Anyone who is a regular reader of Leonard McKay’s columns knows something of our once-idyllic valley before it was paved over and covered with seemingly endless, sprawling housing developments and strip malls. Residents of Santa Clara County have seen the population nearly double to two million since 1970 with no end in sight. With profits to be made, the county is in real danger of losing its remaining open spaces to greedy developers who care nothing about the quality of life of those of us who live here. The Santa Clara County Land Conservation Initiative on the November ballot aims to insure that an adequate amount of our open space remains that way for future generations.

One of the greatest and most memorable pleasures of my youth was learning to swim and dive and spending each summer immersed in the local public pool in my small southern California hometown where the temperature often exceeded 90 degrees. This is probably a very common memory of baby-boomers who grew up in our state. For me, this love of swimming has followed me through life into near-decrepitude and I can’t imagine my life without it. Unfortunately, the youth of our city do not currently have the same opportunity.

With the drone of last week’s grand prix still ringing in my ears (a deafening sound like millions of giant bees on the warpath) I am looking forward to the coming month’s events in downtown San Jose that are of an altogether more low-key variety. Whereas the grand prix may make the biggest noise possible (even drowning out the departing jets from SJC) and attract a lot of commercial hoopla and out-of-towners, it is enduring events like Cinequest and the San Jose Jazz Festival that are really important to the local community and region.

I lost my father a few months ago. As I sat with him and watched him gently drift off to wherever it is souls go, it struck me that time is the great leveler of all things human. Each of us has only so much of it and that’s it; you can’t buy more even if you are Bill Gates and have all the money in the world. But it was what my father didn’t say in his last hours that really taught me something valuable. He didn’t wish he had spent more time at the office, talking on a cell phone or worrying if Osama or George W. would blow up the world.

The panel discussion after the showing of “The Search for the Captain” on Channel 54 Monday night did little to illuminate the matters of public interest directly presented or implied by the film. The panel members tiptoed around the political and selection-process issues related to the Fallon statue rather than confront them, and almost completely ignored the more important wider issues of public art in general. Everyone on the panel, as far as it went, was articulate and intelligent, but rationalizations for some attitudes taken seemed weak, based on faulty logic, or just plain wrongheaded.

One person’s work of art is another’s piece of junk. If you mix politics and public money with this “law” of subjective aesthetics in the production of a commemorative statue, the results can be explosive. The most visible case locally is certainly the controversy over the Fallon statue that was commissioned in 1987 but not put on display until recently. An excellent film on the years-long controversy, “The Search for the Captain,” which focuses on this very issue, will be shown on KTEH Channel 54 on Monday night, July 17, at 9 p.m., followed by a panel discussion at 10 p.m.

The Norcal Scandal’s namesake, the waste disposal company at the center of the controversy, has largely been left out of the discussion lately while the mayor’s part in the deal has taken center stage. However, we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Norcal will have to answer the very serious charges made by the grand jury in court in due course, unless their past history with a similar incident guides us to a different conclusion.

It is clear from yesterday’s special meeting that the only thing the city council can do to the mayor in the wake of his indictment is whack him with a wet noodle, take away his gas allowance, and allow him only bread and water. There is no provision or process in the Charter to remove the mayor from office, and the council apparently cannot now pass an ordinance addressing impeachment and apply it retroactively without violating the mayor’s civil rights. What is also clear is that, if there was such an impeachment procedure in place, the council would now invoke it in light of the mayor’s refusal to resign, and he would be history.

When you come right down to it, $2.6 billion is a lot of money no matter how you cut it (except in Bush’s illegal Iraq war where it would last a mere 10 days). That’s the amount of the new fiscal year’s budget approved by the city council on Tuesday, not without disagreement from some members. LeZotte and Reed voted against accepting the mayor’s budget message, LeZotte and Cortese voted against the overall budget, and LeZotte, Reed and Cortese voted against extending the telephone line charges to fund 911 responders.

While we wait to see what changes are in store for the Mercury News—recently sold to Denver-based Media News, who take over this summer—we should also be concerned about the impact on local arts and culture in the wake of parent company Knight Ridder’s departure from San Jose. The absence of its $2 million annual expenditure, $750,000 of which is earmarked for arts and culture, will create a huge financial hole in the valley and bring hard times for some who have depended on its support. Unless others step in to help fill this philanthropic hole, the city-logo proclaimed “10th Largest U.S. City” has a big problem.

I can’t resist bringing up a few items in light of Election Day’s results. First and foremost: Where were you missing voters? I went to my downtown polling station at 3:30 p.m., where there are nearly 1300 voters registered, and I was voter number 88 for the day. The poll workers were bored stiff. Is there no sense of civic responsibility any more? I know that many voted “absentee,” but still—88 voters in more than eight hours of polling! According to the official Santa Clara County website, 229,172 voted out of 747,644 registered, including absentee. That’s a little higher than a 30 percent turnout throughout the county. 106,436 ballots were cast for mayor, somewhat less than 30 percent in the city. This is pathetic. Under the circumstances, do we get what we deserve?

With public dissatisfaction of local, state and national leadership running at levels of 60 percent (Schwarzenegger), 75 percent (Bush), 90 percent (Congress), and nearly 100 percent (Gonzales), this election brings voters a chance to effect real change in all aspects of government. We could hardly do worse, unless we enable more of the same. We must ensure that we eliminate those agents of our dissatisfaction from contention. This may be the overriding factor in making choices on Election Day.

Like other voters, I have received the Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce hit piece on Cindy Chavez as well as the “Cindy Chavez stole my home” phone calls from the same Chamber political action committee, COMPAC. Unlike others, perhaps, I am not surprised by their tactics. After all, the Chamber is an organization of, by and for the local business community. They are empowered to look after the special interests of their members, representing a very small but vocal portion of the population of our city who seek a large influence at City Hall. It just so happens that these may not be the same interests of the vast majority of our citizens.

I have an admission to make: right now, I don’t give a damn who becomes the next mayor. OK, maybe I just got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or being a news junkie has finally caught up with me. But, given the candidates we have to choose from and the situation in our city, state and world, what does it matter who becomes mayor and why should I care?

Having just returned to my downtown lair from a week of hiking in the southern desert, it is easy for me to see and feel the positive effects of open spaces on the human psyche. Perhaps that is why I am finding it even more difficult than usual to tacitly swallow the Coyote Valley development boondoggle as inevitable. Apparently, given the facts presented in the new financial analysis of the planned community there, and the strong “go-slow” position taken by the Mercury News in a recent editorial, others feel the same way. However, I would describe my own attitude as more of a “no-go” for the development.

When the promoters of the San Jose Grand Prix went to the mayor and vice mayor for a $4 million public handout in August, the answer should have been a quick and simple “no.” Instead, according to information uncovered by the Mercury News this week, the city administration of Mayor Gonzales, aided and abetted by Cindy Chavez, acted surreptitiously behind the scenes to do a deal like thieves in the night, deliberately keeping their colleagues on the council and the citizens of San Jose in the dark.