As much as I wanted to write this week about Thanksgiving, the Notre Dame–USC game, or the new James Bond movie, Monday’s article in the Mercury News, concerning the Reed transition, contained one set of comments that I could not ignore. They came from the mouth, if not the mind, of Ms. Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, leader of the South Bay Labor Council. In them, she decried the “divisiveness” that could creep into the Transition Committee of Mayor-elect Chuck Reed, and her fear that “old families” would return to hegemony in our city. It would be easy to let this set of vacuous comments go unanswered but, somehow, the lecturing of a person who just had her agenda, her candidates and her attempts to control the city repudiated in a historic rout, called out for a response. (It was almost as if Rummy began to lecture us now on military tactics for our future success in Iraq, or Kissinger—ah, but that’s another blog.) Such advice from Ellis-Lamkins falls not from weight but from absurdity.
The labor leaders and their hand-picked candidates have brought City Hall to the lowest point of trust in our history. Their alliance with greedy developers and confused city leadership has resulted in much tragedy for our city. History is a sure and cruel teacher to those who have the sense to observe it. I made many mistakes while mayor, but never the same one twice and I always attempted to learn from them. Failure is a good teacher if we allow it to be one. These self-appointed bosses have not bothered to know much about San Jose—so blinded were they by their ephemeral success and press clippings—and now they are trying to rewrite history.
Chuck Reed, Sam Liccardo and Pete Constant represented reform in the minds of most voters in the city. Ellis-Lamkins and her friends still seem unable to recognize or to understand that the corruption of Terry Gregory, the indictment of a mayor, the collapse of controlled growth, and the spendthrift and elitist nature of her and the city council majority, is what cost the trust of the people and the crushing electoral losses. Labor bosses formed alliances with the most reactionary forces in the community—those same land speculators and lobbyists that have so debased the politics of San Jose. The fact that she and her allies cannot see this conclusion is one of the saddest failures of leadership in local political history. The dedicated union members were sold an incredible bill of goods about Reed and Liccardo and labored in vain against the true reform agenda. They should have supported them as just the type of candidates that can elevate San Jose and, now, they are owed an explanation by Ellis-Lamkins and their other leaders. Hiding behind “working people” is a discredited strategy; as a great American once said to the demagoguery of Joe McCarthy: “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” Ms. Ellis-Lamkins should look closely at her leadership and her “friends” and try to reassert the traditional values of the Democratic Party and union principles. That will take some insight and some maturity that has not yet been in evidence. I hope it arrives.
Oh, by the way, Notre Dame will stay in the game if “they” learn from past mistakes, reform their offensive calls, and pray a lot.
Happy Thanksgiving
Tom, good insight. I believe the Labor Council has but one agenda: to provide their constituents with bushels of money and as quickly as possible. That certainly has led to the uncontrolled growth and the construction of ticky-tacky dwellings everywhere one looks. I can’t help but think about the Alma Bowl desecration currently underway as well as the similar travesty at the Elk’s Lodge now in the planning stages. My gosh, 11 and 12 story high-rise housing in an old neighborhood of small, single family dwellings… what could they have been thinking?!?! Oh, any word on Cindy’s returning to the employ of the Labor Council?
You failed to talk about the old families that controlled san jose. Who are they and what did they do to control the city? I’m very interested in what she is talking about. Can you explain? I totally agree with you about what has happened to the unions and the democratic party in our area. Every democrat in the state and ever Bill Clinton, although I wonder who would listen to him, and the Mayor of the city to the north wandered around san jose with Cindy Chavez looking for votes. Now Mayor Newsome migh get her a few votes since in his inabliity to get things done is SF he is sending the 49ers down to us. This was as bad a defeat for the democratic party and union in the area as was President Bushs loses in the national election.
#2 Hj
You wrote… “This was as bad a defeat for the democratic party and union in the area as was President Bushs loses in the national election. “
This local election was more about house cleaning than political differences.
Democrats will continue to be a strong force in this town as will labor. It’s just that they will have to play fair, follow the rules most of us take for granted and trust the voters.
Mayor Tom,
You’re correct, the subject belongs in another blog, but you and some others bring it up often so I thought I would respond and help you become more accurate in your criticism: It’s not “Rummy’s” fault things aren’t going as you hoped for in Iraq. He is a subordinate of the President as you well know. Rummy managed two of the world’s greatest military victories – Afghanistan and Iraq. The military is not in charge of nation building and setting up political systems. They break things and kill people. Rummy did a very good job of doing that in both countries. In fact, he achieved the fewest, and still are the fewest American casualties and enemy casualties and collateral damage of any significant military campaign.
Please direct your disappointment at his boss – President Bush. He appointed Mr. Bremmer and told Rummy to hold before destroying the trapped terrorists in Fahlujah etc.
Mr. Rhumsfeld should be applauded, not vilified. Remember how your subordinates were criticized for decisions you imposed on them? Did you stand up and take the hit or let them take the heat for you?
Aren’t you a member of one of the “old” families? Hmmmm…
Dexter – The last shall be first: I am a member of an “old” family” of small business people, teachers and washer women, mayors and editors and newpaper boys, all trying to build a better life for their “young families” – each trying to make the city and their lives a bit better. As for your Rummy analysis – like Robert McNamara, his mistakes will haunt him the rest of his life. And President Bush, he is the most ill-prepared, reckless, and incompetent President of the last century. TMcE
How can anybody defend Rummy? He is as much responsible for the failure in Iraq as is Boy George. He is an arrogant, out of touch neocon who had an F-You attitude towards anybody who disagreed with him. Hardly someone to be applauded. There should have been NO American casualities in this war of lies, therefore Rummy has as much American blood on his hands as his “superiors.”
But, since this is Thanksgiving, I am thankful that Rummy is on the way out, that W is a lame duck (or turkey) and that Tom and others continue to discuss this illegal war.
Have a Happy Holiday everyone (you too, Dexter.)
Tom,
As evidence from the past eight years, the “Powers That Be” have no patience for true “Smart Growth”. Let us hope our newly elected leaders can withstand the temptations that will surely be cast their way as the era of our new administration unfolds.
As a concerned voter, I look forward to participating in any way possible to assure labor and business work to right the past, and steer the city toward a workable balanced agenda.
Rummy demanded full control and accepted responsibility for only that which brought him praise and power.
He could give the orders and ‘pull the trigger’, but it was the field commanders that made mistakes and bullets that did the killing… not him.
“W” knew it and did nothing about it.
VTA is proposing approval 11 story or higher ( 15-20 ) residential rental towers at Light Rail Stations outside of downtown to generate income to pay for BART in areas of 1-2 story homes
Watch VTA / developers get approval as 11 story mixed use and then bait and switch to higher ( 15-20 story) residential rental only to increase profits
Urban residential only towers in or near low income / high rental areas have increased traffic, crime, drugs etc not decreased problems
Dexter, are you for real or have I been under a rock for the last few years?
I am not aware that the US (W, Cheney, Rummy, Rice and countless henchmen) had managed one of the world’s greatest military victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last time I didn’t even bother to check—I couldn’t avoid hearing it or reading it—we still had soldiers being picked off on a regular basis in both locations. How can the ongoing casualties be considered the world’s greatest victory?
Lose the bomber jacket. Mission is NOT and never will be accomplished over there. It’s the world’s greatest military blunder, courtesy of that joker taking up space in the White House.
Developers make major contributions to local political campaigns while politicans use increased city fees and tax revenues as excuse to appove hundreds of “Smart Growth ” planning exceptions for developers ” pay to play ” paybacks and more profits
All other SC County cities restrict housing while increasing jobs and retail stores which pays for higher city service levels, parks, street repairs etc
San Jose’s Dumbass Politicians continue to approve more crowded housing, higher fees and increased regulation barriers to more jobs and retail stores
San Jose – Capital of Silicon Valley’s Housing with Few Jobs and Retail Stores to pay for City Services
IF VTA gets approval for many residential rental towers to pay for BART contruction
Who Benefits and does NOT pay Costs
– Developers / VTA projects not paying full development impact costs
– VTA continues worst run tax paid transit system in US
– Politician’s campaign contributions
– Labor’s increased construction and public employment jobs, higher wages and retirement plans
– Silicon Valley Leadership companies get cheaper employees from lower cost housing from outside county while San Jose residents paying costs have few jobs or have to travel to other cities for jobs
– Other SCC County cities who restrict housing and increase jobs / retail while San Jose residents travel to work jobs and shop at retail stores payng for Other SCC city services
Who PAYS Costs but DOES NOT BENEFIT
– San Jose Residents will pay costs of VTA’s non downtown residential rental towers with MORE crowded housing, traffic, increased crime /gangs, pollution while getting LESS jobs, parks, city services, cmmunity centers, pools, retail stores while MANY residents travel to other cities for jobs and retail stores in a more crowded polluted envirnoment
#11,
I agree we don’t have “smart” growth, but the blame extends beyond the politicians. It includes the commissioners and department heads.
At a recent planning commission meeting, the commissioners voted to approve a general plan amendment to convert 17 acres of commercial-industrial land to high density housing on Berryessa.
As the school district walked out in protest, stating they could not handle all the new children that this project would generate, it was Campos that said it best,
“It think this project represents smart growth because the project is with in half mile mile of a planned Bart station and then the workers can commute to their jobs up on the Peninsula”.
I doubt we are going to see Bart in SJ for another 10 years and as far as I know there is no plan to extend Bart up the Peninsula. Under the guise of “smart” growth, the commissioners added another 2000 cars to our highways and even If Bart is built in our lifetime, will the new Berryessa residents walk a half mile to a Bart station to commute to their jobs outside San Jose? Perhaps the commissioners should have tried to cross Berryessa on foot before they voted.
Smart growth includes Job growth. Placing jobs adjacent to rail stops does encourage workers and employers to use mass transit, including workers commuting from other cities.
On a somewhat related topic, I was disappointed, but not surprised to learn council voted to appoint Albert the permanent Parks Director. I guess this means we are going see more “smart” growth of unmaintained parks and more “smart” ideas like holding “Facility Re-use” meetings for year and spending a quarter million dollars to discover we need more pools, duh!
Reed, how about IQ reforms.
let’s give thanks that the right person won the election. Chuck is the right person to clean this mess up and there are going to be some tuff decision to be made. but with Tom’s help I have full confidence that the right choices will be made for the right reasons.
And let’s say good bye to the Amy Dean / Cindy Chavez / big labor years /
It’s going to be fun to see where this new administration takes us. we all are going to have to be patient because there is alot of work to do.
good luck Chuck & keep McEnery close he knows how to get things done..
Ouch, Tom! I didn’t know you had BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). I hope the holidays and a ND win help you get to the other side. Even though the Bush/Rumsfeld fiasco in Iraq deserves everyone’s healthy rejection, kudos for the most incompetent president has gotta go to Bill Clinton, for century’s most feckless, cynical, and ethically offensive act: the failure—after repeated requests and clear indication of the scope of the barbarity—to act in Rwanda. A million people hacked to death and BC and Madeline Allbright did nada. The failure of the mainstream media and Clinton’s apologists to face up to this collossally cowardly act remains one of the saddest chapters in modern American foreign policy, Bush II’s Iraq failures, notwithstanding.
Just a little over an hour ago KTVU featured a news story about a kipnapper/rapist named Gonzales. It included a photo of Mayor Ron Gonzales. KTVU later corrected the story by showing the photo of the real Gonzales, not Hizzoner.
16th Congressional District 1994 results
Zoe Lofgren
Dem *
16,168
45.34%
Tom Mcenery
Dem
15,037
42.17%
Very funny he lost the 16th in mostly in San Jose
This discussion got off track onto the obvious failures of the national executive. Regarding the SJ mayoral election, I have it in for Senators Boxer and Feinstein and also Rep. Honda. (Leave Bubba out of it, he is out of reach.) B, F & H played machine politics and supported Ms. Chavez, showing no understanding of the feelings of the people of San Jose, who felt unrepresented as the current mayor and vice-mayor ran up debt that has crippled many needed public services, and did it behind closed doors.
The Dems at the national level have been blasting Bush and the Republicans for bad stewardship which is what Chavez also demonstrated. They had better show us how they will do better, and maybe admit that they backed the wrong candidate. If the national Dems fail in this, I will either vote for middle-of-the-road Republicans (I voted for der Schwarznegger) or NO ONE.
What Do You Not Understand?
How many additional billions in undisclosed required future San Jose city costs and deferred repairs does San Jose have that will further reduce essential city public service delivery?
Mercury News – $1 billion in previously undisclosed city employee health costs
Two long-awaited actuarial reports indicate San Jose may need to set aside an extra $100 million or so every year—or more than 10 percent of its general fund—to cover the future costs of providing health care to thousands of current and future city retirees.
That’s more than six times the $15 million amount that the city and its employees contributed toward retiree health care benefits in 2004, with the city picking up about 55 percent of the costs.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2006/11/15/news/opinion/16007696.htm
Anyone know where VTA is proposing their ” housing projects ” outside of downtown to generate income to pay for BART ?
Someone wrote earlier that “VTA is proposing approval 11 story or higher ( 15-20 ) residential rental towers at Light Rail Stations outside of downtown to generate income to pay for BART in areas of 1-2 story homes”
IIRC, high-rise ‘residential rental towers’ owned by guvmintal entities generally come under a different, and more pithy, description: Housing Projects.
Mayor Tom wrote earlier in this thread about folks making the same mistake twice. Does VTA not have the ability to look beyond the Valley to realize it wants to build a modern-day Cabrini Green?
VTA community meeting on November 30, 2006 to gather input on how property bordering Tamien Light Rail Station in San Jose should be developed.
Alma Community Center, 136 West Alma Avenue San Jose, from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on Thursday, November 30, 2006.
http://www.vta.org/news/releases/2006/11_nov/nr11-08_2006.html
VTA owns several acres of property at light rail stations available for joint development projects due to the underutilization of parking.
In the future VTA will also be acquiring property for BART stations, for additional light rail stations and corridors and at or near current light rail stations, particularly where multi-modal stations are planned to include Caltrain and BART co-locating with VTA light rail stations.
VTA, Santa Clara County and cities in Santa Clara County have adopted the Community Design and Transportation Manual as the guide to development of light rail and multi-modal train station areas.
Assembly Bill No. 670 (Papan), enacted in February 1999 allows VTA, the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), to acquire land entirely for the purpose of Transit Oriented Development (TOD).
TOD consists of a project that is a commercial, residential, or mixed-use development that is undertaken in connection with existing, planned or proposed transit facilities and is located ¼-mile or less from the boundaries of the transit facility.
Currently, VTA has four development sites that have generated a significant amount of developer interest: Tamien, West San Carlos, Capitol Expressway, and Curtner.
Potentially, VTA can initiate construction on these four sites within the next 18 to 24 months.
http://www.vta.org/inside/boards/committee_advisory/pac/agendas_minutes/2004/12_dec/12_X.html
JD # 20: There is a huge difference between VTA proposing privately financed housing towers at or near light rail stations, and VTA proposing government-type projects in the same places.
The first iwould be viable housing near public transportation. The latter would indeed be ” The Projects”.
So, do you know which VTA is proposing? If so, please enlighten us.
WOW! I jumped on the link that #22 provided, and read, among other things, this turgid prose:
FROM: Carolyn M. Gonot
Chief Development Officer
[there’s a great name for a VTA person—Go-Not]
The intent of VTA’s joint development effort is to create a long-term, continuing source of revenue to support the operations of the VTA and increase utilization of this community’s public transit system. [Fat Chance! Like purposely keeping S/B 87 @ 2 lanes to try to induce light rail ridership? FAILURE!! So now we pay a lot more to add that third lane.]
In the future VTA will also be acquiring property for BART stations, for additional light rail stations and corridors and at or near current light rail stations, particularly where multi-modal stations are planned to include Caltrain and BART co-locating with VTA light rail stations.
At this point in time VTA has no comprehensive process for evaluating development proposals at joint development sites. [no shit?] Several proposals have been held without action for several months while the VTA Board and VTA member cities have adopted the Community Design & Transportation Manual. It is now appropriate to identify an effective developer selection process.
Proposed Joint Development Policy
The development community needs a clear statement [who in your employ can wite a clear statement?] of VTA’s objectives for revenue enhancement, ridership potential and achieving transit-oriented development that enhances neighborhoods.
A core objective expressed in the Policy is the use of VTA land assets to create a long-term source of revenue at a rate of return that is competitive in the market. [translation: we can’t make money at the fare box, so let’s try land development] Developing housing or commercial uses that can command the highest reasonable rents will enable the VTA to achieve revenues while providing a profit incentive to developers that ensures that projects will be financed and perform as financially sound over time.”
How long do you have to work for a pathetic bureaucracy like VTA to unlearn everything you learned about good writing to develop this load of garbage? [I edited much of the turgid “prose”.]
VTA has ABSOLUTELY THE WORST record in the entire US of A in running a public transit system. They have the absolute lowest fare-box-to-actual-cost-ratio of any public transit system in the ENTIRE COUNTRY, for Chrissakes…and there isn’t even a close second. And now they want to partner with private developers to build stuff???!! Ca-ching—there goes more money down the rathole.
They started this discussion in ‘04, and are still spewing bureaucratic gobbly-dy-gook at the end of ‘06, with NO RESULTS IN SIGHT.
Jesus Mary & Joseph, they can’t even do their own job right, and we’re supposed to trust them to develop mixed use projects near their hugely money losing transit corridors?
That giant sucking sound you hear is your money being wasted by these bozos who dream up these ridiculous memos supporting bad ideas that keep them in jobs.
Mayor Tom,
The poor me and my family doesn’t play. I’m happy for you and your family’s success. Don’t get me wrong. As humble as your origins may have been I don’t have a convention center named after me. I’m not a co-owner of the Sharks. Need I go on? You didn’t answer my question -did you take the heat for criticism of your subordinates? While Mayor you tried very hard to improve downtown and accomplished a lot. However, recall the criticism of Downtown Redevelopment? My wife worked at the city then and recalls clearly yours and the department’s approach was very similar to President Bush and Rhumsfeld. I’m sure you accepted input and decided to proceed with your vision and directed your staff accordingly. You’ve said as much in earlier postings. Please read D. Eisenhower’s memoirs of WWII and you’ll be refreshed with what is happening in Iraq. As a former leader, you above all should know the difference between getting something done and doing what’s popular. Your blog asked earlier where it should go – maybe a discussion of the War on Terror should be a thread.
VTA BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Thursday, August 3, 2006 minutes
Designate Republic Properties and Green Valley Corporation as the Selected Developer and Avalon Bay Corporation and ROEM Corporation as the Alternate Selected Developer for the West San Carlos site.
Where is this project on San Carlos and when does it start?
jmoc, jd,
This from the Jan, ‘05 VTA Board minutes
>> “VTA has received several unsolicited proposals from real estate development companies to develop VTA property at transit stations. This development interest attests to the market viability of these properties as both potential sources of income for the VTA and an opportunity to increase ridership. ” <<
“Development interests” = “market viability”?
Are these developers responsible for the long term financial viability and market value of these projects for the next five, ten or twenty years after completion?
Maybe I’m missing something here, but it seems like….
Developers fund campaigns.
Developers get projects.
Developers collect the money.
Devleopers leave.
Board members campaing.
Board members approve projects.
Board members pay developers.
Board members leave.
JD#25: Ibelieve anything and everything VTA touches will turn into a black hole for tax money, perform poorly, and be close to worthless. The history of that organization, through its several “leaders” has been absolutely and unqualifedly abysmal.
VTA Board Politicians approve
Hundreds millions in Light Rail / BART Station ” high rise housing ” development bonds based on inflated income – telling public it will pay for development and BART
BART runs over budget as always and inflated BART income can not be achieved for 20 years due to continued Silicon Valley job losses and poor design ( as happened with Light Rail poor design and inflated income numbers)
Inflated High rise housing income can not pay development bonds due to high vacancies and low rents with SV job losses and higher costs due to gang and drug problems
VTA sells buildings to slum ( Low income / Section 8 ) landlords or goes bankrupt
JMO – sometimes the best answer provided is the one you find yourself.
All of the classic “housing projects” were started with the thought that they would be public-private, would be self-financing, would not be a burden to taxpayers, thus and so.
Do you honestly think that, given VTA’s prior track record on financial matters, that any residential tower ‘developed’ by VTA will stand any chance of even a neutral return on investment of public dollars?
If your answer to the above question is ‘yes’, then these nebulous VTA projects can be considered, as you put it, ‘viable housing near public transportation.’
If, OTOH, your answer to the above question is ‘no,’ then you have the classic scenario for a Cabrini Green style housing project.
It all comes down to ownership. If the main owner of the developments in question is a guvmintal entity (e.g. VTA) then there is a 100% chance of financial failure of the project.
If otherwise, then the chances of failure depend more on what is built and where.
San Jose has long tradition of naming public building and statutes after departing Mayors to honor their accomplishments
San Jose Inside should have a Ron Gonzales Public Monument Naming Contest
First Nomination:
Renamed our famous Quetzequatal statute as Ron Gonzales – Gonzo Quetzequatal statute in honor of sh** Gonzo did and left us
#31 is onto something: Quetzlgonzales
Tom:
I think you are being too nice. As a resident of San Jose, I think we should be calling for the heads of the South Bay Labor Council AND the Santa Clara County Democratic party.
They do NOT represent the working people – I know because I am one. The only purpose they serve is to let us know who NOT to vote for – anyone they support with their hundreds of thouands of dollars and their lies disguised as campiagn literature.
Go after these people and make our city a better place! PLEASE!
I’m no fan of the VTA or its record, but I’ll try to shed a little light.
The VTA has a serious cash crunch, and wants to sell land to help solve it. Housing developers pay more than anyone else, so they want to sell/lease the land to housing developers.
The goal is to cover operating losses by selling or leasing the assets of the agency.
Greg (VTA board member)