The naming of places and the honoring of icons is an often confusing and sometimes treacherous country to enter. Walking by the empty lot on Jackson between Sixth and Seventh Streets that was once the city corporation yard led me to a number of thoughts about that problem, our government, and local history. For many years this was site of the city-owned garage and maintenance facility. Its acquisition is shrouded in a bit of mystery from the sordid days of the forced internment of Japanese Americans. It is alive in the memories of many members of that community who believed their area and property were seized during that tragic time. But the story goes back even further than the recent focus on the World War Two chapter. As L. A. Chung pointed out in the Mercury News, it goes back to the destruction of our old Chinatown in the area of the Fairmont Hotel.
If you look at the southwest corner of the Fairmont Hotel, you will see a plaque that commemorates the “suspicious” fire that consumed the old Chinese sector of our city, “Chinatown,” in 1887. I dedicated it as mayor on the 100th anniversary of the fire. From those ashes rose the generosity of one John Heinlen who welcomed the Chinese to his pasture on Jackson Street, providing low-cost leases to build new homes within surrounding protective fences, gates, and barbed wire. (In a very ironic way, it was our first gated community.) Five years before, Congress had passed the Chinese Exclusion Act—prohibiting Chinese from owning land—that was supported by many, even the most progressive in our city and state. While many engaged in xenophobia in our nation, John Heinlen stepped forward in a courageous way. The memory of this man is present today in the oral history and fond memory of many descendants of those first inhabitants of Heinlen’s charitable vision.
To learn a bit more of how this same lot is now planned for a mixed use project, I go to the distant days when I was mayor and a place known as “Japantown.” It just seemed to organically and rather spontaneously become the name of that grouping of churches, restaurants, and historical residences where so many Japanese Americans lived and worked. There was no city process or decree; it just happened. It was then that members of that hardworking community asked the city to partner with them and help build a hub for the area. It seemed like such a good idea to take the underused city facility and make it a vital part of the business district, but then the wheels of the bureaucracy began to grind slowly, oh, so slowly.
There are limits to the power of any mayor. Although we were able to do a great many large projects, this one eluded me and the city. In fact, my last meeting as mayor, on the final day of 1990, was with the new mayor, Susan Hammer, Frank Taylor, the RDA czar, and members of the Japanese-American business community. It seemed like such a good and simple idea.
And now, “only” seventeen plus years later, it seems the lot has been cleared and the mixed use project may go forward. The larger question is how projects and ethnic names like Chinatown and Japantown have their own dynamic and their own historical progression more powerful than any council action. It shows the difficulties in any such endeavor, and adds another chapter to the road to “Little Saigon.” It also reminds us of two of the most dramatic and shameful episodes of a community that feared the “aliens among us.”
Today, our city will hopefully resolve the latest crises in a more thoughtful and honorable way. There is some recent evidence that the outcome of this venture into that strange land, that “country,” may end in a far more hopeful manner. And on Jackson Street, we may even see a project one day soon.
Mr. Mayor,
The true “silent majority” have been working hard at achieving harmony and to bring honor to the exercise of our First Amendment Right to protest, voice our concerns, hunger strike, freedom of information Act requests, demands of consistency and fairness in our representaive government and legal redress, etc..
It is a movement as well as a journey of awakening for the Vietnamese community to “loudly” participate in this fundamental rights that was lacking in our previous homeland. Some members of the public might cry foul as over the top, but with such a large non-English speaking population that are naive to the ways of how the politic spokes spin at the City Hall Merry go round and the widespread mistrust that the stewardship of the City Council do not represent them effectively, I would say to those folks, sometimes by all means necessary to get our voices heard and our points across is not pretty, but we are hopeful it is effective in assuring we get a seat at the political table.
I truly believe cooler heads prevail and solutions sometime are reached on equal footings. Both sides of the aisles needed each other just like magnets. The city can not exist with our its citizens and vice versa. The hard part after prolonged arguments and hurt feelings is to get both sides to sit down and remember the good that we see in each other prior to the disagreement.
Our Vietnamese American community is many things good and some things bad, but we cornered the market on rebuilding just as all of us did our whole lives. We can take homage in the fact that as this issue winds down, rebuilding we must. The Little Saigon debate touched upon the very core of our existence as a first generation immigrant community. The wounds of the war are fresh and the pains of our loss are real. To the people that truly try to understand the political, policy and personal struggles and debates among our community members, I sincerely thank you for your open hearts and minds. To those that reduced this to a racist, non-inclusive debate, I urge you to embrace the beautiful diversity of our city. We are now multi-cultural and what affects the Latino community affects the whole City of San Jose. What affects the Filipino American, the Indo American, the Chinese American affects us all. There will be other “Little…” debate in the near future and I hope the lessons, good or bad, of our Vietnamese community’s struggle be the important lessons to achieve harmony, whatever that lessons shall be.
Mr. Mayor, I thank you for your sincerely and your wisdom in this trying period for our Vietnamese community. You are the Mayor Tom that my family came to know and love. We will see you soon.
As I recall, back when 9/11/01 was still quite fresh on everyone’s mind there was a push to designate a heavily Afghan section of Fremont as “Little Kabul.” If memory serves me, this effort was either defeated or abandoned.
Are there any lessons to be learned from Fremont? Considering the circumstances around “Little Kabul” at the time, you would think that this would have been a far more explosive issue than “Little Saigon,” yet it wasn’t.
Maybe I’m comparing apples and oranges here with Afghan vs Vietnamese groups but the goal was the same in both instances.
Great column Tom, very interesting and informative topic!
I’d like to ask you if you were Mayor today would you have voted yes on the name Little Saigon? I’d also like to know if you would have allowed a new, young, inexperienced Council Member who clearly didn’t follow city policy, the kind of power and leadership Mayor Reed has given Madison? Do you think the rumors are true that Mayor Reed is going to appoint Madison as Vice Mayor when Cortese leaves, that is if she survives a recall?
And finally, given that the petition submitted last Tuesday night with supposedly 92 business owner signatures on it has proven to be fraudulent, would you resend last Tuesday’s vote, and take a new vote on the name Little Saigon, as per Council Member Chu’s request?
The naming of neighborhoods should happen naturally, not forced by the City Council. Just like in popular music, nicknames develop naturally:
Diana Ross “The Boss”
Frank Sinatra “Chairman of the Board”
Elvis Presley “The King”
Bruce Springsteen “The Boss”
Michael Jackson “The King of Pop”
Quincy Jones “Q”
Ella Fitzgerald “First Lady of Song”
Aretha Franklin “The Queen of Soul”
Sarah Vaughan “Sassy”
James Brown “Godfather of Soul”
Paul McCartney “Macca”
Ray Charles “The Genius of Soul”
Billie Holiday “Lady Day”
Mel Torme “The Velvet Fog”
Rick James “The King of Punk Funk”
#4 Kathleen,
A new theme song for the Mayor and City Council (except Dave and Pierluigi) might be,…Annie sang it to Daddy Warducks,” The sun will come out tomorrow”…“so gotta hang on til tomorrow”…“your always a day away”.
#2 A very thoughtful and positive post – quite refreshing! Thank you for the insight.
Tom,
This sounds like a project right up Maria Brand’s alley. She was the energy behind placing the Adolf Phister bronze plaque in the California Room of the Martin Luther King Library he was a two time Mayor.
Most recently Maria placed a bronze plaque honoring John Balbach black smith and maker of the first commecial plow on the west coast, it was place on the Market St. corner directly across from the Metro News. I have learned so much from her of these great men that came here from Germany in the 1800’s. It is well we honor their dedication to our Village.
It is exciting news to finally seek any remains of a people that while not embraced by all, had the safety of John Heinlen’s property . My kind of guy!
I must say Tom you’ve started my day off just right. I think I will go change the world now. I think I’ll start with a Hollywood first.
The Village Black Smith
This morning’s edition of our poor excuse for a NEWSpaper contains a front page story on the failing health of the grandstanding hunger striker. I presume that if he falls into a coma, he will end up in the hospital but if he doesn’t pull through I don’t think we can even imagine the reaction from the LS camp.
Should it play out this way, the Council needs to be blunt and simply resolve that there will be NO special designation for the stretch of Story Road in question. Just take the whole issue off the table for good and move on. The businesses on Story Road will continue to thrive regardless of whether there are banners hanging from the light standards or not.
And if Reed is even considering appointing Nguyen Vice Mayor, HE should be recalled.
The names Saigon of course refer to the over 300 year old and former capital city of the Republic of Viet Nam. According to researchers such as Jacqueline Desbarats and various human rights group such as the Aurora Foundation, after their victory in 1975, the North Vietnamese changed the name Saigon to Ho Chi Minh City, the North Vietnamese herd over 2,000,000 Vietnamese government workers, teachers, poets, writers and South Vietnamese to the slave labored camps without trial disguised as Corrective Labor Re-education camps. Properties of these Re-education camp slaves were confiscated by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam government, families of Re-education camp slaves were forced to move to the New Economic Zones. The Socialist Republic of Viet Nam government not only institutionalized slave labor, they also institutionalized racism, Vietnamese of Chinese descend were forcibly evict from their businesses and homes and sent to the New Economic Zones and after China invaded Viet Nam in 1979, even people who have lived in Viet Nam for seven generation were considered “china men” and forbidden to work in 18 major professions. These atrocities resulted in massive exodus from Viet Nam and bring about the phenomenon of the “boat People”.
For the Vietnamese-Americans the name Little Saigon evokes fond memory of the time before the Vietnamese holocaust. Therefore, when the city of San Jose commission the San Jose Redevelopment Agency to conducted its survey of residents and business owners around that business strip on Story road area. As a result, the name “Little Saigon” received the most votes from the Vietnamese-American residents and business owners. A survey conducted by the San Jose Mercury News also showed that 91% participants favorably chose “Little Saigon”. However, The San Jose City Council except for a few members like Kansen Chu decided to pick the name “Saigon Business District” which rated last in the San Jose Redevelopment Agency survey with only 4% votes. The vote angers the Vietnamese American within this area because it shows them that their vote means absolutely nothing to the politicians.
To add insult to injury, it was later reveal by the San Jose Mercury News and through email chain obtained thru San Jose Redevelopment Agency that Councilwoman Madison Nguyen had pressured, coerced and obtained secret votes from other council members for the name Vietnam Town Business long before the actual public meeting and voting of the name of this business strip on Story road. Madison Nguyen’s action is a direct violation of the California’s Brown Act authored by Ralph M. Brown. The Brown Act was enacted to prevent undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials which were not in compliance with requirements for advance public notice and used primarily to circumvent laws by holding secret ‘workshops’ and ‘study sessions’.
After strong protests by the Vietnamese-American community in San Jose, on March 4, 2008, the San Jose City Council held another meeting but again, the name Little Saigon was shot down. In a well orchestrated series of motions, Council members Nguyen, Liccardo and Mayor Reed outmaneuvered Council member attempt to force the council to an up or down vote of Little Saigon. All motions to force an up or down vote were declined due to procedural technicality.
During the March 4, 2008 meeting, Council member Liccardo, a Madison Nguyen supporter claimed that he had received and reviewed the petition of 92 business owners on Story Road. Liccardo claimed that the petition asked the city council not to name the area along Story Road since they want to determine for themselves on what the area would be called. The petition was given to the council by Huong Le, a man claimed to be the co-founder and co-owner of the Lee’s Sandwich franchise. Huong Le told Liccardo it was Le and his friends who gathered the signatures and the people there want to name the area themselves. However, according to the San Jose Mercury News on 03/11/2008 and kliv.com, this “petition” that Liccardo touted was found to be completely fraudulent. The signatures in Liccardo’s petition was actually signatures from businesses who favored the name of “Little Saigon” yet the supporters of Madison Nguyen had deliberately changed the content, wording and signature of the petition for Little Saigon to server their own devious purposes.
So why should all of this concern anyone except the Vietnamese-American in San Jose? Because the protests by the Vietnamese-Americans and the hunger strike by Ly Tong in front of the San Jose City Hall is not simply about selecting a name. Imagine if during this coming Democrat Convention after Obama had won most caucuses and delegates and the Democrat National Committee decided that they will nominate Eliot Spitzer not Obama or Clinton to be their nomination, even though Eliot Spitzer had not won any caucuses or delegates. How do you think the Democrats in this country would react?
The issues that the Vietnamese-Americans of San Jose is currently fighting is no longer the issue of a small isolated community, replaced the names and the community group and the issue of corruption, backroom dealing, frauds, forge documents can easily be understood by all voters of any race or creeds. See the issue for what it is and maybe those of you who snicker and sneer at the Vietnamese-Americans who is fighting against the San Jose City Council will understand that in fighting against the corruption and wrong doing of the San Jose City Council, the Vietnamese American are also fighting for your votes and your rights as an American.
#8 Kathleen,
Great responce! I like your “Sunshine” remarks too. Kathleen, we need to get the Sunshine process into the County too! The County is very secretive. San Jose people needs to get active at the County level too.
Tom McEnery said: “Today, our city will hopefully resolve the latest crises in a more thoughtful and honorable way. There is some recent evidence that the outcome of this venture into that strange land, that “country,” may end in a far more hopeful manner. And on Jackson Street, we may even see a project one day soon. ”
At what cost to the Vietnamese people, and the citizens of San Jose?
#2-Hung Bui-There will be some kind of agreement on the LS issue and in the end, you’ll one day have to ask yourself at what cost to our community, and your trusting people? Did you ever hear the sayings, “He’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing?” Or, “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword?” As Tom McEnery so aptly reminds us in his quote, “Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
We human beings have a tendency to ignore the mistakes of our past because we don’t chose to learn from it. We take the easy way out. A real investigation into this issue will never take place and those responsible will never be held accountable for their actions. And history will repeat its self because these people will be re-elected and their questionable actions forgotten like yesterday’s news. They will continue on as if they have done something wonderful for your community because they did give you a crumb after all, and you happily took it thinking it was a loaf of bread.
Sunshine can only find its way in if there is an opening. As long as the truth lies hidden in the dark, it will continue to grow like mold that slowly poisons anyone who comes in contact with it.
#10 “The issues that the Vietnamese-Americans of San Jose is currently fighting is no longer the issue of a small isolated community, replaced the names and the community group and the issue of corruption, backroom dealing, frauds, forge documents can easily be understood by all voters of any race or creeds.”
Welcome to San Jose. I’d say your group is about 20 years behind in realizing this.
#10—Thanks for the history lesson. But I wonder,why is there no hue and cry for a Little Dien Bien Phu?
JMO – Answer: apathetic French population. TMcE
Tom,
Going back to your previous blog,” A Stroll By City Hall”, the Little Saigon issue has been solved with all parties involved relieved and pleased.
We have to thank the Vice Mayor, Dave Cortese for taking a stand early on to back the 4,000 signatures collected by our local people in favor of the name change.
Dave used his influance as Vice Mayor to convince the Mayor and city council to do the right thing. David gave his support early on.
15 – The only problem with your little campaign propaganda for Cortese is that the Coundil did NOT do the right thing.
Cortese pandered to vocal and threatening mobs because he figured he could get a few votes out of them. He put aside what was best for the city at large and caved. He just did it earlier than the Mayor who waited until this week to cave.
Cortese lost my vote at the beginning of this debacle. He did not serve the city well and he has opened the door to mob rule at City Hall. Great leadership!
Van Pham,
The agreement your people came to according to the Mercury News was little more than allowing your people to place one sign at your people’s cost for 3 years, saying Little Saigon. The Mercury News also said the agreement states your community cannot protest, investigate, or create any more problems for the City. The City did not designate D7 business district Little Saigon. Odd that your people would fight so hard, Ly Tong would go on a hunger strike and end up in the hospital, just to end up with this type of agreement.
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8569664
http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_8569628
#16 Dave,
I respect your opinion.
I am not in district 8, I live in district six, Willow Glen. Dave is running for Supervisor, and again he is not running for supervisor in my district either. I am not related to Mr. Cortese. I have no reason to suport him politically other than to believe in my own opinion that he did the right thing, he backed the people that collected over 4,000 signatures.
I believe the “political” thing for Dave to do would have been to stand with the majority of the City Council and collect his political IOU`s.
The Mayor and other Concil people had plenty of time to compromise but chose not to.
There were other threating mob groups in our history, remember the “Boston Tea Party”. The pro “Saigon” people had plenty of time to come forward with a petition with signatures, but…
I agree with our mayor on a lot of his positions. The Mayor has a serious budget problem to solve and it`s not going to be easy for him and the council. This issue should have been solved long ago, it dominated the majority of the mayors valuable time.
Dave, someone had to jump in and brake the delema, Dave chose to, right or wrong and now we have a solution. The Merc said,” it was the end of San Jose`s long nightmare”…” Licardo sometimes mentioned as future mayoral material, played a key role in Thursday`s compromise”.
So Dave, Cortese broke the ice. I glad to see democracy work and see this whole thing behind us.
#10, Van Phan,
Please respect our system. The Mayor did the right thing in the end, he respected your community. Same goes for Cortese, he`d be in jail too. In Vietnam you would have probably ended up in jail if you went up against an authority figure like the our Mayor. Our system does work. Be patitent.
I read today in the Merc the council must approve the agreement Mr. Reed reached with Mr. Tong. Where did Mr. Reed get the authority to sign such a deal if a council vote is needed? Despite the calls for “democracy”, the end of this saga looks more like your traditional back room deal followed by a council rubber stamp.
Dear Richard Zappelli,
The system is not working that is why the Vietnamese Communiy had to resort to the protests and hunger strikes, tools that are respectful of the law.
It has been mis-interpretated and mis-undertood by most of people looking in this situation.
If you have been following this issue, you would have known that the Vietnamese Community found out about the naming of Story Rd only by accident. As Madison Nguyen and the developper Lap Tang had already chosen the name “Vietnam Business District” back in April of last year. Later she decided to change to “Saigon Business Disctrict” which as she put it as a compromise with the Vietnamese Community. She would have totally bypass talking to the Community if it wasn’t for the RDA opposing her back then.
But please feel free to read the article I’ve previously posted for the whole story.
If it wasn’t for the persistence of the Vietnamese Community led by the San Jose Voters for Democracy group and Ly Tong himself. Would have the Mayor and the Cty Council listened? Twice they have voted against the “Little Saigon” even though there was no coherent reason why (at least to the Viet Community). We thought we had done everything possible (within the respect of the law) to push for our name.
Yet the council decided to be swayed by the petition put forward by Henry Le, the owner of Lee’s Sandwiches, he went on records to say that he “workd very hard to obtain the signatures”. Now we all know it was all fraud.
But that didn’t stop him from buy a whole page on today’s Vietnamese newspapers to clear him name with the Viet Community. One paragraph saying “he was given the petition at th last minute, and he couldn’t verify the authenticity of the signatures”.
As for Madison Nguyen, the day after the November 20th vote, she went on Vietnamese television to say that she “can not vote for a group of people who had time to attend the meeting, she has to represent the people who could not attend, peope who had 2 or 3 jobs.” ending the sentence with a smirk on her face.
Now, I’m not sure if there was ever an elected official who would go on TV to say that sort of thing. But to me, these were a very poor chosen words and poor judgement from Madison Nguyen. Too bad for her, Youtube is publishing every word of her interview.
At yesterday’s meeting and anouncement (which has been replayed on Vietnamese Channels), when a Vietnamese Communtiy leader went on the podium to speak to the crowd to recap the different events and their future plans. She also had that same smirk face on. When the speaker mentioned the sacrifice of Ly Tong during his 28 days of hunger strike, she rolled her eyes. Again, too bad for her, it’s been all captured on camera.
Mayor McEnery said in one of his blogs that he didn’t understand how Madison Nguyen was “blindsided” about these events. I think it’s part arrogance, and part ignorance.
Some in the Viet Community would even say because she has “higher power” backing her up. Maybe Lap tang, the Vietnam Town developper, maybe someone else.
They can not help but to mention the Communist party in Vietnam (VCP).
Because there is such a thing as the determination of the VCP to destroy the anti-Communist groups overseas, especially in the US. They even have a resolution for it called “Resolution 36”. But of course, most would say the Vietnamese Community likes to play the “Red card” again and again.
But only time will tell who is right.
It is not a coincidence between the rise of foreign students from Vietnam in this country, and the rise of propaganda (if not spam) in the US forums and chatrooms.
Luckily, this blog is still spared as I can appreciate civilized conversations.
No, Tom #14, I’m talking about our Vietnamese population here.
I’m surprised no-one has used the word “hero” here—a word cheapened over the last few decades.
The plain fact is that the Naive Madison plunged this city into a very deep sh*thole by not understanding her “own people”. Chuck jumped in behind her, and Dave and Sam tried to throw lifesaving rings to them with ropes to haul them out.
There are also hints that perhaps Madison was in the hip pocket of one Lap Tang, which is claimed to be the main reason that she acted as she did. That allegation needs to be investigated and reported on. OOOPS, no more investigative reporters @ the Murky News to help us out there.
This entire debacle consumed the entire city government for months. What a waste!!!
And the solution??—More PROCESS for city-sanctioned names of business districts. They still don’t get it—the city should NEVER be involved in such doings. Let the business owners form an association, hash it out among themselves, and pay for the signs.
Chuck, Dave, Madison, Sam, etc.—our roads SUCK, many pools are closed, we need more cops, etc; and all y’all are wasting valuable time on this business district naming nonsense.
GET BUSY, people, and try to solve our REAL problems.
#22- “Kathleen, where did you see in either article that you’ve linked that states that the agreement crafted by the City says that the Vietnamese community cannot protest, investigate, or create more problems for the City?”
Vu Bui knows exactly what I am referring to.
“Working towards peace and asking the community to disavow extreme and divisive political tactics is quite different then taking away their fundamental right to protest.” I agree with you 100%, but certain people’s perception of this greatly differs from ours.
“I actually don’t think that the council can legally tell the community not to protest…that would violate their constitutional rights.”
I agree with you 100%. They can’t, but some Vietnamese people don’t know that, just like they didn’t know that the survey done by the RDA did not prohibit the rest of the community to be a stakeholder or have a voice in the naming of that business district.
Part of the biggest problem in this whole nightmare stems from the innocence, and trusting nature of the Vietnamese community in believing people who are/weren’t being honest, and clearly did not have the community’s best interests in mind. The Vietnamese community was misled, out maneuvered, and out right lied to by certain people in authority. The city’s policy, and processes were hijacked from the very beginning, starting with the label put on a taxpayer survey. Madison directed staff to call the survey an “advisory” survey, which of course was only after RDA told her community outreach was required, and the City Attorney said no to the Vietnam Town venture. Hum.
When you have difficulty with the language, don’t know the policies, and someone you trust is misrepresenting those policies to you, that makes it quite a bit difficult to know that one you are being fooled, and two, you have rights. If you throw in following the legal process once you’ve learned it and authorities ignore the policies and the process and change the rules of the game, well then you end up with this mess. Judging by some of the arrogant quotes in the paper, and some TV interviews on the news, I don’t think certain public officials have learned their lesson yet, even though one of them has claimed to have.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8583185
JMO-“Dave and Sam tried to throw lifesaving rings to them with ropes to haul them out.”
No way! The only person Sam “Smiling,” Liccardo was trying to save was himself. He is a complete embarrassment to this City. Who in their right mind would present an unverified petition to the Council in the middle of such a volatile conflict? Someone like Liccardo who thinks he’s slick is, so please don’t make him out to be some kind of hero…:-(
#24- Steve, an excellent question indeed, but the answer lies in the fact that the deal can’t be legitimized until it goes before Council for a vote.
My questions are, who were the other deal brokers for the Vietnamese community, and what authority did they have to make such a deal? And why aren’t people getting that Madison was left out of those discussions but the Mayor insisted her name be included on the memo? Why is that?
Both Pierluigi and Dave Cortese worked to bring this item to the right conclusion. The others on the council had a chance to do the same.
The pro- Little Saigon voters did collect over 4,000 signatures. The “Saigon” people had the same chance to collect signatures and the results from them were zero.
We are a democracy. The pro- Little Saigon people organized in an effort to get herd, we all herd them, but we did not respond. There were mobs at the Boston Tea Party too protesting in an effort to be herd, much the same as the Vietnamese/Americans did in San Jose.
The Mayor and City council and the should have sat down a long time ago with these people and reached a settlement.
29 – With all due respect, your naivety is a bit overwhelming. If Oliverio and Cortese wanted to show leadership they should have worked to prevent this issue from ever coming before the Council. They did not.
The petitions you reference are worthless—on both sides. Since when do we set public policy by petition? Not to mention the fact that the 4000+ signatures were never checked for their validity or even if they lived in SJ.
You act as if there was no bullying or intimidation that might have prevented the anti-Little Saigon folks from speaking up. That was hardly the case. This issue was dominated by bullying. This was “democracy” at its worst.
You are correct though that this should have been settled a long time ago—and that would have happened if the issue never was brought before the Council in the first place.
#30 Terry,
Three city council people began working this problem early on,” Kansen Chu, Pierluigi and Dave Cortese, three is not enough to solve a political problem. There are ten districts, ten city council people and a Mayor.
I am not Vietnamese nor am I related to anyone from Vietnam. But what I am able to do is put myself in their shoes and try to understand their fealings. They might believe that they are the ones being bullied by City Hall ! Remember they are a minority in San Jose.
Why wasn`t the 4,000+ signatures checked, why didn`t anyone beside the three council people sit with them? The lead person that should have sat down with them early on was Madison and she should have had a “Pierluigi type town meeting in her district”? The anger grew gradually as time moved on. This should have been settled early on within district 7.
If we had a serious issue in District 6, we would have taken the issue up with Pierluigi at one of our community centers. If the residents of District six had the problem taken to all the residents living in San Jose in a general election to be voted on, (as was the plan for the Little Saigon issue) we would be angered too.
Terry, I respect your comments but try to look at it from their perspective.
Richard # 29 wrote:“The pro- Little Saigon people organized in an effort to get herd.” Yes, Richard, they were indeed a herd.
Richard went on to state:“There were mobs at the Boston Tea Party too protesting in an effort to be herd.” Uh, actually, Richard, I believe it was a relatively small group who worked quietly in the night in frustration after they were not “heard” by King George or his minions.
Terry opined:“This was “democracy” at its worst.” You bet, Terry—a petulant mob demanding to be heard, in the mistaken belief that noise makes right.
This is a Republic, not a democracy ( our Founding Fathers were vary wary of such mobs); and yet the entire city government was brought to a standstill by a gaggle of cackling geese demanding to be heard on an issue of seeming great importance to a small segment of our city, but one that pales in comparison to the systemic problems that face us.
If this trend to stall all government action over an issue as unimportant in the grand scheme of things as the naming of a cheezy strip of land in San Jose, what more can we expect? So many important issues loom in front of us, and yet our mayor and council were sucked into a stupid confrontation between two groups whose hero was allegedly willing to die over the mere naming of a few blocks of businesses. Jeez, what’s next?
We’re descending rapidly into third world nonsense, all pandering for the votes of a particular segment of our society that wants to bring its vision from a collapsed government into our system that has worked for a couple of hundred years without their cacophonous input.
If this trend continues, we’re in more trouble than we realize.
#32
If this trend to stall all government action over an issue as unimportant in the grand scheme of things as the naming of a cheezy strip of land in San Jose, what more can we expect?
This sort of reminds me of when the Republicans shut down the Federal government because Newt Gingrich had to sit in the back of Air Force One. Of course, that shutdown resulted in idle time, and it was during this idle time Bill and Monica started playing together.
What fiasco will result from the “Little Saigon” fiasco?
JMO-“There are also hints that perhaps Madison was in the hip pocket of one Lap Tang, which is claimed to be the main reason that she acted as she did.”
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=97b3bcdd0aaa74a5a4bc148d0674c8c4
#31- Richard Zappelli- Sorry but Oliverio was not one of the three that tried to bring a solution to this. Cortese, Chu, and Constant were the ones who continually pointed at the lack of due process and the RDA survey. All three of these men fought very hard to resolve this and bring an end to this issue. Oliverio’s only effort in this was to vote no.
While I can not agree with the notion that the lying, deception, backroom deals that were done around this issue can be minimized down to the naming of a business district, I can say that our city is in trouble. Big trouble. We don’t have enough Police Officers, hate crimes, gang activity, and crimes against property are on the rise. Taxpayers are not getting the services they deserve and need. It is time to cut the fat at the City. Starting from the TOP down.
Vice Mayor Cortese has my full support. He has shown integrity, and respect for the Vietnamese community. He has shown us that a good leader, who is listening to the will of the people, should have a big enough throat to swallow his pride when he knows he is wrong. He has made every effort to try and broker a deal fair to everyone to try and bring peace to our community. I’m very proud of him.
Vice Mayor Cortese did not do this for votes, he was in the process of naming his business district Little Saigon during Terry Gregory’s term in office. He was asked to allow Madison Nguyen to take that project over in D7 when she was elected. He showed her respect by agreeing to drop his plan, and give the project over to Madison.
I do not live in Vice Mayor Cortese’s district but I would vote for him in a heartbeat. He has always worked hard to fight for the community’s input to be heard. He has always verified petitions submitted to the Council. Last year I gave the City a petition with 410 signatures on it, and he had his staff contact the majority of those who had signed it. Unlike Sam “Smiling,” Liccardo, who used a fraudulent petition to get a majority council vote on such a vital issue to push his agenda. The only reason Liccardo did all this fancy foot work over the past week, was to save his butt and his career.
Dear Kathleen Flynn,
First I’d like you say thank you for taking time to understand the Little Saigon and the Vietnamese American Community.
The main reason Ly Tong and the protesters signed the agreement was to primarily save the life of Ly Tong. And the “truce” proposed by the Mayor and his colleagues was good enough for now while Ly Tong recovers from his fasting. No one in the Community wants to see him die.
However accepting this temporary sign – all paid by the Vietnamese Community – they will continue to work on the side to keep an eye on the Mayor and the council from any manoeuver that would reverse the progress made.
It is despicable from the Mayor and the Council to have waited so long to reach an agreement. Yesterday would have probably been the last day for Ly Tong as he entered his 28th day without food and 8th with no water. His life was “hanging by a hair” as one interviewee testified on the Vietnamese radio.
All this could have been avoided if only teh Mayor had directed Madison Nguyen to work WITH the Community instead of going behind their backs and made a back door deal with a rich developper.
This agreement as the leaders of the protesters understand is another trick put forward by the city hall to avoid investigation and possibly prosecution against Madison Nguyen and other City Councilmembers.
Since I’m not part of the group, I can’t tell you much of what their plans are. However, as an outsider, I can tell you that they will be keeping a very close eyes on everything the Mayor is doing.
I’m jsut so stunned that our government is so blind or they’re just so arrogant they would get away with it, they’re just ready to do whatever they want.
May I suggest you these articles that are very enlightening for a timeline and a point of view of the Vietnamese Community.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=97b3bcdd0aaa74a5a4bc148d0674c8c4
http://www.sjvoters4democracy.com/e/theheights.htm
Kathleen, where did you see in either article that you’ve linked that states that the agreement crafted by the City says that the Vietnamese community cannot protest, investigate, or create more problems for the City?
From the article you linked that mentions the new agreement:
“The agreement they crafted calls on Vietnamese-Americans to work toward peace in the community….. The document also calls on the community to disavow extreme and divisive political tactics in the future.”
Working towards peace and asking the community to disavow extreme and divisive political tactics is quite different then taking away their fundamental right to protest. Is this in a different document, or in the actual legal agreement – and if so, can you link it so that we have the facts rather than one person’s interpretation?
I actually don’t think that the council can legally tell the community not to protest…that would violate their constitutional rights.
I for one am glad that the start of what I’m sure will be a robust Little Saigon district is happening with private funds from a member of the community instead of being a name that is slapped on a district based on 44 surveys returned out of over 1,000 sent out by the RDA.
I do truly hope that at some point the Vietnamese community has a place that they have branded; however I feel that the name should come to be organically – it would have immeasurably more meaning behind it that way.
34 – So, now that you are the City Manager, where do you start cutting—and please try to base it on facts.
Ms. Flynn,
Please do not mistake this as an attack on your personal credibility as I am aware that you’ve never claimed any expertise on police matters, but I do have to question this tidbit from your last post (#34):
“We don’t have enough Police Officers, hate crimes, gang activity, and crimes against property are on the rise.”
I am stunned to find “hate crimes” included in an otherwise accurate list of serious local problems. The real problem with hate crimes in this city (this country, as a matter of fact) is that their existence on the public’s radar is the work of the efforts of highly-profitable, hardly-credible propaganda organizations. Ask a hundred beat cops about the rate of occurrence (and threat to our community) of hate crimes and if three tell you that it even registers on the scale, then you can be sure you’ve found the three who are sitting on a promotional list.
That local police departments even have designated hate crime investigators is an outrage. At a time when the defacement of personal property has become so commonplace that the city has taken to passing out graffiti removal kits to its citizens, all it takes is the claim of “hate crime” from someone with “special status” to get a patrol response, detective follow-up, and command staff interest in seeing their crime solved. The actual criminal act committed has been reduced from the determining factor in how our law enforcement resources respond to merely the physical manifestation of the all-important and subjectively diagnosed motivation of hatred.
For some insight to the threat posed to our personal liberty by our acceptance of hate crime laws, I suggest you examine the current situation in Europe where thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens are in prison because their opinions about history have been classified as hateful.
#35- I never claimed to be the City Manager, but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know what needs to change at the city. By the way, Debra Figone seems to be a pretty sharp lady, but I understand she’s very protective of her employees, and very employee driven. I think that is important but sometimes may hinder problem solving a bit.
I’m not going to go through the city budget and each department and break it down department-by-department, or program-by-program for you, but I’m willing to give my thoughts on it, based on my own personal experience and knowledge of City Hall. (Sorry I have no link for that!)
Actually, I’d start in the City Managers Office and work down to all departments cutting supervisor positions. There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. I think employees know more about what needs to be done to be more cost effective, and in a much more efficient way than most supervisors. Most city employees are very hard working, and very helpful. I think they get a raw deal every time the media says they are a drain on the budget. I think SOME of the head honcho’s escape scrutiny every time, and are way over paid for what they do, or shall I say for what they don’t do given how many millions the city pays for consultants on every project they work on or with.
Next I’d cut any programs that were not producing results and were wasting money. I’m not big on spending money on things that are unnecessary in hard financial times, and I think prioritizing the budget is vital. I also think the city should save and invest during good fiscal times, so that when we have down times, and everyone does, we’re ready for them. Some of those feel good programs could be frozen until the budget got better.
What would you do, and where would you start? Just wondering. Oh by the way, your person opinion is sufficient for me.
#36- Thank you for the respectful way you have broached this topic with me. It is indeed refreshing to be challenged in an intellectual manner. I can speak from experience here as a former member of the County’s Network for a Hate Free Community. I still attend their meetings when I can, and am actively involved in other community programs that keep a watchful eye on this and other crimes. Statistically, Hate Crimes are one of the most under reported crimes there are.
Many immigrants, or gay and lesbian people/couples, or persons who have been victimized are too frightened to report hate crimes, and even when assured that they won’t be deported, or get in trouble, they just won’t file anything that allows the Police to formally get involved. This is in part because they fear retaliation, or it is not a common practice in their culture.
I will define what I mean by a hate crime because one of your points has great merit. That point is that sometimes a law meant to protect us from a serious crime can be twisted and/or used to benefit special interest group’s agendas. (That is another discussion for another time.)
The types of hate crime I’m privy to are spray painted comments on an African American woman’s home saying ” Die You ‘N’ Bitch,” or a burnt rainbow flag on a gay couples home with a spray painted comment like, “God hates gays you’re going to hell when you die,” crimes like someone physically assaulting another and using a racial slur while doing it, or a church designated to a specific group or religious sect that has been set on fire or defaced with racial slurs. These types of crimes are what I consider very serious and need law enforcement’s involvement. Burning a flag attached to someone’s home in the middle of night is unacceptable because it could kill him or her, and others whose homes are near by. Physically assaulting anyone is a crime, but to be driven to do this because you hate that race, gender, or religious group is even worse.
You are correct in some regards Frustrated Finfan, the Police do have people assigned to this type of crime, and MOST do a very good job. Some Police Officers/agencies don’t do a good job and ignore it. This type of indifference to the seriousness of hate crimes is seen in some of the more affluent areas where low-income housing exists, and in the lower income communities. This indifference is also seen in some southern parts of the county.
I think what has been most shocking to me is the lack of some school administration’s involvement in reporting, or assisting in these types of cases. You would think they would be more sensitive to these types of problems but they are also fearful of being sued and that it is understandable to a small degree.
I hope this sheds some light on my inclusion of hate crimes in my comments above.
Proposal: City Council should approve ‘Little Saigon’
What is the issue?
– 06/05/07: Council approved Vietnamese retail area designation of Story Rd area.
– 11/20/07: Council’s 8-3 vote to name the Story Road strip as “Saigon Business District”
– 03/04/07: Council’s 11-0 vote to rescind Nov 20 resolution
– 03/04/07: Council’s decision denying up-down vote on Little Saigon
Why is it an issue?
– Council approved City survey’s last choice “Saigon Business District” (SBD) as the name instead of first choice “Little Saigon”
– Overwhelming majority of the Vietnamese community favored “Little Saigon”
– Overwhelming majority opposed SBD
– Alleged violation of Brown Act in 11/20/07 vote.
– Alleged forgery and false-pretense petition in 03/04/07 resolution denying a vote on Little Saigon
Why did Council vote 8-3 for “SBD” 11/20/07?
– “SBD” was the name endorsed by Council member Nguyen & the Mayor.
– Nguyen lined up support for SBD prior to 11/20 vote.
– Other Council members relied on Nguyen’s supposed expertise on the issue.
– Why? The Story Rd area is within Nguyen’s district.
– She’s elected council member.
– She’s supposed to be an expert on Vietnamese issues.
Is it fair for the Council to approve on an 8-3 vote for “Saigon Business District” 11/20/07?
– No, it isn’t. Why?
– It offends the people’s sense of justice. Why the Council rejected City survey’s first choice “Little Saigon”, ignored widespread support for “Little Saigon” and adopted survey’s last choice is beyond comprehension.
– It projected an image of a dictator, a tyrant and a communist “I don’t care about the survey! I don’t care about the people’s voice. I am council member. I like ‘SBD’. That’s my allegedly little secret deal with developer Lap Tang.” (Joshua Molina Mercury News 03/02/08)
– It also projected an image of arrogance & stubbornness: “What the heck with survey. I am the mayor. I like Madison. I professed my unwavering support for her. I sided with her for SBD. What can you people do about that?” Sounded like a rebellious teenager.
Why did Vietnamese community oppose “Saigon Business District?”
– “Vietnamese Business District” was perceived as first originating from official website of Communist Party in Vietnam
(New York Time 2/16/08)
– “VBD” was Nguyen’s first choice in remark at Tully Library meeting 8/15/07.
– “Let’s say we come up with four names: Vietnamese Business District, Vietnamese American Business District, Little Saigon, and Saigon Town.”
(http://www.saigonfilms.com/tiengdanweekly/littlesaigon/madison_closingremarks_only.htm)
– Mercury News reported that Nguyen had a “secret deal” with Lap Tang for the name (Joshua Molina, Mercury News 03/02/08)
– Under intense opposition, Nguyen changed it to “Saigon Business District”, hoping to appease the opposition. That did not work. Why?
– Because “SBD” was still perceived as an association to the Communist party or Communist businessmen.
– Naming the Story Rd area “SBD” is analogous to naming the NY World Trade Center memorial after a terrorist.
Why did Vietnamese community select “Little Saigon?”
– It’s the name that symbolizes the anti-communist Vietnamese community.
– symbolizes the pride of the Vietnamese community.
– symbolizes the success of the Vietnamese community.
– symbolizes the solidarity with other US cities already adopting “Little Saigon”
What about the other “silent majority” as claimed by Nguyen?
– No evidence that other “silent” is the majority
– It’s irrelevant, anyway. Why?
– Just like in an election. Don’t whine if you don’t vote & your candidate loses.
– Those who did not return the survey and those who did not voice their opinions have no basis for complaint.
Who is to blame for the problem?
– Nguyen & the Mayor.
– Why? They’re the ones rejecting City’s survey, ignoring widespread support for “Little Saigon” and approving the last choice, SBD.
– Their actions and attitudes projected an image of a dictator, a tyrant and a communist and an image of a rebellious teenager whose parents disapproved of his girl-friend.
– Alleged Brown Act violation (11/20/07) and alleged forgery and false-pretense petition (3/4/08)
PROPOSAL: City Council should approve “LITTLE SAIGON”
Is approval of “Little Saigon” relevant? Yes, it is. Why?
– “Little Saigon” is City survey’s top choice
– Widespread support by Vietnamese community.
– “Little Saigon” is the name symbolizing the anti-communist, proud and successful Vietnamese community.
– Other cities in the US already adopted it (Westminster, San Francisco, etc.)
– Support by Medias like Mercury News
Is approval of “Little Saigon” fair? Yes, it is. Why?
– “Little Saigon” is City survey’s top choice
– Widespread support by Vietnamese community.
– Those who did not return survey and those who did not voice opinions have no basis for complaint.
– Initial support by 3 council members
Will the proposal solve the problem? Yes. Why?
– “LS” is City survey’s top choice
– wide-spread support
– It shows that the Council listens to the voice of the people.
– It shows that the Council learns from the voice of the people.
– It shows that the Council no longer ignores the voice of the people.
– It brings a sense of justice to the City image
On balance, will things be better off with the proposal?
– Yes, they will. Why?
– It’s the most cost effective way to resolve the most contentious issue.
– It would avoid the disruption of city business order
– City can move on to other challenging issues like budget deficit.
– One step to bring a sense of justice to City.
– One step toward repairing the projected image of tyranny, dictatorship, communism and the projected image of arrogance, stubbornness, chaos and lack of leadership
– One step toward community healing.
Pham
In retrospect, I wish the Mayor and city read San Jose Mercury Editorials March 04 before they voted. Here is the summary.
End the dispute and give city nod to ‘Little Saigon’
– The conflict prevents San Jose from focusing on serious challenges like budget deficit
– The conflict damages the city’s image and that of Vietnamese-American community
* FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: Will adopting the name cause more harm than benefit?
* ANSWER: It will not.
– Is the battle against the name ‘Little Saigon’ worth fighting on principle at all costs?
The name of a 1-mile stretch of business area! No, it’s not.
– The city will rescind its original vote for the name Saigon Business District.
– The mayor and city need to put this controversy behind them so the city can move on.
– The surest way to do that is approve Little Saigon.
(3/4/08 San Jose Mercury News Editorials)
#23 Vu Bui:
>> It is not a coincidence between the rise of foreign students from Vietnam in this country, and the rise of propaganda (if not spam) in the US forums and chatrooms. <<
Vu:
You are outright accusing several people, including my wife, of being Communist spies. HOW. DARE. YOU.
You are exactly what is wrong with the Little Saigon movement. You, Vu Bui.
It is much easier to fling empty accusations than it is to make a coherent plea for acceptance, isn’t it?
You are welcome to turn District 7 into Little Saigon. But I am a voter in San Jose, and I will not standby and watch you turn the politics of my city hall into a smaller version of the paranoid red-baiting and ad-hominem winner-take-all claptrap that you mistakenly call democracy.
You think you practice your Constitutional Rights, but all you bring to the table is slander. There is a difference.
You may have some legitimate points in your plea for acceptance—I don’t know. But as long as you fling accusations without fear of collateral damage—whether they are against Chuck Reed, Madison Nguyen, or my wife—your sentiments mean less than zero to me and the rest of civilized society here in San Jose.
I actually do wish you luck ~ and may you learn how to practice Democracy the American way someday.
#25: “…GET BUSY, people, and try to solve our REAL problems.”
JMO, I agree with you that there are many issues which need our Mayor/Council’s immediate attention. You listed closed swimming pools…I am VERY happy to report that one of our community pools IS being re-opened: Ryland Pool in Ryland Park, part of the Vendome neighborhood.
Join us at this community pool (many community members learned to swim here!) on June 23 to hear the happy laughter of children FINALLY playing in the pool again.
Also know that this effort would have been a heck of a lot harder to accomplish if it weren’t for the leadership of Sam Liccardo and also the other council members who voted YES to save the pool(s) which had been recommended for “further study” (the “kiss of death” in City-speak) or complete closure.
And, for those who care for historic preservation of our resources like Ryland Pool there is a grass roots effort to raise funds for the historic rehabilitation of the pool (something the City is looking for the public to do). We will also create a commemorative plaque detailing the pools history, and attempt to achieve “Landmark Status” for it. Donations are being accepted for any of you “angel donors” out there; we’d appreciate any help you can give. Tax deductible* contributions may be made at:
http://www.northside-sj.org/13thstnac/index.html Scroll to Parks and Pools and click on “Friends of Ryland Pool.”
Some facts about the pool:
It was built in 1926/27
There are 36 “Batchelder” tiles surrounding the pool, currently glazed with blue elastomeric paint.
It’s the only oval pool in SJ
* Please consult your tax advisor.
#43- JMO-” All crime is bad. All assaults are bad. But, for me, they are all EQUALLY bad.” I agree 100%!
I do not agree however that hate crimes should be tolerated, nor do I agree that hate crime laws must all be repealed. If someone burns my house down to the ground simply because they hate me because I’m Irish, or runs down a disabled person walking across the street because they hate someone who is physically challenged, or gang rapes a gay or lesbian person just because they hate them, or purposely chooses a church to deface or burn down simply because they hate that religion then that to me is unacceptable and should hold a higher punishment to deter other haters from doing it. Minorities through out history have suffered attacks, loss of life, loss of business, and loss of property ONLY because of a label someone who hates them puts on them. To target someone by mere virtue of his or her gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, religious beliefs, physical disability etc., is just horrific to me personally.
While growing up during integration I watched friends being beaten up, harassed, and tortured by individuals and groups of bullies who hated them for something they could not change. How can you justify my getting beaten up and called an “N” lover when I tried to defend them? How can you change being African American, Hispanic, Gay/Lesbians, of Polish decent, physically disabled, or any thing else you were born with? You cannot, hence the need for these types of laws. People need to get that they don’t get to harm others or their property based solely on their ignorant, racial bias, and since they did not and don’t laws were created to make dam sure they do.
You know JMO, I’ve noticed that you are a very intelligent, educated professional who makes the mistake of thinking others have the same kind of moral decency and intelligence you do. I hate to tell you JMO they don’t. You like me would never walk up to a young African American child and say something horrible to him or her to hurt them based solely on their ethnic origin, or anything else, but people do it all the time. It is just so disheartening the way people behave.
Everyday I see people behaving like they can do or say whatever they want regardless of the law or rights of others. It is frightening to me because our world is turning into an angry ball of crap, and I feel helpless to do anything about it.
Take for example, Friday night, I go to a movie with friends to see a light hearted comedy to unwind and relax. I had to put up with people all around me talking to one another like they were at home in their own living room. They didn’t care we each paid the same dam $11.00 to get in they did, we could all just go to hell as far as they were concerned~
Kathleen #45: I don’t think we can ever agree on this issue.
I grew up in Inglewood, CA (3rd grade through high school); which was Lilly White(uh, actually, the California version of Selma Alabama) when we moved in, and became all black (except for my parents and I and my Aunt Alice and Uncle Don) by the time I finished Loyola High, which was in a neighborhood that had been all black for a damn long time. I passed through The Crenshaw (big time black gang area even in the early ‘60s) daily to get to school.
The major ass-kicking I received in high school was coming home one day on the bus as a freshman (5’2” and 104#) one day. I had to change buses near Manual Arts H.S., a 99 44/100% pure black school. My ass got kicked because I was white in a black neighborhood, small, alone, and out fought by the guy who kicked my ass. That’s life. Ironically, my ass was saved by a Mexican guy from a school (Mt. Carmel)that was a rival school to Loyola in sporting events. He helped we ward off the other black guys who had come to help the original black guy who was kicking my ass.
I know as surely as gravity works every time that the black guy jumped me solely because I am white…but also because I was a little guy who probably had no help around.
Was I jumped because I was white? YOU BET. Should there be some additional punishment for people who do that? Not in my view.
Every assault or battery is just that, an assault and/or battery. The minute some class of people get extra protection from assault/battery or any other crime, you immediately demean those not chosen to be among the protected classes.
Why is it worse to assualt/batter one person than another? Are the persons who don’t get the exalted status somehow less important than the people who do? Is it less harmful to society to assault/batter a straight white male than to assault/batter a lesbian, or an immigrant, or a black female? I don’t think so. I think all assaults/batterys are equally bad, and should be punished equally.
I cannot believe that the assaultee’s status (as gay, female, immigrant, of color, disabled, aged,whatever)somehow requires greater punishment because of that status. There are no gradations of assault/battery by the status of the person assaulted or battered—all are equally bad, and all should be punished equally.
If I walk up and hit a black guy, or a gay guy, or a transgendered person I am suddenly a worse person that if I had walked up an hit a white guy ???? I just don’t get that.
Ms. Flynn,
The credibility of any statistic that purports to represent something that didn’t happen, in this case the reporting of hate crimes, is wholly dependent upon the integrity of two groups: those who claim to have accurately collected the seemingly uncollectible data, and those doing the after-the-fact reporting of whatever it is being measured. Now, I would suggest that there are, based upon common sense and history, very good reasons to be suspicious of such statistics.
In order for something to have scientific merit it must be testable, which in this case means that it must be within the realm of possibility to disprove the data. But how does an objective analyst go about verifying something that did not happen (unreported crime), the honesty of the undocumented, self-described victims, and the motives of those who committed the alleged crimes?
The answer is that one does not even attempt it, as it is not possible to test it. Untestable statistics are all the rage with victim groups precisely because skeptics can challenge the claims but can’t disprove them. And the results of all these untestable, unscientific studies are anecdotal free-for-alls of “woe-is-me,” “can’t we all just get along,” “and where’s my check?”
It is no accident that the incidents which only victim groups suffer are “always on the rise” yet seldom experienced in neighborhoods and almost never seen in a court of law. What we do see instead is disproportional and irresponsible news reporting of alleged hate incidents from far and wide. Two weeks ago I saw a local newscast report, at the top of the hour, about a swastika that had been spray painted on a Jewish center—in LA! Now, before even questioning the value of that story to Bay Area viewers, I ask: what message does that send out to the mindless, attention-seeking morons running around with spray cans?
It is very easy for emotional, compassionate people to buy in to the need for hate crime laws. The draw of the genuine victim is powerful, and there is no question that some people are in fact victimized because they are different. But the existence of a problem is no guarantee of a solution. The basic challenge in enforcing hate crime laws is accurately discerning the motives and thought processes of the human being(s) committing the acts. And this problem is insurmountable, and it always will be. The science simply isn’t there, and the fact-finding abilities of our legal system, which has enough trouble getting to the truth of “what” happened, shouldn’t be allowed a chance to guess at the “why.”
Getting government into the business of mind-reading is explosively dangerous—as direct an assault on our free society as there is today. To give government the right to imprison citizens based upon judgments that are specious and untestable is to invite the introduction of thought crimes and gulags to America.
#40, If I have offended you or your wife, Kenny from San Jose, CA I apologize. What I meant wasn’t ALL students from Vietnam are Communists. But, by the lightest chance, wouldn’t you think the cadres from Vietnam would send their kids over to this country to study, and by the same token, raid the forums with Communist propagandas, spams, profanities, etc…?
You must have been on the Mercury News forums too, and you didn’t notice several posters (“nguyenvietkieu” and “fozo” among others) trying to re-write the history books – with his denying of the Hue massacre by VCs – and spamming all over it with lots and lots of propagandas? He’s one of the many who have come here to defend his idealogies and spam all and every forums he can find.
Again, I apologize if you mis-understood my point. And not every student (including your wife whom I don’t know) from Vietnam is a Communist spie. But I can say with a good certainty that among them, you will find a fair number of “VC sympathizers” at the very least.
I will stop here, since I do not wish to continue this passionate conversation.
Kathleen #37 wrote:“I’m not going to go through the city budget and each department and break it down department-by-department, or program-by-program for you,…”
Boy, would I like to be able to do that, access some database that does that breakdown. Only then can anyone determine what to keep and what to cut. But that database, if it exists , is probably more closely guarded than Fort Knox.
Pierluigi is our computer geek on the council. I sure wish that he’d determine if there is a way for citizens to access the information needed to determine who is wheat and who is chaff on the city payroll.
Same is true for every government body/agency. But I doubt such a database even exists; because if it did, citizens would actually be able to figure out who to fire.
Kathleen continues:“There are too many chiefs and not enough Indians. ” AMEN!! This holds true for every arm of government, especially school districts. We have too many highly paid paper pushers, and not enough actual workers.
Then there’s the work rules thing in collective bargaining agreements, which ensures that every line worker actually does 4 hours work or less in an 8 hour day, especially any manual labor jobs. A bunch of clowns leaning on their shovels, as it were. And they whine about that.
Further from Kathleen:“I think employees know more about what needs to be done to be more cost effective, and in a much more efficient way than most supervisors. ” Yeah, some, Kathleen, but most are clockwatchers and could not care less.
Kathleen #38: I must disagree on the whole hate crime issue. An assault is an assualt. EVERY assualt is a bad thing. The minute we start down the path of saying assualting one person because of his/her gender/ethnicity/sexual orientation, we immediately diminish the value of an assualt on, oh, middle age white guys like me, for instance.
All crime is bad. All assualts are bad. But, for me, they are are all EQUALLY bad. If one victim gets exalted status, it demeans and diminshes the assualts on the rest of us.
Hate crime staus is PC BULLSH*T. If some guy assualts me on the street, is it any more or less acrime than if he assualts some gay guy because he’s gay? NO! Both are assaults, and both need to be punished EQUALLY. To give a gay/woman/immigrant /etc. person who is assualted some special status as a victim insults everyone else who is not a member of a PC-protected class. An assault is an assault is an assault. To declare otherwise is to relegate non-PC-protected people to lesser status as people worthy of protection.
If someone chooses to assault a straight, white, citizen he gets a lesser sentence that if he assaults a gay, black, illegal immigrant? What’s up with that??? That tells the straight, white, citizen that he is less important as a person in the eyes of the law than the gay, black, illegal immigrant. That is SO wrong for so many reasons.
If one believes that all men (anachronistic term, these days) are created equal, then hate crime laws must all be repealed.
#46-#47- You both make excellent points, and present credible arguments, I can not deny that. I both respect and agree with most of what you have both said. I strongly agree with you Frustrated FinFan on stats, and data. I’d even go so far to add that some agencies fudge these to keep grants coming in. Where I part ways with the two of you is in believing this type of distinctive law is not needed. Because I am bound by Confidentiality Laws I cannot give your examples of my personal experiences, which have led me to my strong belief that hate crime laws are needed.
We could debate this forever and will never agree, so I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Vu~
I accept apology. But let me tell you—I meet up with these students all the time and they couldn’t give two sh*ts what you call your section of town.
It is possible that one or two are giving you a hard time, but you are reaching very far to find an enemy. Red scare all over again.
#46- By the way JMO, I’m sorry that happened to you. I don’t approve of physical violence and anyone who bullies people, that includes cyber bullying, or needs a gang to do their fighting for them is a coward in my book.
51—it was a long time ago, and part of life. Thanks for your concern.
It is over, please get on with your lives. Most of you guys are totally jumping on a totally different subjects. We can keep going on forever here if you keep this up. Little Saigon or NOT, it is time to move on. This should never be an issue in our little city. People need to understand that it is part of life learning curves and just leave it at that… Life is too short to be fighting over a naming of a little strip mall. Now let our elected Mayor and city council members take care of more important things.