Yes on Measure A Has Huge Monetary Advantage

Nishi-Forum-11

The Yes on Measure A campaign has raised over $300,000 to date, according to a Form 460 filed this week for the period ending May 21.  While still a far cry from the more than $800,000 spent by Measure X ten years ago, it vastly outstrips the opposition, which has raised just under $19,000 – $13,500 of which was in loans.

The Vanguard will break out the funding sources and expenditures.

Contributions Received:

Yes on Measure A:

  • Nishi Gateway has spent $272,736.90 to date in the form of primarily non-monetary contributions to the campaign (it appears they simply directly spent the money and then donated it to the campaign)
  • Residents for Responsible Development, Sponsored by Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Organizations (ID* 1378222) has contributed $31,345.75 to the campaign

No on Measure A:

  • Dan Cornford – $100
  • James Edlund of Redrum Burger – $2200
  • Alan Pryor – $1000 (loan)
  • Don and Nancy Price – $1000 (loan)
  • Pam Nieberg – $1000 (loan)
  • Bob Milbrodt – $1000 (loan)
  • Eileen Samitz – $1000 (loan)
  • Eagle Global Consulting – $500 (loan)
  • Michael Harrington – $2500 (loan)
  • Norma Turner – $500
  • Desmond Jolly – $100
  • McGlockin Educational Materials – $200
  • Adegbuyi and Linda Okupe – $100
  • John Proffitt – $500
  • Carolyn Shine – $500
  • Stephanie Fehm – $100
  • Michael Harrington – $4500 (loan)

Expenditures Made (this period only)

Yes on A:

  • Comcast Spotlight – $9000
  • Deane & Company – $832.91
  • Sirks Group Media – $1450
  • Spafford & Lincoln – $10,000
  • AT&T – $2717
  • Ballot Measure Domain – $651
  • Julie Beppler -$1400
  • Brandon Lam – $3150
  • Cops Voter Guide – $1400
  • Copyland Davis -$573
  • John Jarrett Crowell – $1400
  • Patrick Curzon -$1750
  • Davis Chamber – $500
  • Davis Enterprise – $5074
  • Saira Delgado -$1384
  • Design Services $7650.94
  • Drake Drago – $665
  • Eman Eteyah – $1400
  • Katie Green – $1600
  • Keila Greenstein – $1400
  • Inno Thread Graphics – $524
  • Krik Briggs Lawn Signs – $1950
  • Kirk Briggs Lawn Signs – $2150
  • Spencer Langan – $815
  • Donald Lathbury – $3250
  • Priscilla Liang – $1750
  • Metro Mail – $2096
  • Metro Mail – $4527
  • Metro Mail – $511
  • Metro Mail – $2661
  • Nossaman – $1841
  • Silvia Chanian – $1400
  • Olive Drive West – $1000
  • Cecilia Panduro -$1400
  • Thanh Pham – $3000
  • Neil Ruud – $900
  • Hiba Saeed – $1800
  • Wesley Sagewalker – $4000
  • Mario Salvagno -$1182
  • Thomas Slabaugh – $3250
  • Spafford & Lincoln – $66,233
  • Dave Terry – $500
  • Flatlander – $700
  • Think, Inc – $3083
  • Think, Inc – $5356
  • Think, Inc – $9321
  • Think, Inc – $989.44
  • Think, Inc – $3355
  • Think, Inc – $8836
  • US Postmaster – $2214
  • US Postmaster – $2966
  • US Postmaster – $4755
  • Wyman Design -$1900
  • Wyman Design – $2200
  • Wyman Design 0 1200
  • Hee-ah Yoo – $500

No on A:

  • Office Depot – $244
  • JS Quality Printing – $4242
  • Honeycomb Design – $270
  • L&S Printing $1951
  • USPS – $1974
  • Statewide Information Systems – $365

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

29 thoughts on “Yes on Measure A Has Huge Monetary Advantage”

  1. The Pugilist

    I’m surprised the No on side is slow on the trigger here.  $300,000?  In a city where you can win a council election for $20 to $25K, $300,000 is absurd and obscene.  That’s coming from someone who is voting yes.  It’s not even mailers that are causing the huge run up.  You have $77,000 just since mid-April to Lincoln Spafford – I still scoff at the conspiracy theorists, as it’s clear what they are doing is paying about 20 kids to walk precincts and organize, but still, you should be able to do this for a lot less.

    1. CalAg

      Here’s a conspiracy theory for you …

      Residents for Responsible Development, Sponsored by Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Organizations (ID* 1378222) has contributed $31,345.75 to the [Nishi] campaign

      Is this the same group as Davis Residents for Responsible Planning that filed an adversarial response to the MRIC DEIR?

      http://phonyuniontreehuggers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-11-12-Adams-Broadwell-DEIR-Comments-Mace-Ranch-Innovation-Center-City-of-Davis.pdf

      Davis Residents for Responsible Development (“Davis Residents”) is an unincorporated association of individuals and labor organizations that may be adversely affected by the potential public and worker health and safety hazards and environmental and public service impacts of the Project. The association includes Patrick O’Brien, Jorge Gomez, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 340, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, and their members and their families who live and/or work in the City of Davis and Yolo County. Individual members of Davis Residents and its affiliated organizations live, work, recreate, and raise their families in Yolo County, including the City of Davis. They would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental and health and safety impacts. Individual members may also work on the Project itself. They will be first in line to be exposed to any health and safety hazards that exist onsite. Davis Residents has an interest in enforcing environmental laws that encourage sustainable development and ensure a safe working environment for its members. Environmentally detrimental projects can jeopardize future jobs by making it more difficult and more expensive for business and industry to expand in the region, and by making it less desirable for businesses to locate and people to live there.

    2. CalAg

      If the two groups are the same – and this warrants some serious digging – we would have a union group preparing to sue MRIC while also providing significant financial support to Nishi.  This would, in turn, beg the question of who was is using this surrogates to slow down and/or stop MRIC?

      Just saying …….

      1. Ron

        CalAg:  “If the two groups are the same – and this warrants some serious digging – we would have a union group preparing to sue MRIC while also providing significant financial support to Nishi.  This would, in turn, beg the question of who was is using this surrogates to slow down and/or stop MRIC?”

        Unfortunately, it doesn’t appear that anyone else is looking into this (or the other concerns you posted).  (Apparently, it’s more important to post and comment on questionable activities regarding lawn signs.)

        1. CalAg

          I’m surprised the Vanguard is silent on this. The facts are newsworthy if the two groups are the same. Maybe the Enterprise will investigate.

          Maybe more concerning is the problem with my post at 11:10 pm.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            Didn’t know about it until you posted the letter – looking into it.

          2. David Greenwald Post author

            This is what I’m told. Basically the union was playing hardball. Basically they demanded both MRIC and Nishi sign a contract with them – Nishi did and MRIC did not.

        2. CalAg

          the union was playing hardball. Basically they demanded both MRIC and Nishi sign a contract with them – Nishi did and MRIC did not. @ David Greenwald

          I hope you will do a story on this. We now have P&P Local 447. IBEW Local 340, and others on record as having taken the following actions:

          (1) they influenced the outcome of the 2012 City Council election with an IE hit piece on one of the candidates
          (2) they’ve been strong-arming our local development projects – Nishi and MRIC for sure if your info is correct, and I’d be curious if they tried to put the squeeze on Cannery, West Village, and some of the smaller projects
          (3) they are trying to influence the outcome of a Measure R vote by providing significant campaign contributions

          From my perspective, this behavior is just as sleazy as that of the Davis Firefighters Union.

          I also fault the Nishi developers for getting in bed with this crew.

    3. CalAg

      These are some of the same players involved in the mailer attacking Sue Greenwald during the 2012 campaign.

      “Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, IBEW Local 340, Operating Engineers Local Union 3 in Support of Stephen Souza and in Opposition to Sue Greenwald.”

      The consensus is that the mailer was orchestrated by Jim Burchill – political consultant to Angelo Tsakopoulos.

      1. The Pugilist

        What’s happening here is that the building trades are supporting development and work possibilities in Davis.  You raise the name of Burchill, who was indeed behind the controversy in 2012, but he’s long since been out of the picture due to health related issues.

        1. CalAg

          Your bias is showing. Under the “supporting development and work” thesis they should be supporting both Nishi and MRIC, not preparing to sue the project that doesn’t have the Whitcombe crew behind it and funding the one that does.

          Burchill’s health problems are only relevant if you believe he was a independent agent, which he wasn’t.

        2. CalAg

          Their response to the MRIC DEIR is a legal maneuver to lay the groundwork for a lawsuit if the developers don’t acquiesce to their demands. I’m curious if this played a role in their decision to suspend processing.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            From what I understand, the reason that MRIC didn’t accept the union demands was they lacked a project proposal and thus it was premature.

      2. CalAg

        “The consensus is that the mailer was orchestrated by Jim Burchill – political consultant to Angelo Tsakopoulos.”

        More campaign dirty tricks – now infiltrating the Davis Vanguard???

        To be crystal clear – I did not write the words “Angelo Tsakopoulos.”

        Jim Burchill was a political consultant to John Whitcombe. I have no knowledge of a connection between Tsakopoulos and Burchill and would not have made that link.

        1. The Pugilist

          But if you want to understand who took down Sue Greenwald, you need to look at the instant offense: http://www.davisvanguard.org/2012/05/political-operative-james-burchill-appears-to-be-behind-attack-mailer/

          “Among Mr. Burchill’s clients are not only the building trade unions who would be involved in the construction of the project, but also Angelo Tsakopoulos himself who as the owner of the company that owns Conaway Ranch, stands to make huge amounts from the water deal approved back in December of 2010.”

          Burchill was acting on ATK’s behalf in 2012, not Whitcombe.

        2. Matt Williams

          CalAg, I have been following Davis and Yolo County land use matters very closely over the years, and I can not remember a single project where Jim Burchill represented John Whitcombe.

          However, my memory could be faulty.  What specific Whitcombe projects can you point to where Burchill was involved?  As best as I can tell, Whitcombe uses Lydia Delis-Schlosser as his political consultant.

  2. Alan Pryor

    David – Who is Think, Inc to whom about $30,000 has been paid? What is their address and for what did they receive this payment as listed on the Form 460? A search in the Secretary of State database turned up nothing.

  3. Michael Harrington

    The Nishi project is so bad that they have to spend over 15 times what the No side has, and Dunning’s estimate today is that they are close to losing ?

    1. The Pugilist

      The other end of it is that you can argue it’s so difficult to get a project approved that you have to way outspend your opposition to overcome voter’s slow growth tendencies.

    1. Matt Williams

      Misanthrop, at the heart of your question are the vagaries of the rules enforced by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC).  If you go to my campaign’s FPPC filings, you will find that I have “loaned” my campaign much of the money that has been spent.  By identifying the dollars as loans, FPPC leaves open the possibility that future contributions may come in that allow the candidate/committee to repay the loaned amount. 

      That FPPC policy supports active, participative democracy by allowing campaigns to have sufficient cash flow in the early parts of the campaign.

    1. Matt Williams

      My pleasure DurantFan.  I try my best to provide objective, dispassionate information so people can make up their own minds.  I don’t always succeed, but it isn’t for a lack of trying.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for