By Carla Thomas

In an attempt to thwart the recall call campaign against her, Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price announced at a press conference on Tuesday, April 30, that her team is launching a state investigation on the political action committee funding the recall.

Speaking at Everett and Jones Barbeque Restaurant at Oakland’s Jack London Square, Price accused the recall campaign as undemocratic and says she will fight against injustice.

Price announced that the California Fair Political Practices Commission (CFPPC) was looking into the complaint filed by her supporters against two groups supporting the recall.

Price said the group Reviving the Bay Area appears to be the financial and organizational arm of Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE), the group leading the recall effort against her. The complaint by recall-opposing group Protect the Win for Public Safety alleges Reviving the Bay Area has breached the law by not filing a third quarter report listing its contributors and hiding its funding sources from the public at least through September of 2023.

Price also claimed that the SAFE recall group is functioning illegally both financially and operationally.

“Between September 2023 and November 2023, they donated approximately $578,000 to SAFE without complying with the laws that govern all political committees in California,” said Price. “We applaud the FPPC’s action to investigate this entity as well as the finances that have also come under question of the SAFE committee, where we’ve learned that they were paying some of the main spokespersons and funding an illegal force that they called a security force.

“So there have been a lot of financial irregularities, coupled with the irregular practices of the signature-gathering company PCI Communications that literally paid for hundreds of people to come into our community and gather signatures using bait-and-switch tactics and misleading people and engaging in fraudulent signature-gathering.”

Price also accused the Alameda County Registrar of Voters of not operating properly.

At a press conference at the City Hall Plaza late Tuesday afternoon, SAFE and recall supporters demanded that supervisors set a special election date before the November general election. Supporters of Price and opposers of Price clashed and spoke passionately against each other.

Supporters of the recall feel that Price’s, criminal justice reforms support perpetrators of crime, rather than the victims. They also blame Price for higher crime rates in the county. Price supporters feel that her reforms are necessary to transform an unjust system. “Price’s role is to uphold the law and this recall campaign is an attack on her,” said Oakland attorney Walter Riley.

Recall opponents reject those assertions and say Price’s critics don’t understand the role the county’s top prosecutor plays in the criminal justice system.

Price also said she would be going before the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday to challenge the signature count for her recall campaign.

Later in the evening, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted in support of the recall, citing that enough signatures had been collected for the recall effort to continue.

On May 14, the Board of Supervisors will determine a date for a special election recall or place on the November ballot. According to Price, a special election recall will cost the county 15-20 million dollars and her supporters hosted another rally last week, urging the Board of Supervisors to not approve a special election recall.

#PamelaPrice #Recall #AlamedaCountyDA

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Charter cities in California won a lawsuit last week against the state that declared Senate Bill (SB) 9, a pro-housing bill, unconstitutional.

Passed in 2021, SB 9 is also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency Act (HOME). That law permits up to four residential units — counting individual units of duplexes, triplexes and residential dwelling units (RDUs) – to be built on properties in neighborhoods that were previously zoned for only single-family homes.

A Los Angeles Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the cities, pointing out that SB 9 discredited charter cities that were granted jurisdiction to create new governance systems and enact policy reforms. The court ruling affects 121 charter cities that have local constitutions.

Attorney Pam Lee represented five Southern California cities in the lawsuit against the state and Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“This is a monumental victory for all charter cities in California,” Lee said.

However, general law cities are excluded from the court ruling as state housing laws still apply in residential areas.

Attorney General Bonta and his team are working to review the decision and consider all options that will protect SB 9 as a state law. Bonta said the law has helped provide affordable housing for residents in California.

Trending

US Parks Chief Pamela A. Smith joins #LetItBeKnown

“Our statewide housing shortage and affordability crisis requires collaboration, innovation, and a good faith effort by local governments to increase the housing supply,” Bonta said.

“SB9 is an important tool in this effort, and we’re going to make sure homeowners have the opportunity to utilize it,” he said.

Charter cities remain adamant that the state should refrain from making land-use decisions on their behalf. In the lawsuit, city representatives argued that SB 9 eliminates local authority to create single-family zoning districts and approve housing developments.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

By Magaly Muñoz

The Alameda Board of Supervisors unanimously accepted the certification of the results of the valid signatures submitted for the recall of District Attorney Pamela Price on Tuesday evening. The Board will set the election date at a special meeting on May 14.

Before the meeting, recall proponents and opponents held separate press conferences to plead their cases to the Board and residents of Alameda County.

Price, who up until this point has made little public comment about the recall, held her press conference in Jack London to announce that the California Fair Political Practices Commission has opened an investigation into the finances of the Save Alameda For Everyone (SAFE) recall campaign.

The political action committee (PAC), Reviving the Bay Area, has been the largest contributor to the SAFE organization and has allegedly donated over half a million dollars to the recall efforts.

“Between September 2023 and November 2023, [Revive the Bay Area] donated approximately $578,000 to SAFE without complying with the laws that govern all political committees in California,” Price said.

Price accused the recall campaigns of using irregular signature-gathering processes, such as paying gatherers per signature, and using misleading information to get people to sign their petitions.

SAFE held their own press conference outside of the Alameda County Administration Building at 1221 Oak St. in Oakland, once again calling for the Board to certify their signatures and set a date for the recall election.

Their press conference turned contentious quickly as Price’s “Protect the Win” supporters attempted to yell over the SAFE staff and volunteers. “Stop scapegoating Price” and “Recall Price” chants went on for several moments at a time during this event.

Families of victims urged the Board to think of their loved ones whose lives are worth much more than the millions of dollars that many opponents of the recall say is too much to spend on a special election.

The Registrar of Voters (ROV) estimates the special election could cost anywhere from $15 to $20 million, an amount that is not in their budget.

The Board was presented with several options on when and how to conduct the recall election. They have to set a date no less than 88 days or more than 125 days after May 14, meaning the date could fall anywhere from late July to September.

But the County charter also states that if a general election takes place within 180 days of their scheduling deadline, the Board could choose to use the November ballot as a way to consolidate the two events.

In the event that Price is recalled, the Supervisors would appoint someone to fill the vacancy, though neither the County nor the California charter specifies how long they would have to pick a replacement.

The appointee would serve as district attorney spot until the next election in 2026. Afterwards, either they, if they run and win, or a newly elected candidate would serve the rest of Price’s six-year term until 2029. Price is unique as the only district attorney wo serves a term of six years.

The Board acknowledged that they knew last fall that this recall would come with its own set of complications when Measure B, which changed the local recall charter to match California’s, was first brought to their consideration.

Supervisors Nate Miley and David Haubert opposed discussing the measure, stating that the public would think that the Board was attempting to influence the recall campaign that had already taken off months prior.

“I think ultimately this feels like it’s going to end up in court, one way or the other, depending on who files what,” Haubert said.

Price’s legal team told the Post that the district attorney intended to consider all legal options should the recall election take place.

Miley stated that while he was in support of the amendment to the charter, he did not think it was right to schedule it for the March ballot as it would ultimately cause confusion for everyone involved.

“It has produced some legal entanglements that I think, potentially, could’ve been avoided,” Miley said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post