Unfortunately, as we approach a critical election both nationally and locally, ’tis the season not only for sign stealing but also apparently threats and intimidation.
The Vanguard early on Friday morning received a press release and statement from Dr. Jose Granda, not only a candidate for school board but one of the leaders in the No on Measure E Campaign.
Attached to the statement is a letter that would appear to violate federal law that precludes sending threats through the postal service.
A statement from Dr. Granda reads, “The NO on E campaign has released documents that demonstrate a systematic suppression of the freedom of expression of those who oppose Measure E.”
According to Dr. Granda, someone was sent a letter that threatened the residents that if they did not remove the No on “C” sign from their front yard, the sender would resort to destruction of the resident’s home.
The letter, which has been scanned and posted, reads: “”Dear Sir: Davis Supports Schools Take Down your NO on C Sign or we will do it for You (and F*** up your house) Vote YES !! on C”
The irony is that Measure C was the parcel tax from March of this year and Measure E is what is on the ballot.
“Most certainly it is not a way to pass a ballot measure,” Mr. Granda writes.
He adds, “A letter like this is a double crime. It is hate mail and not different than burning crosses, not only it violates Federal Laws that regulates hate mail but it is a crime to threaten destruction of someone’s home because of a position on a ballot measure.”
He notes, “The Davis Police Department is taking the incident very seriously and is taking action to protect the residents throughout the city of Davis so that they feel safe to have NO on E signs and express their views freely and safely without fear of destruction or stealing of the signs, as it is their right protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.”
Dr. Granda also reports that he has “received a threatening phone call from a landlord who objected that his tenant had authorized that a “NO on E UNFAIR NEW TAX” SIGN be placed in the front yard.”
Dr. Granda sent an electronic file to the Vanguard with a copy of the message.
The individual on the recording was objecting to the No on Measure E campaign placing signs on a Pole Line property without permission.
The caller said, “Please get them off of here. You do not have permission and I know I have a great spot, but we leave that normally for the liberal agenda.”
Dr. Granda is evidently claiming that the renters gave permission to post on that property.
He writes, “In Davis, by local ordinance, landlords cannot object to tenants placing signs.”
He cites Davis municipal code which states: “A landlord or lessor may not prohibit a tenant from posting political signs. A resident may post a sign in a window, on a balcony, on the door, from the yard, or outside a wall of the premises leased by the tenant in a multi-family dwelling.”
The NO on E campaign coordinated by the No School Board Taxes PAC has reported several cases to the Davis Police where residents have been intimidated and coerced into taking the signs from their front yards.
“They report also a loss of at least 20 No on E signs stolen from front yards. Other NO on E signs have been taken and replaced by YES on E signs,” Dr. Granda writes.
“Measures are won with solid logical arguments, not with threats and intimidation. The fact that supporters of Measure E have resorted to these tactics is an indication of the weakness of their arguments and their concern that I may get elected,” Dr. Granda said in a statement.
He continued: “Since I am the only candidate that has had the courage to stand up and say NO to the unfair new tax, I have been subject to their attacks from the beginning of the campaign; they started by taking down my candidacy NO on E materials on the first candidates forum at the Davis High School then they did not invite me to the candidates forum at Cesar Chavez School and now they have degenerated in an attack on the residents freedom of expression.”
“With intimidation, taking our signs from front yards, replacing others with theirs, the only thing they may accomplish is to put the YES on E campaign on life support “, said Jose Granda.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
There is no excuse whatsoever for intimidation, threats, or removal of appropriately placed campaign materials. In this Dr. Granda is correct.
However, he soon goes astray.
“Since I am the only candidate that has had the courage to stand up and say NO to the unfair new tax”
No, Dr. Granda, you do not have “courage” superior to that of the other candidates. You simply see the issue differently from the others.
It is partially this smug, self agrandizing, inflexible attitude that I found objectionable in a candidate for any political office.
“measures are won with solid arguments, not with threats and intimidation.”
To this I would add, not with bogus and exaggerated charges such as the FPPC complaint filed against the school board by Dr. Granda’s long time associate Mr. Randall. Statements such as “to avoid irreparable damage to the voters in Davis” are hyperbolic and bear no resemblance to
” solid arguments”.
If Dr. Granda truly desires a consideration of this proposal based solely on its merits, then he and his supporters should maintain the high standard of discourse and debate that they are demanding of their opponents. Personally, I would like to see both sides adhere to the higher standard that Dr.Granda claims to support. A good faith start would be a withdrawal of the FPPC complaint.
I’ve had two Yes on E signs taken from my front yard. People should respect both freedom of expression and private property rights.
[quote]No, Dr. Granda, you do not have “courage” superior to that of the other candidates. You simply see the issue differently from the others. [/quote]
I disagree with Meds. It takes courage to put forward a minority view that an intolerant majority treats as unacceptable.
Many Davis residents consider themselves to be independent, critical thinkers and progressives, but they take not a single position in which they do not agree with the majority of their Davis neighbors.
Exactly J.R. That’s how I took Granda’s quote too. He wasn’t saying that the other candidates don’t have courage, he’s saying that for a candidate to enter the race it takes courage if one happens to be against Measure E. I agree with him, he’s a man of principles and stands by them.
It is funny that the address on the letter is on Mace Blvd. About a week ago I posted that I saw guys putting up a big Romney Ryan sign on Mace in the lot where the Boy Scouts sell Christmas Trees and within hours the sign was gone. Another sign went up and lasted a few days (vs. a few hours the last time) but it is gone again…
It is a fact that most people in Davis are liberal and support Measure E. Just like it is a fact that most people at a Raider home game are Raider fans. It takes “courage” to support a conservative or lower taxes in Davis just like it takes “courage” to wear a Broncos jersey to a Raider home game and it would take “courage” to wear an Obama Biden shirt to a born again Christian event (and it would really take “courage” to wear an Obama shirt to an event put on by the crazy folks at the group called “Courage” that helps you “pray away the gay” http://couragerc.net/)…
Signs have a long history of being messed with in this town, probably because they are so ubiquitous, but sending anonymous threatening mail is another level of violation.
Still I’m stuck on the post from WDF1 where he claims Lovenburg showed the mailing to Granda and he didn’t ask for changes then the no on E camp files an FPPC complaint against her. To me its down there with the Clint Parrish mailer for sleaze yet it seems nobody else is as outraged as I am. I don’t get it?
“Since I am the only candidate that has had the courage….. “
I stand by my interpretation of Dr. Granda’s statement exactly as he wrote it.
If either of you had written it about him, I would have taken it as simply a statement of support from an individual with similar beliefs. But this was written by Dr. Granda about himself. I can hardly see it as anything but an assertion of his superior courage with no acknowledgement at all that others may simply disagree.
SoD: [i]About a week ago I posted that I saw guys putting up a big Romney Ryan sign on Mace in the lot where the Boy Scouts sell Christmas Trees and within hours the sign was gone.[/i]
Did they have permission from the owner to put up a sign there?
“Still I’m stuck on the post from WDF1 where he claims Lovenburg showed the mailing to Granda and he didn’t ask for changes then the no on E camp files an FPPC complaint against her. To me its down there with the Clint Parrish mailer for sleaze yet it seems nobody else is as outraged as I am. I don’t get it?”
I am with you on this one Mr. Toad. I just found Mr. Granda’s own words more compelling than a quote which conceivably could have been misconstrued. If this quote is an accurate representation, then I would place it in the same category of deceptive sleeze as you.
Mr. T: [i]Still I’m stuck on the post from WDF1 where he claims Lovenburg showed the mailing to Granda and he didn’t ask for changes then the no on E camp files an FPPC complaint against her.[/i]
Just to be clear, this was not a “mailing” but the district flyer with their info on Measure E. Lovenburg was using those at her Farmer’s Market table rather than literature from the Yes on E campaign, because she thought voters might appreciate neutral information.
wdf1 wrote:
> Just to be clear, this was not a “mailing”
> but the district flyer with their info on
> Measure E. Lovenburg was using those at her
> Farmer’s Market table rather than literature
> from the Yes on E campaign, because she
> thought voters might appreciate neutral
> information.
Saying that a flyer from the school district about Measure E is “neutral” is as ridiculous as saying that a flyer from the death row inmates association about Prop. 34 will be “neutral”…
Still he was given a chance to have his objections addressed but instead the no on E campaign filed a complaint. In civil society it is common practice to ask that your objections be addressed before bringing in the law. Granda failed this test and chose to let the no on E campaign smear Lovenburg and measure E with an FPPC complaint without first seeing if they could get their objections addressed by asking for corrections. Nasty, dirty and undignified in my opinion.
From reading some of the posts on here and other DV blogs, it sure does back up Granda’s statement that it takes courage to run as a candidate who’s against Measure E.
SOD, I always love your analogies. Keep em coming.
takes about as much courage as it did for ron paul to voice his views while running for president. it’s easy to take an unpopular position when you know you have no prayer of winning. that’s not courage. that’s running as a protest candidate.
the courage comment implies that the other candidates are only expressing the pro-view out of political expediency rather than because they believe it.
Interesting……
Prop. 30 has dropped below the 50% threshold.
We knew that on Tuesday. We’ve known that’s going to happen since May. That’s why Measure E is taking on such urgency and when it is paramount for the district to get teacher concessions.
Growth issue wrote:
> it’s easy to take an unpopular position when
> you know you have no prayer of winning. that’s
> not courage. that’s running as a protest candidate.
Many of the people who had no prayer of winning but ran for office anyway in the south to protest segregation are still alive. I bet they will disagree with Growth issue that what they did was “easy” and “not courageous”…
Like most people in Davis I disagree with Dr. Granda about Measure E, but I’m not going to say that what he is doing is easy or not courageous. He seems to be a smart guy that believes so strongly about something that he is moving ahead despite the personal social, political and career risks.
In this community where more than 2/3’s always vote in favor of school tax measures being an anti-school tax candidate takes much courage.
SOD
“I’m not going to say that what he is doing is easy or not courageous. He seems to be a smart guy that believes so strongly about something that he is moving ahead despite the personal social, political and career risks. “
And neither is anyone else as far as I can see. It is not Dr. Granda’s courage that I have questioned but rather his manner of pointing it out himself as opposed to letting his words and actions speak for themselves.
“Courage is grace under pressure.”
— Ernest Hemingway
As someone who has taken unpopular positions but posts anonymously I get what you are saying but by Hemingway’s definition setting a contender up for an FPPC complaint hardly qualifies as grace especially when your position is so unpopular that you have little chance of winning yourself.
I am not ready to bestow hero status upon Mr. Granda but I do think it is courageous of him to express his thoughts knowing that he will be blasted from the majority of people in Davis and espeacilly on the Vanguard.
I could out opt of the tax assestments since I am over 65 but I have voted for all the school taxes (assessments) hoping that mine and others contributions to the schools will result in a better product. I am not sure that I’m getting the best bang for my buck but I am afraid of the alternative. If we were performing as well or better, than the rest of the world (or improving) after comparing results garnered per dollar spent I would have no qualms about giving more to education.
Even the headline in this article suggests the bent of the blog owners opinion saying “Opposition To Measure E [i][b]Claims[/b][/i] Threats And Intimadation.” If the shoe was on the other foot it might read “Proponent Of Measure E [i][b]Is[/b][/i] Threatened And Intimidated!”
rusty on Granda: [i]…he’s a man of principles and stands by them.[/i]
What are Granda’s principles? He argues that a school parcel tax is regressive (which it is, but a flat assessment is all that is permitted by state law), then on the other hand criticizes that apartments are assessed at a lower rate than houses. People who live in apartments are more typically living off of lower incomes than homeowners. The differential assessment between homes and apartments is about as progressive as can be proposed.
Mr. T: [i]I’ve had two Yes on E signs taken from my front yard. People should respect both freedom of expression and private property rights.[/i]
Vaseline, sir. Use vaseline ([url]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/lining-yard-signs-vaseline-protect-against-vandalism-n-142943389–election.html[/url]). That’s how you protect freedom of expression in in America!
[quote]I’ve learned that a way to reduce that vandalism is to line the edges of the sign with Vaseline, making its destruction a gooey, messy proposition. Sometimes vandals stop in mid-destruction, and I come home in the evening to a sign someone started to destroy but then stopped because their hands became a mess.
Since I clearly am making someone very upset, I of course decided that I need far more than one sign so I can get my point across even more clearly. I have asked for more signs, made more signs, and gotten more from neighbors. I am filling my yard. And lining them all with Vaseline.[/quote]
From what I’ve seen with the stolen signs the NO on Measure E people should buy vaseline by the case.
wdf, you are quite the zealot to think or even hint that these parcel taxes are progressive. Some parcel taxes completely exempt multifamily dwellings, while at other times they pay less than 1/10th the rate. The taxes are structured the way they are to ensure they pass the 2/3 vote requirement.
Davis Enophile: [i]you are quite the zealot to think or even hint that these parcel taxes are progressive. Some parcel taxes completely exempt multifamily dwellings, while at other times they pay less than 1/10th the rate.[/i]
First, which parcel tax do you have in mind that completely exempted multi-family dwellings? I thought I knew these parcel taxes pretty well and I cannot name one that provided that exemption.
Second, the only way in which there is a sense of progressiveness to the parcel tax is the differential assessment between homes and apartments, and yet even you don’t seem to recognize the contradiction, because you criticize that apartments are assessed at a lower rate.
As imperfect as the system is, passing Measure E is a net benefit to Davis. It provides stability of funding for the schools, and most importantly it provides value to the community because it improves the overall experience and outcomes for students and it supports the monetary value of homes, no matter how expensive or how modest.
wdf1 wrote:
> which parcel tax do you have in mind that completely
> exempted multi-family dwellings? I thought I knew
> these parcel taxes pretty well and I cannot name
> one that provided that exemption.
The last Burlingame school district parcel tax did not “exempt” multi-family dwellings, but each “parcel” in the city paid the same so the owners of a lot with a small 900 sf home paid the same as the owners of a lot with a 20 unit (or 200 unit) apartment.