Re: Another Recall, Free Lance, July 17. Democracy is under attack because some do not like to lose an election. These few initiate recalls. These “Poor Losers” prefer to be winners so they proceed on the attack. They disregard the common good.
What concerns me currently is that another recall is initiated. The last recall started almost immediately after a supported candidate lost an election when the winning candidate, Ignacio Velazquez, received the most votes by the people. The “poor losers” won the recall.
It bothers me when “poor losers” can win a recall. I thought recall elections were meant to correct theft of funds or tax cheating or fraud or lying. None of those crimes happened to authenticate this recall.
It seems abundantly clear that this “recall” group trivializes democracy by ignoring the majority, misinforming people and pursuing disruptive behavior. Their behavior mirrors tyranny more than democracy.
Now this recall group plans to initiate another recall against a popular supervisor, Kollin Kosmicki. True, these recall people do not agree with this supervisor. This supervisor supports the welfare of the whole county. He is completely open and transparent.
Most people move here from San Jose. They move here because of our clear clean air, our uncontaminated water, our magnificent valley and mountain views, our quiet and lack of congestion. San Jose existed just like Hollister before San Jose became the capital of Silicon Valley.
In the name of democracy, a group with money desires to transform Hollister into another San Jose. That bothers me. Democracy does not work when only the few can become powerful over the many and work for money rather than for people.
Mary Zanger
Hollister
It sounds like someone else is also a sore loser. While Velazquez may be popular with the writer of this opinion piece it’s evident they are
not popular with the majority of the voters regarding the recall. I guess they were all sore losers or were they just more informed?
The fact that Mary Zanger posted this tells me everything I needed to know.
Carol, the turn out was, 1312 YES – 1279 NO, not that much of a “majority” as you say.
You fail to understand or are blatantly choosing to misunderstand Marys message.
She is telling us how there seems to be a group of people unwilling to take no/lose an election for an answer. And that they funnel money into certain candidates and frame their messages in certain ways.
Seen it so myself, so many damn recalls in Hollister City Council / government. What is going on? Pretty obvious. Outside money won’t take no for an answer.
Something very similar happening in our federal government, and they are trying to make certain states comply.
Spend the time doing your research, looking back at previous posts on here, and you’ll see.
Peno,
I think Carol understands Mary Zanger perfectly. As far as people not taking no for an answer: the political group Mary is part of – the Campaign to Protect San Benito – pushed Measure A, even after voters had spoken and it had been defeated in their previous attempt with Measure Q. They sure didn’t like losing, did not take no for an answer, and kept pushing…
Also, as far as the 1312/1279 turnout – we have had elections decided on as little as 10 vote difference. And interesting you talk about so many damn recalls here – but the recall of Velazquez in June was the very first one ever to make it onto a ballot in San Benito County.
With regard to the comments about big outside money I think you need to do some research: Ignacio Velazquez took big $$$ from out of town Silicon Valley millionaires for his recall. And those same group of outsiders who are connected with Mary’s political group poured money not only into Ignacio’s fight against the recall, but into Roxanne Stephens campaign, and Laura Garcilazo’s campaign in June. These same out of towners also gave big $$$ to Rudy Picha and Priscilla de Anda to pay off their old campaign debt from their last campaign. And what do you know, these candidates are all supported by members of that same Campaign to Protect San Benito political group. So who is serving special interests, and who is taking big outside money again?
Mia,
they took no for an answer when Measure Q failed. Measure A is not Measure Q. You would know this if you read them. But, then again, the No on Q folks did say that 38 pages was a lot. That’s they “did all the reading for you” to tell you how you should vote, as per their mailer, isn’t that right? How kind of them. We’ve had this discussion at least five times back in 2024, and yet here you are spreading the same false information, knowing that it is untrue. I mean, you *know* it’s untrue and you still say it. Why? what do you have to gain from knowingly, willingly, and intentionally spreading false information? I’m genuinely curious. Do you think it’s gonna turn back the clock? Measure A passed. It’s history.
I looked it up and it turns out you can reattempt a ballot initiative in California. The Campaign to Protect San Benito would have been well within their legal right to try Measure Q again, exactly as it was, and bleed dry the corporate spiderweb of LLCs assembled by John Patterson, Derek Chen, and Fred Liao. So, the fact that they didn’t just re-attempt the same initiative twice shows that they are perfectly capable and willing to take no for an answer. Perhaps they realized that they needed to compromise a little bit, and acted accordingly.
The rhetorical battleground over Measure Q was heavily stacked against the yes side. The no side outfunded the Yes side by a vast multiple, almost entirely thanks to outside corporations. So it figures No on Q had the advantage in quantity that “Yes” couldn’t offset with superior rhetorical quality. By the time the information even gets to the voters, the No on Q side has a much louder voice. The public discussion was hardly balanced. The No side didn’t even include links to the Measure Q document. We had to look that up ourselves. Meanwhile, the No on A campaign did not enjoy such a vast advantage in quantity. And Bob didn’t exactly do any favors for No on A. Too bad someone had to go and find that misfiled money. And it’s a darn shame someone had to go and put that information out there, isn’t it? And I suppose it didn’t help the No side that I was just learning to spread my wings in the area of research at the time.
The final nail in the coffin was when someone discovered the misfiled money. Funny how Bob shows up there, too. And David Bauer, the professional treasurer who allegedly made a series of mistakes without catching them. I wonder if the FPPC will recognize Bob when they conduct their investigation into the No on A group. Next time you see him, tell him that I and the rest of the People of San Benito County want our money back, adjusted for inflation, for what the ad hoc did to beat Measure Q. By the way, was he the genius who came up with that funny name for the No on A campaign, San Benito Neighbors Against (but have no problem with) traffic and (funded almost entirely by) Outside Interests? I wanna know who came up with that disaster of a committee name.
The Battle for Measure A was different. The fundraising was a lot more equal. No on A didn’t have the same quantity advantage. So, No on A was more reliant on a quality-based rhetorical strategy, but failed to adapt. Reusing the same low-quality rhetorical tactics as No on Q, they encountered an unexpectedly fair fight and fell to pieces like the Russians in Kyiv.
Please, do go on about Measure Q and Measure A. We’ve done this more times than I can count, so it’s no skin off of my nose if we have to do this again.