, Gazette and WACCOBB.)...

The power elite owns the media, and collaborates with forces hoping to cut more trees, plant wine grapes on the Coast, and keep workers poor and unable to afford housing here. Sad, but there it is.

Yep, Vesta and I are plotting to pave over paradise and enslave the masses...