Are the People of San Jose Ready to Change the
Rules?
The “Golden Rule” in politics is simple: “He (or she)who has the gold, makes the rules.” San Jose’s gold does not belong to its people. And the people certainly don’t make the rules.
Over the past few weeks, we have been reminded just how broken the City of San Jose really is. The roses in the Rose Garden go unpruned, streets are patched rather than repaved, and the city faces a $16 million deficit that requires job cuts in vital city departments.
Rather than continuing to accept “more of less,” why don’t the citizens of San Jose push a ballot initiative that would require that city services be funded at predetermined minimum levels before any other projects can even be contemplated by the city council? The council members’ hands would be fittingly tied. No more freelancing. No more gambling with taxpayer money. San Jose’s money would be spent on, and in, San Jose!
The citizens of San Jose could dictate their priorities by providing the city council with a mandatory outline that would define (in percentage terms) how much of the general fund must be spent in each area (i.e. public safety, parks, libraries, streets, etc.).
The citizens of San Jose have every right to dictate to the council how they want their money to be spent. It’s our city. It’s our money. It should be our rules.
This is a bad way to budget. Certainly the Council needs to do a better job than they are currently doing, but to tie the hands of elected leaders with mandated percentages is bad public policy.
We’ll see where the Council priorities are really at soon when they vote on their proposed salary increases.
Pete,
Your sentiments are on the right track. Had such an initiative passed ten years ago, we wouldn’t have wound up with that lunker half billion dollar City Hall. Can you just imagine how far a half billion would go in terms of funding other City services?!
On the subject of services, what’s your opinion on levying a Mello-Roos tax on new residential developments within the City? Central Valley cities have done this for years.
Pete,
I like your idea but a ballot initiative would take forever.
Aren’t the Services what the City Officials were elected to see get carried out? If I remember right, wasn’t there a group/team on the transition process that prioritized services the City needed to accomplish. Why not start there. Let’s see if the Council Members have the “guts” to appropriate monies to this list to get it accomplished first—- then if monies should be left over—- it can go to other request.
And in times when there are deficits existing—- after monies are distributed to the required services and none should remain—then no other requests should be allocated from the General Fund, period.
Concerned Citizen
Dear Greg (#2)
I don’t know enough about it to answer your question. Have the central valley cities benefited by it? (which ones?)
Pete Campbell
What are the current budget percentages for – police, fire, parks, planning, libraries etc?
Why is Council giving our taxes to arts. theaters developers corporations, Sharks arena when we can not pay for required city services?
Coyote Valley and Evergreen new homes should have special districts or Mello Roos districts to pay for services, schools and facilities costs like Orange County, West Hollywood, Roseville, Rocklin, 5 Mello Roos districts in Davis, Antioch, Oakley, Chico Hills and many new home developments with Mello Roos “Community Facilities Districts” (CFD’s) or the rest of San Jose will have even less services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mello-Roos
What is the point of having council representatives if “the citizens” are going to dictate how everything is done?
Along the same line, why do we have the council vote on a subject if they are supposed to do whatever the majority of people in attendance at that meeting want?
Apparently some people need to go back to civics class and learn how representative government works. Or, maybe mob rule is the preferable method of government.
Why not try and elect intelligent, honest council members who will look at all the data and make, in their judgment, the best decision? Maybe it isn’t perfect, but it sure beats having the public, depending on the mood de jour, dictate what can and can’t be done.
Dear Bluefox (#6):
Yes, having “the citizens” dicate how everything is done is EXACTLY what I want. I accept that it is not practical to have the citizens weigh in on every little decision. However, our city is broken and rundown because the council spends too much money on non vital services, projects, and promotions.
If anyone thinks that the way that the city council is spending the public trust is just fine, then my suggestion has no merit. But if you believe as I do that the city’s priorities are out of whack and that San Jose remains a poorly run city, then you have to consider my outline. (I don’t blame Reed for this, he inherited the problem and is outnumbered by the council majority that doesn’t believe in fiscal responsibility or keeping San Jose’s money in San Jose).
Pete Campbell
Pete Campbell should run for mayor. His program includes access to information.
Pete—Great criticism, problematic solution. The people pay for services and elect a rep to get them, but they’re too busy worrying and living to even learn how to govern—not that those who are elected to do that know any more, though they have staff and the power to accomplish the delivery of the service, whether it’s an army, a money system, a public garden or gardener or whatever. Lots of staff, money and time to advance their own agenda. Always. A horrific example of the disconnect between the people and their reps is education: more and more money for less and less result. A “certified” teacher gets thousands to teach one child, but there is no measurement re where the child is in Sept., and where they are in June, after this expensive “treatment”. The unions make sure there is no way to measure the effectiveness of the treatment that folks once were taxed out of their house to pay for. How would the people change the rules for this trillion dollar fiasco, though it is destroying the society? Making the rules for getting city services ought to be easier, but I doubt it. One of the reasons the people again need to make the rules (Jefferson) is that most of these rules, were made by the demagogued (unwashed)people instead of those qualified to make the rules (Adams). Can we say “popular initiative”? George Green
Peter, you are brilliant and once again show the residents of San Jose that we can become great again!
Are you single? I hope so.
With the victory of Hon Lien, we will have a city council we can be proud of. I hope her campaign reads these postings and carries forth my statement that Hon Lien is the best candidate for a New San Jose!
The Constitution of the United States of America begins with these words: “We the people of the United States . . .” These words show that the people would govern themselves – not king, politicians, city employees, special interests, Chamber, unions, or not some people qualified to make the rules but the ( voters ) people
San Jose City Council has not been representative of voters for years but represents special interests that paid for their campaigns and expect political paybacks – tax subsidies, city and construction contracts, land conversions to housing, public employee retirement and benefit plans while our taxes are not spend on city services, streets, parks etc
Bluefox – What is the EXACTLY the point of having council representatives represent voters and spend our taxes on city services NOT millions in tax giveaways to special interest groups
It takes a well informed electorate to countermand a government beholden to special interest. If our elected representatives are shady, we should vote them out. However, in these days of short attention span and political spin, the spinsters can make anything magically appear appealing to a voter who’s not paying that much attention. There’s more credence being paid at the polls to “name recognition” than what a candidate stands for (or whom he stands with). The fault is not with the elected, it’s with the electors. We reap what we sow.
I believe it was George Carlin who quipped: “There’s a lot of apathy out there…but who cares?”
We SJI bloggers care, but we are in such a small minority. George #9 got it right: “The people pay for services and elect a rep to get them, but they’re too busy worrying and living to even learn how to govern—not that those who are elected to do that know any more,…”
Perfect example of leaders who follow—the recent vote on garbage rate hike. Total cop out by current administration blaming it on prior adminsitration. It was caused by the Gonzo Group, but this council had it in its power to look more closely and rebid the contract, if necesary. They chose not to. More business as usual.
It’s time for another Boston Tea Party!
What Pete and #11 mean by having “the citizens” rule is having government do what they think should be done.
The City is poorly run. Things take too long.
#16
There are much more important issues facing this city than a name for a portion of Story Road. The Vietnamese community should be ashamed of how they behaved, and continue to behave, regarding this issue. They have embarrassed themselves, and San
Jose, nationwide with their childish and immature antics.
I post a letter of someone from San Jose: He addresses Mayor Chuck Reed of San Jose City:
Dear San Jose Mayor Reed and Council members:
Yesterday (Tuesday evening November 20, 2007) the City Council of San Jose, California, (the city outside of Vietnam with the largest Vietnamese population) voted 8-3 for the name Saigon Business District (SBD) For the stretch of corridor on Story Road in East San Jose (between Freeway 101 and Senter Road ). This was in total disregard for the will of the people in the community who had chosen by a ratio of more than 7 to 1 in the CITY’S OWN SURVEY preferring the name LITTLE SAIGON over SBD. Although you the mayor, and council member Madison Nguyen claimed (on the record) that SBD was a “compromise” however the fact is that this was NOT a compromise. LITTLE SAIGON came in FIRST and SBD came in LAST (gathering only 5%) on the survey list of 6 choices as was clearly and correctly pointed out by council member Pete Constant at the meeting. Even the respectable San Jose Mercury News Survey of more than 4600 participating households showed LITTLE SAIGON was preferred by 91% of the respondents! ! I am very disappointed that you as mayor, did not and could not show the courage or fortitude of a true leader.
Apparently the survey by your own city agency and the passionate and deafening pleas of the 1000+ concerned community members who appeared at the hearing (in the council chamber and overflowed into the rotunda, rooms, and halls) to support the name LITTLE SAIGON had no effect or influence on you or Ms. Nguyen or other council members who voted for SBD. The pride and ego that you and Madison Nguyen exhibited are truly incomprehensible. The other council members who voted with you and MADISON NGUYEN are Vice Mayor DAVID CORTESE, council members SAM LICCARDO, NORA CAMPOS, JUDY CHIRCO, FORREST WILLIAMS and NANCY PYLE. However, I must commend the three INDEPENDENT, OPEN MINDED and DEMOCRATIC council members Messrs. PIERLUIGI OLIVERIO, PETE CONSTANT, and KANSEN CHU who voted in DISSENT, and who voted AGAINST Madison Nguyen’s motion. These gentlemen followed their conscience, their hearts and their minds to reflect the true will of the people.
The name LITTLE SAIGON embodies a strong commercial appeal, historical significance, community spirit, and cultural attractiveness in numerous cities in California , across the nation, and throughout the globe. There is no logical reason why LITTLE SAIGON could not be FORMALLY and OFFICIALLY established at Story Road . There is a fervent and overwhelming belief in the community that there were deals made behind the scene to get Ms. Nguyen’s motion passed, i.e., Quid-Pro-Quo arrangements. If that was the case, then democracy has clearly been assaulted and violated. The previous night (Monday), I had interviewed you Mr. Mayor on our Vietnamese TV talk show, and I had been very neutral, cordial, and easy in my questioning of you in order to be fair to you and to afford you ample time to talk. However, Tuesday night when I attempted to speak (as a private citizen) at the council meeting, you quickly cut me off after a very short time when you realized that I was going to recommend the name LITTLE SAIGON to the council. I had no chance to express my view, and I deeply resent your unprofessional, unfair, and totally un-democratic act. I had hoped you would have had the decency and professionalism to allow me to speak for the same duration as other individual speakers at the open public forum; the ultimate place and symbol of true democracy in this country we call the U.S. of A. But that was not to be. San Jose deserves representatives with honesty and integrity, and we need and want public servants who do not exhibit such hubris and arrogance of power (Do you remember the Hon Lien vs. Kansen Chu District 4 race ?).
Sincerely, Minh Q. Steven Dovan, Esq. AKA Luat Su Do Van Quang Minh (Vietnamese name).
P.S. This is the FIRST time in 5 decades of living in the U.S. that I have had to write to a Mayor or any city council member. However Madison Nguyen’s and Mayor Chuck Reed’s overall blatantly deceptive and un-democratic conduct on this issue compelled me to write this e-mail. P.P.S. ALL MEDIA SERVICES and concerned folks: please freely print and disseminate this e-mail. VIETNAMESE MEDIA: please use the accompanying Vietnamese translation to be printed unredacted in your publications and broadcast on your programs. Feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss or have any questions. Thank you.
Minh Q. Steven Dovan
Attorney at Law
4 N. Second Street, Suite 280
San Jose, CA , USA 95113-1323
Ph. (408) 287-2555 Fax (408) 287-2564