There has been a great deal of second guessing and gnashing of teeth at the massive defeat suffered by the City of San Jose in their lawsuit with the county over the Fairgrounds Theatre. It was a sad result no doubt. The Monday morning quarterbacks are having a field day; it’s the most fun since the 49’ers blew a commanding lead to Detroit in that title game of the late fifties.
There are two questions that beg to be answered before returning to the City Hall battlefield to shoot more of the wounded: First, why was the city so slow on the draw? Secondly, was the controversy and lawsuit the right thing to do? (Oh, and for full disclosure, I am part of the ownership group of the Sharks who were interested in a downtown Music Hall that would compete and/or replace the Fairgounds project.)
The city and her mayor were as silent as applause at a Jim Beall speech. It took five long years as the fairgound’s project sped along like a lobbyist-propelled lemming toward the awaiting cliff. For quite a while no one seemed to care or understand that this theater should be downtown for all the obvious reasons. To say they slumbered is a charitable interpretation. When they awoke, the clarion was sounded by the small businesses downtown, and Cindy Chavez led the charge to try to cajole the county. Failing that option, the city proceeded to sue. It was the right thing to do; the only option to emphasize the importance of the faltering downtown entertainment scene. The message had to be sent that someone at City Hall cared. Dave Cortese lent his sure voice to the effort.
The fact that the suit was not successful may one day be seen as the development equivalent of the Spartans defense at Thermoplae: a courageous and noteworthy, if ultimately doomed, effort.
Excellent job of capturing the sleep aid known as Jim Beall. Now it makes sense that he always runs unopposed. No speeches required and everyone stays awake long enough to cast their vote for the only name listed on the ballot for that particular office.
No question that a fairgrounds venue would not only founder, but as I have asked before, where would anyone go if they wanted to have dinner first or drinks after? No place near by, that is for sure.
Tom or anyone else who may have info, what is the deal with Civic Auditorium? I thought that BGP/Clear Channel was looking to turn that place into a concert hall, and rather soon. Are we still looking to build an even larger venue downtown besides the re-worked Civic? Can anyone provide info on the Civic Auditorium plans and how this would figure into the scheme of things?
The City and downtown Music folks should have done nothing. They should have let the chips fall as the venue failed.
The City, by initiating a frivolous lawsuit, paid millions to the County, did not gain a downtown venue and simply cost the taxpayers money in attorney’s fees.
For the taxpayer, it’s like moving your wallet from one pocket to another, a little lighter due to the legal costs.
The Board of Supervisors made their decision to move forward on the Fairgrouds venue because they were in a no lose situation. The money coming to he County was contractually guaranteed, the risk was on the promoters.
Many have pointed out that the Fairgrounds venue would have died a natural fiscal death. If so, it should have been allowed to do so.
Then, if a lawsuit was necessary, it would have been the County suing the promoters.
Sometimes the best longterm decision is to let the natural course of events fix the problem. In trying to stop the County, the City simply put themselves in a position of liability for no reason.
Ironically, the Mayor once pined that it was frivilous lawsuits that cost the City do much time and money. Yet, they were the first to participate in such a slap suit.
If the goal was simply to stop the venue, they may have accomplished that goal. But if they had offered the County $10 million at the beginning not to proceed, the City could have saved $26 million and legal fees for both sides.
But then we would have had several investigations regarding the gift of funds, secret deals and exacerbate the belief by many on this board that the City is corrupt rather than merely incompetent.
1 more – San Jose Mayor Candidate Important Issues Question:
Do you support the statement – The client of the City Attorney is the municipal corporation and the public not any individual elected official or city staff member?
Some reference information
1) ” Who is the Client? The city attorney does not work for any individual member of the city council or staff member of the city.
The city attorney’s client is the municipal corporation—the city, which includes the public.
Section 41801 of the California Government Code states: “The city attorney shall advise the city officials in all legal matters pertaining to city business.” The role of the city attorney may be further defined in a particular municipal code. “
SEE Page 2
http://www.lbbslaw.com/publications/BLRE Newsletter Oct.pdf
2) The Brown Act ( and California Public Records Act ) – The role of Elected Officals, City Attorney and the District Attorney
Public officials are held to a higher standard than private citizens. The standards imposed upon public officials are primarily to serve and act in the best interests of the community, to protect the public trough, and to avoid decisions that are self-dealing. (Section 54952.1).
SEE pages 1-4 for the defined roles
http://www.lbbslaw.com/publications/BLRE Newsletter 7.05.pdf
Greg!
You probably wanted the Giants stadium in Milpitas! People need to realize a good downtown has entertainment besides weekly stabbings at the Vault.
Couldn’t disagree more. Because the city was asleep at the switch they launch a desperate, last minute attempt at litigation. If the downtown site were so great and the concert hall is something we have to have, what in the world were the mayor and council doing all these years? The fact is the only plan they had was to stop the County from launching their plan. This was boneheaded at best and is just another example of the failed leadership of this city results in the possibility that there will be no concert hall in the downtown or at the fairgrounds. Brilliant strategy.
Tom, if the theatre were built Downtown, it might fail as well. Live music venues have never done terribly well Downtown, have they?
But gee whiz, I guess we now have some property on Montgomery St. that will go unused as a ballpark.
# 8 raises important questions. The current city attorney has gotten into trouble because he saw the client as the Mayor and Council. It is well known that this mayor saw himself more as a dictator and commanded his subjects to do his bidding. As a result, good legal advice was not welcome if it did not agree with the mayor. Because of that, the reputation of the city attorney has suffered and his legal advice largely ignored by a mayor and council who would stop at nothing to pursue their goals (which apparently were to rack up huge legal losses.)
Please stop SJI’s political bickering for a few minutes and while it is sometimes entertaining –
Isn’t it more important to be looking at the big picture and what issue questions should be asked to the Mayor candidates or we will possibly have the same situation if we do not change structure and focus of our city government with our next Mayor regardless of who is elected?
City – County lawsuits and other City Attorney actions directed by Mayor with concurrence of City Council majority have cost San Jose tens of millions when we are in budget crisis – we all known the very long list and debate point plus or minus
Let’s have a debate on the proper role of the City Attorney.
Is the City Council who he works for properly utilizing him?
San Jose City Charter – The City Manager, the City Attorney, and the City Clerk shall be appointed and may at any time be removed by the Council.
Is Scott Herhold correct has City Attorney not properly advised the Council on litigation risks of their decisions and potential legal and other costs?
How should this be changed to benefit San Jose in the future rather than be a determent to San Jose’s budget?
No, the entire answer is not to elect your candidate … but have the City Council clearly define and require City Attorney to follow the legal role and and if necessary revise the city charter to specifically outline the role and responsibilities as the city attorney’s client is the municipal corporation—the city, which includes the public and the city attorney does not work for any individual member of the city council, Mayor or staff member of the city.
See # 8 above for references on City Attorney’s role
I’m trying to imagine who would be better at running a concert hall, Jim Beall or Forrest Williams.
There is a larger issue here. Perhaps neither the city nor county should be in the theater business.
Entertainment is a volatile industry even in the hands of the best professional management. Examples can be found in Mountain View where the city is suing the operators of Shoreline, or in Concord where the Chronicle Pavilion remains unprofitable.
Why does San Jose or Santa Clara County think it would fare any better in such a speculative venture? Or is this another one of those “It will help downtown hotels and restaurants” deals?
Regarding the city/county litigation: For the 50%+ residents of the county living in San Jose this is like your right hand slapping your left hand. The only person who gets hurt is you.
Initially I supported the concert venue in downtown. As a downtown resident and firm believer in having the arts in a central location it makes clear sense.
But then I got to thinking, will a concert venue in downtown be welcoming to a Vietnamese concert? How about an Indian-themed concert?
Additionally, the local police are already at wits-end in regards to crowd control on the evenings and weekends.
I think the venue being located at the current fairground location would be more accomodating to the diversity factor.
Just a thought.
My word, for the second time in a month I agree wholeheartedly with R. Robinson.
The lawsuit was ill-conceived, ill-advised, and poorly prosecuted.
Tom, if you and your partners were so confident that the fairgrounds facility would fail—as everyone I spoke with was—you would have built the venue in downtown and could watch as the county failed.
Fact is, the likelihood of either succeeding in current conditions was slim.
JMO’C – No, of course, we were not certain of success, but
City and County with the same constituents have the responsibility to work together. Build two – two fail. How do you think the Sharks would do if there was a Fairground NHL team and arena there? Oops, they tried to build one there in 1985 and a few one-eyed men – I was among them – stopped the wooden dome at the fairgrounds – they went broke in the process. We then build it where it belonged: In the Downtown. A little common sense goes a long way in government. A theatre at the fairgounds is not a winning
proposition. TMcE
Vic, I don’t think that just because the venue might be at the fairgrounds that there would always be an ethnic slant to they type of acts that were booked there. There are definitely some acts that would draw a crowd that would give the police plenty to do, but as far as where they get booked, that would depend more on the type of facility than where it would be located.
it’s so much fun to watch public agencies suing each other, caring not that they’re simply wasting public [read: OUR] money in the process. Now these same assholes want to jack up your sales tax. Don’t let them. vote NO on measure A.
Dear San Jose:
Regarding the latest installment of “As The City Crumbles,” I really don’t understand why the taxpayers of the City of San Jose have to pay the taxpayers of the County of Santa Clara a $36 million “settlement” for an investment in a project (concert hall) that could have, and should have been made with private funds. Since the taxpayers of San Jose are a subset of the taxpayers of the county, can’t we just call a “do-over?”
I agree with Scott Herhold’s column, but if the city attorney goes, so should the mayor and his budget director.
Prediction: The $36 million “settlement” will weigh heavily on San Jose voters’ minds in the June Primary.
Pete Campbell
The original deal between the County and House about 6 years ago, called for HOB to lease the land from the County and build and operate the theater at HOB’s expense. HOB got into financial trouble and the deal appeared dead. Miraculously it was resurrected, but this time with the County building the theater and hiring HOB to operate it.
From memory, The financial projections on which this new deal was based assumed an average expenditure (tickets, concessions and parking) of over $90. At the same time the County and HOB were touting the family oriented ethnic performances they intended to book. With more than a $70 million construction cost, It appeared to me that the County was headed for a huge financial loss. I said as much at the various hearings at the Board of Supes.
Oddly enough, with this settlement and the City’s $36 million payment (assuming this goes into the project), the financial success of the theater is probably greatly enhanced.
Now that I have chosen my candidate for mayor I wish to ask a couple of questions of Tom. Tom I am very aware of your business interests downtown, the area and Sharks and the North San Pedro area to name a few.
1. If you build a concert hall downtown, what happens when your HP Pavillion runs a competing show. Are there enough folks interested in coming to town for both venues?
2. As a downtown businessman how do you perceive to solve the problem for the North San Pedro restaurants including Speido and Stumps during the weekend of the race? I am sure you are in favor of the race. How do you answer your tenants complaints about reservation cancellations, no parking ergo no business?
3. Tom, I believe we need businessmen such as you to keep the core interesting but do you really think a concert hall will be worthwhile?
4. For the citizens of metropolitain San Jose what should be done with the fairgrounds? Turn it into condos or continue to run a trinket bazar called the County Fair and ?
Another $36.5M…is anyone keeping a list?
I appreciated Herhold’s column re: city atty’s difficulties. But may I simply inject a word into this debate and see if anyone amid the current power structure can tell me how they are are embodying it: Accountability.
Ed Rast #13: RU serious? “Let’s have a debate on the proper role of the City Attorney”. It’s not a debatable subject. It’s set forth in statutes. Would you propose a debate about the proper role of the District Attorney, a Judge, a public defender?? I thought you were smarter than that.
Tom McE # 17: Did you fall asleep in logic class @ Bellarmine? You can’t compare a tightly controlled set of rules like where NHL(or NBA, or NFL) teams are allowed to be against private, non-league venues for concerts.
You have financial interests downtown. You are absolutely NOT objective in this debate.
Would I like, or do I believe, that a farigrounds venue makes economic sense? Nope. There are no associated venues( like bars and restaurants) anywhere near there that would make such a location have any sense. Dumb idea on the county supes” part.
The more difficult question is whether or not such a venue would succeed downtown, where your family interests can benefit from more downtown diners.
HHHmmm—The House of Blues—who I am confident analyzed the pros and cons thoroughly—said no to the Woolworths site…downtown. I think their decision was that downtown San Ohaze(not just the woolwoths building) was not yet a viable/profitable venue.
“nuff said
Hugh # 19—so right. Public agencies don’t spend their money. They spend our money. Thus, they just don’t care.
I have heard of, but have not read, Scott Herhold’s article re Rick Doyle; but I cannot believe what an incredibly poor job he has done representing THE CITY OF SAN JOSE. He seems to think he represents the mayor, or maybe, expansively, the city council. WRONG. He is supposed to represent THE CITY OF SAN JOSE. Too bad he hasn’t figured that out.
I actually would have like to work in the city attorney’s office; but I guess after this post I need not apply.
As an aside, I keep hearing and reading that Gonzo/Guerra ruled by intimidation. I just can’t figure out who could be intimidated by either of them. Sheees, how weak can an entire city council be?????????
JohnMichael,
So is our City Atttorney fulfilling his duties as the statutes and city charter require but Scott Herhold indicates he is not?
Does he represent the municipal corporation and the public, not individuals per the statutes and legal opinions?
Does he follow up on Charter, municipal and state law violations?
Has anyone filed a complaint to him about city legal issues that he did not follow up or reply?
What about other additional City Attorney duties serving the public?
Your question – Would you propose a debate about the proper role of the District Attorney, a Judge, a public defender?? Yes, if they were not doing their duty as many have stated or imply or other commonly done duties for the public as some this county may not be doing?
I am surprized as a lawyer who is unhappy with our politicians and city government that you have not followed up on this or explained it ti SJI.
OK! First of all, I would go to the Fairgrounds before I would go to Cindys downtown territory, to catch a hot show. Why? First off I probably would not get shot at, rousted about, herded around, frisked between my knees for guns. Dare I go on.
Scott Herhold’s column was site specific. What sane individule would go town
down
on a friday night after 10 pm. The publicity and the violence has driven all the joy to Santana Row and Henry’s Hi Life.
There has been so much enphisus on the down town, that it seems the rest of San Jose is a vast waste land. Not true. I live in the east side and we do not have violent stuff happening like DOWN TOWN.
I recall when the Mexican Heritage was starting the Mariachi Festival, Fernando Zuezueta, wrote a letter to the guy that was going to do like wise at the Fair Grounds He was threatened and would get sued if he continued. My expression at the time was, Let them have their Festival. This is a community where the fun begins where the BS ends. I never heard Fernando belt out a “Savor a Mi”. not ever.
38 million? That was BS. 4 Million for taking out palm trees for a race, and Frank’s trees at that, that was BS.
I’m having too much fun. But you get my point.
The Community Care Mariachi Festival was canceled at the San Jose Athletic club. We will be celebrating our Spring at the Sonoma Chicken Coop in Campbell on Cinco de Mayo, Friday. Are we feeling safe . You bet!
The Village Black Smith
C’mon Tom, why does everything have to be located in Downtown. Are the other Council Districts unworthy of new capital projects?
This may be the best line of the blog thus far…
“The City and her Mayor were as silent as applause at a Jim Beall speech.”
The only question I have is, who the heck has ever heard a Jim Beall speech?
Read Herhold’s – City Attorney should Resign opinion
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/14332643.htm
#2 I have heard a Jim Beall speech, several months ago, and just woke up—The Lord Mayor got that one right..
Greg – no, not every capital project has to be Downtown – libraries, parks, community centers, and such, are , of course, to be in each neighborhood. But let’s face it: large theatres, museums, the Arena, etc. are logically and practically only appropriate for the core area. I remember vividly how alarmist in 1988, warned that our new Arena would back up traffic on Lincoln Ave. and tailgate in the Rosegarden! Can you imagine a big facility in Almaden or Evergreen? Only in some parallel universe. The Fairgrounds Theatre if ever buit, will flounder and fail. TMcE
Dan – as I said on 17, the major facilities for entertainment and culture should be in the economic, transit, & historical center of our valley – they should be in the Downtown, warts and all! Again and again our citizens have voted & specified this in elections and polls – only the pols & pundits balk. And no, a theatre at the fairgounds & downtown will not work,but the HPPavilon & a 6 or 7000 seater probably would. It is a risky proposition though. The fairgrounds board went “broke” and filed bankrupcy when they tried to build an arena there – slow learners. Have a good, Good Friday. TMcE
What’s the current situation with the MountainView Amphitheater? It’s not located near a downtown or a bunch of restaurants. What were the terms and conditions when it was built? Is it successful? I
as a teen, I used to go to concerts at the County Fairgrounds to hear Carlos Santana, Tower of Power, Sly and the Family Stone and others. When the music stopped, we would find a place to eat, maybe drag the main and if we got lucky, the fun would last till dawn. If not we would go home and sleep.
It wasn’t sophisticated, but it was fun…
WHO,S AFTER THE HOT SEAT. A REAL BUNCH OF SOUR GRAPES, ALL THE COUNCIL PUPPETS AND SOME NOT THIS IS A LOSE LOSE DEAL THIS IS GOING FROM BAD TO WORSE . TOM McHENRY IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SAVE THIS CITY, BEFORE ITS TO LATE……………..
Tom #32: REtake the logic class, Tom and reread my post.
You speak of then—4 generations, the time you were mayor; I am speaking of now, not when you were mayor. I never accused you of a conflict of interest while you were mayor. I thought the big deal what’s his name—was it Claude??—made about your family interests was way overblown. Most voters knew about it, they elected and re-elected you anyway, and you did the right thing by recusing yourself from certain votes.
But that was then and this is now; and I’m talking about now, and you reply with then.
So please don’t patronize me by telling me your family interests play no current role in your thoughts about where a concert venue should be located; or about dowtown development in general. I’m not saying you don’t have valuable input, either. All I said is that I do not believe you are completely objective on the subject.
Gil #29 – you must live a more interesting life than I. I go to the opera, movies, and dinner downtown quite often and have never been “shot at, rousted about, herded around, frisked between my knees for guns”. I walk, bike and drive downtown all the time.
A few nights ago I went to La Victoria at 11 o’clock at night to get dinner – the joint was jammed with people of all walks of life from a guy in a suit to kids with piercings and spiky hair. Everyone was hungry and happy, table space at a premium.
After the movies I’ve walked to a night club to close out the evening and then home in the wee hours, sometimes with friends sometimes by myself.
The events which seem to draw crowds more interested in damage than play are Mardi Gras and Cinco de Mayo – it is incomprehensible as to why that is but I avoid those events as a result.
I would have loved to have a HOB in downtown, that is where it belongs. I’ve been to HOB in a couple of other places and have been impressed by how they adopt the eclectic nature of the old buildings and neighborhoods in which they reside. They provide an incredibly diverse range of music and their Sunday Morning Gospel brunch is wonderful. I was very sorry that deal fell through.
If they had a one square mile “rule” when Tom was mayor and on the council, how is Mr. Mulcahy ever going to be able to vote on ANYTHING if he’s elected?
John Michael – one of those weights you pump, must have landed hard and awakened you abrubtly. Gee, you just discovered that for 4 generations my family has run businesses and worked downtown as hotel clerks, maids, creamery owners, and generally most anything that small business people do to survive. Gosh! The people of San Jose made up their mind whether I could be a fair and responsible Mayor long ago – thankfully, not as whimical/cynical as you, they decided that I did not form policy to sell a few more burgers at Peggy Sue’s – nice try! I never voted on anything within a sq. mile of our property, nor did anyone in my family or any staff have “any” business dealing in that period or become lobbyists – our rule not any law. If you have a problem w. my opinions, attack them a bit more intelligently. It’ll be more fun to debate then. TMcE
#37 I dont know you but I do Know the Di Napoli family and I know they have been committed to the betterment of San Jose for three generations. They do not need City Hall for personal reasons. They are upstanding citizens who give back to the city that they settled in many years ago. As for Michael, his family did not put him up to this. I believe he is in this race because the competition was a group of three council members who have been part of probably the most disgraceful period of time in our cities history. Michael is
a born leader. He has the energy and the personality to bring people together. Before you make a remark like that why dont you pick up the phone and give him call. I am sure you will get the picture. If we had more committe people like the McHenrys and the Di Napoli’s this city would be much better off.
JM … Hmmmm…“completely objective” – I don’t know of anyone whose background, education, values and family do not inform their opinions. But to say that I am for the Music Hall in the downtown bec. I own property is just off base. The Tech, the Children’s Museum, the Rep and all the rest should be in the center of the city: you don’t have to operate businesses to have that opinion. You only have to under Planning 101. You even agree on the site, I bet. And,by the way, I got a ‘D’in Logic but an ‘A’ in Ethics. TMcE
38—Take it easy. I think you read a whole lot more into #37s question than what was there. He didn’t question Mulcahy’s reasons for getting into the race or most of the other stuff you mentioned. He raised a legitimate question about how Mulcahy will be able to vote given his large property holdings. It’s not an attack or an insult—it’s a question that needs an answer. It has only to do with potential conflicts of interests. Not sure what set you off but maybe a calmer person could provide an anwer.
Tom & John: I am stunned by the number of bloggers here who refer to y’all (I presume it’s y’all) as the McHenrys. What planet are these people from?
Re #38, Jerry, please do give a read to Chill Out’s entry #40. He has captured my concerns precisely.
I am not anti-Mulcahy. Right now it’s mainly between him & Pandori as to who will get my vote. Tom managed to get plenty accomplished as mayor and council member with his voting restrictions (no thanks to Mr. Sour Grapes Fletcher), but considering how much more property Mike’s family owns around town, I am simply wondering how often he’d have to abstain from voting, not just on downtown issues but all over town. I’m wondering if it could become a hinderance. Could end up with a lot of 5/5 splits on a new & improved council under that scenario. These are things we need to consider as we decide how we’re going to vote.
JMO, as an employee of a former SF-based company that was hijacked by Texans, let me advise you that it’s “y’all” when you’re just talking to Tom. But if you’re talking to his whole family, correct usage is “all y’all.”
If you don’t have any Easter weekend plans, you can spend the time trying to figure out that kind of Texas logic!
Here some irony for you, especially Tom.
The reason Tom could not vote on interests downtown was the result of Prop. 9—a Jerry Brown led series of reforms for “clean government”.
Significantly, Prop. 9 was the catalyst for the Fair Political Practices Commission, Conflict of Interest disclosures and prohibitions on elected officials for potential conflicts ie. voting on projects close to your house.
Jerry Brown, significantly, did not include the Governor in these reforms. Nor did he know he would one day become Mayor of Oakland.
Thus finding himself prohibited from voting on an issue important to him—because he owned an old fire house in the middle of Oakland. He sued the State on his own political reform act, claiming it was unconstitutional.
He won. Had Tom had the same attorneys and the same court in the 1980s he could have voted on everything—as I believe he should have been able.
Welcome to the world of political reform.
Tom when you and JohnMichael finish your little chat I’d really like to read what you have to say about my #22 entry above. I’m not trying to antagonize you, I am truly interested in your take on the situation. The Race and concert hall situation now. You really have to be careful. JohnMichael could throw one of those weights across the street through one of your windows.
Thanks.
#36
Where have you been living? Do you not read and listen to the news.
I too go to many funtions in the down town. I make sure I get out of the down town before something occurs, that would trigger a confrontation, as has happened in the past.
Until the down town becomes user friendly, I’ll stay away.
You’ll find me at the San Jose Athletic Club most days at 5-6 am. Very little action at that time of day.
The Village Black Smith
I’m still amazed…appalled by TMcE’s comment “It was the right thing to do – it was the only option to emphasize the importance of the faltering downtown entertainment scene. “
The only option to help a faltering downtown of the City’s making was to sue the county???? I truly am appalled at the casualness with which Mr. McEnery spends citizens tax dollars. We (the City) had no business suing the county, wasting money and the outcome (a few dozen milliion dollars down the toilet) proves that. Are politicians so self absorbed that they are incapable of looking beyond the own selfish interests to act in the best interests of its citizens? Apparently some are not.
Sorry #37 for coming off the way I did. You do have a legitimate point. As far as I know the family does have interests in Downtown,
the old cannery sites on Monterey Road and 10 th Street, and Lincoln Ave in Willow Glen.
They are not players to my knowledge in North San Jose or Coyote Valley. There may be a few matters where Michael may have to recuse himself. But I dont think there is enough to cause major concern. He is genuine and clean. He loves this city and wants it to thrive.
While I agree that the theater belongs downtown instead of at the fairgrounds [assuming sucha taxpayer-funded theater needs to be built at all] there’s simply no excuse for two public agencies pissing away taxpayer’s money in stupid lawsuits. This does not serve the public purpose. Chuck Reed has gone out of his way to say he opposed this while Ron, Cindy et al supported the lawsuit against the county. It’s another reason to dispise Cindy.
JMO & Tom your blogs read like two Bellarmine boys out behind the bleachers having a pissing contest. JMO you probably get your dander up every time you look across the street at San Pedro Square. There is nothing wrong with having been in business in San Jose for several generations and then promoting San Jose. There is nothing wrong with being a successful attorney in San Jose with a family name that is reflected all over town.
I think we are all interested in how our tax monies are spent and misspent and hoping to get the biggest bang for our buck. It doesn’t look like we’re going to get the A’s to San Jose and we’ve lost Major League Soccer for now. Where do we go from here. What do we do with the Stephen’s Meat property? The fairgrounds belongs to the taxpayers of Santa Clara County which includes San Jose. What do we do to make this property financially useful? San Francisco put their new baseball stadium downtown and it is a success. The old Del Monte property on Auzerais is being torn down what is going in there? More townhouses and condos? We need the leadership of the successful businessman to guide us in the right direction to make profitable ventures. There ain’t nuttin wrong with being a successful businessman. America was built on capitalism. (Nasty word right?)
It looks as though Michael Mulcahy is a victom of his family’s great success. Don’t they own several hotels downtown also? I agree , he and Pandori are a breath of fresh air. Mulcahy for council, Pandori for Mayor . Now there is some leadership for the next 16 years!I’ll bet they would work well together .
Mr. Shannon – I can not account for the weakness of the case; I can not do anything but decry the 5 yrs. where the Mayor did ‘nothing’ to speak out on this theatre. I only know when the County is undermining the economic health of the city, you have to show some backbone – finally. We stopped the “wooden dome arena ” there by the goofy fairgound board in 1985, I am sorry we did not stop them this time. If you want to be “appalled” , try being outraged at the gang who can’t shoot straight, build straight,plan straight or sue right. TMcE
if you all had a scanner and heard what really goes on downtown then you would not go there after dark ,unless of course you had armed guards or no brains at all ,people get beat up for no reason at all by punk thugs in a gang of course your in downtown and your alone you take your life into your own hands , and by the way how did our mayor get a name like gonzales and he cant even speak spanish does cindy chavez have a translator too
Dan #47: Did I ever say there was anything wrong with being in business for generations, DAN? No, I simply said I doubt that Tom could be completely objective on certain issues. I stand by that statement. I don’t acept either his our your spin on it.
# 52 anyone who loves san jose
knows that the downtown is the focal point or should be for everything. The problem is that most mayors haven’t know that except for Tom McEnery. Look at what’s happened during the tenure of the rest, including, Hammer who was supposed to understand that then built Santana Row. It was the final arrow in the heart of the downtown for the next couple of generations for retail. Look at what the rest of the councils have been doing with housing. They are owned by the housing developers. Look at east San Jose foothills, south San Jose, they build with no hope continuing a level of service from police and fire that will all should have. Now Cindy wants to open up Coyote Valley to more housing. She is owned by unions and housing they are the only ones who want this, certainly the citizens don’t.
JMO You didn’t understand my blog.
There is no point in the two of you, TMcE and you, going at the present problems like school boys. The purpose of my #47 was to get Tom’s advice on the whole situation INCLUDING what to do with the fairgrounds property. Whether Tom can be objective or not because he is in business is not my issue here. BECAUSE he is in business and is successful and BECAUSE he has been mayor and was successful at that I’m asking for his advice based on his life experiences. If I am concerned about matters of juris I would ask you because of your experience. I’d like to see you wade in on the Doyle situation brought up my the Merc News. I would respect your opinion based on your experiences.
Enjoy the sunshine while you can.
http://www.community-newspapers.com/almaden/news4.shtml
Notice that Cortese asked for action from the rules committee and Cindy, rules committee chair, passes the buck to Doyle.
We need real reforms, starting by removing Cindy and then Doyle. Too bad the Sunshine Taskforce will be stacked by a majority of appointed seats.
Hey, #55:
I see no mention of Cindy Chavez at all in the article you have hyperlinked. I presume that Chavez as rules committee chair could not have acted unilaterally in referring Dave Cortese request to release redacted records to the city attorney for advice before endorsing that request.
Moreover, as an attorney, I would certainly want my client to consult with me before overriding my privilege call—even though the client has the prerogative to waive an asserted privilege. It seems to me, without knowing more than appears in the linked article, that the Rules Committee has acted prudently—and honorably—in seeking advice from the city attorney on this point. Whether the city attorney will provide good advice, or whether that advice will ultimately be followed, are different questions which the article does not purport to begin to explore.
Also, it’s important for non-lawyers to know that the assertion of a privilege does not necessarily connote an effort to cloak probative information in secrecy. I don’t know about the deliberative process privilege, particularly, but the attorney-client privilege, for example, is frequently invoked to withhold entirely innocuous communications because they fall within the auspice of privilege. If the privilege is not invoked, it’s waived, not only for the given communication but all communications on the same subject. Accordingly, lawyers are ordinarily especially careful about preserving the privilege regardless of the substance of the communication involved. In short, we cannot connote any significance to blacked-out (“redacted”) information merely because the city attorney has invoked a privilege.
Dave Cortese, as a lawyer, should know better—and maybe he thinks he does, which is why he wants to overrule the city attorney. And maybe he’s even right. I don’t know. But the non-lawyer members of the city council, like Chavez, are right to seek their counsel’s input before acting.
I chalk your post up as more innuendo from a competing mayoral campaign, presumably Cortese’s.
Don, 56
All you have to do is look at Cindy’s voting record on land use issues. Her following Rick’s advice, her reluctance to use common sense and her refusal to listen to the public, or even her fellow council members (Dave, Chuck or Linda all attornies) have resulted in one lost law suit after another, at a cost of millions to S.J. taxpayers. Do I need to list them or are they still fresh in your mind? Time to take a new approach if the old one is not working. Perhaps a legal background is the key for our new mayor….Chuck, Dave P. , Dave C. please take a giant step forward!!
Don G,
A point of clarification regarding the SJDTA and north San Jose. Any support for developing the North San Jose area by the SJDTA has not been voted on or endorsed by the board or members of the SJDTA.
The pulbic support has come from the current board president and the executive director who seem to answer more to the city council and RDA than they do to the many “small businesses” that make up the membership.
Developing north san jose without finishing downtown will be a mistake!
How about a mayor who can actually finish what has been started for a change!?
Hey, #61: I did check my facts. Here’s what the Mercury News reported in yesterday’s (April 23) edition:
* * * * *
“David Pandori predicts doom if the city sticks with a ‘nonsenical plan’ approved last summer to allow taller buildings and denser housing along North First Street.
* * * *
“In North San Jose, fearing the departure of even more businesses after the doct-com bust, the council passed a plan that permits 16 million additional square feet of office space, in taller buildings along North First Street, and 32,000 more housing units on 600 acres, said Andrew Crabtree, a principal planner for the city.
“Reed, the councilman who promoted the North First plan, says the city had to adapt to keep its ‘driving industries’ such as eBay or become ‘another Detroit.’
Vice Mayor Chavez, real estate investor Mulcahy and Councilman Cortese support the essence of the new North San Jose plan, though Cortese and Mulcahy say San Jose should have been more considerate of its neighbors when devising it. . . .
“Pandori says ‘you can’t believe in strong neighborhoods and support that plan, because that plan is going to cause people to spill over into neighborhood streets throughout the city just in the simple task of trying to get to work.’
“Pandori has it backward, say Chavez and Reed. . . .
“Although Cortese is supportive, he has some reservations. He voted against the plan when it came before the council because he thought differences with neighboring cities should have been worked out first.
* * * * *”
So, the Merc’s story is quite consistent with what I posted. As I correctly said, “Reed, Cortese and Chavez all support denser development in North San Jose.” Indeed, Chavez’s position on North San Jose is 100 percent in alignment with Chuck Reed. Credit Cortese for anticipating problems with neighboring cities, but query whether we’d still be negotiating instead of moving forward right now if Cortese’s position had carried the day.
I also accurately wrote that Pandori believes the North San Jose plan was “bad” for downtown. The Merc went even further to characterize Pandori as having “predict[ed] doom”, and not only to downtown but to strong neighborhoods.
By the way, I’ve seen Pandori on the debate circuit, and if he supports denser development in North San Jose but is merely quibbling about the details, he doing a terrible job of delivering the message. Pandori’s position on North San Jose as I have heard it is, no-way-no-how, it’s a non-starter.
Pandori, as he likes to say, presents a clear choice. Pandori’s against denser development in North San Jose. There’s no nuance there.
Because David is right on this issue.
I don’t see anything that says Pandori is against more density in NSJ, in fact he says he will work to bring a new plan. As I understand it, he is against the current plan because they removed the triggers. Besides, disn’t we already lose the lawsuit so we need a new plan anyway. What was the justification for changing the plan and why was it good for SJ?
Funny I also remember Cortese campaigning against NSJ last year.
Cortese: “I voted against the plan, before I supported it”
#62 Don,
Interesting choice of paragraphs to back your arguments with “facts”…
Here is a few you missed from the article.
The argument is over how to foster both economic growth and quality of life in the 10th-largest city in America. Should the city allow more office buildings and condo complexes to add jobs and relieve the housing shortage? And if so, how will it avoid clogging the streets with commuters and draining the city budget with new neighborhoods that need cops and firefighters?
If the city grows in the wrong way, warns Ed Rast, president of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association, and “if you’re not happy today with the level of city services, you’re going to have even less.’‘
Elected officials also must balance the desires of neighborhoods and developers, for whom billions of dollars in building projects are at stake. Development interests have provided about one-third of campaign money to the candidates, with the exception of Pandori.
It seems to me that the neighbors of Northside would take issue with this development if traffic and parks are not handled properly. What is NNA’s position on this development?
#65: I didn’t “spin” anything. I pointed out where the candidates stand on North San Jose development and backed it up with the Mercury News report yesterday when someone asked that I check my facts. No one has contradicted the Merc story. (By the way, I’ve also looked at David Pandori’s website, and there’s no nuanced, I-don-‘t-like-the-city-council’s-plan-but-I’ve-got-a-better-one-for-North-San-Jose stuff like some of you anonymous folks have suggested.)
I’ve been upfront with where I stand on North San Jose development, which is consistent with 4 of the 5 mayoral candidates. If you disagree, fine. I take it your blogging from Pandori campaign headquarters. Pandori’s been upfront with where he stands, also.
Finally, NNA has not taken a position on North San Jose development (or the mayoral race for that matter). But I think you underestimate my neighbors’ good sense, and regardless I wouldn’t personally be bound by a neighborhood association stance.
Clarence Darrow, #57: It’s a sorry state of affairs if you need to be a lawyer to be mayor of San Jose. By the way, assuming she is one as you say, Linda LeZotte is the only attorney on the city council who is not running for mayor—and, guess what, the bystander attorney-councilperson supports Cindy Chavez.
Also, I venture to guess that a real analysis of Chavez’s “voting record on land use” matters correlates to 90 percent or better with both Chuck Reed and Dave Cortese, because the vast majority of land use matters brought to a vote before the council have involved consensus. For example, Reed, Cortese and Chavez all support denser development in North San Jose. The city lost a lawsuit as a result. Nonetheless, voting for denser development in North San Jose was the right call and is critical for the economic future of the city.
Why is that Reed, who has made developing North San Jose a centerpiece of his campaign, gets a free pass from you and others on this blog for his vote, whereas Chavez is savaged?
Better yet, why the free pass for David Pandori, who didn’t cast a vote because he’s not currently on the council but who’s made his position clear, for being on the wrong side of the North San Jose land use issue? Pandori says creating urban scale in North San Jose is bad for downtown, yet the San Jose Downtown Assn, THE group best situated to look after the economic interests of downtown, supports the North San Jose initiative. All of the city’s driving industries, not merely the developers, support a denser North San Jose as well. Why isn’t Pandori being called to task on this? Why are you instead decrying Chavez alone for voting for the right policy along with the rest of the crowd?
#59 Don,
You are misrepresenting Pandori. He is simply saying the current North San Jose plan is bad. The plan grows housing without properly planning for parks, schools, traffic, and job growth, and wasn’t coordinated with other cities.
Were you invited to the planning sessions? Where was the consensus building?
Pandori is not saying we should not build housing in North San Jose, we just need to plan it. That sounds like common sense without any special interests influencing. Go check out his web site or go hear him speak.
P.S. Cortese didn’t vote for the North San Jose plan.
#58 Don Don Don, You just made my case for me. You site Linda La Zotte, A fine member of council. She also has a fine understanding of land use issues. Compare voting records on the land use issues I was refering to#57.
Fairgrounds,Fox Markovitz,I.B.M. Building #25.
You will find Cindy voting on the side that cost us millions. Linda on the other hand was on the legally correct side. Cindy refused to listen to Linda’s wisdom, listen to the public’s arguments or even follow P.A.C.* S.J. warnings that they were breaking the law.A group you stated you were a member of. Not to mention not following the Landmarks or Planning commissions advice. The one person you will find Cindy consistently voting with is Ron G. The only big mistake I see Linda making is her poor choice in Cindy.
Your Honor I rest my case
Gee, what a surprise. Cindy knew all about the “last minute” deal for dollars regarding the Gran Prix. Sounds like some of the “no names” on this Board knew what they were talking about.
I assume Lisa, Cate, et al will be talking to Cindy about this and then telling us that everything is OK.
So I’ve been gone for a few weeks caring for my family, and come back to interesting and amusing stuff! But I do have to observe my question has never been answered. We can all look at the voting records of the candidates for mayor who are currently on the council. Pandori has the luxury of being out of office for many many years. But he does have a voting record. He hates the North SJ development. What did he do for North San Jose while he was on the council? Do I even mention the “vision” thing again??? Just curious.
Mr. McEnery, are we on for coffee?
Cate Schroeder
cate, Lisa Don # 72
Oh what a difference a night makes! Did you see the Mercury News. Front page, Cindy caught in a lie!
Will you spin or will you show us what you are made of.
#65: You may be a tad bit confused. Northside and North San Jose are not the same place, Don is past President of Northside Neighborhood Association (NNA) which is the oldest neighborhood association in San Jose and is in council district 3 – Cindy’s district. North San Jose is a ways up North First St, near Alviso and in Chucks district.
It’s interesting that Don points out sensible arguments, quotes facts and still is lambasted. Don is actually one a member of the legal profession, it’s his job to verify his facts. He’s one guy you don’t want to argue with unless it’s all in fun or you like losing. This is one reason I so enjoy checking this site out – it’s very entertaining!
I’ve had the opportunity to meet Mr. Mulcahy, he’s a lovely gentleman. But, now having met 4 of the Big 5 I would have to say that Ms. Chavez is clearly the one to take San Jose to the next step in it’s ongoing evolution as a big city.
# 70 P. Henry if you would have said Grand Prix instead of Norcal , now there would have been the question of the hour. Lisa #69 is it too late to ask or are you all trying to figure out how to spin “THE GRAND FIX” ?
Lisa #69
If it comes out that Cindy had prior knowledge of the Norcal Scandal would you renounce her?
#69 Lisa
I thought the job of an attorney was to defend his client,right or wrong, despite the truth . Slant the facts to fit the case. Sounds like Chavez’s camp! If the glove fits
Gee, Mr. P, that sounds like the old “If WMD are found in Iraq would you apologize live on my TV show and support the war?” If they find….? What if they don’t ?…….. You’d still be just as happy to cast a long shadow over the name of a very good representative. Lisa and i have found Cindy to be open, honest and responsive in our dealings with her, we find her leadership style an asset, and we both have seen results that have improved the quality of life in our neighborhoods. If there is anything I don’t like about cindy’s votes, issues, priorities, I’ll do what I’ve always done take to her and talk it out. It’s as simple as that. Lisa, I imagine, will do the same.
Lisa ,Don,Cate I think you owe Inside The Hall an apology. Maybe a thank you also. Here is a chance for you to let us know that your good intentions were misguided. I know how you feel, I voted for Nixion because he was going to end the war, open up China, support the clean air act. When Water Gate came out he lied, I could no longer put my name behind him. The fact you have blogged using your real name has been an attempt to use your “Good Name” to influence people to join Cindy’s cause. That is noble. In light of what has come out, to condone Ciny’s actions will only hurt other worthy causes you will continue to lend your name. Now is the time to look at the facts, before it is too late. I’m sure there is more to follow,but then it will be too late.
What did Cindy know and when did she know it?
I can’t wait to see the spin that’s put on this one – should make for some fine political comedy.
Chirco, Lezotte, Nguyen, Pyle, Williams, and Yeager are endorsing Cindy Chavez for Mayor even though she misled them. How can they endorse a peer that manipulated their trust to lead a vote? They should drop their endorsements!
Write your Council Member today and ask them to NOT endorse Cindy Chavez for Mayor.
This is an outrage. We deserve better!
Great idea!
Watch the discussion today, Agenda 3.8.
http://sanjose.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
Send your email comments to council.
In response to #s 74-78: You can read my post about this morning’s Mercury News article re the Grand Prix in today’s Single Gal thread regarding the Los Angelezation of San Jose.
Lisa – coffee right after the Sharks win the Stanley Cup! What is your favorite spot? Northside, Naglee Park, the
Alameda – they are all on my walking beat. TMcE
#81
Don ,Now I know why you dodged the question when asked over and over again. ” Would you renounce Cindy if she had prior knowledge of or took part in the Norcal Scam. To get an answer to this question just see how Don reacted to the Grand Fix. , Don’s blog is in Single Gal. I thought you were just misguided,but now I see you share her ethics. Take it how you wish.
In response to #82: See my lengthy 2nd post of today in yesterday’s sprawl blog. In short, as I say there, IF Cindy Chavez lied to her colleagues about her knowledge in the Grand Prix matter and IF she is lying about it now to cover it up, that would color my support for her. But I’ve seen no evidence of that.
83 – What, no evidence? Obviously, short of a conviction you will apparently not be convinced—and even then you would probably attack the judge and jury and anybody else you find.
What about lying to us by omission. Why didn’t she just tell us she had been behind the deal for months, take her lumps and get on with it. No she did not see the Gonzo-Chavez house of cards falling.
Looks like the City of Santa Clara is going to stick it to us now.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2006/05/22/daily79.html?jst=b_ln_hl
Maybe we can throw in a convention hall tent settle the case. Between North San Jose, the Norcal contract, and the new city hall, this administration appears to be trying to bankrupt us. Wonder if the baseball stadium and territorial rights and will be the next lawsuit.
A good attorney is the mayor’s seat would probably solve this mess.