by Jack Lee
Who won the debate last night? It was hard to read how the audience viewed it, but in my humble opinion the most interesting speakers were, and in no particular order, Scott Grumble, Quentin Colgan, Bob Kromer, Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen.
Mr. Colgan acquitted himself very well in the short allotment of time given to each candidate. He had to be brief and I think that helped him not say too much and expose the real Quentin, however I have to admit he was lively and sometimes humorous and he made it clear he was not beholding to a-n-y-o-n-e by ANY deals, links of association or money, and he (in his words more or less) was certainly not the pocket of global corporate interests like some other candidates, nor was he influenced or intimidated by uh,….by the Tea Party? This set him apart from the other candidates who chose not to even go there…good thinking too.
Overall Bob Kromer won it. He absolutely, hanbds down, gave the best performance of the night. He had the best responses to questions and he came across as the strongest candidate of all those present. He had that genuinely warm, witty personality that reminded me of another former great city councilman, Bill Johnston. If Bob Kromer doesn’t get elected in November this community has missed out on one very outstanding candidate!
Kromer is a retired business leader and he is very familiar handling multi-million dollar budgets (and we sure need that). He helped run a billion dollar corporation before retiring and moving to Chico. Kromer demonstrated a great deal of knowledge about the city, the city plan, the new environment plan and the beseiged city budget. Kromer commented about how the council should respect the wishes of the people and I think that really resonated with everyone. As you may know only recently 83% of residents said they didn’t want those expensive, high density projects in their neighborhoods, but the council pushed it forward anyway… because they wanted it. That’s arrogant and Kromer called them on it.
Kromer also stressed a strong desire to keep this city solvent so we will not be forced to lay off police and fire personnel. He disliked the latest idea of having a 5% across the board pay cut to help balance the faltering budget. He suggested a number of city bosses are earning well over $100,000 a year and they should give up a little more and that bottom rung employees ought to give up a little less. Makes sense to me, those employees on the bottom are are barely making it from paycheck to paycheck and the audience liked this idea too.
Scott Grumble (who’s a good talker- can’t deny him that) said he was thrilled to push environment regulations and costs off on the citizens and said, you have to spend a little to make a little. He was referring to using low energy light bulbs and such to save energy costs. He also liked the city plan for high density residential dwellings that would pack as many as 7 structures into a one acre lot zone for residential only. He never commented on how much the city had to spend on low income housing…which was odd since he’s pushed it. He also pushed us into a million dollar lawsuit that the city lost and he didn’t mention that either.
But, back on this city plan, even Quentin Colgan saw the foolishness of the high density plan for infill. He said he recently counted 42 cars in one of these HD areas. He didn’t see how that was helping traffic or anything else…me either. I believe it was either Kromer or Evans who pointed that the city spends as much as $400 a square foot for low income – high density residential structures. Don’t hold me to that square foot price, it might be off; I just recall it was really, really high… and for low income housing! What a rip – and it’s your tax dollars.
Grumble exposed a bit of arrogance thoughout his time at the mike. He merely restated his far left liberal positions, but he has a big well oiled machine behind him so he may get re-elected..,.hope not, but he does have his followers.
Incumbent candidate Mary Flynn was poised and had a nice sober look about her as she echoed her support for Grumbles ideas. That’s about all I can say for her. She was just there – oh, she had a nice dress.
Candidates Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen were very well versed on the issues and were quite close to Bob Kromer’s positions. The three of them were like the dream team. They were bright, personable, fiscally aware and they all expressed a concern for bringing good jobs to Chico. They were real business people who knew what it was like to sign both sides of a paycheck. If there was any fresh air in this forum it came from Kromer, Evans and Sorensen. The rest were a little out their league in terms of job knowledge, depth of leadership experience, education and all around wisdom. It would be a travesty if any one of the three good candidates, Bob Evans, Bob Kromer and Mark Sorensen did not get elected.
It would also be unfair if I didn’t given some credit to our friend Quentin. He gave it a good shot and he came across very reasonable with the limited time he had. If he had more time I’m sure he would have got into the Bildabergers, new world order, corporate controlled Tea Party and such…but he was saved by the bell.
If there was a 4th seat up for grabs I would be inclined to vote for ol Quentin…I know, I know…but, he’s still a very likeable guy and he’s not too far off on those economic issues. He pretty much nailed it and good for him!
There were other two candidates, Brahama D. Sharma (retired CSUC) and Mark Herrera (former student at CSUC), but at this time I don’t think they are contenders, so I’ll withold my comments on them for now and see how it goes.
For the record.
Epick homes was the corporation I was referring to when I referenced “corporate controlled candidates.”
Only a fool would think our local TEAbaggerz are getting cash from “global corporate interests,” Jack.
As for me?
Kromer has lived here for only two years. I understand it is in a gated community.
He’s got chutzpah, I ‘ll give him that!
But I can’t give my vote to a newcomer who is using the tired tactic of disenfranchisement to get his way, rather than positive ideas.
Jack I might vote for old Q also if there was a fourth position except for the fact that he delights in insulting a fairly large group of citizens. “TEAbaggerz” is an sleezy term generally but from one who wishes to lead…it’s so juvenile! Leave it to Q to shoot himself in the foot with that chip he carries like a treasure.
Tina?
When one redefines a word only to take insult from it (TEAbaggerz), that is what we call addictive thinking.
TEAbaggerz means those who hang TEAbags from their hats–a term coined by the TEAbaggerz themselves–nothing more. Note I use a “Z” instead of an “S.” There is a reason for that.
In truth TEAbaggerz are far more disgusting than teabaggers.
There are about 300 baggerz in Chico. For every bagger that gives me grief, there are three people giving me kudos for giving the baggerz grief!
I LIKE those odds!
Being hated by the baggerz is like being hated by the Sanhedrin.
I don’t care as long as you don’t try to crucify me.
According to Q there are many more people who support him than the Tea Party, so he feels free to insult them, but for what purpose? They are nice people just trying to fix government.
What reason does he attack what could be a base of support? Only Quentin knows this one. The Tea Party people could never trust him now. There was a time when they might have actually supported him as fiscally conservative candidate, but not now and it’s all for no valid reason. Its all in his mind.
He’s completely out to lunch on this. And perhaps a few other of his wild conspiracy theories. He’s stated so many incredible things that people think of him now as a crackpot. Thats a shame, because he does has some potential and some good points. He definately has some conservative ideas and he’s very patriotic, even if he is way out there on some issues. I believe his heart is in the right place, but hes so darn wrong on some things…totally wrong and he can’t see it.
Q: “TEAbaggerz means those who hang TEAbags from their hats–a term coined by the TEAbaggerz themselves–nothing more.”
Thanks for the definition but I don’t buy the “nothing more” bit. You use this term to belittle TP associates at every opportunity.
“Being hated by the baggerz is like being hated by the Sanhedrin. I don’t care as long as you don’t try to crucify me.”
Hate you? Crucify you? Do you really think you’re all that important? Why yes, I believe you do.
People come up to me and the first thing they ask is if I support the TEA party. I say no, they grab my materials and talk to me.
I thought that maybe I was being too harsh when I spoke of the TEA party. People came up to me and the first thing they asked was if I support the TEA party. I told them that while the members of the TEA party certainly have a right to complain about the current state of affairs in this nation . . .
And that’s as far as I get before they walk away, muttering how damned crazy I am.
As I told the E-R board when they asked if I was running against the TEA party:
People want a change. However, I don’t believe they want the extremism of the TEA party.
And I don’t see you running, Jack (I see your positions as quite reasonable, too. At least you will admit there was a deficit before 1/20/09!).
So,
If not me, who?
If not now, when?
Q, conservatives, including many in the TP, have been complaining about deficits and deficit spending for a very long time. What is new is the horrendous increase in deficit spending accompanied by the biggest expansion of government ever since 1/20/09. If you can’t see that as extreme and something to be very concerned about then I say not you and not now.
I do applaud your willingness to go for it.
It sounds like Quentin is a victim of his social circles. It’s easy to talk to all your best friends and think the world agrees with you. I can remember a day when absolutely no one I knew would admit to having voted for Bill Clinton. Obviously someone did.
In some circles of Chico, namely the liberal elites, there is a lot of disdain for average citizens like the TEA Partiers to stand up and advocate for a government that will actually represent the people. And in Chico those that control these circles usually tend to be able to influence election outcomes. And yet, it doesn’t seem that Quentin is who they are advocating for. The ruling elites in Chico seem more enamored with Gruedel, Flynn, and Herrerra. Strangely, Quentin spends his time harrassing the enemies of the liberal elites even though they won’t support him. I wonder if we’ll see Quentin protesting outside the party HQ supporting those candidates like he did with the others?
This just came in from Mike who like Harold, was having trouble posting…sorry Mike, I have turned this problem over to our boss.
Jack, you really hit it on the head when you referred to 3 of the candidates as the dream team. Bob Kromer, Bob Evans and Mark Sorensen really came across as thoughtful adults who have experience and public welfare in mind. We certainly need this type of leadership to lead Chico out of the financial messes caused by the liberal majority on the City Council.
Compared to the dream team, there were 2 candidates who are the nightmare team. If we re-elect Scott Grundl and Mary Flynn, were asking for more of the same misguided policies that are wrecking Chico. At the forum, Mark Sorensen rightly pointed out a few of the damaging City Council actions that Grundl and Flynn supported -Millions of dollars spent to purchase HUNDREDS of ACRES OF land that has been fenced off for years.
-Humboldt Road Burn Dump. Once a $4 million dollar clean up project, when all of the law suits are settled it will have cost the city of City of Chico WAY over 20 million dollars.
-The City builds 600-800 Square Foot apartments for up to a quarter million dollars each and call it low cost housing. There is nothing low cost about it, it is merely subsidized with millions of your tax dollars.
-$600 thousand dollars wasted fighting against people trying to play Disk Golf in a public park.
Lets replace these big spending folks supported by the far left machine with 3 folks with some common sense and judgment.