ABC Tue, May 30, 2006 - 7:18 am

SG, we see eye to eye on this. I’ll be voting for David Pandori, but could live with 3 others.  Cindy is the worst of the choices.  While her apologist ditto heads (RR and others) claim that people don’t care about the process as long as the decisions are good and by the way of course Cindy won’t make that mistake again, everyone should read her chat in the Mercury News where she states that the Grand Prix deal was done in the open.  http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/elections/qa_forum.htm?forumId=2470 .

Dexter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 8:35 am

Single Gal, you may be the “Single Gal” but not single minded.  David Pandori is the only candidate eligible to become mayor.

Cindy Chavez is a vote for more of Gonzo; that speaks for itself…

Reed and Cortese are where we depart – during the scandals of the Gonzo administration these two did too little to stop him and bring his bad behavior to the attention of San Jose citizens.  Reed has never explained why he moved to end the investigations and in my mind that makes him duplicitous. 

There is no substitute for experience and integrity.  David Pandori has both.  If people want San Jose to become a true big city to raise kids and work within reasonable reach of their jobs there’s no other choice.

Dan Sturges Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:05 am

I agree with Single Gal.  Based on some of the items reported recently by the MN ie parking fees for weekends and evenings downtown.  Extended hours for parking meters.  This will just about kill any idea of going into town for any event.  We need a strong mayor and council to defeat this proposal. 
I’m sure Dave Pandori is the best vote and I really think we need to clean house to best possible extent and start over with new names.  I hope Mike Mulcahy runs for a council seat in the next election.  He would be a great replacement for Ken Yeager when Ken gets elected to the Board of supervisors.

Hugh Jardonn Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:09 am

First sentence, third paragraph lumps in Cortese and Reed with CC. I don’t think they are even on the same planet as Cindy. Our current Vice Mayor is simply Ron in drag who talks the touchy-feely language. I voted for Reed but would be happy with Pandori.

Richard Robinson Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:11 am

Should Pat Dando go to Jail?

This may surprise some, but those who have read this blog for a longtime will understand why my answer is an unequiviocal no!

Do I agree with the Chamber mailer?  No.  Do I think it was hypocritical? Yes.  Should it be illegal?  No.

We return to the idiotic plethera of questionable and facially unconstitutional ethics laws that many on this board have continuted to promote.

The Chamber piece has been loudly and effectively discredited—with no laws at all.  Now, because it is in violation of San Jose Ethics Laws, we must bring in the attorneys.

There will be a decision to fine the Chamber.  But I encourage the Chamber to challenge the decision in court .

The law explicitly limits free speech on the basis of content of political maililers.  Such a law is clearly unconstitutional—maybe the Chamber can do us all a favor and redeem themselves partially by getting this law thrown out for good.

All bad decisions should not be illegal.

Mark T Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:16 am

SG, I’m with you on this one.  I think Pandori would have to screw up pretty badly over the next week to make me switch over to Mulcahy.  But I’ll be pleased if either one of these guys makes the run-off. 

Dave, Chuck, and most importantly Cindy are not even worth considering because as much as they will say otherwise, they are part of the current problem and not part of the solution.

Voter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:38 am

Most astute, SG. Hopefully, others will do their homework as you have and realize that Pandori is the best hope to save our city.

Don Gagliardi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:46 am

Gee, how persuasive.  An anonymous woman columnist on a Tom McEnery blog is voting for David Pandori.  Who cares?

You ignore the fact that both Pandori and Cindy Chavez have been councilmembers representing the downtown District 3 for more or less eight years each.  (Do you live downtown?  As I recall, you recently wrote a column in which you marveled at Japantown as if you had never been there before.)

The records of Pandori and Chavez as downtown councilmembers are directly comparable, and Chavez has been far-and-away the more effective representative for her constituents, and as a consequence she’s far more popular among downtowners—i.e, people who are not involved in the labor movement—than Pandori.  People like me who support the Chamber-of-Commerce (and McEnery-backed) candidate for city council but support Chavez for mayor. 

Neither you, nor the Mercury News, nor any of the other hooded members of Pandori’s cyber mob have cared to make the direct comparison of the respective city council records of Pandori and Chavez because it shows your candidate in such a poor light.  Pandori simply was not an effective councilmember, whereas Chavez has been extremely effective. 

In the meantime, after he left office, Pandori was a phantom.  He never showed up at neighborhood meetings or council meetings.  He never weighed in on the issues of the day.  He never bothered to challenge Ron Gonzales (or even Cindy Chavez) four years ago when they ran for re-election.  He was MIA. 

The real question is whether we are better off today in the greater downtown than we were eight years ago during the Pandori era?  For me, and I believe for the vast majority of downtowners, the answer is a resounding “yes.”

Cindy did it by herself Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:46 am

That’s right everybody!!!  All the mistakes and failueres of San Jose are Cindy’s fault.  All the votes were 1-0.  Chuck Reed did nothing wrong except make the Mr. Blackwell list for goofiest councilmember.  Also the list for the most cotrolled councilmember.  How do those wires Victor has implanted remain invisible?  I got it!!  The tie has a mind contril device in it.  That is why despect the scrambled eggs stain that is sven months old, Chuck is not chaning it.

Campos and Pyle did nothing.  It was all Cindy, Cindy, and Cindy.  Judy Chirco did nothing.  Well, according to the Merc, that is true!!!  Forrest and Madison and Linda and Ken stood by and abostained.  Cindy did it all!!!

What a master manipulator!!!  Cindy should do something else as the great power behind the throne.  Get Chuck to change ties and get Ron to actually regard the citizens as worthy.

I know that is impossible.  I voted for Dave over the weekend by abstentee, but let us stop doing this Cindy, Cindy, and Cindy, crap,

Bob Yucca Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:56 am

Another post on this site saying how great Pandori is . . . shocking.  Please stop grouping Chavez, Cortese, and Reed together - they’re CLEARLY not the same.  You know that as well as I.

Al Maden Tue, May 30, 2006 - 10:32 am

Interesting that the Merc, the McEnery’s and this website endorse Pandori, yet he’s dead last in the polls.  Tough to be an effective leader when you are so hard to like.  Same old story for Pandori.  Mulcahy is clearly the best choice.

Dexter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 11:27 am

Mr. Gagliardi, have you by chance driven through District 3 - Cindy’s current district and David Pandori’s previous?  It’s funny, when I drive through, which is where I live; I see a whole bunch of Pandori for Mayor yard signs.  So please forgive me if I’m somewhat skeptical of your assertions.  Mr. Pandori founded the Vendome Neighborhood Assoc. and couldn’t have written his campaign book without being in touch.  Are you trying the Joseph Goebbels trick that Richard attempts?  Oh yeah, I don’t wear a hood, it’s way to warm for that.  I do regularly wear a hat though…

SJ Downtowner Tue, May 30, 2006 - 12:13 pm

Again, whatever candidate you think is in the lead depends on the circle that you run in. Obviously, Don hangs out with everyone downtown who loves Cindy so of course she is “more effective” than Pandori was.  I think that some of your buddies on here either didn’t live downtown or said that they weren’t involved in the community when Pandori was on the council. So their view is a little skewed, don’t cha think? Lots of people in my neighborhood speak very fondly of the days when Pandori was a councilmember like it was yesterday… I think that they were both good councilpeople on the neighborhood issues but Cindy is lacking in the leadership and ethics on the bigger issues which is why I am not voting for her.

#11 Al - don’t put too much weight in those polls. Many were done before Pandori got in the race or early on. Many people do not make decisions until next Tuesday. Everything is so close between the 5 candidates that nothing would surprise me. Any combination of the 5 could make the runoff!

Willow Glen Dad Tue, May 30, 2006 - 12:21 pm

Even on the blog for Don Gagliardi’s neigborhood, there are a number of people who have written that they won’t vote for Cindy. Now I’m sure that she has done many things to garner the support of many of the people in her district but the appeal does not have the universal quality that Don implies.

After David left office, he had a new career to pursue as an assistant DA and two children to raise. After wearing himself and his family out for 8 years during his tireless service on council, I think it was reasonable for him to take some time off from public affairs and take care of his own. I have two kids and I can’t imagine putting in as many hours away from my family as David did while on council. Did you consider Cindy to be unqualified the first time she ran because she hadn’t lived in or been active in the district (or City of San Jose) before she decided to run?

I certainly wouldn’t hold it against Cindy if she took some time for her family at some point. I’m sure she works very hard.
Do you have children Don? If you don’t, you can’t imagine the sacrifice involved.

Don Gagliardi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 12:22 pm

Dexter (#12):  I do more than drive through downtown every day.  I live in it.  I also personally know virtually every neighborhood leader in the downtown (including the current president of the Vendome Neighborhood Assn).  We have gotten to know each other across neighborhood lines as a direct consequence of Cindy Chavez’s efforts to promote grass-roots democracy in her district through her annual neighborhood summits. 

I don’t know whether Pandori “founded” the Vendome Neighborhood Assn., but I do know that Pandori has never participated in the Downtown Neighborhood Leadership Forum (DNLF), an organization of all the downtown neighborhood leaders dedicated to grappling with common issues our neighborhoods face.  We meet regularly, and exchange emails nearly daily.  If Pandori were really engaged in downtown neighborhood activism these last several years, I would think he would have had some involvement in our group. 

As for references to “hooded” cyber-bloggers, I am referring to those, like Single Gal, who choose to remain anonymous while spewing unsubstantiated allegations about Chavez.  Ok, you support Pandori, but stop suggesting it would be “catastrophic” if Chavez became mayor.  That’s nonsense. Chavez is a good woman, and she has a good record as an elected official—a better record, as I’ve said, than Pandori in the very same job. 

Sure, Pandori has some supporters downtown, and I’m not surprised his immediate neighbors would support him (you should see the Manny Diaz signs in the block abutting his house), but by and large the downtown is Chavez country.  But you don’t have to believe me, the evidence will be forthcoming a week hence.

Fed up blogger Tue, May 30, 2006 - 12:28 pm

Vote for Micheal Malcahy.  He’s the best for downtown prosperity.  He’ll do wonderful things for the downtown area while everyone else worries about a better San Jose.  We need a better downtown, albeit San Jose.

Tony D. Tue, May 30, 2006 - 12:35 pm

Single Gal,
What currently turns me off regarding Pandori is that he doesn’t appear to have the VISION of Michael Mulcahy (whom I’ll be voting for).  Being a great city should be far more that just keeping Libraries open, keeping neighborhoods safe, and filling pot holes.  Being a great city should also INCLUDE a World Class/Vibrant Downtown (with Santana Row-like retail and housing), an Airport with true international destinations, and professional sports other than NHL (be it MLB, NBA, or NFL)...San Jose Supersonics anyone?  In closing, I think David Pandori would make a good Mayor of San Jose…he just needs to expand on his VISION!

Dan Sturges Tue, May 30, 2006 - 12:42 pm

Lumping people into the same groups is fun to do at this stage of the campaign.  It seems as though Richard Robinson and Don Gagliardi are working in Mrs. Potter’s campaign office. 
Being a good Councilperson is part of the qualifications for being mayor but a Councilperson is a doer and the Mayor is the leader.  Takes special talent to be a leader and I have judged that Dave Pandori has the leadership qualities.  That’s my opinion maybe not yours but, you know what?  I don’t care.

Bedtime for Gonzo Tue, May 30, 2006 - 12:56 pm

Tony D - I have a vision for world peace - would you vote for me? Sorry, vision with nothing to back it up (like specifics and money) is just a pipe dream.

Don Gagliardi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 1:04 pm

#13 (SJ Downtowner):  What neighborhood do you live in where Pandori signs outnumber Chavez’s?

I have lived downtown since 1994.  I remember well the second half of the Pandori era, and he was ineffective.  He was so polarizing to his fellow councilmembers that he could not get anything accomplished for his constituents that involved council action.  But you don’t have to take my view on Pandori’s effectiveness on the city council.  You can hear about it from former Mayor Susan Hammer, who was in office during Pandori’s tenure.  Hammer could not stomach Pandori, and that in itself was a problem for all of us downtowners.  I remember.

Meanwhile, Chavez is supported for mayor by every other city councilperson she serves with except those two who are running for mayor themselves.  She can command a majority of her fellow councilmembers simply by snapping her fingers.  (No backroom deals necessary.)  Witness as one example Chavez’s ability to instantaneously move forward sunshine reform when Chuck Reed, the Mercury News, the Metro, and David Pandori (who I don’t recall ever even trying during his eight-year-stint) could not budge the issue.  (So what she came late to the issue—when she finally arrived, something actually happened.)

So, Chavez’s effectiveness vs. Pandori’s is not merely in the eye-of-the-beholder, and it is not merely a matter of what circles one runs in.  It’s objective, provable fact that Cindy gets things done where others cannot.

Mark T Tue, May 30, 2006 - 1:05 pm

Don, even though I’m not going to vote for her, it would not be a catastrophe if Cindy ended up as mayor.  While she embraces the back room dealings of Gonzo, she most likely wouldn’t have the same level of negative impact unless she decides to keep Joe Guerra on in his same role.  Any new mayor’s first order of business should be to can that guy’s ass and send him packing.  It would be a very good gesture on Cindy’s part if she did just that if she gets elected, and could serve as the first step towards her redemption with us doubters who intend to vote against her.

As for Pandori’s lack of involvement in neighborhood meetings, etc, there have been a few speculative comments here as to why he might have been keeping a low profile.  I’ll offer one more:  maybe he found the Gonzo-Chavez regime’s behavior so revolting that he couldn’t muster up a shred of confidence in anything Cindy said she’d do to improve the neighborhood and found it all to be a waste of time.

And finally, just because a McEnery started this blog, that doesn’t mean that only opinions like his are allowed here.  It think the archives would do a fine job of backing me up on that.  I believe there’s only been one entry here that has ever been deleted due to content, and that entry apparently rubbed people on both sides of the mayoral debate the wrong way.  The fact is, people who post things here are concerned citizens.  And the majority seem to share similar feelings about Pandori (and to some extent Mulcahy) vs. Chavez. 

Lucky for Cindy, we here are more tuned into City Hall than the average voter.  I’d be thrilled on June 7th to find that the people of SJ have demonstrated that I underestimated their intelligence regarding this very important election, but am bracing myself for 4 more years of the same underhanded BS.

Mark T Tue, May 30, 2006 - 1:07 pm

I might add that Don’s tone is starting to take on an alarmingly similar one to Reality Check, who has apparently been doing more harm than good to Cindy’s campaign, at least here on this blog, and hopefully out there walking the precincts with a chow-chow, a breed of dog that achieves a perfect match of personalities between the two of them.

Mal Content Tue, May 30, 2006 - 1:12 pm

#5. Rich-

Should Cindy Chavez go to jail?

No, but she should not be Mayor.

(Two can play this game…)

Dan Sturges dislikes women candidates Tue, May 30, 2006 - 1:12 pm

So no women is entitled to her own name whne she runs for office.  Would Mr. Sturges stop stealing the free pizza for that Cortese has there and realize that he keeps slamming Cindy, whom I do not support, and does little else.  Oh, I forgot, Cortese is telling him to do it.  Eat a away, Mr. Sturges, and let Linda Lezotte and others know of your prejudice.

RobertoC Tue, May 30, 2006 - 1:22 pm

#2 Dexter, your obviously have not been paying very much attention to what has been going in in SJ politics over the past year.

Saying that Dave Cortese and Chuck Reed are essentially as responsible as Cindy Chavez for Gonzo’s city hall scandals because ‘these two did too little to stop him and bring his bad behavior to the attention of San Jose citizens’ is a complete misrepresentation of the facts and just complete nonsense.

Dave and Chuck have been the only two on the council who have been consistently and openly critical of what has been going on at city hall.  I’ve seen many statements from both of them to the citizens of SJ…Dave even more so than Chuck…in the Merc and on the news….calling for the resignation of the mayor and city manager, and trying highlighting the issues related to Norcal, Cisco and the Grand Prix subsidy. 

Last June, it wasn’t Dave Cortese or Chuck Reed who said that the grand jury report read like a ‘‘British tabloid”.  No, this was Cindy at her best when she was still attempting to defend Gonzo.  I guess she finaly was backed into a corner when the independent investigator’s report was issued in December.

The problem on the council isn’t Dave Cortese or Chuck Reed.  It’s Cindy and the rest of the her labor backed cohorts on the council…Nora Campos, Nancy Pyle, Forrest Williams, Judy Chirco… who I lay the blame on. What have the citizens of SJ ever heard from these essentially worthless labor puppets on the council about the goings on at city hall??  Not so much as a peep!!  They just line up behind Chavez and do as she does and will support her regardless of it is right or wrong for the city and its residents.  These are the people that we need to get removed from the council.

And I also have lost all respect for both Ken Yeager and Linda LeZotte for supporting Chavez.  They know exactly what has been going in with Gonzo and Cindy at City Hall,  but I guess they will do whatver they need to do for the vote…..

Randi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 1:33 pm

Well, I leave for a few days and ...  not much has changed.  While there are more substantial arguments, I guess I’m going to take on the role of Miss Manners…since our blog host can’t seem to do so. 

Dan, it’s not polite to continue to call a person by a name she or he does not use.  Besides that, you’re going to confuse somebody who may want to vote against “Mrs. Potter” and only finds “Cindy Chavez” on the ballot and mistakenly votes for her thinking she’s voting against your “Mrs. Potter”.

WG Dad, while it’s lovely of you to express your concern over the healthy family life Cindy has, you should not leave out the men in this race as it might show favortism on your part.  Dave Pandori publicly stated that he is giving up his yearly camping trip with his son for this race.  When asked at the same public forum, Chuck mentioned his “honey do” list so we should probably be just as concerned about the decaying state of his home life.  Michael mentioned he was missing shopping at the farmer’s market for a mother’s day event, so we should also be concerned that he’s not doing his job “brinin’ home the bacon’ and is risking the lives of his family, mother and mother in law.  Dave Cortese mentioned tutoring to at risk kids, so we should all be concerned about the rise in crime rates because he had to give that up…Since I’m assuming you didn’t mean it to be a sexist statement I will just assume you thought all these men had no family that might need/want them at home more often.

All:  If somebody has broken the law, whether they are the chamber or a candidate, a polite society has specific rules about that and a list of punishments.  We don’t remain a polite society by saying “yeah, they broke the law, but they shouldn’t be punished”.  we live by the law or change it.  And polite people who make a mistake admit it instead of defending it.  Direct mailers enter people’s homes; we can’t be sure that the same people are reading the newspaper or watching tv.  Having done canvassing work I can assure you that several weeks ago people told me (1) they wait until they get their ballot to decide (2) they depend on what materials they are given (3) incredibly they think in some cases they had already voted several weeks ago.

And, as for the Merc…it’s very impolite to invite people to your on line party and then declare your candidate in the middle.  You didn’t set up the forum just for the public benefit; you asked people to participate hoping it would boost your profile.  The candidates were gracious enough to accept and still bring their presence (and presents) to your little party.

We are lucky to have good candidates who have not (yet) sunk to ugly tactics.  Bravo to all of them.

pete campbell Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:04 pm

Dear Single Gal:

The notion that a Reed Administration will be “more of the same,” might be the craziest comment that I’ve ever read on San Jose Inside. (And I’ve read quite a few).

Chuck Reed stood up to Gonzales before it was fashionable.  Chuck Reed continually votes against the Gonzales majority,  and then gets criticised for not being a “consensus builder.”  What good is a consensus, if the consensus works against the interests of the people of San Jose?

Standing up for what’s right is not always popular.  It’s called leadership, and it’s exactly what our city needs right now.

I believe that this election is between Chavez, Cortese, and Reed.  Pandori and Mulcahy are good men, but Pandori got in too late, and not enough people have known Mulcahy long enough to make him our city’s next mayor.

REED WILL LEAD!

Pete Campbell

Don Gagliardi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:10 pm

#14 (Willow Glen Dad):  my neighborhood does not have a blog.  We do have an email group, and we circulate various perspectives, including from outside the neighborhood, but even so I cannot recall more than one or two anti-Cindy Chavez emails in the entire seven year history of the email group.  (It’s of course another story on this San Jose Inside blog.)  I think I have a better sense of the pulse of my neighborhood than you might be able to discern from Willow Glen, and Chavez is well-regarded here.  Our current neighborhood association president (not me), for example, has publicly endorsed her.

I don’t blame David Pandori for taking time away from politics or neighborhood activism to spend more time with his family.  But when you take eight years off, it means you haven’t been in the trenches and you cannot run on a record of having been involved.  That’s why Pandori runs as an outsider; he has been one for some time. 

I think you miss the point I’m making in noting Pandori’s absence from civic affairs these last eight years.  Because of it, Pandori’s record consists entirely of his eight years on the city council in the 1990s.  That record can be compared against the city council record of Cindy Chavez (as well as of Chuck Reed and Dave Cortese).  I think, in comparing the records, you will find that Pandori comes up far less compelling a candidate than if you’re simply going by the recent mayoral debates. 

I think the records are more important that campaign stump speeches or written campaign materials.  And it’s curious to me that none of Pandori’s supporters ever seem to talk about what he accomplished while he was a city councilmember.

Willow Glen Dad Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:15 pm

Randi,

Did you read my post?

I was making the comment that I thought that David Pandori might have withdrawn from public life for awhile to be with his family. I then said that I wouldn’t hold it against Cindy if she did the same at some point and then returned.  I wrote it in response to Don’s comments that David wasn’t involved for several years.

What you wrote is completely unrelated.

Pete Campnell thinks Chuck Reed is like Apple Pie Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:18 pm

Now we have heard everything!!!!!!!!!!!!  A Chuck Reed shill, probably Victor’s mechanic, is writing an ode to the most opportunistic, dense guy on the City Council.  Reed will lead when Victor tells him to lead.  Reed will shut up when Victor tells him too, and Pete Campbell, the Reed Shill will dance down McKee Road with a Reed baseball cap singing “lootey, do, Victor, me and you!”

The voting record shows that Reed and Gonzo have the closest voting record of anyone on the Council when no one is looking.  Reed advised people who got fined by the FPPC and seems to ask developers to meet him at other places besides City Hall.

Reed will lead, when developers that want to meet him at another location east of San Jose tell him to.

SJ Downtowner Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:19 pm

#21 - Looks like I hit a nerve with you…how did you get to be so angry?

I guess that Pandori did nothing worthwhile and effective while in office which is why everyone hates him and adores Cindy, right? Geez, you could try to give him a little credit as even Cindy’s detractors have give to her.

Susan Hammer - part of the Democratic machine supporting Cindy - was threatened by David when he was on the council and nixed his plan to get a sorely needed downtown grocery store way back when just because she didn’t like him. Great politics Susan. She has gone on to do great things since she left office but let me digress…

Oh wow, Cindy moved the sunshine reform forward, what a novel and daring move on her part. I don’t think that the citizens of this city would have even though of electing her mayor unless she did this. Call it self preservation.

I think that part of Cindy’s downfall will be her ability to get consensus from the Campos’s, Pyle’s and Chirco’s of the world. People are tired of the way that city hall has been run and are ready for a change.

I never said that the Pandori signs outnumber the Chavez signs in my neighborhood but now, come to mention it, they do. I have seen his signs in Willow Glen, Northside, Almaden, etc. so Pandori does have some reach.

Willow Glen Dad Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:27 pm

I lived in district 3 during David Pandori’s term and about 1 year into Cindy’s. What I remember is that mayor Susan Hammer and the councilmember closest to her who was Margie Fernandes wanted to locate the largest homeless shelter in the city adjacent to your neighborhood. It would have been in an area of Fernandes district far away from residences in her district and thus qualified for meeting the condition of “dispersal” of such services.  It was however directly adjacent to your District 3 neighborhood. It was a con.

An activist from your neighborhood who now lives in Naglee Park led the opposition. David took many arrows and took alot of heat from Hammer for fighting it. Your neighborhood won the fight and the shelter was located closer to where I live now. It was the right policy to oppose concentration of homeless services and David fought hard to stop it.

Certainly Cindy has done good things for your neigborhood but you ought to be grateful to David for that one. He expended much capital for an essential victory. You are living with fewer problems because of his hard work in that case.

San Jose Outsider Lookin In Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:45 pm

BRAVO, Pete Campbell!! 

My, how things are getting testy in this last week of fun, though….
Mark T and Dexter…..boy, I may be an “outsider,” but you guys are plain “out of it.”  Either you haven’t been reading or listening to the San Jose news for the past year or you have been comatose.  More likely, you do know the truth but owing to your allegiance to some other candidate(s) have chosen to fabricate the truth about Cortese and Reed. 
Thank God Reed and Cortese have the integrity and the intellect to see through the BS going on at city hall and the strength to speak out in their many calls for action.  Cortese in particular was quite outspoken and almost singlehandedly responsible for making San Jose residents aware of the problems at city hall.  If not for these two gentlemen, this Mayor’s race would be issue-less because all the scandals would have remained under the rug and out of public view.  There would be no platform of reform or ethics for any other candidate to stand on.
Hallelujah for Reed and Cortese…San Jose residents already owe them a great deal in terms of the messages they have conveyed and the awareness they’ve brought to us all…..and for educating their rival candidates on what the issues even are by speaking out.

Full Time Family Tue, May 30, 2006 - 2:46 pm

Randi,

Cindy’s family priorities became clear during a debate City Hall. The question you referred to was written:

“if you weren’t running for office this year, what would you be doing with family and friends on this beautiful Saturday morning?”

You mention all of the other candidate’s answers, but you neglected Cindy’s.  Here’s her answer:

“I would do what I’ve been doing for 7 years which is going to a lot of meetings and getting a lot of work done”

Mind you this was a day before Mother’s Day.  Every other candidate talked about spending time with their family.

There is NOTHING that Cindy could bring to San Jose that is worth more than the well being of her young child.  He should not take a back seat to running the City of San Jose.  If her supporters really loved Cindy, they would give her back to her family.  She could become a PTA parent, or a volunteer, and participate fully in her 5 year old son’s life.

Mark T Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:05 pm

SJD, re: #31 I don’t get how what you’re saying relates to what I wrote in #21 so am assuming you were targeting entry #20 since I pretty much agree with your message.

Had to laugh at a post further up that praised Cindy for getting the Council behind sunshine reforms, for locking up all those votes right away and getting it done. 

Well duh, she’s Vice-Locked-Up-Vote-Haver right now so how can we not expect more of the same if she’s elected?

RustyBucket Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:26 pm

You guys (and gals) are all nuts!!

From Superior Court Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:30 pm

Just In:

I work at the Superior Court and the new rumor of the day is that the Grand Jury has decided to not release its investigation until after the election. The reason given was that its release would affect the results of the election and that they think the grand jury should not be in the business of influencing elections.

There was some spirited discussion that by not releasing these important facts, they are influencing the election. I personally believe that standing by and withholding information to the electorate is far worse then putting out the facts and letting the voters decide.

I never had much confidence in the process, but now I have lost all faith!

Rusty Bucket rocks Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:35 pm

Rusty

The more serious concern is most of these guys work for the candidates.

Locking up votes Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:36 pm

It’s easy to lock-up a majority of votes when all you have to do is call the South Bay Labor Council and have them issue a directive to their mindless followers on the council.

If you ever wondered why Nora, Judy, and Nancy don’t speak, it is clearly because the SBLC simply tells them whether to vote yes or no, and doesn’t give them more details than they can handle.

Remember the words of Neil Struthers (i think it was him, if not it was one of the other puppeteers) “we don’t have to lobby them, we got them elected”

PS-I’m glad Neil and Nora never talk about any city issues at home!

Don Gagliardi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:38 pm

#32 (Willow Glen Dad):  Although I was dumbstruck by the NIMBYism of some of my neighbors, I agree that opposing a 250-bed homeless shelter (which would have been the largest in the Bay Area in a downtown already over-concentrated with such facilities) was the right thing to do, and I am grateful for David Pandori’s involvement, for which I take your word (I was still a newbie homeowner then).

Several years later, Cindy Chavez helped defeat a 125-bed rehab center in an area adjacent to Watson Park not too far from where the homeless shelter would have been.  Again, I was ashamed by the NIMBYism of some of my neighbors, but again, as a land-use matter, the particular project was over-sized and ill-conceived. 

So, I’d say, Pandori and Chavez are even in each having championed the defeat of unduly large social service facilities in or around my neighborhood.  (I’d like to think that in each case the massive turnout of residents opposing the respective projects had something to do with their defeat, as well.)

Dan Sturges Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:39 pm

#24.  You came back! Only this time you’re trying to hide behind a phoney name. But, I have your real name here in my files from your previous posts. Yes I agree with you if you mean that I am against female Ms. Cindy Chavez as mayor then you have me judged correctly.  I’m sure Ms. Chavez would not appreciate being called chattel to Mr. Potter.  I’m concerned about where you get your opinions about people.  I must tell you that I come from a family of males who don’t feel it is their duty to lower the seat afterwards.  That’s because of the equal pay for equal work laws.  I’ve even stopped opening doors and standing to one side while a female passes through.  Equals are equals right?  I don’t even walk on the street side of a female to protect her anymore because now, she is equal.  The ones who get my respect are the elderly males and females.  Or should I say gentlemen and females.  They’ve lived life and earned it.  Keep whining and you’ll fit the mould of a whiney female with her emotions out on sleeve of her blouse.  You might check to see if I spelled whiney correctly.

They will need help Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:40 pm

let’s all remember that it really doesn’t matter is Dave, Chuck, David, or Michael get elected mayor if council Districts 1 and 3 are won by James and Diaz. All four of them will be ineffectual unless they are able to get at least a couple of sensible minds on the council.

There is still time to help make a difference in these two campaigns while walking for your favorite mayoral candidate this weekend. I suggest anyone who is walking for one of the 4 ‘white hats’ for mayor do so in D-1 or D-3. It is always good if you can kill two birds with one stone.

Anyone hear about the new chamber poll? Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:42 pm

Anyone hear about the new chamber poll?

I heard it is the first poll to show Cindy trailing by 2 pts to Reed and tied with Cortese.

Dan Sturges Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:46 pm

#24 Maybe I should have addressed the post to Randi Kinman.

Voter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:48 pm

What a collection of thoughts we have today. Must be something in the air. David’s record on the Council does not compare to Cindy’s? Thankfully, that is true. David never voted for illegal project after illegal project that cost the city millions of dollars like Cindy has. David never supported an ethically challenged mayor like Cindy has. David never told people one thing and then did the opposite like Cindy has. You are right—David’s record on the Council is nothing like Cindy’s—Thank God!

Lauren Bacall Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:52 pm

Who was it wee, little, Danny?  Who was the gal that gave you such a terrible attitude towards us gals.  She must have been quite a stinker!!

Richard Robinson Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:55 pm

SG, Malcontent et al,

You have a right to be wrong.  And just because you are wrong doesn’t mean you should go to jail.

Just to be fair, I also have a right to be wrong.  And if it occurs, you have a right to point it out.

NIMBY Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:58 pm

If everyone were a NIMBY, where would all these projects go?

Council person (breath one): I want to help the homeless, provide shelter to the abused, help the adicted.

Council person (breath two): This project is not at all in character with the neighborhood. We must be diligent in planning and move this to D-?, they deserve to be punshed more.

Council person (breath one): We need places for our youth to go after school. If we occupy their minds and bodies they will stay away from gangs and violence.

Council person (breath two): This project by Salvation Army is wonderful. But we can’t build it there - oh no, not there either. Umm, not there either.

Council person (breath three): I’m so disappointed the SA Kroc center went to San Francisco.

Campos (breath one): We can’t build the Salvation Army on the current golf course, it will displace golfers.

Chavez (breath one): Let’s build the Salvation Army center near Roosevelt Park, we will only have to displace 16 low income families.

Campos ( breath two):I’m so disappointed the SA Kroc center went to San Francisco, but the golf course is under utilized. I propose we let this developer build homes here.

Chavez (breath one): I am shocked that we are given this Grand Prix info so late.

Chavez (breath two): Oops, I knew about this months ago.

Chavez (breath three): I am a champion for open government.

Leaves you breathless doen’t it?

Barbara Stanwyck Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:59 pm

Dan’s got files.  Files on the posters on this blog.  Files on the people putting flouride in his water.  Files on all those women that do not answer his personal ads.  Files on the Communists and all of his neighbors whom he photographs.  He really has something for Cindy and her husband.  Just cannot leave it alone.  Likes to talk about them at the 7-Eleven when he is munching his microwave burrito.  Hey, Potter, will you please apologize for cutting in line at the market, or Cindy, will you admit that the Hoosiers DVD was late so Dan can get his boss, the woman who owns the video store he works at, to put that 2 days off his vacation time, for yelling at you.

frustrated finfan Tue, May 30, 2006 - 3:59 pm

In #15, Don Gagliardi wrote:
“... Cindy Chavez’s efforts to promote grass-roots democracy in her district through her annual neighborhood summits.”
- -

Unless the definition of the word has been turned inside out, Cindy Chavez would be praised for her commitment to democracy only in that bizarro world where Joe Guerra is worshipped for his diplomacy. C’mon, secret deals and last minute surprises aren’t exactly what the Founders had in mind when deciding upon a representative form of government. 

Contrary to Mr. Gagliardi’s assumption, democracy is promoted by holding true to its principles, not by making nice with the neighbors. All the while Ms. Chavez was sharing smiles and promises with her constituents, she was sharing dirty little secrets with the mayor—and next to nothing with those representing the rest of the city.

If the voters were to properly judge Ms. Chavez on how she has handled political power and the public trust she would, very soon, find herself encumbered by nothing more ethically challenging than motherhood; not to mention those daily, pestering pop-in visits by a very bored Ron Gonzales.

Donald MacIlherney Tue, May 30, 2006 - 4:01 pm

I live in Milpitas so I stay out of San Jose’s business, but I do enjoy this web site. However, poster number 30 stated, “Reed advised people who got fined by the FPPC and seems to ask developers to meet him at other places besides City Hall.”

I don’t know about the FPPC fine, but it was a standing joke early this year among some real estate agents & brokers in Milpitas that Chuck Reed meets with developers in a real estate office on Dempsey Road in Milpitas under the cover of a land planning committee meeting of the Berryessa neighborhood association…to apparently discuss Berryessa development deals. Not having been present at any such meetings, I cannot give details but it appears that Reed, Berryessa leaders, and developers mix it up at that real estate office.

Part of the joking about Reed’s Milpitas meetings was because Reed’s chief aide is reputed to be a member of the Milpitas city council.

Its this bad Tue, May 30, 2006 - 4:01 pm

Can you image if we all see things as being this bad, how bad it must be for city employees to work around these incompetent fools everyday?

Single Gal Tue, May 30, 2006 - 4:09 pm

Point well taken on Chuck Reed and Dave Cortese - lumping them together may have been A LITTLE unfair. The have spoken out about Ron G. but I still am not voting for them.  But I back my points about Cindy.  I think it would be CATASTROPHIC if she were Mayor because I do not trust her to get anything of significance done or be able to lead the council.

What is all this criticism about Pandori being “polarizing”?  What do people mean by that?  I think that strong mayors with strong personalities are not going to be liked by all, and I admire the quality that says I do not need to be liked, I need to do what I have to do to get things done.

And Don, whether you respect my opinion or not is really irrelevant to me (anonymous or not.) No one is forcing you to read, but is Cindy paying you to be on here?  Just asking…

The beauty of this site is you do not have to agree with me, I think getting the discussion going is the best part. I respect those that give solid reasons for voting for Mulcahy, Reed, etc.  I just cannot, no matter what many of you say, get behind voting for Cindy.

Pandori Supporter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 4:15 pm

I wrote CBS 5 about the poll they did which did not include David Pandori as one of the choices.  I made 2 points in the email (regretfully I did not save a copy):

1. They had their heads up their butts
2. If they can’t pay enough attention to San Jose politics to know that there are 5 major candidates for mayor, just stop reporting on San Jose.

Here’s the response I got:

“Thank you for writing.
The decision to leave Mr. Pandori off the poll was made by our polling
firm, which departed from standard procedure by failing to discuss that
change with us. I regret that decision.
Although newspaper editorial endorsements do not automatically reflect
viability nor confer it, the Mercury News endorsement does make it
appear that Survey USA was hasty in dropping Mr. Pandori from this week’s
survey. We will have a new poll out on Friday, June 2, which will
include two additional candidates, one of whom is Pandori. We are noting this
on our website. (
<http://cbs5.com/politics/local_story_143181340.html>)
We take our coverage of the San Jose mayor’s race very seriously, as we
do all of our San Jose coverage. One of the very first mayoral debates,
in city council chambers, was moderated by our anchor and streamed live
on our website. Our reporters—Thuy Vu, Len Ramirez, Tony Russomanno
and Allen Martin—are long-time South Bay residents, as are our news
photographers and South Bay office staffers. And we recently moved our
South Bay newsroom into larger, centrally located offices in the
Knight-Ridder building. I hope you will watch our newscasts and continue to
give us feedback. And we’ll try to keep our heads held up.
Regards,
Dan Rosenheim
Vice President and News Director
CBS 5
855 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94127
415 765-8618 ”

Novice Tue, May 30, 2006 - 4:20 pm

“...the particular project was over-sized and ill-conceived.”

Doesn’t this just describe San Jose to a “t” ?

Everywhere you look, the over-sizing and ill-conceiving continues to this day at an unrelenting and ever quickening pace.

Should SJ fail the upcoming idiot test, I’m packing up the U-haul and heading to the green pastures of Milpitas.

JohnMichael O'Connor Tue, May 30, 2006 - 4:27 pm

As election day nears, the acerbic rating of this blog rises.  HHHmm.

I still don’t have my absentee ballot, which I read has something to do with a wrong size envelope. Bush league (no offense to our president and former president).

I have been out of county for about two weeks.  I see a COC piece that seems to be full of factually accurate statements, and then I hear that there is a huge controversy about it.  I must confess that I am not fully conversant with SJ’s ordinance that governs these pieces. I see Fox—father and son—fighting about it in the Murky News editorial page.

Don Gagliardi has taken over RR’s position as the mass contributor of long apologies about Cindy and he adds an anti-David tone to it.

I, for one, think this town is in big trouble from a leadership point of view.

I am in Judy “The Mute for 4 years” Chirco’s district, and I am given a choice of a person from whom I have literally heard nada, zilch, zero for four years, and two guys I’ve never heard of either, one of whom is running a campaign as silent as Chirco has been for her first four years in office.

The incumbent councilpersons who are running for mayor were silent witnesses (except for Cindy, who was either an accomplice or a co-conspirator)  until recently of the Gonzo-Guerra takeover of our town (don’t EVEN think we are a city, despite our population numbers).

I am struggling mightily to avoid being a complete anti-incumbent person (even if he/she is running for a different office), but I may lose that battle.

I’d sure like to see/read Pandori’s book.  How do I get a copy?

And pundits wonder aloud why there is so much apathy among the voters.

Take a look around—at all levels, government is not of the people, by the people and absolutely not FOR the people any longer.

Time, perhaps, for another Boston Tea Party

Bring Quakes Home! Tue, May 30, 2006 - 4:51 pm

don, you are supporting the wrong candidate.  michael mulcahy will bring soccer back to san jose.  I dont think this is the case with cindy chavez.  michael said he was the person that encouraged lew to open the franchise office in san jose and he is working with him to bring soccer back!

Voter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:01 pm

57 - Get David’s book here: http://bettersanjose.com/book/Better_San_Jose_The_Book.pdf

J Moore Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:05 pm

There’s gotta be more reason to vote for Mulcahy than the faint hope that he might bring soccer back to SJ. There are so many more pressing problems facing us as a city that soccer ain’t even on the radar.

Just like a household, you don’t get the frills until you’ve gotten the basics taken care of.

Dan Sturges Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:09 pm

JohnMichael.  I’m sure you can visit Dave Pandori’s web site and read a copy of his book or download it.  I’m sure they will send you one if you ask.  I’d be glad to drop one off at your office.

Don Gagliardi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:23 pm

Hey #53 (Single Gal):  Tell us who you are and I’ll happily sign over to you everything Cindy Chavez is paying me—which is nothing.   

It just rocks your world, doesn’t it, to think that someone who’s not a campaign staffer, who’s not in the Labor movement, who’s not a developer, who’s reasonably well informed, who attends city council meetings and speaks up at them, who’s spent a good part of his spare time volunteering to make San Jose a better place, and whose only stake in this election is a better San Jose, would actually support Cindy Chavez for mayor?  I must be on the take.  Yeah, that’s the ticket.

GM Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:27 pm

My part-time job became my fulltime job at the airport and let me say this, only a few are voting for one of the five major candidates, but most to my surprise they are voting for one of the other five candidates they have felt confident enough by either email or picking up the phone and speaking to the other five candidates.
I’ve taken a close look at the financial statements and what do these other candidates do at their current job, I still believe like so many voters that someone has to be mayor from the outside.
With one week left I will continue to spread the word around for Larry Flores, he will be hurting Cindy at the polls with Union votes, so many of us stand with him instead of Cindy because she decided to get backing from Non-Union company’s.
Anyways only June 6Th we’ll know for sure what happens.
Good Luck to the five lesser-known Candidates.

GM

Voter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:31 pm

61—You just described me exactly—except I’m supporting Pandori.

Guess you better not paint with such a wide brush—it distorts your picture of reality.

Merc Reader Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:36 pm

Why doesn’t the San Jose Mercury News, or for that matter, any valley news organization see it your way Don?

An Original Idea? Tue, May 30, 2006 - 5:55 pm

Today, at 3:54 PM, I received an email blast from Cindy Chavez promoting her “education agenda focusing on five key areas.”

I read it with interest, and as I did I kept thinking that I had read this all somewhere before. Being a political junkie, as well as a pack-rat, I dug through my piles of election related mail to see if it had been in a mailer from her. Oddly enough, I realized that although I receive her emails, I have not received any election mail from her (I have from all of the other 4 candidates).

What I did find was a mailer from Jay James where he lays out his four point education plan. Imagine that - the text of several points was exactly the same as Chavez’s - VERBATIM! It literally looks like a cut and paste copy job.

I’m not sure who copied who, but it is obvious that there was some plagiarism here.

Do any labor candidates have original ideas? Or are they all just ventriloquist dummies delivering the same labor message?

Here’s a link to Cindy’s: http://www.cindychavez4mayor.com/pdfs/ChavezEduBooklet.pdf

Jays doesn’t have his online, but if SJI has the ability to post an attachment, I will be glad to email it in to them.

Dale Warner Tue, May 30, 2006 - 6:04 pm

#30 above hints at Chuck Reed’s giving advice that led to an FPPC fine. Here is the real story. The Berryessa Union School District (BUSD) tried to pass a bond measure twice, once in early 1998 and again in late 1999.

Chuck Reed was very active in both efforts, and was a member of the campaign committee both times. I opposed the 1998 measure (which was defeated by the voters) and I supported the 1999 measure (which was approved by the voters), although I was not a member of the campaign committee.

It turns out that the committees in support of both measures shared the same treasurer who failed to file proper paperwork and forms with the FPPC, and the treasurer and both committees were ultimately fined $26,000 in 2005.

You can read about it at:

http://www.26kfine.net

It doesn’t show that Reed operated in a personally corrupt way as he has been accused of in other contexts, but it surely reveals his abrasive style and lack of teamwork in the community.

It’s pretty clear than Berryessa leaders have needed to get together to have a fundraising event to pay off this fine, but Reed has adopted a hands-off attitude which is troubling because he was the leading member of both campaign committees and has more expertise in fundraising rules and reporting than anyone else. (Readers may recall that he was educated when he got into trouble while he was Margie Fernandez’ campaign committee treasurer.)

While most other media in San Jose have ignored this story, Reed made it very clear to the Berryessa Sun that the blame fell completely on the treasurer and that the treasurer needed to clear it up himself.

A true community leader would have stepped up to the plate to clear this matter up, do some fundraising, and get this problem solved. If you go to the web site above, you will be able to go to a link to read the Berryessa Sun article which exposes the cold-hearted attitude of Reed toward the hapless treasurer.

Don Gagliardi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 6:05 pm

#63 (Voter):  I have no idea who you are since you refuse to identify yourself.  You have no credibility with me whatsoever.

#64 (Merc Reader):  The Mercury News does not support, nor has it ever supported, Cindy Chavez because she is the Labor-backed candidate.  It doesn’t matter what Chavez does or does not do, or what kind of person she is, she will never get that paper’s endorsement.  In case you didn’t know, Knight Ridder and whoever owns them now, are Big Business, and therefore they aren’t in the habit of backing Labor candidates. 

You’ll have to ask Dan Pulcrano why the Metro supports who it does, but it’s also true that the Metro does not support Chavez or David Pandori. 

The other “community” papers don’t do business downtown, so I don’t know nor care what they think.

As for the ethnic papers, someone will have to translate for me first.

SJ Downtowner Tue, May 30, 2006 - 7:16 pm

Don - sounds like you can head your own group - “Angry White Men for Cindy!” I know that she has done right by you in your neighborhood but that does not mean that Pandori did not - just not on your watch.

Randi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 7:20 pm

Dan, Dan, Dan…settle down a little or you’ll blow a gasket and wind up in a hospital with a female doctor.  And, that post wasn’t mine, so you need to direct your anger elsewhere.

Sorry to hear that your family has such cretinous habits (it’s nothing to do with male/female; it’s about safety when kids are in the house and being polite) in the bathroom, but what, tell me, please, does this have to do with equal pay?  And why would you feel it necessary to share such information?

But as a whole offline topic, where would you get females to help you carry on the family traditions?  Male order?  And what do you do with the girl babies who come out of these unions?

I’m sure your mother would be appalled that you don’t open doors, and if I were to stop being that polite to people my mother would come down and hit me upside the head.  It’s not the 60’s.  People of both sexes are showing civility and politeness by opening doors; it’s not about helping the fair sex, it’s just good manners.  Today a teenage girl held the door for myself and several others including an elderly gentleman and a mom with kids.  It’s a daily occurance everywhere because we are teaching kids that they have a right to live in a polite society and the responsibility to treat each other with respect.

And you can’t make me mad about this because I assume that you are (surely) being satirical or are trying to rouse a response when you discuss “..gentlemen and females.” And if you truly are that angry about women in politics (or anywhere else outside the home) it’s truly a shame that your mother, grandmother, teacher, waitress or bad date made you feel so helpless and humiliated you could only transfer it to anger.  Oh, yes, I can also assure you that I am neither “moldy” or “whiny”, am glad to wear my opinions on my sleeves and other pieces of clothing and wouldn’t think of embarrassing you with spell check because this format is an easy one in which to commit such errors.

WGDad I did read your post.  If Cindy chooses to find the balance in her life that allows her to run for this office at this time, it is, indeed a hard road, but so worthwhile.  You can’t use Pandori’s statement that he left the public eye to raise a family when he was a DA on high profile cases (from experience I know it’s more than a regular workweek) and his claims/proof that he’s been heavily involved in the community at the same time.  It’s just about finding what avenue works best for you at the time.

And, Full Time Family…where do I start with you?  You’re the one who believes that there’s nothing beyond the mom at home style of living, right?  You just sign your name differently each time.  You’ve made statements that assume you know what goes on in Cindy’s life.  Are you sure the other candidates aren’t dealing with the other side of the coin?  Are any of them dealing with alcoholic or drug using spouses?  How about abuse?  You just assume that because she’s female her only place is in the home and that her children can’t survive with her in a job.  My mother would differ with you, and for that matter, so would most of the people I know.  And how demeaning an outlook to take about the men ...  are they incapable of parenting or is their only job to be a breadwinner?  Having been involved in volunteer work, including PTA, it can be grinding, suck away your energy, time and money and, frankly, not worth the effort at times.  And, again, you are assuming that somehow Cindy does not participate in the raising of her child…and, you didn’t fully state the other candidates points.  I believe it was Chuck (could have been Dave) who pointed out that since there was a council meeting coming up he would normally be reading the staff reports and doing his homework on Saturday.  It’s the traditional day to do so and it’s also the traditional day to visit the neighborhoods, open community centers and parks and help celebrate the hard work each council member does.

It’s not easy no matter who you are when you choose a road of public service.  There’s no money in it, people are constantly throwing rocks and insults your way and you are always in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position.  It does not need to be made harder for anybody to cling to the belief that your way is the only right way or to single out the only woman in the election for some (not so subtle) comment that does not address the issues or the candidate’s position on issues.  Each of the candidates has had to try to find the right way, many of them knowing they have very little chance of this election going their way.

We are, indeed, lucky to have people of character, strength and guts to run for this or any office.

Think Big Tue, May 30, 2006 - 7:49 pm

Don
I can see why you are endorsing Cindy.  You are a big fish in a little sea. You have her ear, so if she gets elected she will help you in your little area. All you and Cindy seem to care about is her district In fact at times only part of her district..  90% of what you blog about does not affect 95% of the citizens of S.J.  Where do you volunteer in San Jose outside of your neighborhood downtown. You don’t even speak for all of the downtown. 
Pandori has a great ability to see the big picture. As a council person he did that and as a mayor he will continue to do that.  As for what has Pandori been doing since he left office? He has been working hard to make the Santa Clara County a saffer place to live.  He has prosecuted them all, from Gangbangers to corrupt Judges. What about his efforts making sure we had proper access to the airport before it was enlarged?  In the past eight years he has done a hundred fold more for the good of our community than Cindy.  But then again you and Cindy only see your little neighborhood as the whole community. And as for Hammers endorsement of Chavez,  Susan was not above backroom deals herself.  You as a preservationist should remember the deal she struck with Lew Wolff over the Montgomery Hotel.  Cindy and Gonzo have just taken it to an all- time low.  I agree with you, Cindy has got a lot done while in office.  Most has been behind closed doors and has cost the taxpayers millions.  Pandori is head and sholders above Chavez.

Voter Tue, May 30, 2006 - 8:25 pm

You sure are hung-up on identity. So you reveal your name—that does nothing for most of us. Many think you are a shill for Cindy, etc. They’d think the same even if you didn’t use your name.

Perhaps if you expanded your vision beyond your neighborhood (and helped Cindy to do the same) you would truly help make San Jose a better place. Until you do that, I’ll continue to back leaders who have a vision of the entire city and not selected portions of it.

BTW, how do you know my name is not Voter? My parents were Mr and Mrs Voter. We don’t really know if you are using a real name , do we?

Lets just discuss issues and not worry about names.

You asked for it Don Tue, May 30, 2006 - 8:40 pm

Don G.
You say let’s compare Pandori’s record vs. Chavez’s.  I say bring it on!  Let’s start first with voting records.  And please none of those childish excuses like many of the other council members voted to break the law too.
Lets start with land use issues first.
A judge ruled that Cindy voted to break the law on the following projects:
1…The Tropicana cost taxpayers $8,000,000
2…County Fairgrounds cost taxpayers $36,000,000.
3…The Fox Markovitz Building…$3,000,000
4…North San Jose   Don, can you remember how many million that one cost us?  There have been so many lost lawsuits!!
After you compare David’s voting record on land use issues let’s compare votes on projects that wasted taxpayers money, like Cindy voting for the $499,000,000 City Hall.  That was how many hundred million over budget??  How about the $11,000,000 of our money she voted to give Norcal that was not legally owed to them.  Then there was the $8,000,000 tent she voted to build, the $4,000,000 Grand Prix.  Don this is going to be so much fun.  Cindy has thrown away a hundred million here and a hundred million there…that adds up to some real money.
Don, please start with the land use issues that David voted in favor of and later resulted in a court case which cost the taxpayers.  Then, we will go to the projects.  This is your big chance.  Bring it on!

to Randi Tue, May 30, 2006 - 8:45 pm

Your points are well taken, but no where have I heard that Mike Potter (Cindy’s husband) is raising their son. In fact he too has a demanding job in government that requires well over 40 hours a week committment. Mom gone 60+ hours, Dad gone 60+ hours, who’s there for Brennan?

No wonder she’s pushing for after school programs - Brennan has to go somewhere!

Save San Jose, vote for Pandori Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:05 pm

Don
# 70 says you are a preservationist.
Did you know that over the past four years Forrest Williams has even had a better voting record supporting historic preservation than Cindy. How important is preservation to you if you are voting for Cindy.

James Rowen Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:07 pm

Enough is g————d enough about the family stuff here.  I am proud to call Mike Potter and Cindy Chavez friends of mine.  When my nephew and I were at a San Jose State football game, this family that all of you are so expert at talking about came up to us.  I never saw a more loving couple of parents and a son that enjoyed being around them.  Who is watching the kids while you are posting your blogs about kids that are none of your damn business!!!

Stick to the Issues! Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:22 pm

Yo Insiders!

I will not be voting for Cindy Chavez, but can we please knock off these petty personal attacks on Cindy’s name and family.  It adds nothing of value to our discussion on San Jose and only makes you and your candidate look foolish.

There is more than enough material in Cindy’s voting record and platform to attack.  Stick to the issues!

Just the Facts, Pandori for mayor Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:27 pm

Randi and others
Let me start by saying that I feel that Pandori is the only choice for mayor. The man is the only candidate with a vision for this great city. We don’t need to question Cindy’s abilities as a parent or why she goes by Chavez.  Those are her choices and should not be part of the mayoral debate. It is easy to into the trap and follow the low road that others have taken in this election.  I’m sure David would want all of his supporters to take the high road as he has done.  Cindy’s record is soooo bad ‘you need not deal in other matters.

Ken Henderson Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:28 pm

David Pandori has many good ideas but after reading his collection of campaign speeches that he refers to as a book, I still don’t know how he plans to pay for them.  He constantly complains aobut the North First Street plans that Chuck Reed championed as bad planning, but as I see it aloowing our biggest employers to grow their businesses on their current locations will help us raise the money we need to pay for many of those projects.

He does not like the housing piece of Reed’s plan but again where does he want the new housing to go?  He agreed with PACT to build more affordable housing, we can’t put it all downtown.

I just don’t see how his plans will work out.

Ken Henderson

Mark T Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:29 pm

#37 Re: Superior Court,  I’m with you if there is any truth to that rumor.  The Grand Jury needs to release their findings BEFORE the election.  It might avoid the need for a run-off, who knows?

JMO #56, I’m voting for anyone but Judy.  I think one of those guys actually filed a statement so already he’s got Judy beat where accomplishments over the last 4 years are concerned.  She needs to see that at least some of her constituents in D-9 are not asleep and are onto her. 

Speaking of the do-nothings and say-nothings on the Council, I know where I work the bosses are looking for achievements on a quarterly basis.  If the same were required of Council members, people like Chirco, Pyle, Campos and Williams would have been toast long ago.

The report is on its way! Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:50 pm

Don it is nice to have you back.
I have been waiting for your answer to my question.  If the D.A.‘s report finds that Cindy had prior knowlede of the Narcal scandal a la The Grand Prix will you stand by your promise to speak out against and pull your support of her campaign? Also will you support an other candidate?

Sexist to ask Woman Politician child's care Tue, May 30, 2006 - 9:54 pm

It is long been recognized that it is the parent’s responsibility not yours or others and your sexism is clear for everyone to see. You nameless jerk - you should be embarrassed to use those tactics as part of any political attack against any candidate especially a woman candidate

Bill Makar Tue, May 30, 2006 - 10:04 pm

Someone who dares to speak the truth on San Jose Inside? 

Watch yourself Ken Henderson, too many facts could lead you to realize that Pandori is all talk.  It is a much more blissful existence if you believe, like everyone else on this site, that Pandori is San Jose’s messiah.  I think we have all learned that logic plays no role in San Jose politics, and Pandori is no exception.

Just one person's opinion Tue, May 30, 2006 - 10:36 pm

#78 Ken
I do not speak for Pandori but I do agree that a project of this size needs greater review.  It also should have included neighboring cities.  By the way do you know the answer to # 72’s question.  How much did that NSJ law suit cost us?  It is clear in Pandori’s book that he understands the importance of bringing buisness to S.J.  In fact that is what he says we need to do in Coyote before housing.  Low cost housing would have been perfect in the Del Monte Plant#3 but Chuck and Cindy voted to demolish it for an other K.B. homes project.  If you look at the statistics you will find we still are the bedroom for the valley. We need to expand our tax base yet implement smart growth, not just growth for the sake of growing.

Dan Sturges Wed, May 31, 2006 - 4:24 am

Randi.  I wonder if you realize that your chain has been pulled and your response was predicted.  You are really vulnerable.  You need to cool down and realize that there are people in this world who don’t care whether a person is male or female.  The person should be judged for their abilities to perform the tasks assigned not whether they are male or female.  I don’t judge Cindy Chavez because she is Cindy Potter nor do I think about her in any other way than she is a person who I will not vote for.  Of course we teach our children good manners and respect for each other regardless of the sex.  Yes when I’m present, the door gets opened and I do walk on the street side.  I do lower the seat.  But like I said, I got you to make a predictable response and as I began this, I really pulled your chain.  Welcome to the world of bloggers.

SJ Downtowner Wed, May 31, 2006 - 8:00 am

#78 Lets let some housing go to some other cities - we need to concentrate on getting tax dollars here from businesses. Pandori does know that and has compared our tax dollars vs all other cities. He is not against growth - he just wants to start at the core instead of keeping our massive sprawl. That is not popular with developers because they want to start with a clean slate to build - cheaper for them but not good for our city.

#82 Pandori is the only candidate who isn’t all talk. You got that so wrong. Who else has concrete plans to back up ideas and not just sound bytes? Read his book and you will see all of his “talk” and how he plans to walk the walk.

Give us the truth please Wed, May 31, 2006 - 8:15 am

#37&79;
Just think the D.A.‘s office, where Pandori works, could cost him the election.  First I heard he got into the race late because he felt it was his duty to finish a gang case he was prosecuting. Now there is a man with principles. Second I hear they have proof Cindy tried to get more money for the Norcal workers before the scandal was made public.  You say the D.A.‘s office has decided not to make their findings public until July?  Mind you Cindy is presumed innocent until the report says otherwise.  But if what I hear is true, Pandori the honest guy who fights for justice and is the only candidate qualified to get us out of this mess, may not get elected because the D.A’s office held back the truth from the people.  Where is the justice in that?  We need to know the facts before the election.  If Cindy knew nothing as she and her camp has claimed then it is only fair to remove this cloud over her head.  But if she played any role in keeping it secret from the public, a la the Grand Prix, then the public needs to know for the sake of the future of this city.

Ken Henderson Wed, May 31, 2006 - 8:50 am

Look at todays Merc.  Once again David tells us all the things we should do or should have done yet not one word on where all the money will come from to pay for these things.  He wants us to pay for widening 101, 3 interchanges, light rail to the airport and BART.  The only mention of money is we will force the airlines to pay for the light rail expansion.

About jobs, if you hear him at candidate forum he consistantly says no building in Coyote Vallley, no planning, nothing.  In the next breath he complains the council was not ready to act when opportunities have come our way.  You cannot have it both ways.  Every candidate has said they would not build housing in Coyote Valley without jobs but it does not stop David from saying over and over again that the council is planning on doing just that.

All the guy does is talk in sound bites, I have read the book and found nothing there.

KH

Single Gal Wed, May 31, 2006 - 8:51 am

Don -

It takes much more than you “not working for Cindy” to rock my world.

But I digress….

Wondering Wed, May 31, 2006 - 8:53 am

If there is any truth to the report being witheld and it confirms what most of us suspect about Cindy, it will be tragic. On the other hand, if all of Cindy’s supporters faced reality, the would not vote for her anyway and thereport would make no difference. Not likely to happen, though.

If she gets into the run-off, the report will finish her off but it will have finished off one other candidate who should have been in the run-off. If there is a report to release and it is ready to go it should be released immediately. To do otherwise does a major disservice to the voters and the candidates.

John Martin Wed, May 31, 2006 - 8:59 am

What a waste of blog space!!!!  Its amazing that politicos will waste so much of their time creating propaganda that they believe will dupe the public into thinking this space is open and fairminded.  Wish these same politicos had been around to fight for BART, education, fair wages, building communities, saving the Earthquakes soccer team.

Thanks for making up my mind on this election!

Cory Lermo Wed, May 31, 2006 - 9:11 am

Dear Single Gal,

I am glad your voting however your vote for Mayor does not support the single lifestyle. Pandori is like a Christian Fundamentalist when it comes to nightlife. If was King there would be no bars, nightclubs or liquor stores. As a former SF resident the SJ nightlife is in its infancy and Pandori would squash it. SJ already has a culture of get up, go to work and go to bed. Pandori might perhaps sponsor a non drinking social event in park. Single Gal I have enjoyed your humor but I as SingleGuy disagree with your choice. See you out on the town next Tuesday night!

Voter Wed, May 31, 2006 - 9:16 am

90 - It’s as fair as you want to make it. Got something of substance to say? Then say it. It’s very easy to pop-up and fire a shot that offers nothing and then disappear.

Got a thought about the election? Lets hear it.

Bill Swanson Wed, May 31, 2006 - 10:15 am

# 86 Wow he is a man of principle and fighting for truth and justice.  Let’s throw a big S on his chest and a red cape on his back. If Superman snatches one of the top two spots, who will challenge him in the epic battle to rule San Jose. Perhaps Capitan America (Reed), Dorian Gray (Mulchay), Two-Face (Cortese), or Xena (Chavez). Part one comes to a theater near you on June 6th.

JohnMichael O'Connor Wed, May 31, 2006 - 10:26 am

Dan # 60:  Thanks.  I got it last night, read it through, and will be voting for Pandori as a result of what I read.

Reverse sexism is still sexism Wed, May 31, 2006 - 10:47 am

Randi,

Dan may have ‘pulled your chain’ (no female dog reference here), but he did help you expose your true colors.

You are the throwback of a segment of the feminist movement that could accurately be called the ‘anti-male’ movement.

You look so hard for male sexism that you know MUST be there that you actually create it. Your mode of perception is so skewed that you can’t see things for what they are.

Hold the door open, you’re a sexist that is demeaning women. Don’t hold the door open and you are a bigot. I doubt there is anything a man could do in relation to you that would not be considered sexist in your eyes.

It seems to me that the popular opinion is that women can’t be sexist, just as minorities can’t be racist. The whole idea that the terms ‘reverse racism’ and ‘reverse sexism’ exist is proof of that. There is no ‘reverse’ in these matters. Man or Woman, Minority or Majority, sexism and racism are just that.

PS.

Should Brennan’s last name be Potter or Chavez? Does anyone know what it is?

YANK YANK

JohnMichael O'Connor Wed, May 31, 2006 - 10:51 am

Don #61:  I have no indication that you are “on the take”; but I cannot help but wonder how an involved and apparantly intelligent man like yourself can support a person who followed in lockstep behind the most corrupt, morally bankrupt mayoralty this city has ever known.

Better Not Bigger Wed, May 31, 2006 - 11:40 am

#87 Ken,

You are about as open minded as Cindy Chavez is for open government.  Clearly you did not actually bother to read Pandori’s book or understand his vision independent of the predisposed opinion fed to you by your current councilmember.

Do you even commute?  From D3 to where?

David Pandori’s editorial today was enlightening. Why?  Traffic is the voters’ #1 concern.  Today Pandori provided real solutions beyond Bart.  When asked about how to improve traffic congestion, Chavez and other candidates only offer that they support Bart.  Duh!  Bart might solve our problems in 20 years.

You asked how Pandori proposes to finance his traffic improvements.  Read pages 40-42 of Pandori’s book http://www.bettersanjose.com/book.  The answer is simple, setting priorities to make San Jose better and not voting for wasteful spending, i.e. $4 million for car race, $40+ million and rising for a baseball stadium without a team, $36 to settle a lawsuit with the county, cost overruns on city hall, etc, etc.  All items that Cindy Chavez voted for because she is backed by lobbyists, developers, unions and other special interests.  How many people in your neighborhood sent emails to Cindy saying we want a Grand Prix and would like to cut 55 crossing guard positions to pay for it?

If Cindy Chavez cared about traffic congestion and improving air quality for our kids, and we know Don doesn’t, Cindy would think before she voted to waste our money.

Randi Wed, May 31, 2006 - 11:40 am

Sigh…the problem, Dan,  is you can’t see your chain being yanked…in blogshpere no one can see you smile.  While this has been amusing, it’s not very productive…so, on to the issues.

Ken Henderson Wed, May 31, 2006 - 12:22 pm

Bigger,

Your right, Chavez did support all those things and that is why I am not supporting her.  Reed voted against all those things you mentioned and some others you didn’t that would have saved us even more money. 

David says he would change priorities…great they certainly need changing but his solutions if you can call them that are incomplete at best.  Where do we get the money for the parks he talks about? To build the interchanges and 101 widening? Expand light rail? 

Where is the plan to grow our economy? Add jobs? Increase tax revenues, attract business, tourists, and conventions.  San Jose needs to attract people from our neighboring cities to spend their money here, that means retail, entertainment, and restaurants. 

Change our priorities…please tell me there is more to the grand plan that that.

John Douglas Wed, May 31, 2006 - 12:51 pm

Ken - I think you should actually read the book again.  Pandori’s legal knowledge will keep the city out of the courts,  saving big $$$.  He says he will create a parks charter fund like the counties to imnplement his parks plan.  While improving the infrastructure, wide the freeways, light to the airport are just things to attract businesses to the area.  He plans on preserving open space to grow business rather than bedrooms.

Ken Henderson Wed, May 31, 2006 - 1:21 pm

Cortese and Reed are both attorney’s.  Reed specialized in Real Estate law.  They voted differently on the issues that cost us a ton of money with Chuck voting against each of them.  Appearently legal knowledge does not give one the insight to keep us out of court.  If only the council had listened to Chuck. 

Once again everyone wants to improve traffic, but the plans David is proposing will cost 100’s of millions of dollars.  I still have not heard where the money will come from.

Chuck proposed allowing businesses to add to their own buildings to allow them to grow here and add jobs here.  He proposed building housing along the light rail lines to give people who live there the option of using the train rather than their cars to get to work.  He put the housing near the jobs also reducing traffic.  These are concrete solutions that will add jobs,revenue, and housing without increasing traffic.

Saying you want to do something and actually doing it are two very different things. 

KH

Bob Yucca Wed, May 31, 2006 - 1:41 pm

I’m voting for Ken Henderson for Mayor - he’s obviously well read and informed.

Planner Wed, May 31, 2006 - 1:42 pm

101 - That will be a good trick—putting housing near jobs to reduce traffic. Good idea except it doesn’t work around here. Who will pay for the traffic improvements that will be necessary to avoid gridlock if the density is increased to the level that Chuck wants.
Few of the candidates are really saying anything. Pandori has a plan and has solutions to many of our problems. At least he is realistic—he questions opening new city facilities when we can’t keep the old ones opened or properly staffed; he wants to brings some smarts to our planning processes to stop our thirst for sprawl that city services can’t properly reach, etc.
Don’t know what book you’ve been reading but apparently it is not the book that many others have been talking about on this blog.

Bill Swanson Wed, May 31, 2006 - 2:12 pm

Bob Yucca it is clear that you support David Pandori like all his other cronies on this blog. Lets let freedom of speech reign in again and not attack those with different views.

Bill Makar Wed, May 31, 2006 - 2:21 pm

Ken-

Of course you don’t know where Pandori is going to get the money for his projects.  It’s because even Pandori does not know.  But when you have 5% of the vote you make every lie and promise that you can in order to weasel your way into the run-off.  Anybody that does not have their judgment clouded by the green smoke of Pandori can see the truth.

Willow Glen Dad Wed, May 31, 2006 - 2:32 pm

Don,

There are no NIMBYs in your neighborhood. They already have a disproportionate number of burdens on them. As it is, one of Susan Hammer’s last acts on council was to locate CityTeam right on the border of your district. Another case of the city’s dispersal policy being followed in name only. It was from that playbook that she and Margie hatched the EHC plan. Somebody had to stand up to Susan. David did in this and many other situations and he paid a price. That’s called guts and what I want to see in a mayor.

Planner23 Wed, May 31, 2006 - 2:49 pm

According to this Dale Warner, who posts sometimes, Ken, Chuck caused the Berryessa School District a hefty fine.

Also, people say that he meets with developers in violation of the ethics codes, so is the ethics stuff just another red, white, and blue tie that is just for show, but Chuck really is a no go.

PT Barnum Wed, May 31, 2006 - 2:50 pm

102—Heh, heh, heh. That’s a good one, Bob. Perhaps you’d be interested in a bridge I would like to sell.

Ken Henderson Wed, May 31, 2006 - 2:53 pm

Planner - Let me get this straight you oppose sprawl and housing close to jobs/transit.

Having taught in Berryessa/Worried about Reed Wed, May 31, 2006 - 3:00 pm

Dalw Warner:

What you said about these campaign committees worry me.  Because we were told that Chuck Reed was a major leader in bond campaigns and that what he said goes, and we were not ask anuthing ahout what he was doing.  Now he campaigns with a red, white, and blue tie, and claims to be a patriot.  Isn’t that the last refuge of the scoundrel?  I mean if he wants to run our bond campaigns with no questions asked, and he wants to handle issues before the City Council at some offsite location, like Ron, then Chuck Reed worries me.  Huey Long talked about reform and then lined his pocket as the advisor to state campaigns.  How much is Chuck making from these meetings as the developer’s private counsel?

Milhous Wed, May 31, 2006 - 3:01 pm

Bill 104—Different views are fine and dandy. Informed views are even better and that’s the problem with Ken. He either hasn’t read the book or doesn’t understand it. Criticize all you want if you know what you are talking about—if you don’t, then be prepared to be challenged. That’s free speech, too.

O. Boy Wed, May 31, 2006 - 3:05 pm

105—Please, oh please, bestow the truth on us. Is it Cindy’s truth—“I knew nothing about the Grand Prix money ahead of time?,’ or is it “I had nothing to do with the NorCal deal?” Or is is something else?? Please share your wisdom with us—and could you also back up your statement that says Pandori is a liar? The anti-Cindy group at least backs up their attacks with facts. Doubt you can do the same.

Planner Wed, May 31, 2006 - 3:51 pm

109 - Nice try but that’s not what I said. I am not opposed to housing/transit/jobs but there has to be some rational thought behind what the density will be. As proposed, North SJ will sink under its own weight and traffic will be a nightmare. There has to be a balance, which is what Pandori is talking about. It doesn’t have to be all or nothing as you seem to think.

Bill Makar Wed, May 31, 2006 - 4:31 pm

#112 I agree with your distrust of Cindy but do you expect Pandori to be able to deliver on even a fraction of his promises?
Every forum I attend, Pandori seems to have a new, expensive idea for San Jose, of course the ideas sound good but when you look at the city’s funds they do not seem practical.
There is no doubt in my mind that he is playing every crowd, promising each group something that he could never deliver.  A desperate attempt, licking his plate for every last vote.

O. Boy Wed, May 31, 2006 - 4:48 pm

114—OK, at least we agree about Cindy.

Ken Henderson Wed, May 31, 2006 - 5:00 pm

Planner,

I agree with you, I think housing and jobs need to be near transit. I happen to think the plan Reed has proposed will work. If the only issue is the number houses or jobs, I am sure reasonable people will be able to figure that out and make changes if necessary.  The real issue is making sure the employers who are there stay there, it is the only way we will increase the revenues we need to pay for all the “stuff” we all want.

You Asked for it Don Wed, May 31, 2006 - 6:06 pm

Don, 
You boldly stated you would like to compare the records of Pandori vs. Chavez.  I did just that but you have not responded.  You have just 2 hours left to respond.  There are only 6 days left ‘till the election.  Once we finish with today’s topic - Wasted taxpayers money due to illegal land use issues - we will then compare wasted money on projects.  Friday we will compare voting records on historic preservation and Saturday we will be comparing Cindy’s and David’s records on ethics and the public process. 
Don, you are a good spokesperson for Cindy.  I hope you have done your homework. 
All of you undecided voters should take note.  I look forward to your facts.

Chuck good, Pandori great Wed, May 31, 2006 - 6:56 pm

Ken
It is nice to have a new voice on the block.  You are supporting a good man,Chuck Reed. I was going to vote for him until Pandori got into the race.  In responce to your remarks…#87 You say Pandori says about the Coyote Valley “no building no planning nothing’.  That is not true , he says we need to follow the triggers that were set in place, businesses before homes. He says the “new plan” is poor and is incomplete.  He does not want greedy home builders to drive the development of the Coyote Valley.  He wants to use sound planning practices.
Ken#99 you ask how will David attract tourists to San Jose.  Chuck has been on the council for the past six years and under his leadership we don’t even have a real tourist information center downtown.  Chuck has voted to demolish several of our historic resources, the ones that would make our city unique and an attractive tourist destination.  Further more in #101 you remark about Chuck’s background in Real Estate Law,  So why did he vote to break the law and certify an incomplete E.I.R. of the Fox Markovitz Building?  That boo boo cost us taxpayers $3’000,000.
Pandori would preserve our rich heritage, market S.J. and build our great city into a destination point.  Chuck stands above the other three, but Pandori is head and shoulders above Chuck.

Refugio Moreno Wed, May 31, 2006 - 9:54 pm

In response to Mr. Gagliardi’s assertions that David Pandori was ineffective as a councilmember of district #3.

I have lived in district 3 since 1960. in all those years, David is the only coucilmember that I’m aware of, that actually took an interest in his district beyond his closest friends at city hall.

Asside from the all his work on committees, David also took the time to create the Beautification and Bar-B-Q Corps. As a member of the corps, I can remember spending many Saturdays digging holes to plant trees, throwing trash in dumpsters, building a playground, or cleaning graffiti.

It was during all those Saturdays that neighborhood associations came together and began forming bonds unheard of in any major city. If Mr. Gagliardi wants to thank someome for uniting district 3, he should be thanking David. When David left office, Cindy just picked up where David left off, and reaped the benefits of his labor. 

If you can’t remember, maybe you didn’t live here at the time, or simply chose not to participate. We planted a lot of trees!!!

Before you vote for Chavez read this! Wed, May 31, 2006 - 9:54 pm

Please see # 28 Don G. a Chavez spokesperson asks us to compare Pandori vs. Chavez. He says ” you will find that Pandori comes up far less compelling a candidate.
  I took that challenge to compare the two.
Please see #72
After the first day we find Chavez wasted over $50,000,000 on four land use issues.
Don was not able to come up with one example of a Pandori blunder.
Tomorrow we will compre wasted taxpayers money on projects like the Grand Prix and the $8,000,000 tent.  Hope you do better next time Don.

Don Gagliardi Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 10:19 am

#119 (Refugio Moreno):  The B&B Corps is indeed a good thing, and David Pandori deserves credit if as you say he created it.  One of my neighbors, former NNA president Chuck Hagenmaier, has been a leader in the effort, although I believe he has been planting trees in parkstrips long before Pandori came on the scene.

However, I believe the corps of tree planters pales in direct comparison with Cindy Chavez’s primary role in establishing the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative, which has brought tens of millions of dollars in redevelopment funding to under-served neighborhoods and has resulted in the proliferation of neighborhood associations city-wide.  She did not, as you assert, merely pick up where Pandori left off and reap the benefits of what Pandori created.

As for all you anonymous, brown-shirted cowards who have lobbed ad hominem attacks against me on this blog, I am not going to honor you with a discussion.  Identify yourselves and I’ll be happy to debate you about the relative merits of our respective candidates, and I’ll further be happy to compare my civic involvement beyond my own neighborhood with any of you.

Refugio Moreno Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 10:57 am

Mr. Gagliardi. as I stated, when David left office Cindy picked up where he left off. She took it to the next level because she arrived at an opportune time. She took the foundation of the B&B and turned it into a political machine with the funding made available to her. If David is elected, he will have a chance to continue where Cidy leaves off. Not necessarily in the same direction mind you. If you can’t see my point, my best guess is: this is a case where you can’t see the forest through the trees.

Don Gagliardi Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 11:17 am

#122 (Refugio):  You are mistaken.  The B&B Corps, while an admirable organization, is quite modest, and it is definitely not the progenitor of the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative. 

In fact, as Cindy Chavez has said publicly on many occasions, the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative grew out of the demand from my Northside Neighborhood Assn. in 1998 to bring redevelopment funding into the neighborhoods.  That demand, which was my idea, grew out of my frustration with the inability of David Pandori to assist us in revitalizing our North 13th St.  business district, as I’ve written about several weeks ago on this blog.  Pandori suggested we make an application for federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding (administered by a city steering committee), for pedestrian-scale street lights and for median improvements at Old Oakland Rd.  Our CDBG application, which my neighbors and I wasted a lot of time on, was summarily denied because we lacked “leverage” in the form of 50 percent matching funds.  Meanwhile, we have now gotten the street lights and the median improvements, and much more, through SNI thanks to Chavez and the redevelopment funding. 

I’m not suggesting, ala Al Gore and the internet, that I’m personally responsible for the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative, but I do deserve more credit for SNI, and for the improvements on N. 13th St., than does David Pandori.  And certainly, Cindy Chavez deserves credit for SNI, which even the Mercury News acknowledges has been a very good thing for San Jose.

Voter Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 11:20 am

Nice, Don. I don’t believe anything that has been said about your views is as offensive as your personal “brown-shirted cowards” comment. You must be very insecure in your viewpoint that you would have to stoop to a personal attack on folks who are just as well meaning as you and whose only “crime” is that they choose (for a variety of reasons) not to reveal their real names.

Although I disagree with much of what you say I have respected you and honor our right to disagree. I still honor that right but don’t have the same respect for you.

B. Nice Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 12:31 pm

Don
I hope you will exchange facts with #72.  Did Cindy actually vote for those issues?  What did Pandori vote for while in office?The person making the points seems respectful and is not attacking you. They are not even attacking Cindy as a person, as I have seen others do in poor taste. They are only discussing voting records of the candidates.  I hope you were not calling #72 a brown shirted coward. It is okay if he or she does like to use their real name.  By using a pen name it prevents people from making personal attacks against them .  Resorting to name calling only makes Cindy look bad and I am sure you do not want to do that. All he or she has done is take the challenge you proposed. I hope you will respond to the facts posted about Cindy’s voting record and participate in the next round.  The exchange of facts is informative for us all.

Don Gagliardi Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 1:50 pm

#s 124 and 125:  I have in the last couple days been personally attacked as a paid shill for Cindy Chavez who only cares about his own parochial neighborhood by persons on this blog who choose to remain anonymous.  These comments are demonstrably false and defamatory and, in some circles, might earn the makers a bloody nose.  They certainly do not involve a debate of the issues. 

One of these people (Single Gal) is a sponsored columnist on this blog whose identity I’m sure Tom McEnery knows but chooses to keep secret.  McEnery therefore deserves blame for creating an atmosphere of intimidation on this blog by allowing these hooded thugs the opportunity to defame fellow citizens with impunity.  And David Pandori, whom I know reads this blog, deserves blame for not renouncing the anonymous cretins on this blog who claim to support him. 

I have no respect for anyone who gets on this blog and criticizes others behind an alias.  I stand by my characterization of such people as cowardly brownshirts. 

I reiterate my challenge to come out in the open and debate me as folks like Refugio Moreno have done.

Refugio Moreno Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 5:05 pm

Congratulations #23 Mr. Gagliardi for all your hard work and success with Cindy. Your efforts appear to have paid off. Nothing comes easy, as I have found out throughout all the years I invested in my neighborhood. However, we will never know what funding was made available to Cindy durring the high tech boom vs. what was available to David during his term before the boom. You’re comparing apples and oranges. I stand by my statement that Cindy ceased the oppotunity to reep the fruits of David’s labor for the benefit of her political machine.

I consider you and your neighborhood fortunate to have received funding before the new city hall was built. We’re still waitng for the bike trail to be connected from 280 south to Willow Street along the Guadalupe River, and Almaden to be paved from from 280 to Alma. I was hoping they would have some asphalt left over after prepping Vine for the Grand Prix, and continue paving down to Alma Street. Also, we could have used those palm trees at the desolate corner of Alma and Almaden.

Congratulations once again Mr. Gaglardi. Your situation is a case where the sqeeky wheel got the grease before the grease ran out.

Voter Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 5:20 pm

Sounds like somebody is starting to feel the heat of truth. Too bad you’ve chosen the low road of insults, Don. Those of us who have had bad experiences with Cindy have tried to relay them to others via this blog. If, by now, you still can’t understand why some of us choose not to reveal our names, then you just don’t get it.
Cindy, much more than David, has nurtured the atmosphere of intimidation and vendetta by her ongoing support of her mentor, Ron Gonzales. Gonzales has been allowed to run free all these years using the politics of fear and intimidation. What has Cindy done to put a stop to this. You don’t have to answer, because anybody who has been following the downward spiral of SJ politics know exactly what she has done to stop this—nothing, She didn’t get to be Vice Mayor by trying to stop the stink emanating from the Mayor’s office.
You can spew out all the names and insults you want. Most of us will continue what we’ve been doing—pointing out the truth about what has been going on in SJ. We’ll do by discussing voting records, public statements, and personal experience. Insult me all you want. It lowers you as a person and by association makes your candidate even less appealing.
I’ll await your next epistle of insults.
Peace.

Don Gagliardi Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 5:46 pm

#127 (Refugio):  Actually, the sad thing is that SNI would have been even better but for the dot com bust.  There was actually a roughly two-year freeze on SNI redevelopment funding just after our plans were adopted because the State of California kept pilfering our local redevelopment funds to help balance the state budget.  After a time, the funding flow resumed and the various SNI plans have begun being implemented.  So the grease is still there, but there’s less of it.  There is grease not just for my neighborhood but also for your Washington-Guadulpe neighborhood.  And the allocation of the grease has been roughly equitable among SNI areas.

I’m sure Autumn Gutierrez, chair of your SNI group, the Washington Area Coalition (and a Chavez backer—you may have seen her in one of the commercials), can update you on what’s happening in your area.  If you haven’t, I urge you to attend one of their meetings. 

Also, to be fair, the Washington Area Coalition itself predates SNI and David Pandori may even have had a hand in its creation (I don’t know), so, if so, he deserves credit for that.

I love San Jose Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 6:57 pm

Don
Why do you even blog here if you dislike all of us who do not use our real names?  Perhaps some of these polite and respectful individuals are intimidated by your bullying tone.  I come here to learn and exchange ideas with others who care about our great city. We do not all see eye to eye but that is okay. You know the old saying about talking politics and religion. You may want to try using a nom de plume so you won’t take things so personally or weigh in on some of the less volatile issues.  As for all of us we need to remember to
keep this about principles and not personalities.  I, for one, know that I, on occasion, have crossed the line and will do my best in the future to not do so again.

Breaking News Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 7:25 pm

Thank you #130 I love San Jose, for your honest and sincere words. I also crossed the line and I need to apologize. Dennis, i’m sorry about the things I said and calling you names. It was unkind and ugly. I am striving to be a better person and while it’s progress not perfection I seek, I need to do the right thing and say that I was wrong.

Refugio Moreno Thu, Jun 01, 2006 - 9:55 pm

Mr. Gagliardi, I have a laundry list for the neighborhood association. However, this isn’t the forum to express my thoughts or concerns. Maybe after the election I’ll have time to attend some meetings.

As for Autumn, I consider her a friend, we just don’t agree on who our next mayor should be. David Pandori clearly has the better plan for the future of San Jose. He’s not putting any spin on any of his talking points. He’s just stating clearly what his plan is, and his position on issues. When I hear or read Cindy’s message, it’s “ALL SPIN”; Why can’t you see that?

Single Gal Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 8:29 am

Wow, Don G. now I am a “hooded thug”?  Wow, I feel tough! Don’t mess with me people!

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 8:52 am

#s 130 and 131:  I haven’t personally attacked anyone on this blog except anonymous bloggers who—and this is the important limiting criteria—hurl insults at others while hiding their identities.  And that includes, not just Single Gal, but folks who use invective-laden psuedonyms like “You Asked for It Don”, “Bring It on Don” and “Don, You Can’t Handle the Truth.” 

This blog has the potential to be a wonderful forum for respectful, political discourse.  Unfortunately, it has degenerated during the course of the campaign, principally because of anonymous bloggers hurling insults and unsubstantiated charges at candidates and other bloggers.  I’m tired of it, and I’m not going to be baited into an O’Reilly Factor type discussions with these nitwits, most of whom appear to be political operatives for the Pandori campaign. My terms for debate are also the only meaningful way I, as one lone blogger, can register my disgust with this sort of cowardly behavior while remaining a participant on the blog.  I’m glad you two, at least, seem to understand that you may have “crossed the line” at some point and will work to avoid the ad hominem attacks in the future. 

I’m frankly surprised that Tom McEnery has not done more to police this blog to ensure an intelligent and respectful exchange of ideas.  My opinion of him and his accolades, including David Pandori—whom I’ve said before I generally regard to be a good person—has diminished substantially over the course of participating on here and having my integrity and my ethics attacked with impunity by cowardly know-nothings blogging on Pandori’s behalf. 

As I’ve said, why doesn’t someone with the guts to identify himself or herself engage me in a comparative discussion of the records of Pandori and Cindy Chavez?  Is Refugio Moreno the only one among you with the least shred of courage?

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 9:01 am

#132 (Refugio):  Why isn’t this the forum for discussing your laundry list for your neighborhood?  We talk about everything else going on in San Jose.  Maybe the next mayor, whoever it is, will take notice, of what still needs to be done. 

I’m disappointed that you believe that Cindy Chavez is all “spin.”  That has not been my experience with her in my neighborhood, as I’ve discussed on this thread, nor as you concede, has it been your friend Autumn Gutierrez’s experience with Chavez in your neighborhood. 

I respect your view that David Pandori is the better candidate for mayor.  Whoever wins, let’s redouble our efforts to ensure that our underserved neighborhoods receive the respect that’s their due.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 9:04 am

#133 (Single Gal):  Yes, you’re a hooded thug.  You don’t have the courage to identify yourself when you falsely accuse me of being a paid shill for the Cindy Chavez campaign.  Your behavior is reprehensible.

Bedtime for Gonzo Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 9:06 am

#126 Don - if you expect David Pandori to come apologize for the people on this blog who support him, shouldn’t Cindy Chavez do the same or any other candidate for that matter? Be consistent.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 9:20 am

#137 (Bedtime for Gonzo):  Cindy Chavez does not read this blog.  Nor, as I recall, do her supporters hurl insults while hiding behind aliases.  (Rich Robinson and I, and others, have been upfront and above-board on this blog.  Reality Check and Also Single Gal have hidden their identity but refrained from personal attacks.)

If you can cite an example which I’ve overlooked, and if you bring it to her attention, I agree Cindy Chavez should renounce any anonymous bloggers engaging in ad hominem attacks on this board in her name.  The same goes for all the candidates for any office.  No inconsistency here.

Voter Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 10:07 am

Oh, I get it now. It’s OK for Don to launch personal attacks and insults because he uses his name. Very noble, Don. For the most part, most of the “brown-shirted cowards” that write hear do exactly what you ask—engage in political discourse with a variety of opinion. You then go on to do what you claim to despise and launch attacks and innuenedos based on nothing more than your opinion—“...most of whom appear to be political operatives for the Pandori campaign.” BTW—I am not now nor have I ever been a political operative for the Pandori campaign.
Personally, I think you are way over the line and way too sensitive. Much of what is written here can and should be easily dismissed yet you react and respond to it like it was factual gospel.
I don’t understand, and I am sure you can’t explain it, why you don’t just respond to those comments you agree with or disagree with and refrain from the over-the-top dramatic attacks on those you disdain.
Frankly, this blog is becoming a waste of time reading your invectives launched at other writers. Most of us have learned to ignore jerks (not you, but the some of the ones you have attacked.)
Annoymous or not, people have thoughts and ideas and dreams and they should not be denigrated. Writers have long used other names to write under so this blog is nothing new in that regard.
What can we expect next from you? An attack on O. Henry??

JohnMichael O'Connor Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 10:14 am

Don #134:  Policing of this blog by Tom or anyone else is the last thing we need.  That stifles debate and allows only the ideas of the “correct” type to be aired.  I seem to recall it was the brown shirt types who policed speech in our world’s recent history.

It’s like the Constitution, Don—it protects unpopular speech, unpopular ideas.  The popular ones don’t need protection, do they?  It’s one of those small prices we pay for the liberty we enjoy.

I have railed against anonymous bloggers here in the past on many occasions.  I understand that for some, anonymity is necessary to keep their jobs.  For others, I believe its a form of cowardice.  For others still, I am sure it is benign.  Some anonymous bloggers here have compared themselves to pre-revolutionary war pampleteers sometimes; but they ain’t no Franklins or Hamiltons. 

But your suggestion that Tom “police” them is way out of bounds for a free society.  We are still a free society, aren’t we, Don?

On a substantive note:  Don, would you agree that the Gonzales Administration is the most corrupt and morally bankrupt SJ administration in living memory?  Would you agree that Cindy has followed Gonzo—her mentor—in lockstep on virtually every crucial vote?  Would you agree that the evidence is overwhelming that just as Ron deceived us on Norcal, Cindy deceived us re the Grand Prix. Is all that erased in your mind, Don, just ‘cuz she returns your calls and did good for your ‘hood?

JohnMichael O'Connor Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 10:23 am

Don #138:  I can certainly understand why Cindy doesn’t read this blog; and why she ducked so many candidate debates/forums.

But then, she does have you to carry her water on this blog.  You didn’t appear for her in any of the debates, did you?

Mal Content Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 10:28 am

Let me take a moment to adjust my hood so I can see through the eye holes. OK, much better…

Don #123: I thought Ron Gonzales took credit for the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative.
Or was it Cindy Chavez?
The Redevelopment Agency?
Now you tell us it was…drum roll please…Don Gagliardi, but not exactly.

And you wonder why people poke holes in your posts?

I’d love to stay and chat but I’ve got to go wash my brown shirt.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 10:59 am

#s 140 & 141 (John Michael O’Connor):  Since you have identified yourself, I’m happy to respond to you: 

The Constitution does not protect unpopular speech on this blog.  Under the state action doctrine, the Constitution only restricts governmental restraints on speech.  This is a private blog sponsored by private citizens, and therefore does not come under the ambit of the free speech clause.  Further, even within the ambit of the Constitution, there are limits to free speech, among which is defamation law.  The protection afforded for public figures like candidates for office is slight, but there is much more for innocent bloggers like me.  The protection afforded by defamation law to anonymous bloggers is non-existent because no one knows who they are, and their reputations accordingly cannot be harmed. 

On a substantive note:  I don’t know enough about the Gonzales administration to say whether or not it is “corrupt” or “morally bankrupt”; I await the grand jury report like the rest of you.  His administration has certainly been arrogant, and Joe Guerra is a first-class jerk.  Gonzales was rightly censured for his actions regarding the NorCal contract, and Guerra should rightly be punished (has he been yet?).  But at present I have no evidence that either is corrupt or has acted other than what he perceives is the best interest of the city, even though I may disagree with that perception in given respects. 

Further, I do not agree that Gonzales is Cindy Chavez’s “mentor” or that she bears responsibility for the actions of Gonzales or his staff.  Chavez has said that she was not aware at the time of the secret negotiations involving NorCal that Gonzales and Guerra had back in 2000.  Absent evidence to the contrary (of which I’ve seen none), I believe her.  Indeed, her denials are consistent with my recollection that Chavez was in Gonzales’ doghouse at that time. 
Finally, absent evidence to the contrary (of which again I’ve seen none whatsoever), I don’t agree that Cindy Chavez did anything deceptive whatsoever regarding the grand prix.  I disagree with her vote for the grand prix subsidy (as I’ve said many times already and as I’ve told her personally), but the vote was in public and on the record and supported by more than two-thirds of her council colleagues.  There is no evidence whatsoever of any “backroom deal” and the Mercury News has studiously avoided accusing her of a “backroom deal” (because, I believe, the paper’s lawyers are quite conversant with that ticklish little thing I mentioned called defamation law).  Nonetheless, through innuendo, on the flimsy basis of emails showing Cindy Chavez met with grand prix officials and knew they wanted a subsidy of some unspecified kind, the Merc has created a ugly environment in which others, including the Chamber of Commerce and anonymous bloggers on this site, have felt empowered to make unsubstantiated allegations of a “backroom deal.”  (And the Chamber did in fact make allegations of a “backroom deal” in the mailer I got; and those allegations are not truthful, at least not on the basis of any evidence that I’ve seen in the Mercury News or elsewhere).  These allegations are worse than mere smears, they are hypocrisy because, of course, not only did Pat Dando and the Chamber want the subsidy of the grand prix but so, too, did the Mercury News. 

Against these smears, I do have personal knowledge of a body of great work that Cindy Chavez has done for my neighborhood and other neighborhoods in the downtown for a period of several years now.  And I’d be honored to appear on her behalf in any debates she is unable to attend because she’s doing the city’s business.

Chavez Will Lose Race Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 11:01 am

Chavez has a strong base and she might be able to summon up 35% of the vote, tops, but based on all the press, polling, blogging, editorials, etc, the ABC vote (aka Anti-Gonzales vote) is even stronger.  There is no doubt there will be a run-off.

Who will be the winner? 
The person that is in the run-off with Chavez will be the winner.

If your ABC candidate does not make into the run-off, where do you throw your support?  Behind the candidate that is NOT Chavez. 

There is no way the Chavez camp will be able to make up an extra 16 points needed in run-off with Anti-Gonzales voters.

If you were going to vote for Chavez, you should consider who you want out of the 4 other candidates, because there are far too many ABC voters.  The only throw away vote in this race, is a vote for Chavez.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 11:03 am

#142 (Mal Content):  The answer is “all of the above.”  SNI, like most good things, is something for which many can take a share of the credit.  However, David Pandori is not one of those who can do so.

Bill Mason Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 12:11 pm

Geez, it must be nice to see things through your eyes, Don. Support Cindy all you want but please don’t insult our intelligence. Gonzales is not her mentor? Do you think most of us just landed on the planet and know nothing about the past??

All the arguments about NorCal and the Grand Prix have been made and you just don’t want to face the ugly reality of it. That’s OK—others have been elected by counting on the blind loyalty of their followers. So you may or may not prevail by supporting Cindy’s campaign of deflection—don’t address the issues and maybe you’ll get away with it.
But, perhaps the key weakness in your argument and one that others have chipped away at for weeks on this blog, is when you say “I do have personal knowledge of a body of great work that Cindy Chavez has done for my neighborhood and other neighborhoods in the downtown for a period of several years now.” What about the rest of the city that is not downtow? That points out Cindy’s lack of a vision for the WHOLE city which is why we have so many of the problems we have today. Each councilmember has become so focused on their little part of the city that the city as a whole has deteriorated. She has not indicated that she is able or willing to look at the entire San Jose nor has she articulated a vision (outside of the schools and which the mayor has very little to do with) for the entire city.
I prefer someone who will look at all of SJ and work to make all of it better. When that happens, maybe then we can see what little we can do for the schools. When we have all of our basic city services under control, maybe then we can look at nice extras like the schools. Until then, I want a mayor who will put all of the city first, before dealing with non-city services.

Peace Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 12:42 pm

Don
I looked back at # 72 and # 177…“Don You asked for it” .  I did not see any insult or attack made by them towards you.  In fact they said you were a good spokesperson for Cindy.  They then took up your challenge to compare the voting records of David vs. Cindy as you had asked..They asked you to bring on your side of the facts and that was that.  This site is not about each bloggers personal ego, in fact using a nom de plume prevents that, it is about the future of our city.  I am with #131 and hope you follow.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 1:17 pm

#146 (Bill Mason):  I do think many on this blog are ignorant of the richness of the factual milieu.  I think many exist in an echo chamber in which they hear Cindy-Chavez-is-a-Ron-Gonzales-clone and begin to believe it without a basis for doing so.  Chavez is NOT a clone of the mayor, and she’s disagreed with him publicly on many things, and, so I’m told, privately on many more.  (Indeed, I’m told by credible sources close to Chavez that she and the mayor don’t like each other personally; Chavez would never confirm this to me or anyone else if it were true because she’s too much of a lady.)  The fact that, largely because of Chavez’s refusal to attack the mayor publicly, she can talk candidly with him has been a boon to her district and to the entire city.  Chavez’s disarming ability to maintain good relations with people she may not like personally, or who may even be her political enemies, is a good thing, not a bad one; and it stands in direct contrast to the horrible relations between David Pandori and former Mayor Susan Hammer, which were counter-productive for Pandori’s downtown district.

Chavez led the motion to censure Mayor Gonzales.  Many also don’t recall that years ago she voted in opposition to the motion to bring city hall downtown.  (Yes, she may have later approved appropriations measures for the new city hall, but by then the move was fait accompli.)  There are numerous examples where the mayor and Chavez have diverged. 

Telling me I “don’t want to face the ugly reality” of NorCal and the grand prix is not a convincing line of argument.  I require a modicum of proof before I will jump onto a lynch mob seeking to tar and feather a public servant, or anyone else, accused of being corrupt, unethical or dishonest.  Give me the evidence and I will face it.  This isn’t the first time I’ve asked for evidence and gotten nothing more than a venomous retort that I cannot face the facts. 

As for Cindy Chavez’s focus on downtown, that is to be expected, since that is her district.  But, in fact, she has always been quite interested in promoting the welfare of the entire city.  She spearheaded the Megan’s Law task force, the Children’s Health Initiative (one of the thing’s that got her in Gonzales’ doghouse, since he did not initially support it), and of course Chavez is a driving force behind the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative (which exists in areas city-wide), among other things.  (Without Chavez, for example, there would not be the recently opened Fuller Park in North Willow Glen in District 6, in the Greater Gardner area long ignored by past councilpeople because it straddles the D3 and D6 borders.)  Moreover, to hear Chavez tell it, the grand prix itself is not merely good for the downtown but the entire city.  (The Chamber of Commerce agrees—but that won’t stop them from smearing Cindy because, after all, she’s with Labor.)  The charge that Chavez is parochial and only concerned about her backyard simply does not stick.

True confessions Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 1:21 pm

Don
My parents tought me at a very young age that when I was in an other person’s home I was to respect the rules of their home.  If I found that what they were doing was wrong, I was to leave and never to return again.  If I found what they were doing was illegal is was to tell the police along with my parents.  Short of telling your parents I suggest you treat Mr. Mc Enery’s blog the same way.
  As for one of the reasons I do not use my real name ,  I did not want people to know that I spell like an eighth grader without spell check.  But after seeing last nights national spell off I now I must spell at a third grade level.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 1:24 pm

#147 (Peace):  I won’t respond to someone who goes by the name, “Don:  You asked for it”.  Maybe I’m unduly sensitive, but I find it offensive. 

As you can see by my discourse with Refugio Moreno and with John Michael O’Connor, I will engage a substantive discussion with real people willing to have an honest exchange.  Why don’t you identify yourself and adopt the questions you would like me to answer, and we can do the same?

Voter Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 1:35 pm

Peace—Thanks for your post. Hopefully Don will read it. He probably won’t respond though since you are one of the “brown-shirted cowards” (a comment he has yet to apologize for.)
Thanks though for trying to return some sanity to this conversation.

Bill Mason Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 2:03 pm

Don - Thanks for the response. I won’t respond item by item but suffice it to say we see things very differently.
I still feel that to say Cindy made the motion to censure Gonzales is a bit of an insult to my intelligence. She did so when she had no other choice—she followed the parade rather than led it.
I don’t think you will find very many times when she differed with the Mayor on a vote. My point being that if your voting record nearly matches the Mayor, then you must agree with most of what he is doing.
What you see as Cindy’s disarming ability I see as trying to play all sides of an issue and then doing what you want regardless of what you have told people you would do. I can respect disagreement. Tell me what your position is—if I disagree I will change your mind. If I don’t then at least I will know where you stand. My interaction with Cindy has caused me to distrust anything she says because I can’t count on what she says. That is not a quality I want in a mayor.
Anyway, here’s to a long weekend of discussion and analysis. We can all be thankful that at least Phase 1 of this way too campaign is almost over.

SJ Downtowner Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 2:04 pm

Don Gagliardi said “The fact that, largely because of Chavez’s refusal to attack the mayor publicly, she can talk candidly with him has been a boon to her district and to the entire city.”

I don’t agree with this statement but you have summed up with Chavez will not win the election. She may not be a Gonzales clone but in the eyes of many, she certainly was sleeping with the enemy.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 2:06 pm

#149 (True confessions):  The problem with this blog is that there apparently are no formal rules.  Nonetheless, customary rules ought to be applied in an even-handed manner but have not been. 

Awhile back Tom McEnery gently chided me for saying that the late Joyce Ellington was “misguided” in her support for one candidate over another in a race years back.  I meant no disrespect to Ms. Ellington, who was a dear friend of mine, but merely to convey my disagreement with her on that point.  I’m sure McEnery understood the context that but still felt compelled to interject on this blog. 

By the same token, McEnery might certainly exercise at least that same modicum of control when anonymous bloggers are engaged in character assasination on here.  He might interject his voice to maintain decorum.  Instead, of late, he’s been silent.  One of his privileged minions, Single Gal, who has a weekly column on this blog and whose identity McEnery must know, has accused me, without evidence because it’s not true, of being a paid shill for Cindy Chavez.  What has McEnery said about that?  Absolutely nothing. 

No, there are no house rules on this blog, and if there are they’re certainly not being applied evenly.

Novice Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 2:25 pm

Is it true that Cindy Chavez is a Gonzalez clone? 

My neighbor told me this yesterday.  I thought he was crazy but wanted to check here first.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 2:35 pm

#151 (Voter):  I’ve already responded to Peace, as you can see (#150). 

As for your concern about my reference to brown-shirted cowards, why do you think it refers to you?

And I have no intention of apologizing:  a brown-shirted coward is exactly what someone is who criticizes someone else while hiding his or her identity.

Voter Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 3:03 pm

Don—I don’t recall the exact words you used but I believe it was a fairly broad net you cast on those who do not use their names. While I don’t believe I have engaged in any attacks I also don’t think the comments of others deserve the brown-shirt tag. Obviously we disagree on this issue.

Don Gagliardi Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 3:43 pm

#157 (Voter):  Fair enough; we can disagree about whether my brown-shirt tag is over-wrought. 

Hopefully, however, I’ve made my point about the unfairness of anonymous bloggers making personal attacks on other bloggers or candidates (especially when those attacks are false or unsubstantiated), and I did not intend to cast my net any broader than that.  I certainly did not mean to disparage anyone simply because they support a candidate other than mine (although such disparagement is what I have been subjected to). 

I’m hopeful that by making my point we can create a safer space on here for everyone to feel that they can air their opinions without fear of being personally attacked.  Maybe then more folks will wade in and even identify themselves.  The discussion will be richer for it. 

I really do believe this blog is a good thing for San Jose, and Tom McEnery is to be commended for creating it, but it has shown the capacity in the heat of the campaign battle to become a forum for ugliness of all sorts.  Anonymity is one of the features that has allowed this.  (I don’t believe the Mercury News permits letter writers to remain anonymous.)  Many other online forums, although allowing anonymity, are moderated and some consideration might be given to ensuring greater moderation on here, without destroying the debate itself.

JohnMichael O'Connor Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 4:54 pm

Donnie G, #143 & others.

I have to agree with Voter #139’s characterization of what you are devolving to.

I am not a Pandori operative.  I was a Reed fan until I pondered his record re gonzo-Chavez, and was really convinced by Pandori’s little book.  Pandori seems to have the most cohesive, well thought out plan.

Re the Constitution thing—I have known for decades that the Constitution protects interference with free speech by government, not private citizens.  I was using an analogy to it in my reference to rptecting free blogging.  I believe the concept is similar.

recently, a respected appellate court gave the same rights to blogers re their anonymous sources and “recognized” journalists have had for years by statute.

But you seem to have missed the point entirely, Don.  Free speech should be protected on blogs; like your characterization of some bloggers here as “hooded brown shirts”.  It’s that Goose/Gander thing, Don.

I have reviewed your series of postings, and it’s pretty clear to me going over the history of your postings that you’re losing it, Don.  You need to get back on decaf and stick to the facts. 

You call yourself an “innocent blogger” and demand that Big Brother Tom McE protect you from verbal assualts on this blog.  Who protects others from your verbal assualts?  Will you let Big Brother Tom McE do that, as well? Great!  I’m sure Tom would love to take on that role.

On Cindy’s Grand Prix vote, did you forget about the proven fact that she met with those guys last August (I believe) and never told anyone?  Don, lose the blinders, OK?  Does she have to be convicted of a felony before you get real?  In public office, the appearance of impropriety should be avoided at all times.  Cindy has not met that test, and your blind following of her until she’s incarcerated doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Don, the more I read from you, the more convinced I become that your passion for Cindy arises out of unmitigated self-interest—she has helped you and your neighborhood, and you get a charge out of the fact that she returns your calls…you have access.  It’s gone to your head.  Thus, you ignore all the evidence of her mendacity and her lockstep adherence to the Gonzo-Phaedra line.

Bill Mason #146 said it well.  We have a Balkanized city, due primarily to district voting.  You like Cindy ‘cuz she helped your ‘hood.  What abouth the rest of the town?  What about her blind adherence to the Gonzo/Guerra putsch?  What has she done for Cambrian, Willow Glen, Almaden, Berryessa, Evergreen?  Why has she been SOOOO absent from the debates?

Refugio Moreno Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 5:01 pm

Mr. Gagliardi, in response to your proposition to work together with the next mayor for the betterment of our two neighborhoods: I don’t see why we couldn’t find a middle ground. The only problem I se is that your neighborhood is way ahead of the curve when you compare it to ours. I don’t know if your issues would neccessarily be the same as ours. Northside is at about the same level as Willow Glen. In addition to two major one way streets splitting our neighborhood, Guadalupe Washington is still trying to deal with the impact of a community that is 75% to 80% rental, and one of the lowest income levels in San Jose. We’ll just have to wait and see.

As for Autumn supporting Cindy, I hope she’s not endorsing her in the name of our neighborhood. I don’t recall ever receiving a letter or a notice from anyone allowing me the oppotunity to approve or disapprove an endorsment.

Mal Content Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 5:22 pm

#154 Don,

Actually there are formal rules here. I’m sure that a competent attorney would not have overlooked The Comment Policy that can be found at the bottom of the home page:

http://sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/Comment_Policy/

If some here find some of your posts “ignorant of the richness of the factual milieu” (nice phrase!) and you respond by calling them part of a “lynch mob” or “brown shirted cowards” (not such nice phrases!) it becomes very difficult for you to then claim the moral high ground.

That would be sort of like Cindy Chavez calling factual references to her record a “smear,” but I digress…

#72 Fri, Jun 02, 2006 - 8:33 pm

Don
You must be younger than I thought.  There was a T.V. show in the late 50’s, early 60’s named “You Asked For It”.  A person would write in and ask a question.  At the start of each segment they would begin with ..........you asked for it . Then they would give their answer. Well you make me feel old.  No attack was intended, in fact I thought we were going to have some fun.  Would you like to compare voting records now?

Lurker Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 8:08 am

I’m amazed at how many people make numerous posts during the work day.

Dan G., Were you at work at all on Friday?  You seem to have spent all day posting to San Jose inside.  Where did you bill your time to?

For someone who’s “not a paid shill” for Cindy Chavez, you’re sure donating a lot of time advocating for her. 

I don’t know what your billable rate as an attorney is, but let’s assume $300/hour for an experienced litigator. 

At this point you’ve contributed tens of thousands of $$$$ to Cindy’s campaign just through the time you’ve spent posting to this blog!

Lurker Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 8:29 am

Correction.

Don G. not Dan G.

Don Gagliardi Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 8:53 am

#160 (Refugio):  I absolutely think our neighborhoods can work together on issues of common interest. 

I appreciate your view that Northside is at the same level as Willow Glen, but I think you give us too much credit.  We may be further along than Guadulupe Washington, but we struggle with many of the same issues.  Northside is also predominately a rental community (60 percent or so) with median income below the city-wide average.  There is a reason why most my neighborhood is within the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative, whereas Willow Glen is not.

Autumn Gutierrez and I are already involved in the process of working together on issues common to our neighborhoods (for example, finding funding for conversion of the one-way couplets like Autumn & Vine and N. 10th & 11th Sts.)  One of our vehicles is the Downtown Neighborhood Leadership Forum (DNLF), which brings together neighborhood leaders throughout the downtown—no elected officials welcome.  We meet regularly on Saturday mornings and communicate as neighborhood leaders through an email group.  I’d be happy to sponsor your membership if you’re interested. 

Finally, Gutierrez is undoubtedly supporting candidates in her own name, not the name of her neighborhood group, as is generally true for all downtown neighborhood leaders who wade into the political process.

Don Gagliardi Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 9:18 am

#159 (John Michael O’Connor):  Telling me that I’m “losing it” or that “unmitigated self-interest” motivates by posts is really not appreciated.  You don’t have to attack me personally to make your point.  Your comments in this regard only underscore my point that there is a real strain of ad hominem ugliness on this blog.  I suppose I could just ignore it, write off this blog and go about my business.  And I may yet.  But I’d like to see the blog turned around because it could be a good thing for the democratic governance of San Jose, instead of what it has degenerated into, primarily a partisan forum for attacking one candidate, Cindy Chavez, along with anyone who may voice dissent from the anti-Chavez hordes here.

So, it’s a proven fact that Chavez met with grand prix officials.  So what?  It’s not proven that they discussed the details of the subsidy being requested.  Chavez denies it; prove to me that she’s lying. 

Moreover, even if Chavez did discuss with grand prix officials the details of the subsidy, it does not follow that they entered into a “backroom deal” or “secret deal,” as is charged by the Chamber of Commerce and others. 

You misrepresent my position when you suggest I need to see Chavez “convicted of a felony” or “incarcerated” before I will cease defending her on the grand prix issue.  What I have said is that I need to see proof that speaks to the charge being levelled against her.  I haven’t even said that I need “probable cause”, only proof.  And as I’ve said there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Chavez did a “secret deal” or “backroom deal” with grand prix officials.  None.  Nada. 

Further, what are people really saying when they use vague innuendo like “backroom deal”?  Are they suggesting that Chavez took a bribe?  Are they suggesting some sort of illegal quid-pro-quo?  If so, come out and say it.  What is the actual charge of illegality or unethical conduct?  I don’t need a conviction of Chavez, but I sure would like an actual allegation of actual misconduct, not merely a smear.

Don Gagliardi Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 9:30 am

#162:  I must, indeed, be younger than you thought.  I wasnt’ born then. 

Ok, in light of your explanation, here’s my take on the 4 issues you mention back in post #72:

North San Jose—I’ve blogged on this at length on here already.  Intensifying development of North San Jose is a good thing, as 4 of the 5 candidates already agree.  Further, as folks have pointed out, Pandori may not be so far removed from the rest of the candidates on this issue.  The fact that San Jose may have lost in litigation to the County on this issue does not detract for the correctness of the policy (and, as I understand it, San Jose actually won the litigation against the cites of Santa Clara and Milpitas, although the latter may appeal.)  I don’t know the legal ins-and-outs (and the city attorney deserves blame more than non-lawyer Chavez if the city’s legal position was without any colorable basis) but, regardless, consider the litigation costs and judgment part of the overall cost of a project which will pay rich dividends to the city in the long run.  Further developing North San Jose is essential to the long-term health of the city. 

Let me deal with the other issues you raise in follow-up blasts lest I run out of space. . . .

Don Gagliardi Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 9:46 am

#162 (aka #72):  Continuing my response:

Tropicana— This is another issue in which it is not clear that Pandori would have voted differently than Chavez (and I am discounting any self-serving after-the-fact campaign platitudes.) 

I was deeply troubled by the effort to take this private, east-side shopping center by eminent domain so as to provide it to other private developers, and expressed my concerns along with many other neighborhood leaders from across the city when the major property owner, Dennis Fong, brought his issue before the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative Project Area Committee (SNI PAC), consisting of elected resident-reps from across the city.  However, our concerns were tempered by the desires of the immediate east-side residential community surrounding the shopping center, who contended that the center had been blighted for many years and all efforts to deal cooperatively with Fong and the other owners had failed.  The immediate residents had made cleaning up the center the top priority of their Strong Neighborhoods revitalization plan, and the district 5 and district 7 councilmembers were also adamant that something needed to be done.  For context, this was at a time before the U.S. Supreme Court’s Kelo decision, which upheld this sort of eminent domain but which also gave great public awareness to its potential injustice. 

As I say, on balance, I thought it was a bad idea, but it’s not surprising that elected officials would have tried to make use of every legal tool at their disposal to clean up a blighted shopping center and to make the residents happy.  Isn’t that why we elect them?  Even so, Chavez was not among the leaders on this initiative, and it is unfair to single her out.  (Cortese also voted with her on this, for example.)  And it’s not clear to me that Pandori would have acted differently (and if he had he might have paid a serious price with his colleagues in his effort to get help in his own district.)

Now, even though as I understand it the city had the legal right to do what it attempted to do (see Kelo), the city botched the job in preparing the EIR, as I recall.  (I could be wrong, as I have only a vague recollection of the legal decision; but if I’m right, fault city staff and the city attorney before you fault any of the elected officials.)  Ultimately, rather than go back and do it right, the city threw in the towel and worked out a settlement, which resulted in the payment of significant legal fees to Fong et al. 

Not a shining hour for the city, but I think it’s unfair to single out Cindy Chavez for not throwing her body in front of this train wreck. 

I’ll continue on to the remaining issues in subsequent posts . . .

Don Gagliardi Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 9:55 am

#162 (aka #72):  Continuing . . .

Fairgrounds lawsuit:  This is an issue on which I’m convinced that David Pandori would have voted exactly as Cindy Chavez did.  The reason is that the Sharks and their economic interests downtown, appear to have animated the city’s actions.  Because Tom McEnery is one of Pandori’s benefactors, I am quite confident that Pandori would have done McEnery’s bidding on this, just as the rest of the city council did. 

The county may have won the suit (again, whether the city’s position was even colorable is question to be raised with the city attorney rather than non-lawyer Chavez), but everyone including the Mercury News agrees that its pursuit of a music hall at the fairgrounds is utter folly and contrary to the best interests of county residents.  (By the way, prior to the lawsuit, I wrote an op-ed in the Mercury News suggesting that the fairgrounds be used for a soccer stadium for the Earthquakes, surrounded by athletic fields for the community.  Had anyone listened to me among the county supervisors, we would still have the Quakes, and we would be well on our way to the fairgrounds park that Pandori says he wants.)

Again, although Chavez deserves her proportionate share of the blame for this fiasco, it is unfair to single her out or to suggest that Pandori would have done anything differently. 

. . .

Don Gagliardi Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 10:02 am

#162 (#72):  Continuing . . .

Fox-Markovitz Bldg:  I won’t defend Cindy Chavez or the city council on its razing of this historic building to make way for the new city hall employees’ garage. 

I suggested long ago that the city make use of the county white elephant garage on Hedding St. and shuttle employees from there to the city hall downtown.  (Similar to what Stanford University does with its outlying employee garages in a geographic area not dissimlar to the greater downtown in San Jose.)  Alternatively, city employees could be urged to take light rail from civic center station to downtown. 

There are some 1200 empty spots in the county garage, and this would have avoided the substantial cost of a new garage downtown, which could have paid for shuttle service into the next millenium, and which would have saved the Fox-Markovitz Bldg.  (City employees were already used to driving over toward Hedding St.) 

Nobody listened to me.  But, for sake of argument, I’ll assume David Pandori would have.

I Love San Jose so I'm voting for Pandori Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 10:20 am

#163
Please stop with the “paid shill” thing.  Let’s all keep our focus on the issues. Don’s track record proves he donates a great deal of time to make his neighborhood a better place. This election is not about Mr. G.  I do not know who you are supporting but I will be doing all that I can to spread the good word about David Pandori’s plan for San Jose’s future.
    If you want to attack Chavez,  all you need to do is look at her voting record:  $8,000,000 spent for a tent,  $4,000,000 deal struck for the Grand Prix without public review, $40,000,000 spent to date on a ball park site that has no team, no public support and has yet to be put to a vote. There was the $11,000,000 payed to Norcal that the city was not legally required to pay (a deal which is now being investigated by the D.A.)  Then there were the following votes that not only wasted our money, but were considered illegal by the courts:  $8,000,000 on the Tropicana,  $3,000,000 on the Fox-Markovitz building and $36,000,000 on the County Fairgrounds and the $36,000,000 that the court set-aside for the NSJ Plan.  Then there were her votes to destroy our historic resources.  She voted to demolish Del Monte Plant #3 rather than reusing the most historic portions for artist lofts and affordable housing.  She voted to destroy the Fox-Markovitz building and I.B.M. building #25, which qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places.  In the debate, at the California Theater, she said she was willing to throw the design guidelines for the National Historic Commercial District out the window.  Previously, she had voted to approve those same guidelines. 
  Wasted tax payers’ money, broken laws, destroyed historic resources and a blatant disregard for the public process are the reasons I will not vote for Chavez.  I would not vote for any of the three incumbents who contributed to the mess we are in now, but Chavez clearly has the worst record.
    Time is short and we have three days left until the election.  Rather than attack eachother I respectfully invite any Chavez supporter to correct me if I have inaccurately stated Cindy’s voting record.  I welcome any comparisons between Chavez’s and Pandori’s voting records on historic preservation, fiscal responsibility, public process and knowledge of the law.

JohnMichael O'Connor Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 12:57 pm

Don #166:  If you think my statement that you’re “losing it” is an ad hominem “attack”, you are way too thin-skinned to be on this blog, or in any public forum.  I’m tempted to call you a whining little weenie, but that would be an ad hominem attack, so I’ll refrain from doing so.  If you can’t stand the heat…you finish the phrase, Don, and then decide whether to abandon this blog to the brown shirts (Oh, that’s not an ad hominem attack to you, is it , DON)?

DSo, Don, when Cindy met with the Grand Prix officials what do you think they talked about—Bary Bonds and steriods, recipes for chocolate chip cookies.  Gimme a break, Don.  As I said in an earlier post, you won’t believe the obvious until her sentencing hearing, and if there isn’t one, you’ll continue in your blind faith belief that she’s a an innocent little girl with a nice smile who returns your calls all the time.

I agree with your conclusion in #168 that it’s unfair to single out Cindy re Tropicana—that was a failure across the board.  The entire administration should take the blame for that one.

Nice summary of a dismal record, #171.  Any comment, Don?  No ad hominem there, even by your definition.

#72 Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 6:30 pm

Don #167, #169, #170

I am glad you decided to participate.  I am sure this will be a learning experience for us all.  First, it is not our role to second guess judicial decisions or retry any of these cases on this blog.  Neither is it realistic to guess how another candidate may have voted.  Please feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented the courts rulings or the wasted dollars associated with the projects.  By the way, Pandori’s book states that the North San Jose settlement is costing the taxpayers $36,000,000. 
In blog #72, I listed four land use cases in which Cindy voted to break the law resulting in a total cost to taxpayers of $83,000,000.  In order to compare records, it is now incumbent upon you to cite any instances when Councilman Pandori voted to break the law in land use cases resulting in wasted tax dollars.
As I stated in the beginning, let’s agree not to use the excuse that some of the other council members voted to break the law.  The fact is, our next mayor must be a leader and not a follower.  Wouldn’t you agree? 
Thank you for your honesty and I am looking forward to our next round:  projects that wasted tax dollars.

SJ Downtowner Sat, Jun 03, 2006 - 6:32 pm

#169 Don - on your assumption that Pandori would have voted the same way as Cindy - to sue the County - I think that you are partially correct.

The City farted around for so long when they knew that the County was working on this at the fairgrounds. Had they acted on this much, much sooner, they could have avoided the lawsuit and settlement.

Would David had acted sooner? I would like to think Yes and since Tom McEnery is his “benefactor” he probably would have taken his advice to deal wth this issue before it got to the $36 million lawsuit and tried to work with the county for a suitable use - such as a soccer field, park, etc. - instead of against them.

Don # 167, 168, 170 Sun, Jun 04, 2006 - 10:31 am

To continue our quest to compare Chavez’s and Pandori’s track records while on the council…
TODAY’S TOPIC:
WASTED TAXPAYERS MONEY ON PROJECTS
Cindy not only voted for the following projects, but costly mistakes were made under her watch.

The budget for the New City Hall was $383,000,000 and the actual cost was
$499,000,000.  The result of the project being 56% over budget was an additional tax burden to citizens of…......$216,000,000

Lost revenue from
not renting old City Hall…..$6,000,000/yr
(note:  this rent revenue would have more than covered parks dept. budget cuts)
or
Lost revenue from sale
of old City Hall…...............$20,000,000
Additional cost incurred for poorly managed Cisco bidding….................$2,000,000 (this is a conservative est. of cost)  Also, note that Cindy voted to end investigation into this fiasco.
Money spent for a ballpark site that has no team, no league approval and no vote of approval by the public….....$40,000,000
to date
Wasted money on NorCal
garbage payment…............$11,000,000
The city was not legally required to pay this amount and the DA is presently investigating why Cindy and others approved this payment.
Grand Prix subsidy…...........$4,000,000
We could argue forever on this one but the fact of the matter is we will never know if the taxpayers would have preferred their money to be spent on the race or parks, potholes. or children’s education.  It may be argued that the expenditure was a good business move, yet I’m sure you and Cindy would agree, the lack of public process was not a good career move. 
Tent for the Convention Ctr…$8,000,000
When you consider the life expectancy of the building, cost per square foot and return on investment-no developer in his right mind would ever make such an expenditure.  This does not even include an estimate of lost revenue if the land had been used alternatively. 
Grand Total….....$301,000,000 or $287,000,000
We can not afford a Mayor who lacks fiduciary responsibility.
Please note Don-voting records on historic preservation is next.

WatchDog Sun, Jun 04, 2006 - 11:42 am

And don’t forget the original estimate for the new City Hall was closer to $253 Million but that was soon forgotten.
Lets hope Cindy balances her own checkbook better than she does our checkbook with our money.

WatchDog Sun, Jun 04, 2006 - 2:37 pm

Oh, one other thing. The NorCal gift of public funds was actually $11.25 million—but what’s another quarter of a million dollars amongst “friends?”

#72 Sun, Jun 04, 2006 - 5:15 pm

#175 should read to Don #167,#168,#170
  And posted by # 72.

Another $80,000,000 to you Don Mon, Jun 05, 2006 - 10:01 pm

You also need to add another $80,000,000 that Cindy Chavez voted for in a last minute private meeting in an attempt to keep the Quakes in San Jose.

Yet another bad decision that will not get fully exposed until after the election.  Was this your idea open government Don?