News


Stark, Swalwell take top 2 spots in November's 15th District congressional race

Miley defeats challenger with 72% of vote to keep Alameda County supervisor's post

In the newly-aligned 15th Congressional District that covers all of Pleasanton, longtime Congressman Pete Stark advanced to November's general election in Tuesday's "top two" primary but is facing stiff competition from Dublin City Councilman Eric Swalwell in his bid to retain his seat.

In the District 4/Pleasanton Board of Supervisors race, incumbent Nate Miley easily defeated challenger Tojo Thomas, receiving 72% of the vote to keep his seat n the Alameda County board.

In the cngressional contest, Stark (D-Fremont) has represented the 13th Congressional District since 1973, but is running this year in the newly redrawn 15th District.

Swalwell is a Democrat who also works as a prosecutor in Alameda County. Losing out for a chance to compete in November was Christopher Pareja, an independent businessman from Hayward.

Stark received about 42% of the vote, compared to 36% for Swalwell and 22% for Pareja, according to unofficial election results early today.

Tuesday's congressional and state races were the first in California to be decided by a nonpartisan primary that sends the top two finishers, regardless of political party, to a runoff election in November. The new system was approved by voters in June 2010.

++

Sales Tax Measures

Also, in a sales tax referendum that could have an impact on Alameda County's Measure B, a sales tax revenue measure on the November ballot, voters in the city of Alameda have rejected a half-cent sales tax measure that would have brought in revenue to pay for public safety services and cultural facilities.

Measure C, which would have increased the city's sales tax to 9.25%, garnered support from just over 50% of voters -- far short of the two-thirds majority it needed to pass.

Proponents had argued that the estimated $2 million annually that the tax would bring in would keep Alameda safe by allowing it to modernize its responses to 911 emergency calls, replace a condemned fire station, repair three aging fire stations and create a citywide emergency operations center. They said the tax would also help pay to rebuild unsafe facilities such as the Carnegie Library and the city's swim center.

But opponents said the higher sales tax would hurt local businesses because people would shop in other cities to save money, and that the measure lacked specific guidelines for how and when the money would be spent.

Parcel Tax measures

Still, in Dublin and other parts of Alameda County, voters approved two parcel tax measures and a bond measure for schools.

Dublin Unified School District voters handily approved Measure E, a bond measure to replace aging classrooms and improve operational efficiency. The initiative needed 55% support to pass, and won 62% of the vote.

Measure B, a parcel tax measure for the Peralta Community College

District, surpassed the two-thirds support it needed, garnering 72% of the vote.

In the Hayward Unified School District, voters approved Measure G, another parcel tax measure that proponents said will fund classroom programs and help attract and retain teachers. The measure received 70% support, according to unofficial results.

However, voters rejected a third parcel tax measure in the New Haven Unified School District.

++

Pension Reform

Pension reform measures also passed in San Jose, drawing national attention and likely to have an impact on cities including Pleasanton where pension costs for municipal employees are top priorities for candidates in the city's November mayoral and council elections.

San Jose's much-debated pension reform Measure B passed with 70& approval on Tuesday, marking a major victory for Mayor Chuck Reed, who has been watched nationally for his attempts to rein in retirement costs.

Reed expressed cautious optimism about the measure's passage on

Tuesday night, as results were still being tallied.

"It's going great, and it's good news for the people of San Jose," he said.

Tom Saggau, a union political consultant, said Measure B's passage would be swiftly followed by legal action by the city employee unions.

Among the changes contained in Measure B, new employees would pay 50% of pension costs, while current employees would be given the option to choose a lower-cost plan or pay more for their current one.

According to Saggau, that amounts to the city walking away from a contract it made with employees.

"It's absolutely unconstitutional ... we're going to court very shortly to litigate over Measure B," Saggau said.

The measure would also give the City Council the right to temporarily suspend retiree cost-of-living adjustments during fiscal emergencies and would require voter approval for any future increases in retirement benefits.

Reed has said the city's retirement costs have tripled in the last decade and now cost the city $245 million per year.

Bay City News contributed to this report.

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by William Tell
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 7:13 am

19 term do-nothing communist, athiest homosexual vs. smart young prosecutor. Only in the bay are would this even be a contest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Brannon
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 6, 2012 at 7:39 am

How moderate is Swalwell? Hopefully he's cut from the same wool as Sam Nunn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sarah
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2012 at 7:46 am

If the election had been fair and conducted in either Alaska or Alabama, Pareja would have cooked their goose. Now he'll have to run as a write-in candidate and draw from the hundreds of millions of Tea Party activists who love this country so ... except for the well-founded hate they direct toward homosexual athiests whose Democratic Party affiliation constitutes being a communist. Nobama in 2012.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 6, 2012 at 7:53 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Sarah is a shill who wants to split the vote for Swalwell by suggesting that Pareja run as write-in. Wish on, Sarah. There are no write-ins for the general election under California's new top-two open primary system.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steven
a resident of Parkside
on Jun 6, 2012 at 7:59 am

I've suffered your posts over all these years Stacey and why don't you own up to the fact your a closet Marxist just like Stark, Swallowwell and the rest of the commies?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Jun 6, 2012 at 8:22 am

As expected, the trolls have fired up the PC's in their basement and are busy regurgitating their bile.
Now that Stark has retained his lofty perch somewhere in Maryland, who will take his seat when he expires during this term?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ben Johansen
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 6, 2012 at 8:29 am

It amazes me that people are so uninformed or ignorant that they actually vote for Stark. Of course living where we do, what would you expect?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 6, 2012 at 9:35 am

In spite of the fact that Pete Stark is an arrogant, bare faced liar, that has not offered one single piece of significant legislation since 1994, and refused to debate any opponents leading up to the primaries, people still vote for him. What are people thinking?!
It will be interesting if he will continue to hide and refuse to debate Eric Swalwell on some ridiculous reasoning that only he could come up with


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sarah
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2012 at 9:44 am

It's bald-faced, not bare-faced. But what's important to stress is that Stark is old, a homo, an athiest, and he's rude to tea party nimrods who raise nonsensical questions.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sarah
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2012 at 9:45 am

p.s. The old guy has to go. Vote NO! on Hope in 2012. We're going to cook their goose!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 6, 2012 at 9:49 am

I see no value in remarks such as posted by Sarah. I think a simple review of Stark's actions speak much louder than comments like the ones Sarah made. They diminish the real issues about Stark.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by whoosh...
a resident of Amador Estates
on Jun 6, 2012 at 9:55 am

Hey California, hear that swirling sound? It is the sound of its citizens voting to flush themselves and this once wonderful State down the toilet.

How could anyone knowingly vote for their own demise...by voting for ANY Democrat who continually bankrupts our State and robs us of our freedom.

Calif once led the nation in innovation and many other categories. Now this State trails States like Wisconsin, Indiana, Texas, Ohio, North Dakota...and all other States that are GOVERNED by CONSERVATIVES!

Wake up Democrats.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chris
a resident of Stoneridge
on Jun 6, 2012 at 10:00 am

I wish there was someone else to vote for. How has Stark stayed in office? The only thing I know about Swalwell is that he ignores his constituents in Dublin in preference for developers who donate to his campaign. In turn he votes on Dublin city council land zoning issues that cater to the developers wishes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by judy
a resident of Del Prado
on Jun 6, 2012 at 10:07 am

When the incumbent could not get a chairmanship from Pelosi when she ran the house, BECAUSE OF STARK'S FOUL MOUTH, why should we return him to the house. HE DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE REELECTED, HE IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THIS DISTRICT. He does not even live in this district.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dave
a resident of Birdland
on Jun 6, 2012 at 10:21 am

Again Sarah, chose your words carefully. I have called Pete Stark arrogant, however never have I uttered your other derogatory comments about anybody. Your use of such langue diminishes greatly the real issue facing this state when represented by the likes of Pete Stark.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 6, 2012 at 10:28 am

Stacey is a registered user.

Dave,
Sarah is choosing her words carefully. It's propaganda designed to push your buttons and focus the conversation on you rather than on Stark.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 11:01 am

Stacey,

Do you think Stark is too friendly to unions? Has Stark proposed a solution to the problem or government pension obligations? Should he? Are pension obligations a real problem, or is claiming that there is a problem or an "unfunded liability" just right wing political posturing?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Jun 6, 2012 at 11:21 am

Stacey is a registered user.

John,

No. Don't know. Yes, why not? Real problem (assuming you are asking about overly generous public pensions).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 12:19 pm

John, here is my take on your questions. Yes - he has stated that every union in the state has endorsed him. No - it is the union controlled democrats that are blocking pension reform. Yes - he should but he wont because of who has helped get him elected. The public employee union pension issue is very real.

It's important to make the distinction between private sector vs. public sector unions.
Unions have played a significant role in American history. They originally took the underpaid and overworked employee and enabled them to: 1 - receive a living wage; 2 - obtain health and retirement benefits; 3 - lobbied for the creation of OSHA. However, the public employee unions have used their monopoly power, along with the ability to negotiate with people that are also union members that want the same perks they're giving away at the bargaining table, to game the system - giving all unions a bad name.

Pete Stark needs to go!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Yet Another Republic Who Can't Think His Way Out of a Paper Bag
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Unions played and continue to play a significant role in enabling workers to receive a living wage. But a living pension? No way, Jose. Unions are now monopolies, like Arnold says. Look how union workers were outspent 8 to 1 in Wisconsin. We can't have public employees earning a living pension. And we can't have unions exercising effective opposition to corporate/fascist rule. It's not sustainable!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No To The Puke
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 12:35 pm

What kind of scum is in this new district that Fortney Stark The Puke wins the primary? They have got to be the "welfare for everybody" slugs and the complete left wing wackos. Give me a break! It was bad enough when we had to put up with McNerney, but this is going from a Goof Ball Congressman to a Moron Congressman. Stark is regarded as a joke within his own party in Congress. The Democrats are glad a Democrat is filling the seat, but they know Stark is a buffoon. And, based on the statements he made during this campaign, which he finally had to own up to, he either has zero integrity, is senile, or both.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by NoTo The Puke
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 12:46 pm

Congratulations to the San Jose voters. They finally stood up to the union slugs. I could not believe the collection of slugs that the media interviewed last night that said they are now going to sue. I'm wondering what kind of jobs these people have with San Jose, as they all appeared to be 5th-grade dropouts -- and these folks will retire at age 50 with 90% of thier highest salary??? These must be the kind of folks that vote for the likes of Fortney Stark The Puke, Zoe Lofgren and Barbara Lee. San Jose should fire all the union slugs and start over. I know with certainty that there are a bunch of highly-educated people that need a job that would be much better qualified than these union slugs.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tim
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 6, 2012 at 4:51 pm

the only difference between stark and swalwell, is their age. they are both liberals and will vote in lock step with their party. it is very unfortunate that cali voters have no choice.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Arnold
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 6, 2012 at 5:12 pm

Tim, Google "stark +swalwell +League of Women Voters" and watch the debate. I think your opinion will change drastically. One has a grip on reality, and one doesn't.

People outside of California already think we're nuts. A certain one of these candidates getting voted into office, given all the recent antics from one of them, will only confirm the rest of the country's suspicions regarding Californian's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tim
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Jun 6, 2012 at 7:39 pm

arnold: swalwell holds the same positions as stark does on most of the issues. i will grant you one thing, swalwell is at least a sane liberal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by William Tell
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2012 at 9:34 am

I think that we should have a gerrymandered succession from California - basically round up parts of the tri-valley, parts of the Central Valley and Orange County to become our own conservative state. It's sad, but most of California is going down the tubes with poor performing schools, high crime and a third-world demographic shift with skyrocketing immigrant birthrates and disease. At least the Democrats in power are making some money off this horrible transition - but most of us are losing our quality of life and feel like we're swirling down the toilet as Jerry Brown and California Dems flush.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steven
a resident of Parkside
on Jun 7, 2012 at 10:41 am

William Tell just shot the apple straight off his wive's head. Genius. We can no longer suffer unfunded liabilities which have been unsustainible since time in memorium. Tea Party Succession is what is needed for Pleasanton and beyond It is time to reclaim our educational system and replace the incompitant teachers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Will S
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 7, 2012 at 1:04 pm

What is amazing in all this talk about pensions and public employees is to look at Wisconsin and compare it to California, and Pleasanton for example. Pleasanton many other East Bay cities.

Hint. The "service credit rates" for East Bay cities are vastly greater than those they are debating in Wisconsin.

State of Wisconsin Retirement System.

Formula Benefit = Years of Service x Final Average Monthly Earnings x Formula Factor(s) x

Final Average Monthly Earnings = Total of highest three years of earnings
Formula Factors are based on when creditable service was earned*:
Pre-2000 Service
Post-1999 Service
Category
Pre-2000 Service
1.765% General employee, and teachers
2.165%
2.165% Safety employees, (with Soc Sec)
2.665% Safety employees, police, fire (without Soc Sec)
Post-1999 Service
1.6% General employee, and teachers
2.0%
2.0% safety employee (with Soc Sec
2.5% safety employee (without Soc Sec)

In Wisconsin, you Max-Out at 70% of your highest year salary.
============================================================

Contrast that with Pleasanton, Oakland, Berkeley, etc. etc.

For regular employees, (not police and fire), instead of the 1.6% service credit for each year of employment, here you get 2.7% for each year.

Thus a 30 year employee in Wisconsin even under the older higher rate would have ended up with about a 53% pension

In Pleasanton that same employee would get a 81% pension
If police or fire, 90%.

A non-safety public employee in Pleasanton, who worked their entire career from age 23 until only age 60 can retire with a 100% pension.

This is what makes the recent debates so interesting.
The California public employees such as in San Jose are trying to conflate their situation with that of Wisconsin.
San Jose, Pleasanton are now and have always had pension plans that were hugely greater than anything seen in the Wisconsin debate.

I almost feel sorry for the workers in Wisconsin when I compare them to the much higher rates in Pleasanton.

Remember.... pension rates are percents. Service credits are percents. What I am talking about has nothing to do with the cost of living differences in the two areas.
Public employee salaries in the Bay Area are already far greater than those in Wisconsin.

NO, its the pension "service credit" rates that are so amazingly different. And the fact that in Wisconsin, you max-out at 70%..

Heck in Pleasanton, Oakland, Berkeley, if start working at age at only age 29 and continue to only age 55, and are a regular (non-safety) employee, you are already eligible for a 70% pension.

Most citizens in the Bay Area are completely unaware of just how lucrative public employee pensions have become.
They hear only about "average" pensions, a low-ball figure because they add in all those who only have 5 year and 10 year "careers".
The truth is, for those who have retired in the past couple years, and who have 30 or more years of service, the average pensions are well above $60,000 per year.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Vanessa
a resident of Pleasanton Meadows
on Jun 7, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Bravo to Wisconsin and San Jose politicians for standing up to the public unions and making them pay a share. The public can no longer afford to pay these fat pensions. I sincerely hope this is the beginning of a larger pension reform.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steven
a resident of Parkside
on Jun 7, 2012 at 10:16 pm

Bravo to voters in Wisconsin. We don't want to tax rich people more than the 13% Romney pays, but heck, when it comes to cutting teacher salaries and pensions the sky is the limit! Why make millionaire CEOs suffer when they exercise the cuorage to downsize all the lazy wokrers? Thier's a reason why 2011 was best year on record for CEOs at large corps.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Parkside
on Jun 8, 2012 at 8:48 pm

Steven, you are a shining example of why we need competent teachers. Obviously, your public school instructors failed you miserably. Or, maybe you are just incapable of learning. In any case, it's time for you to go back to school and attempt to learn how to spell, organize your thoughts in a coherent manner, study economics and maybe take some political science courses. We'll wait for you here while you catch up to the rest of us.....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Stoneridge
on Jun 8, 2012 at 9:35 pm

I agree with all the steves on these posts. We heartly need more education. Its the illitest leftests that need to be perged from their Soviet indoctination. They make me want to puke.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Where's the wind?
By Roz Rogoff | 2 comments | 694 views