By Guest Blogger Jerry Estruth
In 1978, when I was a candidate running for the San Jose City Council, I supported districting. At that time, San Jose had 7 councilmembers, including the mayor, all elected at large. I became the last councilmember to be elected city wide. Therefore, I think that I am qualified to question whether or not districting has been good for San Jose and whether or not it has outlived its usefulness. I think the time when the scant support of 2000-3000 people can elect a district councilmember from a district has passed.
As in any governing body, there have been good district and at-large representatives and bad district and at-large representatives. But, on balance, over the years, we have seen district reps get more and more marginalized. Recent abusive, arbitrary and vindictive acts by our mayor have served to bludgeon recalcitrant or questioning Councilmembers into submission. As councilmembers get more marginalized, the power of lobbyists and special interests become ascendant. That’s one of the reasons we have our current scandals.
Some councilmembers have been told to butt out of issues because they happen to be in some other councilmember’s district. I believe this parochialism is wrong and serves only to create a feudal system of independent fiefdoms that a district councilmember can rule over, resulting in a failure to view issues from a city wide perspective.
Now we have several councilmembers who seem like they’re going to run for mayor and I’d be extremely interested in seeing the polling numbers for their name recognition. I’ll bet that those numbers are pretty uniformly low. Districting has served to smother the individuality of members and minimize the amount of citywide recognition, or in some cases, districtwide recognition, that they have access to. All of this can only serve to maximize the power of the mayor and minimize the power of an individual councilmember.
There is an old saying: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” I think it’s time to question whether Districting is broke and whether or not it needs fixing. The unseen Elephant in the Corner is a broken system of San Jose Government.
Jerry Estruth served on the San Jose City Council from 1978-1984. He was Vice-Mayor of San Jose in 1980. He now lives in Arizona.
“Image is Everything”
No truer words have ever been spoken. Just take a look at San Jose Magazine. The image of San Jose is as follows:
A. People who enjoy golf
B. Women who need botox and fake breasts
C. Country Club lifestyle not to be intruded on by the lowly people
D. Do nothing politicians looking for face time
E. Realtors looking to sell luxury housing outside of San Jose
F. Larry Gerston
Sometimes “parochialism” that “serves only to create a feudal system of independent fiefdoms that a district councilmember can rule over, resulting in a failure to view issues from a city wide perspective” can be a beautiful thing.
If I in a distict have a gnawing grievance or a hopeful dream concerning the city, I want a councilmember who feels beholden to me and my neighbors to set issues right rather than take a distastefully holisitic view of representing all of San Jose, letting me very possibly ‘go hang for what is best.’ I cannot imagine anyone wanting that!
Many of the districts have a very distinctive character almost making them independent cities of special interests that militate against a city wide vote that could severely dilute the motivation of the councilmember to serve the district best. Almaden and Willow Glen are bordering districts but they are different as Martinez and Bel Air in their local cultures. The current councilmembers from those districts are the best-appropriate befitting those districts, in my judgment – it is doubtful, though possible, that either Nancy Pyle or Ken Yeager could win a city wide election, thus depriving those districts of just the kind of focused and parochial dedication to the citizens that they deserve.
You were right in 1978, Jerry.
We need to explore “devolution” in San Jose, not centralization inside a downtown City Hall.
Devolution is underway on a county level even as we speak…the County Board of Supervisors is studying cutting its final apron strings to the Santa Clara Valley Water District.
We need district elections of the VTA board and the RDA board, and we need to focus city resources to match district needs.
For example, District Four is the most populated district in the city, having about 96,000 residents.
Obviously land use, public safety, parks, and libraries should be matched with the needs of the district residents. In reality, however, land use issues are jammed down the throats of district residents by City Hall, and public safety, parks, and libraries are public needs which are not remotely met in the district.
No, we need to study devolution, not advocate more centralization.
J Mo,
Would you do us all a favor and explain what all this Mumbo Jumbo is all about. PAROCHIAL??FIEFDOMS??
Who woke up Rip Van Winkle?
This Blogging site is really getting convuluted. What happened to the only issue???
God forbid that the political process created this dilema we are presently “injoying”.
J Mo , you have a way of cutting thru the remenicent B.S. Talk to us. Please!
You guys that want to change the system stay focused, deal with the issue first.
I was in San Francisco on the Mexican Bus. As I toured the city at night and the next morning, I thought, “I could not be a Mayor of any great city. What would keep me awake nights is the thought of where does it all go when the 7 am flush happens!!! I could plead insanity and get a reprive for any transgressions. We’re feeling your pain “Mr. Alone”!!!
J Mo I feel another T Shirt Logo comming on!! Pass me the roll of font styles!
The Village Black Smith
Mr. Hickey #2—SO, in comparing Willow Glen & Almaden to Martinez & Bel Air, which do you see as Martinez?
I have lived in Willow Glen since 1980. The biggest bunch of busybodies and high-school clique members I’ve ever run across is the Willow Glen Homeowners Association. If they could find a way, they’d charge a toll to all drivers who don’t live in 95125 to drive on Lincoln Avenue. Soccer Moms who keep whining about traffic!
That is the kind of parochialism you get when you Balkanize such a geographically small place as a city. I am sure each council district has its own group of busybodies who think they know what’s best for you.
So, who gets elected? One trick ponies who tap into the right constintuency with enough bucks.
Who suffers? All of us, by the narrowmindedness of elected leaders who think their zip code is the center of the universe…which, of course, they have to do to get elected.
But it goes all the way up to the national level. A vast majority of people criticize Congress; but an even vaster majority re-elect their Congressperson. Why, because of the influence of narrow special interest money and pork barrel projects delivered by incumbents.
I was against district elections when they were initiated, and I remain so.
John Michael O’Connor
Jerry, San Jose has changed a lot since your were on the City Council and you need to reflect those changes when you make comments
San Jose is now a city with no majority group and many minorities.
Many residents, minority groups, neighborhoods, neighborhood businesses, small businesses, low income / housing, social service, community organizations etc that do not have large organizations and ability to raise large amounts of campaign money for elections would be effectively disenfranchised by city wide elections.
These groups directly benefit from having district elections and are able to get elected people who both represent them, working people and are fair to other under represented groups.
If you look at the City Council most of us see current members that look like us and soon a Vietnamese Council member.
Many Council members would never have been elected if we had city wide elections and San Jose would be the worst for their not being elected.
City wide Council elections have been shown to be biased against small or minority groups and the courts have consistently overturned other city wide elections as discriminary and either reinstated district elections or required district elections.
Your criticism of a lack of city wide perspective by the Council members is only partially true since the Council has supported Coyote Valley, North San Plan, Airport expansion etc
You failed to mention Measure J’s substantial effect on discouraging City Council members from having “city wide perspective” under our current politically ambitious Mayor who views anything as “city wide” as his sole territory.
Our current Mayor strongly discourages any Council member from advancing any city wide plans because he views that as taking away his political power acting as a “Strong Mayor”
We elected an ambitious “professional politician” outsider Mayor who came to San Jose not because he loved or liked our city but because he believed it was a stepping stone to higher political office.
He believes he needs numerous city wide demonstration projects where he gets the sole credit, rather than share credit with other Council members as previous Mayor did it, to add to his list of political accomplishments to demonstrate his political ability to get things done so he can move on to higher office
Measure J made the the Mayor the “politcal leader” of the city, and gave him budget control over the city and City Council and the power to select the City Manager candidates to be presented for approval to City Council.
Our previous local Mayors cared about San Jose rather than our current “professional politican” and did the right thing for San Jose but Measure J can be abused and it sets the stage for our current Mayor’s abuses and scandals.
He believes as a profesional politican and previously demonstrated that being “abusive, arbitrary and vindictive acts by our mayor have served to bludgeon recalcitrant or questioning Councilmembers into submission.” is the how to demonstrate he is a “Strong Mayor”
Our Council members are effectively by our current Mayor restricted to ONLY representing their own districts since we have a Mayor who wants sole credit for any city wide projects.
They would act substantially differently if we did not have Measure J .
Anytime they ask about city wide issues or try to act on city wide issues the Mayor or his few abusive staffers ( many are ok ) feel threatened since the Mayor believes and the City Charter backs him up that he is the sole “polictical leader” for city wide issues
The City Council members have no power over the city or district budgets and he punishes them if they try to propose anything city wide or that he does not like by withholding funds, appointments and he manipulate the city government to his “future political advantage” and their disadvantage.
His future political career has been badly damaged by his abusive behavior of Council members, city staff and others and his numerous lies. Many now fear his current political power which will soon be over, few like or respect him for his recent behavior.
He has many of the personality traits of Richard ” Tricky Dick ” Nixon and will be remembered as San Jose’s “Richard Nixon” for his many personal and city scandals not for the good projects and policies he brought to San Jose.
Political ambition makes potentially good people do questionable and bad things and then lie about what they did in an effort to coverup as they consistently compromise their values to further their political careers.
District Representatives have a purpose, to help constituents from their neighborhoods get through the maze that has become government.
Yet, Jerry’s point is well-established. The reps consider their own districts fiefdom.
But a hybrid system might work. This is where a councilmember would represent an area, but would have to run Citywide.
I believe the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors is elected this way. Each represents a different area, but all have to run Countywide.
Last we could reduce the number of seats from 10 to 5 (or 7).
Further, a strong Mayor form of government is essential if San Jose is to play in the big leagues.
Del may be a great guy. But nobody voted for him. Being elected means some accountability It is obvious Ron is running the ship anyway—we might as well vest powers in him and get rid of one high level salaried bureaucrat.
So Rich wants San Jose to play in the Big League
Let see – like –
– San Diego ( let me count the Mayors, corruption and indictments )
– Chicago ( a model of clean ethical well run government – NOT – for decades the textbook example of corrupt city government )
– Houston ( Los Angeles with hot humid weather, cowboy boots and uncontrolled growth also scandals and corruption )
– Los Angeles ( Rich, if you want San Jose to be LA North why not move to the real thing – Enjoy LA )
– Oakland and San Franciso ( great examples Rich of good government – Not )
– New York ( we won’t even go there – BAD, BAD and worst )
– Philadelphia ( Police scandal, FBI probe Mayorial corruption scandal.with lucrative city contracts, called “Pay-to-Play,” for lucrative city contract or as was stated 100 years ago “corrupt and contented “
– Detroit – Yuck and corrupt
Did we miss any cities in the Big Leagues –
Corruption, more corruption, scandals, Pay to Play city contracts – Sounds like – Big League city government –
So why are you advocating putting in place the political tools for Big League city special interest controlled easily corruptable city government
– a Stong Mayor and city wide elections or
are you looking at the Big League city political consultants payoffs when a city has city wide elections that cost $300,000 to $1 million – PayDay for Rich
I am surprized – you are normally somewhat in touch with the local residents opinions and you mssed that San Jose residents don’t want to be in the Big Leagues, if it comes with all these Big League City negatives
If you or others want to be in a Big League City – Please Move there, where many of us came from, since we did not like it
The typical San Jose resident could care less about City Hall. The day-to-day ethical lapses of the Mayor, the lack of backbone on the part of the Council and the total Laurel and Hardy performance of the Attorney and City Manager rarely get much attention from residents during week-end BBQs.
The “Big City” fixation is all in the minds and aspirations of the Mayor and City Council. San Jose’s quality of life is largely due to the great neighborhoods and the integrity of the typical citizen who gets up every day to go to work. Remember, San Francisco is a world class city, despite its local government. San Jose is a great town, despite City Hall.
Del is too accountable….to Gonzo. Bye, bye.
Oh, San Jose is the only city that can RECALL the city manager, so would that be a vote???
Didn’t people that got votes vote him in or out?? I remember the gang of five before districts, and is Newark in the Big Leagues as well? Well, Newark and Baltimore do have HBO shows and we see how well their city government works.
Jerry-
A lot of us miss you around Sanazay. Thanks for checking in…and be sure to wear a cap in that AZ sunshine!
Hey Jerry, maybe if you were still living in SJ you’d be raising the issue of monster homes. Mark De Mattei has cloned another one and it’s going up next door to your old place (might have been an improvement if it was going up on the eastern side but that dump seems to be a fixture). Pretty soon the Rosegarden is going to be big boxes made of ticky tacky that all look just the same if we let this guy continue to to erect formula McMansions at his current rate. Anybody want to tackle this issue?
Thank you all for participating. I don’t have all the answers, but I think we may have started a discussion that may well change things for the better.
Former San Jose Councilmember Jerry Estruth, placed the following question: Do San Jose voters want to go back to electing council members to represent the entire city, or do we prefer to elect council members by district?
As a proponent of a district system – How can we ensure that, At-large system doesn’t discourage election of candidates representing minority views, or minority races and ethnic groups within the city.
The city is divided into districts to help ensure the City Council’s racial profile reflects the city’s racial profile. Many political issues in the city are neighborhood-based. With our current district system, it is the residents in the “districts” who are ensured that their concerns will receive more representation.
Electing representatives from separate districts would empower residents from separate neighborhoods, including the poor section of San Jose, usually “under-represented” by the At Large system of city-wide elections.
R. Gomez # 15 states: “The city is divided into districts to help ensure the City Council’s racial profile reflects the city’s racial profile.” I though racial profiling was politically incorrect.
But seriously, sir, is it your position that district boundaries are based upon race, and making sure that each “race” is represented? We’d need a lot more districts to do that—there are almost 100 languages spoken in SJ Unified alone.
Besides, no district councilmember represents his/her entire constituency. They represent the people who vote for them and who contribute cash to their election. Most of the unrepresented people you speak of neither vote nor contribute. So, no matter what system one uses, they will never be represented until they vote and/or contribute.
Why do you think campaign consultants spend so much time and money ascertaining who votes frequently? No politician cares about the casual voter, no matter his/her race, gender, sexual identity, etc. Campaign mailers target voters, not the apathetic shmcuk who never goes to the polls.