Gregory Cheadle
Gregory Cheadle (Democratic Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent California's 43rd Congressional District. He lost in the primary on March 5, 2024.
Biography
Gregory Cheadle earned an undergraduate degree in psychology (physiological) and on the pre-med track, a J.D. and an M.P.A. Cheadle's professional experience includes working as a real estate broker, luxury playhouse builder, author, and lecturer.[1]
Elections
2024
See also: California's 43rd Congressional District election, 2024
California's 43rd Congressional District election, 2024 (March 5 top-two primary)
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 43
Incumbent Maxine Waters defeated Steve Williams in the general election for U.S. House California District 43 on November 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Maxine Waters (D) | 75.1 | 160,080 |
 | Steve Williams (R)  | 24.9 | 53,152 | |
| Total votes: 213,232 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 43
Incumbent Maxine Waters and Steve Williams defeated David Knight, Chris B. Wiggins, and Gregory Cheadle in the primary for U.S. House California District 43 on March 5, 2024.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Maxine Waters (D) | 69.8 | 54,673 |
| ✔ | | Steve Williams (R) | 13.9 | 10,896 |
 | David Knight (R) | 7.2 | 5,647 | |
 | Chris B. Wiggins (D) | 6.4 | 4,999 | |
 | Gregory Cheadle (D) | 2.7 | 2,075 | |
| Total votes: 78,290 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Regina Simes (R)
Endorsements
Ballotpedia did not identify endorsements for Cheadle in this election.
2020
See also: California's 1st Congressional District election, 2020
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 1
Incumbent Doug LaMalfa defeated Audrey Denney in the general election for U.S. House California District 1 on November 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Doug LaMalfa (R) | 57.0 | 204,190 |
 | Audrey Denney (D) | 43.0 | 154,073 | |
| Total votes: 358,263 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 1
The following candidates ran in the primary for U.S. House California District 1 on March 3, 2020.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Doug LaMalfa (R) | 54.6 | 128,613 |
| ✔ | | Audrey Denney (D) | 39.4 | 92,655 |
 | Rob Lydon (D) | 3.7 | 8,745 | |
 | Joseph LeTourneau IV (Independent) | 1.2 | 2,769 | |
| Gregory Cheadle (Independent) | 1.1 | 2,596 | |
| Kenneth Swanson (R) (Write-in) | 0.0 | 13 | |
| Total votes: 235,391 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Jason Cienkus (D)
- Selena Rose Martinez (D)
- Paul Saulsbury (R)
2018
General election
General election for U.S. House California District 1
Incumbent Doug LaMalfa defeated Audrey Denney in the general election for U.S. House California District 1 on November 6, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Doug LaMalfa (R) | 54.9 | 160,046 |
| Audrey Denney (D) | 45.1 | 131,548 | |
| Total votes: 291,594 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Nonpartisan primary election
Nonpartisan primary for U.S. House California District 1
The following candidates ran in the primary for U.S. House California District 1 on June 5, 2018.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Doug LaMalfa (R) | 51.7 | 98,354 |
| ✔ | | Audrey Denney (D) | 17.9 | 34,121 |
 | Jessica Holcombe (D) | 11.7 | 22,306 | |
 | Marty Walters (D) | 8.4 | 16,032 | |
| Gregory Cheadle (R) | 6.1 | 11,660 | |
 | David Peterson (D) | 3.0 | 5,707 | |
 | Lewis Elbinger (G) | 1.2 | 2,191 | |
| Total votes: 190,371 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
- Brandon Storment (D)
- Dennis Duncan (D)
- Larry Jordan (D)
2016
Heading into the election, Ballotpedia rated this race as safely Republican. Incumbent Doug LaMalfa (R) defeated Jim Reed (D) in the general election on November 8, 2016. LaMalfa and Reed defeated Gregory Cheadle (R), Joe Montes (R), Gary Allen Oxley (R), David Peterson (D), and Jeffrey Gerlach (Independent) in the top-two primary on June 7, 2016.[2][3]
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican |  Doug LaMalfa Incumbent |
59.1% | 185,448 | |
| Democratic | Jim Reed | 40.9% | 128,588 | |
| Total Votes | 314,036 | |||
| Source: California Secretary of State | ||||
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican |
Doug LaMalfa Incumbent |
40.8% | 86,136 | |
| Democratic | Jim Reed |
28.3% | 59,665 | |
| Republican | Joe Montes | 17% | 35,875 | |
| Democratic | David Peterson | 6.4% | 13,430 | |
| Republican | Gary Oxley | 3.3% | 6,885 | |
| Independent | Jeffrey Gerlach | 2.3% | 4,958 | |
| Republican | Gregory Cheadle | 2% | 4,217 | |
| Total Votes | 211,166 | |||
| Source: California Secretary of State |
||||
2014
Cheadle ran in the 2014 election for the U.S. House to represent California's 1st District. Cheadle was defeated in the blanket primary on June 3, 2014.[4]
| Party | Candidate | Vote % | Votes | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican |
Doug La Malfa Incumbent |
53.4% | 75,317 | |
| Democratic | Heidi Hall |
30.1% | 42,481 | |
| Republican | Gregory Cheadle | 9.9% | 13,909 | |
| Democratic | Dan Levine | 6.5% | 9,213 | |
| Total Votes | 140,920 | |||
| Source: California Secretary of State |
||||
2012
Cheadle ran in the 2012 election for the U.S. House to represent California's 1st District. He was defeated in the open primary on June 5, 2012.[5][6]
Campaign themes
2024
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Gregory Cheadle did not complete Ballotpedia's 2024 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Cheadle’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Seniors 1. Medicare Expansion and Prescription Drug Reform:
2. Affordable Housing Initiatives:
3. Pension Protection:
4. Elderly Employment Programs:
5. Long-Term Care Support:
6. Senior Tax and Tax Credits:
7. Technology Access and Training:
8. Elder Financial Abuse Prevention:
Homelessness
Home ownership Sec 8 exacerbates wealth gap
Funding for housing nearly doubled in response to the pandemic to reach an all-time high of $90 billion. Still, this represents a relatively small part of the annual budget and serves some of the most economically vulnerable Americans. Unlike other parts of the safety net, funding for these major housing programs is not set in permanent law and is therefore subject to the annual appropriation process. That fact requires lawmakers to make a continual commitment and annual judgement about the appropriate level of funding by weighing the merits of the programs against other budgetary priorities, as well as our growing national debt. Though rental assistance is of great benefit to those low income families in need of housing, at best it is a very short-term solution and at worst it exacerbates the wealth gap between Blacks and Whites. White home ownership is more than double that of Blacks and is likely to be even greater when it comes to rental properties. As such, though well-meaning, the Sec. 8 also known as the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, works to put money into the hands of White property owners while giving only a temporary place to stay to those in the program. Hence, the government again via one of its outwardly well-meaning programs serves to enrich Whites. What is needed is a modification of government rental assistance programs that will allow the recipient to own a home rather than be indefinite renters. The sense of being a home owner would inspire those who are receiving government rental assistance to improve themselves. In short order they would acquire skill in planning and devising for themselves and their children. This will also inspire them and their children to develop habits of industry and economy. This would also serve the purpose of making these recipients feel that they are not slaves to a system, but now may regain to a great degree their lost self-respect and moral independence. Handicapped San Francisco is slightly smaller than Jacksonville, Florida. Yet San Francisco’s homelessness budget—$1.1 billion in fiscal year 2021–22—is nearly 80 percent of Jacksonville’s entire city budget. But despite this enormous spending, homelessness and the attendant problems of drug abuse, crime, public health issues, and an overall deterioration in the quality of life, spiral further downwards each year. Spending $1.1 billion on homelessness is just the latest installment in San Francisco’s constant failure to sensibly and humanely deal with an issue that it chronically misdiagnoses and mismanages about as much as is humanly possible. Since fiscal year 2016–17, San Francisco has spent over $2.8 billion on homelessness, and the city’s politicians remain seemingly baffled, year after year, as the number of homeless in the city skyrocket, as opioid overdoses kill more than COVID-19, and as the city has become nearly the most dangerous in the country. https://www.hoover.org/research/why-san-francisco-nearly-most-crime-ridden-city-us. Since 2016, the number of homeless in San Francisco has increased from 12,249 to 19,086, which comes out to about $57,000 in spending per homeless person per year. With a total population of about 860,000, roughly 2.2 percent of San Francisco residents are homeless, which is over 12 times the national average. There is little doubt that as San Francisco spends more, homelessness and its impact on the city worsens.
The most striking disparity can be found among African Americans, who represent 13 percent of the general population but account for 39 percent of people experiencing homelessness and more than 50 percent of homeless families with children. This imbalance has not improved over time. What Are the Causes? Poverty Segregation/Rental Housing Discrimination The effects are still with us today: African Americans still live disproportionately in concentrated poverty[2] or in neighborhoods where they are regularly exposed to environmental toxins, and have limited access to quality care, services, nutritious food and economic opportunities. People that become homeless are likely to have lived in these types of neighborhoods. For most minority groups, the transition to neighborhoods with less crime, no environmental hazards, and close proximity to services, are often met with challenges. A study by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)[3] on racial discrimination found that people of color were often shown fewer rental units and denied more leases in comparison to White people. White people, on the other hand, were frequently offered lower rents. Deposits and other move-in costs were also quoted as “negotiable,” making it easier for White people to secure units. Incarceration The implications of overcriminalization are far-reaching: A criminal history can keep people from successfully passing background checks to secure both housing and employment. People exiting jails and prisons often face significant problems in accessing safe and affordable housing and their rate of homelessness is high. https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/what-causes-homelessness/inequality/ Our Veterans 1. Veterans Healthcare:
2. Employment and Job Training:
3. Education Benefits:
4. Homelessness Prevention:
5. Disability Benefits:
6. Transition Assistance Programs:
7. VA Accountability and Transparency:
8. Military Family Support:
9. Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention:
10. Veteran Small Business Initiatives:
11. Technology and Innovation:
Food Supply This is woefully unsustainable and a waste of resources and tax dollars! The three largest meat processors globally have dramatically increased in size in recent years. Government subsidies have played a critical role in increasing their power. JBS, headquartered in Brazil, benefitted from partial ownership from government-owned banks, and low-interest loans to acquire competitors in other countries. The founder, José Batista Sobrinho, and five of his children are now all billionaires. A government investigation of bribes to allow the sale of tainted meat in Brazil led to two of the founder’s sons to offer testimony in exchange for immunity from prosecution in March 2017. They admitted to spending hundreds of millions of dollars bribing thousands of politicians, and said that if they hadn’t, “It wouldn’t have worked. It wouldn’t have been so fast.” The firm was ordered to pay a $3.16 billion corruption fine, and subsequently announced plans to sell billions in assets, including Five Rivers Cattle Feeding in North America and Moy Park in Europe. No foreign entity or group of foreign entities should have a majority stake or ownership of any aspect of the meat industry. The WH Group, headquartered in China, received substantial direct government subsidies, as well as low-interest loans from government banks to make foreign acquisitions. One such loan, for $4 billion to acquire the largest hog processor in the U.S. (Smithfield), was approved in just one day. The chairman and CEO of the firm, Wan Long, paid himself a $460 million bonus after this acquisition, making him a billionaire. WH Group executives have announced their intentions to spend potentially billions more to acquire more meat processors and brands, particularly in the U.S. and Europe. Tyson, headquartered in the U.S. has benefitted from subsidies for crops, such as corn and soybeans, which have saved the firm hundreds of millions per year in feed costs. The firm has also received direct payments from the government to stabilize prices, via purchasing dark meat chicken for federal food nutrition assistance programs. Its contract growers have received subsidies for the disposal of waste through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and for euthanizing chickens affected by avian influenza to contain its spread. Don Tyson, the corporation’s former president and CEO, was a billionaire when he died in 2001. Term Limits The first issue will be how many terms a Congress person is limited to. Senator serve 6 year terms. Will they be limited to 1, 2, or ever 3 three term? If they are limited to 3 terms that still allows them to be in office for 18 years!!! U.S. Representatives serve 2 year terms. How many terms will they be limited to? Will they be able to serve as long as Senators? Term limits will serve the sole purpose of limiting the time an individual will hold office. However, the problem with politics at the federal level is not the individual who is on office for an extended period, it is the type of person that is in office. Our government is "bought." As such, it matters not to the moneyed individuals, corporations, and special interests who purchase lawmakers what individual is on office. What matters is that the person holding the office is "bought." Term limits will serve to limit the person that is in office, but it does not change the type of person (a bought politician) in office. Term limits fail miserably to change the status quo of American politics. Much to the delight of moneyed individuals, corporations, and special interests term limits will maintain the status quo. What will alter the power at the national level and once again bring it to We the people? Campaign finance reform! As an example, I would propose that the maximum contribution per entity to any candidate would be $2500. An entity will be defined as a person, couple, business, or PAC, etc. Additionally, no money for a congressional candidate's campaign should come from any source outside fo the district the candidate is running in. Though the Supreme Court has ruled that thee is no limit to the amount of money a person my spend of their own money, this law must be overturned or negated by acts of Congress. Otherwise we will have only the rich running for and winning thereby creating a system that benefits the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Campaign Finance Reform Money slithers through every part of our political system, corrupting democracy and taking power away from the people. Big companies and billionaires spend millions to push Congress to adopt or block legislation. If they fail, they turn to lobbying federal agencies that are issuing regulations. And if they fail yet again, they run to judges in the courts to block those regulations from taking effect. But before all of that - before the legislative process even starts - lobbyists and billionaires try to buy off politicians during elections. Candidates and elected officials often spend hours and hours a day doing “call time” with big donors, instead of learning about policy and working for their constituents. They jet across the country, going from one closed-door fundraiser to another, hearing about the woes and challenges of being a billionaire or corporate CEO. And they court lobbyists and billionaires who can open the doors to thousands of dollars in PAC contributions or millions in super PAC spending. Much of this corruption of our representative democracy is perfectly legal, courtesy of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has declared that money is speech and corporations are people, and it has struck down many efforts to get big money out of politics. As a result, since Citizens United, in 2010, outside groups have more than tripled their spending on political campaigns. During the 2016 election alone, outside organizations spent a whopping $1.4 billion on elections, and nearly $181 million of those funds remain untraceable because they were spent by dark money organizations. Many of the companies engaged in this kind of outside political activity are significantly influenced by foreign sources.
In my campaign, I’ve pledged not to take money from federal lobbyists or PACs of any kind. Not to take contributions over $200 from fossil fuel or big pharma executives. Not to give ambassadorships to wealthy donors or bundlers. And I’m not doing call time with rich donors or giving special access to rich people in exchange for contributions to my campaign. Today, I’m announcing that in addition to these policies, I’m not going to take any contributions over $200 from executives at big tech companies, big banks, private equity firms, or hedge funds. And when I’m the Democratic nominee for president, I’m not going to change a thing in how I run my campaign: No PACs. No federal lobbyists. No special access or call time with rich donors or big dollar fundraisers to underwrite my campaign.
As our nominee, I will ban corporate contributions to our Convention and direct the Democratic National Committee to return to the Obama standard and reject lobbyist and PAC money. We will do this - and we will also do everything we can to build our party infrastructure and strengthen Democratic candidates across this country. In 2018, I gave or raised nearly $11 million to state and local candidates and parties. Throughout the primary, I have worked to help our national and state parties - and I will continue helping the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates so we have the resources not just to beat Donald Trump but also to win back Congress and state legislatures all across the country. I’m proud to be running a grassroots-funded campaign for president, and I hope my fellow candidates for the Democratic nomination will do the same. But however we choose to fund our campaigns, I think Democratic voters should have a right to know how the possible future leaders of our party are spending their time and who their campaign is rewarding. That’s why I’m also calling on every candidate in this race to disclose any donor or fundraiser who has a special title on their campaign, including national and regional finance committee members and bundler designations, and to disclose the dates and locations of their fundraising events and the names of every person who appears on a host committee on invitations tied to those events. If Democratic candidates for president want to spend their time hobnobbing with the rich and powerful, it is currently legal for them to do so - but they shouldn’t be handing out secret titles and honors to rich donors.
Of course, voluntary changes aren’t going to be enough to clean up the corruption in our elections. That’s why when I’m president I’ll implement a comprehensive plan to permanently eliminate big money from our politics and return it to the people. My plan has has three parts:
We can take immediate legislative action and make big, structural changes to how campaigns are financed. But to truly end the corruption of our democracy, we must also pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s disastrous decisions in Citizens United and Buckley v. Valeo. A constitutional amendment will allow Congress to regulate election spending, establish public financing as the sole way to finance elections, and bring an end to the era of big money in politics. END THE CORRUPT SYSTEM OF MONEY FOR INFLUENCE
EXPAND DISCLOSURE OF FUNDRAISING AND SPENDING
Add your name if you agree We need big structural changes to campaign finance laws to get big money out of politics. Zip PUT POWER BACK IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE
That’s why getting big money out of politics and addressing corruption in Washington are so important. These reforms make it possible to do everything else we need to do - from addressing climate change to forgiving student loans. Getting big money out of politics is a critical part of fighting corruption, and it will help give us a government that truly is of the people, by the people, and for the people. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/campaign-finance-reform Bias in Home Appraisals So when they asked for a second opinion last year, a White friend pretended to own their home and they removed all artwork and photos that could show that it actually belonged to a Black family. The new appraisal for their home in Marin County was more than $1.4 million and nearly half a million dollars higher than the previous estimate, they said.
Ad Feedback “What that appraisal did is what we were actually asking the appraisers to do, to not consider race, to not consider neighborhoods and or the lines that have been drawn and perpetuated by redlining,” Tate-Austin told CNN. Racist language is still woven into home deeds across America. Erasing it isn't easy, and some don't want to Last week, the couple filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco, arguing that racial discrimination played a role in the low valuation of their home. In their lawsuit, the Austins say, the first appraiser, Janette Miller, who is a White woman, violated the Fair Housing Act when she took into account the family’s race and the racial demographics of the house’s location for her appraisal. “We shouldn’t have to go through this, we shouldn’t have to have our White friend standing in,” Paul Austin said. CNN has reached out to Miller and her company, Miller & Perotti Real Estate Appraisals, which has also been named as defendant in the suit, multiple times for comment. The Austins are seeking financial damages and asked the court to “permanently” ensure that the defendants won’t engage in discriminatory housing practices directly or through others, the lawsuit says. Homes in largely Black areas valued less “We put a lot of time and effort into the house, and that didn’t happen overnight,” Tate-Austin said. When Miller appraised their home last year, the Austins say she compared their home to those in areas with a significant Black population, according to the lawsuit. The population in Marin County, where they live, is more than 85% White, according to the US Census Bureau. When a Black homeowner concealed her race, her home's appraisal value doubled Research has shown that homes in largely Black neighborhoods are valued less than homes in mainly White areas, even when housing type and income of the areas are the same. In the average US neighborhoods where the share of the population is 50% Black, homes are valued at roughly half the price of homes in neighborhoods with no Black residents, according to recent research from the Brookings Institute. Homes in majority Black neighborhoods in the US have been undervalued by an average of $46,000 over nearly a decade, according to an analysis by Redfin. The firm looked at more than 73 million single-family homes listed and sold between January 2013 and February 2021 and found a major gap between houses sold in Black and White neighborhoods. Other homeowners are hiding their race In Indianapolis, a Black woman previously told CNN she did not reveal her race or gender on an application when arranging for an appraisal. She kept communication to email and told the appraiser that she would be out of town and her brother would be at her home during the appraisal. Then a White friend posed as her brother and met the appraiser instead of her. The appraised value more than doubled – it had been her third appraisal – and it led her to file a Fair Housing complaint against the lenders and appraisers she had worked with alleging racial discrimination. The Austins said they took a chance at “white washing” their home because they knew of the discrepancy in home appraisals and they how they are not the first family who have received a lower home estimate. The couple and their attorneys continue litigating their case but said they wanted to speak up to encourage other families of color to fight if they think their property is worth more. “Hopefully, at the highest level we can start seeing systemic change and people being held accountable for devaluing Black and Brown lives, because that’s essentially what they did to us,” Paul Austin said. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/09/business/black-homeowners-appraisal-discrimination-lawsuit/index.html
1/19/2022 in News & Media, NFHA News, Press Releases Groundbreaking Report Identifies Bias and Systemic Barriers in Real Estate Appraisals January 19, 2022 Media Contact: Izzy Woodruff / 202-898-1661 / [email protected] Groundbreaking Report Identifies Bias and Systemic Barriers in Real Estate Appraisals The federally-funded report produced by the National Fair Housing Alliance and its partners raises serious concerns about the standards and criteria related to the appraisal of residential real estate, which often represents a family’s largest asset. Washington, D.C. — Racial discrimination in home appraisals continues to affect Black and Latino homeowners throughout our country, and a new federally-commissioned report from the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) identifies recommendations to address this crisis. Documented instances of appraisal discrimination along racial lines in California, Florida, Colorado, Indiana, and other areas are reflective of practices that restrict housing and lending access for families of color nationwide. Conducted by NFHA, Dane Law LLC, and the Christensen Law Firm (the “NFHA Consortium”), the “Appraisal Standards and Appraiser Criteria report” is the most comprehensive review of bias in the appraisal industry to date, and it presents a roadmap for Congress, regulators, advocates, and the industry to address the nation’s long legacy of bias in the valuation of real estate and build a future in which a family’s most valuable asset is treated fairly. The comprehensive and independent review by the NFHA Consortium was commissioned by the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and managed by the Council on Licensure, Enforcement and Regulation. The goals of the report included an assessment of whether the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (“Appraisal Standards”) and Appraiser Qualifications Criteria (“Appraiser Criteria”) encourage or systemize bias and that both consistently support or promote fairness, equity, objectivity and diversity in both appraisals and the training and credentialing of appraisers. “Our report details a comprehensive analysis of structural challenges in Appraisal Standards and Appraiser Criteria that impacts every homeowner in the U.S.,” said Lisa Rice, President and CEO of NFHA. “It also highlights the deep inequities and systemic issues of bias in the appraisal industry that restricts homeownership and important lending opportunities for people of color. While we’ve done the work of identifying the obstacles and outlining a number of fixes, we call on federal regulators, Congress, the industry, and fellow advocates to work together to enact the meaningful changes called for in our report. Any entity with a role in the appraisal process has a responsibility to help address these inequalities.” The report’s recommendations are outlined below: Governance of the Appraisal Industry
Gaps in Fair Housing Requirements and Training
Barriers to Entry to the Appraisal Profession
Compliance and Enforcement
Click here to read ASC’s statement on the report. Click here to read the full report. Click here to read the Appraisal Study Overview. For years, NFHA has led the fight against racism and other forms of discrimination in home appraisals. In February 2021, NFHA called on the Federal Housing Finance Agency to address the specific issues in appraisal policy that cause race-based discrimination. The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) is the country’s only national civil rights organization dedicated solely to eliminating all forms of housing and lending discrimination and ensuring equal opportunities for all people. As the trade association for over 170 fair housing and justice-centered organizations throughout the U.S. and its territories, NFHA works to dismantle longstanding barriers to equity and build diverse, inclusive, well-resourced communities. The full report can be found here: https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/2022-01-18-NFHA-et-al_Analysis-of-Appraisal-Standards-and-Appraiser-Criteria_FINAL.pdf
A Systemic Problem ● While the many individual stories have captured national headlines, the analyses of systemic bias are even more stunning and disturbing. Recent studies contain the following findings: ○ Researchers at Freddie Mac analyzed millions of appraisals submitted for purchase transactions and found racial disparities in the percentage of properties that received an appraisal value lower than the contract price the (“appraisal gap”), despite controlling for other factors. Specifically, the research showed that an appraisal gap is more likely to occur in Black or Latino census tracts than White census tracts. ○ For example, Freddie Mac’s researchers reported that 12.5% of the properties in Black census tracts received an appraisal value lower than the contract price, as compared to 7.4% of the properties in White census tracts– meaning there was a nationwide racial “appraisal gap” of 5.2%. ○ Homes in majority Black neighborhoods were valued 23% less than properties in mostly White neighborhoods, even after controlling for home features and neighborhood amenities, as found by a 2018 Brookings Institution study of homeowner estimates and Zillow data. ○ Neighborhood racial composition was an even stronger determinant of a home’s value in 2015 than it was in 1980, according to a 2020 academic study of homeowners’ estimates from 1980 to 2015. ○ The Federal Housing Finance Agency recently found that thousands of appraisal reports contained race-related and other inappropriate information including identifying the racial composition of neighborhoods and areas that serve “Jewish Households” as well as describing areas as having an “Asian influence.” ○ The appraisal profession does not reflect the racial composition of the U.S. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 96.5% of property appraisers are White and about 70% are men. Student Loans This crises cannot be solved overnight, however I propose the following: 1. All student loans should have a fixed interest token rate of 1% 2. Student loans for nursing, MD, social work, teaching programs should be interest free to attract people into these programs to lessen the severe shortage in these professions. Loans for these programs should be forgiven when individuals from these professions work in underprivileged areas. 3. Student loan debt should be allowed to be discharged in certain bankruptcy cases and in cases of disability 4. Loans that are more than 10 years delinquent should be placed in collection for the principal amount only, the interest should be eliminated to encourage repayment
5. Though many may take issue with the concept of loan forgiveness, it must be remebered that the student loan program has been one of the most predatory programs administered by the government upon its own citizens. Many students, though college educated, have not been able to secure employment sufficient to pay off their loans because of the excessive interest that the loan has accrued. The forgiveness of student loans out to begin with the poor, those who have been chronically unemployed and underemployed. Forgiveness of student loans for those in this category can easily be verified by income tax records. 6. Loan forgiveness is a necessity. It is past time that we stopped catering to the rich of this country and start taking care of thepoor. We can forgive nations around the world for their debt and bailout industries, it is now time to benefit the poor and unprivileged. Tuition is outpacing students’ ability to pay, and the share of students taking out loans to finance their degrees rose from roughly half (49%) to over two-thirds (69%) from 1993 to 2012, according to the Pew Research Center. Between 1993 and 2020, the average loan amount grew nearly three-fold, surpassing $30,000. Black people with a college degree have lower homeownership rates than white high school dropouts. Moreover, research from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis finds that after college graduation, white households receive wealth transfers from their family to help pay for things like the purchase of a home. Black households, on the other hand, transfer their increased post-college income to help their family. Different patterns of intergenerational transfers contribute to nearly three-quarters of Black borrowers’ student loans having a higher balance today than they did originally. Four years after graduation, the average Black college graduate owes $52,726, compared to $28,006 for the average white college graduate. With federal interest rates between 2.75% and 5.3%, the average white household will be able to deduct their complete interest payment each year while the average Black household will not. The tax system prevents low-wealth, high-income households from ever catching up with high-wealth households. Four years after graduation, 48% of Black students owe an average of 12.5% more than they borrowed. After that same period, 83% of White students owe 12% less than they borrowed. 40% of Black graduates have student loan debt from graduate school while 22% of White college graduates have graduate school debt. Over 50% of Black student borrowers report their net worth is less than they owe in student loan debt. Forty nine percent of Black students’ parents made less than $35,000, while 69 percent of white students’ parents made more than $70,000. “Put simply, Black borrowers both acquire more debt and, due to wage and employment inequities in the labor market, are in more precarious positions when it comes to their ability to repay,” the authors write. Twenty years after starting college, white borrowers’ median student debt fell to 6 percent, whereas the median Black borrower still owed 95 percent of their loan, according to a 2019 report by the Institute on Assets and Social Policy (IASP) at Brandeis. Religious Liberty With the advent of COVID-19 came a litany of mandates regarding the COVID-19 "vaccine." Fortunately, a religious exemption was allowed for those opposed to the vaccine. However, ironically and unbelievably, many churches refused to grant a letter of exemption to their members who sought a religious exemption. i cannot think of another time in history when the government allowed a religious exemption and the church denied it. My guess is that many churches denied the exemption because they are so wedded to the monies the state provides that they are too weak and inebriated with government funds that they dare not jeopardize their government cash flow - whether it be tax exempt status or funds related to reimbursement for medical care at church run hospitals or other forms of government assistance. Consequently, the church has taken on the nature of the state rather than remain a purely religious institution. Therefore, religious exemptions should not require ANY documentation from the church. Instead, those with a religious objection to government mandates should simply be allowed to exercise their sincerely heal religious belief without proof from any religious body. As a Constitutional Republic, the protection of the individual is paramount. Government has overstepped its power and is abusing it by mandating that its citizen take a foreign substance into their body, and to do so with a substance without long-tern studies to justiffwithout ANY liability for adverse reactions or defective product!!! Such medical tyranny is anathema to the Constitution. Therefore, it is not the role of government to demand that a church teach against every single religious belief a person may have. General principles should suffice, not explicit teachings. Immigration NAFTA In actuality, NAFTA is an agreement to allow market penetration and investment, the relocation of production and the creation of supply chains in manufacturing - as a way of escaping environmental laws and accessing cheap labor.. Up until the mid-1980s, Mexico had a very protective policy that restricted foreign investment and controlled the exchange rate to encourage domestic growth. A sharp shift in the late 1980s included market opening measures, privatization, and economic reforms. These reforms were accelerated by NAFTA's provisions on foreign investment. NAFTA produced an increase in U.S. investment in auto plants, electronics and garment factories, meatpacking plants, and other enterprises, no doubt to avoid taxation, regulations, and unions. Foreign direct investment rose from $17 billion in 1994 to $104 billion in 2012. U.S. companies—not only in manufacturing—expanded into Mexico generally, using economic reforms and privatization as their wedge. Walmart became Mexico's largest private-sector employer. At the time of its enactment, some NAFTA champions sold the treaty to the masses by arguing that it would reduce the wage differential between workers in the U.S. and Mexico. Though the wages of U.S. workers have largely stagnated, that differential has nonetheless grown. The average Mexican wage was 23 percent of the U.S. manufacturing wage in 1975. By 2002 it had fallen to less than 12 percent. NAFTA hurt Mexican wages, rather than reducing the differential. In the 20 years after NAFTA went into effect, the buying power of the Mexican minimum wage dropped by 24 percent. It takes a Mexican autoworker over an hour's work to buy a pound of hamburger, while a worker in Detroit can buy it after 10 minutes. Mexican workers in the General Motors plant making the Sonic, Silverado, and Sierra produce the same number of cars per hour that the workers do in the U.S. plant making the same models. The difference means profit for GM, poverty for Mexican workers, and the migration from Mexico to the U.S. of those who can't survive. The treaty forced yellow corn grown by Mexican farmers without subsidies to compete in Mexico's own market with corn from huge U.S. producers, subsidized by the U.S. farm bill. Corn imports rose from two million tons to more than ten million tons from 1992 to 2008. NAFTA prohibited price supports, without which hundreds of thousands of small farmers found it impossible to sell their corn or other farm products for what it cost to produce them. Mexico imported 30,000 tons of pork in 1995, and by 2010 that had grown to 811,000 tons, costing 120,000 jobs. The World Bank in 2005 found that the extreme rural poverty rate of 35 percent in 1992-94, prior to NAFTA taking effect, jumped to 55 percent in 1996-98, after NAFTA was in place. By 2010, 53 million Mexicans were living in poverty, about 20 percent in extreme poverty, almost all in rural areas. In the agreement's first year, 1994, one million Mexicans lost their jobs, by the government's own count. According to Jeff Faux, founding director of the Economic Policy Institute, “the peso crash of December, 1994, was directly connected to NAFTA.” And as the border maquiladora factories were tied to the U.S. market, Mexican workers lost jobs when the U.S. market shrank during recessions. In 2000-2001, at the time of the dot-com crash, 400,000 jobs were lost on the U.S./Mexico border, and in the Great Recession of 2008 thousands more were eliminated. With the border so close, many crossed it to survive. NAFTA's purpose went beyond freeing investment. The treaty also produced displaced people, who then became the workforce in the maquiladoras and the fields of Baja California, and swelled an immense wave of migration to the U.S. and Canada. This was more than a foreseeable consequence of NAFTA—it was literally foreseen, and was as much a part of its purpose as the relocation of production. In fact, Congress had been warned that NAFTA might increase poverty and fuel migration. When it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986, Congress set up a Commission for the Study of International Migration and Cooperative Economic Development to study immigration's causes. Its report, delivered in 1990—three years before Congress ratified NAFTA—recommended negotiating a free trade agreement between the U.S, Mexico, and Canada. But it also warned, “It takes many years—even generations—for sustained growth to achieve the desired effect," and in the meantime would create years of “transitional costs in human suffering.” Nevertheless, the negotiations that led to NAFTA started within months of the report's delivery.
In 1990, 4.5 million Mexican migrants were living in the U.S. By 2008 the number reached 12.67 million—roughly 9 percent of Mexico's total population. Approximately 5.7 million of these immigrants were able to get some kind of visa, but another seven million couldn't, and came nevertheless. The 1986 immigration reform act, which led to the negotiation of the free trade agreement, also re-established the bracero program, which had been abolished by the civil rights movement in 1965. Beginning in 1986, various categories of “guest worker” visas have been created, like the H2-A visa for agricultural workers. The Southern Poverty Law Center called these programs “close to slavery.” In the last five years the number of H2-A workers recruited to come to the U.S. has risen from about 60,000 to 165,000 last year, and is predicted to reach 200,000 workers this year. That's 10 percent of the whole farm labor workforce, and in states like Washington, it's over a third. The laws that created this migratory workforce operate as a huge subsidy to U.S. agribusiness. U.S. employers don't have to pay the social cost of producing their workforce—the schools, health care, housing, or basic services in the Mexican towns from which the workers come. Instead, the burden falls on workers in the U.S. Mexican communities have become dependent on remittances by Mexican workers in the U.S., which totaled $27 billion in 2016. In 1996 they came to just $4 billion. During the debate on NAFTA's original enactment, executives of companies belonging to USA•NAFTA, the agreement's corporate lobbyist, made extravagant claims that U.S. exports to Mexico would create 100,000 new jobs in the U.S. in its first year alone. Michael Wilson, director of the Heritage Foundation, predicted, “it will create an estimated 200,000 new jobs for Americans, reduce illegal immigration from Mexico, help tackle drug trafficking, strengthen Mexican democracy, and human rights, and serve as a model for the rest of the world.” President Clinton claimed: “I believe that NAFTA will create 200,000 American jobs in the first two years.” When he said “I believe that NAFTA will create a million jobs in the first five years,” the claim was so extravagant that his press secretary had to walk it back the following day. Clinton also promised that NAFTA would curtail the border crossings from Mexico. Speaking at the White House in September 1993, as the treaty was up for ratification in Congress, Clinton declared, “there will be less illegal immigration because more Mexicans will be able to support their children by staying home. This is a very important thing.” At a time when the recession of the early ‘90s had devastated the Southern California economy in particular, Clinton's promises of reduced immigration played off voters' fears. Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari and his aides toured the U.S. for a year, also vowing that NAFTA would take pressure off U.S. workers. Full-page ads appeared in newspapers in which Citibank joined the chorus. In the end, the treaty was supported by almost all Republicans, joined by a minority of Democrats—just enough to ratify it. If workers in the U.S. were worried about NAFTA's effect on their jobs, they had good reason to be. In the treaty's first decade the U.S. Department of Labor tracked of claims for unemployment benefits for workers who could show their employers had moved their jobs to Mexico. When the total passed 500,000, however, President George W. Bush ordered the Department of Labor to stop counting. “By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 good U.S. jobs, most (60.8 percent) in manufacturing,” according to Robert E. Scott of the Economic Policy Institute. “Jobs making cars, electronics, apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made.” Detroit lost half its population as the auto industry left, and today every engine in a Ford comes from Mexico. Huge swaths of other industrial cities have also taken on that abandoned look that comes with boarded-up homes and storefronts. But the working families who lost those outsourced jobs didn't disappear. Instead, hundreds of thousands of people began an internal migration within the U.S. larger than the dustbowl displacement of the 1930s. Former machinists and factory workers went on the road, landing low-wage jobs in fast food restaurants or Walmarts. Many lost their families. Some began living on the streets. Job losses had a particular impact on workers of color. Plants that freeze broccoli and strawberries for frozen food companies like Green Giant moved from Watsonville to Irapuato. That cost the jobs of thousands of women who'd come north from Mexico, and then spent years on the freezer lines in Watsonville. In auto and other manufacturing plants, African American workers had long since broken the color line into more skilled and better paying jobs, only to see them relocated and the plants close.
In 1997 Cornell professor Kate Bronfenbrenner found that one out of every ten employers facing a union drive told their workers they'd move to Mexico if the employees voted in a union. In 2009 a second Bronfenbrenner report, “No Holds Barred,” found that 57 percent of employers facing a union election threatened to close their worksite. According to Jeff Faux, “NAFTA strengthened the ability of U.S. employers to force workers to accept lower wages and benefits.” When NAFTA had come before Congress, its supporters argued that any race to the bottom by corporations determined to lower labor costs or violate workers' rights could be blocked by the so-called labor protections in a side-agreement to NAFTA—the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation. This made NAFTA more politically palatable for those Democrats in Congress who wanted to ratify the treaty anyway. The record of the side agreement is dismal. In its most recent status report, the Department of Labor lists the 37 cases—24 against Mexico, 13 against the U.S., and two against Canada—that have been brought under the agreement in the quarter century since NAFTA's passage. Almost all against Mexico concerned violations of the right to freedom of association, to strike and to bargain. Cases against the U.S. involved violations of union rights and the rights of immigrant workers. The two cases against Canada concerned violations of the right to collective bargaining. The most any union or group of workers ever got from filing a case was “consultations” between the governments, and public hearings. There is no provision in the agreement for assessing penalties for violation of union rights. There are minor penalties for violating child labor or occupational health laws, but they've never been invoked. Not a single union contract was signed as a result of the side-agreement process, nor was a single worker rehired. Those unions that have filed cases have generally sought to use the process to gain public exposure of abuses, and exert indirect pressure on employers. Was this just a flaw in the enforcement mechanism or something deeper? The purpose of NAFTA and other trade agreements has been to open economies for corporate investment, using lower labor costs as incentives to attract investment. It is unrealistic to expect that a side agreement to enforce already weak labor laws could mitigate the treaty's fundamental purpose. Despite its corporate tilt, however, NAFTA did produce a new relationship among unions and workers in all three countries. Many working people in the United States, especially if they belonged to unions that campaigned against NAFTA, started to open their eyes about the real conditions of their fellow workers in Mexico, and could see how those conditions encouraged employers to relocate their jobs. In response, workers and a number of progressive unions on both sides of the border have come closer together. When the Mexican government, for instance, tried to change Mexico's labor law, or passed corporate-backed education reform, or began to privatize the electrical and oil industries, U.S. unions have joined with Mexican unions to fight these changes. Many U.S. unions today understand that the impact will be felt in the displacement of Mexican workers and their migration to the United States and Canada, in the pressure their own workers will feel to accept concessions, or in the closure of plants and workplaces. Even before the treaty passed, activists in all three countries set up networks like the Border Committee of Women Workers, the Coalition for Justice in the Maquiladoras, Enlace and the Workers' Support Center. The United Steelworkers became the crucial support base for Mexican miners in their eight-year strike in Cananea, one of the world's largest copper mines, and gave sanctuary to the union's leader, Napoleon Gomez Urrutia, when he was forced to leave Mexico. The United Electrical Workers and Mexico's Authentic Workers Front developed a permanent strategic alliance, assisting in each other's organizing drives. AP Photo/Marco Ugarte Although General Motors autoworkers make the same number of cars on both sides of the border, it takes a Mexican autoworker over an hour's work to buy a pound of hamburger, while a worker in Detroit can buy it after 10 minutes. Here, a man walks past the entrance to a General Motors plant in Toluca, Mexico This kind of cross-border cooperation and solidarity is now a fact of life in the labor movements of all three countries—a consequence the authors of NAFTA certainly did not intend. The debates around the treaty, which came at the same time as the breakup of the Soviet Union, also helped spell the death knell of the U.S. labor movement's Cold War support for free-trade policies and its opposition to other nations' more radical unions. Over the past two decades, the labor movement has been moving towards new principles of solidarity with other nations' unions. NAFTA had an equally great impact in changing U.S. labor's way of looking at immigration and immigrant workers. In 1986 the AFL-CIO supported IRCA, the immigration reform legislation that made it illegal for undocumented workers to hold a job. But the wave of immigration that NAFTA produced changed the demographics of many U.S. workplaces, and with it, the demographics of U.S. unions. Not only did the number of immigrant workers increase, but over the years they took on a growing role in organizing unions in many industries, and eventually, in the leadership of those unions themselves. At the same time, U.S. unions saw immigration law and policy used against them. In Washington state 1000 apple pickers were fired when they tried to join the Teamsters, and in Nebraska 3000 meatpacking workers, many of whom either belonged to unions or were trying to organize unions in their plants, were driven from their jobs. In some cases their employers called in the federal immigration agents, but in others the Federal government itself demanded massive firings. In consequence, in 1999, the AFL-CIO changed its official position on immigration policy, calling for an end to the deportation and firing of undocumented workers, for legalizing people without papers, and for a trade policy that doesn't produce poverty and displacement. Today the AFL-CIO's statement on NAFTA renegotiation declares that, “all workers, regardless of sector, have the right to receive wages sufficient for them to afford … a decent standard of living.” The federation would prohibit the export of products made by companies paying less. Progressive Mexican unions and community organizations support this, because it would give workers and farmers a future without having to leave their homes in search of a living wage. On the other hand, the Mexican government now argues that Mexican wages must stay low to attract investment, and has accused independent unions there of betraying the national interest by seeking to raise them. With its presidential election coming next year, that position may well doom its ruling political party, not just to unpopularity, but to massive rejection at the polls. Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a past leftwing candidate now leading in the polls, has condemned the policy of using low wages to attract investment, and called for an economy based on producing jobs and social services that would give Mexicans a future in Mexico. The basis of labor solidarity is in many ways stronger today than it was in 1994, but labor is still playing a catch-up game. Border workers have gone on strike in four Juarez maquiladoras and the fields of San Quintin in recent years, and in Cananea and the Rio Sonora valley miners are still on strike after nearly a decade. In the U.S., where millions of workers are very aware, and fearful, about the loss of their jobs because of NAFTA and globalization, unions have yet to convince many people that solidarity, not hatred of Mexicans or of immigrants, is the real answer to their desperation. But when unions began to respond to NAFTA in 1993 and 1994, they knew they were in for a fight, yet they believed that change was possible nonetheless. It still is. Facing one of the most labor-hostile U.S. governments in decades, and trade proposals likely to undermine their strength even further, unions can still be a standard bearer for workers in all three countries. Reparations Overpopulation
|
” |
| —Gregory Cheadle’s campaign website (2024)[8] | ||
2020
Gregory Cheadle did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.
2016
The following issues were listed on Cheadle's campaign website. For a full list of campaign themes, click here.
| |||||||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
See also
2024 Elections
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Cheadle for U.S. House, "About," accessed February 7, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Certified List of Candidates for Voter-Nominated Offices June 7, 2016, Presidential Primary Election," accessed April 4, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "California Primary Results," June 7, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "California Primary Results," June 3, 2014
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official primary candidate list," accessed March 13, 2014
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Unofficial election results," November 6, 2012 (dead link)
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Cheadle for U.S. House, “Issues,” accessed February 7, 2024
