I have had more than 120 people donate to my campaign and I am very grateful for the support I have received from people who want a brighter future for East Palo Alto. People are ready for change in East Palo Alto, and my supporters are willing to chip in and help fund a campaign that advocates for housing, safe streets, clean water, traffic enforcement, cleaned up parks, no illegal fireworks, and a government that responds to the needs of its residents.

The foundation of my campaign financing has come from East Palo Alto Homeowners, people who are gravely concerned about Ruben Abrica and Carlos Romero’s attack on homeowners via the OPA Ordinance. Make no mistake about it: OPA is on the ballot and Ruben Abrica has promised to bring it up for a vote after the election in November. Under OPA, Abrica and Romero want to take away many homeowners’ rights to sell their house on the open market like every other local community. OPA gives the city the right to delay a sale 100 days or more, appraise it downward in value, and take away the “right of first refusal” from the owner and give it to non-profit or the city. This has appropriately outraged homeowners who did the math and realized that their biggest investment - their home - could easily lose $100k-$300k in value if OPA passed. Many of my contributions came from long-term residents of EPA who only want the same rules at the point of sale as Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and other surrounding communities. Do note that I have received many donations below $100 that do not show up on filing forms, and I have also received many donations from EPA renters who share the very same concerns as homeowners around quality-of-life issues.

I'd also like to add that there is a $500 per person contribution limit in East Palo Alto, and all donations above $500 were refunded to donors, as was reflected in my filing forms.

"The foundation of my campaign financing has come from East Palo Alto Homeowners"

This is an oversimplification. While it may be true that your campaign financing has come from individuals that own property in East Palo Alto, the majority of them do not live here. This is the primary concern that individuals like myself that actually do live in the city have about your campaign and your policy objectives.

Your Public 460 forms prove that well over 65% of your total dollar value in donations have came from individuals whose addresses are not based in East Palo Alto, meaning they do not live in the city they own property in.

I would like to add that you yourself, while you live in East Palo Alto, you are also a landlord here. So it's really not a surprise that the majority of your support comes from landlords and property owners. I would also add that one of those properties is in a gated community within the city.

In a city that has a voting population that is primarily made up of renters, we know who you're really fighting for, and it isn't us.

Mr. Dinan’s OPA comments don’t seem to be correct. This has been an ongoing problem with his anti-OPA stance from what I’ve read before. I recall that he wasn’t up to date on changes the city would make so he’d repeat outdated info and it would spiral from there. It left me concerned about his policy making and communication abilities.

[Post removed.]

How about city and current council members continuously using cherry-pick, biased data to paint a biased rosy picture of OPA to con voters and residents? These presentations are so biased that it's almost an insult to anyone who has a normal IQ. Punishing home owner however you want, it's may gain votes but it will not create any additional housing units.

EPA resident, given what you said an honest anti-OPA stance isn’t a big reach. It’s the honesty and accurate characterization I was focused on.