Viewpoint - April 20, 2011

Editorial: Don't forget to vote for supervisor

Many residents of southern San Mateo County might be surprised if they were told that there is an election going on right now to fill the seat on the Board of Supervisors recently vacated by Mark Church, who became chief elections officer, assessor and clerk-recorder in January.

In fact, the election began April 4, so any registered voter in the county should have received a mail-in ballot and if you have not, call the county elections office. This vote-by-mail experiment will save money and make it easier on everyone to vote and to count the ballots.

Unlike many elections, this one is fairly simple: the key question is which one of the six candidates you support. (In the Ravenswood City School District, there is also a parcel tax measure that requires approval of two-thirds of the voters for passage.)

After marking your choice, simply fold the ballot as instructed, place it in the postage-paid envelope and put it in the mail. Ballots must be received by the county elections office by 8 p.m. Tuesday, May 3.

The open seat is for District 1, which includes South San Francisco, San Bruno and Hillsborough. Residents in the Almanac's circulation area are in District 3, but all supervisor candidates run county-wide.

In prior years, supervisors planning to depart often waited to resign until after an election, which left it up to the board to fill the seat by appointment, allowing the candidate to run as an incumbent when the election arrived. This tactic was enough to scare competitors away who feared running an expensive county-wide campaign against a sitting supervisor.

But suddenly there is renewed interest in county elections. The recent District 3 race for Rich Gordon's seat, originally contested by five candidates, was won by Don Horsely but not before a run-off with Coastside resident April Vargas, and now a half-dozen candidates are in the race to fill the remainder of Mr. Church's term. With a mail-in ballot, such races are less expensive and are much easier for voters. We hope the results will show enough interest to justify continuing this trend.

At a recent candidate forum in Redwood City covered by the Almanac, all the candidates made their case to be elected to the board. Four of the six, Dave Pine, Terry Nagel, Gina Papan and Richard Holober are now serving in public office. The two others, Michael Stogner and Demetrios Nikas, have not run typical campaigns but are vocal about two of the most important issues: the county budget and pension reform.

The budget will be a huge issue for whoever wins the seat, as the county is facing major financial problems, including a fiscal deficit that is expected to reach $80 million by 2011-12 unless something is done. This year supervisors already have dipped into reserves to close part of the budget shortfall.

At the Redwood City forum, another issue arose — paying for a new county jail that some candidates said is a necessary expense to cope with up to 400 additional inmates that Gov. Jerry Brown hopes to ship back to the county this year. The jail, to be located at a site in Redwood City, would cost some $160 million and add $18 million or more in operating cost.

On another complex and controversial issue, most candidates at the forum did not express a position on the controversial Cargill Saltworks project to build 12,000 homes and 1 million square feet of commercial space on what is now salt-producing wetlands off Redwood City. Instead, they are willing to see Redwood City's review process play out. Only Mr. Stogner and Mr. Nikas voiced their opposition to the project, which has also been opposed by most local governments in the Almanac circulation area.

Although the Almanac has not interviewed each candidate, it is our opinion that Mr. Pine, Ms. Nagel, Ms. Papan and Mr. Holober are qualified for this office. All have worked hard as public servants in their communities, and are ready to take the next step. Please vote and mail in your ballot by May 1.


Posted by huh?, a resident of Menlo Park: Menlo Oaks
on Apr 20, 2011 at 11:34 pm

What a confusing editorial.

You correctly point out that only Stogner and Nikas have taken clear positions on the tough issues: pensions, budget reform, and no new jail we cannot afford.

But you then go on to say that the other four candidates are qualified, and presumably Stogner and Nikas are not?

What does qualified mean? That they've already held elected office?

Note that Anna Eshoo never had when she became a San Mateo county supervisor.

If qualified means continuing to protect the status quo and being a rank and file politician, I'm totally in agreement with you.

On the other hand, if you use MY definition of qualified:


then the only candidates who are actually qualified are Stogner and Nikas.

How interesting.

Posted by Ed, a resident of Atherton: other
on Apr 21, 2011 at 12:37 am

Thank you for articulating so well the opinion above about the Almanac editorial.
My reaction was identical.
I looks like it was written by someone who has just given up. Are you OK Tom? Get some rest.

Posted by Michael G. Stogner, a resident of another community
on Apr 21, 2011 at 7:12 am

"Although the Almanac has not interviewed each candidate."

I know I Michael G. Stogner was not interviewed. It would be interesting to know which candidates they did interview and what was the reason for the exclusion of the other(s).

Couple of points here at least the Almanac admitted that they did not interview all of the candidates for Supervisor of San Mateo County. They also mentioned that there are 6 candidates running for Supervisor, this is more than other media publications have done. many have lead the public to believe that there are only 4 candidates in this race.

The Great News which was not reported in this editorial is that Congresswomen Jackie Speier and Anna Eshoo NEVER held any elected office before Supervisor of San Mateo County. I don't know why they want to keep that from the public.

Lets Vote

Posted by Thomas (Sharon Heights), a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Apr 21, 2011 at 9:07 pm

Thomas (Sharon Heights) is a registered user.

After reviewing the profiles of each of the candidates, it seems as though they all agree on reducing county wide deficits as well as jumping on the popular bandwagon for salary and pension reform of our public servants. I might be impressed if any one candidate was sincere in honing in unreasonable salaries and perks if only one had been smart enough to take a pay cut for their own unreasonable annual salary if they were elected.

There are plenty of elected officials in office that have earned their positions not through having a wealth of experience, or the right endorsements or willing to spend $145M of their own money. It's a roll of the dice with any of these candidates as none of them really offers any solutions. I actually might be impressed if only one was willing to put their money where their mouth is instead of complaining about not being interviewed or what other public servants are earning.

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


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: * Not sure?

Comment: *

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

*Required Fields