Mike Doyle receives $750 contribution from Shapell Homes Around Town, posted by Follow the money, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 12, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Why is candidate for Danville Town Council incumbent Mike Doyle accepting a large contribution from major homebuilder SHAPELL HOMES??
The Town of Danville recently released campaign finance information for the candidates. Here is the report on Doyle:
•Total contributions received this period (from July 1 to Sept. 30): $12,809
•Total contributions received this year: $13,308
•Total expenditures made this period and year: $8,690
•Note: Doyle's largest contribution as come from his son, Daniel, who gave $1,000.
His second largest contribution was $750, coming from the home builder Shapell Homes of Northern California. Contra Costa County Supervisor Candace Andersen gave $500. Doyle has received $1,150 in loans.
Posted by political analyst, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 13, 2012 at 8:45 am
The more important question is this: what is in it for Shapell Homes? Clearly, the Danville Town Council challengers Bob Nealis and Jim Jelincic have made residential development versus preservation of open space an issue.
Posted by fed up with traffic, a resident of the Blackhawk neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2012 at 8:50 am
Shapell Homes owns lots of land in the Camino Tassajara Valley. They undoubtedly have plans to develop it and they want Mike Doyle to go along, despite the traffic that would inundate the Tassajara/SYcamore corridor, the Diablo Road corridor, and the Crow Canyon corridor. Shapell wants the CT Valley to be the next Dougherty Valley.
Posted by just fed up, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2012 at 3:24 pm
What else should we expect! There is only one reason for developers to donate to these people. Look at what they did on Elworthy. Look at the Weber property. Look at what they are trying to do along Diablo Road. It is time for real representation.
Posted by save your open space, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 14, 2012 at 4:48 pm
Let's look at the candidates for office:
Mike Doyle---Shapell representative; denied a public vote on Elworthy Ranch's conversion to a KB Homes subdivision; plans to deny a public vote on conversion of Magee Ranch to a SummerHillHomes subdivision, and other future conversions of Agricultural land to residential subdivisions.
Renee Morgan---irresponsibly endorsed by Newell Arnerich and Mike Doyle; misrepresented her profession on the ballot as being an "architectural designer" when she is definitely not an arch. designer, and her recent LinkedIn (now erased) said she is a realtor and former developer employee;
Newell Arnerich--- denied a public vote on Elworthy Ranch, now another KB Homes subdivision; plans to deny a public vote on SummerHill Homes' proposal and other future conversions of Agricultural land to residential subdivisions.
Bob Nealis, Jim Jelincic, and Deanna Sullivan---receiving no developer contributions; have state publically that conversions of Open Space such as Ag. land to residential requires a public vote.
Posted by William, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2012 at 6:37 am
Folks it's time for a bit of a shake up. I will be voting for Bob Neallis, Jim Jelincic and Deanna Sullivan for Town Council. It's time for a second opinion and for new blood not overly influenced by big business which is the biggest danger of those in office as they start to work for those with deep pockets and forget they work for the people.
Posted by A Danville Friend, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2012 at 9:55 am
Mike Doyle has been a public servant for over 20 years, giving so very much of his time to Danville. Do you think Danville became this wonderful place by accident? It was by the hard work and good judgement of many good elected officials and dedicated Town employees.
Your leap of mistrust regarding the Magee-Summer Hill proposed development is troubling. Let the democratic process play out and voice your opinions and concerns. Council members like Mike will listen and do the right thing. He has in the past and will continue to do so in the future.
Posted by American, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2012 at 12:49 pm
"A Danville friend": You note "let the Democratic process play". Yes, that is exactly what we want, as required by law, that the town council members have to put this development to a vote of the residents. They have refused to comply with the law, refused to let the town residents vote on this huge new development in an area already grossly overcrowded with traffic near three schools and a fire station, and their refusal to "let the Democratic process play" will result in Mr. Doyle being voted out of office.
Posted by Indep, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm
Mike and Newell have served the town well, we live in a great place. Keeping it that way is best for all of us, how we achieve it is another matter. I wish I was more familiar with the development issue at hand...
However, I do know about one issue that is very near and dear to me (because of my two young children).
Measure D is going to be a fact of life if we want to improve the school facilities in our district so we can keep up the quality of education. If one reads the news (fact, not fiction) API test scores just went up AGAIN this year. We are the #1 school district (of districtswith more than 9000)in the STATE! Like Greg Marvel said at the SRVUSD "Meet the Candidates" forum last Monday, "that's not good enough!" We need to be #1 in the state. That forum was an excellent educational experience for the audience so that we could become informed with what's really happening in our schools. What I did learn, the ONLY candidates that are worthy of the post for SRVUSD are Greg Marvel and Mark Jewett. WHY? Greg is an incumbent that has presided over the success of our schools for the last 12 years. Mark Jewett is the new blood that the district needs because he has a Masters in Finance from Stanford and has worked on the oversight committees. Who better to confirm that the money is being spent properly...and oh yeah, Mark has two young children in the district so I think he's got no agenda other than his (read our) children's education in mind and the solvency of the district, and appropriate use of our money.
Posted by NO on D, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2012 at 8:01 pm
@indep. Measure D is another example of taxpayers being stuck with the bill while developers reap the profits. Measure D is an effort to get the public to pay for schools that should have been by the developers when Dougherty Valley was approved. DV is not nearly built out yet, and from Day 1, its schools were overcrowded!
Sorry, SRUVSD Board, Shapell Homes (supporting Mike Doyle with its contribution), and other DV developers. I am not voting for Measure D! Measure D will do nothing to improve student performance. The suggestion that it will is yet one more example of government officials uniting with developers to deceive the gullible public.
Posted by Thanks Mike, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Keep in mind that there are some very important issues coming for Danville. Bob Neallis and others are green and it will take time to come up to speed in office. He represents our city at the state meetings. He and the current council have done a wonderful job of watching the finances for Danville. Our town was zoned long before anyone took office. We all started from farm land. Do not get caught up in Tge not in my back yard emotion of development. In ten years Summerhill like Magee Ranch residents will be protesting growth in their neighborhood.
Anyone that know Mike Doyle also knows he does not favor any builder. He says his mind and if anyone really wants to know about growth then ask him. He plays by the rules and can sleep at night knowing his community service cannot be bought for $750. His willingness to make a difference in this town is why he runs. Simply put he loves public service.
Posted by Meet Mike, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 7:22 am
I like "Mike" because in all the years of representing the Town of Danville, he represent us with integrity. Important and city issues coming. Mike has been representing Danville at the state level for many years. I will send in my contribution to him today.
Posted by New Voices for Danville, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:26 am
Danville needs some new voices. This is the first election in quite some time that doesn't have a full slate of incumbents running because Candace Andersen won for Supervisor. The other four Council members would have undoubtedly appointed someone to fill her seat but they were prevented by state law from doing that because another Council member, Robert Storer, was appointed earlier.
Still the incumbents are trying to control who gets Candace's seat. They are fighting hard to get Planning Commissioner Renee Morgan, whom they appointed to that position, elected to Council. Renee even stooped to giving herself a false ballot designation----architectural designer-- in an effort to get herself elected. Newell Arnerich, himself an architect, must know that Renee is not an AD, yet he still endorses her.
Why is the Town Council so afraid of any new voices on Council?? It is time for term limits.
I heard that Mike Doyle did not want to run again (he is 83 and probably wants to do other things with his time after 22 years on Council), but that the other Council members twisted his arm because they don't want anyone not in their "club" on the Council.Thanks, Mike, but please give someone else a chance now. Council should not be an appointed position, but that is how Danville's Council is operating.
Posted by Tony, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 8:46 am
I'm not sure how Measure D crept into the discussion. "Meet Mike" will not be a happy camper as a Diablo resident if Summerhill becomes an eventuality. The problem is with the current Town Council is that they will "let all the facts come in, then approve the project anyway." They feel Summerhill is not subject to Prop. S already overwhelmingly approved by the Voters and on the books. If you care about traffic on Diablo/Blackhawk Rd., are concerned about potential flooding if we are ever blessed to have a wet winter and hope to maintain some modicum of open space, please support Bob Nealis in the upcoming election.
Posted by JRM, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Oct 17, 2012 at 9:53 am
Well said Tony, I agree with you 100%. I used to make the circuit from Vista Grande, Los Cerros and Monte Vista on a daily basis and anyone who traverses that part of town knows it is has become a dangerous logjam of congestion, perhaps the most impacted of any other part of Danville.
As a 25 year resident I am voting for a change for essentially 2 reasons, 1) I am grateful for Mike's service but at the age of 83 I think it is time for someone else to have a chance to serve, and 2) I think it is incredible that Renee can think it is okay to deliberately mislead her follow citizens as to her professional qualifications and her record of past employment. Especially since "Integrity" is a key buzzwod in her campaign messaging. Honestly, what was she thinking? It leads me to question her judgement.
Lastly the question of "term limits" is an interesting one. Versus mandating term limits I hope we simply exercise the right we already have to support the consistency of our representation but at the same time realize it good electoral practice to integrate new council members at times. If an individual has over 20 years of holding one office or another in our town it is prudent to blend new thoughts and ideas.
Posted by Julia, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 11:01 am
After reading the posted messages for Mike Doyle, Newell Arnerich, and Renee Morgan...I am so happy I do not live and will never live in your crazy city of Danville. I hope the folks of Danville have the brains to vote out the old and vote in the new...
VOTE OUT THE OLD AND VOTE IN THE NEW...should be the battle cry for ALL the up coming elections.
Folks this is why we are experiencing all the current problems.
And when I say..."VOTE OUT THE OLD AND VOTE IN THE NEW"...I mean it across the board...from little old Danville to big Washington D.C.
Thanks for listening...your friend Julia Pardini from little old and great Alamo, California
Posted by American, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 12:08 pm
JRM: Very well said, and I appreciate your logical position, which I agree with. Also am concerned that Newell, a real architect, would endorse someone who would lie on their campaign propaganda as to having a license they do not possess. I wonder if Newell has ever done any work for Summerhill homes? Might explain why they are afraid to let the residents vote on this isssue.
Posted by Friend of Danville, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 2:28 pm
We moved to Bryan Ranch in 1981 and this area has been home to our family continuously. Our original postal address was 94526 before the split from Danville to Alamo. Over the years we've greatly appreciated Mike's service & it's good to know that responsible developer Shapell Homes is sponsoring Mike. By no means, does a $750 show of support mean that Mike won't hold Shapell to high standards based on what the community desires. We're in favor of development and return to economic stability in our beautiful area and we like Mike.
Posted by American, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Good, have development in Alamo, but not in Danville, where traffic is already horrible near 3 schools and fire station. A good public servant would follow the law and let residents vote on this, not take political donation from developer and refuse let people vote.
Posted by Don't reward deceit with your vote, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 3:42 pm
The following article was in the Contra Costa Times today:
"The Danville town council race has gotten red hot, with opponents of candidate Renee Morgan writing letters, filing online comments and complaining that she misrepresented herself to voters on the ballot.
The ballot describes her job as "Businesswoman/Architectural Designer." Her opponents point out that she is not a licensed architect, and that it is a misdemeanor to describe oneself as an architect or an architectural designer without a license.
Morgan says it is a distraction by her opponents from the real issues.
"This is merely an attempt to create controversy in an election that should stick to the issues," Morgan said. "It is a job description, clearly described by my degree. I never intended to convey that I was an architect nor render services for which that license is required."
Morgan received an "architectural design drafter" diploma from the former Silicon Valley College -- a private career college in Walnut Creek that has had two name changes since Morgan attended in 1999.
Councilman Mike Doyle, who is seeking re-election, said he is concentrating on his own campaign and had no comment on Morgan. but said "I've been in a lot of elections nationally and locally, and this is one of the nastiest I've been involved in."
Maryann Cella, a steering committee member for Save Open Space-Danville, which has been spreading the word that Morgan is not a licensed architect, said Morgan's ballot designation
is "misleading, if not outright defrauding the public."
Save Open Space is a grassroots organization of about 700 people that has thrown its support behind candidates Bob Nealis and Jim Jelincic,
"It's a violation of Business and Professions Code Section 5536 (a) for unlicensed people to call themselves an architect or any derivative of that word," said Hattie Johnson, an enforcement officer for the state Board of Architects.
She said Morgan's diploma doesn't allow her to represent herself as an architectural designer.
According to the Business and Professions Code, unlicensed people who represent themselves as architectural designers can be fined up to $5,000, and/or be sent to county jail. However, Johnson said when her organization receives such a complaint, the violator is asked to stop using the word architect in any job description, and that usually does the trick.
Johnson wouldn't say if complaints have been filed against Morgan.
Morgan has been a town planning commissioner for the past eight years and has been endorsed by incumbent candidates Mayor Newell Arnerich and Doyle in the seven-person race for three seats on the town council in the November election.
Morgan, Arnerich and Doyle have taken similar positions on the SummerHill project, which has become the main issue of the campaign. Project opponents want the people to vote on it under provisions of Measure S -- an open space protection measure passed by Danville voters in 2000.
However, Morgan, Arnerich and Doyle have said that if the developer does not request amendments to the general plan, Measure S is not triggered and no vote of the people is required. Currently, no decision has been made on the project while an environmental impact report is being prepared.
Meanwhile, Morgan's opponents are hammering on the ballot issue.
"It is imperative that ballot designations are true, accurate and not misleading. It's the first line for a fair election." Jelincic said.
"Clearly, (Morgan is) trying to perpetuate a deceit on the voters of Danville, said Nealis. "You can't tell me it's an oversight or an error to call yourself an architectural designer when in fact you're not."
Nealis also took issue with Arnerich's endorsement of Morgan. Arnerich is a licensed architect. "It's particularly ironic that he's endorsing someone who is claiming to be a licensed professional in a field that he's in."
"What I see is she put down a job description," Arnerich said. "If they didn't think that Renee didn't have a chance of winning, they wouldn't be doing this."
The two other candidates in the race, Lori Hock and Deanna Sullivan, did not return phone calls on the matter."
Contact Jason Sweeney at 925-847-2123. Follow him at Twitter.com/Jason_Sweeney.
Copyright 2012 Contra Costa Times. All rights reserved.
Posted by JRM, a member of the Vista Grande Elementary School community, on Oct 17, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Here is an essential question, do we want to re-elect an 83 year old man to yet another 4 year term? I think not, and in my view guys like Mike and Pete Stark need to perhaps realize the fact that they are in their mid-eighties and they will soon not be able to safely drive, let alone govern. I am not dismissing Mike's service, but I hope he will realize that those of us who supported him in the past think it is time for a logical infusion of new representation on the Council. I know Pete Stark is not representing our district but I felt the comparison was perhaps appropo. I watched Mike's interview with the CC Times Editorial Board and he spent a lot of time describing his involvement in numerous esoteric and little known Boards and I was not impressed. We need new blood here, Danville focused with a new financial rigor. The Renee endorsement was the straw that broke the camel's back for me to be honest.
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 5:02 pm
@GERM: age-ism does not become you. If you have any actual evidence that Mr. Doyle, as an individual, has gone 'round the bend, then bring it. I don't see anything in your post other than a contemptuous and contemptible general indictment of ol' folks.
Until then, I will stand by the proposition that ANYbody who's fit enough, at 82, to 'make it big' in a Penthouse magazine spread has the vigor to continue in his part-time job on the Danville council. Weblink here: Web Link
Posted by Arlene, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Oct 17, 2012 at 5:11 pm
A $750 donation from Shapell Homes to Mike Doyle's bid for Danville Town Council is further proof why Doyle supports developers. He supported agricultural zoning changes for Elworthy Ranch along Hwy. 680 and is on record supporting MageeRanch/SummerHill zoning change. Danville voters should have had the right to vote on both zoning changes per Measure S approved overwhelmingly by the voters. DANVILLE VOTERS - Don't allow this kind of take-over by the Town Council. Vote for candidates who will support your rights. Vote for BOB NEALIS, JIM JELINIC, and DEANNA SULLIVAN.
Posted by rufous, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on Oct 18, 2012 at 9:19 am
In order to put conflict of interest questions to bed, California should approach land use like most other states. Municipalities hire land use attorneys to function as hearing examiners. They conduct hearings for land use matters. City staff, the applicant and the public all have their turn and an examiners report is issued. City council members who arguably have no land use experience are removed from the approval process, as they should be. It works well everywhere else. However, during my few years of experience here I have no expectation Californians will subject themselves to constructive change.
Posted by Only 700, a resident of the Diablo neighborhood, on Oct 19, 2012 at 12:02 am
It will be a huge mistake to listen to a few people that support Summerhill like Nealis. We are a town of tens of thousands and the council does not need a person that has a personal agenda. The land was zoned long before. Jed Magee has every right to sell or build on land he owns. Again, the ownership was long before mist of you ever lived in Danville. If we all care as a town we could all pitch in $2000 a family and buy the land and stop the development. We could do that everytime any neighbor want to develop something that we do not want. Unless everyone is willing to put up then why should we have any say in historically zoned land. The bigger question is does the rest if the town care about Summerhill of is only a small portion of people that have the not in my backyard selfish attitude. Work with developers to develop zoned land reasonably. Balance.
Posted by Bill, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on Oct 24, 2012 at 6:53 am
Mike Doyle should not have accepted the donation from Shapell Homes as it is just the appearance of impropriety that is more damaging. If someone has the poor judgment to accept this contribution what other types of judgment will he demonstrate on the council?