ROBERT STORER: A THREE-PART SERIES LEADING TO NOVEMBER 3

Editors Note:

This is the first of a three-part political satire and public-record commentary series examining Robert Storer’s nearly 25 years in Danville government as the November 3, 2026 Town Council election approaches. 

Part One: follows the money.

Part Two: follows the votes 

Part Three: brings the record to the ballot: 

They have a quarter-century of public decisions, campaign records and development policies to examine

PART ONE — ROBERT STORER: FOLLOW THE MONEY

Political satire and public-record commentary

By Melissa Martinez

Credit : Veritas

Robert Storer has spent years promising to protect Danville’s “small-town character and charm.” It is a reassuring phrase. There is also a relevant fact: Storer is a developer.

He spent eight years on the Danville Planning Commission and has served on the Town Council since 2009. His professional background includes development, property entitlements and rezoning. So when Storer asks voters to judge his experience, there is a simple place to start: follow the money.

The 2026 filings reviewed for this column show at least $7,000 in itemized contributions through October 2: $2,500 from the California Real Estate PAC, $2,000 from Jeffrey Woods, $1,500 from Pellegrini Construction and $1,000 from Robert Tiernan.

But one election cycle does not tell the whole story. Across the 2022 and 2026 records reviewed here, six clearly identifiable construction, homebuilding or development-related contributors gave Storer at least $9,978.45. California Real Estate PAC gave $3,500 across the two cycles. Jeffrey Woods gave $3,000. Pellegrini Construction gave $1,500. Ponderosa Homes gave $1,000. James Wood of R&J Construction gave $500. Steve Abbs of Davidon Homes gave $478.45.

The names matter because they tell different parts of the story. James Wood is identified in Storer’s filing as the owner of R&J Construction. Jeffrey Woods is associated with Black Mountain Construction and contributed in both cycles. Steve Abbs is identified in public records as vice president of land acquisition and development for Davidon Homes, the developer associated with Magee Preserve. These are not six versions of the same donor. They are separate entries pointing back to the same broad world: real estate, building and development.

Then comes Pellegrini Construction. It contributed $1,500 in 2026. Its co-founder and president? Robert Storer. The company says Storer’s responsibilities include property entitlements and rezoning. In this instance, following the money does not require a corkboard, red string or a trench coat. You can follow it until it introduces itself.

The California Real Estate PAC is equally uncomplicated about what it represents. It gave $1,000 in 2022 and $2,500 in 2026. No decoding is required; the words ‘Real Estate PAC’ are right there in the name. Sometimes campaign-finance transparency arrives before the check is deposited.

There is also a policy decision on the same timeline. In February 2022, Storer joined a unanimous 5-0 Town Council vote adopting Ordinance 2022-01, which states that there shall be no limit on monetary contributions from a person or campaign committee to a Town Council candidate. Storer did not act alone; every councilmember voted yes. The ordinance was legal. But when examining campaign money, the rule governing that money belongs in the story too.

Then there is the money that outlived the 2022 campaign. Storer’s committee reported nearly $19,700 in contributions that year, yet there was no contested Town Council election for his seat: two candidates filed for two seats, and the election was canceled. The election disappeared. The campaign account did not. Elections are temporary. Campaign accounts can be remarkably durable.

That makes the carryover question straightforward: how much was on hand when 2026 began, who originally contributed it, and how much of the current campaign is being financed with money raised in the earlier cycle? The answer should come from the committee’s Form 460 beginning balance, not from guesswork.

None of this proves that a contribution bought a vote, changed a Town decision or produced special treatment. Campaign contributions are legal. Businesspeople, builders, political committees and developers are entitled to support candidates. The point of disclosure is simpler: campaign money is information, and voters can examine that information alongside a candidate’s public record.

That matters here because Storer’s professional life includes development, property entitlements and rezoning, while his public duties have included decisions about land use, housing and growth. The ordinance is public. The contributions are public. The professional connections are public. No conspiracy theory is required. Just read the ledger.

And the ledger leads to Part Two: what does Storer’s voting record show?

Next week: Robert Storer voted yes on the 2015 ordinance that helped give the Planning Commission final authority over many development applications. What happened after that vote — and how did major housing decisions later become final without a Town Council vote on the merits?