Developer Contributions, Olivia Endorsements, and Clayton's Future: Questions Amy Callaghan Should Answer
Who Is Supporting the Candidates Who Want to Shape Clayton's Future?
A recent social media post has raised questions about Clayton City Council candidate Amy Callaghan's campaign contributions, political endorsements, and position on future housing development in Clayton.
These questions deserve public attention.
According to an October 2, 2026, Form 497 campaign disclosure shared publicly, Callaghan's campaign reported receiving contributions from three individuals identifying their occupations as developer or real estate development.
The reported contributions include:
• Philip Tagami — $1,562.81
• Leonard Epstein — $2,000.00
• Grant Alvernaz — $1,041.98 (Oakhurst owner)
Total reported contributions: $4,604.79.
Accepting campaign contributions is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing. However, understanding who financially supports a candidate is an important part of making an informed voting decision.
The Olivia Connection
The same social media post also raises questions about Callaghan's endorsements from former Clayton Council Members Julie Pierce, Tuija Catalano, and CW Wolfe.
According to the post, all three voted in favor of the controversial Olivia development, the 81-unit, three-story apartment project currently under construction near downtown Clayton.
Their endorsements do not automatically establish that Callaghan shares every position they previously held. Nevertheless, given Clayton's continuing debate over housing density, traffic, infrastructure, and local control, voters have reason to ask where she stands.
Three Questions Amy Callaghan Should Answer
Clayton Watch believes residents deserve straightforward answers to three important questions:
1. Future Development: Would you support additional high-density housing projects similar in size and scope to Olivia?
2. Local Control: How would your proposed transportation policies affect Clayton's ability to maintain local control over future development decisions?
3. Developer Contributions: Will you commit to evaluating future development proposals independently, regardless of campaign contributions or political endorsements?
These are reasonable questions for anyone seeking a seat on the Clayton City Council.
Clayton's Future Belongs to Its Residents
Decisions made by the next City Council will influence Clayton's character, financial stability, infrastructure, and development for years to come.
Residents deserve to understand not only what candidates promise during an election but also who supports their campaigns and what policies they intend to pursue once elected.
Clayton Watch invites Amy Callaghan to address these questions publicly and welcomes her response for publication.
The election is approaching. The time for answers is now.
Clayton Watch — Keeping Our Community Informed.
It’s aparent she can’t be trusted.
ReplyDeleteAmy is now spinning her donors' story to her campaign and claiming the CW PAC supports other candidates. I think something is off here, and so many people are being dense. CW PAC has CLEARLY stated that it does not support any candidates in any way. Why is this such a hard concept for people? Amy, your developer friends are guaranteed to come asking for favors if you make it into office; you aren’t dumb; you know the game you are playing. Stop trying to act innocent; you have a tell when you are lying- maybe I should play poker with you and take your money.
ReplyDeletePAC's by definition support candidates...and you obiviously support Trupiano and Schulman.
DeleteClayton Watch is a PAC, yes. But its not a big money operation like the developers funding Amy Callaghan's campaign. Clayton Watch doesn't contribute a dime to any candidate, they just report FACTS about candidates, like the FACT Amy Callaghan took thousands of dollars from developers, including one developer that has a pending project application with the city of Clayton. If Trupiano and Shulman had anything like developer money to report, Clayton Watch would be all over it. Its always strange to see how willingly people will wear blinders because they are friends with a candidate. How many were friends with Pierce Catalano and Wolfe who were upset about the Olivia? Olivia cost all of them their political careers! How about we just prevent another one by not voting for Amy Callaghan.
DeleteAmy’s explanations make no sense. It’s clear the developers want to buy this seat on the council. There are 3 other candidates who are not being bought by developers. We don’t need anymore real estate people on council.
ReplyDeleteNow, for some strange reasons, she took down her post. Maybe Peter Cloven is her handler.
ReplyDeleteHer handlers include Wolfe, Geller, Hayden, and Tillman, and possibly Cloven. Why do you think she had pre-written answers at Candidates Night with the League of Women Voters? She did because Wolfe and Kindorf were deeply involved. People watched her with her prepared answers; it was clear she was the only one who knew what would be asked. As for her developer friends, she understands the game she is playing. She's selling out Clayton just like Wolfe, Geller, Hayden, Tillman, Cloven, Pierce, and Catalano did. Watch for her kickbacks!
ReplyDeleteI was in the crowd, and I noticed she was always looking down at her notes.
DeleteAmy claimed she has never met Grant. That’s something we all have to question. No way Grant just blindly handed her money. And he expects something in return for that money. Amy’s supporters all claim they dislike corporations. Yet they are glad big corporate developers are funding her campaign. What does that say about them? Anything to get into power. The CBCA would take money from Trump if they thought it could help them buy seats on council all to get everything for free. This is what “community” means for them.
ReplyDeleteShe’s a bold faced liar.
DeleteGrant would not have given her money without first meeting and talking with her. I know Grant well enough to say this. She is outright lying when she says she never met him. Amy is already lying like Tillman does all the time on the dais. Do not trust Amy.
DeleteAmy is wrong for Clayton on many levels. She lies and spins stories like Tillman and Cloven; with her, could there be another misleading Grand Jury report? She takes money from large, well-funded developers who can easily demolish Clayton. She is supported, endorsed, and led by the divisive faction in town that bullies, name-calls, and spreads false narratives. She advocates for increased traffic congestion through denser housing, taller buildings, and more buses. She has no clear stance on economic development and community vitality. She wants city-sponsored events —especially concerts in the Grove, car shows, and Hispanic Heritage—canceled, an apparent move to hand everything over to the CBCA. Amy is wrong for Clayton. The message is clear: she aims to destroy what makes Clayton unique and hand over the remaining assets to the CBCA. Fellow community members, DO NOT VOTE FOR AMY!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the GJ response. Where is all of that. Is there any response from the courts on all the appeal process submitted by Mr Hood?
DeleteALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY! Amy why do you need so much money to run? Jeff Wan did it twice without going over the 2k limit. Why are you trying to buy your way onto the council?
ReplyDeleteShe hasn’t a clue on what she’s getting into.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it one group of people want to let people outside of Clayton influence what goes on here? When they lost their contract, CBCA, Tamara Steiner and others went outside of Clayton with made up numbers and friends on civil grand juries to try to change things. They went outside a second time through one of Tamara Steiner’s friends from a San Francisco newspaper to try to smear the people they don’t like in office. When that failed they decide to run a candidate that is bought and paid for by outside developers who most likely want to come and turn Clayton into the apartment haven Walnut Creek is. No candidate should ever have to get money from outsiders. Amy may be from here but her affinity lies outside of Clayton. I’ve seen enough. The CBCA should be ashamed of themselves. They would sell us out so long as they can dictate that they don’t have to pay for anything.
ReplyDeleteAgree. Well written. Walnut Creek has gone to hell and will never be the same.
DeleteAgreed!
DeleteAmy, Amy, Amy, Nobody writes a campaign check without having some reason to support the candidate. Amy can dismiss questions about her political connections all she wants, but Clayton voters aren't obligated to take her explanations at face value.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Amy represents a progressive political agenda that is increasingly out of touch with Clayton's priorities. She seems far more interested in social causes and political activism than addressing the practical issues facing our city, financial stability, public safety, infrastructure, and responsible development. It's not about gay/pride parades and convincing the community and their kids that this is a healthy lifestyle.
This election isn't about promoting personal ideologies. It's about managing Clayton responsibly.
Amy my needs to stop selling voters an image and start giving them reasons to trust her judgment. So far, I'm not convinced.
She’s done a pretty good job of fooling people up until now. She’s wrong for Clayton and Charlie isn’t too far behind her.
DeleteAmy is now trying to deny and deflect. Nice try.
ReplyDeleteAmy is an empty suit. I watched the candidate forum a couple weeks back and noticed that every question that was asked to her, she would read a rewritten script when answering. These questions were not supposed to be known to the candidates upfront so she is getting a lot of insider help. She’s the Kamala Harris of Clayton who would be a disaster for our town as she would be a tool to line the developers pockets.
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell was that about? At the last town hall, Ed Hartley said he was speaking on behalf of Charlie Schmidt because Charlie was supposedly unable to attend due to teaching. Seriously? Since when does a candidate need someone else to speak for him?
ReplyDeleteHartley is a prominent CBCA supporter, so having him step in on Charlie’s behalf raises legitimate questions about the relationship and what message was being sent. **If Charlie wants to represent Clayton, he should be prepared to show up, answer questions, and speak for himself—not have someone else carry his water.** Clayton voters deserve to hear directly from the candidates, not through political allies acting as their stand-ins.
-Charlie, why weren’t you there to speak for yourself-
It's always CBCA. Money, lies, giving Amy the questions beforehand, and bullying everyone else. They want the city tax dollars for themselves again but can't run a good candidate. Charlie is missing like Talarico, and Amy keeps posting the same non-answer.
ReplyDeleteVote Kim and Maria. Keep CBCA out of our politics!
Charlie had the incoming president of the CBCA speak for him at a city function. Who are we electing the CBCA president or Charlie? Apparently, Charlie is just too busy or too important to serve on the city council.
ReplyDeleteI see Basam is still spouting the lie that the Olivia project is a Senior Living project. He is either lying or ignorant. The staff report itself states that it's not age restricted. See page 37 of the staff report here: https://claytonca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/4504/files/agenda/2865
ReplyDeleteStaff states clearly that 74 of the 81 units have no age restriction at all. Anyone who describes the Olivia as a Senior housing development is either lying or ignorant.
Basam is an idiot. I remembered reading about this subject in a great article written by Mr. Hood. Checkout the following and then let me know what you think of Basam. https://www.claytonwatch.org/2024/03/olivia-on-marsh-creek-we-were-bamboozled.html
DeleteWhen Peter Cloven makes a video, no one listensš¤£! Well folks its official, Amy's campaign finances are an issue. So now we hear about her being independent. Of course, Peter Cloven and friends were completely independent when they voted for the extension of the Olivia. Conveniently, Cloven voted to deny an extension to another project mainly because he had gotten campaign funds from a differently developer who claimed this project would interfere with his. In the past, most candidates stuck to the 2k limit to run for office. Recently, big city money has entered our politics. Holly Tillman smashed records last election by spending 25k to buy a seat on the council. Amy is attempting the same only she is being funded by developers who make BIll Jordan and his Olivia look like child's play. Phil Tagami plays for keeps, just ask the people in Oakland. Amy is in deep with all real estate. We already found out once what happens when we vote in real estate people what we end up with. Do we want to have it happen again only much bigger?
ReplyDeleteAmy's desperation is showing if Cloven is posting all over for her and Charlie. Cloven, one of the worst Mayors/council members we have ever had here, is boasting that he didn’t run because Amy was. What a joker. Peter didn’t run because he has an atrocious record. He voted for high-density housing as long as it wasn’t near his home. Could not account for $50,000 missing in the checkbook and waited so long to respond to a resident about damage to their property from a city-felled tree that the resident could not get reimbursed. Cloven goes on to claim Amy and Charlie remind him of Holly and himself, saying they are independent. Yet he and Holly, with Wolfe, ALWAYS voted as a block. Not very independent, if you ask me. Peter, you are full of shit.
ReplyDeleteThey voted as a block to be uncivil by passing over those they didn't like. So Cloven is telling us that's what Amy and Charlie will do.
Delete