Saturday, May 14, 2016

Friday, May 13, 2016

My response to Justin Kai's Lies and the Marin IJ Libel

Although I want to put the Justin Kai issue to bed, I have been maliciously libeled and slandered too many times. His "temporary civil harassment restraining order" only contained his over the top allegations and character assassination. As a recipient of the order, I did not have the opportunity to file a written statement to the court answering Justin's outrageous claims. Although I was allowed to speak in my defense at the court hearing, none of it enters the written record.
The judge threw out the restraining order request after listening to Justins testimony and seeing the video that Justin provided.
I tried to let the matter rest but apparently Justin contacted the Marin IJ and they wrote a story entirely from his perspective adding more injury. I also believe he attacked me in the comments section after the story too under pseudonym, "bank dadio". Furthermore, I told the writer, Richard Halstead that the matter was settled and I was not interested in inflaming the situation.  What did the Marin IJ do?  It published it on page one, top of fold for maximum impact. Meanwhile, the Tiburon rape indictment, a genuine headline news story, was pushed to page three.

After the publication on page one on the Marin IJ, I had clients cancel business, my children were in tears, my wife was upset and now in addition to a court record, I now have a Google searchable document. The Internet lives forever and he has deeply impacted my life. I was never charged with a crime and the allegations were groundless.  

Justin Kai has revealed his true character.

"The Oaks" Senior Assisted Living Presentation May 11, 2016

Robert Eves of Venture Corporation presents 3 plans for senior apartments for Marinwood. It is located on the large piece of land facing the Bay above the truck weigh station on 101.  The developer will build a bridge over miller creek and site the property on the hill facing east.   All we will see of the development is a quaint bridge over miller creek.   I think it will be a great addition to our community.

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Is Libel part of the new Marin IJ business plan? My letter to Marin IJ management.

Mr. Devincenzi ,

I just noticed that the my story  about "two men get in an argument and restraining order was thrown out of court" got "page one top of fold treatment" and "Tiburon man accused of rape" was relegated to page three. Is this the "journalism" that you practice at the Marin IJ?  

on page one

and actual news on page three

You cannot "un-ring" a bell. After your article on me authored by Richard Halstead of the Marin IJ, clients called me today to cancel business,  my children are in tears, my wife is a wreck, neighbors eyeball me suspiciously, Google has me on their newsfeed with your libelous story.   The only "facts" in the story is the un corroborated account of the man who admitted under oath to assaulting me!   

Is this how the Marin IJ hopes to become a profitable, respected news agency?

Publishing is a tough business these days.  Your credibility is the only thing distinguishing you from millions of bloggers.  With this story about me in today's Marin IJ, it is simply another troll on the Internet.

I am proudly and defiantly upholding the freedom of speech in a government meeting while the Marin IJ is spinning gossip.

Stephen Nestel

The issue about censorship that started the conflict

my "arrest" video for an outburst against the draconian speech policy that the Marin IJ ignores.


Adding insult to injury, the Marin IJ has published a doctored video of the event from Justin Kai to the story.  The part witnessed under oath at the court hearing,  Justin Kai is heard  to taunt me, " Come on Stephen, do you want to hit me?" has been edited out to make it appear that I assaulted Kai.    Mr. Devincenzi, you heard this in court.  Have the integrity to remove this trash immediately.

5/12/2016 : The Marin IJ removed Justin Kai's doctored video but still is publishing the false account by the man who admitted in court to have struck me.  The Marin IJ quoted from his one sided account plus the April 12th CSD report that Kai also authored but fails to identify him as the source.   This is beyond "bad reporting". It is an attempt to smear my character.

Wednesday, May 11, 2016

The Marin IJ "hot story" . A one sided account of a private argument.

Judge denies request for restraining order by Marinwood CSD director

Justin Kai is president of the Marinwood Community Services District board. Alan Dep — Marin Independent Journal

By Richard Halstead, Marin Independent Journal


When Justin Kai was elected to the board of the Marinwood Community Services District in 2013, Marinwood resident Stephen Nestel celebrated his victory with a letter to the Marin Independent Journal.

“The recent upset victory in Marinwood by political newcomers — Justin Kai, Deana Dearborn and Bill Shea — prove the value of hard work in retail politics,” Nestel wrote.

But last week Nestel was before Marin Superior Court Judge Stephen Freccero, arguing why the judge shouldn’t grant Kai’s request for a restraining order to keep Nestel away from him and his family. Freccero ultimately denied Kai’s request.

See the whole wretched story HERE
Here is where the argument started:

Are Prisoners who earn low wages being Exploited?

Over the summer, critics objected to Whole Foods’ participation in a program that used poorly paid prisoners to make expensive cheese for the grocery store’s upscale customers, according to Vice:
Whole Foods responded to the criticism by saying it sources tilapia and cheese from CCI as part of its mission to support communities, “and that includes the paid, rehabilitative employment of inmates at CCI. They are paid for their work, and learn job skills that can help them contribute to society in meaningful ways upon their release,” the company said in a statement.
Libertarians are generally in favor of “capitalist acts between consenting adults,” even in situations that many moralizers view as exploitation. However, we need to be very careful in a situation where there is overt coercion, namely a workforce being held behind bars. The normal logic of win-win market exchanges between employer and employee may not apply in the context of a prison.
In this particular case, the benefits of the program, as expressed by representatives for the prison work program as well as Whole Foods, are real. Indeed, they resemble economist Ben Powell’s persuasive justifications for “sweatshop” labor in the developing world.
Specifically, even though (according to the Vice article) prisoners may earn as little as 74 cents per day, the participating prisoners can earn more at these private/public jobs than the inmates who perform more traditional tasks such as working in the kitchen or laundry. Just because a job strikes outsiders as horrible and underpaid doesn’t mean we should be quick to advocate removing these options.
Prisoners Do Need to Earn Money
Assuming the statistics are accurate, the work experience teaches valuable job skills, which may be things as basic as following a routine and taking instruction from a supervisor. The recidivism rate among the selected prisoners is half that of the general prison population.
One of the worst things the government does to a convict is deprive him of the means of generating a normal income.
More generally, though, all decent people should actively applaud “prison labor” as beneficial to the inmates as well as society at large. If that strikes you as shocking, consider the opposite scenario.
One of the worst things the government does to a convict is deprive him of the means of generating a normal income for the entire time he’s locked up. This not only leaves the inmate poorer in the short run, it also sabotages his ability to gain experience in his desired field while he withers away in a cage. Even without the stigma of a prison record, less experience means he is less marketable down the road when he gets out of prison.
Most citizens take it for granted that during a recession, government officials must do whatever it takes to help the unemployed return to meaningful work. And yet, the population directly under government supervision — namely, prison inmates — is routinely assigned stultifying tasks like making license plates or picking up litter along the highway. Why not allow prisoners to work in other pursuits that benefit consumers, while gaining marketable skills at the same time?
Fully Private Prisons
Far from being an aberration due to government intervention, “prison labor” is the hallmark of a free and just society. Indeed, in my lectures on law enforcement in a society committed to private property, I explain how prisons might work for those rare cases where an individual is simply too violent for most people to let him onto their property. In this scenario, different “oases” would emerge, offering room and board to these outcasts. We might label them as prisons, but these institutions would be competing for the patronage of the outcasts. The outcasts would not be able to leave the premises at will, as this would violate the contractual arrangements the owners had with the surrounding community, but the “inmates” could transfer to another institution if they didn’t like their current residence.
Given such an arrangement, it would make perfect sense for both the organization running the institution and the residents to let the residents earn as much income as possible, as long as they could do so on the premises.
For example, if a software engineer had been convicted of serial murders, he would probably not be welcome anywhere in society except in secure buildings staffed with trained guards. But to pay for his upkeep and compete for his “business,” the owners of such buildings would make arrangements for him to have a computer workstation and an Internet connection. How would it help anyone — including the families of his victims — for him to break rocks with a pickax in the hot sun? Allowing him to earn a high income could also allow him to make enormous payments to the estates of his victims and at least try to repay his “debt to society.”
Our present system of criminal “justice” is focused more on retribution than restitution, with the police and the courts showing little concern for making the victims whole.
From Ideal Theory to Messy Reality
In an ideal society, the term “prison labor” should not strike us as cruel and exploitative any more than the terms “office labor” or “factory labor.” Unfortunately, these observations don’t necessarily place a stamp of approval on the actual arrangements between corporations and prisons in today’s world. All such arrangements occur in the context of a monopoly government that sets the parameters of these deals, meaning that gross injustice may be occurring before our very eyes.
If they are able to reap a huge portion of the “markup” from the fruits of their inmates’ labor, then the prison owners will likely do what they can to increase the size of their populations.
For example, even if prisoners in theory currently have the ability to refuse to work (indirectly) for Whole Foods and the other participating companies, in reality the guards can make life miserable for inmates who don’t go along. The workers are hardly offering their labor voluntarily.
More generally, the state squeezes out competition on both ends. If Whole Foods and other companies are indeed paying a pittance for the products that ultimately fetch a high retail price, then the outside companies and the prisons are splitting up the spoils. In a normal market, this scenario would provide an opportunity for a new firm to come along and offer the workers a higher wage, but such bidding cannot occur without the state’s permission.
What Do Prisons Want?
Finally, the most perverse consequence of allowing commercialized prison labor in the present systemis that it gives the private prisons an even greater incentive to lobby for continued drug prohibition. If they are able to reap a huge portion of the “markup” from the fruits of their inmates’ labor, then the prison owners will likely do what they can to increase the size of their populations.
Yes, other things equal, giving inmates extra options for selling their labor hours — even for a pittance — can only help them. But other things are not necessarily equal, including the severity of prison sentences dished out for a given crime. To see the possible danger, consider an analogous policy issue: free-market economists are generally in favor of letting adults sell body organs such as kidneys, but if prison inmates were given this “option” — with the prisons and organ retailers keeping the lion’s share of the revenues — we might see a sudden surge in arrests and convictions.
Generally speaking, we should applaud programs that allow individuals more options in selling their labor to outsiders. If prison inmates can earn more income and develop marketable skills by working for companies such as Whole Foods, then it helps both consumers and the prisoners themselves.
However, the logic of free markets only works to the extent that the relationships are genuinely voluntary, which we cannot guarantee in the context of prison labor. More ominously, if the practice indirectly fuels government policies that swell prison populations, it might, on net, be harmful to liberty.

Frank Egger " Bring back the Prison Work Detail"

At the May 7, 2016 Marin Supervisor Candidate Forum, Frank Egger proposes bring back the prison work detail to pull weeds . Seriously, exploit prison labor to save money!?

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Obama’s last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy

Obama’s last act is to force suburbs to be less white and less wealthy

Hillary’s rumored running mate, Housing Secretary Julian Castro, is cooking up a scheme to reallocate funding for Section 8 housing to punish suburbs for being too white and too wealthy.
The scheme involves super-sizing vouchers to help urban poor afford higher rents in pricey areas, such as Westchester County, while assigning them government real estate agents called “mobility counselors” to secure housing in the exurbs.
Castro plans to launch the Section 8 reboot this fall, even though a similar program tested a few years ago in Dallas has been blamed for shifting violent crime to affluent neighborhoods.
It’s all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.
Anticipating NIMBY resistance, Castro last month threatened to sue suburban landlords for discrimination if they refuse even Section 8 tenants with criminal records. And last year, he implemented a powerful new regulation — “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” — that pressures all suburban counties taking federal grant money to change local zoning laws to build more low-income housing (landlords of such properties are required to accept Section 8 vouchers).
Castro is expected to finalize the new regulation, known as “Small-Area Fair Market Rents” (SAFMR), this October, in the last days of the Obama presidency.
It will set voucher rent limits by ZIP code rather than metro area, the current formula, which makes payments relatively small. For example, the fair market rent for a one-bedroom in New York City is about $1,250, which wouldn’t cover rentals in leafy areas of Westchester County, such as Mamaroneck, where Castro and his social engineers seek to aggressively resettle Section 8 tenants.
[The Section 8 reboot] is all part of a grand scheme to forcibly desegregate inner cities and integrate the outer suburbs.
In expensive ZIP codes, Castro’s plan — which requires no congressional approval — would more than double the standard subsidy, while also covering utilities. At the same time, he intends to reduce subsidies for those who choose to stay in housing in poor urban areas, such as Brooklyn. So Section 8 tenants won’t just be pulled to the suburbs, they’ll be pushed there.
“We want to use our housing-choice vouchers to ensure that we don’t have a concentration of poverty and the aggregation of racial minorities in one part of town, the poor part of town,” the HUD chief said recently, adding that he’s trying to undo the “result of discriminatory policies and practices in the past, and sometimes even now.”
A draft of the new HUD rule anticipates more than 350,000 Section 8 voucher holders will initially be resettled under the SAFMR program. Under Obama, the total number of voucher households has grown to more than 2.2 million.
The document argues that larger vouchers will allow poor urban families to “move into areas that potentially have better access to jobs, transportation, services and educational opportunities.” In other words, offering them more money to move to more expensive neighborhoods will improve their situation.
But HUD’s own studies show the theory doesn’t match reality.
President Bill Clinton in 1994Photo: Getty Images
President Bill Clinton started a similar program in 1994 called “Moving to Opportunity Initiative,” which moved thousands of mostly African-American families from government projects to higher-quality homes in safer and less racially segregated neighborhoods in several counties across the country.
The 15-year experiment bombed.
A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.
Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.
“Males … were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.
Dubuque, Iowa, for example, received an influx of voucher holders from projects in Chicago — and it’s had a problem with crime ever since. A recent study linked Dubuque’s crime wave directly to Section 8 housing.
Of course, even when reality mugs leftists, they never scrap their social theories. They just double down.
The problem, they rationalized, was that the relocation wasn’t aggressive enough. They concluded they could get the desired results if they placed urban poor in even more affluent areas.
HUD recently tested this new theory in Dallas with disastrous results.
Starting in 2012, the agency sweetened Section 8 voucher payments, and pointed inner-city recipients to the far-flung counties surrounding Dallas. As government-subsidized rentals spread in all areas of the Metroplex (163 ZIP codes vs. 129 ZIP codes), so did crime.
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development used Dallas as a test — and the city is now experiencing much more violence.Photo: Getty Images
Now Dallas has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and recently had to call in state troopers to help police control it. For the first time, violent crime has shifted to the tony bedroom communities north of the city. Three suburbs that have seen the most Section 8 transfers — Frisco, Plano and McKinney — have suffered unprecedented spikes in rapes, assaults and break-ins, including home invasions.
Although HUD’s “demonstration project” may have improved the lives of some who moved, it’s ended up harming the lives of many of their new neighbors. And now Castro wants to roll it out nationwide. Soon he will give Section 8 recipients money to afford rent wherever they choose — and if they don’t want to move, he’ll make them an offer they can’t refuse.
Ironically, Hillary’s own hometown of Chappaqua is fighting Section 8 housing because of links to drugs and crime and other problems.
This is a big policy shift that will have broad implications, affecting everything from crime to property values. And it could even impact the presidential election, especially if Castro joins Hillary on the Democratic ticket.

Dominic Grossi " The Public should Pick Weeds or We will Spray Pesticides"

West Novato Farmer, Dominic Grossi, candidate for Marin County Supervisor answers a question on the use of pesticides for weed management in Marin. He suggests that citizens pull weeds or they should allow pesticide use to continue.

Public Servants: Who is Serving Whom?

Public Servants: Who is Serving Whom?

When was the last time you used a government “service”? Maybe you went to the DMV to get a new driver’s license, or maybe you signed up for new healthcare plan using (you’d better — or else!). Whatever transaction it was, there was a government employee on the other end — or as some like to call them, a public servant
Though the public’s perception of the Federal government is near rock bottom, there is still a generally positive view of government workersA recent post from the official White House blog asks citizens to consider “making a difference as a public servant,” knowing that your work would help “make someone’s life just a little bit better.” (Presumably, those who are not public servants do not perform work that “makes a difference” or makes anyone’s life better.)  
There’s even a Public Service Recognition Week every year during May. From the president's proclamation on public service this year:
A Government of, by, and for the people is sustained only through the hard work and extraordinary sacrifice of millions of citizens willing to serve the country they love.
I am not interested in judging the hearts of government employees, but do public servants in reality make “extraordinary sacrifices” compared to everyone else?


study by the government’s own Congressional Budget Office (CBO) claims public sector employees earn more money and benefits than private sector employees, with the exception of those with a doctoral degree:
Average Compensation for Federal and Private-Sector Employees
The study says Federal workers with a professional or doctoral degree make up 7 percent of the Federal workforce. Therefore, 93 percent of Federal workers earn higher salaries plus benefits than comparable workers in the private sector. I'm still waiting for the "extraordinary sacrifice" we keep hearing about.
The Cato Institute makes a similar finding: “In 2014 total federal compensation [pay + benefits] averaged $119,934, or 78 percent more than the private-sector average of $67,246.” Even the New York Times seems to reluctantly concede that state and local government workers earn more.
Maybe the word servant makes you think of a butler or maid in some grand European estate. They labor away at menial, inglorious tasks without much recognition.
What if most of the servants make more money than the family for whom the servants work. Would they still qualify as servants?


If their compensation is not less than the private sector, some may say public servants provide more important services. Even here some doubts are warranted. 
The average 401k is pessimistically forecasted by some to return 4 percent per year, while Social Security’s return on “investment” is less than optimal. For example, a single female turning 65 in 2030 will have paid $411,000 into Social Security and will only receive $371,000 in benefits. (For those of you not math savvy, that’s less than a 4 percent yearly return.)
Surely, the police are a government service bringing valuable security to civilians. Just a glance at the headlines over the last few years shows that is not always the case: Ferguson, New York, Baltimore, etc. Meanwhile in the private sector, the security company Threat Management in a decade of operation claims to have had “no deaths or injuries — either to our clients or to our own people — no criminal charges, and no lawsuits.” By the way, Threat Management provides their services to the poor for free.
But wait, you say, who else will study shrimp on treadmills? Undoubtedly, this is an area where the government excels. I could go on and on.

Revenue “Service”

As Frédéric Bastiat explains, the billions and billions in the civil servant payrolls does not descend miraculously on a moonbeam into the government’s coffers. They come from taxes. Bastiat says: “…understand that a public enterprise is a coin with two sides. Upon one is engraved a laborer at work, … that which is seen; on the other is a laborer out of work, … that which is not seen.” That is, money removed from the free economy via taxes is not allowed to go to whatever investment the owners of that money would have used it for, consequently generating another worker’s salary.
Murray Rothbard makes an interesting observation in Power and Market, chapter 4 about public servants themselves paying taxes: 
Bureaucrats are net tax consumers [, and] bureaucrats cannot pay taxes. ... [T]he bureaucrat who receives $8,000 a year income and then hands $1,500 back to the government is engaging in a mere bookkeeping transaction of no economic importance (aside from the waste of paper and records involved). For he does not and cannot pay taxes; he simply receives $6,500 a year from the tax fund.
Furthermore, taxes are involuntarily extracted from the public, the lucky benefactors of the service provided. It is hard to deny that in other relationships where someone is demanding money from someone else, we do not refer to the demander as a servant. “Internal Revenue Service” is the name of the tax agency. Who is it serving?

Job Security

This hardly needs mentioning, but public servants are much less likely to be fired than workers in the private sector. Following the Great Recession (2007–2009), the private sector had cut 3.5 percent of jobs by 2010. The public sector (Federal, state, and local) only cut 0.5 percent
From the Federal Times on public employment generally:
The firing rate held at 0.46 percent of the workforce in both fiscal 2013 and fiscal 2014 — the lowest rate in 10 years.
The private sector fires nearly six times as many employees — about 3.2 percent — according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics …


For the sake of argument, let’s just say we need government employees for maintenance of fisheries, mail delivery, and invading Middle Eastern countries. Fine. Can we at least dispense with the misnomer public servant? A servant who makes more money than those “served” (by threat of force), provides subpar service, takes away jobs, and is immune to firing cannot be accurately titled servant.

Monday, May 9, 2016

That West Marin "Crony" Rodoni

In a surprisingly blunt statement, West Marin carpenter, Dennis Rodoni promises to loot the County for the benefit of West Marin.  For forty years, West Marin politicians have been allowed to do this.  In the last housing element,  Steve Kinsey insisted that Marinwood/ Lucas Valley have 81% of all affordable housing while his district only received 2 affordable housing units.  This is why it is important in this election to support candidates that are looking out for EVERYBODY in Marin.

The Best Candidates I have found are Al Dugan, Susan Kirsch, and Kevin Haroff.   Please consider donating and volunteering for their campaign.

Sunday, May 8, 2016

Special Interests and Cronyism Sully Supervisors' Decisions

Special Interests and Cronyism Sully Supervisors' Decisions

Posted by: Mimi Willard - May 8, 2016 - 6:07pm

In an anti-establishment election year, voters should ask what our incumbent supervisors and career politicians are doing for US.

Campaign filings show our current supervisors are beholden to special interest money and the Establishment political cabal, which together can account for the majority of the money flowing to a reelection campaign.

Bad decisions result from these unfortunate allegiances.

Per Dick Spotswood, $20 million was spent on a single bike bridge over Sir Francis Drake Boulevard.

Ross Valley residents now face the prospect of an $18 million Sir Francis Drake “improvement” project, which Supervisor Rice promotes. Drake will be dug up for 2-3 years to implement changes designed to permanently slow traffic on this already-clogged, vital arterial.

Ghilotti Construction, which did much of the work for the bike bridge and will likely bid for the Drake project, has been a major contributor to Supervisors Rice, Arnold and Kinsey. Rice received $3,000 from Ghilotti so far this year.

Other big donors to incumbent supervisors are regional unions and political action committees representing construction workers, building trades, machinists, sheet metal workers, and carpenters. The construction industry is particularly keen on Rice, contributing generously and repeatedly to her “campaign” regardless of whether an election is near. Supervisor Sears also accepts construction industry money.

Is it any surprise our Supervisors greenlighted construction of four times the high density housing units mandated by regional agencies?

In approving that unpopular, bloated housing element, our Supervisors alsoviolated the Brown Act’s requirements for proper public notice and hearing process.

Unions representing Marin’s public employees, transit workers, firefighters and deputy sheriffs also contribute heavily to incumbents. Supervisors must approve any changes to public employees’ compensation, benefits, and pensions. Mushrooming compensation costs and a huge unfunded pension liability mean the county can’t maintain services and infrastructure without add-on taxes and fees that make Marin unaffordable. Yet our supervisors unanimously rejected a Grand Jury report calling for greater transparency in employee contract negotiations.

Other parties vying for contracts awarded by supervisors also help fund campaigns. These include civil engineers and consultants; refuse companies; landscape contractors; transit, ambulance, and health care companies. Many contracts are awarded or re-upped without competitive bids.

Supervisors recently bestowed Marin Sanitary, a generous contributor to several of their campaigns, a 6% rate hike payable by unincorporated area residents.

Stetson Engineers donated multiple times to Rice. The Board of Supervisors has so far awarded Stetson $650,000 in contracts for consulting services related to Ross Valley flood control planning. Despite total consultant spending of $2.5-5 million to date, the county hasn’t moved a single shovel of dirt and is not close to having an acceptable flood control plan.

In Sleepy Hollow, Rice’s neighborhood, homeowners will soon enjoy a new private clubhouse, thanks to the supervisors approving a $25,000 “grant” from their slush fund plus a $2+ million transfer of public funds toward its construction.

Roughly two dozen of the clubhouse’s financial supporters donated heavily to Rice’s campaign coffers.

It’s rare (if ever) that a supervisor recuses him or herself from votes like those above.

Rice stridently rebuffed calls to recuse herself from the Sleepy Hollow Clubhouse vote.

Constituents wonder: “Who represents US?”

Equally troubling is how our Supervisors cater to the Establishment’s crony cabal. A lot of Rice’s funds come from current, past, and wanna-be members of Marin’s political class. Some serve at the supervisors’ pleasure. Some are undoubtedly friends. And some say a contribution (and endorsement) is what it takes to ensure the county takes care of constituents’ needs. The latter is particularly disturbing.

Bad stuff also happens when political allegiance trumps the voters’ interests.

When Larkspur considered approving massive new development at Larkspur Landing (opposed by Rice’s challenger, Kevin Haroff) that would have paralyzed traffic in her district, Supervisor Rice declined to intervene, citing a tradition of deferring to local control. (Conversely, when San Anselmo’s leaders proposed turning Memorial Park into a flood detention basin, Rice vainly endorsed her allies’ unpopular project in a letter to the editor of the Marin IJ.)

When you receive the current supervisors’ campaign mailings, question whether the long list of cross-endorsements serves YOUR interests.

Much that we hold dear about Marin is at stake. Returning Marin’s career politicians to office solves nothing. We need new leadership.

The June 7 election provides a chance to vote for positive change.