Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

NJ Mvondo Joins the Race for Yolo County Supervisor District 4 Seat

Nj-mvondo-20230828-199-EditLate to the Race but Right on Time: NJ Mvondo Joins the Race for Yolo County Supervisor District 4 Seat

+++ From Press Release +++

NJ Mvondo is announcing her candidacy for the Yolo County Board of Supervisors’ District 4 seat in the March 2024 primary election. A social entrepreneur and grassroots organizer, it is Mvondo’s love for her community and desire to address the pressing environmental concerns that have driven her to run for local office. Mvondo looks forward to tackling three major issues if elected: achieving sustainability via the implementation of an environmental justice framework in the decision-making in Yolo County, building a resilient economy, and reducing housing insecurity. With record breaking heat across the globe this summer, this is a wakeup call for everyone as to the urgency of the climate crisis. People need to be housed, our economy needs resiliency, and we need to combat climate change.

As the Chair of the City of Davis Human Relations Commission, NJ Mvondo works to create bridges and understanding in the community in an era of deep political divides and racial tensions. As a leader in the Davis environmental and civic realm, Mvondo encourages dialogue and collaboration across sectors to find ways to address the issues at hand, including in her work as Chair of the Yolo County Climate Action Commission. Mvondo would be honored to continue uplifting the community’s voice through the work of Yolo County Supervisor for District 4.

Sandy Holman, Davis’ Citizen of the Year 2023 and founder of the Culture C.O.-O.P., is excited to support Mvondo in this race. She shares that “NJ Mvondo is one of those rare, exceptional political candidates who has personally experienced many of the issues we are trying to address in our communities. This fact, along with her incredible professional experiences, outstanding leadership, and committed and endless service to our communities, in a variety of capacities, makes her an extraordinary choice for the Yolo County Board of Supervisors.”

Mvondo shares, “Davis and Yolo County are my home and the first places I felt I belonged in the United States. Davis is one of the few places I know to have extraordinary standards for the well-being of its residents and its environment. We have set ambitious and necessary goals for our city and county, and we can achieve them if we work together.”

One of these extraordinary goals is to ensure that Yolo County meets its promise to be carbon negative by 2030. And with the recent bomb threats towards the LGBTQ+ community at the public library in Davis, she condemns any attempts to create fear and hostility in our city, and any threats to the safety of our residents. Buildings like the public library are not just public spaces, but a home for many, especially historically marginalized groups. Mvondo champions equity, inclusion and transparency in all she does. She looks forward to bringing this care and determination to the Board of Supervisors to uplift safe communities in all of Yolo County.

To learn more about NJ Mvondo, her priorities, and her run for Yolo County’s District 4 Board of Supervisor, visit her website at  https://www.nj4supervisor.com/. You can also follow her social media platforms on Facebook and Instagram @nj4supervisor for the latest updates.

Posted by

davisite

on

in

Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

14 responses to “NJ Mvondo Joins the Race for Yolo County Supervisor District 4 Seat”

  1. Ron O

    “And with the recent bomb threats towards the LGBTQ+ community at the public library in Davis, she condemns any attempts to create fear and hostility in our city, and any threats to the safety of our residents.
    This is a false (and dangerous) claim – similar in nature to what Sharla put forth. I do wish folks would stop doing so.
    The threat was made against the library itself, perhaps in response to what the librarian (a regional manager) did. But it could have just as easily been done by someone seeking to “blame” groups such as Moms for Liberty (or their supporters). Otherwise known as a “false flag”.
    In my opinion, anyone who cannot see or understand this is unfit for public office – right out of the gate.
    The reason being that such comments generate hatred toward other groups which are sometimes already not “popular” within local communities.
    This is also likely related to the reason that the librarian believed that he could shut down a meeting based upon policy and law which simply doesn’t exist.

    And for that matter, anyone who actually wanted to physically harm others probably wouldn’t “call in” to warn anyone.

    Reply
  2. Ron O

    But unfortunately, I doubt that this candidate is alone regarding her apparent views regarding the incident at the library.

    Reply
  3. Ron O

    To further clarify, if a threat had been made to a local LGBTQ group and was found to be made by an individual known to be hostile toward that community, then the comment by this candidate (and others) would be appropriate.
    But that’s not what occurred – regardless of “who” made the threat.
    The threat was made against the library, not a LGBTQ group. As such, it impacted the library and ALL of its users – not just one group.
    And again, we don’t know who did so, or the reason for it. For that matter, there could be multiple parties involved, acting separately (since there was more than one call).

    Reply
  4. Ron O

    So, I don’t mean to “hijack” this candidate’s announcement, but just wanted to point this out (especially since many seem to make similar comments).
    I would acknowledge that (given the reports in the media), it appears that the threats are at least connected to the incident at the library.
    But if it is from someone who “hates” the LGBTQ community, I guess they’d better check the schedule to see if Moms for Liberty is at the library when making the threat – since they’re one of the “users” who could be impacted by a shutdown.
    As might others who support the First Amendment.
    Library patronage is not limited to the LGBTQ community.
    I’ll refrain from further comment regarding this particular issue underneath this candidate’s announcement, unless perhaps prodded here. (But I think there’s a more appropriate article in which to explore such issues.)

    Reply
  5. Roberta L. Millstein

    The press release said: “And with the recent bomb threats towards the LGBTQ+ community at the public library in Davis, she condemns any attempts to create fear and hostility in our city, and any threats to the safety of our residents.
    Note that she does not blame any particular group for this. Is she wrong to condemn attempts to create fear and hostility, which any bomb threat does? Is she wrong to condemn threats to the safety of residents? I would have thought that these were some pretty uncontroversial positions to take.
    Ron, not only have you hijacked NJ’s press release, but you did so by completely reading things in to what she said. She said what she said. If she had wanted to say something else, I am sure she would have said that.

    Reply
  6. Ron O

    “recent bomb threats toward the LGBTQ+ community”
    I’m not reading anything into this at all. It literally states this, when the threat itself was made to the library.
    You could have chosen not to respond, as I had already stated that I would not be responding further unless prodded. Instead, you’ve made the same mistake that this candidate did, and then blamed me for pointing it out.
    You are now contributing to the hatred as a result – same as the candidate, same as Sharla, same as much of the community does.
    You apparently don’t recognize hatred unless it’s directed toward the groups whom you’ve decided “deserve it”.

    Reply
  7. Roberta L. Millstein

    According to the police, the email threats contained hostile language towards the LGBTQ community. There might be a question as to who they came from, but there is no question as to who they were directed at.

    Reply
  8. Colin Walsh

    Considering the bomb threats against the library reportedly included anti LGBTQ language I think it’s fair perspective to say the threats targeted the LGBTQ community.

    Reply
  9. Ron O

    Well if the LGBTQ community is their “target”, the library itself is not an effective target.
    There’s groups they could target, instead.
    But again, if this is a false flag – it could be originating from a MEMBER of the LGBTQ community, seeking to rile up hatred toward groups like Moms for Liberty.
    Hatred is not owned by one side regarding the transgender issue. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any room for discussion regarding that issue (and it’s one I generally stay away from).
    But unlike you (and apparently a lot of others), I’m not willing to jump to conclusions.
    My guess is that we’ll never know.

    Reply
  10. Keith

    “Considering the bomb threats against the library reportedly included anti LGBTQ language I think it’s fair perspective to say the threats targeted the LGBTQ community.”
    We don’t know for sure who the target was. Think about it, if one was against M4L and wanted to tarnish and/or stop future M4L meetings at the library they would make it appear like they were against the LGBTQ community. So therefor the target would actually be M4L.
    Now mind you, it also very well could be that the threats were sent in by anti-LGBTQ zealots.
    The only thing we know for sure is that ‘we don’t know’.
    Hopefully the FBI finds the perps.

    Reply
  11. Colin walsh

    One can tie themselves in knots with what ifs, maybes, and conspiracies, but taking the threats at face value is a fair interpretation. No matter who the perpetrator is, it’s fair to say they targeted the LGBTQ community. Was M4L also a target? That’s much more speculative.

    Reply
  12. Keith

    Did you take Jussie Smollett’s accusations that were targeted at Trump supporters as a fair interpretation?

    Reply
  13. Alan C. Miller

    RO you can’t say you don’t want to hijack the announcement and then write more words than the announcement. As RM said, you read into what NJM said.
    What we do know is that the words associated with the bomb threats were interpreted as words hateful towards the LGBTQ+ community (I’m assuming that’s true since the words were not released). I do agree RO that those words could have been written by either ‘side’, either as literal hate words from a violent bigot, or clown-hate words to make it look like a ‘right-slanted’ person made the threat. I’m not going to make a judgement on that because the bomb threat is associated with a single unhinged individual (possibly a few, but probably one). This is a criminal matter. The actual issues are LGBTQ+ rights, concerns about children, and free speech. The bomb threat is a distraction caused by a criminal who is likely unhinged.
    But here I am commenting on your comment instead of the subject of the article. I suggest in the future when writing that many words in multiple comments, consolidate them into an article, and submit the article to the Davisite. Then we all can discuss the subject in the context of article.

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    “RO you can’t say you don’t want to hijack the announcement and then write more words than the announcement. As RM said, you read into what NJM said.”
    Actually, I was hoping it would end with that comment (and specifically suggested that) – but RM responded.
    I don’t think I’m reading more into the comment. If it’s a false flag, then it can in no way be described as a “threat to the LGBTQ community”.
    Regardless of who is doing it (or their reason), it’s an attack on the library.
    As you noted, we don’t even know what was said in those phone calls. Some would characterize calling a trans woman a “man” as hate speech, though I doubt that the police would.
    I do sort of regret stating that any particular candidate making such a comment is “unfit” for office, since pretty much all candidates do the same thing. I personally think that unless such statements are handled very carefully, it simply adds to “hatred”.
    Good tip regarding multiple comments. I will try to take more care to consolidate in the future.
    I will not put forth any other comments (regarding this particular issue) underneath this candidate’s announcement.

    Reply

Leave a reply to Roberta L. Millstein Cancel reply