Lea este artículo en español aquí.
Not even halfway through his first term, Supervisor Ignacio Velazquez is facing a recall. A local group, called Safer San Benito, collected enough signatures to trigger a vote, surpassing the threshold by just nine. District 5 voters will now cast a yes or no vote to remove him from office.
District 5 covers most of downtown Hollister, stretching north past the Hollister airport to the county line between Hwys 25 and 152.
Only voters in District 5 are allowed to vote.
Stacie McGrady is the co-chair of Safer San Benito. She has been living in the county for more than two decades and is a retired sergeant with the Monterey County Sheriff’s Department.
Why should District 5 voters vote your way on June 2?
This comes down to trust.
How do you trust a person who runs for office in a district where he does not live, and when questioned about the ethics of doing that, he says “Everyone does it.”
District 5 voters were given clear commitments, and we have seen those promises not matched by results. This recall is about accountability for those decisions.
It’s also about choosing a different path forward—having a leader that puts the community needs first, not personal agendas, and focuses on collaboration instead of sowing division. And more than anything, recognizing that public safety is a top priority that must come first. We need an honest leader who delivers on the things that matter most to us.
At the end of the day, this community deserves better—and this is an opportunity to move in that direction. That is why we are urging people to support this effort, take back their community and vote yes to recall Supervisor Velazquez.
Both sides have accused the other of putting out misinformation about the recall. Can you speak to that?
Any campaign—especially a recall—can become heated, and unfortunately that’s where misinformation can creep in.
From our perspective, we’ve tried hard to focus on facts, referring to public records, and the decisions made by Supervisor Velazquez that have directly impacted our community—particularly around the fire contract negotiations, public safety funding, use of taxpayer funds, and leadership.
What’s been concerning is that when residents raise legitimate questions, his response is too often indifference, personal attacks, or deflection rather than addressing the record. At times, simply labeling something “misinformation” has become a substitute for engaging with the facts—you hear it so often during meetings it’s almost expected.
We believe voters deserve clear, accurate information so they can make their own informed decisions.
The district attorney has received complaints from nearly 20 people claiming they were misled into signing the petition. This is not the first time such claims have arisen in the county. Do you believe the state should revisit its signature-gathering rules and whether there should be more oversight over these processes?
It’s important to be clear: these complaints did not arise independently. They were actively solicited by multiple supervisors using official communication channels, repeatedly labeling the recall a “scam” and directing residents to contact them directly. Those complaints were then compiled and forwarded to the District Attorney.
From the outset, there has been a coordinated effort to undermine the legitimacy of this recall—through claims that petition gatherers were dishonest, attempts to pressure voters to rescind their signatures, and even following and filming volunteers. Yet despite all of that, more than 2,200 residents signed the petition, and only a small number of complaints were ultimately produced.
That raises serious concerns about the use of public office to influence or interfere with an election process. Those concerns are now under review, with an investigation underway at the state level.
At its core, this should be about voters—not political tactics. The community deserves a fair, transparent process free from pressure or manipulation.
Velazquez’s election created a new board majority that labels itself as “slow-growth.” What has that majority done—for better or worse—that voters should weigh when deciding on this recall?
While Supervisor Velazquez has long described himself as “slow-growth,” his record tells a different story. During his 10 years as mayor of Hollister, the city experienced some of its fastest housing growth since the 1990s. As chair of the Council of Governments, he also had an opportunity to challenge the region’s housing allocations but did not act within the appeal window.
More recently, the current majority failed to prioritize getting a compliant Housing Element in place, despite clear state deadlines and consequences. That delay has now resulted in multiple Builder’s Remedy projects—over 2,000 homes in the county, some on agricultural land—that the county has little ability to stop.
At the same time, this group attempted to advance sweeping agricultural zoning changes without meaningful public input. Those proposals would have had significant impacts on farmers and ranchers and were only halted after strong opposition from across the community, including agricultural and business groups.
Perhaps most telling, the Housing Element this majority ultimately approved plans for more than 4,000 homes—far exceeding the state’s requirement of 754 units. That is not slow-growth. It’s a label being used to get elected and stay in power.
Beyond the recall itself, District 5 residents have concerns about roads, public safety, and housing in north county and downtown Hollister. What should the supervisor representing this district be focused on, regardless of the recall outcome?
One of the most consistent things we heard from residents is that they want a leader who listens to them and represents their priorities—not one who pursues a personal agenda.
Across District 5, the top concern is public safety and quality of life. Families are deeply concerned about recent cuts to already underfunded public safety and social service programs.
Many have been clear in their support for our firefighters and frustrated by the county’s refusal to fully fund its share of the fire contract. There is real concern that shifting that burden onto the City of Hollister could lead to reduced staffing, slower response times, and increased risk to families.
Beyond that, residents want focus on the basics: maintaining and improving our roads, protecting essential programs like senior meals and other safety nets, supporting local economic growth and jobs, and addressing affordable housing.
At its core, the message from the community is simple—they want to feel heard, and they want leadership that focuses on the fundamentals that keep families safe and communities strong.
Ignacio Velazquez is the owner of The Vault and American Electrical Services. He was Hollister’s first elected mayor and was in that role for 10 years. In 2024, he was elected supervisor.
Why should District 5 voters vote your way on June 2?
The first thing voters should know is that this recall is really a scam bought and paid for by housing developers. Those who want more houses built are angry that the new majority of the Board of Supervisors has put a stop to developers getting away with doing whatever they want.
Developer’s efforts to take 3,000 acres of farmland to build thousands of houses have come to an end. The county is finally going in a direction that is not controlled by developers or special interest groups.
By voting No on the recall, voters will ensure that their voices are heard and that out-of-control growth has come to an end!
Both sides have accused the other of putting out misinformation about the recall. Can you speak to that?
The facts have been very clear that this scam recall was organized and paid for by people outside of District 5. The recall group was organized by former Mayor Mia Casey and Stacie McGrady, both of whom live outside of the district and both have worked with developers to try to get more developments approved in the county.
Their group is funded by the largest home builder in San Benito County and others with development interests. This group paid over $30,000 to have people come from Florida and Los Angeles to collect signatures from local citizens.
More than 30 residents have signed complaints that they were tricked into signing the recall paperwork by being told it was a petition to give firefighters raises.
This entire scam recall campaign has been based on lies and misinformation to try to fool the public.
The district attorney has received complaints from nearly 20 people claiming they were misled into signing the petition. This is not the first time such claims have arisen in the county. Do you believe the state should revisit its signature-gathering rules and whether there should be more oversight over these processes?
Actually, it’s well over 30 people who called to complain that they were lied to and wanted their signatures removed. The recall process has been corrupted by people who have no problem lying to the public for their own benefit.
The state needs to revise the laws so that it becomes clear that signature gatherers should have to disclose upfront where they are from and if they are getting paid. They should also change the law to allow more time for people to remove their names from petitions.
Most importantly, there should be severe penalties for those who are laundering money to finance these campaigns.
Velazquez’s election created a new board majority that labels itself as “slow-growth.” What has that majority done—for better or worse—that voters should weigh when deciding on this recall?
With the new Slow-Growth majority, the Board has been able to stop developers’ push to just approve projects because they are friends. No more giveaways and no more favors for old friends.
We were able to work aggressively to get the new state housing requirements approved, which stop out-of-control growth and focus on affordable housing for community members rather than approving thousands of houses for those coming from San Jose and other areas.
My experience with budgets helped convince the majority to put an end to deficit budget spending. In the past, deficit budgets were approved with the hope that financial issues would be resolved by the end of the year. These practices cost taxpayers millions of dollars a year.
The new financial policies have exposed failures within the system that are now being dealt with.
Beyond the recall itself, District 5 residents have concerns about roads, public safety, and housing in north county and downtown Hollister. What should the supervisor representing this district be focused on, regardless of the recall outcome?
Roads have been ignored for far too long, and our residents have had to suffer from the poor decision-making of the past.
Last year, the Board was able to get Shore Road, Frazier Lake Road, Union Road and a few others repaired. Later this year, we will be working on Fairview, Lovers Lane and the remainder of Shore Road.
Engineers will also be working to finish plans for Cienega, Salinas Road and a few others.
We need to make sure to never go back to believing that building thousands of houses is somehow good for the progress of our community. We need to protect our farmland and the beautiful county that we live in.
We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.