Three vie for Inyo Supervisor seat in District One

Inyo County elections tend to be rather dull affairs, largely because they are in many ways predictable, with many of the same issues election-cycle-after-election-cycle, and with little difference in candidates’ answers. Nevertheless, approximately 60 residents attended Tuesday’s District 1 Candidates Forum held at the Bishop Senior Center; most apparently in support of the candidate whom many had already voted for by absentee ballot according to a show of hands taken towards the end of the meeting.

According to Inyo County Clerk/Recorder & Registrar of Voters Kammi Foote, 377 absentee ballots have already been returned from the 1st District, representing an 18 percent turnout from a total of 2,145 voters registered in the 1st District. This compares to 1,527 or 16 percent of absentee ballots county-wide from a total of 9,506 registered voters.

“Most voters will cast their vote in person on June 3,” Foote noted. “Statistically, most Primary Elections in Inyo County garner over 50 percent turnout.

“This election is projected to have a historically low turnout, but I would like to think that the reporting done on the debate may drive that percentage upwards,” said Foot.

In addition to the questions given to the 1st District Candidates’ Forum from the Independence Civic Club, The Sheet asked all three candidates to respond in writing to several other questions to broaden the scope of the discussion for the community-at-large, as the four questions given in advance to the candidates for Tuesday’s forum were largely recycled from the Supervisors’ election two years ago.

The only reason for a forum at all this year was that, in the absence of any groups this year volunteering to sponsor the candidates’ forum, The Inyo Register newspaper felt obligated in the interests of the community to step up to the plate. They hosted the event with the able assistance of the Independence Civics Club and Dee Younger, owner of Blogging Bishop.

The candidates admitted many times at the forum that they had little information on several issues due to their unfamiliarity.

The three candidates’ are very much alike in many respects. All three are successful, middle-aged, white males and business owners. They all have experience volunteering in the community, running businesses, and serving in government or interacting with government on citizen boards.

Candidate Dave Tanksley is a 46-year resident of the County and owns a local construction company. He volunteered and chaired the Natural Resources Advisory Committee until 2011 and says he has worked with the Board of Supervisors and with County Departments on many occasions over the years.

Candidate Dan Totheroh owns a company that operates community water districts. He has served on the Starlite Community Services District for 17 years, and has volunteered thousands of hours at the Bishop Union High School. He also had a 30-year engineering career with the U.S. Forestry Service.

Candidate Bill Stoll told the audience that he was raised in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles and worked as a salesman for many years before deciding to move to the Eastern Sierra at the age of 30.

“Working at local pack stations in the backcountry taught me to get the city blood out of my system,” he said. He has volunteered for the past eight years as a member of the County Planning Commission, and noted that he was the only one who voted against the Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch.

To the question of whether or not the City of Bishop should continue to receive 30 percent of the County’s half-cent sales tax in excess of $300,000, all three candidates said “Yes” and that they thought the agreement was fair, especially as the City of Bishop generates a comparable percentage of the sales tax County-wide and that the County’s residents benefit from many of the services provided.

The candidates were asked to name their top three priorities for the County, given a worsening fiscal picture and what cuts they would keep or let go. Totheroh’s response was for sustainable communities, utilizing the potential of the Digital 395 high-speed network to promote the County’s business and protect the uniqueness of the area, and protecting services to the elderly and youth.

Stoll said his top priority is tourism, and that not enough is being done to promote it. As to possible budget cuts, he mentioned looking at the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository as something that is not needed for the County to spend money on.

Tanksley said his priorities would be to focus on cost-cutting, first to deal with the County’s budget problems, and that he would talk to local businesses to see that their needs are being met so that no more businesses close. He feels that “optimization” of the Eastern Sierra Regional Airport should also be a top priority, as well as District 1’s fire response capabilities.

On the balance between export of County resources, which generate County revenue, yet at the same time are “a detriment” to the tourist-based economy, Stoll said that he thought mining was doing well in the County and that in dealing with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, “you have to work with DWP as best you can.”

The final prepared question was on the candidates’ positions on the relationship of the County with LADWP on water issues, and specifically the Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch.

Tanksley noted that LADWP is one of the County’s largest employers, to the tune of $30 million, and one of the largest contributors to the General Fund. It is important, he said, to have an open dialogue and to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship. He went on to mention water conservation on the Owens Lake, which he says is an important issue, especially if it can be kept here and used locally. He finished by stating that he supports the latest proposed REGPA, which excluded the LADWP’s proposed SOVSR, and that looking to the future, the County must be on alert over the possible construction of new power transmission corridors.

Stoll acknowledged the “love-hate relationship” between the County and LADWP, but credited the DWP with keeping its lands open to recreation. He was not in favor of large-scale industrial solar developments and preferred small projects and roof-top installation, although he noted that roof-top installation can prove an expensive proposition for many homeowners.

Totheroh was also opposed to large-scale industrial solar development projects and thought that rooftop solar installation should be looked at more closely. He said he was opposed to any project that potentially harmed local viewsheds. He felt the problem was more at the State level, where green energy goals are established, often to the benefit of lobbying from large power companies.

To questions from the audience, all three candidates expressed the need for balancing interests when it comes to ATV use. Stoll and Tinksley were undecided on the issue of the proposed Consolidated County Services Building in Bishop, while Totheroh felt that “sometimes you have to spend to save.”

All three candidates felt that, while difficult, it was worth the money to run for office to serve your community. Totheroh said many of his neighbors suggested he run. Stoll felt his eight years on the Planning Commission convinced him that he wanted to serve the people … and got a laugh from the audience when he said, “I’m getting old and construction is killin’ me!” Tanksley felt a sense of duty and that he could make a difference; “Besides,” he said, “I need to get away from the house, being as I have been using my wife’s credit card for the campaign!”