As much as I try to stay in a good mood, nothing, other than a Shark loss to Edmonton, gets me as riled as looking at the current seal of the City of San Jose.  The basic logo, with the rising sun symbol, was chosen when I was mayor, and I still like it—but the recent addition of the caption, “10th Largest U.S. City,” was a defensive, clueless decision that just shrieks “bush league.”  The old caption, “Capital of Silicon Valley,” although a reach, said so much and associated us with the most dynamic entrepreneurial spot in the history of mankind.  Apparently, it didn’t reach enough.

Well, it’s here in all its full-blown glory. The election is upon us, bringing the arrival of the hair-brained, the half-baked, the unethical, and the mendacious—the time of full employment for the consultants, pundits, and hangers-on. Hail the beginning of “Silly Season.”

How we trust the men and women in blue may be an age-old question, but this time it is not from the usual perspective. We know that in San Jose we have an outstanding contingent of officers who add credit to the uniform in most every encounter. This has long been the tradition of the San Jose PD.  But politics reared its ugly head during the regime of the current mayor when the Police Officers Association (POA) freely gave thousands of dollars to an informal slush fund. This dwarfed the small amounts of money that has been given to all past candidates and previous mayors.

I know that this is a long shot, but I am appealing to members of the San Jose City Council to please not get along so well. It seems that, during the current unparalleled crises of confidence in city government—the resignation under threat of indictment of one of their colleagues, the public censure of the mayor and the on-going grand jury investigations—council members continue to act in an ostrich-like manner, as if we are in the most placid of times. We are not.

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.

There has been a great deal of second guessing and gnashing of teeth at the massive defeat suffered by the City of San Jose in their lawsuit with the county over the Fairgrounds Theater.  It was a sad result, no doubt.  The Monday morning quarterbacks are having a field day; it’s the most fun since the 49’ers blew a commanding lead to Detroit in that title game of the late fifties. 

I think that we all ought to slow down and take stock of this impending election. There has certainly been a lot of heated debate on this site lately on the relative merits of the candidates for mayor. If I have it correctly, much of it is centered on two candidates, Cindy Chavez and David Pandori.  Now, partisans would have you believe that Cindy is a “do-nothing” council member, a pawn of dark forces, while Pandori is portrayed as a loner DA incapable of getting along with even his family.  Not surprisingly, the truth is very different.

The big debate is over; the big question remains.  I think most will agree that the mayoral debate last week was one of the best political forums in recent San Jose history and a resounding success.  The venue was spectacular, the format informative and—aside from the moderator’s too active participation—the five candidates were impressive. 

Tomorrow evening (Thursday, March 30, 5 p.m.) at the California Theatre, there will be a first of sorts—the first big debate on who should be the next mayor.  It will be sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Association, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Business Journal.  Although a late attempt to make it a straw poll is apparently off now, it might yet occur; so much the better.  It is the unknown quantities and unscripted moments of these debates that really tend to enliven and inform.

Although many were surprised when Ron Gonzales struck out at the Mercury News on KGO last week, calling the drive for more open government in San Jose “a bunch of nonsense,” I was neither shocked nor particularly interested. Most people have already formed their opinion of the mayor, as well as our local newspaper, and are not overly concerned with the former’s opinion of the latter.

All those concerned about the future of our community should be concerned about what is happening to our newspaper. Knight Ridder has been sold to the Sacramento-based McClatchy group who says it will sell the Mercury News. While rumors abound about who will be the final owner, our paper and its staff are going through an excruciating period in limbo.

It is that most pleasant time of year—a season when inveterate lobbyists and flimflam men get a conscience and speak of reform; a season of ethical proposals by those who have exhibited terminal lockjaw on the issue for years; a remarkable era of ideas for a better political process springing full-blown from the heads of consultants, paid hacks and cynics of every type. Move over folks, it’s election time.

There is an interesting battle brewing in Santa Clara County that will decide the future of transit, transportation and, perhaps, a politician or two.  It revolves around the recent county effort to place a half-cent sales tax increase on the June ballot. It is intended to bail out the BART project; maybe “bail out” is incorrect—more appropriately we might say “save.”  But it is being strangely combined with other county projects as a tax to fund several items other than BART, like hospitals and housing for low-income people. You see, put in this form the measure needs only a bare majority vote to pass, while as a transit measure, it would take an unlikely two-thirds vote.

Yesterday, Single Gal gave her unvarnished look at the six who would be mayor, unfazed and unfettered by any personal knowledge or great familiarity with any of them. I am more encumbered—I know all of them and I like them all as people. Many of them have done good things on the council and in their public careers.  But this is not an election about who we like, though some make their choices in this manner.  It is about the type of city we wish to build for our children and grandchildren and want to live in ourselves. We need to decide who can best deliver this kind of city.

Well, here we go—the race for mayor is on. With the addition of David Pandori, the field is now at six. Or is it? 

I know art is often spoken of in phrases like “art for art’s sake,” but when I survey the status of public art in our city, I just scratch my head. I can’t fathom what we are doing.  We all know the sad and bizarre story of the statue of Captain Fallon raising the flag. My fingerprints are on that series of mistakes and I share blame. And the Aztec god in Chavez Plaza is, likewise, a well-known saga. But those are the past and we need to move on.