Candidate Forums

What I recently learned about some candidates

In case you haven’t noticed, the campaign season is heating up, and our local elections are no exception.

Tomorrow marks the final full month before the last day to vote on November 8.  Part of the journey to that final crescendo is the candidate forums.

There were two forums on my agenda this week, the League of Women Voters (LWV) and a more intimate one hosted by Ann Schwab.  I’m going to start with that one.

First, I learned the people living in this little pocket of Chico along Vallombrosa are entitled to vote for TWO candidates.  The reason is that D3 is a special election to fill a vacancy, and D4 is the new seat created by redistricting. This particular complex is in both the OLD D3 and the NEW D4, so they get two votes.

Ann Schwab

The small gathering was hosted by Ann Schwab, whom I haven’t seen since she left office.  She introduced the two candidates, Monica McDaniel, and Addison Winslow. Before I talk about political policies and platforms, I’d like to begin by talking about the people.

Monica was 30 minutes late, so I had a chance to chat it up with several of the people in attendance.  They were friendly to me and just nice people. One particularly interesting guy was a retired environmental lawyer from the bay area.  When I put on my name tag at least one person recognized my name and Ann certainly knew me on sight, yet all were nothing but friendly and gracious.  I did my best to respond in kind.

That’s the thing I want to make clear. As a human being, Ann is a fine person. I got to spend a little time talking to both candidates afterward, and though I’ll talk a little more about this, both Monica and Addison are decent humans too. I would say about all three, they don’t carry a bit of malice in their hearts.  That sets them apart from some of those playing on “their team” who have repeatedly demonstrated the opposite qualities.

Sincerity is not an issue either. They believe in themselves and given the chance, they seem sure they would be doing good if only they had the power of government to work with.  I will not be criticizing them for their morals or character.  Life would be easier if I could.

Where we part company is in the realm of ideas, and how those ideas translate into policies and programs implemented by the government application of the public treasury, legislative, and police powers. In these areas, we are strongly at odds.  Despite our major differences along these lines, I detected no animosity or mean-spirited motivations. There was goodwill in both directions, that was clear.  Ann, Addison, and Monica are nice people. Being nice is a minor qualification for office, but better than the alternative.  There are more important characteristics, including a practical understanding of the issues.

Monica McDaniel

Monica is an art history major and a teacher of art.  She spoke in her opening mostly about the power and economic benefits of art and beauty, which seems true to me. She mentioned the benefits of social events centered around art, and how she wanted to organize these types of things based on her survey of other communities that were more focused on art than Chico. She seemed unaware of the many things we have along these lines, notably Thursday Night Market, Friday Concerts, and the many other downtown events organized by the Downtown Chico Business Association or other more private groups, like Farmer Market, where artwork abounds.

She was asked about the tax measure, and she admitted initially she was drawn into the “against” camp but since has changed her mind.  I don’t know if Karl Ory’s failed lawsuit, in which her signature figured prominently on the key document, had anything to do with that.

Afterward, she and I spoke at some length, to the visible annoyance of at least one woman, but Monica handled herself graciously.  It was not a situation where I had to corner her, because she was sincerely interested to hear my questions and engage in conversation.  We must give credit where credit is due.

She asked me what I thought the important issues for Chico were.  I brought up encampments.  She seemed aligned with the idea that housing people is the priority, and should be accomplished by making it so attractive, they would choose it over their current accommodations.  She acknowledged that even then, there might still be some people that would not go because “nature is their thing.” 

As a principle, she thinks no one should be camping in parks, something that almost everyone agrees with.  She thought the lawsuit was an avoidable waste and holds the current council responsible for that.  It was obvious to both of us she wasn’t familiar with the issues or law, and simply blamed the current council for falling into a trap they set for themselves.

We talked about the distinctions between the duties of the city, county, state, and federal governments, and seemed to agree the burden should not be Chico’s alone to bear. She seemed unaware of the millions that have already come into Chico through CoC.  “If housing is the solution to homelessness, why are many shelters and housing empty, some with vacancy rates of 60%?” She seemed unaware of this. The numbers can be found in the CoC’s shelter and housing inventory count on their website.

At this point, rather than argue the finer points of her narrative, I asked this question: “Have you spent much time with this population?”  She readily said “No.”

That explains why she thinks a solution exists along the lines she does.  She has no personal, practical experience to draw upon for an understanding of just what level this target population is functioning at or their primary motivations.  Many will tell you they want a better place to live, but few are willing to do what it takes to pursue that goal, and they don’t spend much time laboring over deciding between where they live now and something better.  It is more serious and deeper than that.  It is most often rooted in the disease of addiction and untreated mental illness.  She agrees Chico is not responsible for providing those services.

That is the picture I want you to take from this report.  Monica is a nice person with a good heart, who believes in the power of beauty, yet has none of the practical experience needed to tackle the enormous problems of encampments, difficult budgetary trade-offs, or how to navigate the tricky terrain of elected office.  I would want her on the arts committee, but not on the City Council.  That learning curve is way too steep.

Addison Winslow

Addison is tall, very young (just turned 27) handsome, and a likable man with big ideas. Honestly, he reminds me of myself when I was his age.  The adage, “If you are not a Socialist when you’re 20, you don’t have a heart. If you are not a Capitalist by the time you are 40, you don’t have a brain.”, makes perfect sense in Addison’s case.  Among other things, Addison has been closely associated with the Chico Democratic Socialist of America.

Some things I remember about myself from that age I see in Addison. This includes having big ideas for the possibilities of the future, and the stark realization that the road from where I was in my 20s, and where I wanted to end up, was steep and seemingly impossible.  I set about finding a way to leapfrog all the plowing, planting, cultivating, and natural disasters and skip right to the harvest. It seemed to me, the bigger my ideas, the more likely I would find a way to do that.  Just to give you a glimpse of the scope of my ambitions, I once tried to establish a “knowledge-based” company I called “Whole Earth Planetary Resource Development Company.”  There was little that didn’t encompass.  I was thinking big.

As I aged, had children, and had to work at a real job to support us all, I learned there was no shortcut to prosperity. Even if you were lucky enough to find a little, it was no easy task to hang onto it.  As has been said many times before, “There is no free lunch.”

I was much like Addison in my youth, and as a result, I can’t help but like him.  But I wouldn’t follow him up the hill into battle.  I know what’s up there.  I also know that standing at the bottom of that hill, how easy it is to succumb to resentment.  You look around and see so many people who have more money, more power, and more fun than you.  You might not stop to think that you have no idea how they struggled to get and keep those things.  After 40 or more years of trying, we all sure find out. That knowledge helps temper the resentment and fertilizes respect for the accomplishment of others.

Seeing Addison through the eyes of my youth is not meant to be disparaging.  When I looked at the silly things my daughters did in their youth, I didn’t think badly of them for being young and inexperienced. I didn’t let them run the family budget, though.

There are at least two fundamental means to an end.  The first way is through personal success.  You apply yourself to some enterprise and continue to learn and grow and benefit from your errors.  In 40 years or so of trying, you might have something.  That is the experience of most of the people I know.

Another means to an end is the way Addison currently frames the problem.  First, you need a vision of how things could be. Then you come up with a plan to make that vision materialize. You capture the power of taxation, then you capture the power of policy making, then you capture the power of lawmaking, and then you use the power of enforcement to deal with those unwilling to go along.  It is possible to believe those things and not have tyranny in your heart.  You can be an idealist sincerely surprised when that’s where it ends up, as it always has.

Being wrong doesn’t make you a bad person. Being wrong with the power over others though is not good.

Although Addison has expressed some pretty strong sentiments about police, and the unnecessary and excessive funding they enjoy, his current focus is on housing.

I have communicated with Addison before and have learned when I ask “how” the story quickly gets a little thin, but the explanation always involves the partnership between government (taxes and passing laws) and nonprofits (taxes and implementing laws). Private enterprise is never the way to go.

I specifically asked him about a statement he made before the city council not too long ago.  “Landlords should be run out of business. Then a housing trust can buy up the property and we can have some decent housing.”  I asked, “Did you say that, and how would that work, against the landlords and money for the housing trust.”

Yes, he said that.  To paraphrase, he said that bad landlords shouldn’t be allowed to be landlords.  He spoke to property management companies about their business and found that the corporations from out of town were better landlords than the locals who are part of the North Valley Property Owners Association (NVPOA).  While the outside owner didn’t take advantage of the 10% cap on rent increases, NVPOA violated the cap. 

I don’t know if that’s true, but it is interesting that on the one hand, outside housing developers are seen as a blight on decent housing, but in this case, outside landlords are the good guys.  Upon delving a little deeper, it was clear that the concept of a project “penciling” is not in his vocabulary. If people must pay taxes, and those taxes are directed toward “affordable housing,” buying up private properties and subsidizing rent in high-density developments, then we can achieve his vision of “walkable, bikeable communities with decent housing that people can afford.”

To help get us there, we should eliminate the requirement for parking in all new development, get rid of low-density zoning, concentrate very dense housing around the downtown area, and close the streets to automobiles there permanently.  What a single 20-year-old might consider fun housing would not be viewed the same way by a family of 5. 

I know Addison has some allies in town who subscribe to the “New Urban Development” ideas, and maybe there are some things about that worth considering.  But that is not the main issue for me.  The main issue is how the principles of socialist thought permeate the entire housing scheme Addison embraces.  Most agree there is unmet demand for housing, for now.  But how does Addison know what housing buyers and renters want? Is that even relevant? Should powerful experts tell us instead what we should want? What if the unmet demand is for single-family homes?  Should that be denied, or even outlawed, because Addison has a different idea?

That is the difference between an approach to public office as a servant to the people, and seeking public office to get the power to impose your will and vision on others, even if they want something else. That kind of thinking can only be possible if you are absolutely confident that you are right, and others, therefore, are wrong.  That is one characteristic of youth at any age.

Now before you get the idea that because I’m old, I just don’t trust young people, that’s not it.  I don’t trust inexperienced people with some things, especially decisions about how I can live my own life.  I’ve earned the right to make my own decisions and accept I must live with the consequences.  That is called liberty, and Socialists don’t believe in that.  It is not that Addison is opposed to liberty, it is just that he doesn’t yet know what he doesn’t know about the subject.

The last thing we should do, in that case, is to turn over to him the power to decide these things for us. Give it another 20 years, Addison. Let’s see what you’ve learned.

League of Women Voters

I was in the audience for the League of Women Voters event for both the Chico City Council and the School Board.  They advertise themselves as non-partisan, but the moderator is a well-known local advocate for the kind of hardly non-partisan police reforms. She picked the questions, but I don’t fault her for her choices.

School Board

One serious blemish on the proceedings was the refusal by the LWV to allow one candidate, Rebecca Konkin, to speak.  Why? Because her opponent failed to show.  Think about how unfair that is. Not only does the no-show candidate deprive voters of the chance to get to know him, and hardly anyone does, but by deciding to no-show, he also silences his opponent.  That is doubly unfair to Rebecca, who came ready to speak.  Hats off to Matt Tennis who took a large part of his closing statement to call this out and acknowledge Rebecca in the audience. Classy move.  Logan did a great job of stating his basic priorities, which are being in the classroom and learning essential skills.

In short, the candidates separated themselves into those who engaged in mostly undecipherable “education-speak” those who have children in the system and speak for the parents who feel their children were treated unfairly during the pandemic, and those who believe the needs of children to learn, socialize and advance conflicted with the needs of unions and ideologues who view school as a social justice factory.

City Council

The City council forum itself was informative, but my favorite part was the picture that appeared the next day in the Chico E-R. Addison is speaking, and without exception, the rest of the candidates look like someone did a stinky in their space suit.

All but one support Measure H, the sales tax. Morgan is still a “no” based on mistrust.  I assume she doesn’t expect to win since she surely trusts herself.

Interesting that two of the three who signed onto Karl Ory’s lawsuit opposing the measure magically switched their positions; Monica and Jessica are now fans.

To a person, the four opposing candidates are squarely against Measure L, the Quality of Life/Public Nuisance ordinance.  They cited the increased burden on city staff, owing I presume to the fact that so many city resources are already involved in dealing with the nuisances, and they don’t want any distractions from the public.  Any tools or forums for citizens to improve their lives at the expense of the gains made by the homeless industry advocates these past two years are bad. This is a wedge issue that will become more pronounced as the campaigns progress.

I’ll be writing more about the other candidates, including the ones I endorse but let me end here for now.

NEVER AGAIN can we go back to progressive policies that work against improving our quality of life.