Council Decides Against “Probably Won’t Have Violence Perpetrated Against You” Big City
The San Jose City Council has decided to get proactive over the city’s probable loss of its coveted “Safest Big City” title by choosing the most marketable name left in the field of monikers: “Relatively Safe Big City in America.”
“We decided to grab the best tag left to us now that we are no longer the safest,” said Councilman Forrest Williams. “If we waited, we may get stuck with “Pretty Safe,” “Kinda Safe” or “Least Life Threatening” and we didn’t think those packed the punch of “Relatively.”
It was a contentious and emotional vote and security guards had to break up several scuffles that broke out on the dais. However, in the end, all agreed they could live with “Relatively Safe Big City.”
Nevertheless, city marketers, including the Downtown Association, the Con-Vis Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce and the Office of Economic Development warn that a good city byline has everything to do with the success or failure of the ubiquitous “livability” quotient.
“The more people repeat a products jingle, if you will, the more they believe it,” explained Chiat Day executive Stephen Bland. “The perception becomes reality.”
“This is not a small issue that should be snickered about,” said Con-Vis chief Dan Fenton. “It is a serious setback to our efforts to get great events like the Showcase of Miniatures when we can only boost that we are 4th safest in murders and rapes or 140th in nightclub control.”
Dear San Jose Inside,
Could you devote one week to all things dumb? Monday, Mr. Oliverio could discuss the City’s outreach to the dumb. Tuesday, Single Gal could discuss any dumb men she might have dated. Wednesday, Tom McEnery could discuss any dumb politicians, business people or educators he has known. Thursday, Jack Van Zandt could discuss any dumb books, movies, plays or music in San Jose. Thanks.
George Berlin
Executive Director of the
Silicon Valley Dumb Group
How about “city with the safest public employee pensions”, after today’s article in the Merc that the pension board no longer will make publicly available reports on pensions and disability claims?
There isn’t a safe city in this country. Would any of you let your kids walk around by themselves anywhere in any big city? This isn’t funny and someone should do something about the crime in this country and you don’t hear any of the candidates talk about it. If you put all the murders and muggings and violent crimes together this would be worse than Iraq.
Dear MR. Berlin – if you want time devoted only to the “dumb”, I suggest that you try watching the talking heads on cable ( who have never run for, or run a two car funeral ) who know all things or either party primary pandering season. San Jose is trying to measure up to this standard, but is out of the “dumb league.” TMcE
#3 – Curious George,
Jack has devoted time to the dumbest of the dumb, President Doofus. What more could you want?
Dear San Jose:
I know that Friday’s on this site are for laughs, but here’s something that’s not so amusing:
The members of the San Jose City Council do not have the right to impose restrictions on public speech. On 8/15/07, the Mercury News reported that the council has determined a maximum allowable size for banners brought into the city hall…and, that, “speakers must address the emtire council with their comments, not individual members.” Both of these restrictions are unconstitutional, and should be completely ignored by the citizens of San Jose.
To some, this may seem like a minor issue. It is not. The citizens of San Jose should take notice that these restrictions were approved with an unanimous vote. I’m amazed that such a blatant disregard for the Constitutional right of free speech is met by the press and people with nothing more than a yawn.
Pete Campbell
#8 – You are right RE: free speech at Council meetings. This is something that has not existed in many years. Under Gonzo the public’s right to address the Council was severely curtailed. It is no better, and possibly worse, under Reed. He consistently invokes his own 60-second rule on members of the public. It appears that Reed and the rest of the Council have no problem restricting the right of the public to speak while putting no rules on themselves.
This Council is quickly becoming one for wasting time on solutions to problems that do not exist.
Maybe Tom can talk to Chuck and remind him he was elected on promises of open and accessible government. It is going to take more than selective sunshine rules to live up to his promises.
December 31, 2008, is going to be a sad day. It will be Forrest Williams’ last day in office as city councilmember. Never again will we hear his inspiring speeches.
#3 and others,
Just to follow up on my earlier post, #7, here is an extract from an interview in today’s, 8/17/07, Mercury News with a filmaker on his Iraq documentary. Sounds like a good movie; “No End In Sight” by Charles Ferguson.
“Q The film documents what seems to be an unbroken record of bad choices and catastrophic failures by policy-makers. How did it all go so wrong?
A I think hubris and ideological rigidity had something to do with it. Arrogance. This war and occupation were controlled by an astonishingly small number of people, something that’s really unprecedented in American history. Less than a half dozen people made all the critical decisions about the war and occupation of Iraq.
And, by the way, the president of the United States was not among them. The picture that emerged from my interviews is of a president who is remarkably detached, passive, uninvolved and uncurious. He did not ask questions, did not criticize, did not make suggestions, did not read national intelligence estimates. The idea that a president would have virtually no involvement in the critical decisions about a war and planning the occupation is astonishing.”
And that is why the world knows him as President Doofus.
http://www.mercurynews.com/brucenewman/ci_6646751
The public debate/free speech issues are interesting, yet perplexing. They are two distinct issues, which few people seem to grasp.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees that any idiot can speak freely. It does not guarantee an audience; i.e., there is no right to force anyone to listen to your ramblings.
The right to public input at a government meeting is not a free speech issue, and it is not gauranteed by the Constitution. So, government bodies can constitutionally limit your right to speak for an unlimited amount of time at a public meeting. You can go outside and ramble on interminably about anything you please. You do not have the right to hold a public meeting hostage while you merely repeat what twenty-five others have said in only slightly different words. After all, most folks who merely repeat what others have already said are just looking for their 2 minutes of fame. They would better serve themselves and their cause by merely stating: “I agree with what so-and-so said”, instead of boring everyone with their long-winded repetition of what we’ve heard already.
So, there really should be an anti-repetition rule at all public government meetings.
That said, the more important principle is that most local governmental bodies allow public comment only WELL AFTER the decision has already been made. If a govermental agency REALLY wants to hear what the public has to say, they need to schedule the public comment meeting at least one month before the decision is to be made.
To my knowledge, no SJ city administration has ever done that. One of the offenders—the McEnery adminsitration, when the decision had been made by the Committee of the Whole before the meeting in which public comment was allowed. It has continued that way, with some minor alterations, ever since.
To repeat, the right to speech free of governmental intervention does not guarantee that you can drone on ad infinitum about your cause at a public meeting; and, the right to public input can be curtailed with reasonable limits on public input to public bodies.
Everyone gets a feeling of importance when they can address a public body about an issue that concerns them. Please temper that urge with reason…especially if all you are doing is repeating what others have already said.
Thank you.
Ah yes – let’s go to the mainstream newsmedia for the truth.
Here’s the executive editor of the Seattle Times admonishing the ‘journalists’ in his newsroom for cheering when the news broke that Rove was resigning.
“If we wore our politics on our sleeves in here, I have no doubt that in this and in most other mainstream newsrooms in America, the majority of those sleeves would be of the same color: blue. Survey after survey over the years have demonstrated that most of the people who go into this business tend to vote Democratic, at least in national elections. That is not particularly surprising, given how people make career decisions and that social service and activism is a primary driver for many journalists.”
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003625825
The sooner the newsmedia drops all pretense of objectivity and cuts over to social justice activist blog format the better for all.
[What are the odds that the Marxists screening posts at SJI today let this one go through?]
13 – Just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.
The argument that the “liberal” press is not objective, etc. etc. is getting kind of old. You should be able to come up with something better than that by now.
Hey, and how about those Marxists who let your post get through. Guess they screwed up, huh?
“Relatively Safe”? That’s easy for Councilman Forrest Williams to say; he’s not a heritage tree in D-6. San Jose’s permitting of the un-permitted chainsaw massacre of cherished sycamores on Willow and now two giant pines on Lincoln paint a different picture of ‘safe’ in Our Fair City.
Was that a sudden gust of wind, or did that huge cedar see a tree service truck? Life in D-6 may be safe; that is if you’re not huge, green and in someone’s way.
You forgot the rest of the title…
“Relatively Safe Big City with an Identity Crisis”
Or my favorite…
“There’s No “There” Here!”
Or as I tell my out-of-town customers…
“Let’s face it! The only reason your here, in San Jose, is because your boss is paying you to be here. But, look on the bright side, San Francisco is only 50 miles up the road, if ya wanna experience a real city.”
Somebody once asked me about Theater in San Jose, and I told him…
“Ya wanna see some real drama, go to city hall, and watch city government at work. Shakespeare could never have thought to write such a tragedy!”
We both agree that the press is liberal. That’s a start.
So your contention is that a newsroom that bursts into wild applause at the news that Karl Rove has resigned is then gonna go out give us some straight up reporting?
Choice.
Just because you agree with most of what you read and hear in the news doesn’t mean that you’re a total moron incapable of eventually being able to see through the leftist propaganda dished out daily and labeled as ‘news’.
The road to recovery starts with a worldview challenge or 2.
Here’s some additional challenges to help you on your way.
The list: Journalists who wrote political checks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113455/
BBC accused of institutional ‘trendy left-wing bias’
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-details/BBC+accused+of+institutional+‘trendy+left-wing+bias’/article.do
Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/
Here’s the money quote.
“Probably there should be a rule against it,” said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine’s profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. “But there’s a rule against murder. If someone had murdered Hitler — a journalist interviewing him had murdered him — the world would be a better place. As a citizen, I can only feel good about participating in a get-out-the-vote effort to get rid of George Bush, who has been the most destructive president in my lifetime. I certainly don’t regret it.”
Apparently Bush as Hitler is not an uncommon theme in newsrooms. Who knew?
http://www.18doughtystreet.com/on_demand/229
With the way in which my posts continually get ‘disappeared’ I’m starting to wonder if Hugo Chavez is underwriting SJI. Anyone notice large numbers of Citgo vehicles in downtown SJ lately?
#12 has forgotten the right to assemble and the right to petition which go along with the right to speech in his scholarly analysis of the speech-before-the-council issue. Limiting his tasteful analysis to speech alone provides a flawed view.
How about “Almost Safest Big City with the Lowest Amount of Police Officers Per Capita of the 100 Biggest Cities Working with the Same Staffing they had in 1999”? I think it is kinda catchy.
#16: Neither the right to assemble, that’s peaceably assemble by the way, nor the right to petition the govt. guarantee the right to filibuster a meeting with endless ramblings, especially if they are mere repetions of what another has already said. A simple “me, too” is sufficient to ad to the “vote count”.
Bundle in those additional rights, and the result is the same—no-one, including a governmental body, needs to be held hostage by the endless dronings of empassioned people.
ALL rights have reasonable limits, Mr. Warner.
And how about limiting the size of banners? I am amused that the City Council has ‘no right’ to limit free speech in that way.
How about ‘The banner should fit through the door if it is to be brought into City Council chambers.’
That thar is called ‘physics’.
Kidding aside, I agree completely with John Michael O’Connor: part of City Hall’s job is to run an efficient state; I sincerely doubt we are yet treading on the Constitution. Though your mileage, as always, may vary.
I like the the new title of: City of San Jose Managed by Team San Jose.