Something being proposed in Florida and Michigan for the Democratic primary selection is often utilized in golf where it’s called a “mulligan.” It is, indeed, a very human reaction and a plausible escape route. But beware the easy route—it’s full of peril. We have seldom seen it in San Jose politics before, but in the battle for “Little Saigon,” we may have another look at the concept of the “do-over” and the results may be anything but satisfactory.
Yesterday, the mayor and Councilwoman Madison Nguyen proposed to do the entire thing over again, and this time let the entire city in on the fun. The impetus for this was Councilman Forrest Williams who was recently seen on film intimating that he was “committed” to the “yes” vote prior to the meeting. Perhaps there was a Brown Act violation and perhaps not, but it created a huge problem. One thing it certainly shows is that Williams may be a tough enemy, but he is an even more dangerous friend. His latest statement, or series of misstatements, have unleashed a whirlwind.
It seems to be the equivalent of a monstrous overreaction to have the entire city vote on the naming of one strip of street on Story Rd. between Senter Rd. and 101. Perhaps it could be the beginning of the most democratic but most dysfunctional election leading to a non-representative and paralyzed system of government since the last Berkeley City Council meeting. It might lead to multiple elections for renaming streets, rezoning and art in public places.
I fear that a citywide election on “Little Saigon” will result in a backlash against Vietnamese Americans—one of the hardest working and most positive communities in the city—and a nasty, distracting campaign. The council should admit error in the original vote, but the proposed solution of an election contains risks that few are calculating. I am sympathetic to Councilwoman Nguyen who is in the center of the maelstrom, but this complication that looks like an exit is, in fact, a trap. It is the epitome of a needless battle and has the potential to be an annoying, debilitating, and possibly destructive second act.
Tom,
I think it’s appropriate for the entire San Jose populace to vote on this issue. After all, taxpayers citywide are on the hook for the costs of signage.
Moreover, I have difficulty in understanding why we should balkanize the City. Will the Little Saigon region be the first of many? Will we designate Story and King as Little Mexico? Or how about 101 and Santa Clara St. being designated as Little Portugal?
Mayor McEnery,
As stated in my earlier post, those of us in the knows have been aware of the Councilwoman Nguyen’s secretive actions on all important issues affecting the Vietnamese community from the time she was elected to Council. The main reason the community is upset has little to do with the naming issue and a lot to do with how she single-handedly engineered the votes and willing to lie factually to procure her supports. What’s even more heavy-handed was the stewardship of Mayor Reed whom we helped elected with the strength of our voting block based on his “honesty and open government” platform. Most of us protested loudly in our own ways to the “undemocratic” method where NO MEMBERS of our community was involved in the naming process, yet the Mayor and Councilmember Nguyen kept insulting us with “artificial” compromises and sway the public that the name and supports for Little Saigon was in the minority all the while telling the whole world that they have emails, phone calls, long lists of supports for the SaigonBusinessDistrict. When we protest that they both fabricate this majority support and asked where this support lists came from, the community is labeled by them in countless interviews as spoiled, bullies, and many other unsavory names.
Mayor Reed and Councilmember Nguyen’s press conference that conveniently pushed the issues to a November ballot measure is pure BS. In accordance with Mayor Reed’s Sunshine Reform, any malfeasance by any councilmember should be: investigated and if a violation took place, censure and removal is the punishment. The Sunshine Reform Task Force is committed to open, transparent government and the Brown’s Act are the major theme. YET THE PRESS CONFERENCE IS ALL ABOUT A DO-OVER AT A DISTANT TIME IN THE FUTURE (HOPING THE FUROR WILL DIE A QUIET DEATH) AND NO MENTION OF THE BROWN’S ACT VIOLATION BY COUNCILMEMBER NGUYEN (POSSIBLY OTHERS) THAT MAYOR REED SET OUT IN HIS REED REFORM TO CLEAN UP AT CITY HALL. WHY? BECAUSE HE PERSONALLY PARTICIPATED IN THIS BROWN’S ACT VIOLATION ALONG WITH NGUYEN WITH HIS STRONG ARM TACTIC FOR HIM AND NGUYEN TO SHOW UP THE VIETNAMESE COMMUNITY OF WHO’S IN CHARGE.
BROWN’S ACT – THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY OF PRIVATE SERIAL COMMUNICATION AMONG COUNCILMEMBERS THAT AFFECT THE VOTE SHOULD BE HIGHLY DISCOURAGED AND AVOIDED.
What we’ve said all along is that the only members that is knowledgeable on the name voting affecting our community is the eight City Council members that converse among themselves and choose to keep this a secret to the rest of us. Where is the open and transparency in this vote? Why did the Mayor and Nguyen kept us in the dark until 4 days before the votes to hold a press conference wherein they announced that, collectively, the 5 of them, Chirco, Cortese, Liccardo, Nguyen and Reed has struck up a compromise and it is SaigonBusinessDistrict. Then they went on TV and told the mainstream they have converse with many members of the Vietnamese community and this SaigonBusinessDistrict is the name everyone supports from the massive emails, phonecalls and letters they held in their office with LittleSaigon being in the minority. With Forrest Williams’ admission, this reaffirmed our fears that the votes were “TAINTED” and decided in private way before November 20th and all this is done under Mayor Reed’s SUNSHINE GOVERNMENT watch.
What’s troubling is the grandstanding by Mayor Reed and Nguyen on this naming issue. There weren’t any talk of a “mulligan” the last 3 months. Vice-Mayor Cortese tried to talk some sense to both of them about the true spirit of a compromise in December since these “Vietnamese”, most were and still are their friends, supported all of them and the City of San Jose and were shining example on the diversity and progress in all their previous speeches. Why turn them away and treat them like second class citizens? Their responses? We’re right, they’re the minority, the issue’s voted on, it’s over with, let’s move on. Digging heels in the sand mentality. Conveniently, when their own member, Williams, accidentally exposed them to a Brown’s Act violation, we have them acting contrite and humanitarian. Politics at its best I would say. If this is NORCAL and GRAND PRIX, shouldn’t an investigation ensue? Shouldn’t members of the public revisit how they arrive at their votes? Shouldn’t we be entitled to find out who talked to whom, what was discussed, what letters, emails and lobbying took place? Shouldn’t councilmember calendars be disclosed to see which members of the Vietnamese community they talk to other than their money supporters to garner the supports for Saigon Business District.
By pushing for a Citywide ballot, Mayor Reed and Nguyen decided to “screw’ the Vietnamese community once again. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Since there’s not enough Englishwriting or eloquent speakers to voice our opinions to the mainstream, both of them are using political tactics instead of owning up to their malfeasance. They know for sure that they can sway public opinion between now and November 2008 away from their Brown’sAct violation and towards negative feelings against the community by the mainstream by: (1) The Vietnamese community’s diverting $350,000 of much needed City budget toward unnecessary ballot measure. (2) If we protest this ballot decision, they will label us as “undemocratic” and “bullies” (3) City wide instead of District 7 where this issue belongs would surely defeat the ballot giving them the victory and accolade they are hoping to get (4) they know the votes for this Presidential election is large with Latinos and whites voting heavily. If they can stir up enough acrimonies between those communities using “racial overtones”, surely, the votes will swing their way.
Continued
continued from previous post..
Another bullsh*t compromise!
Why do they continue to ignore surveys after survey and the people’s voice to demonstrate their “strength”. Let’s take the whole vote off the table, don’t even revote for the name. Just vote for a banner since it’s already in the works and let the RDA works with the community to reflect the wants of the community in terms of artwork, designs, logo, flag and NAME. After all, aren’t we the ones that are affected by the banner since we are mostly the ones that shop and do business in that district?
Reed Reforms 2 and 3 called for expanding the oath of office to include pledges to follow the city charter, put “service above self” and promise “no lying, no cheating, no stealing.”
No lying. No explanation needed
No cheating. A Brown’s Act violator is a cheater of a public vote and public confidence.
No stealing. The Public Trust is the golden rod that was stolen on November 20th, 2007
I had to chuckle when I read yesterday’s Merc’s editorial endorsement of the citywide vote plan as pure democracy. They so seldom endorse actual democracy that it was a rare event. I wonder why I don’t think they were sincere in their pro-democratic effusions?
It’ll be interesting to see how Jack Van Zandt discusses this issue. He was, as you may recall, just outraged over a small elementary school district not being able to fill a board vacancy by coin toss. The establishment of this city lurches from overdoing things (Tom is right about this election proposal being an overreaction, especially the citywide part) to underdoing things (winking at political selections by coin tosses).
#2 above is right, let the residents and businesses of the proposed district have an election to settle this matter.
But there’s more. As far as I can determine, this “compromise” was merely an agreement between Chuck & Madison. The stakeholders who are already upset at being excluded from the naming process now have an invitation to to be doubly upset at being frozen out of the “compromise” development. Doesn’t it take all parties to cooperate?
By the way, there is a self-congratulatory city establishment that dominates elections and petition drives, but it gets no coverage in the Merc because top Merc brass are in the group. For a list, go here:
http://www.alfsv.org/
It doesn’t take long to see the membershp name of Rob Elder, former editorial page editor of the Merc, and the name of Steve Wright, current editorial page editor of the Merc (until his new job comes through with United Way).
These self-described leaders haven’t learned to listen to the new communities in San Jose and while, presumably, they want to see everyone assimilated into the mainstream, the only way they can imagine to do it is by beating recalcitrant groups and persons with a stick. Good luck with that.
So far our establishment has done its best to alienate the majority of Vietnamese-Americans by creating this lash-up. This will have an effect on electoral politics in San Jose for the next generation, and a citywide election will not help. It can only hurt all parties. The “compromise” is just a tricksey way to outmaneuver a citizen movement.
What Forrest Williams did was tremendously courageous. Personally, I feel Forrest Williams has enriched, enlightened and elevated all San Joseans. Without his leadership and guidance I doubt very much that Cisco, Ebay and Adobe would have their world headquarters in San Jose. Someone of Forrest Williams’ caliber should run for President or at the very least Governor.
Tom –
I have to agree with you. This issue is a DISTRICT 7 Issue. As “Small Business Owner” in Post #2 points out, it is technically an issue for the businesses in that area, and if you follow Council policy, for the residents within 1000 feet of it. That is the way the City of San Jose has always dealt with issues like this, whether it is a affordable housing project, a new commercial or industrial building people are concerned about, or a Business District, the residents within 500 – 1000 feet, as well as any neighborhood associations in the area, are the ones notified and involved in the solution. The process for this should be no different.
If you have to put it to an election, let the residents who are most affected by this – the residents of District 7 – decide. It is their problem, it should be their solution. Our tax dollars should not be wasted on a citywide election.
Our children are shooting each other, (we’re all subjected to being hit by stray bullets) and our elected officials propose funds and resources appeasing the maniacal Do brothers regarding the name of a street.
It is much more important to focus and devote our efforts, energies and funds on dealing with the growing gang violence crisis in District 7 and elsewhere in San José.
It is best for our community that the business district proposal to be withdrawn and reconsidered, from square one.
If given the opportunity, I will vote NO on “Little Saigon” and indeed it will be my input on the despicable 3rd world political tactics employed by Little Saigon supporters.
It would be nice if a level-headed explanation of why “Little Saigon” is so important to this group was provided to the public. The arguments for “Little Saigon” I’ve heard or read thus far don’t make any sense at all and are very weak.
The Council blew it (what else is new) by not at least compromising back in November and voting for the name “Little Saigon Business District.” This suggestion has appeared time and again on this blog and in print since the November vote and would be a quick and easy solution. The noisy group gets the word “little” and the Council still gets “business district” so it’s a win/win. If the “Little Saigon” supporters reject that, then they are hopeless.
Also, listening briefly to KLIV yesterday, they ran a poll on whether or not this issue should be put on the ballot and wouldn’t you know, the results were 100% in favor. There is no question in my mind that the polls taken prior to the Council vote were similarly skewed.
I wonder who the “Little Saigon” supporters will go after when their name of choice gets voted down in November. Unfortunately, I think the lesson that exercising civility in their behavior at Council meetings and in protesting decisions is still going to be lost on this fanatically uncompromising group.
I’m with you Tom, this will just incite some of our worst impulses. Madison violated one of the most elementary precepts of politics. She refused to dance with the ones who brung her. Regardless of what happens, she will never get past this and she might as well start planning for her post-political life. The best she could do right now is reverse course and encourage the council to change the name of the district to “Little Saigon”, thus stopping the conflict and avoiding a divisive election.
Tom—You are absolutely right.
How can Reed and Nguyen propose the city to spend $214,000 to determine whether we should spend $100,000 for the banner for the place? I hope this is not Reed’s idea of “fiscal responsibility”?
Nguyen has been caught with her hand on the cookie jar. She broke the law—Brown Act and essentially violate the tenet of open government. She then lied about it to the Mercury News. She is tained. She now wants to introduce a ballot after she just broke the law on the same issue?
Sorry, but this is ridiculous!
No wonder the Veitnamese people want to recall her. Even I am beginning to see their point of view.
i couldn’t agree with you more tom…i think the behavior of the city council is an embarrassment to the citizens who elected them..meanwhile, the parks are a mess, libraries are closing, streets have potholes and santana row is overflowing.
who cares if they want to call the strip ‘little saigon’…a name of a city that exists only in their memories…why they wouldn’t want to call it ‘little vietnam’ is beyond most of us. and no we are NOT Commies!
a citywide vote is truly a waste of time and money and shows the lack of leadership on the council.
signed,
dismayed citizen of san jose
I read on the Mercury News about the proposed language for the ballot. Why do we only have 1 option? Why isn’t that option the name that Nguyen and Reed voted for last time?
Hmm…sorry, but this sounds like a scam. I wonder what the real deal is? I think Reed and Nguyen want to propose something that would fail but pin that on the Vietnamese American community.
Slick, but sorry, we San Joseans are not that stupid.
#3
From what I understand the neighborhood at 101 & Santa Clara is already called little Portugal and referred to as such on the city’s website.
#3
Will we designate Story and King as Little Mexico?
But that is directly adjacent to “Little Saigon”. Obviously, this would lead to warfare as borders will inevitably be crossed. The gang fights between Nortenos and Sorenos will pale as those two gangs combine to fight the Vietnamese gangs over “their” turf.
The trend towards the Balkanization of San Jose must stop. It benefits no one, and is directly contradictory towards San Jose’s ideal of being a diverse, yet inclusive, city.
It is time for San Jose to start working on common themes and goals, while letting individuals and businesses honor whomever, or whatever, they please.
“Or how about 101 and Santa Clara St. being designated as Little Portugal?”
???
It’s already been called Little Portugal for at least twenty-five years now. Obviously you never go over there. Also, nobody needed to go through all this nonsense to have it designated with that name. Or did they? I don’t remember…
Tom, I have to disagree with your post today. If these individuals are able to sway a Council vote when will it be used again? Why only mention Williams? We already know that he’s not the smartest of the bunch. What about the Vice-Mayor who now claims that he was deceived on the issue. Does this guy do any homework or does he just sit on his hands and try to look intelligent. Oh, I just remembered that he’s running for office in the next election. I’m sure his change of heart had nothing to do with trying to get the Vietnamese vote. As a resident of district seven I believe that I should have a vote on the issue. If you want to make it city wide that’s also O.K. with me. Wasn’t Barry Do’s brother the individual behind trying to name the Tully Library the “Saigon/Tully Library”? It seems that there’s more to this than were being told.
It’s all Terry Gregory’s fault.
Why can’t folks in D7 elect somebody who doesn’t wind up creating controversy?
Re: Rants #4 and #5, Hung, would you PLEASE provide those of us who are not Vietnamese with an equally thorough explanation of why the name “Little Saigon” is the only option? In the process, please spare us the whole Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City scenario. We are very much aware of that name change. What I want to know is why “Little Saigon” is so much different from just plain “Saigon.” Both honor the existence of a Vietnamese capital. WHERE is the problem??????
There’s no redbaiting here. Madison made that up. She’s a liar and she has been caught!
Now she is trying to trap the Vietnamese American community. I hope they don’t fall for it.
You say it correctly, Tom!
Let’s name it Little Ho Chi Minh
Red rocks!
Can the burning of that Wal-Mart also go on the ballot? I don’t think Saigon had any of those, nor does Ho Chi Minh City have them now.
Mark, #20:
Some feel that the real roots of this issue are Bryan and Barry Do, two political gadflys that desperately want to be “somebody” in SJ politics, with little or no real sincere passion for the name of the business district. Bryan led a brief rant a few years ago to name the Tully Community Library “Saigon”, which was crushed with overwhelming opposition by the D7 community.
This time around, the voice of the primarily Hispanic Santee / Kennedy / Fair communities have clearly not been represented at all, which is a silent tragedy yet to be addressed by anyone.
I’m pleased to report that plans are being drawn up to designate a small shopping center in West San Jose as, “Little London!” I’ll keep you all posted!
Pete Campbell
p.s. The Irish will NOT be welcome to shop there!
#25 – Pete Campbell –
That was rude, and mean.
Why do we lower ourselves to these and other kinds of rude, mean-spirited comments when something like this happens? Why, instead of venting our frustration and anger to the issue, do we focus on individuals, communities, and other cultures? I know this issue is making a lot of people angry and frustrated, on ALL sides, but lets try to keep the personal attacks out of it.
#24, Thank you. This definitely stinks like somebody’s own agenda. If anyone needs to be suppressed and rejected by the Vietnamese community it’s the Do Do’s, not Madison. Leave the subversive activity back in Vietnam, Barry & Bryan.
Reed called their bluff and they blinked.
It’s ironic that the so-called San Jose Voters For Democracy oppose a city-wide vote on this issue.
Why? They probably realize that there is little city-wide support for this issue. They also must realize that their red-bating tactics (sorry #21, it’s very well established) and city hall protests have turned a lot of people off.
At this point a vote of all the people in San Jose is the only fair way to settle this dispute.
Didn’t Bryan Do try to run for Council in District three and doesn’t Brian live in district eight which would explain the change of heart of the vice-mayor. It seems like the Vietnamese Community needs to put these two individuals out to pasture. Their tactics are working against the good reputation of the Vietnamese community. Let district seven voters decide the issue. I assume Brian doesn’t like that option either since he changed his position after Cortese suggested that the Council re-vote on the issue instead.
The proposed business area to be named on Story Road is adjacent to the District 5 border, so, if the election is limited to individual districts then the minimum districts voting should be 5 and 7.
However, others have questioned the wisdom of having separate districts with mini-mayors, since, after all, events in one area do have an impact, even if the impact is minor, on other areas. In this case, all districts should vote on this issue.
#26-
Rude? Mean?
Come on Jean. He was kidding.
That was an example of hyperbole, a tried and true literary technique used to illustrate a point.
It is not meant to be taken literally.
(Remember that, Limbaugh & Coulter bashers!)
Regarding Jean and John Galt’s comments about being “mean and rude,” they are both right. It is kidding…in a mean and rude way.
Seems like too many people that post things “anonymously” think they have license to be rude and mean. It is definitely an interesting phenomena of the internet that for the most part is not part of face to face exchanges (acceptable human interactions/behaviors are traits that some scientist say have an evolutionary basis…). And I could go on, but it is just preaching to the choir for those that want an intelligent, mature discourse, and yes I would even add considerate. And for the others…well expect more real clever hyperbole.
Looks to me like Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed are changing the rules of the game and using the idea of a ballot measure to get back at the supporters of ‘little saigon’.
The previous decision by the council was what to name the area. The area was going to be named, and the only question was which name was going to be used, whether it was ‘saigon business district’ or ‘little saigon’.
Based on their proposal for the ballot, the question they want to the voters to answer will be whether or not to name the area ‘little saigon’. Not what to name the area but whether the area should be named ‘little saigon’. That’s a big difference. If Nguyen and Reed are going to be fair, then the question for the voter should be what to name the area and give the voters the same choices as the council had.
Personally, I don’t think the city should be involved in wasting tax dollars to name an area.
Also, who really supports naming an area ‘saigon business district’. Sounds like madison nguyen had a hidden agenda because I don’t believe any resident would support this ridiculous name. This ballot box proposal is just a way to kill off the ‘little saigon’ name and deflect the blame away from her for totally mishandling this issue. Reed and Nguyen should just forget about this ballot box idea and not bother naming this area at all.
Rest in peace downtown……
Federal Realty Investment Trust announced plans today to build a five-story office/retail project at Santana Row on land originally intended for another hotel.
Dawn Becker, head of Federal’s West Coast operations, said the company decided to take advantage of what it sees as strong growth in Silicon Valley’s office sector. Another goal is to bring customers to the 42-acre shopping/residential development that opened in 2002.
“What we really like about the office project is that it will bring daytime traffic to Santana Row,” Becker said. “From 9 to 5 is not the busiest time, so that’s really attractive for us.”
Federal plans to start construction on the $42 million glass-and-steel project in April and finish by the end of 2009. The one-acre site currently serves as a parking lot.
The five-story building will consist of 60,000 square feet of office space built above 15,000 square feet of ground floor retail. To handle some of the parking needs, a 91-space parking garage will be built, and Becker said other options are being explored. Federal would “love to find a tenant to take entire” building, but is willing to lease the building floor by floor.
“We originally thought it would be a great location for a second hotel,” Becker said, but Federal decided against such a project because it would compete with the 213-room Hotel Valencia, which opened at Santana Row in 2003. Preliminary discussions with the city and neighbors have revealed no significant
————————————————————————————————————————
Advertisement
————————————————————————————————————————
obstacles to the project, she said.
“The biggest issue is to get the building up with the least disruption,” Becker said. “And, of course, we always worry about getting the right retail mix.”
The project will be built to environmental standards outlined by Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design.
Federal Realty’s portfolio contains more than 18 million square feet of mostly retail projects located primarily in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and California.
I’ve got to disagree with you today Tom.
The Little Saigon controversy has evolved into a city-wide issue. Therefore a city-wide vote is not unreasonable.
Barry Do has been saying he wants “democracy” on this issue, now he has it in the purest form.
If there is any of the “backlash” that you worry about it will likely be aimed at Do’s red-baiting shout-them-down tactics that have no place in San Jose politics. In that sense the election will be as much a referendum on third world politics as it is on the name of the Saigon Business District.
If Do has all of the support he claims, it will be a slam dunk. If not…well what’s the old saying “Watch out what you wish for, you just might get it?”
If its a business district. Why not let the business owners vote on a name for it?
They are the poeple risking thier money and resources, employing poeple, buying goods from other companies and basically providing services to the community.
Why not let the businesses decide the name. Why should a populus or politition withing nothing risked in the game decide the name!
Did the community around Santana Row pick the name?
If they want Little Siagon, lettem have it. Don’t trust it to a bunch of bozo citizens or even dumber politicians.
Just to expand on Greg Howe’s point: I do not know if the Little Saigon supporters are doing this already, but it appears the only group that has benefited so far is the company that did the survey (at taxpayer expense) that was ignored by City Council.
To that end, Little Saigon supporters should find out
* who the survey company was and who’s on their board of directors
* how much money (if any) any of the board members have given to Reed and/or Nguyen in exchange for use of the survey company’s “services” which were later deemed a liability by City Council.
Nowadays special interest groups give money to a politician’s legal defense fund or favorite charity:
http://tinyurl.com/22pv5q
making it more difficult to follow the $$$ to see who’s really controlling our elected officials. Substitute the State Legislature for City Hall in that excellent story to see my point.
Good luck.
Am I the only one who thinks this whole dustup is fitting? Don’t any of you realize how much this race-obsessed, diversity-embracing, horse’s ass of a town deserves this? Vietnamese community? What is that, anyway? Is it a separate township or village? Is it a group of citizens treated, or entitled to be treated, different from everyone else?
You say no? Then what is it? It obviously isn’t a community that marches in lockstep politically, as this Little Saigon affair has demonstrated. It also isn’t a community that stands united behind Madison Nguyen, the council member whose election was touted as “historical”—a big step for the Vietnamese community. Big step? Into a big hole.
It seems to me that the Vietnamese community, and what is in its best interests, is dependent as much upon who is doing the talking as it is with any other collection of people grouped together for convenience or political purposes. It is, as are all the other so-called communities, a collection of many voices. That they are all Vietnamese is no more meaningful than if they were all Elks or Libertarians. If some local Vietnamese-Americans want to organize themselves as a business, veterans, cultural, or political group, only then will there emerge a true spokesperson or representative for a particular group—but not for an entire people. All Vietnamese-Americans have a right to assemble for the cause that moves them, but none of them, not even one elected to office, has the right to speak for the community, or to be interpreted as doing so by the government.
How absurd do things have to get? In the current mess, the interests of the local Vietnamese “community” are being championed by a large number of Vietnamese non-residents, people whose intentions and allegiances cannot be known. How can a shared self-interest be ensured in policy making when our city leaders rely on nothing more than race or ethnicity to define local communities?
Chuck Reed, Dave Cortese: could you two favor us one more time by donning those colorful, traditional Vietnamese costumes? Or do you only wear those for politicking? How about sporting sombreros or yarmulkes or lederhosen? How will you dress when courting the gay community? Wait—we don’t want to know. You guys campaigned like pandering idiots, and have now done your part to turn the council into the Cirque du Stupide.
Talk about transparent government, here we get to see not only the council with its members exposed, but watch them being tripped over. Hell, now with our very own Vietnamese-American on the council, we don’t even have to wait for a foreign controversy or local police tragedy to have a ruckus raised. This council can brew ‘em up on its own.
This Little Saigon calamity has been brought to you by Race Politics, paid for in full by largely innocent taxpayers. But who wanted it? And who is benefitting? Are we going to continue surrendering our civic dignity to serve local charlatans who peddle guilt, twist arms, and tell lies? Are we to stand by helplessly as each new “community” plays it card and “wins” its booty, to the benefit of a few select members and the detriment of the entire city? Don’t you want it to stop? The timing is right, the solution could not be more apparent: change the rules so that in all matters of government, city employees and elected officials will be authorized to recognize just one community, the San Jose community.
Greg Howe is onto something. Any self described business district of reasonable size should be allowed to choose their own name, and pay to put up signs for it. A whole lot cheaper than a $214,000 citywide election.
Let the city council go back to worrying about potholes, trash pickup, and unfunded liabilities.
I don’t agree that Nguyen is the worst representative D7 has ever had; that title will likely be held by Mr. Gregory for some time to come but it does appear that Madison has has exercised a lot of arrogance in pursuing this whole thing. It’s almost like she had some kind of agenda and refused to recognize the amount of perceived support that “Little Saigon” had prior to the November vote. I say “perceived” because it’s clear that the survey results are all skewed. The Little Saigon supporters are all over any online, newspaper or TV surveys to make sure the results always favor their name of choice. The squeaky wheel gets the grease while the three others—the silent majority—go about their business un-noticed.
If the LS supporters had been more respectful of the Council back in November I would likely be in their corner, but I cannot support their behavior. They made a mockery of the process and created their own circus in the Council chambers. My take on this is that those who favor SBD really are not so passionate about what name this stretch takes as are the LS supporters. Again, the silent majority is suppressed by a noisy and angry minority. How is that a democratic process?
The Council needs to step out of the entire business district scene. We have banners on lightposts in other parts of town that just sort of showed up, as in Japantown (never has there been a bit of noise about calling it “Little Tokyo”) and along The Alameda, to cite a couple of examples. If these people want “Little Saigon” so badly, let them cough up the money for their own banners. The bottom line is that the overwhleming majority who may end up voting on this issue don’t give a rat’s ass what it’s called. But it’s absolutely idiotic to put this to a city-wide vote, even if it didn’t cost a dime to do it. The Council collectively needs to grow a spine and make a decision. If this all blows up for Madison and she doesn’t get re-elected, it’s all her fault. She clearly angered a lot more people by pushing SBD than she would have if she had just advised her colleagues to go along with the survey results, skewed or not.
I want Leigh Avenue, Meridian Avenue, Foxworthy Avenue and miles of other streets I regularly travel to once again possess the attributes of a paved road, not a washboard. The idea of over $200K being spent on such an absurd issue as placing a special name on one of the tackiest sections of town demonstrates the complete and absolute impotence of the current Council body. This is 100% BS and the Council has more important things to be tending to, in particular how to SAVE money, not WASTE more of it on somethig as stupid as this.
This just keeps getting better. Now our friends in Labor are proposing a “solution” that will only cost us $500,000+. As if the Reed/Nguyen proposal was not expensive and ridiculous enough, Labor pops up with an even sillier idea that will cost more than twice as much.
How is it possible for our “leadership” to so badly bungle an issue that they should never have gotten involved with in the first place?
Simply rescind the vote and leave it at that. Won’t cost a penny, only a divided community and shattered reputations—and we’re gonna get that no matter what. At least it won’t cost us $500,000.
For anyone who saw the Rules Committee yesterday, the City Clerk said that to put this issue on the Ballot for June could cost as much as $500,000-600,000! To put it on the Ballot! Are we seriously going to spend that kind of money – money that could fix potholes, repair community centers, or hire police officers? Are we going to waste that money on an election for a NAME of a business district?
Seriously, this is getting too convoluted. I like Greg Howe’s idea – let the businesses decide what name they want.
#31 – Thank you for clarifying. It seems like there are alot of mean-spirited comments that are posted on this blog. I understand spirited debates/conversations on the issue, but many times, posters on here will post personal attacks against individuals or communities, and it gets tiring.
#40. Unfortunately “Name it what the people want and be done with it” does not seem to be a workable option.
There is no consensus within the deeply divided Vietnamese community on the naming issue.
There’s also a question of which “people” should vote. Just the Vietnamese? That would be illegal. Just District 7? Now that this has become a city-wide issue that probably won’t work either.
Then there are the businesses in the area that are not Vietnamese owned such as Walmart and KLIV, two of the largest property owners in the area. Should they be included? What about their employees who work in the proposed district, do they get a vote? All of these people are stakeholders in the issue, but many live outside D7.
I think the only fair solution to this mess is to hold city-wide election that includes a range of options including “Don’t name it anything.” If that option wins (and I’ll bet it will) the Little Saigon faction would still be unhappy, but they couldn’t say they didn’t get “democracy.”
So, what is Labor doing getting involved in this mess? They came in with some of the leaders for the Vietnamese group, suggesting a citywide election, with several choices for a name, instead of one. Looks like Chuck walked into that one!
I personally don’t think a city wide, or D7 election on this is the answer. I carefully read all three memos, and I think Council Members Constant, and Chu has the right approach. The hurt, division, and pain this issue is causing not only the Vietnamese community, but our Council members has got to stop.
I attended the Rules Committee Meeting yesterday. It was packed with people from Northern California, Orange County, and groups and businesses I never even heard of, who are NOT residents of San Jose. I can tell you honestly that I nearly fell off my chair when I saw the Labor leader stand up and claim to have the answer, and agreed to steward only TWO divided fractions of the Vietnamese community, as though they were the ultimate power brokers and spokes persons for the entire community in the city of San Jose! Her brilliant idea of putting it on the June ballot at the ESTIMATED cost of almost 600 K just stunned me! Do you know how many Police Officers we could hire for that? Do you know we could fix our pools for that?
I’ve got to tell you, there are so many different people with so many different agendas taking advantage of these poor, trusting Vietnamese people, it just sickens me. I don’t care if these Vietnamese people are pro or con Madison, or pro or con the Little Saigon name; the vultures have flown in and are feasting on this like a freshly dropped animal in the middle of the desert. This whole situation can lead to nothing but more pain, hurt, hatred, and division. I pray that Mayor Reed will see the light and stop this now before things really get out of hand.
I feel very helpless watching this play out because each time I think there might be a peaceful solution coming forth, another greedy vulture swoops in. My only solace in this whole feeding frenzy is knowing that Karma always has the last word on people who feed off the innocence of others, for their own ego, or personal gain.
This whole idea is absurd. IT IS JUST A NAME. If the business’ want that name, then they will put it in their signs (i.e. Little Saigon Noodle house, Lil’ Saigon Coffee Shop) If this cash strapped city has to shell out $214k for a preposterous election, I will be happy to vote “NO” on Little Saigon.
If the name change fails to pass. Guess what? It will still be called “Little Saigon”. If the people want “Little Saigon” then who is to stop them. It will become “Little Saigon”. Heck, I’ll call it “Little Saigon” from now on if I just don’t have to hear or read about it again. Geez.
Please don’t waist the city’s money just to prove me right.
Another waste of taxpayers money. Election costs are not a bargain these days. You run for Council knowing that you have to make big decisions. Some that are easier than others and obviously some that are more difficult.
I can’t believe that this group of politicos can’t bite the bullet and make a decision such as the renaming of a small populated area.
This could really be opening a can of worms as far as when you can’t pull your own weight you just throw the decision-making on your constituents.
Come on Councilmembers – be big boys and girls!
Carol Butler
Greg Perry is right. The city council should be concern by potholes, trash pickup and unfunded liabilities instead of some silly naming.
Name it what the people want and be done with it.
Nguyen is not too bright but why would Reed wants us to spend tax dollars on an election for some business district? We have half-a-dozen business districts already. We never voted on any of them. I hope we never have to vote on any.
This is plain stupidity.
Absolutely agree with Tom and Hung Bui. This is so stupid.
Why should the Vietnamese American community want to have an election on the vote? They should focus on recalling Madison Nguyen. She is the worst councilmember my district ever had. This is saying alot given we did have Terry Gregory!
I can’t wait until the Vietnamese American community decide to recall this stupid woman. Please do it. Do it for all of us.
My family and I may not be Vietnamese and we don’t care what name they want to call the business district. We just want to get rid of the most arrogant councilmember we ever have to deal with.
Now, it seems that she also broke the law.
#51 Kathleen:
I am glad that you recognited many groups are taking advantage of the Vietnamese community for their own agendas. I also felt helpless with the attacks and accusations bombarded from many different directions toward us. You can find these attacks and accusations in the Merc articles comment blogs. We were called with all kind of indecent names from the American public and pro-Madison. By now everybody could see that the decision to vote on Saigon Business District was an undemocratic decision and the Vietnamese community was right to protest every Tuesday. This quiet protest is excercising our freedom of speech and to stand up against suppresion in a non-violent way and there is not thing wrong with it. If the City sincerely would like to honor our contributions then the public opinion RDA survey was enough to recognite the name Little Saigon is the right name to represent us. Now to get away from being caught violating the Brown Act Madison rescinded the vote and created another nightmare not only for the Vietnamese community but the whole city of San Jose. More hatred and racial devisiveness with a public fund abused on a non-issue for the benefit of who? obviously not the Vietnamese community, not the residents of the city, not the harmony of our city and not our tight budget. It ‘s just the agenda of Madison to tarnish the reputation of the Vietnamese community in the American public eyes and to kill the name Little Saigon for good with the expense of our pubilc fund and the American naivety to go along with her. As things just keep turning and become more complicated I feel helpless too because I see clearly that we are a true victim along the way and unable to save ourselves.
Tom: Thanks for bringing this subject up.
I have never seen anything but civlity by the Little Saigon supporters. Like most Vietnamese Americans I know.
Drove by cityhall last Tuesday and watch them. A bit quiet for a protest.
Don’t know why Madison Nguyen told me that they are a bunch of bullies. Gosh, they are mostly senior and middle-aged people. Who can they really bullied? More senior citizens?
Next time I will stop by and talk to them.
#51 Kathleen,
This whole thing is out of control. The Vietnanmese people must have a chamber of commerce and this money should be sent to their chamber to decide what the name should be.
Simply put, the Mayor and City Council should get out of the middle of this issue.
Rumor has it that the opposition has already raised $100,000. to fight the issue. How much was this City of S.J. check made out for compared to the $100 thousand or $600 thousand expense. This is a gift from the City to these people, let them fight it out and get the City of S.J. out of the middle.
I don’t live in that neighborhood and I’m not Vietnamese. I don’t really care what they call it. If people want to call some area Little Portugal or Little Saigon it’s fine with me as long as it doesn’t waste tax dollars. If the merchants are willing to finance their own signs then they can call it whatever they like.
If there was some historical context I would be OK with spending a few tax dollars on it, but that is not the case here, and we have plenty of other needs.
I still haven’t figured out why it’s such an issue. There are people who are very much for it. Who is against it?
There are Little Saigons in other places, just like there are Chinatowns in SF, NY, Toronto and other places around the world.
I find it hard to believe that the current government of Vietnam is going to care what some city on the other side of the Pacific is going to call their shopping districts. If they want to do business, they will go where the opportunities are. I don’t think they would care much about expatriates creating business names, pro-Communist or anti-Communist.
If Greg Perry (38) is right and it’s going to cost us $214,000, then I agree with him that there are many other uses for that money which would be much more beneficial.
Democracy is a great concept, but I don’t want to be taxed in order to have to vote on what kind of dog food the mayor should give his dog.
600k for a ballot measure, even more for sign changes. Just let the business and property owners name it. Little portugal was named by the business and property owners in the area.
why can’t these businesses and developers name thier own area?
San Jose Voters For Democracy
P.O. Box: 0, San Jose, CA 95151– 0015
Phones: (408) 786-5875 & (408) 608-5632
PRESS RELEASE
San Jose, February 14th, 2008
To: Public Media (Television Networks, Newspapers, Radio Stations, and Magazines)
The Vietnamese-American community in San Jose welcomes any democratic and lawful proposals that may bring the harmony and good relationship back with the Mayor and Council members since the naming “Little Saigon” issue had started after the infamous decision of City Council on November 20th, 2007.
However, after careful considerations and reviews of the city-wide ballot proposal by the Mayor and council member Nguyen, it appears that the proposal will create a significant financial hardship to the City of San Jose and does not address the central issue of the cultural impact of the name to the Vietnamese American community in District 7. To conduct a city-wide ballot on a localized issue, with cultural significance only to the Vietnamese American community and at an expected City’s expense between $300,000 to $600,000 from taxpayers, during the recently announced budget deficit and financial hardship is fiscally irresponsible.
The proposals from Vice Mayor Dave Cortese and council members, Kansen Chu and Pete Constant appear to provide a viable solution to this extremely sensitive and cultural issue, while being respectful of the City’s financial constraints. In addition, the matter will be addressed and potentially resolved much sooner instead of lingering until June or November. By resolving this issue at an earlier date, both sides will be able to move on and hopefully work cooperatively on future issues.
While the City Attorney Rick Doyle has indicated “it was unclear whether a Brown Act violation occurred, the perception is there, and we need to make sure it is cleared up.” The fact that the City Attorney cannot unequivocally said “There is no Brown Act violation by council member Nguyen” says volumes to the way she gathered votes for the issue prior to the public meeting. The Council must take it upon itself to restore the integrity, democratic process, and to address the perception of the Brown Act violation publicly. Without addressing this issue and a public reprimand to said council member, this type of conduct will continue and will be viewed as acceptable by the same council member.
The expressions of individual members from our organization at the Rules and Open Committee meeting on February 13, 2008 is not the official policy of the San Jose Voters For Democracy.
We strive for a speedy and win-win resolution to this conflict in order to bring back the good relationship between the City and the Vietnamese community and to restore the honor, integrity, and transparency government that was the central theme of Mayor Chuck Reed’s election campaign and has been adopted since he came into his office.
Barry Hung Do
Spokesperson
#53 Julie: I am also saddened by the racist remarks the Merc is printing on it’s blog pages. Like so much of the Merc’s “coverage” of this issue I find their lack of editorial judgment and the biased coverage to be a disservice to the community. A blog site operated by a city’s major newspaper newspaper should not be an anything-goes cesspool for racists.
As for the rest of your post-
You have summed up, in 12 words, the illogic of the Little Saigon supporters when you write: “the decision to vote on Saigon Business District was an undemocratic decision”. A vote is undemocratic?
Let’s be honest. Your objection to a city-wide election has nothing to do with your interpretation of democracy. You are fairly sure your side will lose, and you’re probably right. But that’s how it is in a Democracy. You win some, you lose some.
You also don’t help your position when you present untrue statements such as: “Now to get away from being caught violating the Brown Act Madison rescinded the vote…”
You know darn well the City Attorney exonerated Nguyen and Williams at yesterday’s meeting.
Your side probably will not accept the attorney’s decision, and you don’t see any as democratic unless it’s stacked so only Little Saigon can win. For your side there seems to be only one acceptable outcome: name the district Little Saigon. Period. Compromise does not seem to be possible. If anyone disagrees your side attacks their integrity as you do in your comments about Madison Nguyen. It’s really getting old.
Is it any wonder so many people are fed up with the Little Saigon supporters?
My comments were not “rude and mean,” nor were they posted annonymously. I wonder sometimes if people read or think before they post. My comments were political satire. The only point that I was trying to make is that this whole issue is INSANE! It never should have snowballed into what it’s become. Question: If this question ends up on the ballot (citywide) it will probably lose…then what?
Pete Campbell
p.s. I still prefer that the Irish stay out of my neighborhood!
#29,
The story on the street is that Bryan Do helped Chuck Reed’s mayoral campaign, then expected Chuck’s support when Do ran in the D4 Special Election. He was furious when Reed backed Hon Lien. Do finished poorly, coming in a distant third place. His image in political circles is that he’s a wannabe, quickly being regarded as a nut.
Thanks to both those who agreed and disagreed with my original post (#3) above.
When I suggested that other areas of San Jose might clamor for similar treatment, I did not mean to imply that such areas, e.g. Little Portugal, did not already exist. My point was that I don’t believe taxpayers were billed to “officialize” the name.
It’s my opinion that such costs should be borne by the businesses and residents wanting the identification. Perhaps one of the readers can tell me if the City ever coughed up 100 grand for Little Portugal.
As other contributors have cited the costs associated with placing a measure on the ballot, I’d suggest refraining from a citywide vote and, instead, letting the Little Saigon advocates pay for their own identification.
#56-Barry Hung Do, how are we supposed to know exactly what your group wants, when members of your organization appeared at the Rules Committee yesterday and agreed to a city wide ballot? It further confuses the issue, and the public when your own group is splintered, and going in different directions. Your credibility is lost by these kinds of splintered displays.
#57- My understanding of the City Attorney’s comments was that he was still looking into the possibility of a Brown Act violation. He also said that he has been unable to get the entire taped interview of Forrest Williams, but that he did not find a violation at this time. Also, please keep in mind that the City Attorney’s sole job is to protect the city from lawsuits. He is far from impartial, or the final say on this. Several of his decisions have been challenged in court, and he has lost.
If the Vietnamese community were to request a civil Grand Jury investigation into this, or proceeds with a lawsuit in court, I think there is a strong possibility that the finding on this alleged Brown Act violation might be very different. The bottom line is that all parties involved in this need to come together, and resolve this. My hope is that no one else gets hurt from this, and that our Mayor finds a way to bring everyone together, and start thinking outside of the box. I know in my heart there is a fair solution to be found. But for that to happen though, there must be flexibility on everyone’s side.
“…shows is that Williams may be a tough enemy, but he is an even more dangerous friend…”
is that necessary?
#59, your assertion that I’m a mouthpiece for Madison is absurd. I am not a D7 resident and would never in a million years even consider living in that part of town. I couldn’t care LESS about what a few blocks along one of SJ’s trashiest thoroughfares is named. What draws me into this debate is my complete disgust with the uncompromising and disrespectful manner in which LS supporters behaved in the Council chambers on 11/20 and in the days/weeks/months since the decision didn’t go their way.
It appears to me that what we have is two different concepts on what this name is all about. The city is taking a pro-active approach to give a business district an identity. The LS supporters are apparently wanting the title to refer to this part of town in general and to encompass more than just this short commercial stretch of Story Road. That is not the intent of this whole naming thing. It’s not about the surrounding community, it is about the BUSINESSES located along this piece of Story Road. Nothing more.
So I see this as an angry mob that wants their entire neighborhood to be known as “Little Saigon” instead of the actual intent behind Nguyen’s proposal, which was to designate only this one commercial zone as a particular business district.
Please keep your focus on this limited amount of real estate and then maybe you can understand that “Little Saigon Business District” would be an acceptable and appropriate compromise. Please go grab a dictionary and look up “compromise” as this seems to be a term that is entirely foreign to the LS supporters, and one that they should embrace and understand is an important part of the democratic process they supposedly embrace.
>> “It ‘s just the agenda of Madison to tarnish the reputation of the Vietnamese community in the American public eyes and to kill the name Little Saigon for good with the expense of our pubilc fund and the American naivety to go along with her.” <<
Never attribute malice where incompetence can explain it.
Julie, this is the Achilles heal of every argument ever made for Little Saigon: the constant ad hominem attacks on people. We’re just sick of it. Absolutely sick.
Madison’s mission in life is not to make you suffer. And unless you believe she is criminally insane, she is not out to tarnish her whole race. For the love of all that is holy—will you and Barry just stick to the issues, and stop turning this into a North versus South bayonet duel.
You follow this up with character assassination of Chuck Reed.
Personal attack after personal attack.
Let’s spend the $500K on civics lessons instead.
#63 Julie writes:
“Madison had used the appellation of the Vietnamese community to ask to honor the Vietnamese contributions to the city for a Vietnamese Business District name without any of us knowing about it. We found out about the name not from Madison or the city but from the rumor mill and from reading the communist web site. “
That is absolute untrue and another example of the red-baiting that has turned so many against Little Saigon.
The proposal for a Vietnamese business district was well publicized in the local media long before it ever came to a council vote. Our local government also requires that items like this be posted on agendas before the Council can discuss it.
But your post also illustrates a much larger, and more troubling aspect of how the Little Saigon faction is harming this community. To tie Madison to “the communist web site” is shameful, yet typical of the gutter politics we have seen from the Little Saigon supporters.
I wonder how the Little Saigon faction expects to be taken seriously when they play so fast and loose with the facts.
Mark T,
If you don’t support the name “little saigon” because of the conduct of their supporters, that is fine. But your statement of “the silent majority is suppressed by a noisy and angry minority” is over the top and not backed by any evidence I have seen. It seems more like a line from Madison Nguyen to support her decision to go with “Saigon Business District” without any visible support from anyone in the community. It is pretty hard to present counter arguments when the “silent majority” is not there to state why they support “Saigon Business District”.
As far as I can tell by reading up on this issue, there does not seem to be anyone who supports the name “Saigon Business District” except for Madison Nguyen and the other council members who voted for this name, council members who I presumed did not have strong feelings about it but just went along with the supposed “vietnamese representive” on the council.
Is there anyone out there who is part of the “silent majority” who supports the “Saigon Business District” name? Does anyone know or suspect why Madison Nguyen selected the name “Saigon Business District”?
I have heard of Japantown, Little Italy, Chinatown, etc., but “Saigon Business District” sounds sterile. If Madison Nguyen can swallow her pride and supported a change back to “Little Saigon” to please the vocal supporters, I don’t think the “silent majority” or anyone else will be unhappy and we can all go back to other business.
Ken Le in SJ
San Jose, February 15, 2008
To: San Jose Voters For Democracy
P.O. Box: 0
San Jose, CA 95151– 0015
Mr. Barry Hung Do:
I’m not saying anything bad about the law. It’s lawyers that know how to twist the law and use it to their clients’ advantages, i.e. O.J. Simpson. You can argue all you want, I accept the City Attorney’s finding that there’s no violation.
In my opinion, to resolve this issue now is to not give any name to the area. You call it whatever you want.
It would be great if you and your supporters go to Sai Gon in Vietnam and fight for its name which was changed to HCM.
I was given a poster of the “Flags of the World, Official flags of independent states recognized by the United States” issued in 2003 by the Central Intelligence Agency, United States of America, during a visit in 2003. I recognized that the flag printed on the poster was not the one I used to sing to. My heart dropped and I felt devastated all over again after 28 years since the fall of Sai Gon. Did I make a scene, outcry or scream at the people at the agency? No, I did not. I thanked them, took it home, printed my Vietnam’s flag from a website and pasted it over the other flag. I hope after reading this or seeing the poster, you don’t start going after the agency and demand the poster be reprinted or else.
Want it your way? How about doing good deeds, contributing to society in constructive ways i.e. assisting council members instead of bashing them, and becoming a leader (but you still may not have it your way). How would you feel if the “Saigon Business District” supporters start doing the same things you do, and another group supporting a “No name – Thanks” also demands the City’s attention? What is the City going to do?
In my opinion, what the “Little Saigon” supporters are doing represents a completely mis-directed passion. I feel deeply hurt and humiliated by the thoughtless demands and actions that drew so much attention and mocked remarks/comments.
My plea to you and the “Little Saigon” supporters is to please stop your demands and spend your resources on something useful and rewarding. I will admire your courage if you do that.
Sincerely,
Mai Nguyen
#57 To Just the Taxpayers:
Madison had used the appellation of the Vietnamese community to ask to honor the Vietnamese contributions to the city for a Vietnamese Business District name without any of us knowing about it. We found out about the name not from Madison or the city but from the rumor mill and from reading the communist web site. Being unhappy with the name that was imposed down from Madison or the City, we asked for a new name that truly reflects who we are. The RDA survey which is a public opinion survey was sent out by Madison’s instruction to look for the name. She said that the result of this survey will give us the name. The result came back Little Saigon first place and Saigon Business District last place. She chose the last place name. This is undemocratic!
The mayor, vice mayor, council members, Judy Chirco, Sam Liccardo signed on a memorandum to vote for Saigon Business District before the council’s vote night. Council Forrest Williams admitted on the Vietnam Liberty Television that he promised to support Madison for whatever name that might be for the business district made Madison’s manipulation the council became majority to qualify for the Brown Act violation. To make you happy I am rephrasing my sentence that “Being caught to have a potential to violate the Brown Act Madison had to rescind the Saigon Business District vote.” I hope that sounds better to you. With this potential violation meant that there was a prearrangement and predetermination of the vote before the council’s vote night. This is undemocratic!
Citywide election is an unwise idea. Let me tell you why:
First it will cost the city at least $214,000 just to find out if Little Saigon name pass or not. If it passes we have to spend another $100,000.
Second this citywide election will create a precedent case for everything in the future to be voted in the city wide election, and it will cost our city budget heavily.
I personally think that the whole problem of this issue is heavily falling on Mayor Chuck Reed’s leadership. Mayor Chuck Reed is the highest leader of our city and has not been able to get us out of this problem. As a leader, why did he have to follow Madison to sign in the memorandum to rescind the Saigon Business vote? Why could he just do it by himself? Why did he allow the junior Madison who freshly in City Hall to dictate his every move? He must show his leadership, must have the courage to stop both sides and to save the San Jose taxpayers’ money.
Agree with jjy. It doesn’t matter what the city wants it to be called. The Vietnamese community is going to call it Little Saigon anyway.
So what’s the point of having an election other than to have a pissing contest to see which side will suffer more damage than the others?
If they are goign to pay for from their own pocket, then fine. But if this is my tax money, then I rather have our councilmembers focus on solving real problems—like replacing the lightbulb on the lampposts on El Rancho Verde and McKee area where poor families like mine live.
#40 & 41.
Agree with you both. I don’t see a reason why we should foot the bill just because Reed and Nguyen want to punish their political enemy—the Little Saigoners.
Don’t want to attack anyone personally, but I have to say that Nguyen is arrogant beyond belief. I have met with her at least 5-6 times already and she still talks to me and everyone else in a dismissive manner.
Instead of spending the money on naming an area that frankly, I don’t think most of us San Joean really care about, why don’t Reed and Nguyen use it to work on our pools or at least reduce the budget deficit.
If they really insist on an election to see the “truest democracy”, I think they can wait until 2010 when they are both up for reelection.
Just read Hung Bui post (4 & 5).
Thank you for clarifying. I now understand why Reed and Nguyen would want to have this election.
But why would the Vietnamese community? this is a trap.
Barry Hung Do: Please also read Kathleen flynn (61). She’s right. The city attorney is not an independent arbiter. Rick Doyle has lost many times.
#70 Ken Le: You seem to be suggesting that there is a popular mandate to name the area Little Saigon and that the local Vietnamese community is united in supporting that name. That is simply not true no matter how many times you repeat it.
The RDA Survey had very few responses. Of those who did fill out the survey over 60% favored names other than Little Saigon. The Mercury News on-line poll is not statistically valid and the persistent protests of a few hundred older Vietnamese does not mean the rest of the community is in agreement. In fact this week the Mayors office released a petition signed by over 350 LOCAL Vietnamese who do not support Little Saigon and condemned the confrontational politics being practiced by the LS supporters. I give that more credibility than the Vietnamese who are bused here from Orange County to speak to the city council.
If you are convinced that the majority of the community supports the name Little Saigon you should have nothing to fear from a city-wide vote. If you are correct the vote will validate your claim.
By the way, as others have noted the continual ad hom attacks against Madison Nguyen such as the ones in your post are getting pretty stale.
Growing up in the 60s, I saw a lot of racial violence towards African Americans. In my History class, we were educated on the struggles of African Americans, and on the history of the “N” word. As time went on, eventually it became politically incorrect to use that word. Recently, several people have lost their careers over using that word, and rightfully so. Youth today really don’t understand that people died defending their right to be seen as equal, and to be treated with respect. Many African Americans died, where imprisoned, or were beaten when they objected to being called the “N” word. They fought and suffered so that future generations could enjoy the privileges of freedom and equality they have today. Oddly enough, some of our youth today use the “N” word like we say hi to one another because they don’t understand the history of this word. They want to move on and forget what they don’t understand.
I think this comparison can be easily applied to this very situation. Older generation Vietnamese people remember, and lived through communism. They fought hard, some died; some were imprisoned to free younger generations from the oppression of communism. They fled here and started new lives with as little as the shirts on their backs. Oddly enough, some Vietnamese youth today enjoy these hard fought for freedoms, and have no real understanding of the history or the importance of the name Little Saigon. They don’t know the poverty or oppression that still exists in Vietnam today. They want to move on and forget what they don’t understand.
The movie, “No Country For Old Men,” speaks strongly to the differences in generations, and is very disturbing. It is sad to think that those who just don’t understand what the cost has been to have the privileges they now enjoy, out number those who have fought so hard to make this a better world. I think it is a needless battle because we can learn from one another, if we would just listen, and make the effort.
#67 To Mark T
On August 15, 2007 at the Tully Library, Madison said she would pass out the RDA survey which is a public opinion survey to people within the 1000-ft radius of the area to be named to search for the name of the Business District. She said the stakeholders’ choice on the survey will decide the name for the district. The RDA survey returned with Little Saigon the stakeholders’ choice. Following is the transcript words for words of what Madison said to her constituent.
“We hear a lot about “Little Saigon” tonight. Which is fine, we’re not object to that, no one’s object to that, I am not object to that. But what you need to understand is the protocol that’s going to take place after tonight’s meeting. Right? When we proposed a business district here, in the city of San Jose, we have a process that we go through. The people who are doing business on Story road right now, THE MERCHANTS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET OF THIS AREA, WILL HAVE THE BIGGEST INPUT, IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE NAME WILL BE. NOW, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU, LET’S SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF YOU INCLUDING MYSELF, LIKE THE NAME LITTLE SAIGON. RIGHT? BUT SINCE WE DON’T LIVE THERE, WE LIVE ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MILES DOWN, OUR INPUT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.
I want to be frank with you so that you’re not surprised at how the process is going to work, and what the turnout’s going to be like. So, in the next couple months, what we’re going to do is we’re going to canvass the area again, pass out the names that are suggested today, and, in the next few weeks, we’re going to solicit names from the businesses on Story road, to see what the names are.
Let’s say we come up with four names. Vietnamese Business District, Vietnamese-American Business District, Little Saigon, and Saigon Town, we’re going to take those four names, we’re going to pass it out to all the merchants who are being impacted by this project. THAT MEANS THAT THE MERCHANTS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE AREA, THEY WILL GET TO VOTE. Because at the end of the day, we live in a democratic society. Everyone has a voice, we have freedom of speech. SO THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GIVE US THE NAME. IT’S THE FAIREST WAY ON HOW WE’RE GOING TO ACHIEVE THIS RESOLUTION. So, I just want to be very frank with you, and this is probably the only opportunity that I have, to explain how the process works.”
On November 20, 2007 Council member Kansen Chu had offered a compromise “Little Saigon Business District” but Madison said She could not accept this suggestion.
#68 To RK
Everybody knows the reason Madison rescinded the Saigon Business District vote because the potential of violating the Brown Act. The vote for Saigon Business District therefore was undemocratic because it was prearranged and predetermined. The Little Saigon supporters demonstrated in front of the City Hall every Tuesday against this undemocratic process was a non-violent exercise of freedom of speech. They were unfairly painted as bullying, intimidating… with all kind of racial bashful words from the American public and pro-Madison group. You can find these proofs either in this blog or in the Mercury News articles comments. If Madison bringing this issue out to the citywide election, the negative feelings will definitely heightened because the public does not understand the meaning of the name ” Little Saigon” and will have a difficulty to accept it. Bringing this issue to the citywide election will cost the city at least $214,000 out of the window and create an unhealthy racial divisiveness for our city. If Madison is caring for her people and the city tight budget she would never do this. Obviously everyone will see that this citywide election is to waste at least $214,000 to bash the Vietnamese community’s reputation.
I am not attacking Mayor Chuck Reed. I am telling the truth from my feeling that as a leader he must show his leadership and must have the courage to end the conflict. It has been 3 months and I only see we are being dragged deeper in the mud. His latest suggestion to bring this issue out to the citywide election is a fatal misstep that we should prevent. It is only cost our city a fortune and create an unhealthy racial divisiveness but nothing else.
The city attorney didn’t exonerate Nguyen. He doesn’t know if Brown Act has been violated or not yet…not until he sees the video. He only knows at this point that at the minimum, the perception is that Nguyen did violate the law.
Let’s focus on that.
Why bring up Barry Do or anyone else? Was Barry connected to madison Nguyen? If so, then we should investigate him too.
If not, let’s investigate Madison Nguyen, Chuck Reed and Forrest Williams.
Leave everyone else alone unless you have some sort of personal agenda. Or perhaps you are Madison Nguyen or her moutpieces. (I am referring to Mark T and D7 Resident).
This is getting to be insane. I can’t believe both sides agree to an election.
I urge the Little Saigon/Voters for Democracy and the Reed & Nguyen teams to both take a step back and look at this like adults.
You want us to support a $600,000 election to determine a name of a business district that the rest of us in San Jose don’t give a darn about.
use this money to fix the street and the potholes! You guys want to fight. Fine, put up your own cash and go for it. Knock each others around. But not with taxpayers money.
use my money to fix the street and the potholes.
#70 To Just a Taxpayer:
The RDA survey is a public opinion survey. Madison said that the result of this survey will give us the name. The stakeholders’ choice of the survey is “Little Saigon”. Following is the transcript words for words of what she said to her constituents at the Tully Library on August 15, 2007.
“We hear a lot about “Little Saigon” tonight. Which is fine, we’re not object to that, no one’s object to that, I am not object to that. But what you need to understand is the protocol that’s going to take place after tonight’s meeting. Right? When we proposed a business district here, in the city of San Jose, we have a process that we go through. The people who are doing business on Story road right now, THE MERCHANTS, AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN ONE THOUSAND FEET OF THIS AREA, WILL HAVE THE BIGGEST INPUT, IN REGARDS TO WHAT THE NAME WILL BE. NOW, EVEN IF ALL OF YOU, LET’S SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT OF YOU INCLUDING MYSELF, LIKE THE NAME LITTLE SAIGON. RIGHT? BUT SINCE WE DON’T LIVE THERE, WE LIVE ABOUT THREE OR FOUR MILES DOWN, OUR INPUT IS NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.
I want to be frank with you so that you’re not surprised at how the process is going to work, and what the turnout’s going to be like. So, in the next couple months, what we’re going to do is we’re going to canvass the area again, pass out the names that are suggested today, and, in the next few weeks, we’re going to solicit names from the businesses on Story road, to see what the names are.
Let’s say we come up with four names. Vietnamese Business District, Vietnamese-American Business District, Little Saigon, and Saigon Town, we’re going to take those four names, we’re going to pass it out to all the merchants who are being impacted by this project. THAT MEANS THAT THE MERCHANTS AND THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITHIN THE AREA, THEY WILL GET TO VOTE. Because at the end of the day, we live in a democratic society. Everyone has a voice, we have freedom of speech. SO THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GIVE US THE NAME. IT’S THE FAIREST WAY ON HOW WE’RE GOING TO ACHIEVE THIS RESOLUTION. So, I just want to be very frank with you, and this is probably the only opportunity that I have, to explain how the process works.”
The Mercury News on line polls indicated 90% in favor of “Little Saigon” consistently. These polls were opened to the public and everyone had EQUAL access to them. If the pro-Madison group had a 10% population on the polls was because that what their population was.
The Mayor’s office released a petition signed by over 350 Vietnamese is still a small number compared with 2000 at the GI forum on December 9. 2007.
We never bused anyone from Orange County to speak to the City Council. We are not responsible for these people.
A citywide election is an unwise decision to abuse taxpayers’ money. The job of the elected officials is to conserve public fund not to abuse it. A citywide election does not serve any benefit for the city but create a precedent case for everything to vote in a citywide election and will cost the city budget heavily. It will waste at least $214,000 just to find if the name is passed. If it doesn’t pass the city just wastes $214,000 for nothing.
Ken Le is right., and #72 is not being honest with the number.
What Vietnamese who were bussed from Orange county? That’s a lie and you know it.
The attacks against Madison Nguyen is justified. She’s an elected officials. Your group, on the other hand, is trying to bully the Little Saigon supporters by attack them personally.
What does Madison’s violation of Brown Act has anything to do with Barry Do? She broke the law and he has nothing to do with her.
Why attack Barry Do? This is nothing more than a bullying tactic to discredit your opponent.
Just a taxpayer—which one of Madison’s supporters are you? I bet I know you. There are only a handful of you. You get online and say all this baloney because it’s anonymous, but we all know there are only a few of you.
You may be the vocal minority, but the rest of the Vietnamese community are the majority that Madison is trying to silence.
#80 To a Taxpayer
The purpose of the forum is for people to input their opinions. I am here to present the facts and what I believe. The readers will make their own judgment on what you and I presented.
We are in budget deficit. A city wide vote on this issue which will cost $250,000 is a waste of taxpayers’ money. It will also create a precedent case for everything in the future to be voted in the citywide election and it will cost our city budget heavily.
I never said you are a communist. You clearly and unfairly accused me to call you a communist. The readers here can prove me right.
#81. More evidence of desperate tactics and yet another sad chapter in this divisive controversy.
The Little Saigon crowd seems to think that dramatic over-the-top antics are helping their cause. They are wrong.
81 – And the insanity continues….
Once more an article in the New York Times portrays San Jose as a bunch of country bumpkins. Check out their coverage of the “battle”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/16sanjose.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
Please note this was written before the hunger strike. Also, it is among the ten most blogged articles today!!!
Julie #76 & 78. Well, there you go again. I guess when people repeat the same lies enough times they begin to think it is truth. That’s the case with much of your post.
The naming of the business district was widely covered in the media both before and after the November Council Vote. It was in the newspaper, on the radio and television for several weeks before the vote. To claim otherwise is simply not true. Agendas, as required by law, were published well before the vote. There was tremendous public input before the council voted on the name. In fact over 100 Little Saigon supporters packed the meeting and many of them spoke to the council! If there had been no publicity how would they have known to attend the meeting?
You also completely misrepresent the polls that you refer to. The RDA survey had such little participation that it was statistically invalid. However please note that the majority who filled out the survey picked names OTHER THAN Little Saigon. For that reason you should be glad it was tossed out. The Mercury has told readers it’s online poll is not scientific and has dismissed the results of it’s own poll.
But suppose that the polls are accurate, and you are correct that there is overwhelming support for the name Little Saigon. If that’s true, then you have nothing to fear from a city-wide vote. Let ALL the people have their say, not just Little Saigon supporters. That’s democracy.
What do you say Julie? Are you confident that the majority would support Little Saigon in an election? As for the cost of the election, it works out to less than .25 cents per resident. I’m willing to pay a quarter to have this issue settled. How about you? Do you think Little Saigon is worth your 25 cents?
#79. I’m sorry that you find the facts so difficult to accept. There were out-of-town Vietnamese who spoke at the city council, and identified themselves as being from Orange County. Some were very eloquent speakers, some were elected officials in Southern California. Was it an accident they appeared in San Jose at the same time the Council had public input on the name?
I also find it amusing how you are have taken the often-repeated charges of bullying and personal attacks coming from the Little Saigon supporters and adopted it as your own defense.
What next…are you going to call me a Communist too? I won’t be surprised. From what we have seen anyone who opposes the name Little Saigon can expect this treatment from the pro-Little Saigon bullies. Maybe that’s why so many in San Jose are fed up with this whole mess.
Have a nice weekend.
A hunger strike in front of City Hall,
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_8275197
After fifteen seconds of serious contemplation, I’ve decided that I’m for a citywide vote on the Little Saigon issue, provided it’s accompanied on the ballot by a vote on whether to maintain or demolish the statue of Quetzecoatl—the calcified cow pie now disgracing our downtown. Now that, an election offering voters a chance to voice their opinion on what constitutes public art, would be well worth a half-million dollars.
It certainly would be nice if the “Little Saigon” supporters, and the marchers last year in support of legalizing illegal immigrants, would put their energy into actually doing something positive that improves District 7 and District 5.
But, I guess that is asking to much.
So, while we will continue to have rundown schools, gangs, over-crowded homes, excessive traffic from these over-crowded homes, recreational airports polluting lead into the surrounding neighborhoods, and other negative attributes, those items are to trivial to get upset over. After all, there are much more important items in these districts that need to be fixed.
Let’s hope the City Council just says, “Name it whatever you want, but the City is out of this mess.”, rescinds their vote, and moves on to fixing city problems, not creating city problems.
#69 To just a Taxpayer:
Madison had used the appellation of the Vietnamese community to ask to honor the Vietnamese contributions to the city for a Vietnamese Business District name without any of us knowing about it. We found out about the name not from Madison or the city but from the rumor mill and from reading the communist web site.
This is the truth. This naming was never well publicized in the media despite our local government requires it to be posted on the agenda before the Council can discuss it. This fact can be proved that on June 5, 2007 there were only Mr. Tan Lap ( the owner of the Vietnam Town), Mr. Loc Vu, and Mr. Nam Nguyen were invited to attend the meeting of this naming. One of the last two later said he was called to attend at the meeting just a few hours before the meeting. On June 7, 2007 The communist Vietnam ran a head line on their web site that the city of San Jose had approved the name of the area Vietnamese Business District. Madison was later questioned by Mr. Tien Nguyen the President of the Vietnamese-American community of Northern California about this naming and asked why not “Little Saigon” she replied it was too late because the community never spoke up. On KQED Madison replied regarding to this secrecy that she did not have the time, energy, effort to call every single one of her constituents in District 7 to inform them about the June 5, 2007 meeting. This is not a candid answer for she always knows three 24-hours Vietnamese radio stations in San Jose (1120AM, 1430AM, 1500AM) always would offered to read her announcement immediately
#70 You bring up a point which has been bugging me for a while. What is the orgin of the “SBD” name proposed by Nguyen? I have heard it said by her and Reed and whatnot that she suggested this name as a “compromise”. That’s fine with me, but I’ve never seen anything written about who was fighting the Little Saigon name. Who is the compromise with and over what?
RD
RIGHT ON, #87 District 5 Resident!
Dear Mayor Tom McEnery:
I have a very perplexed question and would like to ask for your help to explain it to me. Since you were a Mayor of the city of San Jose and you understand how the law work.
On August 15, 2007 Madison said at the Tully Library that only people and businesses within 1000-ft radius from the area to be named could vote for the name of the business. She said to her constituents that was the FAIREST WAY TO ACHIEVE THIS RESOLUTION.
On February 11, 2008 On the memo, Madison and Mayor Chuck Reed rescinded the “Saigon Business District” vote because of the potential of violating the Brown Act. They wanted to bring this naming out to the citywide election and cited on the memo for the reason of INTEGRITY AND FAIRNESS ARE CENTRAL CONCEPTS TO OUR DEMOCRACY.
At the same time on the same memo on section 5 ,they direct staff to draft a Council policy that outlines a process to officially name areas/districts of the city that is modeled on the Council policy for changing street names and provides that proposals to name business districts must come from an organzation representing the businesses in the district. That means they are working on limiting the democratic power of the people in the naming issue. How can politicians have the right to manipulate law without being punished? what happen to the voice of the powerless citizens like us who have been pushing around with this ugly political effort? Mayor Tom McEnery please help me with my question!
I think there is a lot of misrepresentation of the facts here so let’s look at some of the facts, thousands of Little Saigon supporters don’t want a costly election, but the Saigon Business people do. The Saigon Business District people want the election so much so they sent the Mayor a letter with 350 signatures on it. The Little Saigon people are so against the costly election that they appeared before the Rules Committee by the hundreds, and are holding a hunger strike.
The Mayor and Madison Nguyen, NOT the Little Saigon people, put out the costly election idea. During the Rules Committee Meeting, the head of the Service Employee Unions, Phadra Ellis-Lambkins supported a costly election, and pushed for an even more costly election for June. Why she’s involved in this? People from Northern California came to the meeting supporting the costly election too, and they support the name Saigon Business District. Hum….
Secondly, why aren’t our Mayor and Council cleaning up the mess they started? Instead of having a back bone and making some tough decisions and standing by them, they are dumping it on to the citizens of San Jose, so that when this whole mess blows up in their face, they can point at us and say, the citizens of San Jose decided the name, not us! That is just so wrong on so many levels!
So follow me here, we not only have to clean up a mess the Mayor and Council created, but we also have to bare the enormous cost of their screw up too! And whom is everyone focusing on here, the Little Saigon people. Now I know many of you are very intelligent, and regardless of what you do or do not want D7 business district named, or not named, I think even you have to admit that this mess is not ours to clean up, nor was it created by the Little Saigon folks.
It was undeniably created when an RDA taxpayer funded survey with 5-6 names on it, which reflected a majority name was ignored, and Madison Nguyen chose a “compromise” name instead. Period. Forget all this crap about how few people responded to the survey blah, blah, blah. Surveys are rarely ever taken seriously enough by citizens to participate in like they should, but those who care enough fill em out and their opinion counts more to me than those who bitch later on when they don’t get their way.
I must also say this for myself; people in the Vietnamese community do care very much about gang activity, potholes, etc. They are MORE active in our community than most folks living in San Jose. You just don’t hear about their hard work, or financial contributions as much as you should because they, unlike some who shall go nameless don’t broadcast their contributions all over the airwaves and the media.
And Tom, you are 100% correct, a citywide election will cause a backlash and hurt the Vietnamese community even worse than it already has. And if some of the hurtful things I read on this blog, and the horrific racist, hateful remarks I read on the Mercury News blogs are any gauge of how educated, and well informed our citizens are on this issue, I think I’ll move to Canada. The hatred spewed about the Vietnamese community is frightening, just frightening to me.
Tom, as to your statement, “One thing it certainly shows is that Williams may be a tough enemy, but he is an even more dangerous friend. His latest statement, or series of misstatements, have unleashed a whirlwind.” I think this is very unfair of you and shows a “Good Ole Boy” mentality. Since when is it Forrest’s responsibility to keep a Brown Act count for Madison or any one else on the Council seeking his support? She went to him and others asking for support on something she wanted to pass, not the other way around. Forrest was merely respecting the wishes of a Council Member that citizens of D7 put in office, nothing more, nothing less.
I think it is very disheartening that a man who chose to tell the truth about something as vital as this is being scapegoated by others on the Council, and the media for a mess he didn’t create or start. I read your statement to mean that Forrest should have kept his mouth shut and protected Madison, and if that is what you are saying then I am ashamed of you for saying it. Since when should somebody be punished for telling the truth? After all, isn’t that what we teach our children? Tell the TRUTH, do the right thing, even if no one else agrees with you? I personally have the greatest respect for Forrest for taking the path less traveled, but at least he can look at himself in the mirror and know he did the right thing. I don’t think some of the others sitting on the dias can say the same thing.
to #72, just a taxpayer:
sleazy tactic of misrepresenting my comment and then using it to make your lame arguments. Nowhere in my comment did I suggest there “is a popular mandate to name the area Little Saigon and that the local Vietnamese community is united in supporting that name.”
If Madison Nguyen had any political courage, she should put the name “Saigon Business District” on the ballot box for the voters to decide if they want to keep that name. After all, it is SBD that was pushed by her and voted on by the council.
This ballot proposal by Madison Nguyen and Chuck Reed is a joke and a sham and nothing more than an attempt to get back at the little saigon backers. I believe the reality is that any name put on the ballot box is doomed to failure if the voters are given a choice of having no name at all. Especially when the cost of putting this issue on the ballot costs more than the actual naming itself.
I don’t think the city government should have ever gotten involved in this naming issue at all. I believe this the opinion of most people and that is why any ballot measure is probably going to fail.
But the reality is that the council did decide to name this area SBD. Not knowing the background behind the decision to go with SBD and seeing the passionate support and questional behaviour for Little Saigon by a small group of people, I wondered why SBD was chosen and not Little Saigon. If Little Saigon was chosen initially, I bet this ruckus would have never happened because most people would have not cared.
As for Madison Nguyen, I really have to question her judgement for pushing SBD in the first place. I can’t help but think that either she was too arrogant or stupid if she did not anticipate the negative reaction from some of her constituents.
Ken Le in SJ
#92 Ken Le: I am happy to say that I am in complete agreement with you when you write: “I believe the reality is that any name put on the ballot box is doomed to failure if the voters are given a choice of having no name at all.”
With due respect I ask you: What role have the Little Saigon supporters (and their leadership) played in creating a situation where “no name” would beat “Little Saigon” in a democratic election?
My feeling is that the demonstrations, hunger strike, calling people communists and the absolute refusal to even consider a compromise have all work against public support for Little Saigon.
Sometimes you reap what you sow.
#90 Kathryn: I’m afraid that some of your “facts” are very questionable.
You say the Little Saigon supporters want to avoid a costly election. Let’s face it, their real concern is the same as it was before the election proposal was raised: they do not want any process that could result in any name OTHER THAN Little Saigon. If they thought LS had popular city-wide support do you honestly think they would not want the election, at any cost?
The petition with 350 names sent to the Mayor did much more than addressed the naming issue. You left out how these LOCAL Vietnamese expressed opposition to the antics of the Little Saigon supporters. This is significant because the Pro Little Saigon supporters have calimed to speak for “the people.” It’s become very hard to gauge the real support for Little Saigon within the local Vietnamese community because of the interest this has generated among non-locals who are coming here to protest, speak to the council and do the hunger strike stunt. But this is really not a Vietnamese issue is it? Everybody’s tax dollars would be invested and it’s important to note that many, perhaps the majority, of businesses in the affected area are not Vietnamese owned.
I agree with you that Phaedra is taking advantage of this situation for her own divisive ends. Shameful and typical.
You blame the Mayor and Council for the current controversy. That’s too easy a target and overlooks the role the LS supporters played in creating this mess with their whispering campaigns about closet communists, hunger strikes and the all-or-nothing refusal to consider any negotiated settlement. Let’s also not forget that up until about a week ago they LS supporters were very clearly demanding “democracy.” What could possibly be more democratic than putting it to a vote? (That is just plain RIGHT on so many levels! Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
You say that the current mess was not created by the Little Saigon folks. Fair enough. But it’s also fair to say that they contributed to the controversy by their bombast and unwillingness to consider any alternatives. Would there even BE a controversy had they not not presented it as an us-against-them fight?
You also bring up the RDA survey and seem to imply that it’s results are a valid indication of popular support. You seem to suggest that they survey results must be followed as some sort of popular mandate from people whose “opinion counts more.” Interesting! But the fact is it was nothing more than an advisory survey and (despite what you dismiss as “crap” and “blah blah blah”) it had such little participation it would have been irresponsible to do anything other than continue the process to solicit input for the name.
While we are talking about facts here are a few more:
Lost in the yelling is the fact that the original intent was to create a Business District honoring the contributions local Vietnamese businesses have made toward improving a stretch of Story Road. The Business District would also promote trade, encourage people from other neighborhoods to do business along Story Road and put up a few banners, maybe have a few cultural events, etc. Not a bad idea. The question then became “What will we call this Business District?”
The original idea was to call it The Vietnamese Business District. However the Little Saigon faction insisted that the name “Vietnamese” would somehow indicate approval of the Communist government of Vietnam. Now I have to confess I don’t understand how Vietnamese people would deny their own identity by refuting the name “Vietnamese” as a the name of the Business District, but I accept that a compromise was in order.
At the time “Vietnamese Business District” was rejected the pro-LS group insisted that the name be Little Saigon because, as they said at the time, Saigon is meaningful to the local Vietnamese immigrant population. So the compromise name SAIGON Business District was proposed. It contained the demanded worh “Saigon” and acknowledged that this was, after all, a “Business District.” But noooo…it HAD to be Little Saigon. No compromise. No negotiation. I don’t think it’s fair that the city, or Madison Nguyen, should be faulted for trying to resolve the gathering storm by proposing a compromise. It’s called negotiation, and in our society it’s an accepted way of resolving conflict.
It’s also a fact that throughout all very ugly personal attacks on Councilmember Nguyen and Mayor Reed. At no time has the Pro Little Saigon leadership denounced those attacks or tried to distance themselves from such gutter politics. (I would have a LOT more respect for the Little Saigon side if they had taken the high road on this!) The result a situation where a council decision to call the Business District Little Saigon would be tantamount to caving in to bullies and rewarding them for unfair tactics. I have to say that I admire the Council for standing up to such nonsense.
So what option is left? A city-wide vote, letting ALL of San Jose have it’s say seems to be the best option. As Councilmember Chirco said before the rules committee “This issue is now bigger than District 7.” The Little Saigon supporters can take full credit for that!
One other fact: The intent was simply to name a Business District along four blocks of Story Road to promote trade. Somehow this has gotten lost in all of the sound and fury.
So those are the facts.
#97 Kathryn: You ask an interesting question.
Phaedra squandered a lot of political capital when she backed the losing candidate in the bruising the Mayoral campaign. Labor was not only unable to beat Chuck Reed, they lost by a landslide. After the election there was a lot of talk about how labor had become irrelevant, less power at City Hall, etc. There’s probably some truth in that. If you’ve followed the Mayor’s budget issues you can see that labor is running scared as issues like pensions, raises and benefits are all suddenly on the table for discussion and review. That did not happen under the Gonzales administration and NEVER would have happened had Chavez been elected.
Since then labor has been waiting for the smell of blood, which they got in spades with the Little Saigon issue. Phaedrda’s involvement is nothing more than a way to make a claim that: “City Hall screwed this up. Now Labor is going to make everything right.” Phaedra’s involvement is political “payback” for Chuck Reed’s win. The fact that she’s willing to toss Madison under the bus is secondary to trying to regain influence at City Hall.
Why should labor care about the Saigon Business District? These are non-union shops and other businesses that have little chance of organizing. Santa Clara County’s union members are not being directly affected in any significant way.
The only explanation that makes sense is Phaedra sees an opportunity to stir up politics to try and regain what labor has lost at City Hall.
Regarding #96: The trumped up Brown act violation probably played a role in the decision to call for an election, but not in the way you present it.
Rescinding the current name is a necessary first step in any do-over. The Brown Act allegation, which was not upheld by the City Attorney, was more likely the last straw in a process that saw the Little Saigon faction becoming increasingly nasty in it’s win-at-any-cost politics. It was clear that this issue was not going to go away through the usual process of meeting, conferring and hammering out a compromise. Instead this debate has been forced by extremist politics and character assassination.
A fed up Mayor simply called the bluff of the people demanding “Democracy.” It was a smart political move to be sure, but also offers a path to a solution to this dilemma. If there is a city-wide vote and Little Saigon wins, or loses, then that’s that…the issue is decided. Frankly from what I’ve seen of the Little Saigon crowd (and yes, I have also talked with the protesters. They are polite but absolutely unwilling to budge on their position) they will never accept any name other than Little Saigon. That’s the problem with taking extreme positions, you have no fall-back position.
With an election the Little Saigon side will have the opportunity to make their case and plenty of access to local media. If they make a good case for the Little Saigon name they could very well win an election. But if they continue on the same reckless, confrontational and irrational course they will lose big.
Also a few words about the video of Forrest Williams. If you view the clip in the context of how it was presented it is appears that the video is highly and selectively edited. Rick Doyle apparently came to the same conclusion. I would like to see an unedited copy of the interview.
Still, William’s explanation that it was a conversation about support for the concept of a business district and not a specific name makes perfect sense. Remember this conversation happened well before the naming controversy came up. The Little Saigon supporters can petition the state Attorney General or other higher authority for a ruling on the alleged violation, but don’t hold your breath.
Finally: regarding the “who started it” issue if that even matters at this point: The only thing the city “started” was a well-intentioned effort to recognize and promote a local business district that could use a shot in the arm. In any other part of town I doubt that this would have happened. But as we learned in the Nguyen vs. Nguyen council race the politics practiced in the local Vietnamese community gets pretty rough. There seems to be an “If you are my opponent you are a communist” take-no-hostages mentality and all politics are very personal. Some in the Vietnamese community tell me that much of Madison’s current problems are a hold-over from the council election. Any post-election outreach she tried was rejected and there was a faction that opposes pretty much anything she tries to do for the Vietnamese community. Given the current situation this scenario seems to ring true.
When looked at in its totality, the only way to solve this issue once and for all seems to be a city-wide vote.
Whew! We’re spending too much time at the keyboard and not enough time out enjoying this glorious weather! Have a good day.
#96
Not only the media but anyone can write what he or she wants. Obviously the whole story is not about “saying NO to a $300 K or more election” but also demanding the name change to “Little Saigon” or there’ll be no end.
#94- I think we can agree to disagree on “the facts.” Having said that I thank you for your open mind on what I said in my post. I agree that calling Madison communist is very wrong. I have seen bullying and intimidation on many sides of this issue. Some of it has been very subtle, and some not. (I think language barriers don’t help either.) I think Tom McEnery said it best in his column, a Brown Act violation accusation backed up by a video tape of a Council Member saying he had agreed to support this name, certainly resulted in a stand of out right refusal to revisit this issue, to a recommendation that we have a costly city wide election by the Mayor and Madison. I stand by my feeling that the City started it, and should have the backbone to see it through and make tough decisions. If it had not been for the Brown Act violation contention, I can pretty much guarantee you that this issue would not have resulted in a memo from the Mayor and Madison, and certainly not a recommendation to rescind their vote!
In the end at the end of the day, the reality is that regardless of which side of the naming issue the Vietnamese community is on, this community has been hurt beyond belief, and it deeply saddens me. They are beautiful people, hard working, and have contributed to our fair city in so many ways.
#95- You can watch the Rules Committee meeting on the City’s website and see it for yourself. I was at that meeting and hundreds of Little Saigon supporters were there. There were so many that they had two over flow rooms. The LS supporters were carrying signs saying they didn’t want to burden taxpayers with an expensive election. They also said it in the Rules Committee Meeting.
Also, you can drive by City Hall, like I did last night and tonight, see the huge sign displayed saying NO to a $300 K or more election, and pick up their literature. There are at least a hundred people peacefully huddled there singing. Talk to them, they will tell you themselves.
As to what you read in the Mercury News, I can’t tell you why only half the story was reported. Sure doesn’t surprise me though. That is a big part of the problem when things like this happen, the media covers and writes what it wants to, not always what is.
#94- You wrote, “I agree with you that Phaedra is taking advantage of this situation for her own divisive ends. Shameful and typical.”
I’m very curious to know, why do you think Phaedra got involved in this? I’d love to hear your thoughts on this given that Labor heavily supported Ms. Nguyen when she ran for office.
#99 – True. But that goes both ways. The Saigon Business people are doing that too – insisting on their name. One quick fix to this problem could be leaving D7 with the name Saigon Business District, and revisiting Vice Mayor Cortese’s offer to name the Tully Road Business District Little Saigon. It is a win-win situation for everyone, that would honor both the old, and new generation of the Vietnamese Community, and leave Phaedra Ellis-Lambkins with the problem of figuring out another way of getting back at Mayor Reed!
#90
To Kathleen Flynn:
According to you, “The Little Saigon people are so against the costly election that they appeared before the Rules Committee by the hundreds, and are holding a hunger strike.” Please provide the source for this so we can all read it. Thank you.
According to what I’ve read in the Mercury News article “Vietnamese activist forgoes food for ‘Little Saigon’ “… (John Woolfolk, Mercury News, February 16, 2008, Section B-The Valley, page 1), the reason for the hunger strike was only to get the name of the business district changed to “Little Saigon”.