With the advent of the summer festival season of events in San Jose—the Grand Prix, Jazz Festival and Zero One Festival—we are indeed approaching a time of fun, enjoyment, and wonderment. Yet, it was not long ago when a visit to our city would be considered out of the question for many in the valley and Bay Area. Not any more.
Now, millions come to our events, museums and Arena, and many more come to our hotels, Convention Center and business forums for sports, culture, technology, education, and commerce. Once a mayor had to beg and cajole to get luminaries to visit our city. But now, Popes, potentates, and common-variety superstars like Bono show up at the California Theatre and elsewhere with little notice. Why, even mega-mogul Bill Gates has accepted an invitation to the Tech Museum to accept an award. What’s next, Steve Jobs munching on a hot dog and conducting a business forum at Peggy Sue’s?
When I was inviting VIP’s to come here years ago, to score the Grand Duke of Luxembourg—a principality with a profile like Monte Serrano and a GNP smaller than Palo Alto—was a major coup. And the gala luncheon was held at the most exclusive spot downtown, the San Jose Athletic Club—no shirt, no shoes, no service. How times have altered our city.
A big question this summer that I have heard repeated again and again is: what is the next big thing for San Jose? What blockbuster or stunner is going to shape the next twenty years? It might come, and likely will, in the realm of business and technology. But we can dream. One person can change all. It could come in the area of things that I will broadly quantify as metropolitan makers: an Arena, a Tech and, damn the delusional aspects of it, a baseball stadium. Such dramatic reaches can define a city.
The next mayor, and the crucial, but long dormant, business and community leadership of our city, will hopefully choose the path that will take us there. Or they may choose the route into a box canyon of dismay and disappointment. As always, the question is: what direction will we go in and to what goal?
We are a city divided. There are those of us that crave the perks deserving a big city but our visions, of what could be, are being held up by those to nervous to even consider something as American as a baseball stadium.
I think the next big thing for San Jose just went to Santa Clara. I am talking about the 42 acres Yahoo bought over there by Great America and could potentially be its headquarters.
I wonder if San Jose will or even care to do a post mortem on this deal. Why did they chose Santa Clara? Was San Jose and its business community even in the running. Were they even aware?
The problem with SJ, aside from our current mayor and council, is our desire to be something we are not. Most locals have to knock SF in order to build-up SJ. Rather than be satisfied with what we are and continue to try to make it better, too many people want to try and make it SF—it will never happen and therefore, we are doomed to mediocrity. Until we break out of our village mentality and appreciate what we have we won’t make much progress.
Each time some major attraction is proposed in SJ it is fraught with misinformation, misdeeds, hidden costs, etc. If we could do a project right—and do it honestly, so the public knew upfront exactly what was going on, we might be able to get something accomplished.
Recent examples that have engendered public mistrust are well known—Grand Prix, City Hall, baseball stadium, etc. In the past even something as positive as the Arena was promoted less than truthfully—the cost was much more than the public was told, prior to the election approving the Arena a last minute poll was released showing the Arena losing or with dwindling support and it later became known that the poll was a gimmick to scare folks into voting.
Without public trust it will be difficult to really become a big city. Hopefully, the next election will start the long, slow process to regaining public trust. Without it don’t expect to join the big leagues anytime soon.
The Pope was at the California Theater?
I hope the guy sitting behind him didn’t have to ask the Pontiff to remove his hat!
Kudos to Pat Dando and the Chamber for challenging the oppressive local San Jose contribution law as unconstitutional.
There may be some good out of this mess yet.
While I wholeheartedly oppose the intent of the Chamber mailings, the current laws in San Jose regulating elections are clearly unconstitutional and oppressive.
While I understand the “political” reaction is to oppose the chamber, I for one want to applaud them. I also believe it is in Labor’s best interest to support their suit, even as they blast the content of their message.
There is a fairness issue. Labor and Cindy played the the existing rules and were careful not to violate them, if the Chamber prevails they will effectively have benefitted from openly violating existing law.
However, that law is pernicious and someone had to violate it in order challenge it. Part of the screwy way our legal system works is that the Courts won’t hear whether a law is right or wrong unless and until, it is enforced.
Moreover, someone actually has to challenge the validity of the law before it is removed.
Hence the reason we have a plethera of unconstitutional laws on the books and state and local governments routinely violate the constitutional rights of citizens by enforcing illegal laws.
Rick Doyle points out that the Supreme Court does allow local entities to impose contribution limits in local elections. What he failed to point out is those contribution limits must be reasonable.
Further, while the court allows contribution limits for candidate it is not clear that the decision was ever intended to prohibit third parties from spending their own money on messages for and against candidates.
My belief is this is just the slippery slope the Court wanted to avoid when it ruled that money is a form of free speech.
Their later rulings, which encroached on this principle—allowing limits from third parties as a “compelling interest”, but failing to limit personal limits has opened the Court up to being the final arbiter on what constitutes “reasonable” contribution limits and gives wealthy people and unequal adavantage over less wealthy people.
However, under any standard the San Jose Laws, like every other local law in this County is unconstitutional given the necessity that the laws be “reasonable”.
Again, thanks Pat for taking up a cause no politician would touch—for fear it was politically incorrect.
Of course if the unconstitutional Reed Reforms become law, we can all look forward to stagnate government and lengthy court battles to have them thrown out.
But at least the blogging fodder will continue for years to come. . .
#4—San Jose used to be known as the country, San Francisco, the city. San Joseans were the country cousins to family who lived in San Francisco. However, at one time, San Jose’s downtown had some retail that was the caliber of SF. Hard for anyone not living here 50 yrs. ago to believe , but it was a fabulous bustling retail area. I particularly recall a store named Prussia’s, which had a large round velvet sofa where ladies waited for garments to be brought to them for viewing.
Most residents of San Jose do not want San Jose to become a big city with big city problems. Most residents are conciously suburbanites and want to remain such. They want neighborhood services, such as a road out by their house that’s as good as the re-paved Grand Prix section of road downtown. When will downtown advocates figure that out?
Too bad the Grand Prix $4 million couldn’t have been used to repair the swimming pools. Hope the fountains aren’t broken again this year during the race.
Mr. McEnery,
You’re a man of great influence…can you bring Peter Magowan to the table and explain to him that moving the A’s to Fremont (and coining them the “San Jose A’s”) will do as much harm to the Giants “coveted” South Bay market as an actual move to Downtown San Jose? A beautiful Downtown San Jose ballpark, along with a completely redeveloped Diridon/Arena district, would definetely bring pride and excitement to the city I love…THE NEXT BIG THING INDEED! Lastly JM O’Connor, my parents live in the decrepit Seven Trees neighborhood of South San Jose, and their streets were recently repaved quite nicely…THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
What is interesting is that Mr. Robinson attacks the laws, but he helped create the environment over a decade long period that fostered many of the laws being imposed.
I personally favor only campaign reform laws that speak to disclosure, but this ode to Pat Dando, who helped bring in these laws in the first place puzzles me.
I think when we assume that elected officials have some magic hold on the truth and vision for a community, we lead ourselves down a road to political perdition.
#4 Right on
San Jose is always trying to redefine itself, rather than build on what it is. We can’t even agree on how to spell our name. Does it have the accent mark or not? Do you know of any other city in the world in which its citizens can’t even agree on how to spell its city’s name? What is our city seal, does it have the rising sun, the wheat stalks, or now is it some other thing? Three city seals in less than 30 years? Are we the self proclaimed Capitol of the Silicon Valley or The Garden City of The Valley of Hearts Delight? I’m sure others see us as a backwards community that can’t even properly fill out an application to become the stem cell research center of the state. Where is our pride, where are our traditions? San Jose is like Cybil, the woman who was never happy with who she was so she kept creating new personalities. How can we expect outsiders to like San Jose if we can’t give them any feeling of who we are. It is time that San Jose takes pride in its past and builds on it for its future.
In the past preservationists have gone round and round with JMO #8 about the need for historic preservation in San Jose. They have asked him to site any great cities in the world that do not have a strong historic preservation policy, he has never come up with one. Many here have explained that historic preservation makes good economic sense to a city. It brings tourism, jobs, protects our resources and makes for a more livable city. The only response JMO can ever come up with is, “So why haven’t the preservationists ever invested themselves?” To see an example of that, all he has to do is look at River Street. Now he has made it quite clear he does not want San Jose to have a great downtown. That now makes it clear why he doesn’t want to preserve what makes a city unique and great. There are thousands of us however, who sleep in the suburbs, that want a vibrant downtown, where we can work, play, eat and enjoy the arts.
WW, I have heard tell of Prussia’s, Blum’s and other fine stores. As a kid, I was dragged downtown by Mom to big stores like Hale’s and Hart’s either for her own shopping or for my school clothes, etc. The ladies were all dressed up and wearing hats and gloves, downtown was bustling even in the early 60’s after Valley Fair had been open for a few years, and many stores validated parking.
Today, there are too many options. Nobody needs to head downtown for anything special when they can find the same thing at their local mall. Anchor a new downtown retail center with a Bloomingdale’s and you’ll draw shoppers in swarms. One reason they’re going to Santana Row right now is because there are shops there that you can’t find anywhere else. Across the street you have every retail imaginable and Santana Row is simply supplemental to the mega mall but it offers a different experience and that’s why it works. A downtown retail complex could be a draw if it had something nobody else had. That is absolutely key. It would be great if we still had all of our old movie palaces, but the loss of these grand auditoriums wasn’t unique to SJ, as even the city that supposedly knows how to our north allowed the incredible Fox Warfield theater to be torn down in the early 60’s, and this was repeated across the nation as the virus known as urban renewal became an epidemic. Most cities cured themselves quickly, but SJ continues to bulldoze its historic architecture and reduce this town’s character and personality to the most boring and uninspiring blah place to visit on the planet. Will anyone ever take charge and stop this madness? Hello all you jokers on the 18th floor, (and inhabitants of the 4th/6th floors at 1st & Hedding over the last 40 years) it’s 2006, not 1966.
Also agreed that it’s a sad situation when national TV people still tag “San Jose” with “California” but I do notice that in the newspaper you don’t see that so much. I’m often suprised to find that I’m reading an article off of AP and not some kind of “special to the Mercury” thing when I see “San Jose” left to stand on its own without the need for “California” to prop it up. Some journalists seem to think people should know the way to SJ by now, and good for them.
A baseball park with major league team would put us on the map for sure. I just don’t see it happening unless somebody tells Mr. Magowan to take a long walk off a short pier with his absurd territorial rights in tow.
RR#7—you are partly correct. One can get an injunction against enforcement of certain laws even if he/she has not violated that law.
Re the money/politics thingy—it’s certainly in your best interest to have higher contributiuon limits. How else does one pay one’s “concultants”?
Tony d #10: The DIRIDON/ Arena District. Give me a bloody break!
Of course Seven Trees got a re-pave—SNI & politcal correctness required it.
Just the facts # 12: actually I DO want San Jose to have a great downtwon. I have been a downtown party-er since 1974. But I haven’t lived downtown due to its state of utter desolation as a place to live. If you read my post accurately, you would have noticed I spoke of most people in San Jose; and I stand by my statement that most San Joseans could not care less about downtown.
JIm,
The following is horse manure.
‘What is interesting is that Mr. Robinson attacks the laws, but he helped create the environment over a decade long period that fostered many of the laws being imposed.’
In any campaign with controversy or disagreement one party will invariably feel aggrieved.
But passing illegal, unconstitutional laws because you don’t like political content should be frightening to everyone.
The Chamber was duly chastised in the press and public for their hypocritical mailers. They should not have to pay a legal cost for their views.
Boycott the COMPAC BBQ—great. Ask Pat to resign—terrific. Resign from the Chamber—admirable. Attempting to put Pat in jail and force the chamber to pay legal costs in defending a civil suit—senseless.
With apologies to Mastercard.
Good Grief… more blah-blah-blah about what Downtown needs to be! Having lived here all of my life, I see no need to focus on a transformtion of Downtown. I would prefer that the entire City reap the benefits of prosperity as opposed to funneling money into just the Downtown area.
JMC,
You can only get an injunction if you can show immediate harm and have a good chance in prevailing on the merits.
Very difficult standards and Courts are normally adverse to deciding a issue that is not “ripe”.
Not only have my fees not gone down, neither has the cost of mail, mail production, television, television production, polling, buttons, signs, or other campaign collateral.
Yet contribution limits remain at $250 for Councilmembers and $500 for the Mayor (who runs in an area 10 times as large as a Council District).
As for contribution limits, these are the same limits we’ve had for how many years?
In addition, the universe of voters has become more ignorant as a result of resources being targeted finitely to those who vote, an admittedly dwindling unverse.
Candidates don’t even get a break on the postage.
Very few people and organizations contribute to campaigns. Most have an interest in the outcome—most don’t contribute for utilitarian reasons.
Big donors have been replaced by collectors. People who have a universe of people who will give them $250. These collectors are the former “big donors” in terms of monied influence and power.
The laws have not stopped the influence, they have just made criminals of the former law abiding politician.
I do agree with Jim Rowen that everything should be disclosed within 24 hours. Then the political campaign system and media can take care of abuses by shining a bright light on those who are trying the “buy” the government.
I guarantee if I’m the consultant and my opponent receives large sums of money from unsavory characters, the people will know about it.
And it is so much more effective than a lawsuit.
Mark T # 13: Do you REALLY believe that anchoring a center with Bloomingdale’s in downtown San Ohaze would draw customers ? If so, I’ve got some swampland to sell you.
Why would anyone come downtown from Los Gatos, Saratoga, Cupertino, Los Altos, Palo Alto when they have fine shopping malls much closer to their homes? Hell, I doubt you’d get much of a crowd to come to a downtown mall from Almaden or Willow Glen or the Rose Garden, let alone places with their own malls. Remember our so-called retail pavilion? Well, nothing much has changed from a retail point of view since that albatross was built.
As I recall, Stanford has a Bloomingdales. That’s close enough for most folks…and parking is FREE.
As busy as Santana Row is, many of the overpriced shops are failing. In three years it’ll be restaurants and clubs only. In fact, if Sahadi sold the Century Theatres property, Santana Row could build more clubs and restaurants on that property, with tunnels under, or bridges over, Winchester, and that would sell.
The deomgraphic for Santana Row’s very high-end shops (when Tommy Bahama’s has the least expensive clothes in a place, you know it’s expensive) wasn’t even there at the height of the dot.com boom. No way it works long term as a retail center. And you think downtown would draw shoppers in droves?
Until dowtown is gentrified with high density housing, no large retail store will set up shop downtown. And by that I mean the displacement of 80% of the current residents by people with lots of $$ to spend who live “downtown”. Not politically correct, perhaps, but economically correct. We should live so long.
RR #18: If I recall correctly, the current campaign contribution limits in SJ are the same as they were when I ran in 1988!!!
I think the theory was to require grass roots supprt by keepoing the number low—one needed support from lots of folks; instead of influence purchasing by a few large donors. Well, everyone got around that quickly enough on the advice of astute lawyers and politcal consultants.
It’s primarily those who hope to gain something who contribute to political campaigns. The few close friends and relatives who contribute are a drop in the bucket compared to those who want access (at a minimum )and influence with those who govern us.
Then there’s the huge loophole of dot.comers and celebrities who fund their own campaigns. Thankfully, there’s no reason for them to try for a local post.
So what do you suggest, RR, unlimited spending? If it passes, I’ll start consulting. Work a few months a year for big bucks. Wow, could really lower my golf handicap index!
JMC,
I do have a plan. Remove all contribution and expenditure limits or at least make the limits reasonable and the same across the board.
FEC requirements seem to be reasonable. . Five thousand for PACs which Corporations may donate, and individual limits that are reasonable. Individual Corporate donations are prohibited, which doesn’t make much sense to me.
Make the rules universal for every office.
That way a candidate for City Council and a Candidate for Congress don’t have to abide by two different systems. And a candidate for City Council in Cupertino is under the same rules as a candidate in Santa Clara.
Full disclosure requirements within 24 hrs of a contribution being delivered. It must be posted on the internet.
Abolish the FPPC and restrict all local jurisdictions from making and enforcing their own regulations.
Everything should be done under State Law or Federal Law in the case of Congress.
Then, I would welcome you into the ranks of the highly esteemed political consulting profession.
Metro today has the story of the North San Jose scandal involving Chuck Reed who decries secret meetings, and he was in one with a developer outside the city to avoid disclosure regs.
Reed is a lawyer and must conform to higher standards. This guy demands things from Menor and Gonzales, and he is selling it on the street with the rest of the camp followers.
Gee, Chuck, nice try to dismiss the allegations, you lied, you resign!
Tom,
I am going to be excited, when I hear a national news broadcaster say “San Jose”, in instead of “San Jose, California”.
Heck, they don’t say “San Francisco, California”, when referring to that small city to the north of us!
Maybe that “next big thing” will put us over the top.
Vic
Does San Jose have a council member, who along with a developer from Summerhill Homes,would demand the City Manager direct her staff to register his basketball team in the Parks and Rec league because he and the developer forgot to register it on time?
Yep, we got one on our city council who required the city staff spend 23 hours of staff time handling his complaint about his basketball team which a developer from Summerhill organized.
eh, Dominic?
Posted by Mal Content wrote:
“My impression of the Metro is that it clearly suggests this is an inept attempt to create a non-issue. Read it for yourself at: http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.12.06/fly-0628.html “
I just read it, and I completely agree with your assessment. Cindy’s supporters are going to have to come up with something better than this.
Why do candidates need to spend so much money? I know there has been some talk about public funding of city elections in the past. Why not give each candidate an equal opportunity to get their message out. A written statement from each candidate, bundled in one envelope, could be mailed to all registered voters in S.J. (a possible option would be to post the info. on the web and people could also request paper copies if desired-save trees and reduce postage expense.) Debates could be televised on public T.V., eliminating the need for lawn signs or flyers. Each candidate could be given 30 second spots for T.V. and radio ads. The ads would be played back to back ensuring equal time. This all would be funded by adding fifty cents to our garbage bill. (I’m sure you all may have some comments about the garbage bill thing.) Local papers could ask a series of questions to both candidates and publish their responses. Candidate websites could be used for additional information. Is this just too simple? Am I missing something? It seems like they could do it for about !0% of the cost, and be less beholden to special interest groups. Once elected, this system would enable them to spend more time on city matters rather than fundraising. A system such as this would encourage candidates to use the limited funds to deliver a concise message, not fluff or spin.
JMO,
Yes, I do think that with the right retail draw, downtown can be a shopping destination, and I don’t think that Stanford having Bloomingdales would detract from a Bloomie’s in downtown SJ. Just my opinion but it comes down to Bloomie’s doing the math. You KNOW the city of SJ would shower them with freebies, but if the demographics aren’t there, I’m sure they’ll say no thanks.
Agreed with your assessment of what needs to change with the residential make-up of downtown. The problem we’re having is this: we’re all here wanting SJ to mature into the big city it should be, and we’re wanting that to happen overnight. The reality is that this maturation process is going to take more decades to complete and a vibrant downtown isn’t going to be there for many of us blogging here currently to enjoy by the time our drivers licenses are taken away. Having a mayor and council composed of visionaries would certainly help speed things along, instead of the self-serving variety we’ve seen in charge for so long.
I’ll probably end up moving away once my elder care obligations are over and once I’m able to retire because unlike LA, this town’s drawbacks aren’t outweighed by its arts, entertainment and cultural offerings so there still isn’t going to be any reason to be fighting traffic with a bunch of high tech nerds who’d rather be playing games on their computers at home in a suburban bedroom piled high with hardware and strewn with spaghetti cabling than getting out and enjoying a city center that offers something for everyone, once that day comes.
I’m headed for coastal points to our south when the time comes. This place is never going to amount to anything worth hanging around and waiting for while I’m still in my active years, that is an absolute fact. As a native of SJ, I am disgusted with the way this town has been run by a buch of backwater types, excepting Tom, the only guy who has ever had a vision and made as much happen as possible under his watch to move this town forward.
The Hostetter Scandal
While I am vastly amused by the pen name of #28 and not a little intimidated, it fact Metro was completely correct in all but a couple of respects. The question really is why did Reed meet with developers or their representatives in Milpitas at a real estate office on November 28, 2005?
Several inquiries by residents have asked him about this, but he maintained silence until now. Now he is attempting to deflect the facts with statements meant to trivialize the question. And this is the “transparency” guy?
These things take a while to play out, so don’t be fooled by the first two steps: silence on the scandal, followed by trivializing the scandal. There will be many more steps to come on this and other serious issues.
#27. Dale: How about offering some facts to substantiate the innuendo?
So far “Chuck’s Big Secret Meeting With Developers” (your so-called “Hostetter Scandal”) sounds like a 2nd rate smear job.
But again, if you have facts to support the attacks on Mr. Reed’s character, or which prove that he has done something illegal, please post them here.
As you say “I am sure that readers here will find the whole story of great interest.”
Dale,
Nice try once again. All reading this should know that the Metro wrote “Dale Osborn stopped by” when this was a misprint. They meant “Dale Warner stopped by”. Right Dale? (I’m being 100% serious here by the way). Dale, so you tried to make a story out of nothing. What was the Metro’s response in the article, and I quote:
“So what does all of this have to do with Reed? Not much, it seems.”
Dale, If you’re going to make a stink at least do your research. By the way – I’ve done mine. Dale it seems like you’ve got an interesting background yourself. . .
Yesterday afternoon, Mal Content, a senior member of the Reed campaign, (even Chuck told his supporters about him), and Hugh Jardenn, another Reed operative sat down and decided as directed by Victor, to do their best to deflect the details of the Hostetter Scandal.
The bottom line is that it is true set of circumstances. Reed should, as a lawyer, and as “Mr. Integrity” know better.
“Mr. Integrity” meets in secret.
Shouldn’t Mal Conten, one of the Reed canpaign biggest staffers by Chuck’s admission at a fund raiser last month, admit to the fact that “Mr. Integrity” has feet of clay, a tie that is looking ragged, and a ethics platform that he doesn’t even believe in anymore?
Reed has feet of clay.
Reed has for months talked about open government and called himself, “Mr. Integrity”
Reed has a consultant that has been accused both in Milpitas and Sunyvale of violating ethics laws.
Reed meets in secret oustide of the City all the time.
Why?
Because it allows him to make deals somewhere else besides his own office. and he also gets to wear a fresh tie.
This is great stuff. In #30, I pointed out that the first two steps in deflecting a scandal were already in play. First, silence. Second, characterizing the facts as trivial.
Now #31 re-defines the facts as “Big Secret Meeting” which is not something that I have said. I guess this is the third step, putting words in the mouth of the messenger.
And #32 brings up the fourth step, threaten the messenger with some kind of smear attack. Unfortunately, I’m not the candidate.
At least the Hostetter Scandal is unfolding according to the normal steps in these matters. Be patient, guys. To quote myself in #30, “There will be many more steps to come on this and other serious issues.”
It seems Chuck has a terminal case of “physician cure thyself”.
It’s only July—we four more months of this stuff.
Rich
#33. Wow. I had no idea that I was “a senior member of the Reed campaign.”
Hell, I didn’t even know I was a junior member. As a matter of fact had no idea that I had any affiliation with the Reed campaign.
I guess you learn something new every day!
Note: If I WAS a Reed senior campaign member I’d tell him not to worry, this “Hostetter Scandal” prank seems to be falling flat with a dull thud.
Maybe you clowns would have better luck with doctored Polaroids?
Dale,
I’m not the one started this little smear camaign. You attempted to, but the Metro shot you down – remember? I’m just tired of hearing you (and a few others) accuse Chuck of “secret deals” or “secret meetings” without any proof or details whatsoever. I don’t want anyone accusing Cindy of the same without proof. So, if that’s the game you want to play, so be it. All I’m saying it that I’m ready.
I have no desire for a smear campaign. It sounds like you’re getting a little jumpy at the idea though.
Let’s instead debate issues, votes, records, ideas, and what is really best for San Jose.
#35. Dale. “Big Secret Meeting” was obviously my mocking characterization of your “scandal.” Nothing’s being deflected here. You are simply being asked to put up or shut up.
So far the silence has been your failure to substantiate your manufactured “scandal” with anything more than vague statements about “steps to come on this and other serious issues.”
Again I challenge you: If you have facts to support the innuendo please share them. That would be fair, honest and reasonable.
Then again, if you cannot support your claim of a “Hostetter Scandal” then it would seem that you are blowing smoke.
Come to think of it, there IS a lot of smoke in the air today!
Can the Reed supporters and apologists like Yucca and Mal just answer some questions
Why would Reed, The Valiant One, the Prince of Transperancy, Ethics, Integrity, and Public Sunshine, want to meet in another city and secretly with a developer?
Why would a council member seek to meet with anyone with a dvelopment project at a private office?
If these two, among other Reed supporters, are so angry with the questions being asked by people in Reed’s district, why do they excuse Chuck for doing what Ron has done?
Maybe they are too eager to look the other way when it is Chuck violating ethical principles, and too eager to condemn everyone else. Do Mal and Yucca want a San Jose where Chuck gets the pass every time and no one else does?
Is that a better San Jose, or just one where Chuck Reed, Mr. Insider, never has to conform to the same rules?
Notice how Rich thinks so much of himself that he,alone decides,who to welcome into the profession.
JMC, if you spend the day working crossword puzzles, or listening to yourself talk all day like RR, go for it.
RR #21—first, it’s JMO, not JMC.
Second—same limits for city council and US Senate. C’mon?!!
Remove all contribution limits?? Great for you consultant types. Then I really wanna join y’all. As Leslie Nielson would say—“Shirely, you can’t be serious” That suggestion redefines unabashed self-aggrandizement.
#26—I haven’t even scrolled down and I gotta believe RR will decry your solution. Put campaign consultants out of business? How Un-American!
Mark T # 29: Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about downtown San Ohaze as an upscale shopping destination in our lifetimes.
I have been hoping downtown would take off since I partied in what is now called SoFa in the mid-70’s. But by the mid-80’s I came to understand the San Ohaze demographic—suburbanites for whom downtown meant nada, zero, zilch, bupkiss. Nevertheless, I am seriously considering leaving Willow Glen and moving into the CIM Tower between San Fernando and The Repo when it starts selling units.
That attitude about dowtown held by most residents of S-Jay remains today—avoid it at all costs, and stop spending so much taxpayer money on it. Until the S-Jay baby boomers like myself die off and are replaced by folks with a different vision, a 24-hour downtown will be the wet dream of folks like Tom McE who has a financial stake in it becoming something. No amount of city/RDA money will change that attitude.
YO, #‘s 30-40: Could ya’ll please educate this ignorant blogger about this alleged Reed scandal. I have no idea what y’all are talkin’ about. I hate it when I don’t get it!!! Guess I’ll have to read Metro, then ask again if I still have questions.
To #22 & #24:
It is true that Chuck Reed meets with developers or their representatives in Milpitas at a real estate office. The Metro article that came out on Wednesday, 7/12/06, was a partial account of one such meeting.
The name given to that particular event in North San Jose is the Hostetter Scandal. I am sure that readers here will find the whole story of great interest as it develops.
#3 Yahoo chose Santa Clara primarily because of its lower electricity rates (40% lower than PG&E) and it wants to control its own server facilities rather than rely on a third party provider. This is becoming a trend of major internet related companies.
Additionally, Santa Clara has a more clearly defined planning and environmental review process that will not waste their time and should allow for the 6-10 story headquarter campus buildings that Yahoo wants. Locationally, the site is only a few Light Rail stations down from its current campus in Sunnyvale and a temporary facility near the Mercado Santa Clara theaters, so it won’t require its existing workforce to relocate out of the area, and the Light Rail allows its future workers to live in various locations in the South Bay that are close to these stations.
A more simplistic reason may also be that with Santa Clara they don’t have to be publicly associated with a Mayor who has been indicted by a Grand Jury for possible felony level violations. It’s a bit of a downer being a SJ economic development staffer right now because no company wants the bad PR of dealing with a City that has its administration dealing constantly with scandals and indictments.
#22. Nice try, but some of actually read the Metro article including the conclusion: “So what does all of this have to do with Reed? Not much, it seems. “
My impression of the Metro is that it clearly suggests this is an inept attempt to create a non-issue. Read it for yourself at: http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.12.06/fly-0628.html
In following this blog over many months, I am amazed how the focus seems totally consumed by the mayor’s race. yes, it is an important race. but so is the race in District #3. and now in District 6. Not to mention the DA’s race, filled with intrigue on a number of levels. so let’s expand our horizon a bit, even on a blog named sanjoseinside, and appreciate that there are issues and dramas beyond our indicted mayor and the current mayor’s race.
one more point. there seems to be a tendency on this blog to villify the opposition. it’s not enough to prefer Chuck ovr Cindy, we have to say Cindy is evil incarnate (ABC). Well,excuse me, but this is BS. Like many on this blog, I know both Chuck and Cindy. They are both intelligent.They are both honorable. They have different values, and, if elected, would lead the city in different directions. I suspec those different direcions are more subtle than dramatic. But I wish there were more discussion on this blog of what those differences are. And it can be done without villification. For example, I would love to hear Chuck-defenders articulate what Chuck’s iniitiatives would be beyond “ethics.” I am uncear on what those further agendas are, I hope those can be explained without rancor.
as one who has followd SJ politics for thirty years, I believe this will no doubt be one of our more entertaining, challenging, and meaningful elections of the last three decades. let’s enjoy it without rancor, with civility, and (may we be so brave) wih an occasional sign of humor.
Mayor-centric.
JMO – can believe you believe anything from angry and vindictive Dale Warner or frustrated finfan, Kennedy’s butler or other names he uses to made up another Chuck and Vic great political conspiracy scandal with a few facts, twisting or implying more than what happened since he can not get over Chuck badly defeated him – sore angry loser with long time political grudges
#45—your load of drivel is not an answer to my question.
Dale # 47: A lot of innuendo but short on facts.
Thanks for the invite for coffee and a chat, but I’ll pass.
I, and others, would like to see you post ALL your FACTS to support your innuendo on this blog so we all can evaluate it and make up our own minds.
If you’re unwilling to do that, please just put a sock in it, OK!
Having lived over 15 years in Chuck’s district, I have seen nor heard nothing about whatever it is 47 alleges, and I am pretty active in the community. 47 appears to huff and puff but that’s about it. 48 says it well, if you can’t back it up, “put a sock in it.”
#47. Dale – It would appear that you’re shooting blanks.
If you had facts to support your allegations you would post them as requested. Instead you respond with more innuendo.
Under the circumstances a reasonable person would have to conclude that your claims of some sort of “scandal” involving Chuck Reed have no credibility.
Fact: Chuck met in Milpitas in secret with some developers.
Fact: Most of Chuck’s money comes from developers and most of his investments are from oil companies who charge us all and charge us more.
Fact: Chuck has spent months telling everyone how how and mighty he is.
Fact: Chuck voted ues to shut down the Cisco investigation.
Fact: Chuck voted in manner in violation of the Brown Act
Chuck’s own aide ran a campaign in Milpitas that violated numerous ethics standards.
Fact: No matter what anyone says, the Chuck team deflects, smears, and then rationalizes.
Fact: Chuck has offered no platform, no agenda, and is a past Chamber of Commerce president, and has been urging Dando to do even more sleazy mailers.
Barry No Essa, and others sure do not know of Chuck’s record, they have been filling ears with sand so much that Mr. Integrity, no known as Mr. Cheezy Chuck, has been the Politician without a Face, and a insider that claims to be on the outside so much, even Chuck does not know who he is anymore.
Did he ever?
at least four blogs will come, attacking the message, deflecting the comment, or refusing to do anything but excuse Cheezy Chuck from everything and anything, because they dare not ask the question,
why would a council member want to meet a developer in another town away from the possibility he would have to record the appointment.
For those who have eyes to see, you have just seen how the Reed Administration will act when he is mayor. Those of us in North San Jose have long been familiar with the approach taken here to a relatively minor criticism.
If you think staffers like Joe Guerra were hard to take, think about the people who represent Chuck Reed on this web site, and then think again.
It is true that Chuck Reed’s Chief Aide, Armando Gomez, who refuses to apologize for his unethical conduct in the last Milpitas election because he claims Chuck, “Mr. Integrity” approved of it, was one of the principal organizers of the Milpitas meeting where Chuck violated ethics guidelines in meeting in secret. Gee, we have the makings of the Chuck and Armando scandal, perhaps Joe Guerra can help them with advice.
Oh, that’s right, Armando likes to insult Joe behind closed doors.
It will be self explained when Chuck releases that email he received from the developers that listed what Chuck agreed to do and what he refused to do.
Chuck, we are all waiting.
51, Chucky Chheese: “Fact” #1—When, where, and with whom did Chuck allegedly meet, and who besides you can substantiate the meeting? That would be facts. You gave us a claim.
Chuck has investments “from” oil companies? Or did you mean “in” oil companies? Prepositions are important little words to get right.
Yeah, he’s been telling us how great he is—but that’s what politicians do. Nobody really believes the puffery, do they?
The claim re Brown Act violations is just that, a mere claim on your part. We asked for facts—so tell us what votes on what days.
Please list the ehtics standards allegedly violated by Chuck’s aide. That would be a fact. Yours is still, like Warner’s, mere innuendo.
The only fact in your entire post was Chuck’s vote to stop the Cisco investigation, a vote which cause me considerable concern. I still have not heard a satisfactory explanation from the Chuckster’s camp, and that troubles me greatly.
Ball’s in your court, Chheese boy, so come up with facts, as we’ve asked Dale W. to do, or you can please put a sock in it, as well.
At least you don’t shout like RFD2 always did. Don’t miss him/her.
As has been stated in the past, you and the rest of the apologists concerning the Hostetter Scandal do not want the facts from Mr. Integrity at all. Let’s remember that in November, Read violated the Brown Act, a guy who knows better, and does not really care.
#56: Your Bad! DON’T use my name in vain for your anonymous post!! If you have the cojones to stand by your comments, use your real name, and supply facts. Do you know what facts are? If not, Shut up!
Actually numb n*ts, I DO want the facts, but all I get from you cheeseballs is a bunch of innuendo. Tell us WHEN, WHERE, AND HOW, Chuck violated The Brown Act. If you have FACTS, I’ll be the first guy to join you in condemning him. But if you’re just going to post unspecified Bullsh*t, then put a sock in it.
Are you just Chheese boy under another pseudonym?
I thought the Mercury News characterized Chuck’s vote to keep secret the transfer of park monies for a soccer park was listed as a violation of the Brown Act.
Ps, John Michael OConnor wants Chuck Reed as mayor so sad, that he is willing to ignore the Brown Act violation 7 days a week and twice on Sundays.
“56: Your Bad! DON’T use my name in vain for your anonymous post!! If you have the cojones to stand by your comments, use your real name, and supply facts. Do you know what facts are? If not, Shut up!”
John Michael O’Connot
John Michael O’Connor
John Michael O’Connor
John Michael O’Connot
John Michael O’Connot
and, before I forget
Chuck Reed can do no wrong, according to John Michael O’Connor
I am really not sure if the facts concerning the Hostetter scandal are true, but I know several of my colleagues are very intrigued and amused that Chuck “Mr. Integrity” has finally been shown to be a political dealmaker that can outclass the Mayor.
One council staffer after talking to a reporter about the Hostetter scandal details told me that Chuck’s supporters are handling it all wrong. They should ignore it, but they keep responding to it and challanging it like, hmm, The Swift Boat?
#59: Let Chuck know when you’re graduating from Junior High so he can send you a commendation.