This is the Jan. 30-31 edition of San Jose Inside’s open forum, where comments on any topic are welcome. What’s on your mind?
NOTE: If you would like your comment to be published in this week’s Metro, please include your full name and city of residence.
San Jose Inside
San Jose Inside (https://www.sanjoseinside.com)
Is it just me, or does anybody else find it bizarre that the city can say “we no longer want to take care of our trees, property owners have to,” then turn around and say “we’re going to tax you to take care of the trees that we just told you to take care of?”
I find it just as bizarre the residents who have been responsibly taking care of their trees now have to pay again with a tax for the maintenance of the trees owned by their less responsible neighbors. The backlog of unmaintained trees will be so great that the responsible residents will not see any benefit from the tax for years (if ever).
Its now worse than a City with a homeowner wanting to add a single bedroom to his home, gives him an “expedited” code review appointment first available in 3 weeks, charges $1500 for the one hour service, then the contractor comes in at noon and is told the counter queue is full, come back tomorrow. But then your told Code Enforcement will increase its effort on those who dare to forego all this and build without a permit. Oops! Same City, darn. Remember, it was never like this.
FYI.
Michele Lew is the President od AACI.
Michele,
I really want to commend you on what you wrote in today’s paper on “SJPD, and community need to find ways to walk through differences.”
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_14295641?nclick_check=1
While I may not agree with on you on forming a Civilian Complaint Review Board in lieu of the IPA’s Office, I do agree that mediation is the key to reducing tensions held by some people/groups in the community towards the SJPD. I do think the IPA’s Office, under a new IPA who is a professional mediator, can make mediation’s between the PD and a complainant happen so that the issue can be resolved in a more positive way whenever possible.
Also, I agree that inclusive community discussions need to start taking place, and are vital to bring balance to this issue. Also, I agree, we do need community discussions geared toward resolution, peace, and building good working relationships with our Police Department, and members of the ENTIRE community, not just certain groups who have long sense dominated the discussions.
We do not need any more forums that tout anger towards the Police, people screaming accusations of wrong doing at the Mayor, Council, and Police Chief. Ignoring efforts being made by the City Manager’s Office, and the Police Chief is only serving to divide us all and creates even more roadblocks to successful resolution of the problem. Our community has not addressed issues like the public’s behaviors that lead to them having negative encounters with the Police, or differing cultural views of authority, just to name a few. That is why I advocate using the IPA’s “Study Guide,” whenever possible as an educational tool to reduce bad encounters with Police Officers. We need calm, balanced discussions when problems arise, not demands for the Chief’s resignation, threats of protests, boycotts, etc.
The time has come for us to join together as one and try to build bridges through thoughtful, and fruitful discussion, not through divisiveness, and hatred. This “My Way or the Highway, You’re With Us Or Against Us,” mentality isn’t working, never has, and never will. It is counter productive and only serves to divide us even further from reaching our common goal of unity, a safe, respectful community, and peaceful partnerships.
Having said that please include me as one person who wants to be involved in your efforts to make things better for the City of San Jose, our Police Department, and most importantly, our ENTIRE community! I look forward to meeting you Feb. 4th, at the AACI forum on the IPA.
Bravo for your dedication to peaceful resolution!
With kindest regards,
Kathleen Flynn
“We will speed the day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing… Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty, I’m free at last.” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
<< We do not need any more forums that tout anger towards the Police, people screaming accusations of wrong doing at the Mayor, Council, and Police Chief. Ignoring efforts being made by the City Manager’s Office, and the Police Chief is only serving to divide us all and creates even more roadblocks to successful resolution of the problem. >>
Kathleen, the fact you need to stir into your analysis is that this city is approaching the one-million mark. At this size, and especially with official recognition of racial- and ethnicity-based organizations and values, inevitably such groups will start to see themselves as akin to political parties, and leaders will fight to advance the most extreme position so as to seal their leadership role within their racial- or ethnicity-based sector.
The recent demand for investigation that was advanced by out-of-towner Paul Fong and by educator Joe Coto appear to be motivated, at least in part, as gestures of leadership for each of their population groups.
Fong doesn’t want Kansen Chu to be the go-to guy in the Asian American sector, and Coto has to fend off particularly sharp-tongued rivals in the Latino sector.
We’re on our way to Los Angeles.
“…members of the ENTIRE community…
Agree. Ms. Lew needs to tell the community where they can find a schedule of these meetings so all San Jose residents can participate. The meetings should be open to the public with no group membership requirement.
Hey, I’m bored.
Let’s kick around public employees for a while. Cause we all know its the employee’s pensions and not the recession that is causing the city to have such significant financial problems.
I’m told that this little baby will cost about $220 BILLION per year, which is MORE THAN DOUBLE the current California budget.
[insert obvious question here].
Okay. My obvious question is: Why are you lying about the cost?
> Okay. My obvious question is: Why are you lying about the cost?
Oh, that’s an easy one.
Because I get my information from the Democrat legislature and they lie about everything.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave as we stuggle to deceive.
There are many legtimate and sincere opponents to the proposed 49ers stadium in Santa Clara. Several of them post here, and I assume they are sincere people with good jobs and we agree to disagree. In the New York Times Bay Area Blog, Billy Bailey, the treasurer of Santa Clara Plays Fair (the chair of the organization, Michele Ryan, seems to have meet the political fate of Beria and Trotsky by forces loyal to Bailey), claims that 93% of the 1000 dollars raised by Santa Clara Plays Fair in opposition to the stadium comes from Santa Clara.
Both Brian Darby, a montebank in San Jose, who claims to be a political professional on Cupertino Dating sites frequented by women under 25, (Darby is in his fifties), and Eleanor Pearson from Orcas, Washington, an island sanctuary for people like the late Salinger and perhaps OBL number two, are the largest contributors to Santa Clara Plays Fair which employs a New Jersey company to do the website. Tony Soprano opposes the stadium?
Karen Hardy, a three time loser for Santa Clara City Council, still better that Steve Young, turned her down for a fundraiser, opposes the stadium, which will fund schools and libraries. Hardy was never into education funding, and even led the pro life effort in Santa Clara County, for a price, Ugate, for a price!
As I said before, people with good families, good jobs, and with roots in the company oppose the stadium, as much as people who are community assets support it. But these people have far better understanding of our community than let a crew of basement dwelling cheese whiz website anarchists speak for them.
California: Health Care Bill Advances
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/health/policy/29brfs-HEALTHCAREBI_BRF.html
“The State Senate approved creating a government-run health care system, ignoring a veto threat from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger….”
I’m told that this little baby will cost about $220 BILLION per year, which is MORE THAN DOUBLE the current California budget.
[insert obvious question here].
Mr. Rowen, I oppose the stadium in Santa Clara. However, you are right. Bailey and his gang of nobodies do not speak for Santa Clarans. His contributions do show that he and his group are nothing but a front group for Brian Darby and the Libertarian Party. Just call it a Libertarian Party front group.
All Santa Clarans, Bill?
Then who is Brian Darby? Why do you always read from a prepared statement. Who wrote it and why does Darby get a bulk of the contributions?
Somewhere there has to be a person who, in good faith and with smug self-assurance that they were getting a great car, bought the last Edsel.
They drove out of the auto dealership with a grin on their face, thinking to themselves, “Boy, did I get a great deal on a great car.”
At some point, a neighbor probably looked over the fence and said: “How did you get stuck with that turkey? Didn’t you know?”
We will probably never know, but in all likelihood, the mavens of the San Jose Tech Museum must be experiencing their “Last Edsel” moment.
Just three short months ago, the dignitaries of the Tech Museum gathered in solemn pomp and circumstance to award a prestigious Humanitarian Award to the Nobel Prize Winning, Academy Award Winning Casandra of Global Warming, Albert Arnold Gore.
Just a matter of days later, the British Press broke the story of “Climategate” and the phony science, and manipulated, fraudulent data underlying the fairy-tale of “human caused global warming”.
Since then, it has only gotten worse. A failed UN Climate summit in Copenhagen; investigations of government funded climate “scientists” in the U.K. and in the U.S.; the lead UN IPCC climate scientist authoring soft porn novels; scientists around the world repudiating and questioning the scientific basis of “global warming.”
Suddenly, Albert Arnold Gore is, well, invisible. He was scheduled to shake hands to worshippers in Copenhagen for $1,400 per grasp. But, it never happened. Without explanation or excuse, Mr. Gore was . . . gone.
And, likewise gone, is the whole “human caused global warming indusry.” No more UN Climate Conferences (or at least no more conferences with any scientific credence); no more breathless, hysterical documentaries; no more Nobel Prizes; no more Tech Museum humanitarian award lollapaloozas.
I wonder: are the Tech Museum mavens still holding on to their authentic, Al Gore autographed, humanitarian award souvenir programs?
Actually, they probably will be even more valuable as collector’s items now: the last artifact of Albert “The Edsel” Gore.
There was nothing wrong with the Edsel as far as its function of providing transportation. People didn’t buy it because they didn’t like the way it looked. It was also priced higher than competing cars and it came out during a recession. If you bought the last Edsel on the lot, you probably got a good deal. And if you kept it in good shape, it would now be worth about $100K or more.
Scientists have not changed their minds about climate change, the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it are still exactly the same, and those people who are working on the problem will continue to do so, while the scoffers will continue to scoff, probably. But I submit that the Edsel, which was a marketing failure, not an engineering failure, is a poor analogy.
> Scientists have not changed their minds about climate change, the evidence and the conclusions drawn from it are still exactly the same, and those people who are working on the problem will continue to do so, . . . .
For criminy sakes! JUST STOP PAYING THEM!
They’re mostly government employees or career grant leeches. If you stop paying them, they might have an incentive to go out and do something else of actual benefit to society.
The scientists are no doubt reevaluating their models, given that the data most were based upon was found to be “cooked.” Pending that reevaluation, they will decide whether to change their minds.
You know what killed the last ice age? Global warming!
The data was not “cooked.” There is no controversy. Scientists should always reevaluate and strenghten their models, but this fake controversy over data is not the reason why.
Am I the only one who feels that Downtown San Jose, much like many cities due to this economic crisis, has lost its identity?
San Jose is unique in its layout, and much of the city is subdivided into its own neighborhoods. Residents tend to frequent their local shops, and the south bay itself has been taken over by these quaint little downtown feels that each area has. For a moment if you can, picture downtown Campbell, Willow Glen, Almaden, Los Gatos, etc. They all have in common much of the same thing: little mom and pop run businesses, MAYBE a bar or two, local restaurant favorites, and plenty of other cozy feeling places. What then is the draw to downtown? I keep hearing the same complaint from many business owners and longtime San Jose residents, “our downtown is failing”. Now, our DT is not exactly in shambles, in fact, I think that’s where a majority of the complaints are stemming. The people voicing their opinions are the same people that see the potential that DT has. I mean, with over 1 million people in the surrounding area, what is DT’s problem?
First of all I believe that the accessibility of the south bay is very good. Traffic is not as bad as you think (I’ve lived in southern california for the past 6 years), and pretty much any destination in the south bay is within 10-15 minutes. Therefore, it’s not like DT has a problem with people actually getting to it.
In part, these small, quaint little downtowns, with their downtown cozy mom and pop magic, is what is killing downtown. The solution is not to kill these quaint little downtowns with big business because this is a unique identity of the south bay, not seen in much of America. What then is the solution to save DT? The Nightlife.
I really hope I’m talking to the right group of people by posting this. I may or may not be entirely correct on this issue but even if you don’t frequent any nightlife scene, I sincerely hope that you understand where I am coming from.
Most of these quaint downtowns don’t have much of a nightlife to hang their hats on. Maybe (and this is definitely the case with Willow Glen) it’s due to local residents complaining about the noise/parking/drunk drivers that stifle most of these bar scenes. Campbell probably boasts the most nightlife related bars with Katie Blooms, The Spot, and Khartoum (which is actually where my parents met each other). The point is, if you had to choose one of these smaller downtowns to have a good time at on a Saturday Night, your options are limited.
Downtown San Jose seems to fit the mold. There aren’t cute little Eichler Homes with sleeping 3 year old children that you have to stumble past at 2am singing “Sweet Caroline” at the top of your lungs. There is ample amount of downtown space, transportation, and customers willing to fling cash around to have a good time. What else does downtown have to offer? If it’s trying to compete with these smaller areas with its restaurants, wouldn’t you as a resident of one of these smaller areas want to frequent your own downtown because it’s closer, less busy, and supports those cute little mom and pop businesses? DT San Jose has got to realize their potential to seriously help themselves economically. They have to realize the potential to draw a nightlife crowd that these competing smaller downtowns don’t have. The more restrictions, the tighter the grip of SJPD has on DT, the longer that DT waits to enhance this area of business, the sooner these smaller areas will develop their own nightlife.
Safety is clearly the issue that DT has of doing this. San Jose is one of the safest big cities in the world, blah blah blah. DT draws all sorts of people, including gang members which help lead to infamous brawls like the one at WET nigthclub. Isn’t there a happy medium? Can’t SJPD increase their awareness all the while understanding that downtown needs something to bring it back to life? Those thursday night free music in the parks were AMAZING. After those shows would attract hundreds of people, those people would flock into downtown at night with money in their pockets.
I’m tired of hearing that my downtown is failing, especially when it has such history and potential. I’ve grown up in San Jose and I plan to work there when I’m done with Graduate school. I want San Jose to be as lively and vivacious as it was during the tech boom in the 90’s, and I especially want to see the success of our beautiful downtown area.
I’ve lived in the south bay most of my life, and I can confidently say I’ve been to San Francisco more times than I’ve been to downtown San Jose. Why? Because all I ever hear is that DTSJ is “ghetto.” Well, recently I decided I’m sick of driving an hour to feel like I’m not in the suburbs. And you know what? Downtown’s reputation as unsafe is overhyped.
First, just because lots of brown people go somewhere does not mean it’s a gang hang-out. Downtown is basically the only place where the east side and the rest of the city mingle. I think it’s hard for some of us suburban folk to see Mexicans without vacuum cleaners or lawn mowers out and about.
Second, there are plenty of ways to avoid the commoners, if that’s your concern. Check out A Perfect Finish, for example, a very nice wine bar with a great selection. San Pedro Square is as about as “ghetto” as downtown Campbell. And every month South First Fridays are a great way to see the local art scene.
Third, plenty of people actually do go downtown for things. Whether it’s HP Pavilion for a Sharks game or big name concert, or a Broadway show like Ave Q at the Rep, or just dinner at one of the restaurants, lots of people spend the first part of their evening Downtown. They just leave immediately afterwards.
Of course there are some places I would never enter (Wet being at the top of that list). But San Jose is a city of over a million people now. This is to be expected.
So my message is this: give Downtown a second chance.
And before the accusations come in, I swear I don’t work for the downtown association. I’m just a San Jose resident who feels Downtown is tantalizingly close to being what everyone wants it to be. We just have to be part of making it happen.
“First, just because lots of brown people go somewhere does not mean it’s a gang hang-out. Downtown is basically the only place where the east side and the rest of the city mingle. I think it’s hard for some of us suburban folk to see Mexicans without vacuum cleaners or lawn mowers out and about.”
I don’t want to patronize a city with racists like you.
Didn’t even catch a whiff of sarcasm?
I keep forgetting posts in this forum need to be kept to a third grade level.
For the slow kids in the back:
The point of that paragraph was that people take one look at who’s hanging out downtown and say it’s “ghetto” or they feel “unsafe”. I’m not going to call people who do this racist, but I think they should think really hard about why they feel this way. It’s definitely not because of all the non-existent murders and muggings that happen in Downtown.
Just level the downtown area and turn it into a park and open space, so we can get rid of the playground for the vagrants and criminals.
Just level the downtown area and turn it into a park and open space…
I like your idea, but let’s make an even bigger airport. After all, look at all the economic benefits we get from the current airport. With a bigger airport nobody will have to work since we will have so much money. Pure nirvana.
Hey, Laurie, at least you are sincere and a good person who speaks her mind and legitimately puts forth her views.
Do visit http://www.scforprogress.com
I think you and other Santa Clarans will find it a friendly place.
Recent US Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate campaign contributions will play out locally in DA’s race with Mercury’s corporate management supporting Rosen for District Attorney.
Mercury’s frequent hit pieces against Carr – are not news stories but campaign hit pieces financed by Mercury – since they do not present both sides of news story or provide equal time for rebuttals or corrections.
Mercury News should be required to declare their campaign contributions worth $50-100,000 to Rosen’s campaign rather then be largest hidden deep pockets corporate campaign contributor trying to influence your DA vote.
SJI should run a blog on hidden corporate contributions and when newspapers cross the media line to be campaign contributors or else corporations wanting to influence campaigns can easily hide under “newspaper / media company” free speech protections
What do you think?
It’ll be interesting to learn if DA candidate Rosen declared the in-kind contribution on 2/1/10 that the Mercury News gave him in the form of a lavish campaign piece on Sunday, 1/31/10. The “editorial” practically drooled over his qualifications, and provided lots of pull-quotes for his campaign mailings.
Since 1/21/10 when the US Supreme Court [Citizens United vs Federal Election Commission] declared the legality of corporate gifts and contributions to political campaigns, a corresponding obligation has arisen to require the reporting of such gifts and contributions, whether by check or in-kind, on candidate financial forms.
The 1/31/10 Mercury News gift was certainly the type of corporate contribution envisioned as legal, and reportable. By purporting to be an “editorial” from a neutral source, the “editorial” clearly rendered no less than a contribution of $100,000 to the Rosen campaign.
Does anyone know if Rosen declared the in-kind value of the “editorial”?
Brian Darby of San Jose has contributed well over a thousand dollars to oppose the stadium while his dupe Bailey claims it is an effort run by Santa Clarans.
As Nixon said, it is the lie that gets you.
Your Lantern diatribes are starting to pollute the blog. We know how you feel about the stadium an its opponents. Move on!
Supreme Court Ruling Spurs Corporation Run for Congress
Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video on http://www.youtube.com/user/murrayhillcongress
“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”
Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office.
Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”
Murray Hill Inc. plans on filing to run in the Republican primary in Maryland’s 8th Congressional District. Campaign Manager William Klein promises an aggressive, historic campaign that “puts people second” or even third.
“The business of America is business, as we all know,” Klein says. “But now, it’s the business of democracy too.”
Murray Hill Inc. is launching the campaign with a website, Facebook page and YouTube video.
http://www.murrayhillweb.com/pr-012510.html
Good to see AIG is paying another $100 million in bonuses after we (taxpayers) bailed them out.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/02/another_100_million_in_aig_bonuses_causes_another_stir.php
So, who do you blame:
A. The current owner of AIG, Barack Obama?
B. George W. Bush?
C. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
D. Timothy Geithner?
E. Ben Bernanke?
F. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd?
G. Goldman Sachs?
H. Republicans?
I. Rush Limbaugh?
J. Christian Evangelicals?
K. Homophobes?
L. The Military Industrial Complex?
M. The U.S. Constitution and Contract Law?
Please attend and pass the word to everyone you know!
Avery and Associates has already set a FINAL community meeting on the IPA issue for two weeks from now, and not at the end of the month as the Council directed, for Febuary 18th, at Roosevelt Community Center in Community Rooms, 901 E. Santa Clara Street, San Jose 95116, from 6:00 pm-8:00 pm.
How does Avery and Associates, whoever they might be, have the authority to change when and where the city council told them to do it? That sounds pretty suspicious, like they are trying to rush something through without the vetting process.
Good question Steve hence my e-mail to the Mayor and Council.
Honorable Mayor and Council,
I am deeply dismayed about what happened in tonight’s AACI community forum. One of the IPAC members came into the meeting very upset because she had just received an e-mail informing her that the final community meeting to hear input has been set for two weeks from now, not at the end of the month, and at Roosevelt Community Center, not City Hall. Many of us were shocked because we knew nothing about this meeting. No outreach was done to us even though we have requested to be included on several occasions, including this past Tuesday’s Council meeting. Many of us feel two weeks is NOT enough time to get the word out.
When I asked the rep from Avery and Associates why they didn’t do better outreach, why they set the meeting for two weeks from now instead of at the end of the month, and for their contact information, his response to me and others was to hand us a stack of fliers, didn’t respond to our question on the date set, and told us he did not even have a business card with him. The fliers he gave us only had a mailing address, no phone number or e-mail address!
It honestly seems to me that this company is not only lacking in experience in handling proper inclusive outreach, but truly doesn’t understand the importance of allotting enough time for notifying the community about such an important meeting.
After tonight’s experience, many of us are concerned that Avery and Associates are too inexperienced in the ways needed to conduct proper public outreach. We are also concerned that their inability to follow direction given by you, and their failings to properly hold two community meetings with inclusive outreach, with enough lead time allotted to hold these meetings, is serious cause for concern regarding their ability to vet candidates for the IPA position in a competent manner.
Having said that, I’d like to respectfully request that you hold one final open meeting at the END of the month at City Hall, with outreach being done with the assistance of your offices sending them out to your districts via e-mail.
Please let me know if you are willing to meet my request, and PLEASE add my name and e-mail address to any outreach information you send from your offices.
Thank you,
Kathleen
Only person who has authority to change outreach meeting date, location and from 2 to 1 meeting after Council directed more outreach is City Manager, city’s Chief Administrative Officer
Avery Associates has worked for City Manager many times and does what they are told to do
Questions:
Does Mayor and Council know City Manager is not following Council direction about conducting more public outreach ?
Was it just a “suggestion” City Manager did not have to follow but made Council look good in public ?
Who Knows or Did they approve in private?
The memo submitted by Council Members Chu and Kalra were made a part of the motion by Council Member Nguyen. It was voted on, and passed unanimously. Prior to the vote, Council member Kalra went to great lengths to clarify with Nguyen that his and Chu’s memo and its directives would be incorporated in the motion and vote.
The memo said that there should be 3 weeks notice of the new meeting, it was to be held at City Hall, and that Avery and Associates was to submit information on the meeting to each Council Member’s office for dissemination through their districts e-mail lists, as well as, all other outreach venues.
There is no doubt about the type of outreach and timeline that was to be done with regard to this last community meeting.
Where is the uproar from the other city council members or the mayor?
Steve said,” Where is the uproar from the other city council members or the mayor?”
Very good question.
I just received this from a friend, and have to wait until Monday to call the Mayor’s Office to see if it is correct.
“From: Asian Law Alliance
Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 3:59 PM
To:
Subject: change in date for IPA INPUT SESSION
Importance: High
Hi Everyone: We just found out that the IPA INPUT SEESION has been changed to Thursday February 25, 2010 – See info below.
Richard Konda
Avery Associates have changed their meeting date from 2/18 to 2/25 to get input from the public as to what you would like to see be the criteria to evaluate candidates for the position of the next Independent Police Auditor.
IPA Outreach – Last Community Input Meeting
CHANGED to – February 25, 2010 (NEW DATE)
6:00 pm – 8:00 pm
Roosevelt Community Center
901 E Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95116
Richard Konda , Executive Director, Asian Law Alliance”
My question is, why is this group being made privy to information the rest of us aren’t. I will post the new meeting time and place Monday when I verify when and where it is.
I really hope all of you show up to this input meeting. We need more input by the public that balances out the discussion. The discussion is and has been dominated by one side for way too long. If you don’t get involved then you are allowing a huge injustice to victims of crime, and SJPD to continue on.
I was wondering the same thing.
I am sure it is just sheer coincidence that Avery and Associates is based in Los Gatos, which is where the current San Jose city manager worked before coming to San Jose. Why would she send lots of money outside our city to a consulting firm in Los Gatos when there are plenty of qualified firms from San Jose that could have done the same thing and kept the money in San Jose. Cronyism is alive and well it appears with our city manager.
I’m trying to figure out what value these posts of yours are supposed to bring to this forum. The constant innuendos, cheap shots, bogus questions that create doubt…
You decry the “decay” of San Jose, yet all you do is promote mean spirited discourse. What makes you so bitter?