By the intensity of the attacks on me from certain quarters, I am happy to note that the cult of lobbyists and yes men and women that inhabit the political basement of our City are feeling a bit of heat. The insiders that so enjoy the Monday Night Live frolic are scheming for ways to deflect some of the attention. Not a chance. Imagine selling mentions in the show, from Calpine to Coyote, Divco to DeRollo, for contributions. Perhaps next will be a sponsorship of the City Council meetings - a sad sight.
There are three members of the City Council that are clearly in the forefront of setting San Jose on a better path. They are Dave Cortese, Chuck Reed and Linda Lezotte. There are six others who have to decide what course to take and exactly to whom they owe their primary allegiance.
Cindy Chavez is tipped as the early front runner for Mayor and, as the current Vice Mayor, is seen as the chief supporter of Ron Gonzales. Many admire her decency and judgment.
Forrest Williams has made some very foolish statements about the absurdity of these “ethical” investigations – and has been proven wrong each time – a dismal batting average of zero. Ken Yeager has made some good decisions on reform as the Chair of the ponderously titled Committee on Ethics, but his real enthusiasm and courage under fire is questioned by many. It is these three, and those left in the middle—Judy Chirco, Nora Campos, and Nancy Pyle—who must decide what is important in San Jose’s current dilemma and to whom do they owe their fealty: the people and the truth, or some combination of lobbyists, labor and lackeys, the “three L’s” who have come to dominate San Jose politics.
There will be many who continue to tell these Council Members that the current situation no big deal – that it is merely the product of a savage media. Those who care about them, and the city’s future, should caution them to choose wisely. The choice is theirs alone and it will inform the reputation that they will carry for the rest of their political careers.
Tom,
You should have been there. The portrayal of you as “lord of the blogs” was funny—not hurtful.
As for the lobbyists, they got the bulk of the jokes thrown at them. A running theme was “Desparate Lobbyists”, showing Jerry Strangis cleaning a pool for Nancy Pyle and Judy Chirco and another spot showing a “buffed” George Shirakawa washing Cindy Chavez’s car while Nora Campos watched.
They got is good as they gave. Calpine and Divco were not mentioned. DeRollo had a bit part in a sketch (as did other lobbyists and politicians). Forest Williams did a great job hosting—he was totally out of character—and while he did eat your hamburger in Pulp Fiction Skit, it was done with some real humor.
Only the Weekend Update skit really went after you—and your blog was highlighted, so the fact that you were as big a part of the show—even though you were not there—should be seen as a high compliment.
Dave Cortese, Chuck Reed and Cindy Chavez who were there got far more “dissed”—as did Ron Gonzales, Joe Guerra and Rebecca Dishotsky (also no shows). Though I think they all would have appreciated the humor—as no one was completely humiliated.
Last year’s show featuring a scantily clad actress playing Rebecca Cohen was about as bad as it ever got for a single politician.
The highlight for us was actually Jim Beall playing the cowbell for Blue Oyster Cult. The hair alone was worth the price of admission.
I mentioned to Randy and Jerry that you would be a great guest host. I remember your hosting the Frank Fiscalini (now a lobbyist) farewell. You have a great sense of humor that would be great for the show.
On a serious note, the debate for who can best lead San Jose has officially begun. I know Cindy gets a bad rap on this blog—as does labor.
But I have yet to see anyone describe how the labor agenda has hurt this city. On the contrary, they have offered some great ideas including the Children’s Health Care Initiative.
Moreover, Cindy is honest and decent, has show tremendous judgement and leadership. She has opposed Ron when she thought he was wrong and helped him when she thought he was right.
Lobbyists are easy fodder, but as was pointed out in the SJ Stage show, it is a competitive business with each trying to “win” against another.
Finally Lackeys come and go—but bureaucrats are forever—and they hamper San Jose’s future far worse—simply because of their numbers.
I look forward to the coming blogs when we can discuss the future of San Jose and who should lead it.
Nice piece Tom – couldn’t agree more with your assessments of LeZotte, Reed, Cortese, and Williams – spot on.
Can anyone say which councilmembers are especially beholden to labor? My hope with GarbageGate is that the average Joe gains insight into the relationships between CH and labor.
Tom-
Don’t get discouraged by your detractors. I appreciate your insight
and
willingness to tell it like it is. It really takes guts to do what you
are
doing, and I don’t know of any example of former politicians who have
stepped up, spoken out, and taken a risk to better the city they once
served. Aren’t most of them still feeding at the public trough through
lobbying efforts?
I think it is unfair to label this site as negative. As a displaced
San
Josean, I have followed this site from early on and have enjoyed the
columns
and comments. I believe this is the only outlet for people to speak up
about what is wrong or what should be done in the city. We need to
encourage more discourse like this. Thank you.
This is not a criticism of San Jose, and frankly, I will bow to Rich’s expertise here, does anyone find it interesting that council members of medium size cities meet with potential commission applicants prior to the meeting? Again, I am not talking about San Jose, nor am I reflecting on Rich or anyone else that is a effective blogger here, which I am have not been, but just a fair question about this practice in other cities from a transperancy, ethics point of virw?
“Moreover, Cindy is honest and decent, has shown tremendous judgement and leadership. She has opposed Ron when she thought he was wrong and helped him when she thought he was right.”
Honest and decent, questionable, but if you have ever tried to get a straight response from her you know how difficult that can be to get. She tries too often to have it both ways—tells you what you want to hear and then does the opposite (unless you are Labor.) Being beholden to any one group is not healthy for an elected leader because we all know if an issue comes down to which side is Labor on, that’s the side Cindy is on. Labor has many good issues, but they are not 100% right every time and their positions are not always what is best for the city but rather, what is best for their members.
Tremendous judgement and leadership? Must be a different Cindy. Just look at the garbage fiasco. This was no secret to those in CH yet not only did she blindly support it (Labor, again) but still defends it. This alone eliminates her from the “tremendous judgement and leadership” category. She has rarely parted with RG—that is followship, not leadership.
We can’t afford to take a chance with a Gonzo clone. It will take years for the city to recover from the damage he has done. We can’t afford Gonzo II – the sequel, which is what Cindy would be.
http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/04.13.00/cover/mayors-0015.html
Read about why McBitter is such a hypocrite. Back room deals, no bid contracts from RDA, no competition for grants, and a Sharks gig where the president of the organization can’t recall what McBitter did. Talk about scandal—there ought to be an investigation of how McBitter fought for an arena for the Sharks a mile from his family’s property and then takes a job with the Sharks when he got crushed by Zoe. Oh ya, you should have registered as a lobbyist when you took money to influence government decisions, you took 50K to lobby RDA. That stinks!
Glad to see Mr. Robinson sticking-up for Labor and its successful work on the Children’s Health Care Initiative. I just hate it when a group doesn’t get proper credit for digging the socialist hand deeper into the taxpayer’s pocket.
I think the public was better off before Labor turned to business suits and fake smiles; things were cheaper back when it did its fleecing with gruff men and baseball bats.
Rich,
How does the union agenda harm San Jose? How about excessive contracts for members of public employee unions for one. And how about saddling downtown redevelopment with “living wage” provisions for another.
Adam,
Check the record and you will see Cindy has opposed labor in the past, not often, but she has not voted 100% labor.
But labor’s policies have been progressive and have helped establish this valley as a model for other communities.
As for the garbage contract. The city saved over $50 million. The process may have been flawed, but the result of the “secret deal” was that there was no work stoppage and San Jose still saved money.
The council could have voted no on principle and the garbage would be piled up in every neighborhood with a stink that would dwarf anything City Hall is currently accused of doing.
But just for fun, let’s investigate it anyway.
Finfan,
Socialist? The money from the children’s health initiative comes from the tax on tobacco.
Would you call the subsidies the tobacco industry receives socialistic? If so, doesn’t it make sense to utilize the money coming back to help insure society’s poorest get adequate health care.
We are all socialists at one level or another. I prefer not to subsidize Halliburton, the oil industry or the tobacco industry. I prefer my tax money and tax credits go to childtren who need health care and education.
HoiPolloi,
Do you really think the librarians, cops, and firefighters are overpaid?
I would agree that mid-level bureaucrats, the nine assistant city managers, and others are over-paid, but clerks, secretaries, maintenance people, and other union workers still can’t afford a decent house in this valley.
So if Cindy voted to help them, I’m all for it.
A living wage is an oxymoron in San Jose. If the feds would increase the minimum wage or the State would propose a uniform state wage, we could do away with the local living wage concept.
But that won’t happen until we get our fiscal house in order. To that end, labor’s call for a livable wage is in the best tradition of social justice—even if you disagree with it.
Jim,
I know you are being respectful. I just don’t know the particulars of what you speak.
What city on earth would choose SJ as a model?
Surely you meant that other cities are looking to SJ for examples of what not to do.
Some policies have been a model for other communities—the children’s health initiative, livable wage ordinances (even if you disagree), binding arbitration for essential services, public-private partnerships for transportation, housing etc., Mayor Hammers gang task force, prevailing wage, district elections, and the climate that let businesses and jobs flourish in Silicon Valley.
Some other aspects of government policy are, admittedly, not models for other communities.
Finfan,
Socialist? The money from the children’s health initiative comes from the tax on tobacco.
Would you call the subsidies the tobacco industry receives socialistic? If so, doesn’t it make sense to utilize the money coming back to help insure society’s poorest get adequate health care.
We are all socialists at one level or another. I prefer not to subsidize Halliburton, the oil industry or the tobacco industry. I prefer my tax money and tax credits go to childtren who need health care and education.
Posted by Richard Robinson
——-
Sir,
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that the cigarette money was manna from heaven, I thought it was a real public asset. I must have overlooked your sentence linking tobacco money to poor children. Has emphysema hit the diaper set?
Having experience as a poor child, I don’t recall my health care being the province of government. Dad foot the bill, just as he did for everything. It used to be called the American Way, but in these days of progressive politics, government does less of what it used to and more of what was previously the responsibility of mom and dad. Our system used to expect and honor self-reliance, now it is built around serving the mindless breeders.
Meanwhile, the one population we taxpayers are saddled with that has been impacted by tobacco—the fraternity of bums—continues to clog our emergency rooms and challenge our public coffers (no pun intended). Picking-up that tab, and maybe assisting with the smoking-related health costs of the generations that were targeted for addiction by big tobacco and Hollywood might have been a more appropriate use of the windfall.
Venceremos, Comrados!
Finfan,
I expect that when you were a child the pharmaceutical companies weren’t gauging your dad, hospitals weren’t charging $16 for an aspirin and a doctor might even waive once in a while.
Using tobacco money for children makes a lot more sense than spending it on a guy with lung cancer on emphysema. You can save the kid.
As for mindless breeders, why don’t we regulate parenting? Let’s license parents, make everyone pass a minimum test to make sure they can handle the job, if your not qualified, your kids go to someone who is—hey we license drivers.
By the way, many of the “bums” are former veterans of our foreign wars. We have a whole new generation coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. Since we don’t have effective treatments for mental health, many of these folks have no where to go. What is your solution?
Adam,
In addition to the 1 assistant and 4 deputies, there is the Budget Director, Economic Development Director, Employee Relations Director, Emergency Services Director, Director of Intergovernmental Relations, Customer Service Manager, Council Liason and an Assitant to the City Manager.
I apologize if the Directors are not titled “assistant” or “deputy”.
By the way, Joe Guerra is Budget Director for the Mayor, why does the City Manager need a separate Budget Director?
Finally, the NorCal deal did save the City money. I am not “defending” the process—just the outcome.
However, if we spend $50 million to investigate the debacle—we will lose all of the savings.
Rich – You consistently misrepresent the city staffing levels. First there is ONE assistant city manager, second there are FOUR deputy city managers with one vacant, or soon to be. Even if you add them together that is only 5, not 9.
As for your defense of the mayor’s gift of public funds to NorCal—there is no evidence that there would have been a strike if the mayor had not held his secret meeting to promise the gift. It is difficult how someone like yourself, who seems to support good government, can possibly defend any aspect of this scandal. Even if your argument about the strike were accurate, it is astounding that you could somehow justify this backroom secret government run by the mayor and his henchman.
Bash the bureacrats all you want but let the mayor off the hook when he runs loose with our money. Makes a lot of sense.
In response to #16:
I’m not sure what the pharmaceutical companies were doing when I was a child, but one thing is certain: they weren’t producing very many of the miracle drugs that we now enjoy. Millions of Americans are alive or living better because others invested their money and their futures developing the drugs you now consider overpriced. If you deny them their profits, you must hate the folks at Google and eBay.
You say that using tobacco money for kids makes sense. The truth is that using your money makes sense, because a nexus exists between your compassion and their need. No such link exists to the tobacco money. Why don’t you and your compassionate brethren start-up a fund? I suggest that if you target smoking, substance abuse, and reckless sex, you will do more for more young people than anything the government might accomplish.
While it only may be true that a given bum is a former serviceman, what is certainly true is that he is a current bum, and that he achieved that status by failing in all parts of his life. To believe that compassion serves the bum is to ignore that almost every bum has abused and alienated the compassionate people in his own family on the road to bumhood.
As for mental health services, what has that got to do with Tobacco money? The mentally ill could be better served by some of the money that has gone down the drain of progressive, open arms government.
Big Tobacco, with the eager participation of Madison Avenue and Hollywood, hooked several generations of Americans on its killer weed. Treating its victims is the right thing to do with that money, along with working to keep young people from starting smoking.
Rich,
Irresponsible breeding habits are a real problem worldwide, not just here in SJ. It’s up to the civilized societies to come up with a solution to this problem and get this backward behavior under control through some kind of example. I have first hand experience with a step child who did not finish high school, who wanted in the worst way to become pregnant, and who now has 3 kids, all born on welfare, that are being raised by a couple of high school drop-outs and who, of course, are flunking out of school themselves. The issue of who is qualified to be a parent is quickly becoming one that we as a society can no longer avoid addressing in some way or another because if we don’t, we are destined to self destruct as a nation overpopulated with morons.
Rich
a) in Santa Clara, which considers itself partially immune to the Brown Act, if you apply to the Cultural Advisory Commission or Library Board, you are kept excluded from the city council deliberating on yout application, and you are not allowed to view the other applicants interviews, though with Prop. 59, which I think passed in the Mission City, but as we know, it is one set of rules for others in Santa Clara County, and another set once you make to the Alameda, all deliberations of the council with the exception of closed session requirements are open to the public.
This is the same city council that huffed and puffed at the San Jose City Council meeting about needing to keep the public informed and aware of North First Development.
And we heard about how San Jose is not very interested in keeping itself open to people. Interstingly, Ron did mandate a commission diversity committee that was supposed to vet commission applicants and also try to recruit applicants. Well, Ron may be the big meanie to some, but at least with RG he did tell to your face, yes or no, he did not talk in platitudes about ethics and open government and set up a two person list committee for commissions.
In response to #17:
I don’t disagree with drug companies making a profit in a free market. However the U.S. Government regulates that market for the benefit of the industry to the exclusion of the consumers.
Personally, I buy my drugs from Canada. However, the Bush prescription drug law forced upon seniors is a $700 Billion giveaway to the industry. Research or no research it is obscene. That would pretty much cover the insurance costs for uninsured children and bums alike.
For the record, I helped lead the fight against the use of tobacco in public places. We did start up a fund, it was the result of a settlement with the tobacco industry (who all but admitted they deceived the public and knowingly put a dangerous product on the market ) that fund was used to insure the health of children in this county—which is still a good idea. It doesn’t cost you a dime in tax money.
There is certainly a nexus between mental health and “the bums” on the street. As for veterans, walk a mile in their shoes before you damn them. We put them under tremendous stress and then walk away from their problems? God, we are a nation of selfish individuals.
I don’t blame you for not wanting to fund my bleeding heart programs. But how do you justify the uncontrollable growth of government by the Bush Administration. It is the war on terror, crime and drugs that is really bloating our government. Their tax break is a ruse, you are paying more in State and local taxes as a result.
My solution, legalize drugs, tax them and use the proceeds for drug rehab and education.
The Supreme Court once noted the ability to tax is the ability to destroy. This is often a mantra of true conservatives.
If you really want to get rid of drugs, tax them. Think of all the money you could save on the Courts and law enforcement—its a double win.
That way we could give you a tax break and still fund my bleeding heart programs.
Just an idea.
The tax money collected on tobacco goes to smoke-free education.
You and the legions of blood sucking lawyers fought the tobacco industry to help the children?
… sorry I had to step away to hurl. whew.
Our system used to expect and honor self-reliance, now it is built around serving the mindless breeders.
Finfan, you are spot on with everything you post here.