If our new mayor brings his efforts to bear on three areas of municipal government in the New Year—ethics, development and the budget, and our downtown—the citizens of our city will be very well served. 

It is a standard human impulse to see a brave new and optimistic world when a certain era is closing.  From the conclusion of a project, to the end of a school year, to a change in jobs, all are a time of reflection and satisfaction.  Much is leaving; much will abide.

Just like the man falling off the high rise and yelling at the 89th floor, “so far, so good,” I am happy to report that the Reed Transition is going very well.  The sky is the limit as far as the expectations of many on the multi-faceted committee representing the richness of our city.  From the Environment subcommittee with Judy Stabile and Janet Gray Hayes, to the Public Safety area with Jose Salcido of the Deputy Sheriffs’ Association and Bobby Lopez of the Police Officers’ Association, there is no shortage of ideas and energy. When the Education subcommittee gets the benefit of the county’s Superintendent, Colleen Wilcox, and also Jennifer Andeluz, the co-founder of Downtown College Prep, as well as Barbara Hansen of PACT, it’s a wonderful collision of concepts, spiced with practical knowledge.

Once again the familiar refrain is being heard about the type of city and downtown that we wish to have in San Jose.  There have been many opinions, studies and assumptions and all of them have eventually arrived at the conclusion that to have a community in the central city that is worthy of a real downtown, what is needed is a concentration of people, families and, ergo, a real set of neighborhoods.  It is simple and, so far in our time, elusive.

The elections are over and the nastiness is gone.  The problems of Washington and Sacramento now seem far away as hope is blossoming for a new mayor.  The sun is shining and it’s Christmastime in San Jose.

If you ever had the feeling that downtown San Jose was a dubious investment, you only have to take a quick trip into the central core of our city in the next few weeks to be disabused of that notion.  I would suggest to all a leisurely visit to Downtown Ice among the palms or a stroll through the amusement rides that dot the Chavez Plaza area.  You might also catch a movie at the Tech Museum’s IMAX Theater or in Camera 12; you can always get the compliments of the season at American Musical Theatre’s “Christmas Dreamland” and “The Nutcracker” at the CPA.  If none of those tickle your fancy, there is the reliable Rep’s performance of “A Christmas Story.” I always enjoy seeing the young kid stick his tongue to a frozen lamppost and then be deserted by his friends as they run back to class; it so reminds me of the relationship between mayor and council, except it’s colder at City Hall.

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. 

Yesterday, I attended what many are calling a seminal event in the history of sports and business.  At the headquarters of Cisco in north San Jose, most of the northern California media assembled with CEO, John Chambers, and the owner of the Oakland Athletics in the person of Lew Wolff.  Also present were Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and A’s General Manager Billy Beane of “Money Ball” fame.  It was a quartet that few reporters could resist.  They didn’t and the cast did not disappoint.

The writer John Reed once said, rather infamously, “I have seen the future and it works.”  Fortunately, he was not correct about his prediction.  In San Jose, though, I think we are able to say that the future now has a very good chance to work. I saw it last night.  The victory of Chuck Reed was a remarkable achievement against the forces of the Democratic establishment who had Bill Clinton in the van, a two to one edge in money, and everyone from the dog catcher to Kofi Annan in Chavez’s corner. Reed absorbed all the hits and kept going. 

There was a time when a small clique of special interest developers trying to buy the mayor’s office would elicit outrage and indignation.  Perhaps that time has passed because it is happening right now and nothing is being said about it.  In recent days, we have seen the few interests who own properties in the Coyote Valley make one of the most brazen attempts at a land grab since the Oklahoma land rush. They—billionaires, Republicans, and out-of-town companies and law firms—have poured donations in $25,000 increments and higher into the local Democratic Party political apparatus.  Some of these individuals still write in Herbert Hoover for President, so ardent are their conservative leanings, but here they stand shoulder to shoulder with the most aggressive proponents of a very ambitious labor agenda. It is obvious that this “unholy alliance” of greed and hubris is trying to buy the office of mayor.  If Cindy Chavez disagrees with such tactics, she has not shown it and her silence speaks very loudly.

Well, it looks like a clean sweep for Chuck Reed in his quest to become mayor of San Jose. Yesterday, the Mercury News endorsed Reed and commented that his back-to-basics emphasis and antipathy to insider politics will strengthen the city. No doubt. What was a bit surprising is their additional opinion of both Cindy Chavez and Reed “that either could be a good mayor.” 

A lead story in the Mercury News this week stated the obvious in its headline that pointed to the axiom that growth will be crucial in the San Jose mayor’s race.  That was fine, as far as it went, but not far enough in charting some of the nuances in this election.  It is more instructive in what it did not say. A few years ago, a race for the presidency was won by the simple rejoinder “it’s the economy stupid.” Well, here in San Jose, we can just as easily say, “it’s the General Plan dummy!” 

Once again, the ugly head of gambling is raised in San Jose politics. It has been seen before.  In the eighties, in the wake of destroyed families, ruined lives, and rising crime rates, a number of people were indicted and sent to jail. Grand jury investigations were the staple of the daily news. On every level it was a tragedy. A decade ago, the “win at any cost” leaders of the Democratic Party laundered money from the Bay 101 card club into a number of local races. Two years later, the State Fair Political Practices Commission found them guilty of a number of infractions, including late reporting. In other words, the leaders of the local Democratic Party did not want the voters to know who was funding these campaigns. Secrecy was their tactic and it worked then. They never seem to learn and they have seldom been called to task for these illegal and unethical actions. Now, it is happening again—big time!

This is the time of year when satirists rejoice, pundits celebrate and citizens head for their local vomitoriums.  It is the final weeks before election, the “silly season”—that most frightening time of year when the airways crackle with attack ads, mailboxes overflow with disturbing missives, editorial writers pontificate, and parents shield their children’s ears from such trash. On a few rare occasions, it descends into farce.

Mark Twain once said that when people start talking about religion, he always grabbed a firm hold on his wallet. So, too, it is with some discussions of “constitutionality.” I was very sorry to see that a federal judge threw out San Jose’s law concerning limits on independent expenditures. It can only mean more money and more sleaze in local campaigns. The Chamber of Commerce should feel more than a hint of shame at its disingenuous primary assault on Cindy Chavez and the subsequent censure by the Ethics Board, San Jose Mercury, just about every other politician running for office, and many of the Democratic establishment lemmings who are so fearful of Chuck Reed and any other independent voice that might crack their hold on power. Why didn’t the chamber just fall back on the truth and call it what it was? For the time being, the chamber avoided being indicted by the Hague War Crimes Tribunal. Of such small victories, are our municipal values formed.

One of the hallmarks of fair and responsible campaigns in our city has always been the limits on the amount of dollars that could be contributed to a candidate for mayor. Many times, the special interests and mendacious politicians (not always a given) tried to get the limits raised above the five hundred dollars per person cap and were consistently rebuffed. Raising campaign money should be hard. There should be no bundling or bag men in the guise of lobbyists doing the dirty work.  These forces tried it twenty years ago when I was mayor and more recently with little success; the limits held.

It is an axiom that some things that sound so very good can sometimes be so horribly bad. So it is with the current vision of our twenty-four–hour downtown; the result of the so-called “wonderful” activity of nightclubs and revelers often comes closer to a nightmare.  Someone attending an event at HP Pavilion and wanting to have a post game drink at the Tied House or a bowl of pasta at Original Joe’s, faces the equivalent of a trip from the UN Green Zone to the Baghdad airport. Few would have the temerity to attempt the short drive to either.  They just go home. The same goes for anyone getting off the freeway at Santa Clara Street on a weekend.  And those who live in our downtown, either in the new housing in the core or in the immediate neighborhoods, are unable to enjoy the peace and tranquility that we all need when we come home after a long day of work or play.  Cruisers, youth in full-party mode, and an annoying array of troublemakers from other cities are filling up our downtown in the late-night and early-morning hours.

What’s the solution?  Blame the police.