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

Jenner and elsewhere on the coast are full of signs for Evans. They include diverse, home-make signs, rather than the only one expensive corporation-made sign which the nearly half a million dollars that the coast developers, wine industry, New York billionaire John Dyson and others have paid for.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Kate Fenton:

Yes, many signs on the coast for Evans--Jenner and Bodega Bay as well as the Russian River and Occidental.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Shepherd:

Jenner and elsewhere on the coast are full of signs for Evans. They include diverse, home-make signs, rather than the only one expensive corporation-made sign which the nearly half a million dollars that the coast developers, wine industry, New York billionaire John Dyson and others have paid for.

---

I don't know who that person is pretending to be a monkey but as many others who attack Noreen's legitimacy, they are posting to sow disinformation. Hopkins does have signs on vineyard properties, real estate rental homes and commercial business locations. We have signs on properties belonging to the 99%. The coast, both north and south are pretty well aware of what's at stake in this election. I have been helping install signs that people invite us to put at their homes. They are still up all over the coast proudly identify support for Noreen. We are not keen on seeing the westward march of vineyards, tree cutting, fencing of wildlife, proliferation of more wineries and tasting rooms on our coastal hills. It's almost over. Come on, Wacco readers who really want to help Noreen win, please go to her website, join us doing precinct walking, phone calling and sign waving. The local press has not covered one of our dozens of sign waving events. If Hopkins ever gathers a few people to wave signs I'm sure that's the picture that the Press Democrat's owners will choose to highlight.
Ken Sund.

This is very important information to share Scamperwillow, for us all to actually understand the important work Noreen Evans has done for our county.

Also important is to note that the Sonoma County Green Party endorses Noreen Evans.
...From their website:

"The Green Party of Sonoma County endorsed the following candidates for these local races:
Noreen Evans for Sonoma County Supervisor District 5
Mariko Yamada for CA Senate District 3
Don Saylor for CA Assembly District 4"

I don't rely on the candidate's own websites or mailers much. That would be SILLY, since they can portray things any way they want!!! I rely on the wonderful work organizations such as the Green Party do to research candidates ACTUAL records, positions and donors.

For those of you who have been swayed by the rosy environmentalist picture Lynda Hopkins is painting of herself, I encourage you to look again. The powerful wine industry already has enough of a voice in this county. Money has a way of talking very loud. It is other environmental and agricultural interests (such as food, not drugs) that need a champion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

Drive a little further up the coast and you will see a ton of Evans signs. Coastal folks love Noreen - they know what she has done for them. For example:

ENVIRONMENT
AB 32 (2005) Co-authored California's groundbreaking climate change law....

---

All this information is really easy to find. There is nothing untrue on her web site. These are all places to find out about Noreen's accomplishments, awards, legislation and so forth. You can do your own google search and find the same thing, but this is easier.
https://www.noreenforsupervisor.com

Or her Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/NoreenforSupervisor/?fref=ts

On the True Facts page:
https://5thdistricttruefacts.com

And here is a new video about Noreen and explaining why she is running:
https://youtu.be/wVWaoeIvMHQ

Ok, i took your bait, again, just call me naive, like Lynda. ab 2849, has this ever been enforced? its a bs bee rustling law. this is Noreen's environmental record? oh yeah, can't ask questions of her supporters, they don't answer. so at your urging i met noreen, but she doesn't answer questions either. a week later i met lynda, who does. so my vote was decided. it's really not that complicated.

To anyone interested; i am willing to offer long odds on the winner, it's what i do when the answer is obvious and i am tired of the argument. please correct me by making me pay, i love to learn. lynda all the way : )

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

....
ENVIRONMENT
...AB 2849 (2007) Bees
...

---

This information really makes me glad I voted for Lynda Hopkins. I have lost a lot of respect for the Green Party over the years.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Willow Summer:

...
"The Green Party of Sonoma County endorsed the following candidates for these local races:
Noreen Evans for Sonoma County Supervisor District 5 ...

---

Great. So now disagreeing with some of you folks equates to "posting to sow disinformation". Furthermore, you take giant leaps of logic to paint a picture of Lynda supporting an agenda she has consistently stated she opposes, i.e. vineyard expansion, coastal development, deforestation.
I find it interesting to see all the pro-Noreen self appointed voices of reason becoming increasingly shrill as this thread continues and the election nears.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ken Sund:

I don't know who that person is pretending to be a monkey but as many others who attack Noreen's legitimacy, they are posting to sow disinformation. ... We are not keen on seeing the westward march of vineyards, tree cutting, fencing of wildlife, proliferation of more wineries and tasting rooms on our coastal hills....

---

Today's PD

An organic farmer’s vote
EDITOR: Ernie Carpenter incorrectly stated that Lynda Hopkins has received “no money … from organic farmers” in her campaign for supervisor (“Follow the money,” Letters, Oct. 24). Either Carpenter hasn’t bothered to look at her campaign contributions, or he is not familiar with organic farmers from our area.

I’m a third-generation dairy farmer in the 5th District, and one of several organic farmers supporting Hopkins. My family has put a priority on protecting our natural resources and seeking out environmentally friendly ways to raise dairy cows. I met with Hopkins early in the primary, and I was impressed that she understands the challenges and complexity of operating an organic farming business. On one hand, she’s sharp-minded, energetic and well-versed in organic farming practices and agricultural regulations. On the other hand, she’s approachable and down to earth and can relate to life on the farm. We were able to share laughs over stories about birthing calves and goat kids on our farms.

If you want a supervisor who is smart, fair and open-minded, who is passionate about the environment, who has real-life experience to help shape her view of policy, join me in voting for Lynda Hopkins.
DOUG BERETTA
Santa Rosa

I'm finding it amazing how this race between 2 progressive Democrats has gotten so acrimonious. Despite that, I count my blessings to live in an area where a rabid pro-business Republican wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

As I was starting to waffle between the 2 candidates, I decided to watch the Hopkins/Evans debates on YouTube. [ Here, here and here :waccosun:]

It reminded me why I liked Lynda in the first place. I consistently liked her answers better. I liked her approach better. While Noreen repeatedly mentioned her experience (which is fine and respectable), Lynda repeatedly discussed points coming from her having actively listened to real people at town halls.

There were a few topics where I thought Noreen was just as good -- but I definitely don't like her approach to housing or TOT tax redistribution. And her track record on pensions shows just how far she will sell out to organized labor.

For all you "farm waif" mudslingers, I challenge you to actually watch the debates and tell me there aren't TWO -- not one -- intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, knowledgeable and well-prepared women on that stage. Maybe you like Noreen's answers better, but Lynda was no fluff in those debates.

I prefer to listen to the actual candidates and toss the flyers and ignore the dooms-day futurecasters that are convinced that Lynda is a sell-out to big business. My eyes and ears tell me it isn't so.

I agree with photolite -- it takes a giant leap of logic to completely ignore Lynda's actual words and deeds and twist her into the puppet of big business.

You could just as easily say that Noreen is a puppet of big labor.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

...Furthermore, you take giant leaps of logic to paint a picture of Lynda supporting an agenda she has consistently stated she opposes, i.e. vineyard expansion, coastal development, deforestation....

---

https://i.imgur.com/yv1Iu.png
Out of Hear: The Pot and the Kettle
Frank Robertson ​11/02/16

With only a few days left to worry about the Fifth DistrictSupervisors’ race some of us may feel a sense of relief at not having to think about it anymore.

It’s taken some heavy lifting to keep up with this campaign — just prying jammed-up campaign mailers out of a post office box requires daily patience and perseverance (character traits I admit I lack).

It seems apparent now that Lynda Hopkins will be elected county supervisor next Tuesday for reasons that transcend the usual campaign rhetoric. Something else is at work here, something magical and unforeseen and very West County. It’s as if she’s pulling away owing to forces having less to do with campaign promises and clever attack strategies and more to do with luck, fate and fortune.

I’m sure Noreen Evans would make a good supervisor; she’s smart, competent, seasoned, wholesome, charming and other good things, but in thisFifth District race it looks like she’s on the wrong side of history.

Just a year ago Lynda Hopkins was all but unknown, a former lowly newspaper reporter and organic farmer who sold produce at the local farmers markets.

Evans meanwhile had political name recognition up the gazoo and was anticipating a run against incumbent Supervisor Efren Carrillo, who’d been wearing a political bull’s eye on his back ever since the Great Carrillo Dating Debacle of 2013.

Evans was moving from Santa Rosa into Carrillo’s turf where she must have been licking her chops at the opportunity to bash the evil sex monster into submission just over his highly publicized problems with dating etiquette.

Now it looks like Carrillo might have been an easier foe than Hopkins, a young unknown who came out of nowhere, rolled up her sleeves and started talking to anyone who would listen or not. She had little to be criticized for other than having little to criticize. She was a woman, too, and smart. As former Fifth District Supervisor Eric Koenigshofer, one of Hopkins’ early advocates, put it several months ago, “She went to Stanford, for God’s sake.”

When you’re running for office I’m sure it also helps to be photographed wearing attractive children on your shoulders like fashion accessories. Is that infant on your head a helmet or an Easter bonnet? Probably both when you’re running for office.

Former Fifth District Supervisor Mike Reilly once said that sometimes the best candidate is not the best campaigner. I’m reminded of that in this Fifth District campaign when reading the most recent Evans’ campaign flyer in my mailbox last week. Evans has repeatedly told us that she’s a fighter, and her literature has proven she’s capable of throwing a lot of punches, but she’s having trouble making them land.

Last week’s mailer even targeted John Balletto as a face of the political enemy owing to Balletto’s support of Hopkins. John Balletto? Graduate of Sebastopol’s Analy High School? Local family farm guy who helped make the Laguna de Santa Rosa environmental trail happen on the Balletto’s Laguna farmland? Founder of Balletto Winery that makes a great pinot gris available for under $10 if you shop around? That’s the guy you want to hold up in the Fifth District and flaunt as your political adversary?

Good luck.

We seem to be getting a glimpse of desperation in the Evans campaign now, and I guess you couldn’t blame her strategists at this point. Whoever’s running the show over there may need a little professional help in assessing western Sonoma County residents’ BS detection capabilities.

I also got an e-mail from Evans’ supporters last week reiterating their constant point that Hopkins only moved into the Fifth District last year, implying that she came here for no other reason than to meet an eligibility requirement.

OK, so what? It’s not unforgiveable; the obvious problem is that so did Evans. This is known as the pot calling the kettle black.

What good will that do? We’re all waiting to see on Tuesday.

Frank Robertson is a member of the Sonoma West Times & News staff.

Hey, you could just watch baseball like a regular person right now and save some words for later.

Noreen is the better qualified candidate. I voted for her already. So according to my random and unscientific poll, Noreen wins by a landslide.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:

Out of Hear: The Pot and the Kettle
Frank Robertson ​11/02/16...

---

Dear Tom Lynch,

From your post above...
"....Supervisor Efren Carrillo, who’d been wearing a political bull’s eye on his back ever since the Great Carrillo Dating Debacle of 2013.... "

"DATING DEBACLE" ! No words can express my disgust at your choice of words.

Eileen Morabito.

Oh so Frank is making predictions now. Where do we go Wednesday to watch him eat humble pie?

Dear Eileen,

Please note they are not my choice of words, but one of my favorite columnists Frank Robertson's with Sonoma West.

Best to Thomas and thank him for lightening up on the 1% campaign...

kind regards, Tom Lynch

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Eileen M.:

"DATING DEBACLE" ! No words can express my disgust at your choice of words.

---

No one has ever found Lynda to be the problem. She's an average smart woman, with very little job experience from San Diego who brags about going to Stanford a bit much but other than that seems like a nice person (although her hypocritical 'editorial/advertising is starting to make many of us realize she will stoop to conquer)

The issue has always been her big money backers and their dreams of development on the coast and turning the Russian River into Napa.. Since those folks have outed themselves with a breathtakingly obscene amount of money, many of her former supporters who thought she was 'just a farmgirl' have woken up and are voting for the real environmental candidate who is Noreen Evans. Noreen has the record and experience to back up every campaign promise . Unlike Lynda who has never even had a real job, Noreen has taken actual votes and has had to stand up against supporter for a principle and she has done it. I know this personally because when our labor unions were supporting the Graton Casino and pressuring her to vote yes on the casino because it was built union and we thought it was a great development, she told us no and she voted her conscience.

It was a contentious and fractious meeting but Noreen stayed firm and didn't betray her principles. (even though she was wrong about the casino:wink:) Contrast that with Lynda who can't even speak up against the half million in dirty money pouring in from Erick Koenigshofer, gravel minining and real estate- If she can't speak up against them now, why should we believe she is going to find a backbone once she gets into office?

Obviously the developers backing Lynda are scared of their polling results. Their campaign has lost momentum as Lynda's backers are unmasked and those of us walking precincts hear about it at the door every day. THAT"S why they are going so negative and spending so much money filling up your mailbox with wasteful trash straight from the republican playbook.

Oh and one other thing- this Frank Robertson guy and Tom Lynch are both so horrifyingly clueless and the fact that they could even think of characterizing Efren's predatory, stalking CRIMINAL behavior as nothing but a 'dating debacle' really disgusts me and tells me that there are still a lot of dirty old men out there who don't take male violence and rape culture seriously and they are absolutely part of the reason women are afarid to speak up. And personally I would be ASHAMED to have the three of them (Efren, Tom and Frank) as supporters. Yuk.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KittyW:

I'm finding it amazing how this race between 2 progressive Democrats has gotten so acrimonious. ...

---

Correction: Lynda's funding is now apparently over half a million, much of it from Big Wine.

As an organic food farmer for the last 24 years, my biggest fear is that we are losing our county to the wine barons and tourists. For more information on this, go to the Wine and Water Watch website (www.winewaterwatch.org)

One of the many consequences of the purchase of wineries and transforming them into event centers--often bought by people living in Asia, New York, and elsewhere--is that young people and others can no longer afford buying or even renting good ag. land for food. Locals are losing control of SoCo's famous ag.

Go Local reports that 96% of the veggies & fruits sold in Sonoma County are imported from outside. At a time of mounting food security issues, this is not a good situation. I like wine, but one cannot live by it alone. We all need water and food.

Tom you endorsed his misogyinstic choice of words when you published it on this website with no explanations or caveats and prasied him for his expression. Your constant toadying and pandering and kissing up to Efren Carrillo speaks for itself.

Call me all the names you like. As my grandpa used to say "if the rock didn't hit ya- don't holler"

Oh and believe me- I know you are "proud" to stand alongside Lynda Hopkins with Frank Robertson and Efren Carrillo and Erick Koenigshofer and that rich wine oligarch Dyson who used to work for Giuliani and called Noreen "Nasty"- You have all mentioned Lynda's 'youth' and 'fresh face' many, many times.... the question is whether she is proud of this caliber and quality of supporters and what they represent. As I said earlier- "YUK"

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:

Please note they are not my choice of words, but one of my favorite columnists Frank Robertson's with Sonoma West.

---

Noreen has already PROVEN she can oppose her supporters. She did it in the state legislaure when those of us in the labor movement lobbied her HARD to support the Graton Casino which was built wall to wall union. She was concerned about environmental impacts and water and she told us to our face she wouldnt support it and she didnt. Contrast that with Lynda Hopkins who has NO RECORD and can't even stand up to the huge dirty mailings and online ads from her supporters Erick Koenigshofer and Mike Martini and all the other rich wineries and real estate developers. If she can't even summon the spine to call them out now what makes you think she will grow a spine AFTER they spent 500K to get her elected?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

You can bet your booty Noreen will vote the way HER campaign donors [such as the SEIU] want her to.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Thank you, Patrick. I stand corrected. Erik's ignoble PAC appears to be the largest single player followed by the SEIU. :waccosun:

---

I'm going to take this back. Where's Eric PAC (or more correctly IEC - Independant Expenditure Committee) has the largest block of money to spend, again it comes from and is in support of diverse interests, albeit from a small handful of industries (but each with several distinct interests).

However, IMO, the SEIU is still the largest single interest giving money, with nearly $81,000 independant expenditure plus and additional $20,250 direct contributions (see attachment) for a combined total of $100,000, along with countless volunteer hours.

And then there is this:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

not saying she is or she isn't but being an organic farmer isn't much evidence as such. An organic farm is a business whose product is organic produce and/or meat. Doesn't directly have anything to do with coastal or open-space protection, which to many in this county is what's meant by being a 'steward of the environment'. Instead, it has to do with labeling of your product. Some of the complaints about her revolve around her ties to other businesses, because it's not obvious that any of them have ties to the land preservationist movement.

---

Interesting math and analysis- I guess you are not counting the free advertisement and editorials that Lynda has gotten from the crony capitalists and plutocrats who own the Press Democrat? Care to factor that in...? All our volunteers walk as volunteers- we have a lot of members in the 5th district. But the Press Democrat which has given Hopkins THOUSANDS in free advertising like yesterdays embarrasing 'editorial' are using their newspaper to push their own business and real estate interests. Pretty convenient to own a newspaper when you are trying to buy Supervisor.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

...However, IMO, the SEIU is still the largest single interest giving money, with nearly $81,000 independant expenditure plus and additional $20,250 direct contributions (see attachment) for a combined total of $100,000, along with countless volunteer hours.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lisa Maldonado:

...But the Press Democrat which has given Hopkins THOUSANDS in free advertising like yesterdays embarrasing 'editorial' are using their newspaper to push their own business and real estate interests. ....

---

And then there is JOHN Dyson, New York financier and Guliani appointee who has invested nearly $50,000 into Lynda's and the IE campaigns. That's ONE person.

Wow Good old anti-union republican talking points- is that what led you to support Erick Koenigshofer and Dyson and Russian river gravel miners?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KittyW:

Wow, that's some negative old-school future-casting. Is that what led Noreen to this pension mess -- lunches with public employee unions?

---

No Hopkins is in bed with Gravel Mining, Real Estate developers and Big Corporate wineries and Erick Koenigshofer, and Rob Muelrath- the local lobbyists for the oligarchy- is that so much better? Wow, Barry you are pretty anti -union for a "progressive".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Two main reasons:

1) Next generation innovative leadership. I find her to be a creative thinker, including her stances on affordable housing and TOT tax distribution.

2) She is not in bed with the SEIU.

---

Surely a campaign that is strongly environmental would not be inundating the area with scads of expensive dirty tricks to defeat a candidate with fully demonstrated legislative abilities and a strong environmental record? If Hopkins were honest she would have to be appalled by this being done in her name.

My examples of dirty tricks includes mailers that imply an untruth with highly selected facts; highly negative online ads that sort to the top when someone googles Noreen's website, so that Vote No on Noreen" ad site comes up; full page Hopkins ads in the PD (more than $5K a pop for those -- maybe $10K??)

This, to me is the best example of what is at stake. Truly, major anti-enviro forces are trying to buy this election. Hopkins may not be in charge of this, but she has not objected as far as I can tell.

There are plenty of others who question Lynda's "farm friendly" credentials

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jenielson:

...My examples of dirty tricks includes mailers that imply an untruth with highly selected facts; highly negative online ads that sort to the top when someone googles Noreen's website, so that Vote No on Noreen" ad site comes up; full page Hopkins ads in the PD (more than $5K a pop for those -- maybe $10K??.

---

The actions you site were promulgated by Eric the K's Independent Expenditure Committee, and as such, Lynda is prohibited by law to control them or in any become "material involved".

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jenielson:

...Hopkins may not be in charge of this, but she has not objected as far as I can tell...

---

Lynda addressed her disapproval on her recently posted comments, including: "Do I approve of these ads? No. Do I support them? No."

Yet Lynda benefits from those who seem to be pulling her strings. If she does not approve, why does she not do a serious criticism of Eric the K.? This is a hollow "disapproval"--not enough.

Meanwhile, the PD & Bosco Boys endorse her and allow her to write a Close to Home. How about giving Noreen Evans equal time? That would be real democracy.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

The actions you site were promulgated by Eric the K's Independent Expenditure Committee, and as such, Lynda is prohibited by law to control them or in any become "material involved".


Lynda addressed her disapproval on her recently posted comments, including: "Do I approve of these ads? No. Do I support them? No."

---

She certainly cannot have any say in how the money is used. But she certainly could make a public statement about the false and misleading content being put out and the positioning online.

I've been wondering why the SEIU and unions are throwing such vast sums of money at Noreen. They are painting Lynda as the devil incarnate, the ultimate environmental apocalypse candidate.

and then it hit me...

PENSIONS.

I googled and read a lot of the history of Sonoma County's pension burden, the spiking, the perks, the sweet deals that are draining resources... and Noreen's track record and comments.

Noreen has been the Patron Saint of Pensions.

I'm not against pensions by any means, but there are some pretty sweet deals going on.

And they need Noreen as a Supervisor to tip the Board in their favor and ensure that the gravy train keeps on chugging along unimpeded.

So they paint Lynda Hopkins as a puppet of big business and fear monger the ruination of the environment to keep the public's eye off the prize.

Oh my, this is a very interesting election indeed.

Not to say that Noreen hasn't done some good things. She has. But I think we know where her priorities lie when it comes to the hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in the pension debate.

For all the acrimony in this election, equal parts are coming from both sides.

From their supporters, not necessarily the candidate herself.

Both candidates have big money interests funding her campaign, along with grassroots support.

But can the candidates be bought?

This remains to be seen. Whoever wins, keep your eye on her.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lisa Maldonado:

No Hopkins is in bed with Gravel Mining, Real Estate developers and Big Corporate wineries and Erick Koenigshofer, and Rob Muelrath- the local lobbyists for the oligarchy- is that so much better? Wow, Barry you are pretty anti -union for a "progressive".

---

Someone across from Harmony on 116 has had signs posted for months about Hillary Clinton being so awful, being a "liar". When I saw their sign saying "Noreen is a traitor", after trying to decide between Noreen and Lynda and reading all the differing comments from both sides for weeks, this sign was the deciding factor for me.

I just want to drive home on beautiful tree-lined 116 with deep breaths of appreciation for the beauty we live in. I respect everyone's right to their opinion and vote, but being blasted with what has felt like venom, for months on end, has been too much for me.

These signs certainly haven't changed my opinion or vote, yet every day I have to be look at them as I go by. I've thought of stopping, and trying to speak with the owner, just to ask if he/she might look at why they are doing this. If they really want people to change their opinion, this isn't the way.

Instead, I voted for Noreen, not knowing if she's really the best candidate or not, but hoping for a future vision that might include us listening to one another, trying to come together. So to whoever has forced us all to look at their opinions repeatedly for months, thanks for helping me to decide who to vote for.

I cancelled my subscription days ago [Sonoma West Times and News]. They are easily as biased as the wine/real estate owners of the PD. They are next.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Eileen M.:

..."DATING DEBACLE" ! No words can express my disgust at your choice of words....

---

Excellent Close to Home piece today in response to Lynda and Herman's fluff piece:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...4_15-56-29.png
Close to Home: Let’s get real about the 5th District campaigning
BY JAZMIN GUDINO AND DENNIS ROSATTI | November 4, 2016, 12:07AM

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...23-22-57-2.png
DENNIS ROSATTI &JAZMIN GUDINO

As a young Latina leader from Roseland (Jazmin Guidino) and a young environmental leader from west county (Denny Rosatti), we’ve been working for Noreen Evans’ campaign for the past year. We’ve knocked on hundreds of doors and talked to thousands of voters. It’s obvious that many people in Sonoma County are hurting and need help.

This week, the opinion page of this newspaper and Evans’ opponent in the 5th District supervisorial race called for an end to long-standing divisions in our community and for a more “civil” community discourse (“Seeking a more civil public discourse,” Close to Home, Wednesday).

While this sounds like a noble goal, it is not reflective of reality. The call for “civility” is too often used to shut out the voices of the powerless. An open, honest discussion of our community’s challenges can be uncomfortable, especially for those with a vested interest in the status quo. We have a responsibility to speak up and share what’s really happening in our community.

Today we are seeing powerful outside interests, such as the California Apartment Association and New York billionaire John Dyson, pouring vast amounts of money into our local campaigns for and against their favored candidates. They are funding a ruthless barrage of attack ads against Evans, including costly full-page ads in this paper, smearing decades of public service to advance their own agendas.

The man designing the attack ads against Evans is a consultant for some of the wealthiest corporate interests in our community, and he has solicited two donors who have provided more than $70,000 to his campaign.

The California Apartment Association recently funded a campaign to gather signatures to overturn Santa Rosa’s new rent stabilization ordinance that was so deceptive that more than 150 Santa Rosans filed paperwork to remove their signatures. Voters need to know about these interests attempting to buy influence.

Money speaks loudly in politics. Special interest spending in local campaigns is always an issue for voters. The Political Reform Act creates a public disclosure pathway before the election takes place, and voters deserve access and attention to this financing. Access to financial support information of a candidate is critical to having a “civil” discourse. Without public discussion, voters are left to wade through fake charges instead of real records.

The reality is most of the economic gains in Sonoma County have gone to the 1 percent wealthiest for the past 20 years. Sonoma County’s rivers, hillsides and forests are vulnerable to exploitation to extract immense profit. Many people have lost their homes and live along creeks and rivers or under overpasses. Others face eviction because they cannot afford ever-rising rents. Still others are forced to leave the area to buy a home. These challenges threaten to destabilize our communities.

Reality is not a personal attack. We cannot solve our problems by blithely declaring an end to divisions or by avoiding debate because it reveals divisions in our community. The challenge we have is to work through those debates and forge a pathway forward, one that makes the most sense for the most people using values, experience, economics and public sentiment as our guide.

We want representatives who stand up for ordinary people. Our community hungers for an honest discussion of the challenges we face, including the wealthy and powerful interests trying to buy control of our local government. We cannot sweep them under the rug by pretending they don’t exist. It’s time to get real.

Lots of good reasons to vote FOR Noreen, but even if there weren't, the quantity and venal quality of Linda's mailers would turn me away. I know she is a good human being who is a good farmer, but why does she allowed these nasty mailers to represent her? A bad mistake.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

Excellent Close to Home piece today in response to Lynda and Herman's fluff piece:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by O.W.:

I cancelled my subscription days ago [Sonoma West Times and News]. They are easily as biased as the wine/real estate owners of the PD. They are next.

---

you know, you don't have to believe everything you read (except on the internet, of course) so you're free to read publications that you think are biased.

seriously, I'm having a hard time finding enough variety in sources these days. I tend to use google news as a front end to the media, and they are doing their best to find out what I'm like and what I want to hear. So it's really tough to force them to give me a variety. I have to resort to logging off gmail (which I like to keep open in another browser window, dammit) sometimes, and to make sure I do click on articles sourced by Brietbart or CharismaNews, or some local paper in Texas. Even so, I think their algorithms are figuring out my ploys.

Thanks for sharing this. It's a breath of fresh air to read, especially after that last piece in the PD.

In that earlier piece, one candidate suggested that if she wasn't elected, young people would feel somehow disenfranchised and unwelcome, and not participate in the democratic process.

It's gratifying to see that there are young people who are passionate and are doing the work, to participate in the process, even as they begin at the beginning. I respect their work ethic and I hope they continue.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

Excellent Close to Home piece today in response to Lynda and Herman's fluff piece:
As a young Latina leader from Roseland (Jazmin Guidino) and a young environmental leader from west county (Denny Rosatti), we’ve been working for Noreen Evans’ campaign for the past year. We’ve knocked on hundreds of doors and talked to thousands of voters. It’s obvious that many people in Sonoma County are hurting and need help...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by applefan:

Lots of good reasons to vote FOR Noreen, but even if there weren't, the quantity and venal quality of Linda's mailers would turn me away. I know she is a good human being who is a good farmer, but why does she allowed these nasty mailers to represent her? A bad mistake.

---

See Lynda's comments about the negative campaign on her behalf here.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jenielson:

She certainly cannot have any say in how the money is used. But she certainly could make a public statement about the false and misleading content being put out and the positioning online.

---

She has done so here (particularly in the second post)

My computer lets me open a separate Private Browser, so this will not happen. Check to see if yours does the same.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

you know, you don't have to believe everything you read (except on the internet, of course) so you're free to read publications that you think are biased.

seriously, I'm having a hard time finding enough variety in sources these days. I tend to use google news as a front end to the media, and they are doing their best to find out what I'm like and what I want to hear. So it's really tough to force them to give me a variety. I have to resort to logging off gmail (which I like to keep open in another browser window, dammit) sometimes, and to make sure I do click on articles sourced by Brietbart or CharismaNews, or some local paper in Texas. Even so, I think their algorithms are figuring out my ploys.

---

"To be perfectly honest, there are things about Noreen's record at State that bother me. Things that bothered me as a voter, back in the day, and things that bother me as someone running against her now. I could have put out factual compare-and-contrast pieces -- pieces consisting entirely of excerpted press coverage -- that would have cast me in a favorable light, and cast her in a negative light. But I didn't."

Could this candidate be more of a simpering whiner? "Things" bother her. "Things." Way to go Stanford, spoken like a true politician.

She tries to put distance between herself and her supporters whose methods are 'negative,' but she really wants that misinformation out there. She denounces the negativity, but not the lies. She made no effort to counter them. She is one and at peace with that negative message. Don't be fooled.

And if she is the leader they want, and 'they' are going negative, but she is against negativity, why can't she 'lead' them in a positive direction? She claims she wants to.

She doesn't even have the leadership ability to stop her own backers from going negative.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

She has done so here (particularly in the second post)

---

Barry,

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.

Perhaps this venue should be renamed "BoscoBB.net"...

John Eder

Regarding making an issue out of pensions, pensions is part of a public trust like Social Security, Medicare protection and protecting our natural resources. Has there been abuse? Certainly but not to the extent from the wine, real estate, extraction industries have had and continue to have on all of us. This sounds to me like how Clinton's storing emails inappropriately are made out to be on par with Trump's fomenting hate in America among other deep concerning problems.

I like Lynda Hopkins but we are not electing someone that is likable but someone in this county who can be effective for standing up to the public interest which has been undercut for decades by supervisors who don't have the will or gumption or experience to stand up to the aforementioned industries who attend every meeting and hearing. You've got to be there to know this, believe me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

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.

---

I feel I moderate very fairly. You'll notice I have selected many, many pro-Noreen posts as Barry's Picks. However, I also get to participate as a user and express my opinion using the same facilities that all users have access to.

Thank you, John. I have found Barry's position very frustrating as well. He is obviously smitten with Lynda, but I believe it is shamefully inappropriate to use his "power" as the Moderator of WACCO to influence voters in a democratic election. He is obviously looked up to as a rational and reasonable person (as I once did), so his opinion has, unfairly I feel, secured many votes for Lynda. And, I would have been just as uncomfortable with his efforts had he been in favor of Noreen Evans. He should have remained neutral.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

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....

---

Well said, Mouse. And what does Lynda think is wrong about putting out "factual compare-and-contrast pieces excerpted from press coverage?" Sounds to me like that's what should be happening, as long as quotes aren't taken out of context in a misleading way! It would sure be better than the misleading screed I've been getting from Lynda's backers, and I must say Noreen's mailers have been much more factual and straightforward. I don't see the mass media stuff, only the mailers.

Again, we should not take our eyes off the ball: why is Lynda supported by the big money anti-environmental interests? Supported to the point where I am getting three or four times as many mailers ( often expensive ) backed and paid for by them as from Noreen's backers such as the Public Employee's Union, Sierra Club, Sonoma County Conservation Action, etc? These mailers may be convincing to voters who are not that up on the issues, but they really make Lynda look bad to the rest of us. Lynda may actually be a wonderful person, but she should realize that she doesn't look wonderful to environmentalists when backed by supporters like hers.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mouse:

///Could this candidate be more of a simpering whiner? "Things" bother her....

---

Actually, I think Barry has a perfect right to express his opinion here like anyone else. He is a valued member of the community like the rest of us, and as moderator he never suppresses our expressions of opinion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sambacat:

Thank you, John. I have found Barry's position very frustrating as well. ...

---

Jeez, today the packet of seed$ with instructions for how to plant them. A last ditch effort to return to the prairie dress sweet pea approach that she started with last Thanksgiving. That's how long she and her $500,000.00 friends have been bombarding us with this expensive media blitz. That's quite an investment.

We have updated our web site with some corrections to the misinformation being spread by the opposition - some of it really egregious. Please go here to see some Fifth District True Facts.
5thdistricttruefacts.com/

Here is one example:
A recent attack ad accuses Noreen of a “multi-billion dollar giveaway” without much in the way of specifics. The truth is that in 2005 Noreen took over a bill regarding public safety pensions that had been introduced by someone else. At the first procedural opportunity, she removed language from the bill that would have done the things that were the subject of the hit piece. In other words, she made the legislation better for taxpayers. Later, when she was unable to resolve additional issues with the legislation, she held it in committee so it would never become law.

Further, Noreen worked hard on reforming public pensions while a state legislator, including reducing state employee pay and benefits during the Great Recession and voting for the Public Employee Pension Reform Act of 2012, which capped pension benefits and eliminated spiking and other abuses. As a City Councilmember, Noreen voted to increase public safety pensions but at the same time, the Council provided funding for their pensions by asking Santa Rosa taxpayers to tax themselves to pay for public safety costs. Measure O is on this year’s ballot for renewal.

Not only does this attack ad deceive voters about Noreen’s record, but it also tries to alarm voters by claiming that Noreen would have “bankrupted Sonoma County...leaving little for roads, parks, libraries, public safety and other local services.” Nothing in the legislation would have forced increased costs on Sonoma County. Further, the County does not fund libraries--our libraries have a dedicated funding source which voters are being asked to increase in this election.

Kitty I think your mask as a 'nuetral observer' has slipped (just like Barry's). Both of you have made constant references to "pensions, spiking, sweet deals and public employees union lunches" narrative that are pretty obviously right out of the right wing play book. As is your baseless and evidence lacking statement that Noreen is "Queen of Pensions". What does that even mean? I don't know why you two call youselves progressives and Bernie supporters and then attack unions (one of the only organizations left fighting against corporate oligarchy) but I am tired of arguing it with you. I am glad that others have noticed and commented about it as well.

The average SEIULocal1021 pension is 33 thousand a year. The majority of huge six figure pensions and pension spiking is done not by our union members but by Directors, Administrators and Supervisors- like Valerie Brown and Paul Kelly and Tim Smith- you know, Lynda Hopkins supporters.

The only reason people like you attack SEIU is because you don't like our progressive politics. You havent 'been wondering' who to vote for at all. Thats fine- but its fairly obvious you are shilling for Lynda. I thnk 5th District voters are smart enought to see the Eric Koenigshofer/ John Dyson machinations- obviously big east coast wine barons who work for Rudy Giuliani don't usually give a quarter million to a political race because they love organic veggies and bio compost toilets. You and Lynda think the voters are naive or blind or stupid and if you wave the big bad "union' flag they will vote for anything in opposition.

I think a lot of us from the working class have families in unions and we see how thy have lifted many of us out of poverty. And many a carpenters pension paid for someone's grandparents to live to a dignified old age- so you can't scare us by playing the "pension" card. Everyone who works deserves a stable and dignified retirement.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KittyW:

I've been wondering why the SEIU and unions are throwing such vast sums of money at Noreen. They are painting Lynda as the devil incarnate, the ultimate environmental apocalypse candidate.

and then it hit me...

PENSIONS. ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

I feel I moderate very fairly. You'll notice I have selected many, many pro-Noreen posts as Barry's Picks. However, I also get to participate as a user and express my opinion using the same facilities that all users have access to.

---

“Let’s welcome our moderators, Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz.”

Anderson Cooper: “Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the second 2016 Presidential Debate. As a result of a coin toss, Donald Trump, the lying, narcissistic moron that he is, will go first.”

Martha Raddatz: “You forgot womanizing…”

Anderson Cooper: “Here is your first question, Mr. Trump. How do you explain the fact that your IQ is the same as Hillary’s shoe size?”

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

“Let’s welcome our moderators, Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz.”

---

LOL!

But it make my point. I don't have the same role here as Anderson and Martha did at the debate. Here, we can all ask and answer questions.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KittyW:

and then it hit me...

PENSIONS.

---

May I congratulate you on stumbling across what has been one of the most exhaustively discussed issues on this very thread. But I am very happy to hear that you have done exhaustive research on the subject and discovered the true extent of Noreen's culpability in the issue. So many people sound off about without having actually investigated the matter. Could you please elaborate on the specifics of what you found, along with links to your source materials?

Patrick Brinton

My vote for fifth district supervisor is for Barry!
Only Barry has treated both sides fairly!
Only Barry has provided a forum for in depth discussion!
Only Barry has gotten candidates to respond to criticism of their supporters (at least Lynda, don't know about Noreen.)

Go Barry!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by pbrinton:

May I congratulate you on stumbling across what has been one of the most exhaustively discussed issues on this very thread. But I am very happy to hear that you have done exhaustive research on the subject and discovered the true extent of Noreen's culpability in the issue. So many people sound off about without having actually investigated the matter. Could you please elaborate on the specifics of what you found, along with links to your source materials?

Patrick Brinton

---

Hi Patrick, Sorry to inflict my independent "aha moment" on this thread! I was away in Hawaii for a few weeks and didn't follow the excitement back home. When I got back I watched the Lynda/Noreen debates more closely than reading the threads here.

Since you asked for my sources, below are the most cogent, with links.

You can probably skip 1-4 as these have likely been discussed pretty thoroughly.

Skip down to #5 -- some real history -- and #6 and #7, the guy who brought this info to light.

Based on this, I was pretty kind in my characterization of Noreen as the "Patron Saint of Pensions."

I could have gone all-out with "Fiscal Floozy" or "Labor Lapdog." But I don't like nasty name calling.

After all, she's done some good things in addition to her pension fiascos. I respect the work she's done for the environment and her record is multidimensional.

But she doesn't have my vote to carry forward on this mess.

1. This article outlines the alarming size of the current pension problem:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5...nds?artslide=0

2. This article talks about "sweet deals" and pension spiking:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2...ted&artslide=0

3. This article talks about SEIU spending on Noreen Evans’ behalf, signaling the union’s "bid to secure a pro-labor majority on the Board of Supervisors:"
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/5...een?artslide=0

4. This article talks about Noreen's track record to raise the cap on retirement benefits in a fiscally strapped time. To quote the article: "…the Sacramento Bee singled out Evans for rebuke, claiming she ignored local government officials who warned her the bill would levy massive costs on troubled local budgets.
"ABX1 6 would bestow huge new potential benefits at a time the state, counties and cities are borrowing money to pay current retirement costs. It is likely to create billions more in new liability, with no new revenue sources to pay for it. Pick your adjective: This measure is irresponsible, unconscionable, shameless, craven."
https://napavalleyregister.com/news/...2d724c165.html

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. (See page 49 of the 2005 financial statement).But that is not all, she also voted to issue $50 million worth of non voter approved pension obligation bonds to pay for the unfunded liability created by the increase. This year, the City's pension cost is over $27 million and predicted by CalPERS to double to $50 million by 2023 in their actuarial report in large part due to the increase. (See page 5 of the City's 2015 CalPERS actuarial report downloadable from CalPERS site where they post their actuarial studies).

So she took a perfectly healthy pension system that was affordable and fully funded and increased the costs by 500% and added $50 million worth of new debt for the citizens of Santa Rosa to pay for and then left the City Council for the state legislature.

When she arrived at the state legislature she authored (actually the unions probably authored them and she submitted them) bill after bill that would have changed what pensions are based upon from base salary to salary plus benefits and the bill would apply to every city and county in the state, driving up their pension costs to even more unaffordable levels.

While a state senator she approved the state pension reform bill commonly called PEPRA, which was a watered down version of what Governor Brown wanted that only changed pension formulas for new hires so the savings is 30 years out.

To reform our County's pension system she in her ballot statement said she wants to take the entire $2.3 billion in pension assets and build affordable housing, something that is unconstitutional, violates the retirement association's investment policy and would triple the County's pension costs.

Please do not vote for Noreen. She is our worst nightmare.

READER COMMENTS:

Anthony Ross Ken Churchill • a month ago
Buying votes and having the taxpayers pick up the tab. Sheesh.

samisme Anthony Ross • a month ago
Paying off campaign bribes, I mean contributions, for an illusion of grandeur.
Noreen is despicable.

NOTE: to access this letter, you have to click on the "Reader Comments" ner the bottom of the page:
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinio...ent-2924921743

6. Here's an article with some background on the writer of that letter. Sounds like a pretty solid guy: Ken Churchill, "owner of a solar energy company, an environmental consulting firm and a winery — and as a former board member of the Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation — Churchill also comes with extensive experience in business development, energy efficiency and environmental protection."

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/1...ll?ref=related

1. 7. Ken is a very knowledgeable guy. You can read an in-depth report he wrote: The Sonoma County Pension Crisis : How Retroactive Benefit Increases, Overly Generous Salaries, and Poor Financial Management Have Destroyed the County’s Finances

You can access a pdf of this report at:

https://sonomacountytaxpayers.org/category/public-employee-pensions/

My oh my Lisa, how unfoundedly judgemental!

I had indeed been waffling over the candidates. But only after watching the debates, reading the candidates' statements, and reading between the lines of the acrimonious accusations, I made my selection: Lynda Hopkins.

For my issues with Noreen, pensions, and her proposed pension-funded housing, please see my reply to Patrick.

And for your information, I grew up on a subsistence farm in Southern Appalachia so I'm quite familiar with life below the poverty line. I have a very independent political outlook that is as far from right wing as it can be.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lisa Maldonado:

Kitty I think your mask as a 'nuetral observer' has slipped ...

---

From Sonoma West:

Agent of harmony

EDITOR: Most of my generation of Sonoma County’s political leaders have retired; leaving us saddled with massive unfunded retirement obligations, paid for with higher taxes and fees, along with major cuts in services and infrastructure. Present solutions for affordable housing are responsible for an exodus of workers and families from our rural communities. Social service cuts have created a zombie-land of homeless, shuffling our streets and draining large amounts of resources from our first responders and criminal justice system. Our leaders are failing to bring the disparate elements of our communities together toward common purpose, and some purposely sow division between environmentalists and labor, business and agriculture.

In order to restore services once provided for generations, we need to reinvent local government, as a convener enlisting and involving all the elements of our community toward innovative and creative solutions.
My wife Svetlana and I will vote for organic farmer Lynda Hopkins, to represent us as our next Fifth District Supervisor. We can no longer abide the failed policies of the past. We believe Lynda Hopkins has the courage and vision to be an agent of harmony, toward a sustainable future for Sonoma County.

Tom and Svetlana Lynch
Guerneville

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. The county (PRMD) has not adequately assessed the water impacts, especially the cumulative water impacts. PRMD refused over our pleading to require a water study for a recent well ordinance. Moreover, there is no water budget as if the water availability was infinite.

Each project proponent before the Commission that Lynch sits on tells a story about how it is their dream to have this winery and the Commission apparently falls for it and approves away. No commission to my recollection has EVER asked public members about their dreams when they moved in to their residences and is it okay for one person's dream to usurp another persons or whole community's dream? That would not be a dream. That would be a nightmare.

The point I am trying to make is that Lynch's nebulous rhetoric about "higher taxes and fees", blaming homelessness on the local economy, and Hopkins as an "agent of harmony" only make sense in the context where the wine and other industries continue to get rubber stamped approval over natural resource impacts and community concerns. In other words, public members should stop fighting for their rights so certain money can be made without controversy.

Larry Hanson, Forestville

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:

From Sonoma West:

Agent of harmony
...
Tom and Svetlana Lynch
Guerneville

---

I appreciate the content, information, and tone of Larry's post. It sticks to issues, rather than personalities. Water and wine issues should be at the forefront of this 5th district discussion, in my opinion.

No matter who wins on Nov. 8, those of us who really love Sonoma County and live here will have to work together on many issues, including wine, water, housing, forests, and other related issues. Let's try to elevate our discussion, which this post helps do.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by larryjhanson:

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. ...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by applefan:

Lots of good reasons to vote FOR Noreen, but even if there weren't, the quantity and venal quality of Linda's mailers would turn me away. I know she is a good human being who is a good farmer, but why does she allowed these nasty mailers to represent her? A bad mistake.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

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.

---

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..."

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!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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!

---

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!!!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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!

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite:

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.

---

First,
https://waccobb.net/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png photolite wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/image...post-right.png
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 --

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

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..."

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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 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!!!

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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by mouse:

...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.

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by larryjhanson:

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. ...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

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....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by photolite;:

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

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.

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.]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by farmerdan:

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."

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by farmerdan:

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KittyW:

...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. ....

---

On the up side,

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

"You are obviously delusional."

---

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

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by scamperwillow:

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by John Eder:

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

---

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.)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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 ...

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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,...

---

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.

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!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Lisa Maldonado:

...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?

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JanetLee:

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KittyW:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by JanetLee:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jenielson:

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... :hifive::burningmad:

Barry,

I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours…Bob Dylan said that.
May the best (most popular) woman win…I said that

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

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

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KittyW:

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

---

Thank you, Kitty. As head of the SEIU, Lisa Maldonaldo is responsible for at least $82,000 worth if BS hit pieces against Lynda, often using bogus and misleading claims and often having little or nothing to do with actual facts. The latest mailer I received today is typical; Noreen raising the hysteria level about how evil gravel mining will destroy the river. The facts as you point out put that question to rest.

Lisa has also been the most duplicitous and evasive poster on this thread, refusing to answer simple questions about her union and how pension issues might affect the county finances. Instead she hurls ridiculous accusations against anyone who raises questions and accuses them of being against working people or being racist or some other poppycock. Lisa Maldonaldo also attacks Hopkins as if she cares about the environment when all she cares about is the union. It is also quite odd that she claims to be against any kind of development when surely this is the sort of activity that can create jobs, even union jobs. Anyone who takes Lisa seriously has a couple screws loose.

It is clear that her support of Noreen is a quid pro quo arrangement, and Noreen will do the bidding of the public employees union. There can be no question about that. Unfortunately the corollary effect of this support means that, like credit card interest, the public pays for stuff that benefits only a small group of people and the public's money is diverted from other essential public services.

OK, that's it for me. I rest my case until tomorrow. Get out and vote, folks.

Another way of asking your question, which of our candidates has held elected office before, or heck, even had a real job in the last ten years? (Noreen is the candidate who, you know, worked for a living.)

And which candidate married a guy with money who got a farm for nothing, and now has taken half a million bucks from developers, gravel mining interests, the Ratto group, big wine and whoever in order to begin her career at the top! (Correct: Hopkins lies on her resume and has never had a real job!):thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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 ....

---

Thank you for the amazing work that your organization is doing on behalf of the river and the environment. I was not implying that the Riverkeepers endorse Lynda, but her statement was in alignment with statements made publicly by your Exec Director.

I am simply pointing out that the situation with gravel miners is far more nuanced that the Evans campaign would have people to believe. It seems they are spreading hysteria that is not founded in reality.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jbox:

Thank you, Kitty. As head of the SEIU, Lisa Maldonaldo is responsible for at least $82,000 worth if BS hit pieces against Lynda, ...

---

Gravel mining, unions and who is voting their financial interest.

First Gravel Mining, I am glad to see that high respect is paid to the Russian River Keepers for the great job they have done over the years for monitoring and initiating better solutions for our rivers. Gravel mining has had dire impacts on the river and we are living with those impacts today and that is why RRK has had to file lawsuits to either get it stopped or to get it mitigated. I am sure that RRK was not recommending gravel mining. The history of gravel mining in the Russian River indicates that it cannot be done in an environmentally sound way if done for economic interest. If the river should be mined at all, it should be done as an overall restoration plan for the whole river. So, in this case, the quote has been misinterpreted to mean that RRK was condoning economically based gravel mining in the RR which it was not.


Second, I guess we can now expect Trump-like inverse reality claims now that he set some kind of model for people to follow. The claim that unions are now so powerful that they can control candidates is in an alter reality. I don’t believe I am actually having to say this, but for the record, unions in this country were denuded with the Reagan so-called revolution and now completely out of balance with business almost totally controlling the economy from local to national. When was the last time you saw a labor page as part of any mainstream newspaper? Anyway, this should really be obvious and we should not pretend otherwise unless we want to join Trumpland (and I hope we are all not joining it involuntarily). But, really, shouldn't we all be more aligned with working people's issues that is promoted by labor unions?


Lastly, financial interest. People usually vote their financial interest. They are not villains for doing so. Some industries expect to do financially better supporting a certain candidate. The media likely will support a candidate that their major advertisers support or for other financial considerations. But I was hoping like in the past supervisor elections, that voters would not get derailed by being convinced to align with the financial interest supporters. The candidate they support will help them, but not necessarily you, which is not their real concern. They will, none the less, try to use out of scale issues and scare tactics to convince you and it will work for many. In those past elections, good solid candidates who represented the public interest and resource protection were beaten back from the financial interest folks by the industry public relations firms and mainstream media with targeted “articles". This election is just another replay using similar tactics. Many are getting derailed again as before to vote for the candidate that will keep the Supervisors beholden to those only with financial interests.


Most supporters and voters do not have direct financial gains and will be looking at the bigger picture issues. There are no direct financial gains for protecting and enhancing the environment and they will cast their vote not swayed by personal profiteering. Noreen’s alignment with labor unions, small businesses, small farmers, and the environmental community shows her commitment to the working people and to the larger view of environmental and resource protections. This, of course, includes the supporters for financial interest.


In this sense, she is for us, all of us.

What's done is done. Let the cards fall where they may and let us all pledge to get behind and support whichever of these worthy women carry the day.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by O.W.:

Russian Riverkeepers cannot endorse a candidate but I do know that no one in the office is voting Hopkins....

---

Sorry O.W.
All the Riverkeeper staff that live in the Fifth District (Anastasia Hammond-Guerneville) are voting for Lynda Hopkins, along with former Riverkeeper president Fred Euphrat, and Riverkeepers's Clean River Alliance head Chris Brokate, along with other current and former Riverkeeper Board members. And a ton of volunteers not in the office!

As Lisa said we're all part of this right wing Republican Trump, Koch brother's conspiracy to destroy the Fifth District's environment... Including Vesta, Barry, Frank, and myself...Kitty pegged it right...fear mongering...

Almost over...can't wait :)

Kind regards and thank you for your good works protecting our environment---just disagree with your views and the old guard on this one.

Who knows who really supports Lynda Hopkins, because it looks like she lies about her endorsements. This just in, Lynda Hopkins refuses to take down Paula Downing as an endorser when asked by Paula. Not to mention she still has Progressive Sebastopol up as an endorser, even though they retracted their endorsement last month. Even posted on here about it.

"I'm breaking my vow against political posts just briefly to relay some news that I think is important. Paula Downing, beloved former manager of the Santa Rosa Original Certified Farmers Market, the Sebastopol Farmers Market, and several other markets, has been listed as either a supporter or an endorser of Lynda Hopkins for Fifth District Supervisor. This is not true. She has asked to have her name removed from that list but it hasn't been. She has a large Noreen Evans sign in her front yard and she told me this evening that she supports and is voting for Noreen Evans, not Lynda Hopkins. I'm pretty sure I know who is spreading the misinformation but I'll leave that part out so that it has no chance of gaining any more traction. Paula Downing, a woman of tremendous integrity and wisdom, supports Noreen Evans." (https://www.facebook.com/micheleannajordan?fref=ts)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:

All the Riverkeeper staff that live in the Fifth District... are voting for Lynda Hopkins, ...

---

looks like you are falling for the "political outsider" trick...so often used by those who serve the über rich few , to get elected...that was how George Shrub Bush ran....it's how Trump is running....and some seem to be taking that stance in voting for the polite, fresh faced young one, who is financially supported by a number of greedy, selfish, not caring about people outside their class, brats...

look of Chris Hedges article on Unspoken Topics in America to find a great account of his education as a scholarship kid at the kind of schools that the über rich send their kids...you will see how the lack of empathy by the über rich is created and continued.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by 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 ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by riverosprey:

...The Planning Commission approves or disapproves wineries; ...

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. ....

---

In Tom's posting, he says that the Commission approves or disapproves wineries. However, there is rarely a disapproval. Tom said that in many smaller wineries, "...use less water per year than a single family dwelling."
I know this is a claim made by applicants to get the permit. But a Commissioner also believes this to be true but possibly only true for small wineries. Not all wineries are small. Many are very large and some wineries start off small but increase their production.

Let's look at average sized wineries. The average winery has wine tastings most days of the week from 9 to 5. This means a stream of visitors that an average single family does not have. Water is provided as well as toilet and kitchen facilities when appetizers or other food is provided. This is in addition to the winery workers and maintenance crew and hosts for wine tasting and food preparation. The weekends are the fullest for the tastings which would be like a singe family gave a big party every single weekend of the year. Then there are the large events several times a year with hundreds of people using the facilities for the permit that the applicant said would use no more water than a single family unit. Somehow this is considered to be a myth.

Commissioners who are selected by the Supervisors have a role in protecting Sonoma County's resources But it is the Supervisor who sets the lead. It is not easy to protect the environment and also protect the economy. But the environment cannot continue to suffer from choosing economy over it. The leadership for this would have to come from experience, dedication, and independence from industry from a candidate like Noreen Evans to provide a good balance for Sonoma County.