Of the five major candidates, four of them—Chavez, Mulcahy, Cortese and Reed—have received more than 30 percent of their total monies from development interests, and that’s fine. This is what you would expect, given that land use and development is central in the decisions of any mayor, as well as being crucial to the fundraising of candidates. However, we must watch how they vote on critical items.
More importantly, it is in the category of lobbyists that the more interesting assessment is to be had. But, what is a lobbyist? Is what they are truly in the eye of the beholder—or the spinner?
Lobbyists come in many categories. Some represent legitimate interests from civil engineering and law and provide genuine advice. Others are merely hangers-on, bagmen for donations and ex-staffers who provide access to a sequestered political establishment. Most recently, after retaining the services of an ex-mayoral staffer, a group of nightclub owners was able to get appointments with most council members—a disturbing insight into how access works at City Hall. There is a third category of lobbyists—the “Stan Berliner” category—that describes those who outrageously overprice their services and usually delay, obfuscate and over-think issues on sports and development. Their namesake had failed to even register as a lobbyist for many years, although he is clearly one of the avatars. Some would say he considered himself above mere municipal laws.
Pandori refuses to take any lobbyists’ money; he would probably get little with his assaults on development interests. Mulcahy has refused their money, period—a good choice. Mulcahy also has a “special” definition for the Berliner firm that is reasonable to most, since many outstanding lawyers hang their shingle there and provide valuable services. Chavez, Reed, and Cortese take lobbyists’ money, but it is a very small percentage of their total bankroll, ranging from about $250,000 up to $430,000 for Chavez, the leading fundraiser. Chavez has the unique position of also receiving a good deal of money from organized labor.
Still, it is the influence of certain lobbyists and the ability to direct money from clients that show the real power of this group of unelected elites. Under the past three mayors their involvement was minimal. Now they rule the roost at City Hall. To understand how the system works, you have to remember that many requests for local governmental action are consistent with all the stipulations of the General Plan, zoning restrictions and common sense. Others are not! That is where you need the help of special types, a kind of Mr. Wolf from “Pulp Fiction.” These are not very pleasant people and those who want to subvert good planning and sound economic strategy know their names well—and hire them. They used to be “Davidson” and a few others, but now they are legion. By any name though, these are the people that must be closely monitored. When bad decisions are made in San Jose, you can always detect their presence, and like the Indians in an old western, “when you can’t see ‘em, that’s when to worry.”
Where can we find out who is bankrolling whom? Is there a link?
Aren’t the leaders of the South Bay Labor Council registered lobbyists?
In lobbyists’ filings, it must show how much contact they have had with council members and the Mayor, and for what purpose. These reports on labors contacts would be enlightening.
Here is a link to the online filings for the City Council races. Important to note, Manny Diaz raised money from all the usual suspects (lobbyists) as soon as he could—last year:
http://face.netfile.com/PUBLIC/FILING_LIST/422CB7B8C5CFDA1192A10030187062CD-9FC744B794774724B9EFFED82161CB97.html?SEARCH_TYPE=FILER&FILER_ID=12392
The first filing is most compelling.
And thats why you dont vote for the first four names on the list , Chavez is rons #1 sidekick so she gets the boot , and i would be very leary of the rest just on account of because, I would not even consider anyone thats been in the ron g group just because they all know to much and do nothing to better themselves. by leaving the rotten apple in the basket ……
VEP Community Association in Blossom Valley is hosting a forum on Tues April 25th, 7:00 – 9:00 pm in the Gunderson High School theater (622 Gaundabert Lane). This forum will feature a debate of the 5 leading mayoral candidates followed by a debate of pro and con speakers on the county’s Measure A sales tax. For more information and a list of questions and answers from the 5 leading mayoral candidates, see http://www.vepca.org.
All questions for the candiates will be taken from the audience, and all candidates will be given equal opportunty to answer each question.
Hope to see you there. Everyone is welcome.
David Noel, Immediate Past President
VEP Community Association
Tom,
“after retaining the services of an ex-mayoral staffer, a group of nightclub owners was able to get appointments with most council members”
Whats the problem here. Aren’t these ligitimate businesses? Did they not go through public process to open? What’s the problem with businesses having a say in the downtown?
NJD, I don’t think you can go by that “first 4 names” rule anymore. No idea how they work it now, but we could end up with a ballot where a name like Cindy’s appears dead last.
You are correct about not voting for anyone who currently sits on the council. It’s between Pandori and Mulcahy for me, and let’s hope the majority of voters agree.
Those jokers on the council have some nerve running for mayor. They should be running for the hills instead after 8 years of allowing Gonzo to go wild without any significant consequences. Cindy is by far the biggest most glaring violator, sticking by Gonzo right on through the garbage mess and then voting to halt further investigation. Censure. Ooooohhh, Cindy, you really played hardball with that. What a bunch of pathetic wet noodles. Throw the bums out, every last one of them!
Why is developer influence better than lobbyist influence? Why is downtown influence better than Coyote Valley influence?
In every issue there are winners and losers. To the degree one has an interest and is advocating for that interest, they are lobbyists.
Semantics aside, the problem is not lobbyists, developers, labor, business, or nimbys.
It is the integrity of the elected official. I
It is the elected official who must be able to say no and insure the interest of the City is above the interest of any individual, group or cause.
Most of us in politics have won and lost on issues. Just because a person has an economic interest in the outcome doesn’t make their views irrelevant—whether they be lobbyists, developers or neighborhood property owners.
The key should be does the policy make sense, is it more beneficial than not and is it consistent with the policy and values of the elected official.
Hence, nobody should attack Michael Mulcahy for being pro-Chamber of Commerce. They support his views, give him money—but that is reflective of his philosophy.
You can disagree with his positions, but it doesn’t make him unethical. What is unethical is when a politician does something for a contributor that is not consistent with their philosophy.
Then we can disagree with the policy choice, without equating it with corruption. Too often when someone disagrees with us in politics—it must be because they are getting paid off.
The fact is, sometimes people just disagree.
One of the problems with our system is there are too many laws. Everytime there is a disagreement or action we don’t like, the opponent tries to put his or her adversary in jail—or at least investigate them, ad naseum.
This has caused a paralysis of the system, new more burdensome laws that interfere with progress, defensive and careful politicians and the rise of lawyers and consultants as the perceived rulers of the roost.
They don’t rule the roost, the elected officials do. If elected officials have been inconsistent with their values—then it is fair game to point out their hypocricy and unethical behavior.
Otherwise it is a policy disagreement. That doesn’t make them corrupt—just misguided in the eyes of their critic.
But let’s stop these new burdensome, municipal laws. Some municipal laws need to be ignored, as do some state laws and some federal laws.
There is not a single individual in the United States that can live an entire life without violating the law—be it jay walking, a traffic ticket, failure to file a form, an FPPC violation or something more serious.
That does not make every individual in society unethical, it simply illuminates that we live in an oppressive society where too bad laws have replaced common sense.
Richard,
Nice attempt to equate failing to file FPPC forms with something petty like jaywalking.
Sure, no one dies when people don’t file FPPC forms, but the process is corrupted. And those of us who play by the rules find it just a bit difficult to campaign against others who steamroll neighborhoods with lawnsigns while never telling anyone where the money is coming from. I know—I’ve been there.
If people want to be in public service, they need to follow the rules and do everything above board. File your paperwork correctly and on time. Or hell, just file it sometime.
Furthermore, how about FULL disclosure of contributions like volunteer labor? If someone donates more than a handful of hours supporting someone (walking precincts, making phone calls, etc.) that is as valuable as a money contribution, albeit less fungible. So it should be documented.
We have the technology in this society to do such reporting easily and transparently. So let’s use it.
The only reason someone would have not to disclose such information is if they are trying to hide and play politics, i.e. one group of supporters against another.
Just whom does any deception serve?
Cindy noted in the debate how “proud” she was of being backed by Labor. Why not tell us what sort of ‘in-kind’ support she is receiving too?
I’m not against one type of influence versus another. It’s a free country. Just tell us where you stand, where you’re coming from, and who’s footing the bill. Then let the voters decide.
Mr. Walker – the pt. of the story on downtown nightclubs was not they should not be granted a meeting with council members – the pt. was that until they hired Mr. Dirolla, they were unable to get “such” meetings. This is the new city hall; this is the reason why this council needs a breathe of fresh air. And Rich, the previous system of developers and citizens imput bringing projects to the mayor and council, has been supplanted by this “lobbyist elite” that gain access and provide money – a very unhealthy change and one that a mayor and council could change in a day – if they wanted. TMcE
It’s always great to take a walk in Mr. Rogers Neighborhood—oops, I mean Mr. Robinson’s neighborhood. In his world the problem is too many laws and rules and the solution is ignore the ones we don’t like. Good plan. Then, everybody has violated the law. Assuming that is true, the infractions you mention (traffic ticket, failure to file a form, etc.) generally have a penalty associated with it. Too often, our trusted elected officials violate the spirit if the not the letter of the law yet they face no penalty for their violation.
And since none of this is caused by lobbyists, it’s the fault of the elected officials, so the only solution is to elect people who will not take any money from lobbyists, thereby solving the problem in Mr. Robinson’s Neighborhood.
Gotta go change into my sweater now. See ya around the neighborhood.
Don G. and R.R. You speek much about Cindy’s honesty. If in the D.A.‘s investigation it comes out that Cindy had prior knowledge of or played a role in the Norcal Scam will you still support her? Will she withdraw from the race or does she think that would be acceptable bahavior? I ask the same of Reed and Cortese supporters if it comes out that they were involved? Let’s talk about this now before everyone starts to spin after the report cames out. Is it ok to be involved as long as you are not indited? Or do we hold our city leaders to a higher standard ?
#4 DemInsider – thanks for the most excellent link!
Breakdown of D1 this year + last year contributions based on DemInsider’s link:
Jay James – 33% of contributions come from big labor. This is based strictly on contributors who identified themselves as being affiliated with a labor organization.
Pete Constant – I couldn’t detect any pattern of contributions from special interests.
Hopefully folks in D1 are awake and paying attention.
I’m on a number of campaign emailing lists and noticed that Sam Liccardo also announced that he is not taking lobbyist contributions in the District 3 race. I’m not sure about the other City Council candidates.
On the surface, this may seem like a “so what.”
But Liccardo’s actions, coupled with what has been blogged here before, i.e. that Manny Diaz was a lobbyist until late last year in the City and probably still is in Sacramento, how come nobody has written about this?
Actually Tom, I think you are actually referring to Tony Arreola. He and his ilk have profitted at the City’s and voters’ expense.
I share your disdain for lobbyist and believe we should have publically funded campaigns.
Tom Do you have the ability to reprint a special issue article about Ron G. in the Merc’s SV magazine?(Dated 7-30-2000) The most influential person in the Silicon Valley. Six years ago he was at the top of his game.Yet the Merc and others could see who he really was and what he was trying to do. It’s all there for the world to see, yet the council did nothing to stop him for six years! His potential was so great ,his outcome so sad. It makes for great reading. The rise and fall of the most powerful man in Silicone Valley.Perhaps the insperation for your next book?
It’s a little disconcerting to see 1/3 of Jay James D1 campaign contributions coming from IBEW Locals across the country.
When it comes time for Jay James to vote on an issue that impacts D1, is he going to consider D1 constituents first or IBEW interests first?
20 – Kind of asked and answered your own questions, didn’t you?
In response to #13, who is hiding his or identity and affiliation:
Since you’ve called me out by name, I will give you this response: Cindy Chavez has always been honest with me. As a neighborhood leader in the downtown, I’ve never had a problem getting a meeting with her on any issue or having my calls returned by her, or by her staff—although as she and her staff are quite busy I sometimes have to wait a little while for the return call or meeting. (By the way, as her staff will confirm, I talk with them on a nearly daily basis about this neighborhood issue or that; I’m a high-maintenance constituent, the technical term for which is a pain-in-the-ass.)
Chavez has told me and other supporters that she was not involved in the secret Norcal discussions and did not know about them when they were taking place. Based on Chavez’s past record of straight-shooting with me (not to mention the complete dearth of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary), I believe her. I therefore expect the DA’s investigation to exonerate her.
I’m happy to have a hypothetical discussion with you about what happens if the DA’s investigation improbably suggests otherwise, but not until you identify yourself and your campaign affiliation on these boards. You’re purportedly looking for an honest mayor; I’m looking for honest bloggers. You smell like a campaign operative.
Great for Gonzo to come up with public financing. Best thing he’s ever done. This would illiminate all the problems with influence. There should be public financing of all elections, from local ,state and federal. Lobyists would be passe and we could have good decisions made on good common sense not money and influence.
Does the leadership of the South Bay Labor Council file papers as lobbyists under the new ordinance passed last year? This information should tell us what they have been up to. Time to take a look.
It is well known in the halls that Cindy knew much more than she has let on. She continues to maintain she knew nothing, but that does square with those who know otherwise. She may or may not have done anything illegal, but she certainly pushed the envelope of what was ethical. It is possible we will never know the truth but Cindy is the one who has to live with herself and will have to reconcile the truth with her statements.
Hey, #24, Inside the Hall: Your post is pure innuendo. You don’t say who you are, what axe you have to grind, what your evidence is or the quality of your sources. You’re not going to persuade me, nor should any other rationale, intelligent person be persuaded, by this sort of drivel.
RR,
How about Eggroll Restaurant interests?
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/04.19.06/fly-0616.html
I agree that the Tran family are not lobbyists and the problem is not with them.
Shouldn’t Cindy be saying NO to this interest? Really, come on, after Terry took a fall!
Where is her common sense?
#21 Here’s a question I hope you can help me with.
I’m not an insider so I don’t know a whole lot about the 2 candidates aside from their campaign contribution disclosure statements.
From what I can tell, Pete Constant’s contributors are almost 100% from locals (retirees, housewives, small business owners, etc)
But it is quite clear that a very large portion of Jay James contributors are from Labor unions from across the country, friends of Labor (eg. Nora and family), and PACs.
Based on the above info and given the backdrop of lobbyists, special interests, and organized grime that has been running CH – which D1 candidate (Pete Constant or Jay James) would better serve the interests of D1 and SJ residents?
The South Bay Labor Council does NOT file as lobbysits in the City.
They claim that they do not reach the 20 hours per month lobbying threshold per three month period. Anybody who has worked in City Hall knows that this is completely obsurd.
Not only that, if they did register as lobbyists, they would be required to declare when, how long, and with whom their meetings occur including reporting any in-kind contributions make to campaigns as well as any independent expenditures they make to influence local races.
I have reviewed the lobbyist compliance forms extensively at the City Clerk’s office. While some folks, like the Chamber, report every meeting, every meal, every phone call—others just report that they are lobbyists and represent clients—ignoring the key compliance part of the forms—i.e. the part where you know who they are lobbying and for how long.
The aforementioned lobbyist-turned-candidate who was registered as a lobbyists in the City until just before he filed for office (last October) was a registered lobbyist for nearly 10 months, but never once fully complied with the reporting.
The new reporting is a joke because there is never any review.
John L, Wondering, Looking for honest, ITH,
First, read the Federal Elections Law (FEC), Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Sections, and Local Election disclosure, contribution limits and expenditure requirements.
As an attorney and political consultant I can tell you it is impossible not to violate the law, let alone clearly understand the provisions. Often the laws conflict, are poorly written, poorly understood (even by those enforcing them), and cause extreme stress among those who have to file them.
You indicate the absurdity yourself, what if every volunteer had to fill out a form, report what they did, how they did it and it all became public knowledge. How many people would support a candidatate? It wouldn’t be worth the effort.
Moreover, some employees in other places around the country were fired for simply putting a bumper sticker on their car. It’s crazy but these things happen and a volunteer should be able to walk and talk without having to fill out a form as to where they work, how much they make etc.
Ash Pirayou, who has done this for years, is a great lawyer and also a lobbyist—is payed to keep his clients out of trouble by insuring the file their reports correctly.
The point is the law is burdensome and used mostly as a political tool to attack an opponent. So far in the Mayor’s campaign—the Mercury News and SJI are obsessed with corrupt politicians.
It just isn’t so. Mistakes have been made, but the notable exception of Terry Gregory,
laws that were allegedly broken are excessively restrictive and do not promote good government.
Making more oppressive antigovernment laws makes no sense at all.
As for Cindy and the CH debacle. Many have tried to implicate her, all of failed.
Cindy accepted the advice of the City Attorney, supported (as a policy goal) to prevent labor strife, supported (as a policy goal) savings for the taxpayer and voted for the NorCal solution—based on those policy goals.
It is not in Joe or Ron’s nature to share information on who, what, where, why or how it got done. Hence, her motion to censure.
So if you are looking for an honest Mayor, any of the five will do.
If you are looking for an effective Mayor, I hope we someday have that debate on this board.
It’s the “insiders” who are the problem—the gospel according to Rich. Imagine, the people who actually pay attention to what is going on at city hall are those who “whine” the most. Hard to believe that those who are less informed would speak out about something they know little about.
As usual, nice try Rich, but jusst because the masses may be ignorant, it doesn’t mean that all is OK.
Rich, et al—Cindy is implicated simply based on her voting record that supported bad policy after bad policy (NorCal, Cisco, City Hall costs, allowing the former city manager to do the mayor’s bidding and keep information from the council, etc.) Whether or not she broke the law will be answered by the DA—regardless, her poor voting record speaks for itself.
NorCal, Cisco and CH are not despositive of the entire record.
The Children’s Health Initiative has had a far longer impact and more positive results for real people than any of the alleged harm caused by the alleged “bad” policies.
To wit, more people will benefit from that policy than will be harmed by NorCal, Cisco or CH.
Many of us would argue, that process mistakes aside, the NorCal deal saved us money and prevented a costly, unhealthy and unpleasant strike by garbage workers.
The Cisco deal was rebid. Instead of going the premier San Jose Company it went to another. Because we had to rebid it, twice it cost taxpayers more than giving it to Cisco. But the process must be respected—remember that as you pull out your wallet.
Having Cisco do the work without a bid would have been better overall for our economy, prestige and, I believe—subjectively, better technology. But we will see. . .
City Hall is now downtown. There are certainly good arguments for keeping it at Hedding and leasing. There are good arguments for leasing the Sobrato building.
But San Jose wanted its own signature building. Many in this community supported that vision for years. It may still turn out to be a good deal in the long run. But, again the jury is out.
It is interesting that polls show a majority of people like the government services they receive in San Jose, and that government on the whole is doing a good job providing those services.
Only the insiders pine about millions of wasted dollars—then call for new investigations. Only they whine about perceived corruption—then call for more oppressive laws that will simply make criminals out of honest people—only they completely distrust government—then call for some nonexistant perfect human being to their hero and bring truth, justice and the American way back to government.
There are people who will not back the Grand Prix, Soccer or Baseball—just to see all that economic activity go to other cities.
My prediction, by next election, regardless of who is elected and how many ethics laws are passed—this board will still be talking about the “corruption of money in politics”, how all the politicians are on the take and how we need even more new laws to stop the influence peddlars at City Hall.
Come to think about it, this mythology has existed since the beginning of the Republic; seems many believed Washington, Hamilton and Jefferson were on the take as well.
Perry Mason,
Did I say insiders? My apologies, I meant wanna be insiders, arm chair politiicians, cynics and power envious pundits.
Obviously those throwing rocks at the decision makers are not decision makers themselves—for if they were, they would be morally unable to cast even the first stone.
Don G. 22, I agree with your assesment of the type of constituent you are. Your efforts make S.J. a better place to live. You left out you are bluntly honest! I respect that. You might even would get my vote, but you are not running.So just answere the question. I will make it easier. Let me rephrase the question. Would you speek out against any candidate who had prior knowledge of or played a role in the Norcal Scam ? By the way I am an honest blogger and an honest citizen,get your nose fixed you don’t smell a rat. I asked the same of the other council spokes persons.
ICH & Perry Mason :
Like Don I am a downtown resident who communicates regularly with Cindy’s office. I choose to use the electronic medium as it allows me and the person with whom I am communicating to respond when time allows. That said, I’ve rarely had an issue with responsiveness from Cindy’s office – if I have something urgent I make sure to follow up with a phone call so someone knows it’s urgent.
Cindy’s office is incredibly busy. The phones ring non-stop with residents calling about everything from wanting a stop sign to rumors flying about proposed development. I had the opportunity to volunteer there and was amazed that while she receives calls constantly there were rarely more than a couple of calls a day to the other council offices.
When I do need to meet with Cindy I set it up with the understanding that I likely won’t get an immediate meeting but that we will meet. If need be, we meet by phone.
Cindy’s staff is tremendously busy working on numerous projects simultaneously.
Cindy has doubled the amount of parkland in her district in the past 7 years – Doubled Parkland.
Cindy helped prevent the sunset of Megan’s Law in California.
Cindy worked with the school district to ensure a beautiful new school was opened to replace Horace Mann.
Cindy brought residents together the first year to ask US what WE thought about where the district was going and how we could help get there.
What a concept – ask your constituents to be a part of the solution. She continues to ask on a regular basis and holds an annual Neighborhood Summit to follow up on what was accomplished and what we still need to work on.
The summit is open to everyone in the district and always has been – people self select – those who want to participate show up, those who simply want to complain stay away – it’s a choice.
As a side effect of the summit numerous D3 residents got together to create a separate organization that allows us to meet more frequently to work out how to improve our individual communities and support each others efforts as well. It’s a very powerful thing when residents determine they are there for the long run and want to be actively engaged.
SJInsiders also have a choice, be a part of the solution or support those who are. Cindy is clearly a part of the solution and always has been. She works harder than anyone I know, she listens carefully and works with diverse populations to find workable solutions to very difficult problems. She makes sure that differing opinions are heard and that the parties understand they need to resolve problems in a way that does not negatively impact other groups.
She has remained engaged in the process at every step.
Who’s peekin’ out from under a stairway
Calling a name that’s lighter than air
Who’s bending down to give me a rainbow
Everyone knows it’s Cindy
Who’s tripping down the streets of the city
Smilin’ at everybody she sees
Who’s reachin’ out to capture a moment
Everyone knows it’s Cindy
And Cindy has stor-my eyes
That flash at the sound of lies
And Cindy has wings to fly
Above the clouds (above the clouds)
Above the clouds (above the clouds)
Lisa,
You have it wrong.
Mulcahy is Part of the Solution
Cindy is Forward Together for San Jose.
We know where we have been, but where does she want to take us forward?
Lisa 35 – For the sake of argument, we’ll assume everything you say is true and accurate. What Cindy’s supporters seem to love to do is completely ignore the criticisms many of us have of her and ignore her massive failures of judgement that have been mentioned numerous times on this blog.
You have your image of her, I’ll keep my head out of the sand and have my image of her. My image doesn’t trust her to be mayor, regardless of how nice she is and all the good things she did for your neighborhood. My concern is for the entire city, not just D3.
#38, Inside the Hall: Lisa Jensen and I have not ignored your criticisms of Cindy Chavez. What we neighborhood folks in the downtown who know and trust her would like is specifics from you anonymous critics.
You can start, as Lisa and I have, by identifying yourselves with your real names and what your vantage point is. You can move on to cite examples to support your case, including the evidence at your disposal, as Lisa and I have on behalf of Chavez. Until you follow these elementary precepts, in my informed view everything you and other anonymous, vague critics of Chavez say is simply a smear.
I’ll take it a step further. If you’re really Inside the (City) Hall, and you really have inside information that is damaging to Cindy Chavez, why don’t you take it to the D.A.? See if the D.A. will give you the time of day if you refuse to identify yourself or cite specifics or proof. I don’t see why folks on this blog should treat you or your accusations of improprieties with any greater respect.
Lisa #35 I also wanted to talk to her several times over important issues but I understand ,she and Ron were so busy with Norcal.
Don—No point in having the some conversation many of us have already had with you. But once again, you ignore the the major failures that are no secret to anyone and have been mentioned here many, many times. I’ll leave her legal tangles to the pros.
I’ve noticed that when people in D3 speak critical of Cindy to me, they always do so in hushed voices. It’s really weird, but it’s happened so many times I couldn’t help but notice it. This tell me A LOT.
You must get along to go along. Cindy has voted with the Mayor on so many issues. People question her independence.
Dissenters have no place in D3, and to speak up as an employee of City Hall with Ron, Joe, Cindy around… are you kidding?
Im gettint real curious as to who or what is driving mulcahy , why not just tell us before we find out on our own and be disappointed again , as for mr reed he is the council rebel that is and was in the wrong place at the wrong time , and that could be his major downfall , as for chavez ,she should be run out of town . It really makes me wonder what these people think about ,or do they thjink at all ….
#42, It’s “go along to get along” – and quite common in today’s City Hall.
I put Ash and Tony Arreola in the same trash bin. Neither is worthy of anything but contempt.
Don what is your answere to 34?
In response to #44, who is also #34, who is also #13: I explained my terms above. I’ll engage you in a hypothetical discussion once you disclose who you are and what your interest in that discussion is.
45—Don’t understand your reluctance to engage in a discussion of issues that are important to all voters, regardless of whether or not they are named or unnamed. Sounds chicken to me. It’s a legitimate question yet you duck the answer because the writer won’t reveal his/her name. I’d like to know your answer as well as would many other folks I’ve talked with—do you want all of their names as well? You seem to operate based on Cindy’s Rules of Order—don’t answer any question unless you absolutey cannot find some other way to avoid answering the question. Personally I am sick of her (and your non-responses.) I understand why you do it—it has worked (until recently) for Gonzales (her mentor) and it has worked for other public officials in the past who had something to hide. The only reason I can think of why Cindy and her followers won’t directly answer questions is that there is something to hide. If not, please anwer questions DIRECTLY. Thanks for your consideration of this innocent request.
Wow, this is getting good. I, as a citizen, was not going to vote for Cindy because of the Norcal scandal. Then Lisa Jensen, Don and Rich made such a good case for Cindy’s fairness, honesty and openness that I started to give her a second chance. Then along came Inside the Hall and Looking for an Honest Mayor. Is there more to it than meets the eye? On a philosophical basis, why won’t they say they would renounce Cindy if the DA report reveals she had prior knowledge. Are they not so sure she is telling the truth or is it not so important to them? Is it that they won’t renounce her if it comes out that she did have prior knowledge? The plot thickens. Please clear this issue up so I can get back to Oprah. Would you renounce Cindy or is it o.k. if Cindy played a role? I need to know your priorities before I can trust your arguments for her. Do we have to wait until the D.A.‘s report comes out to see if Inside The Hall is bluffing or will Lisa, Don and Rich show us what they are made of? For those of us who don’t know you, giving us your names is inconsequential. Honestly responding to Looking for an Honest Mayor’s question would be much more valuable in our decision making process.
Just arrived @ my office dowtown and noticed that W. Santa Clara St. from Emmas to 87 is riddled with “donuts” on the road. So we had one of them car things last nite, I guess. Was anyone arrested? Will Rick C. claim racial profiling? Does Cindy have a comment?
Dan, Inside, Rich, Perry, Tom, John, Lisa, Don and the Skipper too, #47 says it all. I don’t have a clue who any of you are and I’m sorry but, if your ego expects your “given” name to mean any more to us than a fictious name, think again. Insights about our society written by Mark Twain are just as valid as those by Samuel Clemmons.
If full disclosure is what you are looking for, please list your party affiliation, yearly income, sexual orientation, list of any potential conflicts of interest, names of all people you have done business with the last 10 years…. I’m sure you get my point. Let’s talk principles. Your request to renounce ANY candidate should not be about an attack on any one council person. They are presumed innocent until proven guilty. What this should be about is the freedom to exchange ideas and state principles. As to #47’s request, let me be the first to take the challenge. I promise to renounce ANY mayorial candidate that had any prior knowledge of or took part in the Norcal Scandal. What ever name you blog by I hope you all will follow.
It’s too bad that some of you folks are more concerned about what name somebody uses instead of what they are saying. We’ve gone over this again and again—why some folks use one name or another. It’s not worth spending anymore time on it. Read what we are saying—prove us wrong if you can. Ignore us if you want. In the end, I can sleep at night and face myself in the morning. I try to make San Jose better through actions other than just posting here. Insult us if you like—whatever makes you feel righteous and superior. I will work to change the make-up of the leadership of this city while some of you are content to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. We have a chance to really clean things up or we can look forward to more of the same. I’ll take change this time around. Good luck to all of us.
Anyone who is accused is entitled to know his accuser. Those who hide and accuse by inuendo don’t have much to say. None of the annonymous accusers here have said anything of substance. They have only insulted without facts. Hope this next week and the next candidate forum will bring better facts out.
# 50 you have my promise.NEXT
It is really amusing reading the postings by individuals who hide behind cutsie little names. It is interesting to read entrys by those who post their real names and state fact. My question in all this nonsense about Cindy Chavez is…are we going to get a DA report about the whole mess or is the DA too concerned about the upcoming election and who will be elected to stir up the pot? I would imagine by now that any law enforcement agency investigating any public entity would have a result. It certainly didn’t take the Grand Jury very long to come up with their accurate findings about the mayor.
I admire the opinions of Don, Rich, Lisa, and others who are up front with their names. I have no respect for those who hide their identities. Since this whole blog has been carping on Cindy Chavez I feel compelled to state I find nothing wrong with her record as a Councilmember. She represents her district well and I’m sure she would give the same energy to the city. I disagree with her on a couple of major issues but I don’t feel she is dishonest with the people. No evidence has been posted to convince me otherwise.
52 – You haven’t been reading this blog, then. Much has been said of substance. Open your eyes. The truth and the facts have been laid out over and over again. Maybe you just missed them. Look again.
#52 and all others resisting.
I accuse no one by stating that I will renounce any candidate that had prior knowledge of or took part in the Norcal scandal. All I am giving up is my right to make excuses for any candidate if they did take part and why would any of us want to do that? I hope we all will sign on then continue to support what ever candidate we wish as long as they are honest.
Inside the Hall
If it turns out you are Deep Throat we are all for the better, thank you for warning us. If you are Chicken Little we only have the present Moyor and all that has gone on to blame for our lack of faith in our present city leaders.
WLL IF YOU PEOPLE WANT SOME CHANGE ,AND I KNOW YOU DO I CAN ONLY SAY mULCAHY OR PANDORI AND FORGET THE REST ITS THE ONLY SAFE WAY TO GO….
My issue with Cindy Chavez is her voting record on preservation items. The Fox building getting destroyed for a city employee garage and Del Monte Cannery being razed to the ground. I disagree with her on the Coyote Valley. Since the the Fox Building and Del Monte are past history my only remaining issue is Coyote Valley. I will be voting for another candidate.
Dan # 59: Sounds like you’re one of those preservation nazis who wish to impose your ideas on what is good and preservable on the rest of us, but not on YOUR dime, instead, on OUR dime.
That Fox Garage building was ugly as sin, no big deal from an architectural point of view…simply old.
My mantra remains the same—if you like it so much, do what SemperVirens does—raise money and buy it. Otherwise, please just knock it off, OK??? Or, please convince me why you get to spend MY money to preserve the old ugly stuff that YOU AND YOUR ILK like.
#54 my point is that much has been said by those who aren’t hiding their identity. Those who have something to hide only make generalized critical statements. Please, anyone of you hiders, state one act of dishonesty or any other criminal act about one of the candidates which the voter should be aware of.
60 – “Preservation Nazis???” – nice choice of words (especially the day before Holocaust Remberance Day.) JMoC – you have made it clear over and over again you have no use for historic buildings unless a citizens group has the money to buy them. Your ignorance about the buildings shows every time you write about this topic. We get it—you don’t care about these buildings and you don’t know anything about them. For those who do care about them and what they represent they are hardly “preservation nazis” as you eloquently put it. Peopel who care about the character of their community—including preserving the history of the community through its historic structures, should be praised for doing what this current city council won’t do. Until folks like yourself can be educated about the importance of these structures and the need for them to be preserved, we will continue to lose what is left of them. Your bellowing about do what SemperVirens does is a nice but hollow suggestion. The city has a responsibility to save historic structures instead of demolishing them on a regular basis as they do now. These buildings can be incorporated into new development—it takes a little more creativity and initiative—something that is sorely lacking most of the time from our current city “leaders.”
60 – “Preservation Nazis.” Nice choice of words, especially on the day before Holocaust Rememberance Day. Just because you are ignorant about historic structures and what they mean to a community doesn’t mean everyone feels that way. You would fit it nicely with the current city council, though, because most of them don’t get it either. They would prefer to spend millions knocking down buildings or defending indefensible legal positions instead of doing the right thing—preserving what is left of our history. I don’t expect you to understand but you should at least give those who do the opportunity to try and save what is left of our diminishing supply of historic buildings.
Mr. O’Connor 60
It is obvious you do not understand the process by which a building is considered historic. A subjective rating system is used so personal tastes or, lack there of, do not influence a building’s status. What do you mean by spend your money? I don’t know if you own any historic buildings but if you do, there are some financial incentives to preserving historic buildings. Preservation of historic buildings stimulates tourism, and defines a city. Could this be why San Jose has so few visitors? Studies show businesses located in historic buildings are more successful. Are we under utilizing our cultural resources? Historic preservation is good for business, good for our community. You don’t have to take my word for it, just read the studies done by the Natuional Trust for Historic Preservation. If you would like to learn more give P.A.C.*S.J. a call
#60 Its appears you have the vision of Mr. Magoo and the tact of a blackwidow. Nice P.C. move!
It sounds like you are the kind of guy who doesn’t like “Our Dime” spent on historic properties. If you look back historically far more of our dimes have been spent on pulling down our strutures than restoring them in S.J. Oh but you could not have learned that you don’t like history. If you had a clue you would know our local preservationist would first prefer our city to do no harm, if they have the wisdom to invest in our historic resources all the better. But thanks for your statement ,by the responce of my fellow San Joseans I guess there is some hope.
In response to #1, yes I find it interesting that Sam Liccardo is not taking lobbyist dollars. I had thought that Diaz was a shoo in for the D3 seat, but it’s looking to be a horse race between Joel Wyrick and Sam Liccardo. It makes sense, since Diaz hasn’t shown his face at any neighborhood meeting, in the entire time he has lived in the district, and shows no sign of flip flopping into acutally showing up. Let’s face it, he ain’t the brightest bulb in the box. Would somebody give that man a job?
But Sam Liccardo has been diligent, open to new ideas, meeting the entire district, smart as a whip, and focused on the issues of D3. Joel has a great business background and is vested in SJ. I think it will be these two in the run off.
And won’t it be a refreshing change to to see two crackerjack candidates talk about the issues instead of dealing with Manny’s dirty tricks and deception.
#64 I agree with you wholeheartedly. Our history is important to SJ in so many tangible and intangible ways. And may I mention Savannah? A city defined and financed by its rich history. San Jose has a history as rich as that but has never aprreciated it. As a result, we run the risk of looking like a city of box stores and strip malls. Our historic neighborhoods can transform our entire city into a place that people want to visit and learn about. And Mr. O’Connor since you are so concerned with the bottom line, at the expense of our city’s great legacy, tourists acutally pay money to enjoy a city’s history. But what the hell, pave the valley o heart’s delight and put up lots of parking lots just for you.
Ok, it may be too late to save many of the current crop of historic buildings, but what about the future crop?
Are any of the candidates (or the council) engaged in identifying our historically significant strip malls and fastfood sites so that they may be protected?
For our children’s sake let’s learn from our mistakes, you know, like that famous historian Montezuma always says.
# 60 John M.O.C.
I know you are a historic preservationist . You just say those things to give your preservationist pals a chance to state their case and look smart. Stop ,enough is enough.
#61: You say “the city” has a responsibility to save the past. But “the city” doesn’t pay for it—all working taxpayers do. You elitist dilettante one trick ponies think that everyone else should accept what you like, AND PAY FOR IT. That Fox building garage thingy that was finally bulldozed so that city workers could have a parking garage close by their work was a butt ugly building in the view of most people. But y’all liked it, and filed a lawsuit to make all the rest of us pay for it.
In an era when roads and other infrastructure are crumbling, when libraries cut back hours, when senior centers are closing, when kids don’t have health care, when police and fire positions are being cut back—all due to budget shortfalls—neither “the city” nor the taxpayers can afford your dilettante proclivities.
So, I say again, if you think it’s worth saving, dig into YOUR pocket and those of your like-minded friends and save it. Keep your hands out of my pocket.
Boy JohnM I’m really surprised at you. I know you hate salamanders and banana slugs and Coyote Valley but I didn’t realize you were so virulently negative about most cultural issues. I wonder what your “Bellermine Boy” position would have been if the Sisters of Notre Dame had decided to raze the “old” O’Connor Mansion instead of incorporating it into the girls’ high school structure. I guess heritage is not a word in your vocabulary. With such a negative attitude about the community I wonder how you could ever be objective in your Juris practice. Keep it up. At least you have the courage to put your name on it. How do you feel about all the buildings across the street and north on San Pedro? I guess you’re not planning on running for public office are you?
#60 its people like you that dwell on destroying the past to build a better future for no one but yourself , dont you have enough money yet or the skys the limit , how many empty buildings can we build just so the other developer cant get it, the one with the most toys wins, another stuffed shirt showing your true colors……..
Once again Mr. O’Connor you show your lack of any understanding of the issues. The Fox garage thingy? Is that an architectural term or a planning term? #72 must be right this has to be an act. I am waiting for you to answer #65. Don’t wait too long she looks to be your only friend. Do you not have the facts? As to the “Law Suit” P.A.C.*S.J. did not ask for us as taxpayers to pay one DIME to restore the Fox Markovitz Building. All they asked the city ,Ron,Cindy and Co. ,to do is follow California Law before they used all our millions of dimes to tear down a historic building that we all payed for. They refused to listen to their expert advice. Suprise surprise the judge found that Ron,Cindy and those others who certified the E.I.R. (thingy) were in violation of C.E.Q.A. (thingy) They had broken the law. All P.A.C. did was make our leaders follow the LAW. You may have read a little bit about their unwillingness to follow process lately? Why aren’t you crying out in outrage about the mayor and council wasting over 3mil of our $. by not listening to P.A.C. in the first place.But then again that would mean that you would have had to have taken the time to educate yourself on the issue. It,s much easier to shoot your thingy off.
There is no point in responding any further with JMoC. He refuses to be educated on a topic he knows nothing about and is too narrow in his vision to understand either the importance of historic structues to a community or their monetary value to a community. Since money is the only thing he partially understands, it is unclear why he doesn’t understand the economic benefit these buildings bring to cities all over the country. Simply stated, they bring people to a city and they spend MONEY that helps the city pay for all of things that we agree are important.
If somebody else wants to try an educate an ignorant know-it-all, be my guest. I’m sure he is very nice, though.
Paris,London,Rome,Boston,Seattle need I say more? Get a clue or move to Bakersfield where you can be with others who share your dislike for preservation of history or culture. I,m sure they have plenty of empty hotel rooms.
#60 John
Would you please give me a list of the historic buildings the Semper Virens own locally you mentioned. I was not aware that they did that. I have seen the nice historic plaques they put up and I know they can throw a wild party. I would love to visit these local landmark historic buildings with my family.Your help is greatly appreciated.
73 John
Give us your 5 favorite cities you like to visit in the the civilized world. Then let’s see if they have a preservation policy.
P.S. I think #65 is still waiting