By Jane Northrop
Staff Writer
San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe is conducting a
“first step” inquiry into a complaint regarding Pacifica City Council
Member Sue Digre.
“We are trying to find out if it is appropriate
for us to open an investigation. We do look at whether someone properly
lives in a jurisdiction or any conflict of interest. At this point I
have assigned someone to collect all the information to determine
whether or not to open an investigation,” he said.
The inquiry may take a week or two, he said.
The
issue arose when an anonymous letter arrived at city hall alleging that
Council Member Digre did not live at the address she said she lived at
when she filed to run for office. City papers show Digre declared her
residency at 780 Edgemar Ave.
The letter says she actually lived at Pacific Skies Estates.
Read more...
Posted by Steve Sinai
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Could someone translate what she said in the last paragraph of that article?
Baffled me. She has to step down and I think this whole thing puts a taint on anything she votes on, especially rent control. Of course, laws are for lesser people than the radicals that run this town.
"The Pacifica Tribune asked Council Member Digre to clarify her residency. She refused..."
Hey, there's some question about where you've been living. Can you clear this up for the public?
Nope!
Gee, hiding something, Ms. Digre???
It's funny one of the guys complaining about has been kicked out of the house many times. Sue moves out once and they want to feed her to the lions.
She's been out for years! I guess there is a lot of truth to the anon letter that is circulating. Nice council majority, Keener is just plain evil, Martin won her seat in a tainted election, and digre doesn't know what perjury is. Rah! Chicago politics at there best.
digre won't reveal her address. Here's the perjury problem. She filled out this form (dated for 2014 election) to run for re-election in 11/2014. What address did she list and where was she really living?
" I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. "
Page 26 nominations
https://www.shapethefuture.org/elections/2016/june/candidates_measures/documents/June2016PresidentialPrimaryCandidateGuide.pdf
AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed in circulator’s own hand) I, __________________________________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) all of the following: Print Name 1. That I am 18 years of age or older. 2. That my residence address, including street and number, is _____________________________. (If no street or number exists, a designation of my residence adequate to readily ascertain its location is ____________________________________________________________________.) 3. That the signatures on this section of the nomination paper were obtained between _________________, 20____, and ________________, 20____; that I circulated the petition and I Month and Day Month and Day witnessed the signatures on this section of the nomination paper being written; and that, to the best of my information and belief, each signature is the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. __________________ __________________________________________________________________ Date Circulator’s Signature Examined and certified by me this ___________ day of ______________________________,20________________.
When I was in college and in the Air Force, I didn't always use my current residence as my voting residence, so perhaps this is a similar situation.
Steve, When you were in college and the Air Force were you an elected official for a city of 40,000 people who stated under penalty of perjury that everything you said and wrote on a qualifying form was true? Of course not.
Digre filled out paper for Deirdre as well with perjurous information. With any luck it will invalidate the illegitimate election of that fraudster as well.
9:30
Sinai, The Trumpster is going to have you deported!
10:52, my point is that I don't know that someone's legal residence has to be the place they're currently living. I think Sue D. had a home in the Pacific Manor area before she moved to the trailer park. If she was temporarily renting in the trailer park while still owning the other home, I can see why she would have listed her Manor home as her permanent residence. Maybe she intended to go back to the Manor home.
Sinai
The main problem was she living in the Trailer Park when she conducted conversation about the evictions and didn't recuse herself. That is a bigger problem than an address issue.
Mr Steve, Nihart lives too close to the library proposed project to vote on it. How did we know that? Because she reported her current address, where she lived. Len Stone recused himself from discussion of the nursing home on the property behind the office in which he was working. I don't even think he was on the lease but, never-the-less it could be construed that he could gain financially in some way. Sue misled the public for 4 1/2 years on her whereabouts and took part in discussions about rent control and voted even though she lived in the park in question. That's a big deal. Not some college kid. She is responsible for a 50+ million dollar city budget. That's a big deal. She makes decisions that affect people's lives. That's a big deal.
Do people on council have to recuse themselves from any discussions about Highway 1 if they drive on it?
I'm admittedly too lazy to look, but I'm guessing people on council can't vote on issue if they have a chance to gain from it financially. The city negotiated a payout from the trailer park owner for people who left, and Sue said she didn't take that payout.
I also think it was such an obvious issue when she was in the trailer park that the city must have looked at whether she was allowed to participate in any discussions about it, and determined it was OK.
digre is stonewalling on her residence. if her alleged residences in various places was ok; if it's ok to live where you are not registered to vote for 4.5 years and vote anyway; if it's OK to sign documents under penalty of perjury, then she would declare her actual address. Then this DA investigation would be closed, and over with.
But the DA investigation remains open. No one in the city has said Digre's alleged trailer park address was ok. Staff had that opportunity monday night when Digre got a fairly hot reception Re the DA investigation. No one said anything about Digre's address being OK.
This isn't very complicated. If this is a total nothingburger, then why won't Digre take 30 seconds out of her life to explain the situation about where she was living and when?
The fact that she actively refuses to clarify such a simple thing speaks volumes; she's in trouble and she knows it.
If she lived, rented, owned, leased, slept, burped, or farted at Pacific Skies Estates while also voting on issues related to Pacific Skies Estates, she's in for a world of hurt.
Everyone is culpable at city hall if they knew of this which seems likely. It's one of those "look the other way. nothing to see here" situations. If everyone knew why didn't they just tell her to put the correct address on the documents? It's lying to the public pure and simple.
Steve, let's say you're right about the residence/voting thing and everything is technically on the up-and-up. If that's the case, why has Digre refused to say anything about this?
If she's totally in the right, she could tell us where she's lived (and when) and put this to rest. Instead, she refuses to answer what I think are legitimate and appropriate questions, and this creates a cloud of suspicion.
We're seeing a lot of smoke. Too much smoke. There's a fire here.
Adios, Digre.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...over on John Maybury's Riptide blog it's an alternate reality where this isn't even happening.
Hey Mayburrito, circling the wagons much?
Len Stone lived over in Montara or Moss Beach in the compound his dad built for him. The switched his address to his office address in Park Mall to fill out papers to run for city council. All his previous address where he listed, had no Len Stone in them. Yes he was living in Montara/Moss Beach and was on the City Council.
And people wonder how the town got so screwed up. No one is watching.
Eye in the Sky, your comment is 100% untrue. Len Stone was living in Sharp Park when he was on City Council. His father's name is also Len Stone so perhaps that is why you are confused.
"If that's the case, why has Digre refused to say anything about this?"
She does a lot of things that don't make sense. That isn't necessarily driven by anything sinister.
"Everyone is culpable at city hall if they knew of this which seems likely. It's one of those "look the other way. nothing to see here" situations."
When you need to start believing in conspiracies to make the world fit your beliefs, that indicates your beliefs are shaky to begin with.
How the hell did you people get me to start defending Sue D.?
We're all asking that question, Steve.
When the Pacific Skies was trying to raise rents on the homeowners a few years back, they supplied a list of residents and the rent they were paying to the planning department. SD was listed and paying considerably less rent than other renters.
Here’s evidence Digre was in the trailer park for “much of 2015”:
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview_print.php?id=1776425156537&eddate=2016-01-11
"Mayor Sue Digre lived in the park for much of last year but did not accept the relocation package although she thought when it was first proposed that it was a “good idea"
Chris
Once again your wrong. He told me he lived in his family compound in Montara Moss Beach.
I know both Len Stones. He never lived in Sharp Park.
"Once again your wrong. He told me he lived in his family compound in Montara Moss Beach."
It's easy to lie when you're anonymous.
Sinai
Only your people think everyone else is lying.
digre admission about living in trailer park sent to dist attonrey.
I would like to make an opinion on this issue. Much to do about nothing. "He or she who is without sin can cast the first stone". I know Sue Digre to be a grandmother in her 1970s, running a non-profit (PARCA), and caring for a son who is disabled, among other things. She was in the Economic Development Committee, and started the annual Giro Di Pacifica/Devil's Slide Ride bike race, she loves this community, she was active to argue for improving tourism in Pacifica, and actually did it by birthing the bike ride to attract people from out of town here. I don't see her as the ideologue she's made out to be (e.g. Environment is our Economy) I've seen her at church, and I believe fundamentally, she is a good and completely moral person. I don't believe there was any malicious intent, whatsoever, in scoring her address where she lived prior to the 2014 election, she was butterfingers, or maybe had a friend, relative or supporter collect the signatures for her, I don't know.....
Everybody has their scatterbrain moments, and for Sue, these seems like like a trifecta. In my own mind, I pardon her. It is her last term under term limits, unless term limits are to be overturned, let her serve out her term, and all the anonymous people who are dissatisfied with the senior councilwoman can run against those of her strong "ideological allies" who will run to take her place. Only a handful of people care about a nomination petition, I see error and not crime. Therese's past recall attempt was unsuccesful. None of you people has the time or energy over and above your cyberloafing to put their money where their mouth is and stage a organize a recall election, so what are you complaining about? So will we see "Notice of a Recall Organzing Committee Meeting" on Fixpacifica? Don't hold your breath.....I don't see Wagstaff prosecuting, all these career bureaucrats and politicians massage each others backs, and Sue Digre has Jackie Speier in her corner at Old girls (school) club! The voters overwhelmingly elect her and reelect her. She deserves us and we deserve her. End of story.
Space Trucker, I forgive her. Now she can resign for personal reasons and ride off into the sunset as your hero.
It's legal to have more than 1 address. One is your primary address and others are secondary or temporary. No law has been broken.
Nixon--I am not a crook. Space Trucker-- you throw a lot of words agst the very simple notion that voter fraud is not to be tolerated and even grandmothers must obey the law. digre does not get a mulligan.
Digre's "temporary" address is just the ticket. She went temporary in the trailer park and after 4 1/2 years forgot her way home.. U betcha... and while in the trailer park she forgot all her ethics training.
A lot of people don't use their current residence as their legal, voting residence. As alluded to before, college students and military members do that kind of thing all the time.
If people make a big deal about Sue D.s address and then the DA turns out to say there wasn't a problem, it empowers Sue D. and her supporters, and makes those who oppose her look clueless. It's like the last few recall attempts that backfired. Those ended up emboldening the council members that people were trying to recall.
So Sinai, Are you saying Sue D. Did no wrong?
I don't think Sue D. is going to get in any trouble for this.
Once again, for the slower blogmasters out there...
If Digre was living at the trailer park LEGAL VOTING RESIDENCE OR NOT, she would have had to recuse herself from any matters pertaining to the trailer park.
But 7:29 that's not the charge that the DA is deciding whether to investigate.
Sinai, so this might empower Digre and her cronies! They are doing just about anything they want in dismantling this town now, how much more can she be empowered?!
And 7:29, what exactly is the charge to the DA? Damn there are smart people on this blog.
"If Digre was living at the trailer park LEGAL VOTING RESIDENCE OR NOT, she would have had to recuse herself from any matters pertaining to the trailer park."
Why? Did she benefit financially in any way?
The pretend lawyers of fix pacifica are really huffing their own farts today!
When the DA gets an anonymous letter, he's only allowed to investigate the specific charge made in it and nothing else. Okay, man, whatever you say. Remove the paper bag from your nose and mouth and breathe some oxygen every now and then.
How did Digre benefit? Uh, hello?! The city negotiated a $12-15K move-out package for residents! Digre may not have taken it, but she could have! The city didn't know she wouldn't take the $15K at the time of the vote. Lay off the chili.
Sorry Anonymous, you're wrong as I was in his Sharp Park home and know he was living there.
"How did Digre benefit? Uh, hello?! The city negotiated a $12-15K move-out package for residents! Digre may not have taken it, but she could have!"
She turned down the payout. She didn't benefit.
Now it's up to the DA to decide what to do. Not us. But you remind me of a football player who's running towards the end zone and starts celebrating and high steppin' on the 10 yard line, and then spikes the ball on the 3 yard line. It looks foolish.
"She turned down the payout. She didn't benefit."
omg there's no way anyone can be this dense. you must be from sharp park
work with me here: which came first the city council meeting discussing a potential payout or the actual payout that she turned down? the city council meeting, right?
so, during the city council meeting BEFORE SUE TURNED DOWN THE PAYOUT, they discussed a payout that could have potentially benefited her -- SHE HADN'T YET TURNED IT DOWN AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
geez louise, by your 'logic' mary ann nihart should have been able to sit in on all the library talk since she never ended up benefiting from it.
think about this for a millisecond. your take on this only works if someone invents a time machine
Could she have benefited financially? For the years she lived in the trailer park she paid much less than the other renters moving in at the same time. Maybe this was a way to gain a friend on the council? Sure, there was a move out package worked out for the renters but the park also got what it wanted ... the renters are gone. Just a thought to add to the pot.
Mr. Steve, you're getting a little silly about this.
You're saying it was okay for Sue to hear Pacific Estates items because she didn't take the payout.
What you're missing is that, during the vote, no one knew if she was going to take the payout or not -- that wouldn't happen for months later. Recusal is to avoid the potential conflict of interest even if it turns out there wasn't any in the end.
Our grammar challenged friend at 12:26 has a point: apply your criteria to all council members that have ever recused themselves from an issue and you'll see that your stance doesn't make sense. Nihart could have sat in on Library matters (because it never was approved)? Stone could have sat in on Park Mall Senior Housing matters (because it was never built)? That's not how it works -- they didn't know nor could they know the end result at the time they heard the items.
If people were so sure they were correct about Sue D. doing wrong, they wouldn't hide behind anonymity. They're doing it because they don't want to look bad when it turns out they're wrong.
Chris Porter said...
Sorry Anonymous, you're wrong as I was in his Sharp Park home and know he was living there.
May 1, 2017 at 10:01 AM
Chris Porter
He may have after he was on city council but he was 100% not living there before.
His address before he ran was outside Pacifica.
Steve Sinai said...
If people were so sure they were correct about Sue D. doing wrong, they wouldn't hide behind anonymity. They're doing it because they don't want to look bad when it turns out they're wrong.
May 1, 2017 at 6:56 PM
Sinai
Most people have jobs, families and don't want their names all over local blogs. Try thinking outside the box now and then.
I don't know how true or untrue these accusations against Sue Digre are. What I do remember is that it was "rumored" that Sue lived in Pacific Sky Estates when she was litigating and voting as Mayor on the difficult issues surrounding this human tragedy. I thought it was odd that she had not recused herself but I figured that perhaps the "rumor" was false or that this potential conflict had been looked at and deemed OK due to the emergency at hand.
I specifically remember the dressing down, then Mayor Sue Digre directed at the whole city last year as Christmas was approaching, for the public's greed and apparent lack of empathy. I remember that it made me very angry that she was lecturing the city for this problem when everyone knew that the actual cause for our lack of affordable housing was the selfishness and constant sabotage of any construction in Pacifica by Sue and her wrong headed devotees for the last 30 years.
Now Sue, John and Deirdre are perpetrating the biggest insult of all by continuing to work against affordable housing and/or revenue generating development in favor of trying to unfairly tax a tiny sliver of our population, mom and pop building owners, to pay for this huge problem under the guise of RENT CONTROL. In most cases these local fellow citizens who have worked hard and sacrificed all of their lives to own a small building for their retirement now face the theft of their life's work by failed city government priorities. Deirdre is even proposing a retroactive "take" of previously paid rents. She also wants to write a letter to CALTRANS telling them thanks but no thanks, the city doesn't want their money (our tax dollars) to fix snarled Highway One traffic. She claims the "majority" of Pacificans feel the same way as she does yet she blocks a public vote to find out otherwise. You see, a snarled Highway One is a blessed problem to have because it helps the obstructionists work against any and all revenue generating development in Pacifica. Can't have it both ways.
The current 3-2 council should put it's money where it's fake heart is and put a sales tax increase on the next ballot so that EVERYONE in Pacifica can contribute to the plight of our homeless and marginally employed neighbors in Pacifica.
Not only are we being manipulated by the government in the White House we are being manipulated right here at home in little 'ole Pacifica.
8;28, so what you're saying is it's OK to accuse and attack people by name who have jobs and families, but you have to do it anonymously to protect your job and family? That doesn't seem very fair.
Why not change the rules on FP to make it so you cannot post anonymously?
We tried that for a few weeks. None of the people who had been posting anonymously were willing to comment under their own names or a consistent pseudonym, so the number of comments dropped to about 10% of what it had been.
1.Yes he was living in Montara/Moss Beach and was on the City Council.
2.Chris Porter
He may have after he was on city council but he was 100% not living there before.
His address before he ran was outside Pacifica.
Which one is it? Version 1 where he was still living in Montara when he was on City Council or version 2, he was living in Montara before he was on City Council?
Who's wrong once again?
Post a Comment