Over the weekend, the Mercury News came out with their first mayoral election poll and there were a few surprises as well as a few non-surprises. I feel that the fact that 37 percent of voters are still undecided is a great sign. That shows me that people really want to hear what all the candidates have to say and aren’t just voting for the name they know or the person from their district. I hope it is because they are reserving judgment until the end and it’s not a sign of apathy or disgust. And then, there is the question of how reliable these polls really are.
What is surprising is that, with all the endorsements that Cindy Chavez has, she only holds a 1 percent lead on Dave Cortese, and the other candidates are not far behind. What does this mean? Are people starting to see through Chavez? Are people becoming more involved as voters and not just looking at who is endorsing whom—and why? I believe that, as someone who gives empty promises, Chavez is part of the problem at City Hall and I hope the San Jose voters are becoming wise to this.
Then there is the fact that Cortese holds the highest number of votes with the wealthy folks. I thought that Mulcahy—with his Ken-doll hair, nice suits and winning personality, coupled with his propensity to hang out with well-to-do types—would have had a stranglehold on this category. However, he holds the highest number of middle class votes, which I thought would go to Pandori. But then again, Pandori is very popular with women; maybe women want to see someone strong who goes after the current administration. Or, maybe, they see something appealing in Pandori taking a stand. At any rate, I am glad to see that women aren’t just supporting Chavez because she is the same gender.
Pandori, who is last in the polls, would probably tell you himself that he expected it, since he came into the race so late. The real question is: does he have the money and the time to make up those points and sway enough undecided voters his way?
The majority of voters will probably wait until they see all the TV ads before they make their decisions. So the next few weeks will become just that much more interesting….
I’m glad the race is still tight, if you can believe the polls. Although I’m voting for Reed, I think that any candidate whose initials are not CC will do a better job of running the city than the current administration is doing.
The big loser in the poll is Cindy. What happened to the supposed front-runner? Of course she never was the front-runner—that was just more spin from her army of spinmeisters.
Pandori certainly has the time and don’t be surprised if he has the money to get his message out. As the only candidate talking about issues, the voters have a readl choice this time: Pandori, who will clean house and return integrity to City Hall; Cindy, who will give us something to write about every day since we won’t be able to tell the difference between her and our current lame duck; Chuck who has tried to make a difference and would certainly be better than the current group taking up space on the 18th floor; Dave, who has seen the ugly side of this Council and has been victimized by them almost as much as the rest of us; and there is Michael.
Wake up SJ—this vote will make a difference well into the next generation. Screw up this vote and not only will you make life miserable for us today but for the forseeable future.
So, I’m looking at some of the candidates’ websites, searching for differentiation. While reading “Meet Cindy” I see this photo. It made me curious to know where the the name Chavez originated. Does anybody know? Is Chavez her maiden name?
Seems to me there are only two eligible candidates for mayor of San Jose. In a recent posting Tom McEnery reminded readers of the importance of a politician’s/leader’s morale compass. Who on the current board has demonstrated a moral compass? Chuck Reed? Dave Cortese? Cindy? All of the members of the current board at one time or another have sold out to the Conzo/Guerra team. Like Pat Dando, Chuck Reed was once a voice of integrity on the council but eventually gave in to the punitive tactics of Gonzo. Cindy on the other hand showed no resistance to Gonzo and was aptly rewarded. I’m sure she learned some new techniques under Gonzo’s tutelage. Does anyone read the Murky News? Cindy seems to be pretty prominent describing corruption considering she’s a favored candidate of the MN. One can only wonder what the actual level of her corrupt behavior is.
The two eligible candidates are obviously Mulcahy and Pandori. In my life I’ve learned there’s no substitute for experience. Mulcahy has no council experience. Mr. Pandori obviously does. Some postings complained about his minority position on some of his council votes. However, I haven’t seen descriptions of his no vote being on the corrupt side. Maybe he had good reason to vote no.
I find it humorous Pandori’s greatest critizism is his aleged inability to build a concensus. Can’t someone find an issue of his they don’t like? Mr. McEnery also reminded readers of the importance of issues when considering candidates. Cindy will vote for any issue that lines her pockets or her benefactors.
Mr. Pandori has a proven record for voting against special interests at the expense of “not building a concensus”. Only if we had more leaders like that.
When will the concept of right and wrong enter San Jose politics?
Wow, Cindy skips yet another forum! Her handlers must believe that the less we see and hear of of her the better her chances are to make it through he primary and then spend all her $$ in the runoff. Is RR her only public spokesperson/apologist?
#8: You ask: “Can’t someone find an issue of [David Pandori’s] they don’t like?” There are plenty, but one in particular that should be disabling for his candidacy for mayor: Alone among all of the mayoral candidates, Pandori does not want to further develop North San Jose, which is the economic engine for the entire city.
My prediction is that Cindy is going to use her surname to get the Hispanic vote. She’s going to make some kind of pro-illegal immigrant statement and seal the deal for the Hispanic vote. It may not be a huge percentage, but it could make the difference for her.
She blew off yet another forum. It’s very difficult not to view this as a totally smug approach and easy to interpret her no-shows as a clear communication that she feels she doesn’t need to go through that process because she has this election all sewn up. The reality is, she has not done well in any of the forums and that has been the subject of discussion here and in print and electronic media. She’s going to make up excuses all the way up to the primary.
Let’s hope she doesn’t even make the run-off. We don’t need 8 more years of the same disrespect for the people of San Jose, and we don’t need to give her yet another crack at the mayor’s job in November. With her Council seat up for grabs, we can eliminate her completely from San Jose politics if she is defeated on June 6, and this town would be so much better off if that happened.
P.S.
District 9 voters, you have a chance to replace Judy Chirco with a walking talking warm body—don’t blow it!
“The DA is a harder decision. I’ve met Burrows and Sinunu.”
Dan Sturges (#1)
Since you obviously desire to make an informed decision I suggest, before you consider Karyn Sinunu, that you (or anyone with access) determine from her boss whether or not she is being investigated by her own office (or the state AG) for some very serious charges and is on the verge of a suspension/admin leave. Just a yes or no question of George Kennedy is all that’s needed. When he responds with a “no comment” or mumbles something about the confidentiality of “personnel issues” then you will have your answer.
However, if you wait for her grateful coconspirators at the newspaper to show some objectivity in their treatment of this underhanded, vindictive operator you doom yourself to casting your vote in the dark.
Dan #1—who is Burrows, and what is she/he running for? Nobody by that name in DA’s race.
These seated council candidates will soon discover that they have a real challenge in defeating Pandori. If he makes it past the primary, there will be no looking back.
Two weeks in politics is an eternity, and 10 points is hardly too large a gap to be quickly overcome. The sheer number of candidates splitting the vote gives him an even better chance.
Pandori is the strongest candidate. He is a strong leader and he is credible. He has a history in san jose and a vision for its future.
These other candidates will soon realize that through their veiled attacks they have opened Pandori’s Box on their political worlds!
Re #9
It was odd that Cindy did not show last evening.
it apparently was last minute cancellation with vague reasoning.
Many were wondering what was up with her no show.
is there a WHY?
So 4 guys political strategy is fight to see who challenges Cindy in runoff and then be buddies to back winning guy? A real Losers Strategy since Pandori supporters will make others lose
If 1 of 4 guys does not win in June, winning guy will lose in runoff
Cindy has been a no-show too many times now for these to just be schedule conflicts or personal matters. She is showing the same contempt for the voters that Gonzales does. She has learned well from her mentor.
We don’t need her in the Mayor’s office—she, apparently, would be much more effective in the police department. SInce she can singlehandedly “take control of the situation” without the need of trained police officers, she could not only stop crime but we would save money by eliminating the unneeded officers.
Of course, she can’t be in the police department because she is too busy running the school district. What office is she running for (or away from) anyway???
What is the matter with voters in this county? Today’s SJM showed 51% in favor of Prop A. That is absurd. This is one more example of voters demonstrating they are clueless about the issues.
There is no guarantee how this tax money will be spent. Whether the money is needed or not is irrelevant. If the county wants money for health services then put forth a tax measure for health services. If the county wants money for transportation then put forth a tax measure for transportation. However, the county would rather rely on the gullibility and susceptibility of the average voter for inaccurate TV sound bites. Is this what is meant by American democracy? Government by the gullible. Of course, that does explain our current incompetent president.
Although I normally vote for rational tax increases I cannot support this boondoggle. I hope it is challenged in court and the county loses.
Cameron #15:
Maybe Cindy lost her note cards?
The Merc poll shows that despite Chavez having the backing of Labor, the Democratic Party and a Who’s Who of big names the election is still up for grabs. Given the polls margin for error and the huge undecided vote there’s a chance she won’t even make the November runoff.
In my view the Chavez campaign has failed by underestimating voters. They are learning late in the game that this is a campaign, not a coronation. A candidate who ducks debates, avoids issues, dodges the press and is so unsure of positions that she requires note cards does not inspire confidence.
Toss in the Grand Prix back room deals, the deep ties to Gonzales and the thinly disguised Campos/Pyle dirty tricks and it should be little surprise voters are looking elsewhere.
Prediction: Chuck vs. Dave in November.
A much more disturbing Voter Poll than the one SG is talking about is the one that the Mercury News is highlighting on their web site about how the county voters love the Measure A sales tax increase. I guess voters want to flush more money down the county government toilet, not caring that we’ll be tied with Alameda County for highest sales in the state. Anyway, at least they printed a pair of No on A op-eds:
“Measure A: Bum tax by a bad bunch”
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14577753.htm
and by Los Altos councilman David Casas, who recently completed a 2-year
term on the VTA Board,
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/14577796.htm
Measure A is deceptive government at its best. There are NO guarantees how this money will be spent. Our elected officials just ask us to “trust them.” Even if we did trust the current group, this tax will run for THIRTY (30) years. What are the chances we can trust every elected offical who will be in office over the next 30 years??
#18 has it right. If you want more money for a specific cause, ask for it up front. Don’t run a deceptive ballot measure like this one and try to fool the people into voting for it.
The merits of where the money might go are secondary to this deceptive ploy and its attempt to do an end-run around the process.
No wonder people are cynical about government.
#17 I called Ms. Chavez’s campaign office to learn more about the Mardi-gras incident described in her commercial. My first question: was this event ever reported in the Merc? Her office said it was not a “newsworthy” event. They could not provide me with any more details. They did tell me the person in the commericial describing what happened is Jill Cody. Searching Google it shows somebody with this name worked in the city of San Jose in San Jose Beautiful.
Since Ms. Chavez is using this incident to show she is qualified to be our mayor, I would like to know the details of what really happened. (Mercury News: what about a writeup in your campaign adwatch?)
What forum did Cindy Chavez skip and what was the reasoning? That is too strange – you have to think that she knows that it reflects poorly on her.
Cindy’s strategy is clear now. She is doing badly among the most informed voters who vote in the June election. She does horribly in public forums. Consequently, the SBLC is using Campos and Pyle to rough up Cortese and we’ll get a blitz of negative campaigning right before the vote. She will only appear at orchestrated photo-ops and avoid unscripted forums.
If she makes the runoff, Mrs Potter will depend on the less informed who will be much more represented among November voters. Watch for a big appeal to the woman’s vote and support statements for abortion.
Looking at Sunday’s poll, it appears that she has two big problems making the runoff.
First, she does best among younger and Hispanic voters. These are groups that historically have low turnout.
Second, the poll shows exteme dissatisfaction with the mayor. Her close ties to RonGo will undoubtably play a big factor in negative campaigning by her opponents in the June election and certainly in November if she makes the runoff.
Among her opponents, I would have thought that Cortese would have been most likely to endorse her if he doesn’t make the runoff. After the dirty business from the SBLC mutes, I don’t see that happening.
As I understand Chavez had not formally confirmed the debate because of her normal work responsibilities. She manages to maintain her heavy workload for her fulltime job and campaign. Unlike a certain candidate who couldn’t be bothered to show up for the budge hearings – gosh, would Mr. Cortese be blowing off work to go campaign?
Do you suppose Dave’s staff has amusing little excuses for why he’s not showing up for work and why doesn’t anyone here seem to care?
Oh, wait, I know, it’s because he’s not Chavez.
The poll was interesting and right in line with where she should be, in fact since she’s accustomed to achieving in the face of terrible odds she’s actually doing darn good.
At least Reed and Chavez continue to do their paying jobs.
She doesn’t show up to public forums because she “was doing her job???” This is the best Camp Cindy can come up with? That’s the oldest and lamest excuse in the book. Incumbents who are running for office know they have to carefully balance their current responsibilities with the requirements of campaigning. The pattern of non-participation by Cindy may have been designed to show she is too “important” to be bothered with campaigning and that she has more “important” things to do, but it’s not working. The public is seeing through this cynical approach for what it is—ducking and running.
Part of her job is discussing the issues for the next job she wants in open forums where the public can compare her to the other candidates. By not showing up she sends a very strong message to the public and one that cannot be printed here but we all know what it is.
I’ll take someone who discusses the issues over a hiding candidate anyday. Too bad, Cindy coulda been a contender.
#25. You raise the issue of “responsibilities.”
This raises the question: What responsibilities does a candidate have to the electorate during the course of a campaign?
It seems reasonable to assume that participating in public forums and debates should be among those responsibilities.
Sort of hard to take high moral ground while doing attack phone calls and ads but then never thought many of you followed your free moral advice you often give others
Ops, can’t bring up 4 guys hypocrisy or can we while you attack Cindy?
So what exactly were Cindy’s “normal responsibilities” that prevented her from attending the forum? Her supporters continue to deflect criticism by attacking others like Cortese. I don’t think that her “normal responsibilities” ever conflicted with her fundraising events, have they?
To all who are concerned about the Measure A sales tax increase. Not to worry about where the proceeds will be spent. My forecast is 90% for BART to SJ, 8% for health and 2% for everything else. I’m in complete agreement with many of you who indicate how poorly informed our voting populace is.
What has Cindy acheived at the face of terrible odds? She has the entire democratic machine behind her – I wouldn’t say that that makes her the underdog. Just another spin on the not so favorable poll that came out.
Don,
Pandori has never said he does not want further development in North San Jose.
Pandori is for job growth and against more traffic.
Read the Merc poll, the #1 concern among voters is traffic congestion. You should be too given the proximity of Northside to North San Jose. I take it you don’t commute on 101 like the rest of us working stiffs that are driving the economic engine of this Valley.
Pandori is the candidate that wants to preserve land for future job growth. He has repeatedly stated at the debates that he wants a sensible plan for North San Jose that will allow for flexible high density development and there should some new housing based on triggers as jobs are added. Doesn’t that sound like Smart growth?
Look at the commercial real-estate section of the Merc. North San Jose has the highest vacancy rate in this Valley. We are not hurting for more office space. If that was the case the old city hall would be sold by now.
Consider this, the reason developers are funding Reed’s and Chavez’s campaigns is because they want to profit off a housing boon in North San Jose, not to build any economic engine, well…ok, maybe short lived union construction jobs. Using up our industrial land for housing will not make us the Capital of Silicon Valley. It will make us the Bedroom of Silicon Valley.
Don, why do you want the traffic from 30,000 homes for your neighborhood?
Dear San Jose/Single Gal:
A Reed vs Cortese run-off in November would be great. There would be no Gonzales Administration Act II, and the citizens of San Jose could get their city back!
Today, on KNBR, Gary Radnich read an e-mail over the air regarding the booing of the Canadian national anthem at the Shark’s game. It seems Chairman Ron took it upon himself to apologize for the behaviour of his people. The e-mail began, “Mayor Gonzales is a joke…” and went on to imply that maybe someone who’s been censured should refrain from taking it upon himself to speak for the San Jose citizenry.
Pete Campbell
(No, I didn’t send the e-mail)
The headline in the Merc says 51% would vote for Measure A. But, the more significant number is the 61% who say they would be less likely to vote for it after the details were explained. In other words it looks like a good idea until people realize there is no guarantee any of the projects listed would ever be funded. Shame on the Merc for not including that number in their headline.
Devoting all her time to her job hasn’t prevented Cindy’s district from taking a disproportionate share of community center closings. Are her constituants really satisfied with that? Or, does she recognize that the number of voters there (especially outside of Naglee park) are so small that it makes more sense politically to keep the voters in higher turnout districts happy. As the status quo candidate, she suffers the most for any dissatisfaction.
Cortese and Reed have had their chances and look where we are. A runoff between them would be the bland versus the loner. A runoff between the two outsiders is our best bet for real change.
If Measure A passes, once again I will have been proven correct.
A couple of observations:
1) I guess we found the 5% who are voting for Pandori, they are all on this site.
2) The Cindy assault has had marginal effect.
3) The campaign has just recently begun and Cindy’s message is the only one voters are “concerned” about ie. schools and transportation.
4) Like always, the majority of voters don’t appear to be engaged in a meaningful way to this race at any level.
5) Those who are engaged want experience over new and don’t believe San Jose is going to hell in a handbasket.
#32: Your post nicely encapsulates the no-growth fringe that David Pandori is pandering to in this election through his turn-back-the-clock-to-the-halcyon-McEnery-administration campaign. Building out North San Jose is not going to put 30,000 cars in my Northside neighborhood, and it’s not going to ruin San Jose. Quite the opposite, it will save this city.
(By the way, there is a difference between being concerned about traffic “congestion” on highways and traffic “calming” in neighborhoods, something we would like to see, along the lines of what Naglee Park enjoys, but need funding to pay for—funding which will come from denser development in North San Jose. Moreover, congested traffic is itself calm traffic; there is no speeding in gridlock. So maybe a few more cars in my neighborhood are a good thing, as long as they are traveling slowly.)
Building out North San Jose is going to keep the city competitive and provide the redevelopment funding that is going to help supply all the other public amenities a world-class city deserves.
We are the “Bedroom of Silicon Valley” RIGHT NOW. Building out a much denser North San Jose is going to reverse that trend. You, and your candidate, have therefore got the North San Jose issue exactly backwards, which makes Pandori paradoxically the statist, anti-visionary candidate.
You say Pandori wants to allow density in North San Jose but wants it to be “smart” growth, but that is meaningless drivel which is unsupported by anything I’ve heard the candidate say or exists on his website (last time I looked.) More density means more people which means more traffic which means more congestion, period. It’s a law of nature which cannot be circumvented by political double-speak. So the real question is: do we want growth in San Jose, coupled necessarily with more people and more cars (i.e., more congestion) and more money and public amenities? Or do we want San Jose to impose a moratorium on growth, to thereby stagnate, atrophy, and diminish in population and cars, and thus, should the downward spiral continue unabated, eventually be reclaimed by the natural habitat—as is happening in many eastern cities and across the great plains? Make no mistake: that’s the choice that Pandori is presenting with his attack on North San Jose.
As I say, every one of the other mayoral candidates “gets it” on this issue, why doesn’t Pandori?
Rich is back—let the games begin!! Cindy has a 1 point lead but “assault” has not effect—in Rich’s world a 1 point lead is positive but to the rest of us it means Cindy has done poorly convincing the rest of the city that “she’s the one.”
If experience is the only requirement for the next Mayor, then why not just elect Gonzales again? Oh right, if Cindy is elected then we will have done that.
So, Rich, what is your take on the word on the street that Cindy goes negative now to save her campaign? Just a rumor? Or is it just a matter of time before she takes this down and dirty?
#35 (Willow Glen Dad): Regarding the issue of community center closings in downtown. I believe what you are referring to is the memo from Parks & Recreation Department CITY STAFF recommending razing 10 facilities, including 3 small ones in my Northside neighborhood, as well as the St. James Senior Center downtown. The Mercury News reported on this in last Sunday’s edition, and the memo goes to the city council tonight. Neither Cindy Chavez, nor any councilmember, is currently responsible for the memo, which as I say is a product of CITY STAFF and is, indeed, a disgraceful piece of work on any number of levels. Chavez and her colleagues are blameless, as yet, for staff’s actions because, as we’re now all aware, individual councilmembers cannot give orders to staff but can only set policy and act on staff recommendations.
We will see what happens at tonight’s city council meeting when the matter of the staff recommendations come before the council, but I have been assured by Cindy Chavez’s office that she is concerned about the recommendations in the staff memo and intends to work to have the recommendations about razing community centers, including the St. James Senior Center, overruled.
Sorry JohnMichael O’Connor #13, for the first time in my life I have made a mistake. I don’t know where that name came from either. I did meet Mark Buller and Karyn Sinunu at the Willow Glen Forum. The other two candidates were not present.
#39 Don – Can’t believe that you are actually saying that more traffic would help traffic calming – hope that was a joke. And glad that you are only worried about the traffic effect on your neighborhood. What about everywhere else? Try driving to South San Jose anytime after 3!
And all of those housing units in North San Jose will DRAIN our neighborhoods city services not create money for them. You need businesses here to create tax revenue not out of control housing. Do you understand why we are called a bedroom community? Because we have all the housing and other cities have all the industry and business. That is why they have much better city services than ours – they have the dough and we have the people that we need to service. You have it backwards.
Don Gagliardi. I thought you represented at neighborhood. It reads as though you’ve been hired by Richard to help him with the Cindy Chavez campaign. I have spoken with Dave Pandori about his vision for North San Jose. This area is a modern industrial blight with all the empty manufacturing structures. Not much tax revenue from empty commercial structures. Over burdening the city with tax eating residential influx is not the answer. You should really read what Padori’s vision is for this area.
So I take it nobody knows the origin of Cindy’s last name??? If she’s counting on the hispanic vote, it would be interesting to know how she got the name Chavez. Or should we refer to her as Mrs. Potter, as in #24 above?
Single Gal, can Mulcahy earn your vote if he just gets a new haircut and some cheap suits? Let’s let go of physical appearance as worth mentioning.
So, now the build out of N SJ is the savior of the city. The more cars, people, and jobs we have the better. The fact that we can’t take care of what we’ve got and provide the services that we need doesn’t matter. If we keep building office space to add to the inventory of already empty office space, and add more houses and therefore more cars to the road, we will be a better city.
Thanks to Don, and mayoral candidates other than Pandori, we have the potential to become an unlivable city. The thought process that tells us more is better and bigger is better benefits from not being grounded in reality.
You simply cannot keep building and growing and expect to be able to make ends meet. We can’t do it on an individual basis and we can’t do it as a city.
If this plan moves forward it will be time to look somewhere else to try and find a place to live that values the quality of life. Unfortunately, this Mayor’s race will determine the quality life here for many, many years.
What will Cindy do to get the parents in Willow Glen to want to send their children back to the public schools? How will she make them neighborhood schools once again? Will she stop the bussing? What authority will she have as mayor over the school districts? Where will she get her funding? What will she do for the hundreds of San Jose children that attend the Campbell Union School Dist.? Before teaching the children about Cinco de Mayo, as they do now, will Cindy make learning about local history a priorty. What role will Cindy have if a voucher system is put in place by the Feds? Since the public schools are run by the state, does she have a good relationship with Arnold? If Cindy feels schools are her priority, please give us the answer to all of these questions. If not we will know she is just like old man Bush who said he was going to be the “Education President”. Sounded good but what did we get?
# 45
Who cares from where Cindy gets her last name. If you are looking for a reason why we should not vote for her, you have to look no further than her voting record. The fairgrounds,the tent, Grand Prix, City Hall, Tropicana, Norcal, Markovitz and Fox, Coyote, NSJ, Del Monte Plt.#3 and many more! She has wasted over $200,000,000 of our money along with promoting the demolition of our valuable historic and cultural resources. Why would anyone want 4 more years of that?
#43 (SJ Downtowner): You may recall that when the dot-com bust hit in 2001, there was a noticeable decrease in traffic on our Bay Area freeways, which correlated with a downturn in the economy. This was evidence that congested freeways correlate with a healthy economy and vice versa. However, the solution to congested freeways is not to put brakes on the economy but to pursue better transit options, the most comprehensive of which is to build in urban, rather than suburban, scale—which is precisely the plan for North San Jose. Many residents will choose to live in the new mixed use community, nearby their jobs, precisely to avoid the torturous commute.
#44 (Dan Sturges): the plan for North San Jose doesn’t call for “residential influx”, per se, but for urban-scale mixed use development, which includes denser office and light industrial complexes interspersed with residential.
Of course, there is not much tax benefit from empty commercial structures, but the solution is not to abandon the structures but to upgrade them to contemporary standards. The current one- and two-story tilt-up facilities, some of them manufacturing facilities, are antiquated. They were built at a time when land was cheap and it made sense to construct tech facilities as if they were Safeways—one story amidst a sea of parking lots. That model doesn’t work anymore, and we need to re-think North San Jose in conjunction with New Urbanism principles—which, thankfully, our current city council has.
By the way, you ask me to read about David Pandori’s vision for North San Jose—so where do I look? As I said, last time I looked, it was not on his website.
I’ve written a short book entitled “A Better San Jose.” It explains my views of better planning, neighborhoods free from gangs, a legacy of parks, an endowment for the future, schools and reform.
You can read and download it at http://www.bettersanjose.com/book.
If you would like a hard copy, e-mail my campaign at [email protected]
#46 (Jacob Jane): I know it’s not your real name, and I get the reference. But I disagree with you. San Jose does not become unliveable just because it gets bigger and more populus. There are plenty of great cities in the U.S. and across the globe that are arguably more liveable than ours while being far more dense and having far greater congestion. You can start with San Francisco.
Moreover, no one’s building more office space or housing just for the sake of it. The market is demanding additional housing, and its going to demand additional office and industrial space in the future. San Jose must grow to thrive. It can either grow out (into Coyote Valley) or it can grow up in North San Jose and in other places where in-fill makes strategic sense.
Moreover, the New Urbanism which underpins the North San Jose plan owes its impetus to the likes of Jane Jacobs. I think, given a choice between the North San Jose vision and the current reality there, Jane Jacobs would prefer the vision.
49 – Must be a different New Urbanism than the one I am familiar with. San Jose seems to be severely lacking in the principles of the New Urbanism that I know. Do you really think the majority of this current Council even knows what New Urbanism is? I doubt that they do and there lies the problem.
#50 (David Pandori): Thanks for the offer.
I would love to get a hard copy of your book, and I would love to hear you correct me on this blog about what I believe your position on North San Jose is.
#52
Does new urbanism involve:
– a non-stop, high frequency dosage of scandals of all sorts, shapes, and sizes?
– a plethora empty lightrail cars running slowly only by the grace of enormous public subsidies?
– a stripmall eye for design? – except when it comes to their half-billion dollar digs.
If so, then rest easy, our council is well versed in new urbanism.
I’ve read the polls. I’ve read San Jose Inside. I’ve read the newspapers. I’ve met and shook hands with the candidates and listened to their campaigns. I’ll stay with Dave Pandori. The DA is a harder decision. I’ve met Burrows and Sinunu. I haven’t made a choice yet. Yeager is my candidate for supervisor. If I could vote for Pet Constant I would. I guess I’ll get a lot of emotional insults from the professional campaigners now. You know who I mean.
Single gal I think you missed something when you read the poll. Cindy is ahead of Reed by 1 point and Cortese by 3. Looks to me like a runoff between Reed and Chavez
#49 Don
I agree with what you are saying about our need to make the best use of NSJ. That is why I am voting for Pandori. With his background in planning, he will make sure we have a well thought out plan before we start to build. Should this not also apply to the Coyote Valley? If you look at Cindy’s voting record on land use issues, it is clear that she does not get it! Ms. Chavez voted to build the new City Hall ($150 million), did not take action to rent or sell the old City Hall (millions of $), voted in favor of eminent domain regarding the Tropicana ($8 million), voted to certify the E.I.R. for the Markovitz and Fox building ($3 million), voted to sue the county over the fairgrounds ($36 million), voted to build an $8 million tent at the convention center,voted to certify the E.I.R. to demolish I.B.M. building #25 . It is not just the supporters of David Pandori who think Cindy doesn’t get land use, the courts rulings show her ignorance in this area as well. With a record like that, how could you expect us to trust Cindy with development in Coyote Valley, Evergreeen and North San Jose?
I just downloaded David Pandori’s “book.” The North San Jose discussion appears in depth at pp. 17-19 and intermittently, again, under the topic, “A Better Future—Healthy Growth” at pp. 19-21.
I don’t have time to critique the discussion, but at page 19, Pandori writes: “I believe a city must always grow if it is to remain healthy.” I take that to mean he agrees with me on that point and disagrees with a number of his no-growth supporters on today’s blog.
To be fair, Pandori follows by writing: “But that growth should occur in a manner that renews a city and enhances the quality of life.” That’s a vague statement that I will concede for discussion to be synonymous with “smart growth.” But what does it mean for North San Jose? In an effort to find out, I’ll dissect his other statements later when I have some more time. (It’s off to a meeting on parking downtown.)
Meanwhile, I invite David Pandori to articulate his own thoughts here, if I’m misconstruing them. I sincerely applaud him for putting his thoughts down on paper and engaging a serious discussion of the issues, although we may ultimately disagree on this one.
With the margin of error for the survey, Chavez, Reed & Cortese are essentially tied.
That’s not a great showing for Cindy. She has had the labor machine behind her and she has by far raised the most money.
It looks like David Pandori’s campaign starts today – I’ve seen a commercial! Certainly a big departure from what the other candidates are doing. He has set himself apart. Now the voters will see a real choice. I was wondering what his web page was eluding to….
I don’t think anybody here has been promoting no-growth. I believe most of what has been stated here has been a cry for good planning and not rushing to grow before we are ready. Slow and smart growth options are very different than no-growth.
Don Gagliardi. You seemd informed. Have you weighed in on the D1 & D3 council races? I would like to hear your views as a neighborhood leader.
#53 (Don)
I just downloaded the pdf of DP’s book. I have to say, it is pretty solid. Outside of some commentary on current council decisions, it is a good, objective resource—it pretty much lays out the facts. I think you HAVE to really care about the city to put together something like this book.
Check it out.
RP
58,
If you want to talk about the poll, the margin of error actually has Mulcahy within striking distance.
If you think about it, he has been campaigning for 3 1/2 months, he is at 10%—that’s about 3+%/month with 3 weeks left—that makes him close. Considering he started from 0%—that is pretty good.
At the same time, Pandori isn’t starting from 0% and he is at 5%.
The kids on the City Council have been ‘governing’ for years and they are only slightly ahead of Mulcahy—that is not a good sign for them I bet.
Don
Will you please ask Cindy to answer the questions asked in #47. These are important questions that we need Cindy’s to answer. We also have the same problems in the Rose Gardens and Almaden. It would be nice if Cindy would take the time to get back to us A.S.A.P.since the education of our children is critical to our future. I have to go do some volunteer work right now but I will be back later tonight . I hope she has given thougt to our problems and has formulated solutions to each and every one.
Those who object to North San Jose residential, ( if properly designed and implemented which San Jose has a poor record of doing) need to closely look at the real facts and city budget financial issues and sources of tax revenues
1) tax increment property taxes funding from increase property value ( not available in Coyote / Evegreen which are net tax drains ) which fund many city services our general taxes can not pay for as well as and decades of city deferred neighborhood maintenance and improvements to San Jose quality of life like parks ( many neighborhoods still have no park) community, youth etc centers and can pay for traffic / transit improvements that will be necessary to make it North San Jose work
2)increase in retail sales tax from local retail / auto malls rather than lose 20% and in some North San Jose neighborhoods possibly up to 35% + lost sales tax revenues to other cities which pays their not SJ city services
3)reduced traffic since if properly designed ( a historical problem in SJ since we do not consistently follow our Smart Growth policy) people can near work can be pedestrian / light rail and bicycle commutes rather than continue our very poor environmental policy of green field development in central and south SJ when the jobs are in the north and we have a dysfunctional hybrid light rail and street trolley rail transit system then wonder why we have very bad traffic
Coyote Valley and Evergreen need to be significantly delayed until the tax revenues and jobs can pay for improvements and the cost of increased city services or they will drain the few dollars from our very low city services budget or fore SJ to issue hundreds in new bond debt or raise taxes
Put the new homes which provide constructions jobs which without San Jose would of in 2005 has been the worst job market in the US ( we were #3 worst but fighting with Detroit and Cleveland for the worst job market with only 2000 net jobs in all Silicon Valley in 2005. Many more construction jobs added as the Silicon Valley Leadership Group companies aggressively transfer jobs out of California and venture companies require startups aggressively plan growth not in California to have has near transit and jobs
All together North San jose is the best choice after infill development but both NSJ and infill have been done poorly and need improvemetns and better impact mitigations especially improvements in traffic and quality of life
Pandori’s 5% says it all Guess who will be our next Mayor Thanks Mr 5 of 5 for 8 more scandalous backroom deal years
San Jose Mayor Candidate Forum videos from May 13th United Neigbhorhoods and May 1st League of Woman Voters at
http://sanjose.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=2
3 San Jose Mayor Political Ads, Mayor Candidate Forums and other political events MP3 audio files at
http://www.citizensanjose.com/blog/
After reading all this stuff about North San Jose, and other things, and since I have been some meetings all over the Bay Area, permit me to hand out the raspberry awards for the worst elected officials in the area. Or, the ones that should listen to Snuggles the Care Bear, or wwar a Monty Python Antlers Cap when they talk.
1. JUDY CHIRCO, SAN JOSE
The Mercury News said it best when they said she has done nothing during her entire term.
2. REB MONACO, SAN BENITO COUNTY.
This guy is involved in some local group that is worst than the Minutemen, and thinks the Minutemen are too liberal.
3. WILL KENNEDY, SANTA CLARa
This guy begs and pleads for police and fire support, and then when they need a vote for binding arbitration, he talks for ten minutes about nothing, and votes against his supporters.
4. GERARDO SANDOVAL, SAN FRANCISCO
This is the guy who said we no longer need an Army and that protecting the country is something that is no longer necessary. He even got Alan Colmes defending Bush.
5. SCOTT HAGGARTY. ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
This tax guy wanted to tax toys whenever possible.
#60 (Kevin Johnson): I’ve endorsed Sam Liccardo in the D3 race. He is far and away the best candidate, as most if not all on this blog (and the Mercury News) appreciate.
I’ve not paid close attention to the D1 race since I don’t live there and won’t get a vote, but based on what I’ve read here and in the Mercury News, I would be inclined to support Pete Campbell if I did.
#61 (R. Parker): As I said in post # 57, I applaud David Pandori for writing his “book,” which in reality is more like an extended legal brief. I don’t doubt that Pandori cares about this city. I have not yet read his entire work, but I did examine closely his discussion of North San Jose (at pp. 17-21), and this morning I wrote a long analysis for this blog, which apparently exceeded the word limit and was lost in the ether. (If our moderators are so inclined, and it’s feasible, they might try to reclaim it and print it or an edited version thereof.)
#63 (A Parent Too): I invite you to ask Cindy Chavez, or her campaign, your questions. Although I support her candidacy, I am not her spokesperson. Further, I have not focused on the education issue in this campaign—although I do believe that the city needs to have better working partnerships with the various school districts, as well as the county and neighboring cities.
#66 – Mulcahy – A Clean honest campaign? Integrity?
Clean? He has hired a “sign” company to litter the City with his signs. They are abandoned property, light poles, telephone poles, just to name a few. They are called LAWN SIGNS for a reason.
Honest? The posting of these signs clearly walk a fine line. Per City ordinance, which all candidates are aware of, and recently reminded of, you must get PERMISSION to posts signs on private property. Do you really think permission was granted on these placements? Particularly the Evergreen Branch Library construction site?
Integrity? This “Blight” and disregard of the law has been brought to his attention. His handler says the signs are a strategy since he needed “name recognition”. He merely shrugged when recently asked about this after a forum by an audience member. I think his words were “why are you telling me this?”
Check out some pictures here:
http://tinyurl.com/q4zg6
MULCAHY – Clean up your act!
#72 Rob O. – I assumed that either Mulcahy’s family or friends owned all of that land which is why they were able to put up signs. Is that not true? It does look a bit ridiculous on the empty and blighted lots! If they do indeed own all of that land, I think that it would be tough for him to vote on any issues – he would have to exempt himself from all votes practically!
72 Rob O,
I looked at the pics; many of them had other candidates in the pics as well (Chavez, Cortese). Why aren’t you railing on them?
As for “you must get PERMISSION to posts signs on private property”. and “Do you really think permission was granted on these placements? Particularly the Evergreen Branch Library construction site?”
Last I checked, libraries are public property! You DumbA$$
#51 Don, you are kidding aren’t you, when you say SF is more livable than SJ? Sorry, but when it comes to quality of life, SF can’t carry SJ’s jock.
#65, Judy Chirco appropriately made the top of your list. She has managed to re-instate the do-nothing and run unopposed, or virtually so, approach of her predecessor Jim Beall, the biggest umm . . . waste of umm . . . oxygen the umm. . . Council and board of umm . . . Supes has ever experienced. No slight against John D’Aquisto who did an OK job in between Jim’s a Judy’s terms.
#66, This town needs an image boost. Mulcahy could provide that if he had a lot of exposure. In the event something of national importance ever manages to occur in this town, I’d rather have Mulcahy’s polished image than a dork in a flag tie on TV screens across the country. But I wouldn’t vote for Mike just based on that. I’m still deciding if it’s going to be Dave P. or Mike when I vote. If neither makes the run-off, then I’ll hold my nose and vote for Chuck or Dave C in November, but absolutely NOT CINDY.
Yeah, Dan #42, I know whatya mean—I thought I made a mistake once…‘til someone pointed out that I was wrong on that count.
Read Pandori’s book, it’s refreshing to see a politician commit to something in writing, while other candidates can’t be bothered to show up for debates, speak in platitudes and double talk, unwilling to be specific unless it polls well or just refusing to answer questions. Pandori lays out his vision for the City. He even has ideas on how to pay for it.
http://www.bettersanjose.com
Thanks David.
#73 It seems that their family either owns the property of the Evergreen Library, or the Evergreen Library has endorsed Mulcahy!
http://tinyurl.com/ogsfj
The signage company puts up the signs on empty property with absent landowners (you will see many on “For Lease” signs). Neither the campaign, nor the signage company, would go through the trouble to get permission on so many sites.
#62 you are right on. Mulcahy is poised for a run. He has the charisma and drive that those ahead of him are lacking. You people on this blog poke fun at his good looks and dapper attire but there is a whole lot more inside the man. His integrity is impeccable. He has run a clean honest campaign and when he becomes mayor he will bring this city back on track. Mulcahy has a vision not an agenda.
Where are Cindy’s answers to all of 47 and 63’s questions. Cindy puts educating our children at the top of her list . I have small children and I need to know the answers to these questions. Don says we need to ask you directly so I am respecting that . Please Cindy I know you are busy but all the children are worth it. PLEASE ANSWER ALL OUR QUESTIONS.
….A Parent Too
Editing my post, #71: I meant to say Pete Constant, not Pete Campbell. (Told you I wasn’t paying close attention to the D1 race.)
Where does Mr. Mulcahy stand on historic preservation?
Okay #66 – Mulcahy seems like a nice guy but what specifically are his ideas? He talks about reform and audits and making sure things “pencil” out but what SPECIFICALLY would he do? Sorry, he seems like all style and no substance to me.
Why read a book when people can just see a TV commercial and make their choice?
All you have to do is read the endorsement in the Resident and you will understand why I will be supporting Michael.You can also catch William Claggets endosement on 1590 radio. Your foolish attacks on Michael will fall on deaf ears. This city needs a change. The council members have had their chance and all of them have failed to make an impact. We need a collaborative leader and although Pandori has some excellent ideas I believe Michael is the one with the capacity to bring people together for the perplexing problems that exist today.
#74 Why do you reduce yourself to name calling?
No one ever said the others “ran a clean honest campaign” and yes, I have already railed on them. Signs were taken down.
#74, The library is public property. Therein lies the rub:
23.04.730 Prohibited on public property.
A. No person shall erect or display, or cause or authorize any person to erect or display, any election sign on public property.
B. The provisions of Sections 23.04.840, 23.04.850, and 23.04.860 shall apply to election signs posted on public property.
23.04.840 Presumption of responsible party.
A. Each of the following persons is presumed to be responsible for the posting of an illegal sign, including without limitation an election sign, on public property:
1. Any person whose name appears on the sign; and
2. Any person retained to post or distribute such signs.
B. More than one person may be deemed responsible for the placement of the same sign.
Michael Mulcahy – please set and example, follow the law and clean up your act- or hire someone to do it for you.
To Mr. Gagliardi:
Read the EIR done for the North San Jose Project. Then you need to ask yourself, will business and industry locate where their employees, customers or colleagues cannot get to the location because of traffic gridlock.
North San Jose needs to be redeveloped, and housing needs to be there too. But the proposed plan is like a mutual destruction pact with Santa Clara and Milpitas. ALL are going down with us.
What we must have is leadership that will engage the region in SALT talks that for a change would consider the benefit for all of us and not a running contest to nuke the other cities.
Anne Stahr
#75 (Mark T): In comparing San Jose with San Francisco, you evidently overlooked my use of the term “arguably” in suggesting that San Francisco is more liveable. (See post #51). Having lived in both places, I personally prefer San Jose. But that is not to suggest that there are not advantages to San Francisco and other more urban cities that San Jose could learn from. (SF tends to keep up its corner markets, for one thing, whereas they are locuses of blight in the San Jose downtown neighborhoods. And, to my mind, corner markets are the essence of liveability.)
74.
Dear Mr. DumbA$$,
Election signs cannot be posted on public property, but this is somewhat a petty issue since the signs are small an temporary.
Let’s talk about Mulcahy and family’s much larger signs that are a real blight, billboards.
San Jose has more than enough Coors, Corona, St. Pauli Girl billboards, but what do we get out of it? A reminder to stop by the local gas station and pick up a six pack?
How much is that blight worth? Personally I think it should pencil to more than a $50/month lease payment.
#45 Al, are you seriously unclear as to Chavez’ name. It is her family name. Many women today choose to keep their family names rather than adopt their husbands name.
In fact, Mike Potter is accustomed to being refered to as Mr. Chavez – as are the husbands of various other well known women who kept their names.
Jerry:
You are going to need to teach Mulcahy to read those scripts a little better, or maybe don’t use such big words. Perhaps he can sign up for the same class as Campos.
I’m not finding for those endorsements on his web site:
http://www.mulcahy.com
83 – You can vote for whomever you want but a vote for Mulcahy is a bit naive. He simply does not have the grasp of the issues needed for the mayor of a city of this size. He doesn’t have the knowledge needed about basic city services, land use, etc.
Having Clagget’s endorsement is hardly a feather in the cap. He didn’t leave here on the highest note.
Good luck in the voting booth.
Why should he roll over when he has doubled up on your beloved candidate. His volunteers are doing the best to track the illegal signs and taking them down whenever there is a complaint. The biggest problem is people stealing legitamate signs including garbage men off the front lawns. Its nice to know that Michael is the subject of attacks. He is making progress.
#66: Yeah lets vote for Michael because he has charisma and he is good looking too. Pleeeeeeeeeessssssssseeee. Let me guess, you think Gavin is doing a great job in SF too.
His integrity is not impeccable. Michael needs to come clean why he is really gunning for baseball. Have you read his web site? Check out this winner:
Beyond the immediate economic benefits and neighborhood revitalization, pro sports create millions of dollars of publicity for their host cities.
Sure 45,000 fans trashing our streets is going to revitalize our neighborhoods. Earth to Michael, China Basin never was a family neighborhood.
Haven’t we already learned our lesson from electing bad republican actors?
Just in:
NAACP report card
http://www.sanjosenaacp.org/06grades.pdf
RE#9 Mark T and #45 Al Maden
In the latino community we know who CINDY CHAVEZ is, WE KNOW WHERE SHE COMES FROM and THE WORK THAT SHE HAS DONE. I personally meet Cindy Chavez during the campaign for propotition 227 (THE UNZ INITIATIVE) She work along with us to defeat the initiative at the same time that she working in her first Political Race. Few people at that time commented that Cindy Opposition to prop 227 will cost her election, But she show us that she is a women of Ideas and Values and that she woud stand up for what is best for all children.
The number of Hispanic Voters is getting big, plus the female vote, and many Young latinos that just turn 18 will be voting too, The whole immigration reform was wake up our community and our polica power, many may don’t have a computer or internet access, But we have a powerful vote that we will use to Support Cindy Chavez as our First latina Mayor Of San jose!
Regardless(some racist, machistas, sexist and ignorant) peope like it or not.
TWO hypocritical (white-maybe republicans?)Females #1 Pat Dando (Mulcahy Supporter)attack with the mailer tha singles out Cindy Chavez “CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BACKED CAR-RACE SUBSIDY, THEN ATTACKS IT “
#2 Janet Gray Hayes(Cortese supporter and former mayor of San Jose)appears in http://www.indiana.edu/~iufcs/janet_gray.html with the following statement “Hayes says candidly. Over her eight years as mayor, she appointed several women to top administrative positions. With her encouragement and example, more and more women ran for office and won. San Jose’s City Council soon had more women than men. Says Hayes, “Establishing a scholarship to help other women enter elected office ensures that the balance of gender representation will continue. To this end, Hayes and her husband Kenneth established a scholarship at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs for undergraduates, especially women, pursuing careers in the field of public service.” OKKKKKK
So what is wrong with this women? is maybe because Cindy is not a ANGlO?
A MESSAGE FOR CORTESE, REED, MUlCAHY, PANDORI (and all the Cindy Haters.)
If you want to become The Mayor Of San Jose, First “you need the latino vote and #2 and the most important if you want to beat Cindy Chavez do it, but with better ideas for our city and how you will achieve them, but not with a negative campaign that just show your desperate ambition in your political path.”
Jerry
Where does Mulcahy stand on historic preservation. Does he have a plan?
This is not about race or gender. I am not a predjudice person nor do I believe anyone else on this blog is either. This is about displeasure. It is about passion for our city that has been embarrased by key elected officials. Noone forced Cindy to align herself with Gonzales to the point that has put her into this suspicious situation. The mayors backroom dealings and frivilous law suits have costs millions of dollars which could have gone a long way in benefitting the hispanic population in this city. I dont believe Cindy is in this race to protect the Hispanic population anyway. It appears that her alliance is the South Bay Labor Council. I say the city council had there chances and they have failed us miserably. If you want this city to get better give the ousiders a look. Both of them are certainly aware of the importance of the hispanic population to this city.
Someone just emailed and told me I must read this web site. Don Gagliardi I am shock to learn you are my neighborhood president. YOU SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF!!!!!! Suggesting that we need more traffic in our neighborhood would be a good thing. HOW DARE YOU!!!! As a mom of two small children, one with asthma, Im deeply concerned about air polution. We dont need any more SPARE THE AIR days.
#92,
If you vote for someone just because they are a Latina or a Woman means you a no better that those you accuse of being racist, machistas or sexist.
In fact, it means you are ignorant for failing to learn about all the issues and candidates to understand who is the best person to solve all of our problems, i.e. crime, traffic, jobs, parks, taxes, development, education, etc. It is ignorant voters that damage the democratic process. I suggest you take the time to study up.
P.S. The Asian vote is growing too.
#95 (Tina): I’m not your neighborhood president.
And if you’re concerned about traffic in the Northside neighborhood, I suggest you attend one of the local SNI meetings. Our next one is tomorrow evening, May 18 at 6:30 pm at Watson Annex, 550 N. 22nd St. It would be nice to meet you in person rather than cyberspace.
Mark T # 75—I couldn’t have said it better myself…on all counts.
There’s a lot of buzz about Cindy being Hispanic, due to her obviously Hispanic last name. RR, you’d know the answer to this—does she know more Spanish than Gonzo? (which wouldn’t be difficult) Does she speak Spanish at all…ever?? I’ve never heard her do so, but I don’t stalk her, so it could have happened.
Or is she just banking on the birth name for some blind support @ the ballot box?
To answer a couple of questions:
Cody: Cindy will not go negative. But that doesn’t mean others won’t go negative for her.
But I would advise them not to over-reach—ala the Chamber.
Further, Cindy needs positive messaging more than negative—to counter the assaults of others.
JMO—Cindy doesn’t, to my knowledge, speak spanish. The question is to you speak Gaelic?
Tina, learn the issues before you take a NIMBY stance. Dan is pretty up to date on what is good for your neighborhood.
# 63, you should ask # 25 “Also Single Girl” your question. Her words appear to be coming from Cindy herself. If not, it sure sounds like someone very close.
I was at the Environmental Forum on Monday. Lots of questions about the development issues and environmental protection.
What everyone saw of Mulcahy was that he did not have a vision – he had a script! Someone “penciled” the answers for him and he actually READ them, sometimes holding the paper up the for a better view!?
While he was looking at his script, I scanned the crowd – they looked perplexed and many shaking their heads!
From a former child actor, I expected more.