Re-Elect Steven Scharf to Cupertino City Council

11/05/2020

No one should be despair about the election results in Cupertino. I'm not.

Yes, we'd have loved to have a 5-0 pro-resident majority on City Council, but very very few cities can achieve this, and 4-1 is still something to celebrate. The City is safe from exploitation for at least the next two years. We just have to be sure that in 2022 we continue with a 4-1 pro-resident City Council.

If you look at the Form 460s, which detail campaign contributions, you'll understand what the pro-resident, grassroots candidates (Kitty Moore and myself) were up against. The top vote-getter collected an enormous amount of money from Special Interest groups, which in turn received money for that purpose from developers.

Understandably, the two developer-controlled candidates refused to agree to the voluntary campaign spending limit, but Kitty and I both signed it. One developer offered me a very very large amount of money and I turned it down, explaining that I'd rather lose than take compromise my principles.

Kitty and I, who were both grassroots, pro-resident, progressive candidates knew that Hung Wei would win and that one of us was likely to win, and that's how it turned out. Since Kitty said she would not run again if she lost, I was not upset that she essentially took my seat as a pro-resident candidate. She'll be an awesome Council Member and mayor.

The new City Council will select four Planning Commissioners in January and it's essential that we have knowledgeable, dedicated, ethical, and honest residents apply for those positions. The 2023-31 Housing Element will be a huge task that will require a lot of work.The current Planning Commission has been awesome and we have to continue that going forward.

If I'm sad about one thing it's that so many voters didn't care, or didn't realize, that two candidates took so much money from special-interest groups that are seeking to exploit Cupertino for their own financial gain.

11/04/2020

Congratulations to Hung Wei and Kitty Moore.

If the current trends hold, and Hung Wei and Kitty Moore are elected, Cupertino voters have retained a 4-1 progressive, resident-centered, majority on City Council. This was unthinkable prior to 2016 when Cupertino had at least a 4-1 developer-controlled majority, and in 2016-2018, when we had a 3-2 developer-controlled majority.

While I am disappointed about losing, I am not unhappy or depressed.

Going in to this election we all knew that it was likely that Hung Wei would win, given the unprecedented amount of money she collected from special interests. We also knew that the second open seat would be won by a resident-focused candidate, either Kitty or myself.

This was never about me. It was always about doing what was best for Cupertino and its residents. Serving four years on City Council, and two years as mayor, was an incredible honor and experience.

Sure, a 5-0 progressive, resident-centered majority is what we sought, but retaining a 4-1 majority, in light of the huge sums of money that special-interests poured into this election, is still something incredible to celebrate. I have no regrets about not accepting special-interest money, even though it was offered to me in obscene amounts.

The 4-1 resident-centered Council majority will continue to move Cupertino forward through the challenging times ahead, especially with regards to the 2023-2031 RHNA Cycle. Kitty Moore is scary smart and knowledgeable and will make an awesome City Council member. Darcy Paul, if selected as mayor in December as expected, will of course be a great mayor (again).

Some people have asked me about my future plans. I will continue to serve the City and will likely apply for a spot on one of the City Commissions. Yes, the usual progression is from a Commission to City Council, and not the other way around, but I have no delusions of grandeur.

Especially useful to the City will be my knowledge of State Housing laws. On the City Council, Liang Chao and myself were the most knowledgeable, and on Planning Commission Kitty Moore was the most knowledgeable, so we didn't lose that knowledge on City Council with me losing and Kitty winning. But on Planning Commission, Kitty's departure will leave big shoes to fill. There are very few Cupertino residents with much knowledge of these laws, and we need them to step up for openings on Planning Commission and the Housing Commission.

I have not decided as to whether or not I will run again in 2022, but I am saving my yard signs! Please don’t throw them away, I want them back.

11/01/2020

Received two campaign pieces in the mail from the developer-owned City Council candidates. Since they did not agree to the voluntary campaign spending limit they have a LOT of money to spend on mailers.

It was very sad to see so much misinformation being promulgated. Hopefully no voters are gullible enough to believe what is written in those flyers.

The most galling lie was that those two candidates would "better manage our tax dollars" since they are partially responsible for the wasting of nearly $500,000 of taxpayer money.

Another lie was claiming that J.R. Fruen was a "longtime community advocate." For what community?! He has lobbied against transparency and against fiscal responsibility and against affordable housing.

Please vote for the two grassroots candidates. Steven Scharf and Kitty Moore. Unlike our opponents, we have taken no money from special interest groups or developers.

Kitty Moore and Steven Scharf are also the ONLY candidates that are working to resolve CUSDs school funding issues, in order to prevent or reduce the number of school closings. This is a critical issue for our community.

11/01/2020

Why have City Council Candidates J.R. Fruen and Hung Wei been conspicuously absent from the CUSD School Closure discussions?

The clue is in the placement of so many of their yard signs on the properties of large property owners with large numbers of rental apartments. J.R. Fruen and Hung Wei are the only two candidates permitted to place their signs on apartment complexes like Biltmore, Main Street, Markham, etc., and with good reason!

CUSD board members, and the two pro-public school candidates, Planning Commissioner Kitty Moore and Mayor Steven Scharf, have been advocating for a Berkeley style school funding measure which would assess school taxes based on the square footage of a property, rather than assessing a per parcel tax. This kind of school tax is much fairer and ends the unfair subsidy that homeowners are providing to corporate apartment complex owners.

It looks like CUSD is leaning toward putting a per-square-foot tax on the ballot, if for no other reason than per-parcel school taxes are not passing (all six measures on the March 2020 ballot in Santa Clara County failed, and failed badly). Yet Hung Wei has repeatedly opposed a per-square-foot school funding measure while J.R. Fruen has said nothing about it.

Who would be against the much fairer per-square-foot school tax? The same people that always try to escape paying their fair share! Large corporate apartment complex owners in particular. Commercial office property owners might also be opposed.

You can see why the special-interest Cupertino City Council candidates, that are funded and supported by developers, Chamber of Commerce, large apartment complex owners, YIMBY groups, and the San Jose Mercury, would be opposed to more equitable school funding measures since their financial backers would no longer be paying an absurdly low share of school funding.

Passing a per-square-foot school funding measure will not be easy, but it should be noted that in Berkeley it was last renewed by an amazing 89% to 11%. If we all work toward passage we can do this!

The attached spreadsheet shows one example of the current inequity in school funding. If you wonder why there are so many J.R. Fruen and Hung Wei signs around Main Street, you have the answer!

11/01/2020

Amazing "Save Our Schools" rally yesterday at Cali Mill Plaza!

From toddlers to seniors, residents came out to rally for our public schools and for the pro-school candidates.

For Cupertino Union School district the only pro-schools candidate is Sudha Kasamsetty. Please vote ONLY for her.

For Foothill De-Anza, the only pro-schools candidate is
Govind Tatachari. Please vote ONLY for him.

For Cupertino City Council, the only two pro-schools candidates are Planning Commission Chair Kitty Moore and Mayor Steven Scharf.

10/31/2020

Great campaign bicycle ride with Cupertino residents today.

We rode across the City to many of the schools that are proposed for closure, Sedgwick, Hyde, Regnart, Lincoln, and Stevens Creek.

Myself and Planning Commission Chair Kitty Moore are the only two City Council Candidates that are working to help Cupertino Union School District address its funding issues.

Both Kitty and I spoke at the CUSD special meeting on October 28th about the school funding issues and how to solve them. The other three City Council Candidates were Missing In Action!

Please be sure to vote for the only two grassroots, resident-supported candidates, Steven Scharf and Kitty Moore. The special-interest, developer-controlled candidates do not care about our City or our public schools.

10/30/2020

www.forbes.com/sites/jonathanreichental/2020/10/30/silicon-valley-city-agency-goes-digital-after-the-state-orders-everyone-to-work-from-home/

Wow!

Our City benefits from an excellent City Staff that is supported by our City Council.

Instead of wasting $70+ million on a new City Hall, as one soon-to-be-termed out City Council member was promoting, we invested in preparing for the future of work. When Covid-19 hit, Cupertino didn't miss a beat. As a result we are coping much better with the pandemic than many of our neighboring cities. While our hotel revenue is way down of course, our sales tax revenue has been good.

Many City jobs don't require the employee to physically be in the office to perform effectively. Our City Manager knows how to "manage by results."

It was wonderful to see a respected national publication write so glowingly about our City. Good job CTO Bill Mitchell! The entire IT staff has really stepped up during the pandemic. They are in City Hall upgrading computers, solving network issues, and ensuring that meetings can be held via Zoom.

It is disheartening when I see people, including two City Council candidates, disparage our City with false claims that are promulgated by their special-interest backers.

The reality is that Cupertino has a stellar reputation in the region, the state, and the nation.

Bill Mitchell, the CTO of Cupertino, California, was ready and able to answer the call to support many services digitally after the state ordered city staff to work from home during the Covid-19 pandemic.

10/29/2020

In 2004, Mountain-View Whisman School District passed a per-square-foot parcel tax.

http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/scl/meas/J/

In tonight's CUSD meeting, one board member claimed that it failed. It's important that our elected leaders know the facts before speaking.

Perhaps this board member was concerned that developers and corporate apartment complex owners would be opposed to a per square foot school tax?

We so need to end the influence of developer and special-interest money in our cities and schools!

10/29/2020

Great that so many Cupertino residents showed up for the CUSD Board Meeting to speak.

Thanks to Cupertino City Council member Liang Chao, Cupertino Planning Commission Chair Kitty Moore, FHDA Board Candidate Govind Tatachari, and grassroots residents Peggy Griffin and Lisa Warren, for speaking.

None of the other Cupertino City Council candidates or Foothill-De Anza Board candidates took the time to show up to speak.

The bottom line is that CUSD cannot rely on donations to fund the schools, either from individuals or corporations, a reliable, sustainable funding model is necessary.

10/27/2020

Mayor Steven Scharf and Planning Commission Chair Kitty Moore Are the Only Two City Council Candidates With a Plan to Help CUSD Solve Their Funding Issues.

The CUSD funding crisis was a long time coming and was the result of inaction by past CUSD Board Members. It is not an enrollment issue; all these schools were open even when enrollment was less than it is now.

While the six cities with schools in CUSD cannot give money directly to schools, we can take actions that will address both the short-term and long-term funding issues.

In March 2020, Measure O, a $125 per parcel school tax for CUSD failed. But CUSD was not alone. Every school parcel tax in Santa Clara County that was on the ballot also failed.

Clearly, per-parcel school taxes are not viewed favorably by voters, and with good reason. A 200 unit apartment complex pays $250 in parcel tax, about $2.08 per apartment. A single-family home, whether a house, condo, or townhouse, pays $250 as well. And since the apartments turn over much more often that single-family homes, the time-averaged number of students in an apartment is greater (most people don't sell their home and move when their children are done with the Cupertino Schools, but apartment dwellers are likely to move to less expensive areas). Corporate apartment complex owners are charging high rents because of Cupertino Schools, but they are not contributing their fair share of parcel taxes. They are also not contributing their fair share of property taxes, but that is a Proposition 13 issue.

There are multiple steps that Voters, Cities, and CUSD can take to address the funding issues:

1. CUSD can follow the Berkeley model and replace parcel taxes with per-square-foot taxes. This can generate far more revenue but the burden on homeowners could actually be less because commercial property, both apartments and offices, would have to pay more. Mayor Scharf and Planning Commissioner Moore both favor this approach, while candidate Hung Wei opposes it.

2. CUSD can sell surplus land, but not schools, to cities. This has been suggested in the past, but CUSD was not interested. For example, CUSD purchased the land adjacent to Sedgwick Elementary School on Phil Lane and Finch Avenue. This land is unused. Cupertino has long been interested in this parcel for a park. The City could purchase this land for a park with the agreement that should part or all of the land be needed for future school expansion, CUSD could repurchase it at the assessed value.

3. Cities can encourage for-sale housing which generates more property taxes for schools, per housing unit.

4. Voters can pass Prop 19, the "Intercounty Base Year Value Transfer" system that would increase the turnover of existing housing stock to both increase property tax revenue and increase enrollment.

5. Voters can pass Prop 15, the "Split Roll" system, which will correct the imbalance of property taxes without affecting Proposition 13 assessments of residential property. Prop 15 will allow commercial property, but not apartment complexes, to be assessed at market value.

6. Voters can elect competent CUSD Board Members. In this election, please vote ONLY for Sudha Kasamsetty. She is the only qualified candidate.

7. Voters can elect City Council Members that understand the issues facing Cupertino and CUSD, and that are transparent, knowledgeable, experienced, and ethical. For Cupertino, the only two candidates meeting these criteria are Mayor Steven Scharf and Planning Commissioner Kitty Moore.

Visit http://schar4cupertino.com for more information.

Paid for by Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council 2020 FPPC ID #1388099

10/27/2020

Still Undecided on Who to Vote For in the Cupertino City Council Election?

Planning Commission Chair Kitty Moore and Mayor Steven Scharf are the only two socially progressive and fiscally conservative candidates on the ballot.

See http://scharf4cupertino.com/progressive.htm

This compares the candidates' positions on vital issues facing Cupertino, including schools, housing, and sustainability.

Planning Commission Chair Kitty Moore and Mayor Steven Scharf are the only two serious candidates that agreed to the campaign spending cap (signified by ◆ on the ballot) because they are the only two serious candidates NOT funded by massive amounts of money from developers and special interests.

The choice Is clear. Carefully evaluate the differences between the Cupertino City Council Candidates before casting your ballot.

Transparency, Knowledge, Experience, and Ethics Matter!

Visit our Web Sites for More Information and for Policy Papers
http://scharf4cupertino.com/
http://kitty4cupertino.org/

Paid for by Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council 2020 FPPC ID #1388099 and Kitty Moore for Council 2020 FPPC #1428355

10/26/2020

Today we had volunteers spread out across part of the City to talk to voters. Originally we had thought that no one would open their door, due to Covid-19, but the reality is that people wanted to talk. It was much more engaging than just dropping a flyer without trying to talk to the voters.

About 40% of the houses we visited had not voted yet, and the other 60% had almost all voted for the grassroots candidates.

I know that many people say that political flyers have no effect on how they vote but what I've found is that it's the mailed flyers which have the least impact, while hand-delivered flyers have at least a slight chance of being looked at if they are not just full of text.

Negative campaigning is not appreciated by voters, but clearly pointing out the differences candidates have on important issues is fine, and that's what I did in one of my flyers, using a spreadsheet to highlight the differences between the five candidates.

Keeping a positive message, while also pointing out that other candidates are backed by special-interests and have a history of being anti-resident, is a fine line to walk. Last week I was talking to one resident who had received an attack mailer against me. I told her, "I'm about to reach an agreement with my opponents; they are going to stop lying about me, and in return I'm going to stop telling the truth about them."