1) Quality of Life. These are the issues that will reverse the brain drain, and attract knowledge workers, as well as benefit all of us: Exciting downtown, healthy neighborhoods, San Joaquin River Parkway.

2) Economic Development: Focus on the health and growth of locally-owned companies, the ones who bring profits, jobs, taxes into the region.

3) Great Planning. There are no bad neighborhoods that have had good planning. Good neighborhoods are the result of good planning. We need to raise our community's quality standards and clean up out-of-date zoning that hurts old neighborhoods.

4) Hire the Best and Brightest management and leadership for the City administration. A company is only as good as its leadership. When there are openings, we should make sure that we have the most able and knowledgeable leaders. This is the power of the strong mayor.

5) Be Innovative. Be interesting. Be creative. Encourage participation and transparency.

I agree with and Craig's point about quality of life, economic development, and great planning being the central issues to address. There is a problem with two of the top mayoral candidates though that will make addressing these issues difficult.

First, both Ashley Swearnegin and Henry Perea have taken large amounts of money from developers. When you take from someone you are obligated to reciprocate in favor. In other words, you don’t bite the hand that feeds you. I have seen the campaign donation statements and it is a fact that both of these candidates have taken noticeably large amounts of developer money. They have taken more than the other candidates, which explains why they have raised more money.

Developer interests are often not the same as your average Fresno resident. This is why there is no logical pattern to the urban development of the City of Fresno. Developers are the modern day feudal lords who rule local Fresno politicians with their money and influence.

Second, both Swearnigin and Parea lack leadership skills. McEwen’s recent article nailed this point home about Swearnigin's lack of experience and leadership skills. This also applies to Perea who is only 30 years old and has never held a real job in his life. Political jobs were handed to him by his daddy’s influence, which should raise eyebrows about his ability to be deliberate.

Thus, the inability of both of these candidates to act independently of developers and their lack of leadership will ultimately undermine their ability to be effective leaders and to implement the goals you have mentioned. It looks like it will be “business as usual” if either one of these individuals gets elected.

I agree with the list of "To do's" for the next mayor. Quality of life is of utmost importance, as is economic development. In actuality, this list is interrelated.

On the issue of quality of life, which is number one on the list, how can you attain a better quality of life for Fresnans with Perea at the helm? He has voted against the recommendations of environmental impact reports to the demise of our air quality--How can Perea call himself green, progressive or say that he has our best interests at heart. He is not a defender of quality of life. Furthermore, I doubt that Ashley can do much better. You are not going to bite the hand that feeds you, and her campaign is being fed by big money interests (developers).

We need a mayor who is going to have the strength of character and leadership to do good by this list and not be influenced by big money.

Respectfully, I would ask that both Miguel and Helen review the numbers on all of the candidates.

Miguel, you state that you have 'seen' the financial statements of some candidates, but if that were actually true your posting would be much different. I have seen the statements of most and your blog comments are simply not true. Sorry.

In the first reporting period Ashley Swearengin raised more money than any other candidate, but very little came from developers. She received broad support from nearly 150 different people (many of whom were first-time-givers to a campaign) and my rough estimate was that 8 or 9 percent was from 'developers.' And some of those folks that could be categorized as developers people or companies who gave to more than one candidate and/or have been legitimately, actively involved in local politics for some time.

Your numbers are just plain wrong.

A much larger percent of contributions from developers can be found with both Henry Perea and Mike Dages. As a percent of their income these two received considerably more from both developers and special interest PACs.

I know on a blogpost folks can say whatever they want and don't have to have the facts right.....but your unsupported statements needed a quick response.

For the record; Per the March Quarterly reports, Ashley Swearengin has a reported $142,319 in total contributions. It would be fair to deduct the $19,100 that she personally loaned her campaign for startup funds, which brings her total real contributions to $123,219.

Of the $123,219.00, I was personally able to count up a total of $76,080 in developer (or other related businesses reliant on developers) contributions. In addition, there were approximately $9,650 in contributions made by farm related businesses, aka; developers...for a total of $85,730 vested interest/developer dollars, just off the top of my head with minor assistance from my google browser. The remaining monies were kindly donated by more personal vested interests, like her family members, RJI related businesses and other local businesses that rely on her for their future employment.

Therefore, the percentage of developer related contributions....if you are not a biased polisci professor who works with Ms. Swearengin...is actually closer to 70% without her parents, employees, personal loan and relatively few non-developer contributions.

The real question here is; "How much of that $142,319 has Ashley Swearengin invested back into the community she is campaigning to represent?"

About 2%.

Well, slightly less than 2%, but I'm not a math major.

Yes, the bulk of Ms. Swearengin's campaign contributions raised has been outsourced to companies she trusts to get her elected. I did not calculate in the numbers she spent on large local chains, primarily for postage related matters, but other than that, she has spent $21,948.68 locally.

I'm sorry Mr. Schecter, but Ashley wins the developer scandal hands down. Perea is also a puppet, but you are the one with the "wrong numbers".

Here is a quick response that has been verified and can be easily verified by looking at the candidates Swearengin and Perea's own websites. Then look up some of the endorsement both of these candidates have. BOTH SWEARENGIN AND PEREA talk about their endorsements and their support, but what they are HIDING FROM THE PUBLIC is the FACT that both of these candidates have endorsements and have taken money from the very same people who are members of the company WHO WANTS TO BUILD A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT RIGHT IN OUR OWN BACK YARD!
Nuclear power is not clean and the Uranium enrichment is one of the highest emission causes known. Not to mention making Fresno an immediate terrorist target and the fact that this nuclear company will cost the people 500 BILLION dollars and take up 4000 acres of Fresno property! This company's plan will take over 100 years to pay for itself and by then the NUCLEAR plant will be offline.
So, we have Perea and Swearengin who have the NUCLEAR GROUP behind them along with casinos and developers. We have Duncan and Dages who have special interest's and developers behind them. The ONLY candidates who have NO SPECIAL INTERESTS backing them is Jim Boswell, Barbara Hunt and Ignacio Garibay. Now, out of those three, who has plans that will work for the public and who has the MOST COMPREHENSIVE GREEN TECHNOLOGY PLAN EVER SEEN? The answer is Jim Boswell. Jim Boswell also has a plan that will use a 100% clean and green power generation system that could provide enough power for every home in Fresno and it wouldn't take but about 600 million, would take only 400 acres and would pay for itself in about 5 years. I have been watching EVERY candidate and listening to their speeches. The ONLY candidate who has said the same things in EVERY forum is Jim Boswell. The other candidates keep changing their speeches depending on who they are speaking to and thus, lie to whoever they think will help them.
The reality is that we can elect a lying politician who will work for the special interests they owe or we can elect the one candidate who will work for us and who will put in place his plans that will help EVERYONE. That candidate is Jim Boswell.

Mr. Schecter,

I completely disagree with your claims.

Lets be clear about your perspective so people know the motivation for your colored and biased perspective. I know for a fact you are a consultant for Swearengin's campaign. You were seen filing papers with her in the news.

You question whether I have seen the campaign statements and you are way off base. I read the records and found that you donated 100.00 to her campaign. This suggests you are defending Ashley out of personal bias. I think this proves I have read the statements.

I now want to address the substantive claims. First, you admitted in your previous post that 8 or 9 percent of her contributions did come from developers. This is a significant point and should not be dismissed as you suggest. 8 or 9 percent of her contributors were from developers and yet they gave a disproportionate share of the total money raised. So it doesn't matter if only 8 or 9 percent donated, this is still enough for developers to buy her vote off.

Second, it should be noted in examining these contributions that many developers donated money under different names and businesses. Your estimate that only 8 or 9 percent of contributors are developers is a gross underestimation.

Also, many of her donors are RJI related individuals, not your average Joe. This is troubling because it suggests that if they give money they might receive preferential treatment in the future from RJI. For example, I'll give you money now and when you are back at RJI you can take care of me. Claud Laval, Pete Weber and the usual cast of business partners all threw in a good chunk of change for her campaign. All these people who are business and political insiders.

Finally, many of Ashley's donors are medium to large size business owners. This further emboldens my point that business and not your average citizen are driving her campaign. The overwhelming percent of campaign contributions came from medium and large size businesses. If you don’t think these businesses will have a major influence on her policies in office then you are a naive political scientist. Money buys many things in life including politics.

Thus, the larger to point to note is that Ashley is an insider and not an outsider. She will be beholden to the big businesses financing her campaign.

Go to www.votetom08.com to view the campaign statements of all the candidates. Everything you want to see is posted on that website at the bottom.