Speaker 1: One of the things I hate about California politics. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe I should write the book Things I Hate about
Speaker 1: California Politics. It can be two thousand pages long. One
Speaker 1: of the many things I hate about California politics is
Speaker 1: the atmosphere of knowing why certain things are problematic, complaining
Speaker 1: about that problem, never doing anything to address it because
Speaker 1: you actually don't really want to solve the problem. And
Speaker 1: there are a lot of things in California politics that
Speaker 1: like that that are like that. People will complain about
Speaker 1: high gas prices. Democrats will complain about high gas prices.
Speaker 1: They all know why gas prices are high. Gas prices
Speaker 1: are high because we have very high taxes on gasoline
Speaker 1: and we have a really onerous body of regulations on
Speaker 1: gasoline and fuel emissions that requires a separate California basically
Speaker 1: has to become a gas island. It has to have
Speaker 1: its own system of refineries and stuff because the mix
Speaker 1: that comes out, the mix of gas that comes out
Speaker 1: of the pump in California has to be different from
Speaker 1: other states because our emission standards are different. So we
Speaker 1: all know why gas is expensive in California, and the
Speaker 1: obvious solution is, well, stop regulating gas like that and
Speaker 1: cut gas taxes, but no, they don't want to do
Speaker 1: those things. California politicians would really just rather keep it
Speaker 1: the way. It is obviously that they fully understand the problem,
Speaker 1: they fully understand what the solution to the problem is,
Speaker 1: and they just don't want to do it. Liberals fully
Speaker 1: understand why and why don't they want to fix it?
Speaker 1: Well a couple of different reasons, but I think it's
Speaker 1: chiefly because liberals run the state. Liberals are beholden to
Speaker 1: the environmental groups. The environmental groups have bazillionaire billionaire, genuinely
Speaker 1: billionaire donors that Democratic politicians don't want to cross because
Speaker 1: they don't want to lose elections, and they Democrats never
Speaker 1: want to pass any kind of regulation that would result
Speaker 1: in more emissions or more harms of the environment. It
Speaker 1: just goes totally against the grain. So they're not going
Speaker 1: to change anything that makes gas prices high. In fact,
Speaker 1: that their proposed solutions is to accuse the gas companies
Speaker 1: of price gouging and then pass regulations on the gas
Speaker 1: companies that actually might make prices more expensive because gas
Speaker 1: companies will start pulling out of the necessary investment they
Speaker 1: need to maintain refineries and things like that in California anyway.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of problems like that in California
Speaker 1: where everyone knows the problem, everyone knows the solutions to
Speaker 1: the problem, and no one cares, no one actually wants.
Speaker 1: And by no one, I mean the Democrat ruts who
Speaker 1: control seventy five percent of all the seats in the
Speaker 1: state legislature, and the governor's mansion and the courts and
Speaker 1: the entire executive bureaucracy and all the appointed regulatory boards
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah blah. Another problem like that, where
Speaker 1: we all know the problems is why don't we build enough?
Speaker 1: You know, why is infrastructure so slow to be completed?
Speaker 1: Why is it does it take so long to build
Speaker 1: new houses? Again, it's a thing where everyone in California
Speaker 1: understands why, everyone gets it, everyone knows why. There are
Speaker 1: many reasons, and one of the foremost of them is SEQUA,
Speaker 1: the California Environmental Quality Act California Environmental Quality Act, which
Speaker 1: allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to file a lawsuit
Speaker 1: to stop construction of whatever is being constructed. If you
Speaker 1: have a housing development and you want to stop it cold,
Speaker 1: you file some lawsuit and you say under SEQUA that
Speaker 1: this project's environmental review it's environmental review study was basically inadequate,
Speaker 1: And you don't have to be a party that's directly
Speaker 1: negatively impacted in order to file a lawsuit or you
Speaker 1: know that the amount of causation you have to show
Speaker 1: can be much more attenuated than it would be for
Speaker 1: normal lawsuits where you have to make a normal showing
Speaker 1: of standing. You know, how directly are you adversely impacted
Speaker 1: by the specific amount of you know, pollution that would
Speaker 1: come from this particular construction project. You know, how do
Speaker 1: we measure that? That would be impossible to measure and
Speaker 1: to really determine that you have standing under normal tradition
Speaker 1: rules of standing, so anyone can sue. So everyone again
Speaker 1: knows the problem. SEQUA is the problem, and for years
Speaker 1: Democrats have understood that that was the problem and just
Speaker 1: decided to ignore the problem because they would rather just
Speaker 1: keep having the problem and keep having their billionaire environmental
Speaker 1: donors give them money. That's the long and short of it.
Speaker 1: Everyone understands that's the problem. Moderates understand it's a problem.
Speaker 1: Republicans understand it's the problem. But the Democratic Party controls
Speaker 1: three quarters of all the seats and the governor's office.
Speaker 1: So as long as that's the case, sequa's not going
Speaker 1: to go anywhere. Now you're starting to see some cracks.
Speaker 1: Buffy Wicks, an assembly member from Oakland, fairly prominent member
Speaker 1: of the state Assembly, introduced a bunch of bills to
Speaker 1: get rid of big parts parts of SEQUA. It's like
Speaker 1: the first time a Democrat has been willing to do that.
Speaker 1: But until the Democrats, that's the thing, everyone knows the problem.
Speaker 1: Democrats have just ignored the problem because they would rather
Speaker 1: not tick off their donors, slash political supporters, and they
Speaker 1: don't want to do anything that would have some like
Speaker 1: net lesser effect on the environment. It's only I think
Speaker 1: they're only willing to go into SEQUA because people have
Speaker 1: realized that literally, anyone can use SEQUA to stop some
Speaker 1: development that they don't like, even if the real reason
Speaker 1: they don't like it has nothing to do with the environment.
Speaker 1: You can have a rival builder file a lawsuit to
Speaker 1: stop something. You can have a you know, neighbors who
Speaker 1: don't want say a multi unit dwelling near their home.
Speaker 1: Anyone can use it. They just can pretend that it's
Speaker 1: for an environmental reason, and then labor unions often can
Speaker 1: use it to sort of squeeze groups into you know,
Speaker 1: requiring that they use prevailing wage for construction and then
Speaker 1: that massively increases construction costs and blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: All right, so what annoys me is that there are
Speaker 1: like five people left who still cheer in America or
Speaker 1: in California anyway. Well, let me correct that the only
Speaker 1: people left in California who think SEQUA based lawsuits are
Speaker 1: a good idea are basically most of the state legislature,
Speaker 1: the governor. Well, and they don't even think it's a
Speaker 1: good idea, but they'd rather keep SEQUA in place because
Speaker 1: they don't want to tick off their donors. So the
Speaker 1: only people left in California who want SEQUA around are
Speaker 1: the majority in the state legislature, the governor, and Marrik
Speaker 1: Warzowski from the Fresno b Apparently, so Warzowski, he's a fascinating,
Speaker 1: fascinating fellow. He lives in Clovis and writes all these
Speaker 1: articles about how terrible Clovis is the city of his
Speaker 1: choice because it's conservative and it's a really nice place
Speaker 1: to live. And I feel like he is expresses in
Speaker 1: his columns in the Presno b this real angst over
Speaker 1: that he is also, bizarrely just the biggest fan of
Speaker 1: Sandra Celadon. You've ever seen Sandra Salodon, who is the
Speaker 1: CEO of Fresno building Healthy Communities, and she's going to
Speaker 1: run for the State Assembly, and Sandra Saladan, Let anyone forget.
Speaker 1: I'll make sure nobody forgets. Insofar as I am able.
Speaker 1: This is Sandra burn it Down Celadan, the gal who
Speaker 1: during the George Floyd riots when they were starting, she
Speaker 1: retweeted out a video of a police precinct building burnt
Speaker 1: down in Minneapolis with the tweet burn it all Down.
Speaker 1: She then proceeded somehow after saying she was sorry, and
Speaker 1: I guess everyone just sort of forgave her. She became
Speaker 1: the vice chair of the Fresno Police Reform Commission, with
Speaker 1: predictably stupid left wing results because she basically railroaded Oliver Baines,
Speaker 1: I think, and wound up writing the whole thing herself.
Speaker 1: At least I hope she railroaded Oliver bans because if
Speaker 1: Oliver Bins actually wrote that stuff, shame on him. The
Speaker 1: Police Reform Commission's report was basically full of phony, blooney history,
Speaker 1: trying to paint this false historical picture that all policing
Speaker 1: in the United States is rooted in racism, that the
Speaker 1: whole legacy of policing in America's racist. Anyway. Maryorkworzowski loves
Speaker 1: Sandra Saladon. He's like going to fundraisers for now, he's
Speaker 1: writing columns about how wonderful her nonprofit Resnue building healthy
Speaker 1: communities is why for filing lawsuits to stop infrastructured development.
Speaker 1: South Fresno community groups score another victory with appeals court ruling.
Speaker 1: For several decades, South Fresno residents were powerless in preventing
Speaker 1: polluting industries and distribution centers from getting shoved down their throats,
Speaker 1: regardless of the deleterious effects on their health. Recently, they've
Speaker 1: been fighting back and in an increasing number of cases,
Speaker 1: fighting back and winning. The latest example came in March,
Speaker 1: when a state appeals court sided with community groups quote
Speaker 1: community groups. What we mean by quote community groups is
Speaker 1: left wing nonprofits funded from Los Angeles in their ongoing
Speaker 1: legal battle with Caltrans and the Federal Highway Administration over
Speaker 1: major expansion of the North Avenue and American Avenue freeway
Speaker 1: interchanges on Highway ninety nine. The appellate Court granted a
Speaker 1: petition submitted in November by Friends of Kalawa, Inc. And
Speaker 1: Fresno Building Healthy Communities that should, without waiting too deep
Speaker 1: into the legal muck, finally compel Caltrans to justify its
Speaker 1: environmental review for the one hundred and forty million dollar project.
Speaker 1: So this is a sequel law too. Clearly, Caltrans does,
Speaker 1: I am sure, an enormous environmental review. It's a state
Speaker 1: run agency, so we're gonna let private persons sue the
Speaker 1: state agency. The state agency, which by the way is
Speaker 1: probably a load has has environmental lawyers I'm sure who
Speaker 1: work for it, who do these environmental impact reports, and
Speaker 1: who guide the agency about all kinds of stuff. I'm
Speaker 1: sures they're subject to all kinds of green requirements. Blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah. They've already done this massive environmental
Speaker 1: impact study. There you go through it all. And yet
Speaker 1: after they do all their work, Fresno Building Healthy Communities
Speaker 1: a left wing nonprofit group who probably got three people
Speaker 1: from CALWA. This is what these nonprofits do. You have
Speaker 1: these bigger nonprofits who have a bunch of funding money
Speaker 1: from Los Angeles. They go to some community in the
Speaker 1: Sanawakean Valley to try to stop some development, whatever community
Speaker 1: that is. They get like five people from the community
Speaker 1: and tell them, hey, you want to sign your name
Speaker 1: on this so that we can say that citizens from
Speaker 1: concerned citizens from Kalwa have sued to try to stop
Speaker 1: the environmental harm of this. They get five people to
Speaker 1: sign a thing and then they could say, oh, yes,
Speaker 1: concerned Citizens of Kalua have joined together with President building
Speaker 1: out the communities, which is funding the whole thing, and
Speaker 1: you're pushing the whole thing, and we're obviously the main
Speaker 1: force behind this whole thing to try to stop Caltrans
Speaker 1: from you know, building infrastructure, development blah blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability is another one of
Speaker 1: the types of lefty nonprofits. They did something like this
Speaker 1: in Pixley. I talked about this story a lot. They
Speaker 1: stopped a green hydrogen energy power plant from being built
Speaker 1: in Pixley on the grounds that it would cause too
Speaker 1: much truck pollution. It's a green energy power plant and
Speaker 1: they're trying to stop it because it's gonna have too
Speaker 1: much pollution. Cut too much truck pollution, specifically in Pixley. Pixley,
Speaker 1: a town that is nothing other than a pit stop
Speaker 1: along ninety nine. Ninety nine goes right through Pixley. All
Speaker 1: Pixley has is trucks driving through it. I how many
Speaker 1: thousands of trucks drive through Pixley every single day, given
Speaker 1: that Pixley is again pretty much just a pit stop
Speaker 1: on the ninety nine. Anyway, the Appellate Court granted a
Speaker 1: petition submitted in November by Friends of Kalawa Inc. Again
Speaker 1: it's probably like five people and Fresno building healthy communities
Speaker 1: that should without waiting too much deep than legal, MUK
Speaker 1: finally compel Caltrans to justify its environmental review for the
Speaker 1: one hundred and forty million dollar project, the same environmental
Speaker 1: review which, as you may recall, conveniently left out Fresno
Speaker 1: Counties proposed twenty nine and forty acre industrial park east
Speaker 1: of ninety nine that can't proceed without improved freeway access
Speaker 1: and will unquestionably bring more air pollution and truck traffic
Speaker 1: to already overburdened neighborhoods. It's always truck traffic air pollution
Speaker 1: that we're concerned. Where do you want industrial parks to
Speaker 1: be See this is again, why is it hard for
Speaker 1: businesses to come to California? Why is it hard to
Speaker 1: build stuff in California? It's because of this crap. Okay,
Speaker 1: here we have a possibility for a huge industrial park
Speaker 1: for Kalwa, which, by the way, is like Kewa is
Speaker 1: desperately in need of more development, It's in need of
Speaker 1: more jobs. This is a very poor part of the
Speaker 1: Fresno area. Like, why is a president being columnist out here, like, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's stop development because a nonprofit says that the pollution
Speaker 1: is bad for people, that the pollution will really harm
Speaker 1: people's health. This nonprofit says, so will it will? Will?
Speaker 1: Will this entity actually harm people's health that badly? So
Speaker 1: much as to justify that we're just not gonna build
Speaker 1: this thing that could employ God knows how many people
Speaker 1: like bring new jobs, bring new like no. But again,
Speaker 1: if we wonder why it's expensive to build in California,
Speaker 1: we wonder what like cheerleading for crap like this? Like
Speaker 1: so apparently the only people in California left who like
Speaker 1: SEQUA is a majority of the state legislature, these left
Speaker 1: wing nonprofits that use it to sue and Marrik Worzaski.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's it, the Fresno b loves sequel lawsuits.
Speaker 1: When we return, we'll dig more into this John Gerardi
Speaker 1: show here on Power Talk. So this is the insane
Speaker 1: thing about these sequel lawsuits. And specifically we've got this
Speaker 1: lawsuit from Fresno Building Healthy Community, Sandra Saladon's group, which
Speaker 1: you know she's getting ready to you know, getting herself
Speaker 1: more and more and more press in anticipation in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six that she's going to run for the state Assembly.
Speaker 1: They're suing Caltrans because a big road infrastructure project that
Speaker 1: they've been working on, one hundred and forty million dollar project.
Speaker 1: They're trying to argue that it the its environmental impact
Speaker 1: study is in sufficient. But let's recall whom they're suing.
Speaker 1: They're suing Caltrans, which is a state agency. It's a
Speaker 1: state agency. Here's an idea. If we're concerned about environmental
Speaker 1: impacts of things, why not just let the state regulate it?
Speaker 1: I mean, when' that makes sense. You've got environmental impacts.
Speaker 1: It's very hard for an individual to show standing to
Speaker 1: sue over an environmental impact. And if you just open
Speaker 1: upstanding to sue to anybody. As the Calibournia Environmental Quality
Speaker 1: Act is done well, then the whole situation is just
Speaker 1: ripe for it's just ripe for abuse, and that it is.
Speaker 1: In fact, what's happened with SEQUA is that people have
Speaker 1: utilized SEQUA the California Environmental Quality Act to file lawsuits
Speaker 1: against development projects to say, oh, their environmental impact review
Speaker 1: was insufficient. But people have been filing those lawsuits who don't,
Speaker 1: who clearly manifestly do not give a crap about the environment.
Speaker 1: It's a neighbor who doesn't want a multi union dwelling
Speaker 1: near her house because she thinks it'll lower her property value,
Speaker 1: so she's all an environmental impact on the study hasn't
Speaker 1: been fully completed, and it just seems like there are
Speaker 1: all these different projects around the city that are getting
Speaker 1: stopped throughout the San Joaquin Valley and I'm sure all
Speaker 1: up and down California that are getting stopped dead in
Speaker 1: their tracks because either there's some private business entity that
Speaker 1: doesn't like this project going up, or some neighbor who
Speaker 1: doesn't like this business going up, or there's some environmental
Speaker 1: nonprofit that wants to make a splash to make a
Speaker 1: name for itself, trying to say that basically, oh, this
Speaker 1: will increase traffic and therefore increase pollution in hurt people's health.
Speaker 1: By that logic, there's no development that could possibly take
Speaker 1: place near human dwellings, right, I mean, where do they
Speaker 1: want an industrial? You presumably cannot build anything without more
Speaker 1: truck traffic. I mean again, SEQUA was used to stop
Speaker 1: construction of a let's remember this. This was back in
Speaker 1: December in Pixley, Okay. A left wing nonprofit used SEQUA
Speaker 1: to stop construction of a hydrogen power plant, a zero emissions,
Speaker 1: green energy hydrogen power plant, to build it in Pixley,
Speaker 1: where like, all due respect to the great people of Pixley,
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's a lovely place. Not a lot of
Speaker 1: people live there. Seems like a perfect place to build
Speaker 1: a power plant, create some jobs for the good people
Speaker 1: of Pixley, but no environmental groups are like, no, that'll
Speaker 1: increase truck pollution because trucks will come into Pixley to
Speaker 1: drop off I guess the hydrogen that needs to get
Speaker 1: converted into energy. Pixley is nothing but a pit stop
Speaker 1: on ninety nine. It's nothing but trucks. It's just the
Speaker 1: ninety nine goes right through it. It's trucks, it's thousands
Speaker 1: of trucks define the environment of Pixley. You really think,
Speaker 1: I don't know, twenty trucks extra, you know, stopping in
Speaker 1: Pixley to drop off hydrogen. I don't know how many
Speaker 1: trucks a day drop off hydrogen and a hydrogen plant.
Speaker 1: You really think that's making a rat's rear end of difference.
Speaker 1: So I guess they just don't believe any of these claims.
Speaker 1: I don't believe. I find it very difficult to believe
Speaker 1: any of these claims that we can really measure that
Speaker 1: the extra pollution of people going to a place, building
Speaker 1: some development so that people can go to a place
Speaker 1: that's really causing this much more environmental harm. Again, why
Speaker 1: can no one build anything in this state? Why can
Speaker 1: nobody invest in this state? It's because we have laws
Speaker 1: on the books that stop people from doing it. And
Speaker 1: in this case, with this Kalwa area Caltrans expansion, this
Speaker 1: is Caltrans. It's a state agency that probably again has
Speaker 1: more green regulation over it, more environmental lawyers crawling all
Speaker 1: over it than possible. Probably you can shake a stick
Speaker 1: at and we're gonna say no, the State of California
Speaker 1: is a bunch of polluting, vile don't care about the environment,
Speaker 1: right wing just drill baby, drill monsters who are building
Speaker 1: this Caltrans project to force feed smog into the mouths
Speaker 1: of babies. Who are you insane? In a sane state?
Speaker 1: Clearly one in which we do not live in a
Speaker 1: sane state. Rather than letting any Tom, Dick or Harry
Speaker 1: file a lawsuit saying that someone's environmental review is inadequate,
Speaker 1: the state would just oversee that. Just let the state
Speaker 1: oversee it. If the state says the environmental impact of
Speaker 1: this thing is all right, I'm really loath to second
Speaker 1: guess the state of California the most left wing bunch
Speaker 1: of lunatics ever, well, the second most after presno building
Speaker 1: healthy communities. Clearly, I just find this whole structure, this
Speaker 1: idea of cheerleading a sequel lawsuit of any kind, just
Speaker 1: seems so irresponsible to me, so insane. It's seek what
Speaker 1: is the root cause of why housing is unaffordable in
Speaker 1: this state? We can't build more housing or demand far
Speaker 1: out strips or supply of housing. Why because builders lack
Speaker 1: the confidence to invest when they're not sure if someone's
Speaker 1: going to file a lawsuit and until a governor candidate
Speaker 1: comes forward who actually says I want to repeal sequa.
Speaker 1: I want to repeal a bunch of these environmental regulations
Speaker 1: that add twenty thirty, forty fifty thousand, whatever it is
Speaker 1: to the cost of every new home. I'm tired of this.
Speaker 1: I'm going to run and I'm going to push a
Speaker 1: ballot initiative alongside me to stop it until someone runs
Speaker 1: for governor saying that we're just gonna keep keep on
Speaker 1: doing it. And you know, good job for the Fresno
Speaker 1: b I don't think the President Bee is allowed to
Speaker 1: introduce any editorials complaining about the cost of housing, given
Speaker 1: that all of their columnists, Tad Weber and Mark Korsowski,
Speaker 1: well they're both out here cheerleading sequel lawsuits to stop
Speaker 1: stuff from getting built. When we return, Brandon Vang is
Speaker 1: elected a new Fresno City Council member. All of the
Speaker 1: bizarre issues of what was a very bizarre little race.
Speaker 1: Next on The John Girardi Show, Brandon Vang is the
Speaker 1: new city council member for the Fresno City Council. He
Speaker 1: winds up succeeding Luis Chavez, who left that seat vacant
Speaker 1: upon getting elected to the Presno County Board of Supervisors.
Speaker 1: By the way, for those those who are wondering, why
Speaker 1: would you want to be a Fresno County supervisor rather
Speaker 1: than a Fresno City council member, Well, the pay is
Speaker 1: way better. The pay is way better, and there are
Speaker 1: no term limits. Being a county supervisor is secretly like
Speaker 1: the best gig in all of California politics. The pay
Speaker 1: is great. Probably have fewer controversial votes in a year
Speaker 1: than any city council will, especially for a big city. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no assumption with county supervisors that this should be
Speaker 1: just a part time job and you should be No. No,
Speaker 1: County supervisors get paid very nicely. It's sort of the
Speaker 1: the cream of the crop of local politics jobs. Anyway. Well,
Speaker 1: Brandon Vang gets elected to the city council seat, and
Speaker 1: his chief opponent had been Elizabeth Johnason Roses, who is
Speaker 1: a trustee with president Unified School District. And I want
Speaker 1: to see if I can go through all of the
Speaker 1: little mini accusations and scandals for what was a pretty
Speaker 1: slimy campaign. Kind of a lot of it seemingly coming
Speaker 1: from the Chavez camp. But anyway, let's let's go through this, Okay.
Speaker 1: So the weird thing is Elizabeth Jonathon Ross, who is
Speaker 1: running for Louis Chavez's old seat. Is Louis Chavez his wife,
Speaker 1: And right off the bat, that just rubs me the
Speaker 1: wrong way. And lest you think it's a Democrat thing,
Speaker 1: I'm also not crazy about Republican spouses just hopping into
Speaker 1: their husband's old jobs. Like there's all this stuff that
Speaker 1: Ron DeSantis's wife, Casey DeSantis, might run for governor of Florida,
Speaker 1: and she seems like a I don't know, seems like
Speaker 1: a nice enough lady, and there's a lot of reporting
Speaker 1: that she's like his chief confidant and advisor. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just don't like the idea of spouses jumping in,
Speaker 1: by the way, Like if Tulci Gabbard's husband all of
Speaker 1: a sudden showed up and was like, hey, all luck
Speaker 1: to me governor of South Carrol, I'd probably find that
Speaker 1: weird too. It's not just a women running for their
Speaker 1: husband's thing. It probably also a husband running for their
Speaker 1: wife's saying. If I can assure you, if Doug m
Speaker 1: Hoff decided to run for something I'd be ready to
Speaker 1: load him into a cannon and shoot him into the sun. Anyway,
Speaker 1: So right off the bat, that's weird. Javez then releases
Speaker 1: this like District five newsletter, which is purportedly like a
Speaker 1: newsletter to be released to residents to let residents know
Speaker 1: about important, you know, city council services for that city
Speaker 1: council district. But it features a big photo of his
Speaker 1: wife who was about to run for his old seat.
Speaker 1: Chaves released it, and it's got a big photo of
Speaker 1: his wife who was about to run for his seat,
Speaker 1: with her name in big bold letters, Elizabeth Jonathon Rosa
Speaker 1: speaks at the opening of a some health center thing,
Speaker 1: and then he's like, oh, well, no, well it wasn't
Speaker 1: campaign material, Okay, we all know what was happening there.
Speaker 1: Chavez was trying to use city money to basically do
Speaker 1: a campaign ad for his wife without really doing a
Speaker 1: campaign ad for his wife. Basically for him to say, well,
Speaker 1: it's not care painting. I just mentioned her name and
Speaker 1: put a big picture of her there because she happened
Speaker 1: to be at this event that took place in my district,
Speaker 1: you know, a community event to let people know about
Speaker 1: this this new health center that that started up, now,
Speaker 1: so that was sleazy. Then there was a bunch of
Speaker 1: anonymous reports, and I should emphasize that they're anonymous, so
Speaker 1: you know it, take it with a grain of salt.
Speaker 1: There's all this anonymous reporting that Chavez, basically Chavez and
Speaker 1: Jonathon Roses, we're trying to get the Mong vote for
Speaker 1: Jonathan Roses, obviously important running against Brandon Vain. So they're
Speaker 1: trying to get the Mong vote. And the way that
Speaker 1: they do it, allegedly is with Luis Chavez going to
Speaker 1: different Mong organizations saying that his wife will support a
Speaker 1: Mong woman to be the new superintendent of Presnean Unified
Speaker 1: School District. Jonathan Ross is on the board of trustees
Speaker 1: of Fresney Unified School District. And in return for Jonathon
Speaker 1: Ross supporting Misty her who's currently the interim superintendent, in
Speaker 1: exchange for Jonathan Ross supporting Misty Her, will these other
Speaker 1: Mong community groups back Jonathon Roses for the for the
Speaker 1: city council seat. So there are a bunch of anonymous
Speaker 1: reports alleging that then this mailer came out that accused
Speaker 1: Brandon Vang of statutory rape of a fifteen year old
Speaker 1: around nineteen ninety three, Vang said the accusation was completely false,
Speaker 1: and then Andrew Jans, the city attorney, looked into it. Well,
Speaker 1: it finally got revealed it was kind of true. Brandon Vang,
Speaker 1: the fifteen year old in question, would Vang would later
Speaker 1: marry Okay, it's his wife. Vang was twenty years old,
Speaker 1: he impregnated a fifteen year old. They raised the child together,
Speaker 1: and the two of them got married. Not great, obviously not,
Speaker 1: but you know, there are worse outcomes in world history.
Speaker 1: I guess I think it's still troubling any twenty year
Speaker 1: old having sex with a fifteen year old bad Thang
Speaker 1: clarified the presidents of DA's office never investigated it. True,
Speaker 1: but the mail are basically everyone left that story with
Speaker 1: just a gross taste in their mouth. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: sort of I don't know, I mean, like it's you know,
Speaker 1: if a twenty year old has sexual relations with a
Speaker 1: fifteen year old, generally I'm inclined to want to throw
Speaker 1: them in jail. But you know, this case happened. They
Speaker 1: got married, and they raised the child together, and they're married.
Speaker 1: It's sort of an awkward thing. So so what do
Speaker 1: you say? I mean, I don't know, what are you going. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's sort of the horses out of the barn in
Speaker 1: a certain sense. So the whole thing left everyone with
Speaker 1: kind of a bad taste in their mouth. In short,
Speaker 1: it was just a gross election. I did not want
Speaker 1: Jonathan Roses to win now here. Here's the other thing
Speaker 1: is that Vang was backed by Juan Arambula and that
Speaker 1: sort of part of the local Democrat political machine. Chavez
Speaker 1: is trying to be his own kind of machine, and
Speaker 1: he's in and his wife is in. He's in politics,
Speaker 1: his wife is in politics, and they're they're trying to
Speaker 1: kind of make a name for themselves. So seemingly we
Speaker 1: got these these dueling factions here and so in short,
Speaker 1: theng they have a special election, and this is all
Speaker 1: for a special election. By the way, Chavez vacated his
Speaker 1: city council seat because he won his seat on the
Speaker 1: President County Board of Supervisors. So they're having a special
Speaker 1: They had this special election in March, sort of middle
Speaker 1: of nowhere, where they had about twelve percent voter turnout.
Speaker 1: So and the two leading candidates are both Democrats. So
Speaker 1: Brandon Vang gets just over fifty percent of the vote.
Speaker 1: Basically The way that this election would work normally is
Speaker 1: the two top vote getters, if neither one gets a
Speaker 1: genuine majority, would face each other in a runoff. Well,
Speaker 1: Thang was just barely at the fifty percent threshold, and
Speaker 1: if ten votes go differently, Thang would be under fifty percent.
Speaker 1: So they finally certified the election results. Vang got nine
Speaker 1: votes over fifty percent, so he is the outright winner.
Speaker 1: He is the council member elect. Now this possibility of
Speaker 1: a recall. Jonathon Roses only got like thirty something percent,
Speaker 1: so she's still a ways back, but she is the
Speaker 1: second place candidate. If Vang gets under that fifty percent threshold,
Speaker 1: she might have a shot in a runoff, but he's
Speaker 1: It looks like Vang is just barely over that threshold. Now,
Speaker 1: Seemingly it's within the range that someone could could request
Speaker 1: a recount. Jonathon Roses apparently had a statement though that
Speaker 1: sort of doesn't sound like she's going to challenge it.
Speaker 1: But all in all, it was really just kind of
Speaker 1: a sleazy growth selection. I don't you know, I think
Speaker 1: some of the unsourced stories that Jonathan Roses was apparently
Speaker 1: trying to bribe the Mong community trying there was an
Speaker 1: attempt to curry favor with the Mong community, using Jonathan
Speaker 1: Roses's way as a president Unified trustee to get a
Speaker 1: Mong person hired as the supervisor in order to get
Speaker 1: Mong votes in a shady deal that Chavez was brokering.
Speaker 1: I don't I mean, it's either true, excuse me going
Speaker 1: through puberty on the radio. It's either true and Roses
Speaker 1: and Jonathan Roses and Javs are sleazy and gross, or
Speaker 1: it's false. In the vein camp that was leaking that stuff,
Speaker 1: they're gross. The leak about Vang engaging in statutory rape.
Speaker 1: It's kind of gross given that it was his his
Speaker 1: current wife that this was about that she was fifteen
Speaker 1: he was twenty, but at the same time not false
Speaker 1: seemingly and you know, I don't want twenty year olds
Speaker 1: having sex with fifteen year old anyway. The whole thing
Speaker 1: is kind of gross. It was really local politics at
Speaker 1: its absolute worst. I guess the only thing we can
Speaker 1: say that's good, and it's two Democrats. We're both probably
Speaker 1: not going to be great on the President's City Council.
Speaker 1: I don't know. President City Council is a lot calmer
Speaker 1: now that Esmuel Dasia is not on it. But the
Speaker 1: whole thing is it was really local politics at its worst.
Speaker 1: When we return in which I reveal that radio show
Speaker 1: hosts don't know everything about everything, including tariff's next on
Speaker 1: John Jerardy Show, Folks, I know that because I talk
Speaker 1: on the radio, you all probably assume unanimously that I
Speaker 1: know everything about everything, and I must admit it's such
Speaker 1: a high quality show I could give off that impression.
Speaker 1: But in all humility, this is a great radio thing.
Speaker 1: Pretending ragging about yourself when pretending to be humble. I
Speaker 1: don't know jack about trade. I don't know jack about trade.
Speaker 1: I kind of, maybe, sort of a little bit feel
Speaker 1: like I am more inclined towards more protectionist trade policy,
Speaker 1: and trade policy that is such that it incentivizes businesses
Speaker 1: to keep their jobs in the United States. I guess
Speaker 1: here are my fears with Trump's tariffs right now. One,
Speaker 1: He's only gonna be president for four years, after which time,
Speaker 1: who knows can we really rebuild the industrial base of
Speaker 1: the United States within that short of a timeframe. I
Speaker 1: guess that's my one concern with tariffs is that we're
Speaker 1: gonna have all this short term pain costs increases for
Speaker 1: various things, and then it'll all get reversed by a
Speaker 1: Democrat in twenty twenty nine. I guess that's my concern,
Speaker 1: is that we'll have all the short term pay and
Speaker 1: none of the long term benefit. And maybe that's sort
Speaker 1: of my only question. And two, I guess there's some
Speaker 1: concern about like, well, a lot of people are sort
Speaker 1: of picking nits, like, well, is this actually being strategically done,
Speaker 1: Why are we going after Taiwan so much? Like like
Speaker 1: you know, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. In general,
Speaker 1: though I agree that we should structure our policy so
Speaker 1: that America is producing a lot of things that are
Speaker 1: really essential for America. If China invaded Taiwan, we would
Speaker 1: be screwed, as COVID showed. I mean, during COVID we
Speaker 1: were super short on chips. Anyone who tried to buy
Speaker 1: a video game system during that time knows what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. I wasn't even trying to, but I saw
Speaker 1: that they were like whole video game systems just weren't
Speaker 1: available because of COVID and how it harmed or supply chains.
Speaker 1: So again, I don't know everything about everything. I would
Speaker 1: like to see manufacturing and jobs and things come back
Speaker 1: to America and not rely on Chinese slave labor for stuff.
Speaker 1: That'll do it. John Dirolady Show, See you next time
Speaker 1: on PowerTOP