It’s all over in the District 4 race and it has proven to be a resounding victory for Kansen Chu. The candidacy of Hon Lien was stillborn. How and why that occurred is a rather simple matter: namely, a well-equipped and prepared candidate bested an ill-prepared one. Hon Lien was clearly not ready for prime time, or even late night reruns. Usually in small elections, the best candidate wins.
When all the sound and fury subsides, what does this election mean to the mayor, the council and the city? Answer: not much. I know that pundits and the self-appointed Cassandras will declare the end of the Reed agenda and the reforms pushed at the city. It is meaningless. Whoever tries to proclaim that the council is split and the Reed majority is on the ropes knows little about the dynamics of that group. The mayor controls the agenda, the levers and the real power. Though most things are decided by consensus, there is no one and no half dozen members of the city council that can equal the power of the mayor. Only one group can match him on a few selected land use items at City Hall: the lobby of developers, moneyed interests and their friends in labor. This is a potent group on certain isolated matters, like the Coyote Valley development scheme, but on most issues, they will have little or no influence. The winds of reform are too strong; the forces aligned to move the city away from the failed policies of the last eight years too manifest.
As always, we will have the opportunity to observe the results first hand. I have some hopes for Kansen Chu. Although, I have not spoken to him for many years, he was one of the small businessmen who fought the Santana Row project with zest and commitment. If he can summon the strength and set a powerful course in the direction of common sense and honesty, he can become a pivotal independent on a council desperately in need of more of that commodity.
All of us should wish him well.
I agree Steve, and further, why did so many others blindly do what was asked of them by Reed?
How could anyone, with a straight face, make the following statement:
“Hon is a strong, effective and honest leader whose priority will be the residents of District 4 above all else.”
Dave Cortese, Vice Mayor of San José
Effective? Leader? Where did Lien ever demonstrate “leadership,” let alone effectiveness?
And Reed’s words are suspect at best:
“Hon Lien is an independent thinker with the business background as well as the intelligence, character and experience to make the hard choices over the next few years as San Jose faces a very serious structural deficit problem.”
Again, where is the experience? Does her bankruptcy count as a “hard choice?”
And how could Reed not realize that Lien was going to lose? His quote in the Mercury today was alarming: “I thought Hon Lien was going to win, so yes, it was a surprise,” Reed said.”
How could Reed not seen that both democratic and republican community leaders in the district and county were not just endorsing Chu, they were actively campaigning for Chu and against Lien. Where has Reed been for the last three months?
For Reed to not see this coming is troubling, especially since this was his very own council district.
As one who has been on the receiving end of the Reed/Ajlouny Smear Machine three times in the last 15 years, it appears to me that the voters in North San Jose have finally had enough of the shocking and divisive campaign mailings that are the hallmark of the smear machine.
This smear machine has been in effect since 1987, and always operates as a hammer to silence those who do not toe the line laid down by Reed and Ajlouny. Only a few of us keep coming back for more.
Kansen Chu won the election fair and square, and at no time were his mailings or remarks an object of embarrassment to his supporters. The Hon Lien team, on the other hand, started out on the offensive with hit piece after hit piece which should have embarrassed those of her supporters who were moved by a sense of decency.
Losers include the Chamber and the Republican Party which worked hand-in-glove with the smears promoted by the Reed/Ajlouny Smear Machine. And that means that those two entities will think twice about trusting the political judgement and leadership of Chuck Reed, not to mention the accuracy and effectiveness of Victor Ajlouny.
Readers who do not live in North San Jose have no idea how vicious and dishonest the Reed/Ajlouny Smear Machine and the Lien campaign were. With any luck, this election will mark the end of any credibility for the hit-piece campaign style of Reed and Ajlouny in North San Jose.
#2 Tom, Reed doesn’t. Chavez doesn’t. Pandori does. SJ Loses. Certain things never change in this town.
I have heard nothing about what is happening with the reforms of Reed. Where are they and what has been accomplished on those issues?
#2 Steve
That’s exactly how I feel. I voted for Reed, but couldn’t comprehend why he would have endorsed Lien (or why Tom McEnery did also). She clearly was not prepared, informed, qualified, etc. This isn’t Reed’s first poor decision either… refusing to release Wolff’s stadium proposal, filling in for the City auditor… none of this inspires confidence that there will be any change in the culture of secrecy and back room dealing has permeated City Hall.
Lots of righteousness in the responses so far.
Amusing about Chu’s “experience” as a politician. Half the City Council has “experience”—in doing whatever the unions want them to do in return for cash and paid precinct walkers in their next election, no matter for what office, while they sit mute during discussions at meetings, or ramble on making no sense. Chu’s victory is a sad reminder that voters still believe the “experienced politician” bullshit, which the Murky always plays in this stupid game that never ever advances the cause of the citizenry or, especially, the taxpayers. This one, Chu v. Lien seems to pit the Vietnamese against the Chinese. Not too much diversity allowed there. Funny that Lien was characterized as a “commie” while being a very gung ho entrepreneur.
As for Chuck being “incompetent” for picking a losing candidate, what does that say about Zoe Lofgren who went nearly mad in her frothing enthusiasm for Cindy Chavez, even getting her a kiss from Bill Clinton and Diane.
Could that mean Zoe is on the way out? Chuck needs another vote to get things done, no matter what Tom says, and Hon would have been that vote. Chu will be on the line with Phaedra before and after every CC meeting. Anyway, the cluckers and smirkers do not think Chu is another Pierluigi, I would guess. And he isn’t, after all that “experience” making sure that the worse appears the better cause. George Green
Reed was looking to create his own lapdog situation with Lien like Gonzo had with Campos. Reed and Lien together couldn’t lead their way out of a paper bag. With Reed in charge this town is adrift for four years, four important years as the economy rebounds from the dot-bomb disaster. SJ is well positioned to squander opportunity after opportunity to take advantage of any economic boom that may materialize and the developers will be calling the shots rather than the other way around. Asleep at the wheel as always, that is SJ’s legacy.
Hey George, want some cheese with that wine?
I hope now that the election is over, the Council and Mayor will start addressing the concerns of the people. The Council needs to clean up downtown – arrest the thugs and gangbangers, take a wrecking ball to that pathetic old BofA building at First and Santa Clara, stop wasting money on preserving old buildings. Demolish everything within Market, Fourth, Santa Clara and Saint John Streets. A major developer could build another “Santana Row” there. Put construction workers to work. Buy-up all the junky homes outside the core of downtown using taxpayers money. Replace those old homes with mid-rise luxury condos.
My apologies for going a little crazy last night on the other thread but I truly was excited to see Mr. Chu come out victorious. I was so tired of hearing during this race and the mayoral election about how great of a guy Chuck Reed is and how he’s gonna turn things around. You see there are some of us in D4 who know how the real Chuck Reed operates. Dale Warner is very correct in his post above.
I acknowledge that most of my D4 neighbors worship the guy. But most people in Berryessa are not involved in public service. The truth is, for people like George Green Hon Lien was just another vote on the council to fulfill Reed’s grand reforms. But for those of us who live here, her election to the council would have been a disaster. She absolutely knew zip zero zilch about city issues. This is something the Mercury discovered right away.
I will end on this note. Chu will be an excellent independent voice on the Council. Also let me say that Cindy Chavez would have been a far better Mayor than the one we have now. Now let the verbal barrage come my way.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. I strongly support Mayor Reed. He is and was the best choice for Mayor. Do I agree with all of his choices? NO! Did I support Hon Lien? NO! Am I happy Kansen Chu won? YES!
Having said that I must say I’m disappointed in the way people look at politics. Just because I support one candidate doesn’t mean I’ll support everyone they endorse, nor will I always agree with stands they take on a single issue. The mentality that they have to do everything my way is pretty naive! In the end, and at the end of the day the Council and it’s Mayor have to work together for what’s best for the City and its citizens, regardless of whether they back business or Labor. As voting taxpayers our job is to make sure they know what we’d like to see happen. It is that simple.
Open government is something we all deserve and should encourage. I know Kansen Chu will do everything in his power to make sure he represents ALL of his community, not just Labor, not just business. On a personal level, he has experience on both sides of the coin.
Last night, I watched every group from Labor, to the Democratic Party take credit for Chu’s win. As I looked around the room at the tired, hard working, dedicated Chu campaign staff I was pretty sickened. I saw a very excited but exhausted Daisy Chu, and Kansen being latched on to by every one who wanted something from them. I found the lack of acknowledgement of Chu’s staff and volunteers, by many groups who took credit for the win; to be a real example of selfish entitlement I see too much these days.
So in closing I just want to say to both Lien’s and Chu’s campaign staff, and volunteers, THANK YOU for walking miles and miles, ringing door bells, talking to people, phone banking, delivering signs, and the hundreds of other wonderful, thankless things you do to keep voters voting, and for ensuring America stays as great as it is. And to you candidates, THANK YOU for wanting to serve we ungrateful, judgmental lot. Your commitment to the public is deeply appreciated by many of us!
This discussion raises a number of questions that seem to be unanswerable absent a truth that has thus far gone unmentioned, that being that in our city government the concept of district representation has almost no meaning. The only way I can understand Chuck Reed’s endorsement of Hon Lien is to view his choice as not one of a unique person well-equipped to serve the needs of the district and the city, but as one more bulb that will light up and be tallied on his side of key votes. If my suspicions are correct, the endorsement question for the mayor in this last election was nothing like one a conscientious voter might make in a booth, but more like one an efficient shopper would make at Orchard Supply.
So the question becomes this: do we fault the mayor for attempting to obtain the particular bulb needed? Chuck Reed did not create the binary political situation that currently exists in San Jose, so how much can we fault him for trying to make it work for him? As long as the forces we refer to as “labor” front a candidate in every race, what choice does the opposition (let’s call them “reform”) have but to throw its support to the bulb, however dim, that is opposed by labor?
Was the mayor’s offense that he used the marketing words of politics in describing the bulb of his choice rather than the descriptive words of a shopper? As much as it goes against my grain, I’m willing to give him a pass on this for two reasons: one, given the reality that politics is marketing, he had no other option; and two, anyone swayed by the mere words of a politician is too dumb to vote intelligently anyway.
I’m not suggesting that there was anything honorable in his endorsement, but I can’t ignore the practicality of talking-up the reform bulb. I also can’t ignore what this says about the current state of district representation, as well as the real damage that has been done to local politics by the heavy-handed practices of win-at-all-costs lobbyists. Not only have we voters been fooled into believing that district elections equal better representation, but our tolerance of lobbyists’ shenanigans has turned too many elections into one-issue contests, effectively robbing us of exercising real choice in the voting booth.
WOW!
I only know about these two candidates from what I have read, and what I saw on several posts of candidate forums “showcasing” Ms. Lien & Mr. Chu.
Vic A. is a very smart guy, tuned in, and effective, no matter whether you agree with his methods and ideology or not. The fact that even at the end of the campaign Ms. Lien seemed as dumb as a box of rocks on every issue makes it clear that not even Vic can graduate a duck from eagle school.
For Chuck to endorse, and then to say he was surprised at her crushing defeat makes me shudder to think he is so out of touch as our mayor. SURELY Vic told him it was hopeless. If not, then they’re both slipping badly and we’re in real trouble.
That said, my impression of Mr. Chu from the same video posts is that he’s as dumb as a small box of rocks. So, we now have Nora Campos Light in District 4, perhaps even another Forest Williams. Woebetide District 4.
This election reaffirms the results of the Balkanization of San Jose wrought by District elections. Half the city council couldn’t find their butts with two hands and a guide.
I had hopes that Chuckie would pull us out of the doldrums we are in. But for him to endorse Ms. Lien, and then to say he was surprised by her stunning loss… OUCH! We’re in real trouble, sportsfans.
Edward (#12),
Suggest you increase the dosage to 50 milligrams… immediately!
#13 CA Dem
re: Now let the verbal barrage come my way.
Interesting you say that and do not use your real name.
Something about supporting Cindy you feel uncomfortable about?
Kansen Chu deserved to win this election, and not only did he win, he won by almost 30 points.
Missing from Tom’s post is his explanation for endorsing Lien, an endorsement that has harmed the credibility of not just Tom, but all who lined up like lemmings to support Lien who clearly was unqualified to serve on our city council. While those who support Reed blindly endorsed Lien, the voters showed far more common sense when they rejected her.
Anyone who has worked with Chu knows that he is an honest and ethical man, and those who endorsed Lien because she was the only candidate that would support open government doesn’t hold water.
This election has sent the mayor a wake up call, sadly even last night the mayor was in some other world as he stated “I thought she was going to win.” Only someone who is out of touch with reality would make a statement like that. Anyone who had spent any time in the district could have seen that Chu was going to win with a fairly strong majority. How could Reed not have known Lien was going down in flames?
Worse, Lien and her campaign did all they could to keep her “under wraps” and out of the public. Lien would not agree to any forums until the middle of May (well after the absentee ballots had been mailed and many cast), and then her campaign refused to even consider additional forms that had been set up with the League of Women Voters. Lien’s actions in no way reflected a support of “open government,” and to somehow think that she was better able to support “open government” is not credible.
Reed has suffered a huge political blow that is going to hamper his ability to lead. Reed is not king nor emperor, he is but one vote on the council. Reform is demonstrated by a leaders actions, and Reed’s recent actions at city hall in no way demonstrate “open and honest government.” How much did the city pay Ajlouny while he was “volunteering” to run Lien’s campaign?
The real losers last night were Reed and Ajlouny, the winners were every resident in San Jose. Reed bet his political capital on Lien, a bad bet that is going to haunt him for a very, very long time.
Tom,
You fail to address the real problem: why did Reed “hand-pick” Lien if she was so ill-prepared? Was Reed unable to accurately assess Lien’s qualifications?
I voted for Reed but his endorsement of Lien makes me wonder if he has the skills to be an effective mayor over the long term.
I concur with #1 and #2. I am busy with other commitments these days (and live in the D5 sphere of influence) so I stayed out of this race. But after watching several unedited forums on You Tube, it was clear that Chu was the superior candidate by a country mile.
The shame is that surely there must have been a libertarian/conservative/business-oriented candidate in D4 well aligned with Chuck who could have articulated a vision and been a contender. I know one, actually, but as a white republican he felt he had no chance for electoral success in the district, despite living there for 30 years.
By all indications of friends who know him well, Mr Chu will serve his district and the city well. Congratulations to him, to D4, and to all the people of greater San Jose.
#12 You must not be a life-long resident of San Jose. I am, and hope the Bank of America building is never demolished.
#21,
Your thoughts are important here, not your name. I think it is more important to be a free thinker than a party member. After all, the same party that gave us Lincoln gave us Bush or Mc Enery and Gonzo. It should be about the candidate, not the party.
With the election of Mr. Chu our city council is truly reflective of our diverse community. Chinese-American, Italian-American, African-American, Vietnamese-American , Latina, and Greek-American. Both men and women, and a wide range in ages. Also, a diversity in religions. This should serve the citizens very well.
24 – Unfortunately most of them are not very bright. That has nothing to do with diversity, it has to do with the voters electing people who are not very smart. We can do better. If we don’t we are doomed as a city.
It is clear that Reed doesn’t care what the citizens of San Jose think. He cut public testimony to one minute and takes motions before he has heard the public speak. He is no man of the people.
WW, there is no way post #12 is serious.
Still, it seems to me that the owner of the B of A building (I’m assuming it’s no longer Steve Lin) has no interest in maintenance. The green neon atop that building hasn’t been lit for years. Once in a great while, the flood lights get turned on up there. Nobody has been interested in showcasing this still-prominent element of SJ’s skyline for many years. I’m not suggesting a subsidy if repairs are necessary to get the neon going again, but maybe an incentive wouldn’t hurt. I hate to see this building languishing as it has since B of A moved out. It’s all we’ve got left of SJ’s early skyline thanks to the stupid and short-sighted decisions of councils past, and it deserves a more loving owner and custodian than it has currently.
#26 – Yes, I agree with your comment about Edward’s post, I just hope that one building is preserved.
CD # 21—I doubt anyone thought you are a big shot of any kind. Well, I certainly harbored no such illusion.
I have no problem using my real name, and I am as controversial as the many anonymous posters on this blog. If you don’t have the courage of your convictions to post your real name, I usually don’t take you too seriously.
#24—I’d rather just be represented by non-hyphenated Americans. By that I don’t mean just middle age white guys. I mean people who come from different backgrounds, but have accepted our system and don’t need the hyphenation to describe themselves. I am not an Irish-American, or a Slovak-American. So why isn’t the Latina a Latina-American???
#25 got it right. What does it say about our electorate that we have elected such a high percentage of dim bulbs to our city council?
#s 26 & 27: Are you willing to pay the $$$gazillions it would take to seismically retrofit the building?
26/27 – While I assume #12 was not serious, given this Mayor and Council it is not beyond the realm of possibility. As many have mentioned numerous times on this blog, Building 25 is just the latest example of the current Council’s arrogance when it comes to destroying historic buildings.
The B of A building could be in danger because of BART. There is talk of making the B of A building some kind of grand rail station, but it will cost money. We all know what happens then—all kinds of reasons why a building can’t be saved. Nothing is certain at the moment but if you value any historic building in SJ you’d better start speaking up now. Of course you will only be allowed 60 seconds to state your case, so talk loud and fast.
13 – Cindy who?
#18
Part of me thinks that you’d like me to reveal my real name because you believe I’m some sort of big shot in the Labor Council or the Santa Clara County Democratic Party. Let me assure you that is not the case. While I have been and may continue to be involved in the local Democratic Party, I’m not a leader. I’m just your everyday average Dem activist and D4 resident.
I simply don’t use my real name because this is an online blog and I don’t feel it’s necessary. Single Gal and various others on this site apparently feel the same way.
JMO, I absolutely do not buy into the BS that it would take “gazillions” to retrofit the B of A building and this is the first I’ve heard that it needs any of that.
Let me share a story with you, one that will likely bring much satisfaction to you as it’s about the destruction of many historic buildings that could have been saved. In 1971 after the LA earthquake, there was a big push (no pun intended) to address the issue of pre-Field Act school buildings. Retrofitting was deemed far too costly and time consuming by the SJUSD and all of the architecturally pleasing and quite structurally sound pre-Field Act school buildings but two were systematically bulldozed and replaced with carbon copy squatty, uninspired, no-interior-walls blobs of non-architectural garbage.
Fast forward to a few years ago when the SJUSD attempted to take down the old Hoover Jr. High building. The neighborhood protested and the district agreed to a retrofit. The work took less time than it would to construct a new building and the original Hoover classrooms once again house students every day. The auditorium is now used for performances by various community theater groups. We could have had this scenario repeated all over town at minimal cost to the school district. Instead, beautiful buildings like Trace and Hester Elementary and Burnett and Roosevelt Jr. High were lost.
So I don’t believe for a minute that it would take gazillions to retrofit the B of A, if it even needs it.
And I’ve gotta ask, JMO. What the hell happened to cause you to harbor such hatred for anything with historical and/or architectural significance? It seems you’d gleefully stand cheering if the B of A was imploded into itself. Do you maybe own stock in a dynamite company?
My advice to you is to steer clear of Chicago. You’d puke your guts out.
Mark T #31 said; “but two were systematically bulldozed and replaced with carbon copy squatty, uninspired, no-interior-walls blobs of non-architectural garbage. ” You mean like the boxy, unispired, in-the-middle of nowhere Building # 25. I saw a photo of it in the Murky News today. Insipid architecture. The building has ZERO historical significance—the flying head disk drive was not invented there. Architecturally, it’s a nothing building.
The B of A building, on the other hand is significant in my view for several reasons, and it should be saved if at all possible. But as an example, a three story brick building on N. First that now houses the law firm of Robinson and Wood was seismically retrofitted a couple of decades ago at a cost of over $1million. Thus, I am confident that the B of A building retrofit would cost $$Gazillions. Are you and your cohorts willing to put YOUR money where your mouths are and raise the $$$$ to do the retrofit? Another example from Sempervirens. They raised $$ and bought the old HP picnic campground. Your PAC folks could learn a valuable lesson from them about following your dreams without using other peoples’ tax $$.
You went on to say: “What the hell happened to cause you to harbor such hatred for anything with historical and/or architectural significance? ” I harbor no such hatred. The hatred I harbor is for elitist one trick ponies who think the public should pay for what they like. If a fundraiser were declared to save a historical building I liked, I’d have no qualms contributing. That is a far cry from stealing tax dollars from everyone for your pet project.
The problem is that your (I mean that collectively for all you PAC types) myopia is so strong that you just seem incapable of comprehending that just ‘cuz you like something, I should have to pay for it.
If the choice is to spend tax dollars on Bldg. 25 or to have roads that don’t seem like driving over railroad ties, I’ll take the roads, thank you.
JMO, I think most here are aware of your private funding mantra around preservation. Glad to see you appreciate the B of A building. There is hope for you yet!
I think there are better examples of mid-century architecture than Bldg 25 for sure and I won’t be disappointed if that building goes down. One thing I can guarantee you, and that is that when the time comes to replace the garbage 70’s school buildings in SJUSD, you won’t hear a peep of protest from PAC types like you did with Bldg 25.
So you drive northbound Meridian above Hillsdale too, huh?
32 – I won’t waste much time responding to you but I can’t let your ignorance go completely unchallenged. A building is not deemed historic based on whether you hate it and I like it. It is based on a complex series of evaluations done by an independent evaluator—not PAC. The building is historic regardless of whether or not you like it. As it says on PAC’s website: “It is one of the finest examples of Modern Industrial architecture in Santa Clara County,” states the report under review by the Historic Landmarks Commission. “The Advanced Research Building 25 meets the criteria for integrity as defined by the National Register of Historic Places…as defined by seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. [The building] is significant to the architectural heritage and industrial history of San Jose.”
I could go on but I know you are not interested and others have already provided much information that you have ignored. Someday, although it will be too late for San Jose, you and others will realize the historic treasures we have lost due to your (and the Council’s) myopia—not PAC’s.
Thinking outside the box is one thing, but thinking outside the bounds of fiscal responsibility and common sense is another. This council and the Mayor have it’s hands full restoring fiscal health and providing the basics.
#9, I’m tired of Chinese that once lived in Vietnam calling themselves Vietnamese when it is most convenient. Main stream Medias need to get it right, Chinese lived in Vietnam still is Chinese not Vietnamese. Hon Lien called herself Vietnamese-America because she tried to get the votes from Vietnamese Voters, but it did not work out. Now we all know she will be calling herself Chinese-America again.
Yeah, #35, and public art is selected by insider-selected “juries”that establish their own criteria, which is why we have so much really bad public art—we’ll start with the half million dollar scat called Quetalcoatl, and move on to the brass-colored seated nude in the Gold Building.
The fact that some self-selected bureaucrats devise their plan does not validate their selections, or even their criteria.
You’re right in that I am not interested in some self-selected group of people with a point of view foisting it upon my wallet. Whether the selection is by fiat or by some group of so-called experts, the crucial fact remains that a body with a vague mandate, no oversight, and no accountability can “select” things to keep and make someone else pay for it. That is no right, in my book.
Building 25 is a shining example of nothing, but it passed all criteria from your precious committee. ‘nuf said.
Sorry, I may have said 35, when I was responding to #34. I am numerically challenged.
It is always amusing to read John Michael O’Connor’s ramblings about what a great guy Victor is.
Yeah, John, Hon was at fault, and Victor tried his best.
Just because you are the one that causes Victor to get those mustard stains on his pants from your hot dog stand outside the BofA Building, does it always mean you have to bend way, way down to kiss that large GM of his?
36 – So, who determines the historic value of a building? You don’t want educated professionals to do it, you don’t want city staff doing it, and you don’t want PAC to do it. That leaves only a couple of choices—you determine the value of a building based on whether or not you like it, or we just destroy all old buildings a replace them with cookie-cutter structures that look like everyplace else.
BTW, when you say “selection is by fiat or by some group of so-called experts, the crucial fact remains that a body with a vague mandate, no oversight, and no accountability” you ignore the city, state, and federal guidelines and organizations that do provide a focused mandate and critical oversight.
I’m just glad you don’t apply your same criteria to people because if you did a lot of folks would be tossed onto your heap of rubble.
John #35 got it right! Here’s another fact about Chinese-Viet, most of them were legally allowed to leave Vietnam by the communist regime after the 1979 border conflict with China. To now claim that Chinese-Viet who left Vietnam under this program as “boat people” is disingenuos. The real boat people got hunted down by VN communist patrol and shot on sight; those who made it out of VN water often got robbed/kidnapped by Thai pirates; and the lucky few made it to refugee camps.
Please get the fact straight main stream media.!!
#38—you should learn to read better. I have been critical of Viuctor in most of my posts