Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes


November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT
Candidates for Lodi City Council (from left) Kelly Bates, Cliff DeBaugh, Councilman Bob Johnson, Roger Khan and Mayor JoAnne Mounce answered questions Wednesday night during a candidates forum at Hutchins Street Square. (Dan Evans/News-Sentinel)

Lodi council candidates debate finances, Wal-Mart Supercenter, greenbelt at forum

By Chris Nichols
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Thursday, October 9, 2008 6:33 AM PDT

Comments (42 comment(s))

Candidates for Lodi City Council discussed their views on everything from shoring up Lodi's finances to the Wal-Mart Supercenter to a future greenbelt at Wednesday night's brief and very civil forum at Hutchins Street Square.

The 50-minute question-and-answer session was sponsored by the Lodi branch of the American Association of University Women.

Kelly Bates, Cliff DeBaugh, Roger Khan and incumbents JoAnne Mounce and Bob Johnson all attended.

One of the relatively few disagreements came on where and how to cut spending.

Bates, a Stockton school teacher and onetime police officer, said public safety agencies should not be considered for cuts.

The majority of his fellow candidates, however, said all departments should share the pain.

"I don't think there are any sacred cows," said Johnson, who is seeking his second 4-year term on the council.

When asked if she would vote in favor of the Wal-Mart Supercenter project, Mounce, the city's mayor, declined to say. She's maintained that it's her role to hear all the support and opposition on the project before deciding.

Mounce and Johnson may have to make a final call on the project later this year, should they remain on the council.

Khan, a local real estate agent, strongly supported the project. He noted it's a way to boost city sales tax revenue.

Johnson said he'd likely support it, as he has in the past, if brought to the council. Bates and DeBaugh said they want more information before deciding.

Under the bright lights of Charlene Lange Theater, the incumbents seemed more polished and in command. The challengers did show a passion for their hometown and an eagerness to lead. Johnson and Mounce, however, offered more specifics and spoke clearly and forcefully throughout the forum.

Instead of specifics, the challengers offered that they'll bring a fresh approach to the council.

DeBaugh, for example, said he'll bring problem-solving strategies he has learned as a businessman to the council. Khan said he'll bring a positive outlook that's necessary to lead during difficult times.

Bates, who acknowledged that he's "not a politician," said he'll bring a commitment to job creation and public safety.

On the last question asked at the forum, regarding Lodi's greenbelt plans, Mounce explained her efforts to reach a compromise. She noted she has met with property owners south of Lodi and county leaders to reach a consensus, centered on an AL-5 zoning plan.

That would allow property owners to build one home for every five acres they own in the greenbelt area.

"Our greenbelt is on the horizon," she stated at the forum.

She added that she would like the AL-5 zoning included in the city's upcoming General Plan update.

The candidates forum was broadcast by Comcast. It and the broadcast of the Delta College candidates forum will be repeated several times in coming days. Check local listings for days and times.

Contact reporter Chris Nichols at chrisn@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

Lodian wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:30 AM:

" Watch the clips online...
...

PBS Frontline: Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

... "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:48 PM:

" whoa nellie wrote "Face it, most of the old time families are dying out as the kids go off to college and rarely return."

Yes, and I hope Lodi can do more than allow a SWM to be built here to entice those grads back home. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:46 PM:

" whoa nellie wrote "I am proud to say I am part of an old time pioneering Lodi family."

As am I. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 13, 2008 6:45 PM:

" Whoa Nellie! wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Dang it Lodian! You've figured out our strategy; Name everything after us! Don't bother the fact that we "Old Time Generation Families" have volunteered countless hours of community service, raised Millions of Dollars for our non-profits, are leading businesses in town, etc etc... I am proud to say I am part of an old time pioneering Lodi family.

whoa nellie: My point exactly. I agree. "

Report Abuse

Whoa Nellie! wrote on Oct 13, 2008 4:50 PM:

" Dang it Lodian! You've figured out our strategy; Name everything after us! Don't bother the fact that we "Old Time Generation Families" have volunteered countless hours of community service, raised Millions of Dollars for our non-profits, are leading businesses in town, etc etc... I am proud to say I am part of an old time pioneering Lodi family.

I agree with Edmu's 10-10 927am comment: it's more of the empowerment attitude now coming from the younger generations, the under the 35age. Face it, most of the old time families are dying out as the kids go off to college and rarely return. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:43 AM:

" edumacation: There is old blood in every town/city. Time to get over it. If this bothers you then get in there and make a difference. That is what will make changes. As long as we name parks and buildings etc after Lodians then we are always going to remember their names. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:40 AM:

" See, no one wants the big box monstrosities in their backyard. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:11 AM:

" JD, nay. I LOVE living in our vineyard. You can keep your big box stores in your towns.

Most people out here love our country living and want to preserve it. "

Report Abuse

JD wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Not terribly informed about the whole greenbelt thing, but the headline gave me an idea. Instead of a "greenbelt", how about a "big box store belt"? "

Report Abuse

edumacation wrote on Oct 10, 2008 9:27 AM:

" To Lodian: I recently had a conversation with a third generation old timer from Lodi, and he agreed with my assessment. It is an attitude of
"Listen boy...I am in control". He told me he has grown up hearing that attitude from the other old timers. He doesn't belive it has to do with REAL money, just a bullying of people (the other half) into thinking they do have disproportionate (within the city) control. Its like a self-fufilling prophecy. As the older generations die out, the attitude is bound to change.


I was at party recently where a "junior GOB" was upset because everyone didn't acknowledge "who they are". A few giggles later, we played the game and tried to pretend their "lordship" was someone important. Its going to take time. Another approach is for the owned half of the city is to stop accepting the hype as gospel. Just say NO, to the plans, the conniving and the machinations of a few self appointed leaders. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:15 PM:

" edumacation wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:48 PM: "To Lodian: I have no idea."

edumacation: What? Then try to explain your Oct 9, 4:55 PM post. I don't get it. Spell it out for me. "

Report Abuse

edumacation wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:48 PM:

" To Lodian: I have no idea. Its the attitude and behavior that seeps throughout this town. It doesn't have to be real King-serf relationship. The attitude of "We are in power" is whats sad. If more people would question those in "power" or who think they have power, it would go a long way to ameliorate the problem. Part of the reason is a self-fulfilling prophecy of grandiosity I see in the infrastructure. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:57 PM:

" Thanks Cog. I agree. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:23 PM:

" edumacation (Oct 9 @ 4:55 PM): You'll have to elaborate. Who owes whom and what do they owe them? "

Report Abuse

Neo wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:27 PM:

" dogs4you; You`re right! Lodi IS controlled by unions!!! They`re called the police and fire department!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:09 PM:

" Sam and other landowners need to stand their ground. Should they decide to sell, they should have the right to sell to the highest bidder. If the city of Lodi wants the land, they should have to submit a higher bid than the developers if they wish to obtain it. "

Report Abuse

commonsense1 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 5:32 PM:

" dogs4you....So much for my attempt at humor. "

Report Abuse

edumacation wrote on Oct 9, 2008 4:55 PM:

" To Ldoan: I agree with most of what you say, burt I have a reflective question for you. If you talk to a new Lodi resident and ask them what they think of this town, they will give you a short list of pluses and minuses. Now ask them to give narrative opinion about what they think. Rightly or wrongly I hear a similar response time and time again: It goes something like this. " There are two Lodis, and it seems like one half the town owns the other half. They were not speaking of geography East vs West or North vs South, they are talking about the ATTITUDE that many Lodians have that the "other half" owes them a living, or owes them something. This is not about a theoretical GOB, but about why one group thinks that the other group are personal servants. The old timers may not see it, but its obvious to the newcomers. I believe them. "

Report Abuse

dogs4you wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:30 PM:

" commonsense1 A poll of unions? Lets see, just how many unions are there in Lodi other that the chain supermarkets? Looking at downtown I can`t name any and why should Lodi be held hostage to the unions in the first place. With the empty units that are available in Vintner`s Sq. and all over town for that matter, and with the coming of RR, a waiting line? I hardly think so. And now with the closing of Lakewood Drugs in the Lakewood mall, another empty building for someone to call this emptyness home. Fill up what`s empty first if WalMart flops. But then again, who wants an old outdated building. "

Report Abuse

commonsense1 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 2:14 PM:

" I'm not a Wal Mart customer, but I can't help but wonder what retailers Wal Mart opponents would bless. Here's an idea; Before a business can bring money or jobs to Lodi, a poll of citizens and unions should be mandatory. Who knows, maybe we would end up with a waiting list of business owners just begging for our blessing. "

Report Abuse

MadMan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:33 PM:

" mp said " Better yet, wait until the votes."

Votes, you seriously think you will have a vote on my land? "

Report Abuse

MadMan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:22 PM:

" mp, so you are claiming that we brought our AL5 to Mounce asking them to put us in Lodi's General Plan?

That is a lie. I cannot think of one farmer out here who wants to be under Lodi's jurisdiction. We all have made it clear. We want to stay in the county with Lodi not having a say about our land.

It is a moot point anyway. Your CC said they cannot afford the EIR. Done.

If we go AL5 it will be under the county's plan in 2011. It will remain out of Lodi's hands. It will NOT be a greenbelt.

So my dear, "enough already." "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Oct 9, 2008 1:10 PM:

" 4AStrongLodi wrote
"You fail to realize that we have already become Stockton. The whole county is in the same boat. We are no differnt from Stockton, Tracy, or Lathrop, except we refuse to try and attract new business. Unemployment is at 10% in the SJ County.

Farming isn't going to make this City thrive. It's not 1950 anymore!

We need to attract businesses that will bring higher-paying jobs, managed new development, and lots of redevelopment. The byproduct is more revenue for the City and will attract residents who are looking for a better way of life and have more financial resources to spend while living here."

4AStrongLodi: Yes, this is exactly why we need to shoot down this Super Wal-Mart. Lodi needs to work on attracting better "...businesses that will bring higher-paying jobs, managed new development, and lots of redevelopment". "

Report Abuse

dogs4you wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:21 PM:

" So far there have been 18 posts, of all, 4AStrongLodi has said it all, especially the last line. Even if Super WalMart goes down in flames, that area is primed for development, perhaps some of the 13 stores that would be build around the still up for debate WalMart. Build something, not fast food, enough of them. But then again RR might recrute the business` that might have been built where now stands a field of weeds. Grow or die. "

Report Abuse

4AStrongLodi wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:58 AM:

" Stupification-

You fail to realize that we have already become Stockton. The whole county is in the same boat. We are no differnt from Stockton, Tracy, or Lathrop, except we refuse to try and attract new business. Unemployment is at 10% in the SJ County.

Farming isn't going to make this City thrive. It's not 1950 anymore!

We need to attract businesses that will bring higher-paying jobs, managed new development, and lots of redevelopment. The byproduct is more revenue for the City and will attract residents who are looking for a better way of life and have more financial resources to spend while living here.

Lodi is basically strangling itself to death with this no-growth attitude. "

Report Abuse

Whoa Nellie! wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:45 AM:

" 4AStrong wrote: Why don't we worry about improving our own City before we waste useless time worrying about land that isn't even in the City limits.

It's called planning for the future. Something that previous CC have failed to do. If the many developers have their way in the future our fertile ag land will be nothing but pink & beige stucco homes and strip malls from 8-Mile Rd to Harney Lane. Lodi and Stockton will blend together like Lathrop & Manteca.

As Lodians we want the separation. Mr Khan stated last night that while Stockton home prices have fallen drastically (35%) Lodi's has remained much more stable. If we ever grow together this will only decrease our property values. And don't get me started on the issue of crime. "

Report Abuse

Whoa Nellie wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:27 AM:

" I convinced the wife to attend the "debate" with me. Honestly, if there were 15 people there who were not affiliated with the AAUW, the candidates, comcast, LNS/Record... that would be generous.

It was obvious from the replies for the challengers they had not even thought of possible questions and their answers. It was embarrassing to sit in the audience and watch 3 men wanting to be on CC stammer, uh, and um, through their replies.

It became very clear that a vote for any of the challengers would be a step backwards for the city. "

Report Abuse

4AStrongLodi wrote on Oct 9, 2008 11:17 AM:

" Mounce is a joke. Why do we need a Greenbelt on Armstrong? To separate ourselves from Stockton?

Why don't we worry about improving our own City before we waste useless time worrying about land that isn't even in the City limits.

As a CPA, I'm very shocked that Mounce doesn't undertand the economic and lifestyle impacts of a no-growth policy.

Lodi has no new jobs, unemployment is at 10%, the City is about to have a revenue shortfall of $1.5 million, and there is increasing blight and crime.

Redevelopment and growth would infuse new jobs, money and life into this City, otherwise we'll continue our path to being a small version of Detriot. "

Report Abuse

mp wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:50 AM:

" Better yet, wait until the votes. You will see what all these people have worked so hard to achieve. With or with out your help.

Did you ever answer the question: do you agree with AL5 zoning? "

Report Abuse

mp wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:48 AM:

" For the last time, my boss has met with Pat and Bruce. They asked her to bring the Lodi's 3 proposed general plans (A, B & C.) They, Pat and Bruce, asked her to include the AL5 within Lodi's general plan. So unless you were a fly on the wall...... enough already. "

Report Abuse

MadMan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:42 AM:

" mp said "the armstrong property owners expressed their desire to have overlaping general plans." That is a lie.

AL5 is a county designation and not a city one. My county land will not be part of Lodi's general plan. That is NOT a lie. That is a fact. I have the attornys to back up my claim.

None of us EVER asked to be in Lodi's General Plan. You go and ask Pat, Ken, Bruce, etc.

Lodi has no claim to our land and it will not part of your General Plan. "

Report Abuse

dogbark wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:37 AM:

" Bates is right about public safety not taking cuts. After all we've lost, uh, uh, one police officer in our 100 years.
OK nevermind.
He's right about something else. "

Report Abuse

MadMan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:32 AM:

" I am an Armstrong Property owner and I have been to the meetings. I am not a liar and I stand by my words.

I am glad your boss loves Lodi. My land is not in Lodi and neither is it under Lodi's control. "

Report Abuse

mp wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:47 AM:

" I work with Ms. Mounce and she meets with the county supervisors all the time. In fact, the last time she met with Pat Stocker, she came back to the office excited because the armstrong property owners expressed their desire to have overlaping general plans. When the county updates their general plan (which is about 4 years out) and when Lodi updates their general plan (six months out) both plans with reflect AL5 zoning.
By the way, please don't call my boss a liar. She is a great lady who loves Lodi. You guys are just mean. "

Report Abuse

MadMan wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:31 AM:

" Sam, I agree. 16925, that is an untrue statement.

16925, I am one of the leaders. We have never asked to be part of Lodi's General Plan. We want to remain in the county.

I also agree with Sam in saying that as of today "Any candidate claiming they will deliver Lodi a "greenbelt" is lying." "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:20 AM:

" 16925 said "It is my understading that the land owners and the county have asking Lodi to incorporate the AL5 zoning into Lodi's general plan"

That is a lie.

We have never asked to be part of Lodi's General Plan. You call Ken Vogel. You call the Armstrong Leaders. You are uninformed about us wanting to be part of Lodi's General Plan.

We have been so clear. We are controlled by the county and want NOTHING to do with Lodi. "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:02 AM:

" to early to spell check... sorry.

"Lodi wants us to "give" them our land." "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:02 AM:

" Th AL5 is NOT part of Lodi.

Lodi's CC refuses to pay for the EIR so we may work on it with the county. I have been a part of the meetings. Lodi wants us to "give" them our lane. Sorry. Not interested. It is illegal to have it on Lodi's General Plan.

AL5 is NOT a greenbelt. "

Report Abuse

16925 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:22 AM:

" AL5 zoning is a good greenbelt. "

Report Abuse

16925 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:20 AM:

" It is my understading that the land owners and the county have asking Lodi to incorporate the AL5 zoning into Lodi's general plan. Call Ken Vogel. Call the leaders of the Armstrong property owners. "

Report Abuse

16925 wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:15 AM:

" Sam, Do you agree with the AL5 zoning? "

Report Abuse

sam wrote on Oct 9, 2008 7:55 AM:

" Lodians, you should know there is NO greenbelt on the horizon. The CC has made it clear that Lodi cannot afford to pay for an EIR. The issue is currently dead.

Labeling my land on Armstrong falsely as a greenbelt is illegal and worthy of a lawsuit. We are zoned AG40 under the control of the county.

Lodi has absolutely no say or control off
any land on Armstrong. Lodi's jurisdiction stops 1/2 mile south of Harney. Any candidate claiming they will deliver Lodi a "greenbelt" is lying.

Pay close attention to the promises your candidates make. Their true colors will show. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads




Leaf Pickup

Services

Contact Us

Office

125 N. Church St.
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95241
(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Newsroom

E-mail

(209) 369-7035
Fax: (209) 369-6706

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Problems with your subscription?
(209) 333-1400

Advertising

E-mail

(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Classifieds

Place an ad E-mail

(209) 333-1111
Fax: (209) 369-1084