OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Author Archive

Election In Cypress Tomorrow

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 24, 2013

I meant to post this at some point (oops, forgot). The City of Cypress is hosting a special election tomorrow on a property issue. Since it is a special election, voters will most assuredly not rush out to the polls to vote on this. I am not a degenerate gambler but if I had to play the role of Vegas odds maker on this one, the over/under would be at 20% turnout.

Cypress_Seal

Let’s take a quick (and factual) look at what is on the ballot tomorrow. We start with the impartial analysis written by the Cypress City Attorney:

Measure A, if approved by the voters, would amend the Amended and Restated Cypress Business & Professional Center Specific Plan, the Cypress General Plan and the Cypress Zoning Map in the manner explained in this analysis, and is placed on the ballot in compliance with the requirements of a prior 1987 voter initiative, commonly known as “Measure D”, which is set forth in Sections 5.28.020 and 5.28.050 of the Cypress Zoning Ordinance. The current Specific Plan was approved in a 2012 voter initiative, commonly known as “Measure L”. This Measure A would do the following:

1. Amend the Specific Plan. The amended Specific Plan would (a) reduce Planning Area 1, which is part of the former Cypress Golf Club, from 35.7 acres to 5.0 acres, (b) create new Planning Area 10, which consists of 30.7 of the 35.7 acres of the former golf course and (c) create new Planning Area 11, which consists of 11.2 acres of underutilized land within the Los Alamitos Race Course property that is currently part of Planning Area 8. This land is currently located in the PS-1A (Public and Semi-Public) Zone, which, as set forth in the existing Specific Plan, permits uses such as hospitals, cemeteries, churches, public buildings, schools and colleges.

The amended Specific Plan would expand the allowed uses (d) in modified Planning Area 1 to include most commercial uses permitted in the CN (Commercial Neighborhood ) Zone and several additional uses permitted in the CG (Commercial General) Zone, (e) in new Planning Area 10 to include most residential uses permitted in the RS-6000 (Single-Family) or RS-5000 (Single-Family) Zone (RS-5000 homes would be allowed in 50% of Planning Area 10 with a conditional use permit), and (f) in new Planning Area 11 to include most commercial and business park uses permitted in the CG (Commercial General) and BP (Business Park) Zones. The amended Specific Plan would also update text, figures and graphics in the document.

2. Amend the General Plan. The initiative measure would (a) amend the Cypress General Plan to change the land use designations for the 46.9 acres within Planning Areas 1, 10 and 11 from “Community Services and Facilities (Golf Course (Privately-Owned))” (35.7 acres) and “Community Services and Facilities (Race Track (Privately-Owned))” (11.2 acres) to “Specific Plan” and (b) amend text in the General Plan to conform to the amended Specific Plan.

3. Amend the Zoning Map. The Cypress Zoning Map would be amended to change the zoning designation for the 46.9 acres within Planning Areas 1, 10 and 11 from “PS-1A (Public and Semi-Public)” to “PBP-25A (Planned Business Park)”.

A “Yes” vote means you support amending the Specific Plan, the Cypress General Plan, and the Cypress Zoning Map in the manner set forth in this initiative. A “No” vote means you oppose amending the Specific Plan, the Cypress General Plan and the Cypress Zoning Map in the manner set forth in this initiative. This measure would take effect only if a majority of those voting on the ballot measure cast a “Yes” vote at the June 25, 2013 special election.

The above statement is an impartial analysis of Measure A. If you desire a copy of the measure, please call the Cypress City Clerk’s office at (714-229-6683) and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.

Date: April 2, 2013
s/ William W. Wynder
City Attorney

If you made it through the previous section without falling asleep then you should be good to go for the rest of this article. Here is the argument in favor:

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A

This initiative would modify the zoning for two parcels of land in the City of Cypress, a 35.7-acre parcel that borders Cerritos Avenue and was part of the Cypress Golf Club that closed in 2004, and an 11.2-acre parcel near the Los Alamitos Race Course between Katella and Cerritos Avenues. The current zoning for this vacant or underutilized land only permits uses such as hospitals, cemeteries, churches, public buildings and schools, which generate little revenue for the City, discourage the development of job-creating uses near the City’s primary commercial corridor and preclude single-family housing right across the street from an existing single-family neighborhood.

Measure A would expand the allowed uses on the 35.7-acre parcel to include single-family housing on the western 30.7 acres and neighborhood commercial on the eastern 5.0 acres, and permit commercial, warehousing and light manufacturing uses on the 11.2-acre parcel, all consistent with the existing uses in the area.

A September 2012 fiscal report commissioned by the City concluded that eventual development of the property would generate $412,000 in annual net revenue to the City and generate 354 permanent jobs and 141 construction jobs, with constructed-related expenditures of $32 million.

This initiative does not approve any specific project. It simply allows the property owner to propose additional commercial and residential uses. Any proposed project would be subject to full discretionary and environmental review by the City, like any other project, and would provide ample opportunity for public input.

Measure A’s approval would permit the productive use of long-vacant land and generate badly-needed jobs and revenue for the City, while preserving the City’s decision-making authority.

Recognizing these benefits, the Cypress City Council adopted a resolution supporting Measure A and encouraging Cypress voters to approve the initiative.

As longtime Cypress residents, we urge your support of Measure A.

s/ Walter Bowman
Former Mayor/Councilmember

s/ Anna Piercy
Former Mayor/Current AUHSD Board Trustee

s/ Andrew (“Andy”) Lachina
Attorney

s/ Steve Robbins
Insurance Broker

s/ George Hallak
Retired

This argument in favor does not have the star power behind it that you normally see when the elected officials/establishment get behind a ballot measure. Anna Piercy is the only current elected official to sign on in the original argument.

Here is the argument against:

ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A

In 2012, Cypress voters approved Measure L, which rezoned a 33 acre site on Katella Avenue between Cottonwood Church and the Residence Inn to have the following uses: market-rate senior citizen housing, assisted living facilities, professional offices, including medical services, and mixed-use commercial. Unfortunately, the project being proposed for the site is a 725,000 square foot warehousing, light manufacturing & distribution center with at least 129 truck bays. This is not what we voted for!

Concerns over traffic, air quality, noise, and safety are significant concerns for our city residents. Can you imagine if the truck bays turn over 3 to 4 times a day? That could mean almost 1,000 more truck trips on our streets every day. Currently, our streets are already overburdened with existing traffic. Do we need to add more?

Now with Measure A, Cypress voters are being asked to approve more mixed- use commercial acreage on Cerritos Ave., between Walker St. and Denni St. While Measure A would also rezone property for single- family housing and neighborhood commercial uses, there is no guarantee that it will be built at any time in the future. What we can likely expect is that a mixed-use commercial development will be proposed and based on what we’ve seen so far, it will be more trucks, more traffic, noise, air pollution, and safety issues.

Before we approve a zone change, Cypress residents are entitled to know from our City Council specifically what will be approved and built on the remainder of the race track property.

Please vote No on Measure A. It’s a bad fit for our city.

s/ Citizens for Responsible Development

s/ Tom Wendt

I am impressed that the folks arguing against the ballot measure got a fancy sounding group to agree to lend their name to the signature section but they screwed up by not filling up all the signatures that they could use.

Here is the rebuttal to the argument in favor:

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A

Do not be fooled twice!

The proponents of Measure A want us to once again trust the owners of the land near the Los Alamitos Race course. One year ago with Measure L, voters were fooled into thinking they were approving “Senior Housing, Assisted Living, professional offices and something called ‘Mixed-use Commercial” on 33.5 acres near the race course.

Our trust was violated with the land owner’s recent proposal to consider warehouse and light manufacturing buildings with 129 semi-truck bays on the Measure L approved property along Katella. Warehouse and light manufacturing in the Cypress Code are Industrial uses! They are not Commercial uses and certainly not Senior Housing!

The traffic on our streets and access to our freeways are already bad enough. Jobs are needed but we want good paying jobs with responsible development.

With measure A, we are being asked to trust the same land owners to develop more land near the race course. This time the “carrot” dangled before the voters in Measure A is Single Family Housing. Don’t forget, we’re not getting senior housing and assisted living facilities from last year’s ballot measure.

We are entitled to know exactly what Cypress land use zone we are voting on and the specific use that fits into that zone. Until then..Do not be fooled twice!

Vote NO on Measure A.

s/ Thomas R. Wendt

Again, they only used one signature space and I noticed that Mr. Wendt did not use a title to identify himself in either statement (I applaud him though, every ballot measure should have somebody at least informing the public on both sides of an issue).

Lastly, we have the rebuttal to the argument against:

REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A

We respectfully disagree. Measure A is a very good fit for Cypress. Measure A would not permit ANY new commercial uses on the primary 30.7-acre parcel along Cerritos. Rather, the ONLY new permitted uses would be for a single-family residential neighborhood like the existing neighborhood across the street.

The new uses permitted on the adjacent 5-acre parcel along Cerritos would be neighborhood commercial uses, consistent with its smaller size and proximity to the existing and proposed residential areas. It would NOT be used for a manufacturing facility.

Measure A simply allows the property owner to propose a residential project and related commercial uses along Cerritos. And any such project would be subject to full discretionary and environmental review by the City, with full opportunity for public input and participation.

So, contrary to the opposition’s claim, Cypress residents are NOT “being asked to approve more mixed-use commercial acreage along Cerritos.” This is unsubstantiated fear, not fact.

Measure A would allow desirable single-family housing and provide much-needed revenue for the City. That’s why the Cypress City Council UNANIMOUSLY adopted a resolution encouraging Cypress residents to vote in favor of Measure A in the special election on June 25th. We hope you agree.

We urge you to vote YES for Measure A.

s/ Walter Bowman
Former Mayor/Councilmember

s/ Anna Piercy
Former Mayor/Current AUHSD Board Trustee

s/ Andrew (“Andy”) Lachina
Attorney

s/ Steve Robbins
Insurance Broker

s/ George Hallak
Retired

I don’t know what the result will be tomorrow. Voters are in the mood to say no to most things, but turnout will be dramatically lower than a regular election which can give the Yes on A side a huge advantage if they can turn out their voters. A great example of voters being in the mood to say no is what happened in the recent Los Angeles election. Liberal L.A. voters turned down a sales tax increase!!!!!

Posted in Cypress | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Good News For Californians: CD 52 Update

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 18, 2013

I got a press release this morning from Jim Lacy at Landslide Communications touting a poll that they ran in the 52nd Congressional District race that is likely going to see a November matchup of Democrat Incumbent Scott Peters and Republican former Councilmember Carl Demaio. This is one of the most competitive seats in the State of California (Congress) and will likely have both sides spending a lot of resources.

Republican Carl DeMaio, former member of the San Diego City Council, is in a statistical tie with Democrat incumbent Scott Peters in the race for the 52nd Congressional District in San Diego County next year, according to a new poll commissioned by Landslide Communications.

The Landslide poll was taken late last week and includes 606 participants who are “likely voters.”  The interviews were conducted and data compiled by NSON of Salt Lake City, a respected polling firm.  Significant findings include that DeMaio is currently tied with Peters, even when voters are informed that DeMaio is gay and supports gay marriage, and that introducing those issues to the voter has no significant statistical affect on their response, even when given another Republican candidate to opt for.

Click on the links below to read the poll summary or cross-tabulations, and today’s FlashReport article on the survey which notes it is “good news for DeMaio.”

Landslide        52nd CD Poll Executive Summary

Landslide        poll. 52nd CD. Crosstabs

http://www.flashreport.org/blog/2013/06/18/breaking-cd-52-survey-demaios-being-gay-and-support-of-ssm-not-an-issue-with-district-gop-voters/

In my opinion this race is shaping up to be a Republican gain in 2014 and will likely be as close as they come. In 2012 Scott Peters beat Brian Bilbray by less than 7,000 votes, this is with Obama on the ballot driving out Democrats to vote. Gubernatorial elections have much higher turnout for Republicans and Demaio has strong name ID having just been on the ballot for Mayor of San Diego in 2012 (gave Bob Filner a run for his money too). The stars appear to be aligning for Demaio and the Republicans on this one, hopefully the campaigns play out favorably on this one.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

SB 71 Passing Could Reduce Transparency In Government

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 18, 2013

A reader sent me an article this morning from the Southern California Public Radio Blog discussing the impact of SB 71 which is slated to be signed soon by Governor Brown. The bill does not outright abolish the California Public Records Act, but it does in my opinion create a loophole that could be used to avoid compliance with the act. I suggest that our readers take a look at the blog article on their website.

 

Changes to Public Records Act stirs controversy
Julie Small | June 18th, 2013

If, as expected, Governor Jerry Brown signs Senate Bill 71 this week, local government agencies will no longer be required to follow key provisions of California’s Public Records Act. The bill was part of the budget state lawmakers enacted over the weekend.

California law requires local governments to respond to public requests for information within 10 days. For example, a citizen could ask to see contracts that a city awards an independent contractor. If the municipality is unable to meet such a request, or if they reject it, they have to explain why. Both those requirements are about to be suspended for local governments.

The state maintains this is a budget move, because it has to reimburse local governments for complying with some aspects of records requests. The Department of Finance estimates that exempting local governments from those requirements could save the state tens of millions of dollars a year.

But Peter Scheer of the First Amendment Coalition says the change will create opportunities for local authorities to cut off public access to information:

“People are going to file public records request for records that they need, and under this new legal language,  a local city or a county is going to be able to write back and say ‘denied’ and they’re not going to tell you why…I think that’s just crazy.”

But the Finance Department’s H.D. Palmer says local governments can adopt their own process — and he expects they will: “We believe that these are best practices that local governments have and will continue to abide by.”

And if they don’t, Palmer said local agencies will “have to tell everyone publicly in an open meeting, and they could conceivably be leaving themselves open to litigation.”

The public still has a legal right to information about local governments — and an expectation they’ll get it.

Jean Hurst with the California State Association of Counties agrees.  After all, she says, local governments have provided public access to data for more than a decade now:

“I think a local agency would be hard pressed to say in an open meeting, ‘We’re no longer going to respond in a timely manner to your request for public records.’   That would be just surprising to me.”

Hurst believes the public expectation of transparency, and the threat of lawsuits, will prompt agencies to comply with the entire Public Records Act — “for the most part”.

But Jim Ewert, an attorney for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, thinks it’s naive to expect all local agencies and authorities will fall in line. Case in point:  the former administrator for the City of Bell:

“Can you imagine Robert Rizzo having the opportunity to just say no, or actually not say anything at all, when people ask for public information?”

Ewert hopes to get the legislature to reinstate the provisions of California’s Public Records Act they just voted to suspend.

This bill is a terrible idea. As somebody that has made quite a few public records requests over the past few years, I can honestly say that most city staff members are extremely friendly, easy to work with, and timely in their responses. Some cities have gone over the 10 days and I have not reported it because they kept an open line of communication and were honest about the delays. Without naming any names, some cities are extremely belligerent and extremely tough to deal with. SB 71 would give these “belligerent” cities some leverage that they do not deserve to have (refer to the Robert Rizzo quote above).

Posted in California | 2 Comments »

Whats On Deck This Week 6-17-2013

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 17, 2013

We are in the midst of budget season for most governmental agencies, which could make for some news stories in the coming weeks of budget cuts vs. tax increases. This makes for slow news days in the short-term in the Orange County Area.

OC-Coast

241 Freeway- The only substantive item that sort of effects Orange County this week is the 241 extension meeting. This meeting of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board could decide the fate of the 241 freeway (toll road) extension. For those interested in making the trip down south to attend the meeting, it will be held at 11:00 AM (Agenda claims a vote will not take place until at least 1:00 PM), location is 9174 Sky Park Court, San Diego, CA.

Calderon- Our fantastic blogger Allen Wilson has done an excellent job covering the ongoing Calderon saga. In his most recent article Allen points out that the investigation appears to be centered on the Central Basin Water District. Stay tuned to the blog for potential breaking news on this subject as it becomes available.

Central Committee Meeting Tonight- Nothing on the agenda appears to be super interesting, but for those interested the Republican Party of Orange County is having their monthly Central Committee meeting tonight. For those interested in attending, it will start at 7:00 PM and is located at the Hyatt Regency in Irvine.

Advertisement Blitz- Now that we are less than a year away from the 2014 Primary Election you can expect to see some new sponsors appear on our blog. We are going to be making a big push on these over the next 30 days.

Welcome Atlas PAC!- Our newest blogger here at OC Political that was just brought on board last week is not actually a person, instead we are lucky enough to have gotten the Atlas PAC organization to agree to having us create a blog account for them.

Campaign Finance Database- We are only $5,000 short of reaching the goal of fully funding the campaign finance database research that I unveiled a few months ago. With any luck we will begin to post these databases in the next three weeks.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Horror Of The Lockyer Bank Account

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 4, 2013

I have to give all the credit to Chris Nguyen for coming up with the headline for this post. He and I were discussing business yesterday and the topic of elected officials retiring came up. Until he mentioned it, I had no clue that California Treasurer Bill Lockyer had announced his retirement.

Bill-Lockyer

 

I did confirm that Lockyer announced his retirement yesterday through an article on Capitol Alert.

Lockyer, 72, a longtime fixture in Democratic politics in California, will leave the Capitol having never lost an election – from a school board contest in San Leandro in 1968 to the Assembly and Senate and then 16 years in statewide office.

Republicans may be thinking to themselves that this is amazingly great news because it frees up a statewide seat for us to contend for. However, they are not taking into account that Bill Lockyer has over $2,000,000 just lying around with nowhere to spend it. He likely won’t spend this on the race for treasurer  as it is widely expected that John Chiang who currently holds the office of California Controller is the definite front-runner for the seat.

I expect to see this money end up in a Super PAC and end up getting spent on some different races throughout California (Congress, Ballot Measure, etc…).

Posted in California | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Irvine – Ninth Year With Lowest Per Capita Violent Crime Rate

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 3, 2013

I have a sneaking suspicion that some Democrats were secretly hoping for Irvine to become slightly less safe (on paper), more economically unstable, or have some other kind of issues in order to help put their side back in the majority this next election. Irvine is still extremely safe, which is good news for everyone!

The Irvine Police Department issued a press release that announced that they have for the 9th year in a row, had the lowest per capita violent crime rate. Here is the press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE       PRESS RELEASE #6/03/2013
 
  
Subject : Irvine – Ninth Year With Lowest Per Capita Violent Crime Rate
 
 
IRVINE, CA (June 3, 2013): Today, the Federal Bureau of Investigation published its Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report for Part 1 crime reported January through December 2012.   Part 1 crimes include, murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, auto theft and arson.

For the ninth consecutive year, the City of Irvine has reported the lowest per capita violent crime rate (murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault) for cities of greater than 100,000 in population.  In addition to this National distinction, 2012 was also the City’s record low for the per capita violent crime rate.

“Public safety is the City’s most important strategic priority,” Mayor Steven S. Choi said. “So, each year, this very high mark is important to us. Because in the commitment of a City to its citizens, everything flows from public safety. I am proud of our Police Department, our other staff and a community that helps each other. I am very happy that 2012 marked the lowest per capita violent crime rate in Irvine’s history.”

 “I remain proud of the men and women of our Department”, Chief Maggard commented. “I am grateful for the efforts they make every day to keep our community safe.” 

To view the Uniform Crime Report:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report-january-december-2012 

To view the FBI Press Release

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-preliminary-annual-crime-statistics-for-2012

###

IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT One Civic Center Plaza, Irvine, CA 92606 (949) 724-7000  www.irvinepd.org “Working In Partnership with the Community”

INTEGRITY – QUALITY SERVICE – ACCOUNTABILITY – RESPECT

The City of Irvine has a population of more than 212,000, spans 65 square miles and is recognized as one of America’s safest and most successful master-planned urban communities. Top-rated educational institutions, an enterprising business atmosphere, sound environmental stewardship, and respect for diversity all contribute to Irvine’s enviable quality of life. This family-friendly city features more than 16,000 acres of parks, sports fields and dedicated open space and is the home of the Orange County Great Park – the first great metropolitan park of the 21st century.  For more information, please visit www.cityofirvine.org.

###

Posted in Irvine | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

VLF Lawsuit Makes County Budget Interesting

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on June 3, 2013

As I still slowly work my way back into blogging I thought I would write a quick piece asking for reader input on the Orange County budget. Now that we are in June most government agencies are in the budgeting phase for the year as of right now and will need to make sure that everything balances.

330px-Seal_of_Orange_County,_California_svg

One interesting story that we did not ever blog here at OC Political was the County of Orange losing the vehicle license fee (VLF) lawsuit recently. Without going into painstaking detail the County withheld money from the State of California and the State of California decides that it wants it back. The State of California sues County of Orange, a trial takes place and a judge rules that the County of Orange is now expected to pay $147,000,000 which I am confident that they do not have lying around.

This leaves an interesting debate as to what will likely get cut out of the budget during this next few weeks. My guess is that as with most agencies, “creative accounting” will deal with some of the losses (although, they are appealing the case). With that being said any readers want to take a guess at what gets cut first?

Posted in Orange County | Leave a Comment »

States Where You Cannot Make A Safe Run

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on May 28, 2013

By no means am I any less busy than I was before my post stating that I was taking a bit of a break from the blog, but I am trying to crank out a few posts over the next couple of weeks. Many have asked why I was taking the break and I pointed out that a lot of real estate investors have been calling me about potentially flipping houses (Yes, I am a Realtor. Please forgive my shameless plug).

Today, a friend sent me an interesting e-mail about many states having a law stating that you must resign from your current office that you hold in order to run for another one. This type of law would require a candidate to commit to a race and not have the option of making a safe run.

The article did come from Wikipedia and I will openly disclose that now, but I did go through and verify the information on the different websites needed to do so for each state:

Arizona

Section 38-296 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, entitled “Limitation upon filing for election by incumbent of elective office” states:

  1. Except during the final year of the term being served, no incumbent of a salaried elective office, whether holding by-election or appointment, may offer himself for nomination or election to any salaried local, state or federal office.
  2. An incumbent of a salaried elected office shall be deemed to have offered himself for nomination or election to a salaried local, state or federal office upon the filing of a nomination paper pursuant to section 16-311, subsection A or formal public declaration of candidacy for such office whichever occurs first.”

There is no definition of what constitutes a “formal public declaration,” thereby creating an ambiguity that is currently a matter of controversy in Arizona.

Florida

Section 99.012 of the Florida Statutes states: “No officer may qualify as a candidate for another public office, whether state, district, county or municipal, if the terms or any part thereof run concurrently with each other, without resigning from the office he or she presently holds.”

Georgia

Article II, Section 2, Paragraph V of the 1983 Constitution of Georgia reads: “The office of any state, county, or municipal elected official shall be declared vacant upon such elected official qualifying, in a general primary or general election, or special primary or special election, for another state, county, or municipal elective office or qualifying for the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States if the term of the office for which such official is qualifying for begins more than 30 days prior to the expiration of such official’s present term of office.”

Hawaii

In 1978, Article II, Section 7 was added to the Constitution of Hawaii to include resign-to-run: “Any elected public officer shall resign from that office before being eligible as a candidate for another public office, if the term of the office sought begins before the end of the term of the office held.”

Texas

Article 16, Section 65(b) of the Constitution of Texas states: “If any of the officers named herein shall announce their candidacy, or shall in fact become a candidate, in any General, Special or Primary Election, for any office of profit or trust under the laws of this State or the United States other than the office then held, at any time when the unexpired term of the office then held shall exceed one year and 30 days, such announcement or such candidacy shall constitute an automatic resignation of the office then held, and the vacancy thereby created shall be filled pursuant to law in the same manner as other vacancies for such office are filled.”

The “officers named herein” are listed in Article 16, Section 65(a):

  • District Clerks
  • County Clerks
  • County Judges
  • Judges of the County Courts at Law
  • Judges of the County Criminal Courts
  • Judges of the County Probate Courts
  • Judges of the County Domestic Relations Courts
  • County Treasurers
  • Criminal District Attorneys
  • County Surveyors
  • County Commissioners
  • Justices of the Peace
  • Sheriffs
  • Assessors and Collectors of Taxes
  • District Attorneys
  • County Attorneys
  • Public Weighers
  • Constables

I would love to hear what our readers think about California implementing a law like this. What are your thoughts?

Posted in California | 3 Comments »

Taking A Break

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on April 29, 2013

As readers may have noticed I have not posted anything in a week. Since I work in the private sector, I get really busy at times with work. I am especially busy when I take on research projects such as the one that I am currently undertaking (campaign finance research). So, for the next couple of weeks I am taking a break from blogging and sending out a request to our other bloggers to try to post one item over the next couple of weeks.

Once I am back I have a great plan on a couple of debates that we plan to have on Anaheim Council districts and on Slate Mailers. I will still be around over the next couple of weeks for those of you that need to get a hold of me.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Onward To The Next Orange County Vacancy

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on April 18, 2013

I want to thank our readers for what was a very successful event yesterday on the blog. The debate set a record for most readers in a single day for one post. We will continue to do this monthly and are open to topic suggestions from our readers. Feel free to e-mail info@custom-campaigns.com with your suggestions.

Now that we have seen Hugh Nguyen get appointed as OC Clerk-Recorder and Jan Grimes appointed as Orange County Auditor-Controller, we now move on to the process of Orange County Public Administrator. I already know who three of the applicants are based on them announcing on Facebook or during the Orange County Clerk-Recorder procedure.

Here are the applicants that we are aware of:

Bruce Peotter
Steve Rosansky
Ken Lopez-Maddox

Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of information on this process at this point but stay tuned as I fill in the blanks as soon as information becomes available.

Posted in Orange County Public Administrator | 2 Comments »