Candidates cite differences, values

Forums like those held Oct. 12 for the Chico City Council and county supervisor District 3 candidates are useful exercises in a couple of ways. They enable voters to differentiate among the candidates on the issues and, just as important, give a sense of the candidates’ abilities—how adeptly they can frame an argument, respond to criticism and articulate a vision.

You can get some understanding of the issues from newspaper accounts of a forum, but to see the differences in character and abilities, you have to be there or watch the forum on community-access television.

If you were among the 100 or so citizens who were in City Council Chambers for the forums, or if you watched on Channel 11, you saw two lively, contentious but civil Q&A sessions on the part of a total of eight candidates.

The two candidates for supervisor—Maureen Kirk, a dental hygienist, and stereo-shop owner Steve Bertagna, both veteran members of the City Council—agreed on some issues and disagreed on others. Both said they believe the county’s risky holdout on the state’s offer as part of the Oroville Dam relicensing process was “probably a wise gamble at this time” (Kirk). And both opposed the proposed Mechoopda Indian casino and said the city shouldn’t provide it with police and fire services (a switch for Bertagna, who at a July council meeting argued forcefully with county officials, including retiring District 3 Supervisor Mary Anne Houx, for the city’s right to negotiate with the tribe).

They also agreed on the importance of protecting local groundwater and having the county be closely involved in any future decision.

Asked about the relationship between the city and the county, Kirk noted that it “waxes and wanes,” that it was “generally positive but could be better.” Butte County needs to realize, she said, that it’s not going to decide on development and so needs to work with the city. Bertagna, for his part, used the occasion to express once again his anger at Houx (though he didn’t mention her by name) for things she said at that July meeting before assuring that he would be able to work effectively on the board.

Kirk said she’d work full-time at the job and questioned Bertagna’s ability to devote the time required. Bertagna countered that “someone who has nothing to do is not more qualified than someone who has a business.” He promised to be “on duty all the time.”

They differ as much in style as on the issues. Kirk is detailed and coolly forceful, while Bertagna comes across as friendly and warm but also quick to take umbrage. He likes to improvise his remarks and is given to verbal meandering, while she prefers to prepare written comments when possible and keeps her unscripted remarks short and focused.

As is widely known, three of the six people running for the City Council—Bank of America branch manager Michael Dailey, Mark Sorensen, who owns a satellite TV company, and two-term incumbent Dan Herbert, who owns a property management firm—are running as a fiscally conservative, business-friendly slate. The other three candidates—high school math teacher Mary Flynn, CHP Officer Tom Nickell and current Mayor Scott Gruendl, who works for Glenn County as head health official—are running independently, though supporters tend to lump them into a de-facto liberal slate.

One of the major issues separating the two camps is finances. The conservatives believe the liberals on the council have engaged in “reckless spending” (Herbert), citing the expenditure of $1.6 million to buy the Comanche Creek greenway on the south edge of town, $4.5 million for the new city plaza and changing their minds on the Oak Valley subdivision, prompting a lawsuit from developer Tom Fogarty that has cost $180,000 so far.

“Hey, nobody batted an eye when we spent $250,000 dealing with [developer Andrew] Meghdadi [who in 2002 cut down more than 100 oak trees on land he wanted to subdivide],” Gruendl responded.

The other two liberals, who weren’t on the council when these decisions were made, said they too believed in fiscal responsibility.

City Manager Greg Jones’ projection that the city could be facing a $50 million budget deficit 10 years down the road came up. Gruendl blamed it on the $40 million price tag of a new police station, but Herbert sharply corrected him, noting that the deficit was in the operations budget, not the capital-expense budget. (Herbert was right.)

Saying “I love numbers; I love budgets,” Flynn praised Jones’ long-range budget planning but also said it was important to question some of the “assumptions underlying his $50 million figure before tying ourselves to it.”

Nickell, who pitched alternative energy every chance he got, said increasing the use of solar and other energy alternatives could save the city a lot of money over time.

On growth, the conservatives were all on point, noting that the city had to find new places to put housing or it would go to places like Durham and Cohasset. Herbert, for example, cited the haphazard development now occurring along Hicks and Garner lanes in north Chico.

There was general agreement that the Bell-Muir area north of East Avenue and west of The Esplanade would eventually be developed, even though it’s outside the Greenline. Otherwise none of the candidates advocated broaching the line, though Gruendl mentioned so-called Growth Area 1 between the new northwest Chico development and Mud Creek as a possibility.

They disagreed on where growth might go, though. Nickell advocated for smart growth and infill, and Flynn said more multi-story buildings like the new 1200 Park Avenue should be built.

The conservatives pointed to the old Blakely-Swartz proposal south of Chico, though it was unclear how much of it they meant. When Gruendl mentioned “just the cost of pumping sewage over the ridge is prohibitive,” Herbert responding that he was referring to the part of the original project located west of the freeway, not the easterly part in Nance Canyon.

For his part, Gruendl said there were lots of areas of potential growth, citing Bell-Muir, Growth Area 1 and the Diamond Match property. “And we need to bite the bullet and talk about the fairgrounds,” he added.

Naturally, talk of growth led to talk of Bidwell Ranch, with the liberals insisting it was a done deal as open space and the conservatives saying there at least should be a vote on the issue. They acknowledged that, without solid community support for developing part of the land, no developer would risk it.

Gruendl and Herbert’s advantage, as incumbents, was evident throughout the debate. They had more historical knowledge and understood the issues in greater detail than the challengers did. Sorensen focused on finances, which is his area of greatest knowledge (he served on the RDA oversight committee), while Dailey was strongest in talking about town-gown relations, where he’s experienced.

Nickell, who is funny and friendly in person, became perfunctory on the dais, giving clipped, almost abrupt answers to many of the questions, though he’s clearly passionate about alternative energy. He contrasted sharply with Flynn, who warmly and articulately expressed her concern for the community.

The forums were sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Chico Enterprise-Record. Another set of forums, for Congress, Assembly and state Senate, is scheduled for Monday (Oct. 23) at 7 p.m. in City Council Chambers, right after a 6:30 informational session on statewide propositions.