Editorial: Threats and Intimidation Have No Place at City Hall

The public has every right to participate in local government and make their case before elected officials. That is a fundamental part of democracy. What they do not have the right to do is intimidate, threaten, or harass those they disagree with.

Public comment should be used to inform, persuade, and hold government accountable—not to intimidate, grandstand, or score political points.

After rewatching Monday’s Pittsburg City Council meeting, I would encourage residents to take a step back and focus on getting their message across through facts, logic, and reason—not volume, threats, or mob mentality.

While Councilmember Angelica Lopez’s response to the crowd was poorly delivered and failed to read the room, she was correct on one point: dozens of members of the audience were behaving inappropriately and acting as Lopez described “rude as hell”. Unfortunately, the meeting produced what appeared to be a death threat that was captured on video. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand on the data center debate.

I understand the anger. I understand the confusion. I understand that residents have a long list of questions that deserve answers–hopefully Pittsburg will release a Q&A soon.

But it is also true that when the project came before the council on Nov. 5, 2024, there was little public opposition. Likewise, whether people agree with him or not, Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council Executive Director Tim Sbranti was correct when he noted the project had gone through an eight-year process involving multiple governing bodies before reaching the Pittsburg City Council.

This editorial is not about whether a data center is good or bad. That is a debate is for each community to have.

What I will argue is that residents need to pay closer attention to local and state government. Too often, major projects move through years of public meetings with little interest from the public, only to face intense backlash once construction is imminent. By then, many of the key decisions have already been made.

Pittsburg residents elected their City Council to represent them. Those elected officials are only as effective as the level of community engagement they receive. Council members are human beings. Sometimes facts change. Circumstances evolve. New information emerges.

Ask yourself: how would you react if 400 angry people suddenly directed their frustration at you?

Most people would freeze or walk away. The council sat through it, took the criticism, and now must decide how to move forward.

Residents who disagree with council decisions have plenty of tools available to them. They can organize. They can advocate. They can campaign. They can pursue a referendum. They can seek a recall. And ultimately, they can vote elected officials out of office.

What they should not do is resort to threats, harassment, or misinformation.

Claims circulating online that council members do not live in Pittsburg or are somehow getting rich from serving on the council are simply false. All five council members live in Pittsburg, and their monthly stipend is modest at $500 per month.

If residents want to win the argument, they should do so with facts, evidence, and reason.

There is no need to cross the line by threatening elected officials, sending harassing messages, or making intimidating phone calls. Beyond being wrong, such actions can carry legal consequences that range from misdemeanors to felonies.

More importantly, when this behavior occurs, everyone loses. Legitimate concerns often get overshadowed because a small number of individuals cannot separate disagreement from intimidation.

Instead:

Stick to the topic.
Stick to the facts and questions.
Stick to the policy.
Stick to the decision being considered.

And perhaps most importantly, be careful what you read online.

Social media has become a breeding ground for misinformation, rumors, and half-truths that often spread faster than facts. Before showing up angry at a meeting, take the time to read the staff reports, review the agenda, verify information, and understand what is actually being proposed as the project approved by the city council is not what public comments were talking about, those are other projects in other states.

Disagreement is healthy. Democracy requires it.

But there is a difference between passionate advocacy and personal attacks.

There is also a larger consequence to this behavior that many people fail to consider.

When elected officials, commissioners, volunteers, and city staff are subjected to constant harassment, threats, and intimidation, good people begin asking themselves whether public service is worth it. Potential candidates with fresh ideas and thoughtful leadership often decide not to run at all.

Why would they?

Why volunteer for a position where disagreement has become personal and threats have become normalized? Why serve on a city council if you have to worry about someone threatening violence or vandalizing your home?

The toxic behavior that has become commonplace in national politics should not be normalized at the local level.

The same is true for city staff. Talented employees have options. If a workplace becomes hostile and toxic, many will simply leave for another city or agency. Communities then lose experienced professionals, institutional knowledge, and stability.

Ironically, many people who engage in this behavior claim they want better government. Yet their actions often make it harder to attract the very people needed to improve it.

Communities deserve passionate debate. They deserve accountability. They deserve tough questions and honest answers.

What they do not deserve are threats, intimidation, or mob rule.

The strongest argument in any council chamber should be the best idea—not the loudest voice.

If residents want to create change, they should show up informed, prepared, and respectful. Make the argument. Present the facts. Challenge assumptions. Hold leaders accountable.

But leave the threats, insults, and intimidation at the door.

Mike Burkholder