North Valley Review

Breaking News:

Could Stockton Be Getting a Data Center? Despite Modest Turnout, Mayor's Town Halls Were an Informative Success, Community Members Say

Over the weekend, Stockton Mayor Christina Fugazi held three town halls across the city. They were marketed as opportunities for one on one discussions with community members rather than the type of interaction residents typically see during public comment at City Hall.

If you missed the first round of meetings, don't worry. The mayor says they will become a regular event. On social media, Fugazi posted:

«"In July we will be at Seifert Community Center, Stockton Central Library, and Troke Library. More locations to come in the months ahead, but looking forward to seeing you this SATURDAY to start this monthly tradition. Are you ready?"»

In addition to discussing familiar topics such as crime reduction efforts and infrastructure projects, the mayor also addressed subjects some might have expected her to avoid. One of those topics was data centers.

Across the nation, data centers have become a controversial issue. Supporters view them as a source of jobs, economic development, and tax revenue. Critics worry about environmental impacts, including water usage, energy consumption, and noise.

Several community members who attended the meetings shared notes with us. According to those notes, the discussion included the following points:

«"Data center proposals were discussed with environmental concerns including water use, power grid drain, and noise. Model Cities Initiative funding of $300 million was announced and Stockton will apply for related DOJ grants and other federal resources."»

Another note stated:

«"City emphasized that modern data center designs can be closed loop with water returned to aquifer systems, but temperature and localized impacts must be monitored. Community members expressed concerns and discussed petitions regarding additional data center growth."»

Stockton City Council District 5 candidate Desiree Lynch attended two of the three meetings. While acknowledging the modest turnout, she described the events as successful and worthwhile.

"I would like to thank Mayor Christina Fugazi for hosting this important event, both of which were free and open to the public at large. However, building positive community spirit and stronger neighborhoods requires as much participation as possible."

Many Stockton residents have become accustomed to seeing a line of speakers at City Hall every other Tuesday, exercising their right to address elected officials during public comment. It is an important part of the democratic process. At the beginning of each council meeting, the mayor ensures that the city clerk reviews the rules, including prohibitions on personal attacks and reminders that public comment is not intended as a back and forth discussion.

The town halls were marketed differently. Instead of formal public comments, they were intended to create opportunities for direct conversations between residents and city leaders. Interestingly, the usual criticism and public admonishment often directed at local officials during council meetings was largely absent.

When asked about the atmosphere at the meetings, former City Council candidate and longtime community advocate Annette Sanchez told us:

"No, they were not angry or confrontational. She really did listen, particularly when parking issues and costs to the public came up. She said she would look into it."

The City of Stockton is currently engaged in ongoing discussions about promoting events and initiatives that could help improve the city's image. That can be a difficult task when positive developments such as park improvements must compete for public attention with more serious issues, including violent crime.

If these town halls continue to be held regularly, it will be interesting to see whether attendance grows in the coming months.

Editor's Note: We are attaching notes taken by community members who attended one of the town halls. While we appreciate those attendees sharing their notes with us, we cannot independently verify that every detail contained within them is completely accurate, as we did not attend the meeting ourselves.

Central California City Recalled Its City Council. They Refuse to Step Down and No One Knows What Happens Next. Arrest Them?

Avenal, California, is a small farming community about 30 to 40 miles from Hanford. Like many small cities, much of its government services are handled at the county level. One issue that had frustrated residents for years was the lack of a local fire department. When city leaders failed to act on residents' wishes, voters responded by recalling all but one member of the City Council in an overwhelming election.

The recall election was officially conducted by Kings County, which is how elections have traditionally been administered for the City of Avenal and for most cities throughout California. Despite the results, the recalled councilmembers and city management have refused to accept the outcome.

Those who lost the recall election argue that the election was invalid because it was conducted by Kings County rather than the city itself. However, that claim has received little legal support. Judicial reviews have thus far upheld the legitimacy of the recall election, and the county's role in administering elections has long been established.

At the most recent City Council meeting, the recalled councilmembers appeared and conducted business as though the recall had never occurred. Residents packed the meeting and expressed outrage. Ricardo Verdugo, the lone councilmember who survived the recall, stated that the meeting itself was illegal and left after public comment.

According to CBS47:

"The one city council member to escape the recall, Ricardo Verdugo, told the crowd he only attended Thursday's meeting out of protest."

"My appearance should not be interpreted as a consent, ratification, or acknowledgement of the legality of this meeting," Verdugo said.

Despite the ongoing legal dispute, the recalled councilmembers voted to reject the results of the recall election and approved spending hundreds of thousands of dollars toward the creation of a new fire department. However, those actions may ultimately be meaningless if a court determines the meeting itself was unlawful.

During the meeting, restraining orders were served on the recalled councilmembers, as well as the city clerk and city manager. The situation now appears headed toward further court intervention. If the officials continue refusing to comply with court orders, the next step could be a judge directing the Kings County Sheriff's Office to enforce the rulings and remove the recalled officials from power.

This could easily end up in a pi**ed off judge ordering the members be jailed by the Kings County Sheriff's Department.

Do They Actually Live in the District? What the Law Really Says About Residency

Recently, the Mayor of Fairfield resigned following questions about her residency and a $66,000 investigation. One thing most people probably do not know is that the law firm hired to investigate those allegations ultimately issued a report that, while acknowledging some ambiguity, cleared her.

Kaufman Legal Group stated in a memo:

"Outside counsel does not believe there currently is evidence to support a finding that the Mayor is not a resident of the City of Fairfield."

There was still an issue, however. The Mayor had been moving between three different addresses within Fairfield. The memo also outlined the options available to the City Council if it wished to pursue additional investigation. So she resigned six months before her term ended.

In Stockton, establishing residency is fairly straightforward on paper. To run for City Council, a candidate must reside in the district they seek to represent and be registered to vote 30 days before before filing nomination papers.

For example, if someone wanted to challenge Councilmember Mariella Ponce for Stockton City Council District 2 in 2028, they would likely need to move into the district sometime in 2027. Because Stockton holds a primary election in March during presidential election years, the nomination period begins early. A prospective candidate would need to establish residency in District 2, register to vote there, file nomination paperwork in early 2028, and continue meeting residency requirements through the election and until taking office in 2029.

Here is where things become more complicated.

The law does not focus heavily on physical presence. There is no requirement that someone sleep at a particular address a certain number of nights each week. That reality may surprise some people and could even frustrate others.

Take Stockton Vice Mayor Jason Lee as an example. It is no secret that he travels frequently. His social media accounts often show him in airports and hotels around the country. However, California law specifically allows for situations in which a person's employment or other obligations require them to be away from home.

California Government Code Section 36502 states:

"(a) It is the place where one remains when not called elsewhere for labor or other special or temporary purpose, and to which he or she returns in seasons of repose."

In other words, someone may spend significant time away for work and still maintain residency at a particular address.

The same law also states:

"(b) There can only be one residence."

A person cannot primarily live in one home while claiming another as their legal residence for political purposes. However, because the law does not establish a strict physical presence test, residency is often determined through other evidence. That can include where a person their vehicle is registered, where they receive tax documents, and similar indicators.

The Fairfield memo referenced an opinion from the California Attorney General's Office, which stated:

"While the question of domicile is a mixed question of law and fact, many factors enter into the equation, including where an individual is registered to vote and his or her address for mail, where tax returns are filed, where an automobile is registered, and where a homeowner's exemption or renter's credit is taken."

Even that does not fully resolve the issue.

The same opinion goes on to state:

"However, the critical element is that of intent. While declarations of intent are significant, they are not determinative. The acts must be examined as well."

That makes residency cases especially difficult.

People move. Family circumstances change. Job obligations arise. If an elected official permanently moves out of their district, they are generally expected to resign. But proving that someone intentionally deceived the public about where they live is another matter entirely.

To establish wrongdoing, it is often not enough to show that a person spends time elsewhere. One would likely need evidence that the person did not actually treat the claimed address as their residence and never intended to do so.

Recently, an article by the Stockton Observer reported that NAACP President Bobby Bivens raised concerns about the residency of District 5 candidate Desiree Lynch.

According to the report:

"Bivens also flagged an unresolved concern: questions from community members about whether Lynch actually resides in the district. He framed it not as an accusation but as a matter of electoral integrity."

The article also noted that:

"Lynch strongly rejected these residency concerns, stating that her home fully complied with all legal residency requirements and that her candidacy was officially reviewed and certified."

Residency allegations are hardly unique.

Questions have been raised about numerous elected officials and candidates over the years. Brando Villapudua has faced accusations that he lives in Brookside rather than his district. Jessica Toccolli was registered to vote in a different district shortly before running for office. Michelle Padilla has faced questions regarding her residence while serving on the council. Tamica Small has also been the subject of residency allegations.

Notably, almost every candidate in the upcoming runoff election has faced some form of residency scrutiny. The lone exception appears to be Councilmember Michael Blower.

Ultimately, residency is established through voter registration and supporting documentation. If someone believes an elected official is unlawfully holding office because they do not reside in the district, California law provides a specific process to challenge that claim.

The California Attorney General's Office defines "Quo Warranto" as:

"a special form of legal action used to resolve a dispute over whether a specific person has the legal right to hold the public office that he or she occupies."

The process is intentionally difficult.

If any private citizen could file a lawsuit against an elected official based solely on rumors or political disagreements, courts would likely be overwhelmed with frivolous challenges. Instead, a person seeking to bring a quo warranto action must first apply to the Attorney General's Office and provide evidence supporting the claim.

Attorney General Rob Bonta's office explains:

"The remedy of quo warranto is vested in the People, and not in any private individual or group, because the question of who has the right to hold a public office is a matter of public concern, not a private dispute. The requirement of obtaining approval also serves the important purpose of protecting public officers from frivolous challenges."

So yes, it is possible to remove someone from office over residency issues. It is just far more difficult than many people assume.

As a local news outlet that speaks with people from across the political spectrum and on both sides of Stockton's political divide, we hear residency rumors about nearly everyone.

One particularly interesting story came from a high ranking local official who claimed that Jason Lee's dogs are kept at a residence in Los Angeles. To many people, where someone's pets live might seem like a strong indication of where that person actually resides.

The law, however, does not consider where someone's dogs sleep.

Residency cases are determined by legal standards, documentation, conduct, and intent. Rumors may fuel political debate, but proving that an elected official is not legally entitled to hold office requires far more than speculation.

Did anyone go? If so what was it like?

City Council unanimously appoints Tafoya to second committee after controversial comments about vice mayor - Stocktonia News Daniel Tafoya's appointment occurred minutes after Mayor Christina Fugazi’s office issued a proclamation recognizing Pride Month