Candidate for
Mayor; City of Sacramento

Mark's official ballot statement is shown below, followed by several issues in which Mark seeks your opinion(s) and feedback.

Quoted verbatim from Mark's official ballot statement:

I have spent the past fourteen years as a government attorney fighting political corruption and corporate fraud.

I am opposed to building light rail on Truxel Road. The proposal is bad for Natomas and will cost up to $739 million.

I am opposed to using public financing to build a downtown sports arena. This arena could cost $538 million.

Instead, in these tough economic times, I want to retain and recruit the best possible police and firefighters for our city.

I want to establish a city ethics commission to serve as a watchdog agency to deter and punish local political corruption.

I will accept only half of the mayor's salary. I'll do twice the job at half the cost. Once elected, I will refuse to accept any campaign contributions for four years.

I will allow newspaper and television reporters full-time access to follow me around during the work day. There will be no secret meetings in smoke-filled rooms.

I have an economics degree from Stanford University, a law degree from the University of Michigan, and have worked as a Fair Political Practices Commission Enforcement Counsel and as a Deputy Attorney General.

My website is http://www.natomas.org.

Tell Mark your opinions!

Mark wants to know your views and increase community involvement. Please email your opinions on the below issues to MarkforMayor@Natomas.org.

1. What is your vision for redevelopment of the downtown railyard? What do you think about putting in the old railyard location a world-class aquarium or planetarium, along with affordable housing and abundant parking?

2. Mark wants to ensure that Sacramento residents and workers have access to affordable medical, dental, and retirement benefits, as well as quality childcare options. What do you think is the best way to achieve these ends?

3. Mark supports a national constitutional amendment to put a 20% flat tax on internet pornography, with at least half or more of the revenues specifically earmarked to go to social security. Do you agree?