Recently a new shopping mall, San Jose Market Center, opened up right outside of downtown on Coleman Ave and Taylor Street. It boasts retail giants such as Target, PetSmart, Office Depot and Cost Plus, while also offering services such as nails, tanning and even dentistry. But the interesting thing is now that restaurants are popping up in the Market Center (Panera Bread, Red Brick Pizza, and soon Unamas and Chili’s), people are leaving downtown for the ease and the convenience of the mini-mall. Is the death toll sounding once again for downtown?
I was recently eating lunch at Panera Bread—a clean, good deli restaurant in the Market Center—and, while sitting there, I ran into three people who were there for lunch but worked downtown; they had driven their cars to the mall restaurant instead of walking to a downtown restaurant near their workplace. Another person worked in the outskirts of downtown but, instead of paying for parking downtown and having to walk to get lunch, they decided that the Market Center had free parking to spare and they could get in and out of there quicker.
So, I guess this is just the way things are in modern-day America and there isn’t much we can do to change the facts. Drive-thrus, fast food and mini-malls rule the world for a reason—they are quick and easy for a culture always on the run. I am just worried that the ease of the Market Center might make more developers look outside of downtown, as they always have, and for patrons to look for what is easiest when it comes to where they spend their money.
Don’t get me wrong—I was one of the first to patronize the new center—I just hope that someone can get a clue about parking and make it more “user friendly” to go downtown, or we may all be meeting in mini-malls in San Jose—forever.
Parking is MUCH worse in downtown SF, and outrageously expensive—$30/hr or so in some places, but all lunch places are packed.
After spending billions on downtown SJ it isn’t at all exciting. No buzz at all. Of course downtown SF isn’t doing a thing on weekends,
but everywhere else is: the Embarcadero is packed. There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with decision making in San Jose, and no one at all, especially the Murky, has been interested in really boring in on the “structure” of ingrained stupidity and lack of imagination that is fastened solidly to this little suburb of a million people. Even Santa Clara does better. Their parks are infinitely superior, better planned, executed and maintained, and their little convention center happened years before ours, and is still more user-friendly. The continuing story about the entrenched folks behind the expensive failure of downtown San Jose is a good story for some out-of-town investigator. It’s way too big for the Murky or the Metro, and the Downtown Rotary Club wouldn’t allow them to do it anyway. George Green
Yet another shortcoming we can lay at Gonzo’s feet. If we had a strong mayor who believed in Downtown, that project would have been pushed Downtown. But no, Gonzo didn’t believe any more effort was needed downtown. So lucrative retail development is going “off-site”. And, I’m afraid, with the two candidates for mayor we have to choose from, Mayor Maintenance or Miss Sunshine, we’re in for another 4 years (at least) of watching the slow death of redevelopment (at least where SJ residents are concerned—convention visitors are always welcome).
#2 – I don’t think the city “hates big box stores”. They just haven’t been able to convince one to do business downtown. They’ve been looking for a “marquee anchor tenant” for downtown retail since the days of the Pavilion (remember the rumors of Bloomingdale’s?), but without a major workable retail plan, no major (or mid-major) retail tenant will do business downtown. And that’s why downtown is dying (another) slow death.
There are more people waiting for the likes of Mark T., Frustrated Finfan, Pete “I’m on Rufus’s staff’ Campbell, Hugh Jardonn, Inside the Hall, Gary Reynolds, Just the Facts, Mole, 1,2,3 Get Rid of Ronnie G, Single Gal, and the rest who have posted how much they anticipated the Grand Jury transcripts to be made public so that it would prove that Cindy knew about the secret deal and tell us all when she knew it…
Well the transcripts are out and Cindy told the truth, Chuck Rufus Reed and Pat Dando did not, they knew and said nothing and by their silence they are now contributors to this sorry episode.
Are you all going to send a card, flowers, or just post that you were wrong individually or as a group? I say, send over cookies and snacks to the campaign office so that the volunteers can have further energy to make sure Cindy is the next Mayor. Oh, the note you shoud attach should read, or REED, something like this:
Dear future Mayor Chavez,
Sorry for questioning your integrity and sorry for writing some very bad things about you. Even though many of us do not agree with some of your policy decisions it is clear to us after a thorough read of the, just released, transcripts that you had nothing to do with the Mayor’s deal. You had no prior knowledge, did not orchestrate, participate in, cover up, or further this sorry deal. We are sorry for saying you did. We wish our other favorite son Chuck Rufus Reed had shared what he knew with the council, what, according to his own testimony, he had been directly told by CWS about this deal, BEFORE the vote on the 11.25 million to Norcal. He broke REED REFORM #6, the one about sharing material facts with the council before a vote. We urge him to do the honorable thing and resign. With that we wish you and your family good luck.
Signed,
Remorseful Bloggers who got it wrong
Many factors contribute to our moribund dowtown, but the two most telling are lack of residential density and lack of abundant free parking. We’re working on the density issue—lots of medium rise residential going up. We’ll have to wait and see if they are priced right to fill them up.
The parking issue will remain problematic, I fear, due to lack of available land to build multi-story public parking. But if you live downtown, that issue goes away—dowtown is small enough to walk to and from your partying, and its saves you a DUI or a cab ride back to the ‘burbs. That’s why I’m looking to move downtown when the CIM project is complete, if the pricing is right.
We are not SF or even Los Gatos. Most SJ folks just won’t put up with parking difficulty when they want to shop or get a cup of coffeee or have lunch.
The one glaring exception is that they will put up with a bit of a walk to attend an event @ The Tank.
not that anybody rides transit in this town, but if you had to take the bus to shopping, valley fair or eastridge are served by VTA. The new San Jose Market Center really isn’t unless you’re willing to take a long walk. So you have to drive because even though there’s pedistrian access from downtown, it’s not really that inviting. So we have to make new developments transit/bike/ped friendly or we get more of the same. I guess folks like it that way despite gas prices north of $3.00/gal.
If people felt safe while being downtown then it would be packed. If you have aggressive panhandlers an open air psychiatric facility and crack cocaine for one and all then every good intention is for not. If you put the smell of urine and wannabe thugs and the afore mentioned in any mini mall it would be vacant in no time. Talking about parking, high density housing etc. is pointless if people don’t feel safe.
Reality Check,
You reference Reed’s testimony on pg. 1469, lines 14-25 as some type of WOW smoking gun. If you read all the testimony, read learned about the addendum from a letter presented to the whole council for the September 2004 vote. On page two of the letter there is a reference to the fact the city would reimburse Norcal (page 1469 lines 14 – 20). Reed then says he wanted to get the documents that were part of that commitment (your WOW statement).
Reed then asks for the documents that committed the city to pay Norcal and receives the document AFTER the September 2004 vote to give Norcal $11 million dollars (page 1470 lines 5 – 14).
Why did other councilmembers not see what Reed saw? Your attempt to make Reed part of the mayor’s deal is pathetic. Reed appears to be about the only councilmember who tried to figure out what was really going on while a majority of the council including Chavez put their head in the sand.
Correcting an earlier post. It looks like Chavez missed three opportunities to learn about problems with the Norcal contract:
1) June 16, 2004 letter to Carl Mosher from John Nicoletti (page 1468 lines 10 – 20) and (page 1469 lines 5 – 19). One page two of the letter there is a reference “TO THE FACT THAT CITY OFFICIALS COMMITTED TO NORCAL IN OCTOBER 2000 THAT THE CITY WOULD REIMBURSE NORCAL FOR THE INCREMENTAL PAYMENTS”. (page 1469 lines 15 – 17)
2) Reed/Lezotte Memo – September 20, 2004.
3) Grand Jury Report (June 2005) – Read like a British tabloid according to Chavez (Mercury News, June 15, 2005)
With all this, Chavez claims that she first learned from the Graham report (December 2005) someone told Norcal the city would pay the extra labor costs (page 1274 lines 13 – 18). Did she even read the grand jury report? If not, how did she know it read like a British tabloid. Did Chavez even read the Mercury News between June and December 2005?
SG, I’d venture a guess that those people you saw at the mall were the types who don’t like the idea that they have to work downtown and are of the mall-loving variety, that disgusting demographic that is all about mediocrity and predictability, something of which all malls (hmmm, and Chuck Reed) have plenty of to offer.
I also think that RC needs to be called on the spiteful (when is he/she anything but?) spamming in #6, which is a re-posting from another thread and has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. Seems to me that RC fell off the wagon and is back on the the aggressive and alienating warpath with anyone who raises the slightest question about the beloved and pure Saint Cynthia. It’s scary. This smacks of the same kind of fanaticism and intolerance that causes airliners to end up inside of skyscrapers. I think this blog might need to go all Craig’s List on RC and flag for removal any future spamming from him/her going forward.
Thanks to Steve for once again showing what a fool Reality Check is. It is easy to take things out of context to support your case as RC does and has done for months. The real truth is that we may never know with certainty just how involved Cindy was in this. She has covered her tracks well and with foaming mouthpieces like Reality Check twisting the facts at every opportunity, the real truth may stay hidden with those who worked in the Hall and were never interviewed by the Grand Jury. RC has his hopes pinned on hoping those folks are never questioned. That’s fine. He can live in his fantasy world, I and others will live in our world of reality knowing just what Cindy did and didn’t do. Dream on, RC.
Steve,
I do not think Chuck Rufus Reed was part of the Mayor’s deal. I believe Reed when he says he knew of the scheme to reimburse Norcal for CWS labor issues before September 2004. He testifies that CWS owners, consultants, and lobbyists told him of the city commitment to reimburse Norcal. Reed testifies he was told. What did he do with the information, he sat on it, and in his memo before the vote he did not disclose the material fact that he was told specifically about this scheme by CWS.
He did not discolose at the meeting, when the 11.25 million was discussed, what he knew as a result of numerous meetings with CWS owners, consultants and lobbyists.
Here is what Rufus could have said; “My fellow councilmembers, I would be negligent for not disclosing the material fact that on several occasions between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003 I was directly told by CWS owners, consultants and lobbyists that the City had agreed to reimburse Norcal for labor costs as a result of CWS switching over to the Teamsters. I am presenting my notes from those meetings and my calendar to collaborate these meetings and reveal who they were with. When I further inquired about who in the City made this Charter Violating promise to make Norcal “whole” I was told the Mayor’s office. Mayor, did you or your staff make such a commitment to Norcal before they were awarded the contract and did you ever reveal this promise to the council so that we could have considered this prior to our awarding the contract to Norcal? I will not be supporting this amendment because I believe laws were broken and because I have direct knowledge of the facts surrounding this amendment because I was told numerous times by representatives of CWS of this secret deal and I urge my fellow councilmembers to defer this item until all the fact are known.”
REED REFORM #6, look it up Steve and tell me how Chuck did not violate his own code of conduct.
Why did he not tell all he knew when he knew it?
Single Gal-
the market center COULD NOT have been built downtown proper. There is not enough room to build it- unless we wanted to clear out blocks and blocks of buidings that are already there. Why is this so hard for you to understand? I live, shop and work downtown and I don’t feel like I’m “cheating” on downtown because I go to Target. the Market Center is providing a service to the neighborhoods that couldn’t be fit in the Kotansky buildings, were they renovated, or the Bassler Haynes, or on the first floor of the Mesa Development. etc.
Ken- you sound pretty sheltered. What happens on First and Santa Clara is pretty mild compared to just about any other major big city. Perhaps you should bark up another tree to try to get the social problems solved before you whine here again.
Can you people stay on topic?
Listen you Screwballs, including Single Gal, the Market Center is in the northwest corner of downtown San Jose frame area. The downtown district is fun and lively, packed with things to do! Just go out there and hang out, and you’ll see that’s it’s a happening place. Hey, go to Starbuck’s.
#11 Steve,
So then you agree that Cindy did not know of, orchestrate, participate in, or cover up the Mayor’s scheme as has been intimated on this site by numerous posters and posers. Taking your post at face value, the earliest she could have learned about this sorry episode was around June 16, 2004. When was the first time Chuck learned about the deal and what did he do with the information? His testimony is that he knew of the deal sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003.
Should Rufus not have shared with the council, before the vote on the 11.25 million, the material fact that CWS owners, consultants and lobbyists told him of the secret deal?
Since he withheld material facts from the council and this is in direct contradiction to REED REFORM #6, when can we expect his resignation?
Face it, the SJ citizenry, in the main, doesn’t really give a damn about pouring billions more into Downtown. Most of us are quite content to conduct business and entertainment in the outlying malls and small business districts scattered throughout SJ. Aside from the RDA, our politicians and developers, who would vote for pouring more money Downtown just for the sake of having a Downtown?
#12 Mark T
Don’t be so afraid of a blog posting. Steve is off SG’s topic as are most people on most days of this blog site. If you are calling for any and all posters who are off topic to be banned than this will be one sorry blog.
You posted, “Seems to me that RC fell off the wagon and is back on the aggressive and alienating warpath with anyone who raises the slightest question about the beloved and pure Saint Cynthia. It’s scary.”
I say, those who attacked and have been attacking Cynthia have some apoligizing to do. Slightest question, ha, many on this site have accused Cynthia of commiting crimes, of carrying the ball for labor during the Norcal deal, of working with the Mayor on this sorry episode. They attack, I defend and you are scared. Come on Mark T, you are braver than that, aren’t you?
#12 –
I fail to see how one’s belief in and/or defense of either of the San Jose Mayor’s race contenders can in any way be compared to the mindset of those who caused the death of many friends, family members and heroes. I might agree with you that RC is a bit over the top and/or lazy with the repeat blogs (whether or not he/she is right is another debate) but after reading your comments above, I think I would rather vote to kick your ignorant rant off the blog instead. Absolutely ridiculous…
I agree, “Reality Check” has got to go…
Dear Single Gal:
Shop where you want as long as it’s in San Jose so we get some of the taxes. (People want FREE and conveniently located parking).
#2 Nice blog! #6 (Reality Check), I’m not on Reed’s staff, I’m just one of the many volunteers knocking on doors and reminding people that Reed voted against the opulent city hall that will cost us community centers and swimming pools for kids. And, I sometimes mention how Reed voted against the city government’s attempted takeover of the Tropicana Shopping Center. (The people I talk to are not very happy about either decision). (Chavez voted YES on both).
This election is very simple…either you’re content with the direction that the city is going (if so, you vote for Vice-Mayor Chavez), or you’re not. (if you’re not, you vote for Reed).
Pete Campbell
I agree with #12. Not only is Reality Check consistently off-topic, he offers nothing new. He just repeats his same statements over and over. We know how much he cares for Cindy, probably because he receives a paycheck from her. When and if he has something new to say and it is on-topic, then he can be welcomed back. Until then, #12 has the right idea. TIme to say bye-bye to Reality Check.
The mini mall concept fills the shopping habit of San Jose residents perfectly and that is pick up stuff from the store, cleaners, etc. on the way home from work or during lunch break. Sad to say for downtown, that habit also requires lots of free parking during normal business hours.
I thought you would use your post today to apologize to Cindy Chavez for all the rotten things you have been saying in to regard to you accusing her of knowing about the Norcal secret deal. I have to believe you read the much anticipated transctipts and see that not only did Cindy not know about the deal but she did not have anything to do with it.
The same can not be said about Rufus Reed or Pat Dando—-their own testimony confirms that they knew about the deal and did not tell the council or the public about it—why is that? Below is a post from the Open Thread blog this past Friday—SG, sad post today, talk about beating a dead horse, death of downtown again, BORING! When you have little remorse for the ‘attack Cindy’ lynch mob you have helped create and you find yourself in another sleepless Monday night wondering what to post for your blog, try Open Thread and don’t always fall back on downtown is dead.
Here is a portion of a post talking about the transcripts on Open Thread:
Second, you wrote: “It states that Cindy claims to have told Morales, of the Teamsters Union, his desire to change the MRF workers from Longshoremen to Teamsters,“was not an issue for the council”. (Now that surly would have been the right thing to do)”
It was the right thing to do and I am glad you recognize that, and stop calling me surly. In Mr Finkelstein’s summation to the Grand Jury on pg. 2200 he confirms that Cindy told the Teamsters to go pound salt. She did not know about, broker, participate, or orchestrate this deal, period. The Mayor did.
Third, Cindy can not and did not direct staff, that is against the City Charter. The council directed the study of pay for MRF workers. Look, this is clearly a policy question. Does one believe that those working under a city contract should be paid poverty wages or not? Cindy probably does not think so but this does not support the charge that she knew or participated in or had prior knowledge of the Mayors deal. The testimony is clear and I believe District Attorney Finkelstein’s summation that Cindy told the Teamsters it was not a city issue who represented the CWS workers and that she was not going to help them.
Fourth, Chuck Rufus Reed testifies that he knew of the secret deal sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of ‘03. (pg. 1475, lines 15-21), then Vice-Mayor Pat Dando’s Chief of Staff, Joshua Howard testifies that he told Vice-Mayor Dando, (some here on this blog seem to forget that Dando was Gonzales’s Vice-Mayor when this secret deal was hatched), what the 11.25 million dollars was for and who cut a secret deal promising the money to Norcal BEFORE she signed the memo with the Mayor asking the council to pony up. Can you find any testimony that says Cindy knew about this deal or participated in it? If Dando knew the real reason for the 11.25 and Reed knew the real reason for the 11.25, why is no one questioning them?
Vindication is simple—many have accused Cindy on this blog and in other places of knowing of the deal, of orchestrating the deal, of participating in the deal—-She did not know about it, she did not orchestrate it and she did not participate in it—Reed knew of a side deal as far back as September 12, 2002—his own testimony—what did he do about it? NOTHING.
In REALITY he was asked very specifically by the District Attorney about his reaction in regard to learning that Norcal was promised to be made whole by the Mayor for CWS going with higher paid Teamster workers. (pg. 1469, lines 14-25) Reed testifies: “I don’t think I had any particular reaction to that item other than trying to get all the underlying documents that might have been part of such a commitment.”—WOW
This just demonstrates that if you want a project to be successful, you have to give the residents of San José what they want.
You can plan an area for decades – like downtown – but if the city doesn’t think like the common folk it just won’t work.
The city hates big box stores – the residents love them.
The city likes local coffee spots – the residents love the consistency of Starbucks.
The city dislikes large free parking lots – the residents love them.
The city loves mass transit – the residents love their car.
The city loves the urban feel of downtown – the residents want bedroom communities, like Almaden and Los Altos.
The city loves to tell people they have to have a tree in their park strip – residents would prefer to have one in their lawns.
The city wants sunshine ordinances – the residents just want leaders that do their job honestly.
There is no connection between what is done and what is wanted!
26 – How about incorporating the historic buildings into a development like Market Center? Novel idea, huh?
RC
You keep talking about apologies. If Cindy is now vindicated due to investigation, as you put it . Don’t you think all those Cindy supporters who doubted her and started to soften the potential outcome byblaming the D.A. for the whole mess need to apologise to him. Weren’t many of you saying the fix was put on by Reed and his buddy the D.A. In light of what has come out, don’t you think you and the rest of the Klan owe Chuck an apology also?
#27
What, are you cray? Utilize our historic resources? Just think of all the people it would bring downtown! I like it just the way it is. I like to ride my bike through the ghost town on weekends. It is the safest place to ride in San Jose.
SG- The Market Center has vibrant shops with potential tenants lining up unlike the 4th St. Parking Garage commercial spaces because it is on private property without the ability of the City/RDA to impose the South Bay Labor Council’s “labor peace” legalized extortion requirement. Ask the Art Store and Lee’s Sandwiches why they don’t want to be there.
Panera Bakery could just as easily be in the space that was lined up for Prolific Oven or Starbucks. Target could be on San Fernando St. with a small incentive from the RDA. Why aren’t they? The legalized extortion requirements being imposed by a City Council that is stacked with folks who sold their souls in exchange for Labor’s future promise of an army of zombies who will man phone banks, walk precincts, or unknowingly will have their dues siphoned off as campaign contributions to the same unethical politicians.
Single Gal I say to you; just imagine if the same stores that are at the mini mall on Coleman and Taylor were asked to fill the Pavilion. My vision was just that. I made this proposal about 10 years ago. My idea included free parking with a 5 to 8 story parking lot on the Southeast corner of First and San Fernando Streets. The parking lot would have skywalks to cross all the adjacent streets in all directions with Macy’s filling in the vacant 2nd and third storys on the Notheast corner of 1st and San Fernando.
The idea was received with mixed reactions then died when Frank Taylor left town.
#31 – You can’t see me, but I’m now standing and applauding.
Interesting comments today. Adding to the mix:
Could it be that one of the reasons SG saw downtowners having lunch at Market Center was because like her they wanted a “clean, good deli restaurant” like Panera Bread? Give people what they want, including free parking, and they will come. It’s hard to beat good deli, and why would anyone pay to park when they have better options nearby?
As for RC’s latest: Does anyone else find it curious the “official” Chavez campaign is not making the same far fetched claims coming from fringe types such as Reality Check and the Mayor Watch site that Metro wrote about?
It’s interesting to speculate about the possible reasons.
Still, I hope SJI does not ban the poor fellow. He’s much too entertaining. Besides, as long as he’s at the keyboard he’s basically harmless.
A couple of things; Reality Check works for South Bay Labor Council and I identified his initals on another positing. He seems hateful and rude and he goes on and on about the same thing all the time. RC, you will never get the apology you want, b/c the people you are asking don’t like Cindy, no matter what she does. And after this labor peace crap at city hall retail, I probably won’t vote for her either. When your misguided agenda gets in the way of simple business transactions and sound business practices, then you have got to go. We’ll never have a downtown at this rate with micky mouse stuff like this going on. You need to get over the fact that other people have insulted Cindy and move on. Do the best you can do for her and stay to the higher ground. And quit boring us with your rants.
Mal Content,
What far fetched claims are you posting about? Name one. I believe what Chuck Reed said under oath and it seems many are offended by what he has said and my pointing out his testimony. Why is that? Reed’s entire campaign is based upon some no votes he has taken and Honesty in government. These are legitimate issues, and if some are offended by my posts, get over it, its a campaign. Reed knew of the scheme, Dando knew of the scheme, and Cindy did not. Why does that get so many people upset?
What makes every think that Reality Check is a he? She keeps wanting an apology now that Cindy is “cleared” of any wrongdoing. Politicians may know (well, not in Gonzales’s case) how to stay within the law with their actions and/or testimony but it doesn’t mean that their actions are ethical. Unfortunately, the two are not the same in our society.
Well, at least RC is consistent with her negative comments which is also consistent with the attitude of her campaign staff. Keep up the great comments for everyone to rip on!
Aren’t we missing the most important issues by waisting our time talking about the Grand Jurry testimony. If we want to evaluate the candidates, shouldn’t we discuss how they voted on past important issues? Issues like, Tropicana,Grand Prix,County Fairgrounds, Markovitz and Fox, NSJ, Del Monte #3 and the tent.
And don’t forget how they supported the mayor’s puppet city manager Borgsdorf. He is as much to blame for many of these scandals as anyone else.
BREAKING NEWS
Californians Like To Shop in Suburban Strip Malls
Keep up the good work Single Gal.
Remember, Mr. Integrity, you voted to transder park funds in a secret meeting to the Grand Prix
Reed supporters are upset because Chuck is now shown by DA to not be completely honest, ethical person he want us or believes himself to be – like Chamber where he was President – Is anyone who is half awake surprised –
If the last 7 years told us anything it was – NO ONE on San Jose City Council and city government is without fault for sorry state of local ethics, city government, poor public policy and questionable spending decisions and most did nothing to stop it
San Jose should never again accept ” Trust me ” from any Mayor or other city candidate since they ALL have ethics and special interest conflict problems and do not represent the public interest – we have already counted the ways
They are both badly flawed – either part of the “deal is done” back room city government problem or politically unable to stop or fix the problems
If SJI is to fulfill it’s mission – “designed to encourage political debate, discussion and CHANGE in our city, started by people who value San Jose and are interested in her future “
So how do we get a good Mayor out of 2 flawed Mayor candidates or at least a Mayor that will commit to and has the ability to representing public interest? What does that politically look like? How do you recognize it?
The answer is not the many usual SJI bloggers – simplistic – elect my candidate b—s—- ,
political spin and emotional blog ranting
So how do we as a community do it?
Glad to see the “Illiterates for Cindy” are back at work today. Keep up the good work, kids. You’ll be on a time-out soon enough.
#28
No.
$43 – you’ve got to SELL IT, BABY! Sell the voting public of this city that your vision (and a concrete vision, not what Miss Cindy Sunshine is portraying) is what is RIGHT, what is GOOD, and what is above all NECESSARY for the city. That’s how we got on downtown redevelopment in the first place.
What’s been missing from the debate over downtown redevelopment for all time (as far as I can tell) are 2 aspects. One is the perception of redevelopemnt as an INVESTMENT that (eventually) benefits the entire city and every neighborhood, in the form of business tax revenue etc, that filters into the city’s general fund. Instead, we get the “why are we SPENDING all this money on downtown?” argument. Coupled with that (item number 2 on my list) is the perception that money is being spent on downtown AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. I drive Lincoln Avenue in Willow Glen on occasion, and gee, it doesn’t look like investing in a vital downtown core has effected Willow Glen’s core one bit.
The candidates for mayor have failed to articulate their vision for the future of San Jose, let alone downtown. Mayor Maintenance is foregoing vision and tough decision making, abdicating leadership to community action commitees (there’s some real leadership for you). But at least Mayor Maintenance has a more defined action plan than Mayor Cindy Sunshine who wants everything for everyone. Right, and unicorns on every corner will provide them.
I’m dreading the next 4 yesrs.
Well, in my case, the “coke/water” income person, it is hard to spend on a downtown that caters to the “champagne” income person.
As for transit. The same goes. At one time you could transfer from one bus to another on the same fare, but now they charge each time you transfer. Add to that the length of time it takes to get to the downtown area if you live on the outskirts. It would take most of my day on transit to come & go only to find that I couldn’t find, let alone afford, what I needed or wanted. It’s no wonder people want to stay in their vehicles.
Why should all the city / RDA money be spent on downtown or economic development as the Chamber wants – balanced spending makes more common sense as we have seen with Strong Neighborhoods
What would happen if some city money was spend on Willow GLen or other neighborhood business district for parking, street improvements etc ? The return on investment for public funds would be 2-5 times what happens downtown in new tax revenues where tens of milions was been wasted
When will we see the actual returns on our public funds investment? Are the numbers real not like the Grand Prix fake economic benefits Where are the audits on economic developmet spending since this is money taken away from parks, community centers, street /sewer repairs and other basic city serives which were can not afford There are streets, sewers etc that have been in need of repair for decades while money was wasted downtown The billions spent on massive Downtown development was at the expense of neglecting basic city services, parks or repairs that the residents paid to get but still have not
After $2 billion in downtown investment and with city hall add 1/2 billion when will it stop and the money be spent on other part of the city or we will see an actual downtown investmetn return not more problems an drequests for more tax money?
Does downtown spending actually benefit the entire city ? What proof do you have since many people never go downtown and most jobs, retail and other activities are not downtown?
All city / RDA spending on anything except basic city services and repairs taht is all economic development, events, tax subsidies to private companies / non profits, etc should be audited and the results shown to the public so we do not waste more city money
RC #38—It’s a campaign. Get over the COMPAC mailers.
#48 John,
That’s it, I would have expected much better from you, how disappointing. Oh, well, everyone has an off day. How are you doing REEding through the transcripts?
City #47- you forgot to mention that the city has also stopped controling cockroaches so expect those critters in your kitchen soon. I mean the real kind- with six legs.
Anyone have an RC filter handy ?
Any development the size of Market Center, if placed in the downtown core, would have required the destruction of multiple buildings in the center core. Whereupon a bunch of folks would be bleating about how San Jose is “destroying its heritage!!!!” So it’s put outside the core and now people are bleating about how SJ is “neglecting downtown!!!” My suggestion: Pick one and go with it, folks.
One thing that Las Vegas does is put in bridges and “slidewalks” over major streets in order to improve access to its resorts and hotels. A slidewalk from the Civic Center VTA stop to this new shopping center would probably be a good idea IMHO, in order to get people to start buying into the concept of being able to use mass transit for something besides as a mobile easel for graffiti tags.
Is it my imagination, or is it a fact that a large portion of RDA funds are needed to maintain vacant downtown buidings and staff salaries?
Does anybody have an itemized copy of the current RDA spending plan so we could see where our tax dollars are being spent; including salaries?
#38 Cindy just didn’t admit that she knew anything. I am not so quick to absolve her of any knowledge of the whole Norcal mess. IF she DIDN’T know about anything, I would have been real upset at the time if I was one of her Labor buddies and she wasn’t sticking up for them.
#47 – It will forever be thus if you insist on calling redevelopment SPENDING instead of INVESTING. I see redevelopment as an investment, akin to a pebble in the water, creating ripple sthat reach to all areas of the pond. It looks like you see redevelopment as a black hole, sucking money away from all other parts of the city into one central core.
As sosmeone said before (and has probably been said over and over), until we reach a consensus on what this city should be, we will never agree on a course of action. And until we do that, all this talk of “Capitol of Silicon Valley” and “10th Largest City” will just be empty words because we won’t achieve anywhere close to greatness.
#27 and #29 – Apologies for the delay in response.
It would be perfectly spanky to see Tarjay and Panera and such locations in the Pavilion or other places in the “transit mall.” But as stated before, for them to come in, they would have to Pay Toll To The Troll. For them to go into, say, the old JCPennney at SCL and MKT, how much retrofit and seismic and asbestos abatement and permits and bullcrap would they have to go through? They did a cost-benefit analysis and decided that Coleman and Taylor was the place to be.
Myself, I would be pleased that there are businesses that are actually choosing to locate in San Jose and contributing sales taxes to the COSJ instead of just across the borders of the ring communities and contributing sales taxes to them.
Reality Check, your postings are so often off-topic I wonder if you’re somehow challenged, to put it politely.
Dear Reality Check,
I am not a big fan of Chuck or Cindy. I am not also like many others here, wanting you to go away. It is important that we get both sides of the story. Though you raise some imprtant issues, you would do better at getting your point across if you were a little more respectful and did a little less ranting. Otherwise, keep giving us the other side of the story.
Just want to go on record here, in particular with RC, that in my post #12 above I never suggested that RC be banned from SJI. I simply suggested that repeat and identical posts from him/her be questioned by the host, especially when off topic. RC heats this blog up enough with caustic material. We don’t need duplicate postings even if the majority of fellow bloggers are already reaching for the salt when they spot an RC post, which is easy to do without scrolling to the bottom.
RC does not really present another side of the story. He presents his/her story with a side of twist. S/He is so vehemently anti-Reed that his/her comments aren’t really worth the time to read anymore. I don’t care if S/he goes away or not. I’ll get my information unfiltered directly from the transcripts and talking to people who were actually involved. Those folks do not back-up Cindy’s portrayal of her ignorance.
In fact, RC hurts Cindy’s case more than he helps it. If we are to belive her testimony as filtered by RC, then Cindy is the most incompetent and out-of-touch vice mayor we have ever had. She is Labor’s leader on the council and we are supposed to believe she knew nothing about this major labor issue. We’re supposed to believe she didn’t know what the city policy was on prevailing wage? The list goes on. If all of this is true then she is too stupid to even be considered for the office of mayor. If it is not true, then she can’t be trusted for the office of mayor.
Nice going, RC. You’ve painted a pretty pathetic picture of your golden girl.
#52
As for dealing with asbestos and seismic retrofitting, that should not be a big enough obstacle to be a deal breaker. As for parking and lack off other anchor stores, that is a hole other problem. We need to look at all the other cities that utilize their historic resources and figure out how they can do it so successfully and we can’t.
Metro’s “the Fly” weighs in on the Grand Jury testimony this week:
http://www.metroactive.com/metro/08.16.06/fly-0633.html
If this testimony was as damaging to Chuck as RC seems to believe, then fly would be all over it. Instead, fly only comments that Chuck’s middle name is “Rufus.”
RC # 49—you’re diappointed? I just used your words, Dufus.
# 37, why are standing and appluading?
Do you like the concept, or are you applauding the fact that Frank Taylor left town?
It probably doesn’t matter now, most of the funding that was available has been squandered away on various projects.
# 62 is “Rufus” a code word to hide his roofing company so the restless mob won’t hound him?
#51 Mal
You are usually somewhat well informed, why the intellectual laziness on your part, why not read the transcripts for yourself? I am passing on readily available facts culled from reading Chuck Rufus Reed’s sworn testimony. Nothing made up, no speculation, rather a line by line reading of what he said, his own words describe his knowledge of the Mayor’s deal, when he knew about it and what he did with the information—Are you planning on reading the transcripts? If Chuck Rufus Reed knew of the deal and did nothing with the information, would that change your opinion of him? If he withheld material facts in violation of Reed Reform #6 would that change your opinion of his honesty? How is posting facts from his own testimony, verbatim testimony, bile?—-Could it be that those with such a hatred for Cindy are blinded by the truth, could it be that many who oppose her should not have judged her until all the facts have been presented? Rufus has a problem….and your logic escapes me, are you certain that the Chavez camp is not shopping these transcripts right now? Wanna make a wager on that one?
I repeat my challenge to you in post #38 to single out any far fetched claims, point them out…REED the transcripts and refute what Rufus said, I have read them and you will not be able to…so I guess my bile will be all you can attack but I can see how the truth on this on can casue some acid reflux for you and yours.
#38 RC – Clever answer but evasive.
If the transcripts, as you say, confirms that Reed knew about the deal and did not tell the council or the public about it, then why isn’t the Chavez campaign making this and issue and doing so quite loudly?
Instead we only have Reality Check banging out this claim along with his/her usual bile on SJI.
This leads a reasonable person to conclude that your rather twisted interpretations of the transcripts are so far off the mark that not even Cindy Chavez is willing to take them seriously.
Then again, calling Reed “Rufus” doesn’t exactly enhance your credibility either. (Rufus?)
It’s “aforementioned” and “whole” people.
I passed through downtown today. Absent the free museum, there’s no reason to get off the bus, even though I do enjoy Zanotto’s deli and the fountain-side seating by the Fairmont. Lunch itself, however, is not enough reason to stop downtown and there’s nothing else to stop for during the day. Nighttime is no time to be wandering around; especially when other venues offer entertainment without the anxiety. Btw, I worked downtown from 1982 to 1998, then I just turned away.
#53 RC – I have read the transcripts. I do not think they even come close to supporting your conclusions. Post #10 pretty well summarizes my reaction to your claims.
Meanwhile I have yet to hear a peep from the Chavez campaign echoing your take on the transcripts unless, of course, you are a campaign operative sending up trial balloons.
If so may I offer some advice? That dog ain’t gonna hunt. By now you should have figured out that attempts to demonize Reed not only do not gain traction they add to the perception that Chavez does not operate in an open and honest fashion.
#61 – A Good Idea indeed.
The trouble is, which cities should San Jose look at? For a long, long time the fixation at 1st and Mission was SFO. Pretty soon, when it became apparent that San Jose would eclipse the population of its more glamorous partner to the north, the obsession then turned to the false god of “Transit,” perhaps trying to establish a quasi-San Diego or Portland look.
The tough part about utilizing historic resources is that we really can’t agree on what those resources are, much less their value to the city, so attempting to utilize them starts to get us into a chicken-and-egg discussion, resulting in nothing ever getting done.
The thing is, San Jose will never, ever have a vibrant 24-hour downtown or the big-city urban feel. The community’s relative affluence compared to other cities of its size allows people to choose the burbs; it also allows people to choose another city 50 miles up the Bayshore Freeway which is much closer to the 24-hour feel should they wish the “urban” lifestyle.
Who knows. This may change with BART coming underneath Santa Clara Street. It may change somewhat now that the GonzoDome is open for bidness. It may change after the next earthquake.
But until this current obsession with “strong neighborhoods” is curbed, ain’t nothing major going to happen in the center core that isn’t directly entertainment- or sports-related. It’s just not that kinda place, ya know?
Were I Da Mayor, I would be concentrating on what exists, here and now, and making sure that what exists, here and now, is running properly before making grandiose plans. I would also be embracing the University rather than treating it like a red-headed stepchild.
Many of the problems we see today are part and parcel of the Council’s disinclination to concentrate on the “here and now,” focused instead on its gauzy future under the GonzoDome, and the promise that may hold one day.
And it allowed a charlatan to do his level best to hose the city and its citizens, and then act like he’s the one being scorned when called on it.
#66 Mal
You must have read the Cliff Notes version of he transcripts. I will post later today page number and line number of each time Reed admits under oath that he knew of the side deal sometime between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003. He knew of the deal because CWS told him of the deal. Why did he not ever, ever, disclose that CWS told him of the scheme to have the City reimburse Norcal for CWS labor costs? I believe Chuck knew and decided to sit and wait as opposed to following Reed Reform #6 in regard to disclosing material facts to the council. Where in any of his memo’s or comments at council meetings does he write or say, CWS owners, consultants and lobbyists that I met with between September 12, 2002 and May of 2003 directly told me about the illegal and charter violating scheme to have the City reimburse Norcal for CWS labor costs? Show me the testimony—-you can’t becasue it is not there.
Reed and Dando knew before the 2004 vote and didn’t disclose, why is that?
#67 – JD, you got my vote. There should be a mandate for completion of plans in progress. Without that, of course everything SPENT on (insert redevelopment area here) will look like a waste and a failure.
I thought that the Coleman Market Center was in downtown. Go figure..
#67
There isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a problem with how to determine if a building is historic or not. The city, state and feds give us clear guidelines. In most cases it is quite clear if a building qualifies or not. The only question our city leaders need to answer is, are we going respect ,invest in, and build upon our valuable historic assets or demolish them? You talk about finishing what we started, does that include preserving what we already have!
Hey, Reality Chump – The so-called “super secret double whammy” info that you believe Chuck had was no different than what other councilmembers had, including your wonder woman Cindy. Much more will be coming out that will further document that Cindy knew and chose to vote to give away over $11 million of public money. That doesn’t seem to bother you. Why not? You think it is OK to give away public money to your favorite union? Does any of this stinking scandal bother you except the nonsense you keep harping on about Reed and Dando? Seems to me your priorities are a bit miss placed but then I ‘m not a shill for Cindy and Labor.
P. White, et al…you guysamazing.
Ya know, you sound just like a Bush Republican—blame everyone else even when you are guilty. It stuns me the UNMITIGATED GALL you people within the Chuckie “Dr. No…Unless I get something for it” Reed campaign have.
You “people” claim Chavez is “dirty, corrupt, an evil woman, …” the way you people insult this woman stuns me. And yet, it turns out you were ALL WRONG!!!
It turned my stomach whenever I read this blog (the Single Gal, I hope, gets her own spine and admits that her constant battering of Cindy on this issue was unwarranted).
And I don’t give a damn if you dislike her, but you better be darn sure of your facts before you go after her—to do anything less is cowardly, weak, disgusting and is something all the vicious right-wing legions of the Rove School of Politics Campaign do to friends and enemies alike. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
And now it turns out, after the last eighteen months of you ignorant, blinded fools on this blog calling this woman so many names, YOU WERE ALL WRONG. It turns out Chuck, Tricky Vic, Pat “I coulda been a Mayor contender” Dando KNEW THE WHOLE F##$%#$@%ING TIME!!!
Pat Dando, you, in particular, are an embarrassment to San Jose, its politics and its citizens. The Chamber should be embarrassed by the actions you have taken in their name and on their behalf.
Frankly, your behavior has been just abominable and something I would hope would have been beneath you. Clearly, your lack of good sense and poor political judgement should be (and is) an embarrasment to our Chamber—an organization with a long and noble history in our fair city—and you have polluted the good work they have done on behalf of this city and its people.
Now, one more thing, I urge you ALL to read my earlier posts on Chuckie “Dr. No Unless I Get Something For It” Reed. I told you that Dr. No has some things he was hiding/some back door dealings only he and Pat Scando knew about. Remember the line “Chuck is living in a glass house surrounded by one big ass stone garden.”
Scando’s election work at the Chamber (the false ads bludgeoning Chavez had more to do with Dr. No than with helping Mulcahy (and now we know what was being hidden don’t we.).
Folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The embarrassment of Tricky Vic’s dealings throughout the South Bay are just starting to come to light. Trust me, Tricky is a VERY BAD guy. And trust me, it will only get worse.
BTW, did most of you know that Chuck is also carrying the pro-life banner for the Tricky Vic and the Republicans. He also is prepared to sell San Jose’s economic interests to the highest bidder (i.e. the one Tricky Vic gets the most money from) and will give working families short shrift. After all, isn’t that what Republicans have been doing to this country for the last 15 years they have been in power. Funny how NONE of that has been reported in the Merc.
Honestly, San Jose, I think that Chuck Reed is hardly the answer. Chuck claims on his signs to be about “Honesty, Integrity and Open-Government.”
Its funny how quickly that became a lie…
(Oh and P. White, don’t call me a Cindy shill cause I liked Mulcahy and/or Pandori for the job. I am just so sick and tired of you Chuckie Apologists jumping on someone when your own house is hardly clean…)
The ads the Chamber put out were not false! You might not like them but they accurately pointed out Chavez’ voting record (one that shows her voting to give away millions of dollars of public money.) You can criticize the Chamber for other things but false ads is not one of them.
Most who have opposed Cindy on this site are not Chuck supporters. But rant all you want. I’ll stick to the facts I know from first hand experience with Cindy—she knew and she was involved. Enjoy your stay in fantasyland.
For someone who is not a Cindy shill you sure sound like one. Your tirade borders on the venemous blather of another offensive blogger—are you the same person??
#73
DTB – I appreciate your anti-rovian passion, but dial it back a bit.
When you look at the slate of the mayoral candidates, there was only one true “outsider” amongst the top five candidates, that being Mike Mulcahy. All the others (Pandori, Cortese, Rufus, and Cindy) were on or had spent time at 1st and Mission.
The end result of that was that the two probable worst choices – Rufus and Cindy, had enough core supporters to carry them through to the general election.
We are left now with the choice that all voters dread – having to choose the “least bad alternative.” And considering that Gonzo was Cindy’s full-on guru for many years, that DQ’s her immediately in my mind.
So unless somebody decides to draft Tom McEnery as a write-in or something, that’s the sitch. It sucks, but that’s what it is.
Neither candidate has something especially good going for them except for one thing – Reed voted against the NorCal deal, Chavez voted for it. Again, that DQ’s her immediately in my mind, but YMMV.
A sad story but true! Has a write-in candidate ever won a major election? How does David Pandori sound?
Maybe it is worth a try. Those of us who are less than thrilled with the prospect of a Reed administration and even less thrilled with the possibility of a ChavezGonzales administration should try to find an alternative. A Pandori write-in sounds better and better. We can’t afford 4 years of Reed or Chavez. How about it? Others ready to get a write-in campaign going? What about it, David? Interested??
The ads were false Pat, sorry “Facts in My Favor”…when three independent sources say this, including the Merc, its not only false, its misleading and beyond disgusting. Again, Pat, you have been an embarassement to the Chamber—a group that has done alot of good in San Jose.
(oh, and by the way, Pat aka “Facts”, I NEVER criticized the Chamber—I criticized you for actions you and others took without telling the Chamber Board or its members…so stop deflecting Republican.)
Now, you are STILL defending Chuckie “Dr. No” Reed in this whole sordid affair. Even when we now know he learned of the NorCal deal before ANYONE on the Council. And whom did he learn it from, “Facts” aka Pat Scando. Imagine my surprise at the two Republicans on this Council trying to stick it to Chavez to deflect their own illegal activity.
Where have we heard this before: Oh, I know, the Bush Administration and Karl Rove. The fact is Tricky Vic has taken a page right out of their playbook.
And JD, Chuck DID NOT vote against the Norcal deal…in fact, by my count, Chuck has voted over 98% of the time with Gonzo. So, really, lets talk about “honesty, integrity and accountability” in this race—but lets do so in a realistic and fair way.
And you know NOTHING first hand “Facts”…Gonzo and Chavez haven’t spoken civilly or otherwise for three years—save for Council business. And as such an “insider” with “first hand knowledge”, you should know Chavez had virtually nothing to to do with this disaster. So, for an “insider” you really don’t know much or you are just full of crap to begin with. I would pick the latter.
Because, you see, I correctly predicted that Chuck was hiding something (and that ain’t all he’s hiding thanks to Tricky Vic). I just have to tell every body what an “insider” I may or may not be to make what I said true—I generally let the facts, in this case grand jury testimony, speak for themselves. And, not surprisingly, I turned out to be right—see, cause I really do know Chuck Reed and Tricky Vic. They have been playing this BS game for years and now they finally got caught. You see, my thought is, Chuck, Tricky Vic and Scando wanted to use the Chamber ads to damage Chavez enough to cause her to finish out of the runoff or, even in a runoff, force Chavez to constantly defend herself and thereby keeping Chuckie’s involvement in the Norcal scandal almost underwraps.
The problem is that these knuckleheads didn’t count on the grand jury NOT releasing transcripts—which are usually sealed and/or never see the light of day until the trial actually commences.
The fact is, once the general public starts to really pay attention and this hits the light of day—Chuck Reed and Tricky Vic may not have to worry about losing a Mayor’s race, he may have to worry more about facing a George Kennedy grand jury himself.
Downtown Brown/Reality Check—I’d cut back on the caffeine—it’s starting to affect your tenuous grip on reality.
But, hey, this blog is open to everybody, even those who spew factless venom like gas-belching volcano. Have your say, continue to look silly, and the rest of us will deal with the issues and ignore you.
But thanks for playing. Your consolation prize will be given to you in November.
78 – What happened to the kindler, gentler SJI? You sure blew that to bits. Most of us are trying to be respectful even if we disagree. Guess you didn’t get that memo. Try to give it a rest. Keep going the way you are and most will ignore you. You can still disagree without going off the deep-end. Any valid point you may have just gets lost in your huffing and puffing. Try calming down—maybe others will listen to you. Maybe not, but at least they won’t question your stability.
#78 Downtown Brown
You state that Chuck voted 98% of the time with Gonzo. Since you feel you know his voting record so well, would you please compare and contrast Cindy’s and Chuck’s votes on the following important issues:
The Tent, The Grand Prix, The Ballpark, Norcal, The Investigation, The Fairgrounds, and The Tropicana. After you do your research, please tell us who voted on the correct side and why.
#78 Downtown Brown
We are still waiting for you to answer #81
Are these not fair questions?
Just the Facts:
Why the hell are you asking such a stupid question when you know how each voted. Thats just ridiculous….
But here is an even more important, and fair, question: Why did Chuck lie about knowing about the Norcal deal when he knew about BEFORE ANYONE ELSE ON THE COUNCIL!??
How bout you answer that one first. But you know what, as in true Republican Rovian fashion, you lie, obfuscate and obscure in order to keep the the real truth from getting out. More to the point, I know you can’t and you won’t answer that critical question because you Reed Republicans don’t want that to matter.
But at the end of the day, those “votes of conscience” he supposedly made to “protect his constituents” don’t mean a damn thing because, ultimately, Chuck’s holier than thou stance has all been a smoke and mirrors routine worthy of a really bad Vegas magic show.
Oh, and by the way, why don’t you ask your boy Dr. No about the following:
1.) Did he vote for Bush for President? Bet you will just LOVE the answer.
2.) Did you know Chuck is ardently, but quietly, pro-life. Funny how he doesn’t mention that to the women of San Jose…most of whom are pro-choice.
3.) That Chuck refuses to disclose his law firm work and has put himself in positions that are in a direct conflict of interest with his service as member of the San Jose City Council. Also, his political consultant, Tricky Vic, engaged in work before the city of San Jose (albeit through a 3rd party) and his buddy Chuck was a big help in the process.
4. Why did Chuck vote NO in recent council vote that will require all candidates to make a real and FULL disclosure of their professional work—in Dr. No’s case, as a trial lawyer. Oh, if you actually do YOUR RESEARCH, the answer will surprise.
So, I ask you JTF, show some real civic guts, and DEMAND that Chuck answer those three issues I just mentioned…
Oh, one last thing, since you probably work for Dr. No (Unless something is in it for me) aka, Chuck Reed, you should probably change your name to “Anything But The Facts”…its invariably more appropriate for the Reed Campaign.
You really should have re-read what I said before launching into another one of your foaming tirades. I said, every Democrat I know is supporting Reed. I did not say every Democrat is supporting him.
I do know what I am talking about re: NorCal. As has been said before, Chavez’ involvement may or may not rise to criminality but she is guilty—most city employees who are still here (and many who have left) know from firsthand experience that she is not clean in this.
Also, Reed is not my boy—I supported someone else in the primary. I do believe though that there is no contest between Reed and Chavez when it comes to ethics. Is Reed perfect, of course not, and I have never said he was.
You make an awful lot of assumptions, again with no basis in fact (as do so many Chavez supporters.)
As for your self-revered 4 questions, they have little to do with this race. It is a non-partisan race in case you weren’t aware. Also, as I said yesterday, the outside income issue does nothing to improve our government and I’m not the only one who feels that way (see today’s editorial in the Mercury.)
And, if anyone is guilty of “swift boat” type tactics, just look at how your girl, Chavez, is trying to deflect her guilt on NorCal to Reed. Her latest campaign attack this past week-end has revealed just how desperate she is and shows she is willing to stoop as low as possible to try and salvage the wreckage of her candidacy.
Say whatever you want but the bottom line is that Chavez voted to give away over $11 million of public money and Reed did not. Spin that.
83 – Since you are obviously having a difficult time watching the demise of your golden girl, Ms. Chavez, I will try to be much kinder and more rational than you.
Your silly attempts to turn a non-partisan race into a partisan one with no factual basis is much more “Rovian” than anything you accuse others of doing. Also, every Democrat I know is supporting Reed—so your foaming tirade is quite hollow. Your lame attempt (along with every other Chavez supporter) to deflect the fact that Chavez supported the $11 million gift of public funds falls flat. Every councilmember (even those who weren’t directly involved with Labor, like Chavez) had information regarding the garbage fiasco. The difference is that a few (like Reed) understood that information and that the city was NOT obligated to pay the addtional money. Others (like Chavez) either were too dense to understand that or have been untruthful about the issue. Either way your gal ends up looking very silly or worse.
The outside income issue is a red herring that does nothing to improve the openess of city government. All it might do is prevent small business people from ever considering running for council—so much for the people’s government.
While I find nearly everything you have said to be silly, lacking in facts, dripping with anger, etc. I have tried to rise above your hatred in my response. I still do not understand why the Chavez-lovers feel they have to post responses on this blog that are so hate-filled and nasty. If that is the directive you are getting from her campaign then that is one more reason why she should not be mayor.
Dr. Phil:
What I find amazing is that you accuse me of spewing “hate-filled” rhetoric when your boy Chuck has done the exact same thing through his minion Pat Dando. Or do you have selective rememberances of the primary campaign—if you need reminding, I suggest you do your research, starting with the Chamber’s tv buy.
If the “outside income issue” is such a red herring, why was Chuck a very emphatic “NO” on the Council. Because, as many “insiders” know, Chuck has done some very, very stupid and unethical things through his firm. Trust me…
And Dr. Phil, you can find what I say to be silly…but its not lacking in facts. I challenge you and others to ask Dr. No about those questions I asked. Or are you simply afraid to learn the truth?
And its not that I love Chavez—as I said, if you bothered to read, I actually preferred a Mike Mulcahy or David Pandori. But what kills me is the absolute inability for people like you to even question Dr. No about his own nefarious deeds. Again, you either gloss over it for fear of revealing the Dr. Jekyll-Mr. Hyde persona of Chuck Reed or, like lemmings at the cliff, you ignore reality because, “hey, everyone else in Reed World doesn’t believe it may true.”
Chuck has the wonderful tendency to act like some sort of “moral center” for the San Jose City Council. He wants everyone to believe that he stands as the lone voice of fiscal reason in a sea of madness.
Maybe you should do yourself a favor and research the real Chuck Reed. His behavior on the Council is something much different than the political smokescreen he and Tricky Vic put up. The fact is Chuck’s “fiscal moral center” is a load of nonsense. He will gladly vote for a bill if there is something in it for him or a contributor or against a bill if he knows none of his “people” will benefit…never mind the rest of the city.
Oh, and you know NOTHING of what you are talking about on Norcal. Chuck and Dando both knew before anyone else and did nothing until he could benefit from it politically. And do you know who sold him out—Dando did before the Grand Jury. Dando even lied, as the the transcripts show by trying desperately to link the Norcal deal to Chavez. When she was caught in a lie by the District Attorney’s office, she backtracked as only she could by saying she had no idea whether Chavez was involved or not. But Chuck sure as hell knew all about the deal, he and Dando supported it behind the scenes and then made political hay out of it to advance their own careers—course Pat ” I shoulda been Mayor” Dando fell a little short.
Whether Chavez becomes Mayor or not isn’t the issue with me…what I despise is people like you and Chuck Reed who have the temerity to question the ethics of others, viciously attack others (not in person but through 3rd parties) and then act with such moral indignation when people find out their own ethics and personal dealings border on the criminal.
(Now where have I heard of that tactic before…oh I remember, the Bush Campaign of 2004….they call it “Swift Boating” a candidate. Tricky Vic and Dr. No are goin down that same road.)
Do me a favor, drop the moral indignation act … its both boring and a lie—kinda like the Reed campaign and its claim to promote “honesty, integrity and some other useless platitude on a sign.”
Oh, and do me just one more favor Philly…why don’t you take the bull by the horns and ask your boy, Dr. No, to answer the four questions I gave JTF.
But you won’t and let me tell you why. While you may think I am all those things (mean, nasty, hate-filled, nasty, smelly, a Mr. Poopy Pants…sorry I add that last one for fun), you simply cannot escape the fact that your boy Chuckie “Dr. No Unless I Get Something Out of It” Reed is a flawed character who has no claim to moral superiority in this or any race.
But you, like the lemming you are, lack the courage to ask Chuck any of these tough questions before you leap off the cliff.
(BTW, how do you know EVERY Democrat is supporting Chuck Reed. Are you a pollster, some marketing genius or doing the same thing you accuse me of…just making it all up.)
Wow Phil…what a river of denial you are floating down man.
How in the heck do you suppose Chavez “deflected the guilt onto Reed.” Are you high or something…or do your reading skills require a refresher course.
Dando is the one who sold out both Reed and herself in the f(*)&(*&ing; GRAND JURY testimony….you know the same testimony she was desperately trying to ask the prosecutor not to make public. Chavez may have voted for it but Chuck Reed knew about BEFORE anyone else and admitted it. More to the point, he then did nothing, either legislatively or by parliamentary procedure to prevent its arrival on the Council agenda or hold up the vote—both of which he could have done and you know it. And Chuck didn’t vote against cause it was a “bad fiscal move” for the city—he voted against because, as many “real insiders” have said, he was given anything for his vote and Tricky Vic told him he could get more out of it for opposing the deal.
Ya see, Chuck is only for the kind of open government where he doesn’t get screwed—never mind how it would help the rest of the city enact real political reform. Chuck doesn’t mind a secret session when he benefits. I cite a June 2006 article where he spun a “closed meeting of the Council as necessary” because they were voting on a specific measure which he sponsored. WOW, not that is really acting like a “moral conscience” of the council isn’t it, Phil?
(Sweet Mary Mother of God, do you read ANYTHING but the San Jose Mercury News—they have been anti-Chavez, anti-Cortese and anything but anti-Reed from the beginning—why, because Chuck is there boy on the Council.)
Undoubtedly on advice from Dando and Tricky Vic, Dr. No waited for the opportune moment to spring a little trap to secure his place as the “moral voice” on the Council knowing full well he would be running for Mayor. Then he and Tricky Vic stick it to Chavez because of her perceived “closeness” to the Mayor which is a lie in and of itself.
So, in that case, perhaps criminality should really be attached to Chuckie. Because if you know about something, then say nothing until you get something for it, aren’t you just as guilty? In fact, under criminal law, thats called withholding evidence germane to a criminal case—and its a felony. Chuck should know that—after all, he is an “experienced trial attorney.”
Dando, on Reed’s behalf, started the “Swift Boating” tactics on Chavez in the primary. Chuck knew about the tv buy through Tricky Vic and said nothing. I would have been surprised if ANYONE in that situation wouldn’t have responded to an attack like that.
But yet, Dr. No likes to refer to himself as some kind of paragon of virtue.
And this race may be non-partisan in name but it is hardly non-partisan in reality. With all due respect, Dr. Phil, that is more than just a little naive don’t you think? Chuck Reed is a Republican like his friend Dando. But his fear is that to reveal his true political standing, he will alienate a large bloc of voters—including some of those in his own base in N. San Jose.
And besides, since you clearly don’t know, do some research on Dr. No’s consultant, Tricky Vic Aljouny, a member or now former member of a County Republican Central Committee. Trust me, its enlightening…you will see coordination and work with some vary nefarious characters on the hard right-wing of the REPUBLICAN party. And Chuck employs this guy!!
And remember, this isn’t about whom we support…its about one candidate, Chuck “Dr. No” Reed, acting holier than thou and making statements that he is some kind of “moral conscience” for the SJ City Council—when in fact he has absolutely NO moral center whatsoever and actually stands a chance of being truly guilty of failing to uphold his oath of office.
Frankly, I just have to sigh at all of this … cause you don’t have the courage to ask Chuck these questions. Ya know, watching Chuck Reed expound on his virtous behavior as an elected official is astounding. I liken it to watching a blind man drive a NASCAR at 150 mph at the Sonoma racetrack. Sure its a great human interest, feel good story at first…but in the end, they still can’t see anything and always end up crashing into the wall.
Ah, Downtown, poor, misguided soul that you are. Since you have difficulty grasping the facts that are presented here, maybe (but unlikely) you will be able to get a grip on the facts in the newspaper. Check out Herhold’s column today:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/columnists/15415262.htm
He explains Chavez’ struggle with the truth in a way even you might be able to understand.
Anyway, try to stay calm and enjoy your weekend.
Sigh…Philly, you truly sadden me.
It stuns me that the total sum of your knowledge is the Merc. You might as well just go ask any of Tricky Vic’s stormtroopers to help Scott Herhold right his column. Wait, lemme guess, you listen to Sean Hannity and take every word as gospel…c’mon, you know you do
But like any Hannity disciple—long on bullcrap, short on facts…kinda like the Merc.
And, AGAIN, like the lemming you are, you STILL refuse to ask your boy Chuck the tough questions. Why is that? Oh, because you don’t want the truth, you figure its easier to gloss over it and move on.
Besides, he got caught…Herhold knows it and so will everyone else soon enough.
BTW, since you clearly have no clue about the media or politics, you should know that not many reporters in the Bay Area or in the Northern California region think Herhold does the best job. In fact, one reporter I asked, who knows Scotty directly calls him, “more of a Matt Drudge bombthrower trying to make a name for himself” type of reporter than anything else. And believe me, this guy KNOWS Herhold very well. Oh, and this reporter also told me that Scott has a problem with facts…as in he doesn’t always give them out in a “fair and balanced” manner (think the “Jayson Blair” problem from the New York Times). Oh, and lets not forget about the conflict of interest Scotty and his editors have at present, thats one story they will never tell will they….go ahead, show some balls and ask them about that while you are it.
Now, if you get a Matier, Ross, or ANYONE from the SacBee (or other paper) to do a story like that…than you’ve got something.
You have a nice weekend too Philly…email those questions to Tricky Vic or Chuck, lemme know how it works out.
The mesothelioma cause is related to the intensity of asbestos exposure that can either be direct (primary) or indirect (secondary) exposure. Asbestos does not only cause mesothelioma cancer but it can harm the body in other ways too. For instance it may be the cause of Asbestos lung cancer, Asbestosis, Diffuse pleural thickening and Fibrosis other than malignant mesothelioma.
As the asbestos was doing more harm than benefit to the humans it was thus better to ban its use. These hazards were also known but ignored due to business purposes. But due to an increased public awareness and the related concerns to the health, it was banned finally in the most affected countries.
Cheeerz,
San Diego Asbestos Lawyer