Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Voting booths at the vote center in East Palo Alto’s St. Francis of Assisi Church on Oct. 31, 2020. Photo by Lloyd Lee.

In East Palo Alto’s City Council race, candidate Mark Dinan has received a large backing from real estate agents and tech workers, netting $22,579 in donations, according to campaign finance disclosures filed with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

The fundraising is in stark contrast to the other six candidates who have taken more traditional means of smaller, local donations and personal loans to their campaigns. As of Oct. 10, most of the other candidates said they haven’t reached the $2,000 threshold that would require them to file a financial statement with the state.

Dinan received $1,000 donations from multiple real estate and property management contributors, including $1,000 each from Daly City rental property owner Godwin LLC, Hillsborough real estate broker Daniel Lee and broker Jennifer Liu of Palo Alto, and $2,000 from Shannon Lee of Solar Property Management in Daly City. In all, out of 75 listed donors to his campaign, 18 were in property, real estate or real estate investment. Of those, 16 were from out of town, including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Belmont, Woodside, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Santa Clara and Campbell. The remaining two were real estate brokers who were listed as East Palo Alto residents.

He also received $1,000 donations from Alexandr Sviridov, an information technology consultant, and Andrew Lim of San Francisco, who is listed as retired.

Dinan, who is a tech recruiter, also had a large following from the tech sector, including software engineers, recruiters, and tech consultants. Twelve listed their city of residence as East Palo Alto and 12 were from out of the city.

Fourteen East Palo Alto residents who are not in tech or real estate also donated to Dinan, including the Rev. Deborah Lewis-Virges. Dinan also received $250 from the Josh Becker for Senate 2024 campaign from Sacramento. Nineteen out-of-town donors who were not listed as being in tech or real estate made up the remainder of Dinan’s contributors.

He has spent $6,414 this year on campaign paraphernalia, web advertising on Facebook and Google, polling and fundraising events, his filings show.

Dinan said in an email that he had more than 120 people donate to his campaign.

“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,” he said.

Dinan said the foundation of his campaign financing has come from East Palo Alto homeowners who are concerned about the proposed Opportunity to Purchase Act that the city could enact. The act would give tenants, affordable housing nonprofits and the city first rights to purchase a property before it’s put on the open market. The measure is opposed by landlords and many homeowners.

Dinan didn’t directly address the large number of outside real estate interests that contributed to his campaign.

“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,” he said.

“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,” he said.

The other candidates have campaign financing that is small and from more local sources. Webster Lincoln largely financed his campaign with loans to himself, FPPC records show. Lincoln received $750 in donations for the year through Sept. 24 from his mother and local Realtor Ken Harris. He loaned his campaign $19,522 and spent $2,662 on shirts, banners and signs.

Mayor Ruben Abrica, the only incumbent, said he has only just reached the $2,000 contributions goal and has 10 days to file his 460 contributions form. He loaned his campaign $1,000. He has received $372 in small donations. Of those amounting to more than $100, he received $250 from the Josh Becker for Senate campaign, $300 from Roberta Ahlquist and $200 from Carol Lamont, both of Palo Alto. He has spent $1,488 on campaign materials such as flyers and $150 for a Three Brothers Taqueria food campaign event.

Martha Barragan and Jeffrey Austin said their campaigns have not gone over the $2,000 filing threshold.

Updates on the candidate’s filings can be found in the city’s public portal for campaign finance disclosures.

Sue Dremann is a veteran journalist who joined the Palo Alto Weekly in 2001. She is an award-winning breaking news and general assignment reporter who also covers the regional environmental, health and...

Join the Conversation

7 Comments

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. “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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

Leave a comment