City of Montebello candidates???

City of Montebello candidates???

Posted in the Montebello Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
LEAD BY EXAMPLE

Alhambra, CA

#1 Jul 31, 2013
Who is running for council come this NOV, 2013??

Any candidates ????
Trash Talk

United States

#2 Aug 1, 2013
City Counter can tell who has pulled petitions to circulate- non have been turned in yet.
Some have run their names up the flag poll and have disappeared. Others have not pulled papers yet.
BVVC of special interest (Police, Fire, "chamber"/developers , real estate candidates)
The Wave

Reseda, CA

#3 Aug 23, 2013
http://wavenewspapers.com/news/local/east_edi...

With a seat opening up on the City Council here, five challengers will face incumbents Bill Molinari and Art Barajas in the Nov. 5 election.

City Clerk Daniel Hernandez and Flavio Gallarzo, an elementary school principal, had filed before the original Aug. 9 deadline, but when Councilman Frank Gomez did not file, the filind deadline was extended five days and Anna Arriola, a retired accounting technician; Emma Delgado, an operations manager; and Vivian Romero, an entertainment business owner; also filed for council.
Bozos

Montebello, CA

#4 Aug 23, 2013
Another group of bozos are running for the council including clerk Daniel Hernandez and Fabio (hee hee) Gallarzo, both staunch allies of Christina Cortez. These two potential train wrecks will be a disaster for the city. They will try to unseat drummer boy Art Barajas who can't understand most of what he reads and Bill Molinari who appears to be asleep at the wheel during council meetings. The other candidates are just as bad. This city is in for some bad times the next few years as these kiddies can't even play in a grammar school sandbox let alone in city government.
Scary

Reseda, CA

#5 Aug 28, 2013
Who is the candidate who is sponsored by those with their hands out.
Cook-Hill
Police
Fire
Chamber
Board of Relators
Who is Looking for two more votes to go along with their boy Hadajian?
Scare me much more than Christina Cortez.
Electing a Hadajian Majority will cost the City Millions in new encumbrances, long term obligations, special interest deals.
Christina would have to deal with what's available- which is not much.
A lot less to loose.
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#6 Aug 28, 2013
Scary wrote:
Who is the candidate who is sponsored by those with their hands out.
Cook-Hill
Police
Fire
Chamber
Board of Relators
Who is Looking for two more votes to go along with their boy Hadajian?
Scare me much more than Christina Cortez.
Electing a Hadajian Majority will cost the City Millions in new encumbrances, long term obligations, special interest deals.
Christina would have to deal with what's available- which is not much.
A lot less to loose.
Candidate Vivian Romero is Councilmember Hadjinian's appointee to one of the city's commissions. She has previously spoken before the city council in favor of Cook-Hill's proposed project after which she immediately added that she still wants to know what' s causing homes in the neighborhood north of the hills and freeway to vibrate at times. She said Cal Trans told her it wasn't the freeway. Hello, ever heard of injection drilling in the oil field?
Trash Talk

Reseda, CA

#7 Aug 28, 2013
New council must be very careful of appointments to the Planning Commission and Traffic Commission.
The City does not need "ringers" such as Calderon on commissions.
Majority must vet conflicts of interest.
Trash Talk

Reseda, CA

#8 Aug 29, 2013
Wonder Why
You say there is a candidate for City council who has pre judged the Condo Project?
The EIR and Specific Plan are not even out yet much less reviewable.
The first version was so bad it was recalled and said in it's own text that the project was a loser for Montebello City and it's residents/ homeowners/ taxpayers.
So it's hard to see how she could come to a favorable conclusion based on those documents.
Did she comment on the previous EIR and Plan?
What did she have to say?

Commissioners who are prejudiced should resign NOW or be removed by the Council.
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#9 Aug 29, 2013
Trash Talk wrote:
Wonder Why
You say there is a candidate for City council who has pre judged the Condo Project?
The EIR and Specific Plan are not even out yet much less reviewable.
The first version was so bad it was recalled and said in it's own text that the project was a loser for Montebello City and it's residents/ homeowners/ taxpayers.
So it's hard to see how she could come to a favorable conclusion based on those documents.
Did she comment on the previous EIR and Plan?
What did she have to say?
Commissioners who are prejudiced should resign NOW or be removed by the Council.
Maybe she didn't read the documents to which you refer, or maybe she doesn't care. Maybe she was loyally repeating the view of the Councilmember who appointed her.
City Attn says

Reseda, CA

#10 Aug 29, 2013
Notice how the City attorney admonished the Council last night not to have extended discussion on the hills.
Prejudicial statements could impact the ability to join discussion when the hills do come up.
So why does a commission get off.
She doesn't
If she has made prejudicial statements she must resign, recuse herself, or be removed and an open minded appointment made.
Evidently Dr. Gomez reconsidered the timeliness of any planned council orals.
Good move Frank.
Hard to make informed comments when the documents have not been made public.
And even harder if they are developer prepared and biased.

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#11 Aug 29, 2013
City Attn says wrote:
Notice how the City attorney admonished the Council last night not to have extended discussion on the hills.
Prejudicial statements could impact the ability to join discussion when the hills do come up.
So why does a commission get off.
She doesn't
If she has made prejudicial statements she must resign, recuse herself, or be removed and an open minded appointment made.
Evidently Dr. Gomez reconsidered the timeliness of any planned council orals.
Good move Frank.
Hard to make informed comments when the documents have not been made public.
And even harder if they are developer prepared and biased.
Actually, candidates that are not current councilmembers can say anything they want to about anything. The city attorney admonition applied only to current councilmembers, so they only have to keep their mouths shut about currently pending developments until after they are elected.
Trash Talk

Reseda, CA

#12 Aug 30, 2013
Can candidates that are current commissioners especially planning commissioners say anything they want about pending developments.
At this point in time with no current EIR or Specific Plan I do not see how any candidate could be in favor of a specific project without a heft infusion of $$$$.
They could be in favor of a Utility tax, taking public safety County, or development income.
Let one be up front about ticky tacky condos overlooking Montebello and see how far they get.
There goes the neighborhood!

“Hilltop Park Above All”

Since: Sep 08

Montebello, CA

#13 Aug 30, 2013
Trash Talk wrote:
Can candidates that are current commissioners especially planning commissioners say anything they want about pending developments.
At this point in time with no current EIR or Specific Plan I do not see how any candidate could be in favor of a specific project without a heft infusion of $$$$.
They could be in favor of a Utility tax, taking public safety County, or development income.
Let one be up front about ticky tacky condos overlooking Montebello and see how far they get.
There goes the neighborhood!
Current commissioners could be a problematic situation with regards to speaking out on the proposed condo project.

I believe you're right on your analysis in regards to the utility tax and public safety.
Trash Talk

Reseda, CA

#14 Aug 30, 2013
Wonder Why wrote
"Candidate Vivian Romero is Councilmember Hadjinian's appointee to one of the city's commissions.
She has previously spoken before the city council in favor of Cook-Hill's proposed project"

Is this the same problem with Rosie Vasquez and Kathy Salazar's appointment?
The Wolf in sheep's clothing Calderon?

Hadjinian best learn some history.
Public is not going to go for bought and paid for candidates.
Who's footing the bills?
Anyone have their hand out behind their back?
Wise Guy

Reseda, CA

#15 Aug 31, 2013
It’s Politics: Montebello councilman asks for stop on use of social media during meetings

Good move by Art Barajas

By Mike Sprague, Whittier Daily News

Posted: 08/30/13, 5:25 PM PDT |

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/government-a...

There may be a time for using social media, but city council members should lay off during their meetings, said Montebello Councilman Art Barajas at Wednesday’s meeting.

Barajas, who said he’s been guilty of using his cellphone and iPad, pledged to kick the habit of using these electronic devices during a meeting and asked his fellow council members to do the same.

“I would remind my colleagues out of respect for the audience that we ought to turn off our cellphones,” Barajas said.

“It doesn’t look very professional,” he said.“I make a promise to the community that this councilman will stop the use of that. You will have my 100 percent attention.”
Deep Throat

Reseda, CA

#16 Sep 1, 2013
"Follow the Money"

Another boost for state voters’ right to know: Editorial

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinion/2013...

Most efforts to inform voters about who’s paying for political campaigns have focused on old problems. In California, election officials are doing better at making campaign finance data available to the public, and the Legislature is working on bills to require nonprofit organizations to reveal the sources of money they spend on politics, and force the top three funders of political ads to be boldly identified in the ads themselves.

These are good ideas for shining lights on the big money that too often dominates elections by buying up time for slick TV commercials. But what about those newer features of election politics, the smaller and more casual campaign messages that appear online in blogs, videos and social media? How do voters know if the people posting these pitches for candidates and ballot initiatives are fellow concerned citizens or paid propagandists?

A regulation to tackle that modern problem is under consideration by the state Fair Political Practices Commission and deserves public support.

Regulation 18421.5 would require campaign committees to reveal when they pay someone to create digital content — for, say, a blog or a Twitter account — unless that information is provided in the content itself.

If someone who is making a persuasive argument for this Assembly candidate or that “no” position on a proposition is just an interested member of the community without a connection to a campaign, great — they don’t have to be identified. But if they’re really paid fronts for a campaign, or being put up to it by a deep-pocketed special interest with a stake in the election outcome, they’re completely within their rights — but voters would be told.

In the old days, you’d have heard those arguments in a bar or diner or on the front porch from a campaign worker, and you could look the person in the eye and judge their sincerity.

Now it’s harder to know people’s motivations without requiring transparency.

This isn’t about restricting free speech. It’s part of the effort to prevent anonymous donations and activity from subverting voters’ ability to make informed decisions. Last year’s scandal of a shadowy group ostensibly from Arizona donating $11 million to California initiative campaigns lit a fire under reformers. SB 3 by state Sens. Ted Lieu of Torrance and Leland Yee of San Francisco and SB 52 attack campaign-finance issues in other laudable ways.

The FPPC plan plays an important part.
The best argument we’ve seen against it is that it would “out” whoever is behind @SutterBrown, the Twitter account of Gov. Jerry Brown’s dog; that’s a chance the state will have to take.

Introduced in June, the “blogger regulation” was put up for public discussion at the FPPC’s meeting in Sacramento last Thursday but held over for a vote until a Sept. 19 meeting in the state capital.
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#17 Sep 1, 2013
Deep Throat wrote:
"Follow the Money"
Another boost for state voters’ right to know: Editorial
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinion/2013...
Most efforts to inform voters about who’s paying for political campaigns have focused on old problems. In California, election officials are doing better at making campaign finance data available to the public, and the Legislature is working on bills to require nonprofit organizations to reveal the sources of money they spend on politics, and force the top three funders of political ads to be boldly identified in the ads themselves.
These are good ideas for shining lights on the big money that too often dominates elections by buying up time for slick TV commercials. But what about those newer features of election politics, the smaller and more casual campaign messages that appear online in blogs, videos and social media? How do voters know if the people posting these pitches for candidates and ballot initiatives are fellow concerned citizens or paid propagandists?
A regulation to tackle that modern problem is under consideration by the state Fair Political Practices Commission and deserves public support.
Regulation 18421.5 would require campaign committees to reveal when they pay someone to create digital content — for, say, a blog or a Twitter account — unless that information is provided in the content itself.
If someone who is making a persuasive argument for this Assembly candidate or that “no” position on a proposition is just an interested member of the community without a connection to a campaign, great — they don’t have to be identified. But if they’re really paid fronts for a campaign, or being put up to it by a deep-pocketed special interest with a stake in the election outcome, they’re completely within their rights — but voters would be told.
In the old days, you’d have heard those arguments in a bar or diner or on the front porch from a campaign worker, and you could look the person in the eye and judge their sincerity.
Now it’s harder to know people’s motivations without requiring transparency.
This isn’t about restricting free speech. It’s part of the effort to prevent anonymous donations and activity from subverting voters’ ability to make informed decisions. Last year’s scandal of a shadowy group ostensibly from Arizona donating $11 million to California initiative campaigns lit a fire under reformers. SB 3 by state Sens. Ted Lieu of Torrance and Leland Yee of San Francisco and SB 52 attack campaign-finance issues in other laudable ways.
The FPPC plan plays an important part.
The best argument we’ve seen against it is that it would “out” whoever is behind @SutterBrown, the Twitter account of Gov. Jerry Brown’s dog; that’s a chance the state will have to take.
Introduced in June, the “blogger regulation” was put up for public discussion at the FPPC’s meeting in Sacramento last Thursday but held over for a vote until a Sept. 19 meeting in the state capital.
The phrase " deep pocketed special interest" rings a bell. I wonder if this regulation would apply to any "front group" that does outreach on a particular issue and has received money or contributions in kind from the special interest? What if the "front group" has a website that includes attachments from the special interest entity or links to their website? What if the special interest entity sent out an email to anyone whose email the entity had obtained in which the entity introduced the "front group", praised them and identified the groups' spokespersons? Two remaining questions, what if the "front group" plans to endorse cadidate(s)? And how does a citizen find out what monies or contributions in kind the "front group" received?
Wonder why

Los Angeles, CA

#18 Sep 1, 2013
Deep Throat wrote:
"Follow the Money"
Another boost for state voters’ right to know: Editorial
http://www.whittierdailynews.com/opinion/2013...
Most efforts to inform voters about who’s paying for political campaigns have focused on old problems. In California, election officials are doing better at making campaign finance data available to the public, and the Legislature is working on bills to require nonprofit organizations to reveal the sources of money they spend on politics, and force the top three funders of political ads to be boldly identified in the ads themselves.
These are good ideas for shining lights on the big money that too often dominates elections by buying up time for slick TV commercials. But what about those newer features of election politics, the smaller and more casual campaign messages that appear online in blogs, videos and social media? How do voters know if the people posting these pitches for candidates and ballot initiatives are fellow concerned citizens or paid propagandists?
A regulation to tackle that modern problem is under consideration by the state Fair Political Practices Commission and deserves public support.
Regulation 18421.5 would require campaign committees to reveal when they pay someone to create digital content — for, say, a blog or a Twitter account — unless that information is provided in the content itself.
If someone who is making a persuasive argument for this Assembly candidate or that “no” position on a proposition is just an interested member of the community without a connection to a campaign, great — they don’t have to be identified. But if they’re really paid fronts for a campaign, or being put up to it by a deep-pocketed special interest with a stake in the election outcome, they’re completely within their rights — but voters would be told.
In the old days, you’d have heard those arguments in a bar or diner or on the front porch from a campaign worker, and you could look the person in the eye and judge their sincerity.
Now it’s harder to know people’s motivations without requiring transparency.
This isn’t about restricting free speech. It’s part of the effort to prevent anonymous donations and activity from subverting voters’ ability to make informed decisions. Last year’s scandal of a shadowy group ostensibly from Arizona donating $11 million to California initiative campaigns lit a fire under reformers. SB 3 by state Sens. Ted Lieu of Torrance and Leland Yee of San Francisco and SB 52 attack campaign-finance issues in other laudable ways.
The FPPC plan plays an important part.
The best argument we’ve seen against it is that it would “out” whoever is behind @SutterBrown, the Twitter account of Gov. Jerry Brown’s dog; that’s a chance the state will have to take.
Introduced in June, the “blogger regulation” was put up for public discussion at the FPPC’s meeting in Sacramento last Thursday but held over for a vote until a Sept. 19 meeting in the state capital.
The phrase "deep pocketed special interest" rings a bell. What if such a special interest created or sponsored such a "front group" to do outreach, such as at The last three Concerts in the Park?What if the "front group" received monies or contributions in kind from the special interest entity? What if the "front group" had a website which contained attachments from the special interest entity or linked to it? What if the entity sent out an email introducing the "front group", praising it and identifying its spokespersons? Wouldn't this proposed regulation apply to this group? Isn't there a group in Montebello to which some of the above already has been proven to apply? Remaining questions: does this group plan to endorse a candidate(s)? How can a Montebello resident find out about any economic link between special interest entity and "front group".
What a Joke

Montebello, CA

#19 Sep 2, 2013
Art Barajas is a joke. What nerve this drummer boy has to talk about not using phones during council meetings when you can tell on the TV that he is on it ALL THE TIME. What a hypocrite. Cortez is just as bad. These phonies need to move one. He can't read, she can't think, and together they have the intelligence of my third grader.
Hippocraties

Reseda, CA

#20 Sep 2, 2013
Hippocratic Oath - First Do No Harm -
Montebello still has not recovered from a "too smart for their own good" councils of Rosie, the Felon, Kathy and previous ethically and fiscally questionable council and their appointees such as Calderon.
Montebello now has a council that has managed to "do no harm" and seems to being the best it can be under the bankrupt but enough cash flow to squeak by circumstances.
Finally got a decent city manager.
Christina has seemed to distance herself from Police, Fire, Billie Martinez, Wu, etc.
Barajas does not seem to be involved in any funny business.
Want to go back to the dark ages?
Funnel money that we do not have to nepotism or "friends".
When there is nothing to be done doing nothing is best.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Montebello Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
City of Montebello is being considered for Stat... 3 hr Wonder Why 4
News Montebello housing project still on, despite sale (Jan '17) 3 hr Wonder Why 15
Montebello CC Meeting On Livestream 13 hr coming soon 71
Monterey Park Voted #3 , Montebello Ranked #22 ... 23 hr Asian Dude 9
Local Politics Do you approve of Art Barajas as ? Sat Disgusted in CC 12
Montebello mega-housing developer Jan 20 Wonder Why 6
How much does Montebello and MUSD owe CALPERS Jan 19 Enough 4

Montebello Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Montebello Mortgages