Yes Means No, And No Means Yes

Welcome to the City of Santa Clara where “Yes” means No, and “No” means yes.  That is, when it comes to the Measure J Campaign, the drive to build a football stadium for the 49ers. A posting on the website, Save Santa Clara.com, indicated that supporters of Measure J had gone to the trouble of registering several different domain names that might have been useful to the opposition.  Apparently, it’s true.

If you Google Search http://www.votenoonj.com , you are offered a “Yes on J” site that is run by Santa Clarans for Economic Progress, who are supporters of Measure J.  According to GoDaddy.com, the “votenoonj.com” domain name was registered by Santa Clarans for Economic Progress!

Of course, “hijacking” domain names is legal, but is it ethical or fair?  If the supporters of Measure J have such a superior argument, what are they afraid of?  Why the need to resort to such a tactic?  The 49ers and the City of Santa Clara are asking voters to take a leap of faith and to trust that the promises outlined in Measure J will be delivered.  How does using the “Vote No on J” domain name work towards building that trust?  Very poor form, if you ask me.

8 Comments

  1. Pete,
    So what? It just means one side was more organized than the other. If the other side had thought of it first they would have done it too. It is called politics. I have lived in Santa Clara my whole life. They have made bold moves in the past that have paid great dividends for the residents such as owning our own power company and buying the land that Great America is on and collecting rent. They also took a chance in building up the North side of Santa Clara when nothing was there which is now home to Intel and other large corporations which is why the tax base is so big, unlike San Jose which is a sprawl of unplanned housing with a little tax base. That is why San Jose is in such trouble now. The stadium will pass creating thousands of jobs which will benefit Santa Clara and San Jose.

    • You may be correct about the benefits but I would be leery of supporting this based on the sneaky tactics outlined here. You say one side was more organized but I say one side is more ethical. If the stadium supporters have such a strong argument why do they have to stoop to deception and misinformation to make their case? It may be politics but that doesn’t make it right and I won’t support unethical and deceitful campaigns like this one.

    • “So what? It just means one side was more organized than the other.”

      Hey, if that’s your standard ie., if it ain’t a formalized criminal or civil offense, then there’s nothing wrong with it, well, then you probably think this area is very well-governed.

      • So because they bought a domain name they should be charged with a crime? How stupid. Should they also be charged with a crime if their side was organized enough to pass out more flyers in the neighborhoods? Get real…

        • “So because they bought a domain name they should be charged with a crime?”

          Don’t be ridiculous.  I never suggested anything like that.  What I pointed out is that we should hold people to a higher standard than whether or not their behavior is formally illegal.  The argument that since its perfectly legal to dishonestly squat on domain names you don’t actually want (in order to make it more difficult for the electorate to hear the arguments of the opposition), and hence people who do that are above being criticized for such action (merely since its not a crime), is what I was objecting to.

  2. Mr. Campbell

    I am a lifelong Santa Clara resident as is my son.  We both voted No on J.  However, you seem to fascinated by things that would interest an insider and not a taxpayer in Santa Clara.  I will be blunt.  It does not matter to me or my son, who are Santa Clara taxpayers that someone can figure out how to prospect domain names.  Santa Clara Plays Fair, the group you will so concerned about, did a tremendous disservice to those of us opposing Measure J.  You can make comparisons or deflect my comments by doing the school yard thing about who is worse, I do not care.

    Santa Clara Plays Fair wasted my vote due to their antics.

    A)  They had a secretary who had to resign because he assaulted someone at a park who proved him wrong. 

    B) A treasurer of the organization used my donation and others to fund a mailer for her city council campaign.

    C)  The group claims to be Santa Clara based but their mailers and their websites are funded and operated in other states.

    D)  One spokesperson for the group was chastised for comparing our Mayor, who, despite my vote and the vote of my son, remains our friend and neighbor, to a farm animal and other writer for the group actually said the city cares too much about minorities. 

    Mr. Campbell, I think as a person who voted No on J, I have more of a right to say that for this group who spends the bulk of its donations on its own board members, to feel they are being picked on, is lot like the school bully being angry that someone is hiding his ball cap.

    Our citizens watch the council meeting and they see people who claim to be the leaders of the anti stadium campaign insult and threaten our staff and council.  I voted No because I disagree with our council, but I still am shocked about the rude conduct of a group you seem to know little about.

    Don’t bother me with details about the Yes on J supporters. I do not care about them as my family voted No.  But the people who claimed all throughout this discussion to speak for me did so with such arrogance and such disrepect for our city, I feel angry that my opinion was hijacked.

  3. “Not In My Name”:
    Why don’t you re-read my post?  I offered no opinions about the “No” group(s).
    And don’t worry, I can’t speak in “your name,” because you don’t provide it.

%d bloggers like this: