If, as the old strategist suggested, politics is war by other means, then we are seeing something new in the epic battle between the reformers and the fixers in San Jose; namely, the introduction of legal assaults to buttress the crumbing coalition of lobbyists, developers and labor that has ruled and nearly ruined our city in the past decade. You wonder how gullible, or actually, how dumb these people feel the rest of us are.
Two legal gambits have been introduced to challenge sound land use planning and lobbyists restrictions. In the first, letters have been issued—the shot across the bow—by Norm Matteoni, representing certain unknown clients, challenging the changing of any land use from industrial (read tax base) to housing. They have Lew Wolff in their sights and perhaps the Sharks, who have a minority interest if soccer comes to San Jose. (For the record, I am a partner in the Shark ownership group.) The inimitable Carl Berg has sent his own cautionary note via a law firm. As an aside, you have to respect Berg, because he is a “color outside the lines” rebel—a “ready, aim, fire” kind of guy who does not operate in the dark and does his own talking for the most part.
The second legal gambit is the more worrisome; it is a potentially insidious one led by a putative front man, Ted Smith, of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and employing the services of ace attorney, Jim McMannis. These guys have quite a sense of humor. They are fighting for the “…right to engage in anonymous speech” and, apparently, anonymous money laundering and cash to weak-kneed politicians. Surely, McMannis will come to his senses, understand that dark forces are pushing this charade, and stop.
Now the big question is: Who is so concerned about Chuck Reed’s new regulations for lobbyists that they would raise the ante this way? Smith is a longtime ally of the labor movement, but still, their relationship is largely unknown. Does it involve money, contracts or favors? And why would he jeopardize the good environmental work that he does for this tawdry and transparent gambit? The concerns of many nonprofits with the new lobbying regulations were dealt with. So, why the lawsuit? As usual, we must follow the money. There is much at stake from Evergreen to Coyote Valley to North San Jose.
It will be fascinating to note where the highly competent McMannis is going to strike and, more interesting, who will pay him. To many who have watched McMannis, this is a stark surprise. He is normally on the side of the little guy like Al Ruffo in the City Hall lawsuit. Ruffo was a giant of a man compared to the Lilliputians who snubbed him, but one who was dismissed by the Gonzales people. They paid—or rather the citizens did—a big price for the callous disregard. No, McMannis is an odd bedfellow for such bullies and quick-buck artists—these architects of the recent disgraceful period in our city. They are not his kind of people.
Finally, it is worth noting that these interests pushing the legal attack are the same ones who operated in the dark for so long in local politics. They must be panicked to now enter totally into the shadows. Perhaps they are hoping to accomplish by stealth what they could not achieve by reason, sound planning or the ballot box: the lock, stock, and barrel takeover of City Hall and the planning process to the eternal detriment of each and every one of our citizens. When will the good people in the labor movement and Democratic Party stand up and say enough and break with the lobbyist cult of money? The shadows are not dark enough to hide this shabby attempt to win, by legal chicanery and obfuscation, what they could not by reason and community support.
NOTE
I learned yesterday that Santa Clara County prosecutors have dropped all criminal charges against San Jose lobbyists Tony Arreola and Sean Kali-Rai, former aides to ex-Mayor Ron Gonzales. I will address this matter here on SJI in the near future.
What a boring blog!
Tom,
Did you take a lot of pills before writing this. It doesn’t make much sense.
Tom,
We do not know why or for whom Ted Smith filed his lawsuits but he is on solid legal ground
US Supreme Court in its decision in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton, No. 00-1737 (June 17, 2002),
” It is offensive — not only to the values protected by the First Amendment, but to the very notion of a free society — that in the context of everyday public discourse a citizen must first inform the government of her desire to speak to her neighbors and then obtain a permit to do so. “
The Supreme Court thus has correctly reminded us all that
[a]s a matter of principle a requirement of registration in order to make a public speech would seem generally incompatible with an exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly.… So long as no more is involved than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such a restriction. … [A] requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the First Amendment. “
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_activities/policy_papers/mother_may.htm
Mercury News article – San Jose sued over lobbying law
http://www.mercurynews.com/search/ci_6296296
San Jose’s long list poorly written ethics, elections and other policies or laws, many insider exceptions and sloppy administration consistently loses court cases with legal and damage costs now $80- 100 million
Dress it any way you want folks,
It’s still a “Pig”.
D.O.A.
Dear San Jose:
I’m sorry that a few of the bloggers here were not entertained by McEnery’s piece. I’d like to applaud the former mayor for standing up and picking a couple of fights here. Quite frankly, I think that this piece should be published in the MERC as a guest column.
The weak reaction to this piece by the San Jose Inside audience reminds me that still not enough people in this town understand or care about the nature of the game that is continually being played around them.
Pete Campbell
#5- Pete, a lot of people are out of town on vacation~
Our form of government is purposely untidy. There is a built-in tension of rights vs. responsibilites; freedom to express an opinion without fear of government reprisal.
The courts have ruled that one need not register his/her name in order to register his/her opinion to a public body.
On the other hand, it helps listeners to evaluate the content of speech to know who, or on whose behalf, the speech has been made. To speak on a public issue without identifying on whose behalf you speak can be grossly misleading to the listeners, be they politicians or the public at large. One can but wonder what chicanery is at play when a speaker refuses to identify himself/herself, or the interest (s) on whose behalf he/she addresses a public body.
This very blog is a testament to the existence of legions who spout their opinions, but apparently think so little of them that they do so anonymously, by pseudonyms. So, if one speaks, or blogs, anonymously, a listener/reader could not be criticized for taking said anonymous opinions with a large grain of salt.
But this is the untidy world in which we live. The alternative is less friendly.
Anonymous speech ( #3 above ) is protected free speech by US constitution and court decisions and an essential part of functioning democracy
US and local history has thousands examples of powerful political, government or business people making vindictive legal, political, physical, or using government to attack those making controversial comments, get out the truth, making embarrassing disclosures or questioning the powerful, status quo, bad policies or decisions
Anonymous speech stands or falls on the strength of ideas or facts presented not speaker’s status
“Anonymous speech is part of a vaunted American tradition that goes back to the Founders, who often published unsigned political pamphlets,” said Megan Gray, Senior Counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center