Mayor Reed Endorses Liccardo

San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed summoned a press conference Monday morning to announce his endorsement of council ally Sam Liccardo to succeed him.

In front of a throng of reporters outside Le Petit Trianon Theatre, located just a block from City Hall, the mayor said he backs Liccardo because he would continue his brand of fiscal reform and economic development.

Liccardo, a former prosecutor elected to the City Council in 2006, cleared the June primary for a runoff in November against Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese. Liccardo campaigned on a promise to spend smarter and rebuild the police force. Cortese billed himself the candidate of “change,” arguing that Reed’s pension reforms gutted the public safety ranks by chipping away at worker benefits.

The city needs sustainable financial policies, Liccardo told reporters after Reed announced his endorsement, “not benefits that may or may not be there in 20 years.”

Supporters who commented on Liccardo's Facebook page after the announcement seemed a little leery of the endorsement.

"Proud of the support," one wrote, "but, Sam, don't be compared to Chuck. Hold your own, have faith and make the changes. SJ is nothing to be proud of right now."

In the run-up to the primary, Liccardo managed to raise the most of any candidate in the race, thanks in large part to donations from Silicon Valley tech executives and business groups.

Cortese, whose main support comes from labor groups, aims to overturn many of Reed’s reform policies, including the bulk of the voter-approved Measure B.

Jennifer Wadsworth is the former news editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley. Follow her on Twitter at @jennwadsworth.


  1. If I were Sam I’d distance myself from ol’ Chuckie as much as possible. But Sam is just Reed’s puppet so of course he’ll welcome this endorsement with open arms.

    • Reed Endorsing Liccardo > Campos Endorsing Cortese > CORTESE ENDORSING CAMPOS?!?! Has Dave explained why he endorsed Xavier?

  2. Mayor Reed’s legacy will be spending $25 million for land for an A’s stadium that will never be built, crafting a ballot measure that was found to be largely unconstitutional, and destroying a police department. If you are a Liccardo supporter, I would sure not want Reed’s endorsement.

    • With reference to the cost of the properties assembled for the baseball stadium not yet “Voted” into reality you should consider reading the “Long Range Property Management Plan.”

      The “Long Range Property Management Plan” is basically a forced “Fire Sale” of properties purchased by the defunct Redevelopment Agency. Properties 60-64 will be of interest to you.

      David S. Wall

      • Thanks David. According to that Doc the ball park land (parcels 60-64) was purchased for $24,443,275.00 and is currently valued at $6,975,227 -or- 28.5% of the value that it was purchased for. This is because of a couple of factors namely that the land was purchased by the City when costs were at or near the top of the real estate market and most recently appraised (2010) at or near the bottom of the market. Further the City is stuck at the 2010 appraised value because it approved granting AIG (Athletics’ Investment Group aka: real estate developer Lew Wolfe) the right to purchase the land at that 2010 valuation in the event the MLB does not approve an A’s move to SJ.

        By comparison, check the next parcel #65 – arena parking lot #5a located at Montgomery and Santa Clara. It is a mere 70,060 sq ft lot purchased for $1.59million in the 80’s-90’s and is worth $5million based on a 2011 appraisal – that location realized a 300% increase in value!!! compared to the ballpark site (212, 291 sq ft lot) that is stuck at a 70%+ loss in the 2 years that lapsed between its purchase and subsequent appraisal- all for the benefit of Lew Wolfe real estate developer!!!

        The City Council / RDA has combined lousy investments with sweetheart deals to ensure that the taxpayers will recoup*** only a microscopic fraction of the debt that we are on the hook for and continue to hide their culpability by blaming City employees pay and pensions for the predicament we find ourselves in…

        ***note to those City Union bashers who would say something along the lines of “recouping something is better than nothing” would apparently be totally content with paying $1million for their house/lot while their (perhaps more wealthy) neighbor paid only $300k to the same seller for the identical house/lot right next door on the same day… save it.

        • Great analysis! I was negligent about property #65.

          Check out the parcels assembled for a theater across from city hall.

          David S. Wall

          • Mr. Wall and/or Mr. Weed:

            Can you tell the readers if Liccardo was on the board of directors for the RDA at the time of these sweetheart deals? Can you tell the reads how much the RDA (aka Successor Agency) is currently in debt? Is there any correlation between these sweetheart deals and all the campaign contributions coming to Liccardo from developers, construction companies and real estate businesses?

        • @ Just Anon For Now: For some reason I could not reply directly to your comment.

          The answer is “yes” and :”no.’ Liccardo was elected to the Council in 2006 (Nov) so he would have been seated in early 2007. 3 of the 5 “ballpark” properties were purchased in February and June of 2006. Parcel 61 @ 102 S Montgomery and Parcel 64 indicate @ 645 Park Ave were purchased while Sam was on the Council in January and June of 2008.

          On the other hand Reed would have been the D4 Councilmember during the 2006 purchases and Mayor during the 2008 purchases.

          Keep in mind that the City Council WAS the “Board of Directors” for the RDA and that the Mayor served as Chairman before it was dissolved in 2012. It is reasonable to believe that the Board and its Chair were knowledgeable about the purchase, appraisals and subsequent “business” arrangements involving the property in question.

          What is very suspicious is the timing of events surrounding the approval to sell Wolfe and AIG the rights to purchase the Ballpark properties. The appraisal of the land takes place in 2010, the Council/RDA approves selling Wolfe the rights in November 2011 – all about the time that it is becoming clear that Selig/MLB is probably not going to authorize and A’s move to SJ.

          For $50k Wolfe secured the right to purchase the land purchased for $24+million with taxpayer money for a mere $6.9mil. Land (it is often overlooked) that would be given free and clear to Wolfe if a move were approved so that a “privately funded” stadium would be built upon it. Now My understanding is that the rights purchased expired after 2 years (2013???) and we haven’t heard anything about renewing the deal. It seems to me that an “NEW” appraisal is in order to reflect the current market value of the property if the now “expired” purchase rights agreement is to be renewed -but what do I know when we have a “real estate” attorney currently sitting a Mayor.

          In Either case Wolfe wins but if the MLB rejects a move he hits the JACKPOT since he can buy 5 parcels dirt cheap to do with as he pleases!!! Don’t forget the other Deals that Reed and his Council/RDA have cut with Wolfe (1) the Fairmont Hotel, (2) Hotel St Claire (3) the currently under construction Earthquakes Stadium and related developments on RDA owned FMC property on Coleman. (Wolfe also owns the ‘Quakes in case anyone was not aware….)

          • Good job explaining to “Just Anon for Now.” I too had a hard time to respond.

            I believe it is this November (2014) when the “Option Agreement” for the “Baseball Porperties” expires.

            BIG QUESTION…will Mayor Reed and Council…or the next Mayor and Council offer-up another “extension” of the Option Agreement, predicated on the assertion the issue of the A’s coming to San Jose is not dead but, is kept on “life-support” via the Ciy of San Jose’s lawsuit against MLB?

            David S. Wall

      • Hey Wall- you never know what you’re talking about. It is Dave Cortese himself who ordered the fire sale of property. The County developed and is in charge of the long range property management plan per the law. The county has tried to bankrupt cities by the heavy hand of Dave himself.

        • Wrong, “InsideMan.” Check out the document.

          There are four (4) categories to choose from. It is up to the San Jose City Council to which category they choose.

          Further, when Governor Brown “killed-off” the RDA’s that set the “fire-sales” in motion. But, they do not have to occur at all.

          Read the document, check out the choices and feel free to post documents you have dug-up to support your position(s).

          David S. Wall

      • Yes, thanks David. And Meyer too for paying attention. If only more people would.
        I completely share anger and indignation over the resources and money our city threw away pursuing the A’s ballpark. We lost our shirts. The city has no business being in the baseball business. Reed and Liccardo are certainly culpable here. But by the same token the city has no business being in the housing business. There are plenty of other parcels acquired during the Cortese years that were meant for housing projects, symphony halls, arena employee parking, etc. Given Dave’s enthusiasm for affordable housing I’ve little doubt that he, as an RDA board member signed off on many of these, thus contributing to the city’s financial woes which, arguably led to the crisis, whether real or imagined, that paved the way for Measure B.

        • Your doing your part to question government’s actions in pristine fashion, keep up the good work!

          More attention to San Jose governmental actions is needed.

          There are forty-three (43) items on the “Consent Calendar” for the last Council meeting (June 17).

          Mayor Reed treats the “Consent Calendar” as “one (1) item” for a citizen to comment on.

          I assert “each item” on the Consent Calendar should be treated as “individual items” allowing informed citizens the right to redress the particular issue.

          Check out next Tuesday’s (06.17.14) City Council Agenda.

          As to the issues raised by “Just Anon for Now,” this will take an enormous undertaking to collect the necessary and authentic documentation as to votes and who voted.

          David S. Wall

  3. Well, there you have it. A failed Mayor and a failed administration that has caused Police, Fire and all other City employees to flee the City in droves. Reed has cheated, lied and stolen for eight years. He has destroyed public safety and wasted millions on a failed ballpark for a team that will never move to San Jose. He has now endorsed his own “mini me” Sam Liccardo to replace him as Mayor. Want more of the same, vote for Sam. If you want to see San Jose recover from eight years of corrupt dirty dealings that have left the City in shambles, vote Dave Cortese. Dave Cortese is the only candidate that can begin to bring San Jose back to its former greatness.

    • Shirakawa endorsed Campos and Campos endorsed Dave (and vice versa)

      So what does that say about Cortese using your logic? Reed isn’t a convicted or even charged or perpetually investigated scoundrel like Campos & Shirakawa. If your logic is the company you keep reveals who you are that would be reason enough to not vote for Cortese. Cortese needs to clean house of these dubious characters he calls allies and friends or the public shouldn’t trust him either.

  4. It’s “Le Petit Trianon,” not “La Petit Trianon.” In French, the feminine singular article “La” would have to be followed by an “e” at the end of Petit if Trianon was a feminine noun, which it isn’t. It’s masculine. If this is tricky too remember, google also works well.

  5. If Cortese is elected, once again services will be cut to pay for the unsustainable pensions for police and fire fighters. It boggles the mind that these people get $100,000 or more when they retire while services for Seniors, lots of them not even getting $24,000 a year, are taxed and taxed and Senior services are depleted. Vote Cortese and drive the City into bankruptcy. Reed is an honest and forthright man. I voted for Madison but will now vote Liccardo

    • >If Cortese is elected, once again services will be cut to pay for the unsustainable pensions for police and fire fighters

      You’re implying that 1) Cortese will have a labor majority on the council and 2) his election somehow ipso facto nullifies pension reform.

      >Reed is an honest and forthright man

      Now I’m convinced you’re trolling.

      • So if I support Mayor Reed I am trolling? The bias on this blog is obvious.

        • No, you’re a troll if you think he’s an honest person, as not even supporters believe that.

    • You,senior Lady, are really delusional if you think they are going to receive that much money upon retirement. All you have to do is look at the Villages…they dont look like they are hurting AT ALL there. And I bet you can count the number of “firefighters” living there on one hand. Cry to someone else about your lack of savings and retirement foresight.

      • Retired firefighters aren’t at the Villages they’re at the Country Club or off at Club Med.

    • If a firefighter works a normal 30 year career he will receive a 6 figure pension.
      Senior lady is correct.

      • A “normal” 30 year career? What is that? Please share your extensive experience about being a “normal” firefighter for the lowest staffed City in the United States, and how in hell you are supposed to “retire” with a six-figure income. You believe all the pap you read, yet experience nothing. Besides, last I checked, the “firefighter” rank does not make six figures, and even at 90% after a 30 year career will not add up to six figures.

        • Fire Captain $113,297.60. That’s base pay. And how many years to get to this rank? I don’t know but I’ll bet a lot fewer than 30. 90% = retirement pension of $101,967.84 per year. Let me see here. One, two, three, four, five, six. Yep. That’s six figures before the decimal point.
          Probably most firefighters who work a normal 30 year career wind up as Battalion Chiefs with a *base* pay of $121,803.20. That works out to a pension of $109,622.88 per year. Still six figures!

  6. Mayor Reed endorsing Liccardo is like the Grim Reaper endorsing tobacco as the next wonder drug.

  7. One corrupt politician endorses another , gee theres a shocker . A 1%er supporting another 1%er , isn’t that what they do . The history of a Lying , cheating , thieving Mayor will continue if Liccardo takes over . I

  8. MAYOR LIE, CHEAT AND STEAL . What do you expect from a mayor caught stealing $30,000. Everyone ignored it thinking the nice old man would not steal he looks like my grand dad. Now we are facing the facts that Reed is part of organized crime. Along with Liccardo and the council.

    • Shirakawa stole over $140 grand and Campos stole an election with is criminal friends and they both are Cortese buddies and backers.

      So now what? Dave has a real credibility problem not only because of his endorsements and friendships with Shirakawa and Campos but it is very hard to forget he backed Patricia Martinez Roach out of pure pandering to the labor money.

  9. Public unions are the cigarettes to civic health. To all the unionistas out there slamming Chuck Reed tell us: what was he supposed to do with the huge and mounting debt that was soon going to turn San Jose into the next Detroit? No more crap about raising taxes because with the system rigged the way it has been – there will never be enough taxes because there are not enough civilian folks left to pay them. Then what? How do you propose we pay for our public services?

    Mounting debt and falling credit ratings are just a debt bomb waiting to go off. For some to sound off about the city’s debt centered on a Real Estate deal dropping a few million is disingenuous, it is akin to complaining about a skinned knee in a cancer ward. For a brutal look at our city’s financial picture look at the debt report

    Today in the US we have a dysfunctional govt with inefficient bureaucratic forms of management trying to juggle dwindling services with ever increasing public employee expenses. At the Fed level for example take the VA – 200,000+ employees w/ 300 paid full time union people (on the taxpayer dime) and poor service for those who are supposed to get service promised. Or Caltrans – 3,500 mid management positions w/ nothing to do – there is no $ to build new roads so they sit around and collect a paycheck and Old Jerry with “the unions in his back pocket” (got that backwards Brown) managed to lob 2 jobs off this $500mm/yr debacle

    And yet with all this surplus Caltran management the taxpayers STILL get the shitty end of the stick
    It should be clear that public unions serve only themselves. FDR warned of this

    It is time for honest debate in San Jose and the country. The old ploy of mutual back scratching ala Shirakawa, Campos, Cavez must be put to rest for the good of the public now and in the future.
    This is NOT A SLAM ON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES – for the most part these are good, honest and decent people. But there is no evil company for them to be “union-ed” up against – they work for their community, their neighbors – themselves.

    Pay them an honest wage w/ good benefits. Put everything on-line where the public can see that their police/fire/teachers and janitors are being paid accordingly. But no featherbedding, pension spiking, lifetime employment for bad employees, “lifetime perks for part time work” etc etc. The financial balloon has burst, the X-rays are in – public unions are toxic to the well fare of the community.

    It should be a conflict of interest for public employee unions to have any involvement whatsoever with the political machinery that is sworn to serve the public’s interest. Moreover the influence of big money including that of labor threatens to influence and thus pollute the moral character of people who choose to serve in politics.
    No hollow screaming about protecting the middle class – it is the middle class that is footing the bill and the middle class is dying. It’s time to toss the butts. Abolish public unions.

      • All of that post and you attack none of the content but the the clear auto correct mistake? Wow, if that doesn’t sum up what is wrong with the typical unionista Reed opponent I don’t know what does.

        • There is no reasoning with the likes of you or Hugh who engage in ad hominem attacks on those darn “unionistas”, so it is was much more fun to make light of an auto correct error, and see who got their panties all in a bunch.

    • “What was Chuck supposed to do with the HUGE and MOUNTING debt..?” – Sit down at the bargaining table like civil politicians who can see the forest from the trees!!! They’ve done it elsewhere.. And don’t try to say they tried here in SJ because that’s BU%%$h!t and you know it. What did he do instead? Rushed a flawed, divisive initiative to the voters, misled them by lying about the real debt numbers (650 mil – fiscal emergency then came up with a budget surplus that SAME FISCAL YEAR) and took as much outside monetary contributions as people like the Koch brothers would give to him. – These aren’t opinions. So what was he supposed to do???? Sounds like someone at his wits end right??… If Chuck et Al would have sat down with the unions, the city would have already saved millions. So no, taxes did not have to be raised or “rigged”. And don’t you even try to say the unions weren’t willing to budge.. It was the CITY who denied ALL OF THE MAJOR COST SAVING PROPOSALS prior to Measure B.

      Debt report? Can you say RDA?? Can you say SJC??.. Yet tax revenues are being used (wasted on Meyers Have) to challenge WELL ESTABLISHED legal precedent with the latest appeal of Measure B. Let’s not even mention Lew Wolfe and MLB.. Or the MILLIONS being dumped down the drain on training new recruits to replace seasoned officers.. Recruits who turn around and leave.. Or the MILLIONS in overtime expenses just to have police patrols minimally staffed..

      Re: The Dept. Of VA & Caltrans – You clearly have no functional grasp upon local problems so may I kindly suggest you refrain from wasting your time trying to wrap your brain around national and statewide issues until you have conducted enough research and gathered enough facts to understand what’s going on in San Jose.

      ” It’s time for honest debate in San Jose..” You’re right!! The problem is (ask Davis S. Wall), “honest” debate will never take place so long as politicians like Chuck and Sam are guiding the ship. Employees like Alex Gurza and Jennifer Schembri will give you “honest” answers.. Just ask Jennifer how her discussion regarding Tier 2 benefits with the police academy went and why she decided to leave when she couldn’t lie anymore.. I mean answer the questions..

      BTW – Nice try.. Use the two most recent political bad apples and toss another name in to add some form of credible mud slinging.. Please.. How do you feel about Chuck suckling from John Arnold’s pockets? You want to talk about disgusting corruption??? I don’t think you do..

      “Pay them an honest good wage with benefits..” Finally, you see the light! All the unions want is competitive pay and benefits. Instead, Measure B has brought San Jose to the bottom of the barrel in regard to its employees benefits. The pay of every city employee is already online.. I suggest you go find it.. You’ll be shocked to see how much overtime is being clocked. While you’re at it go compare data of citys of comparable size and revenue – the comparisons aren’t pretty. I agree, issues such as spiking and part time work with lifetime benefits need to be reformed – the unions tried.. Multiple times and Chuck et al said no!!!

      It should have been a conflict of interest for the city council to be the RDA board.. Unions have to be involves in politics because if they weren’t, big money would simply dominate the discussion. Big money does pollute moral character.. Just ask John Arnold.. Did you know 97% of the monetary support gathered to pass Measure B came from outside contributions (outside of the city of San Jose)?? I bet you didn’t.. Go look at who Carl Guardino has recruited to fund Sam Liccardo’s campaign.. BIG MONEY.. Much of it from nowhere close to San Jose.

      Its time for you to do some homework and get your facts in order. You’re either Sam Liccardo or you’ve successfully had the wool pulled wayyyyyy down over your eyes.

      You’re welcome.

      • When you are done stomping your feet and flapping your arms it comes down to this. if there were no public unions there would have been nothing for Chuck or Sam or any other public official to set down and negotiate. There would have been no need for a Measure B or anything else like it.

        pay the policeman, fireman and every other public employee a set wage, clearly spelled out on a public forum (site) along w/ benefits. Its an across the board, nationwide scale adjusted for cost of living in given areas. The public employee knows up front what the wage is, when the raises for merit, time, and inflation come. The employer (public) and managers/accountants know as well and can long range plan for it.

        this is still far better than the private sector and provides security for employees – unless they screw up and then they get fired- just like the real world.

        with no public unions – there is far less to zero chance of undue labor influence which can only lead to graft, huge deficits and grief. As well there is no need for the out side influences putting money up against labor. Its all decided, a given ~ a “nothing to look at here” situation. The workers do their job and get compensated. End of discussion and nothing to negotiate.

        there is no wool being pulled over anyone – as everything is out in the open. Things worked fine in Calif until some dumbass governor signed the Dills Act – and we been going down since then.

        here’s your facts. Get rid of public unions – make everything transparent with government working better and more cost effective.
        Public unions are a cancer on the civic body.

        • Hey why stop there? How about a plumber can only charge a certain amount, same with electrician and mechanics. Safeway can only charge a certain price bread and milk. This sounds like fun. What? Whats that? Lawyers, developers and politicians can charge whatever they want? Ah that sucks.

          • Government is already involved w/ salary scale in the private sector with the “living wage” ordinances coming out. That’s a whole separate issue right there. But if they can tell you as a business owner how much you have to pay what used to be “entry level” student/ person then the government certainly as an employer for the public should be able to set wages.

            Your argument runs out of gas when you talk about private individuals hiring someone to perform work for them. That’s called the market place buddy and there is nothing that works better.

            Why can’t some institute of economists, labor specialists, attorneys, and assorted whatchamacallits sit down, develop matrices and indexes for all the many types of public jobs. factor in all the elements such as living costs per zip code, etc etc etc – (yes there will be etc’s) and come up with a reasonable and fair salary for a first year fireman w/ X amount of education and experience. it comes to $______(fill in).

            2nd year is X ___$amount
            3rd – 5th year is ____$

            One huge national data base for every position.

            If Jay is fresh out of college and decides he wants to be a fireman. This is where you start. Call it a “living wage” for first year fireman.

            or Jay can go be a plumber or a lawyer.

            But at least in the public sector it is all spelled out. nothing to negotiate or go on strike about. No politicians to influence. Just people doing their job, getting paid for it and we move on to other things.

        • All City Unions have consistently requested that ALL negotiations be open to the public… as little as I think if PLO he is the only pol i am aware of who agrees… Reed and Co since they were first elected have clamored for negotiations open to the public as part of the “Sunshine Reforms.” Reed has been the biggest stumbling block in this matter.

          If you want to hold the unions accountable so be it but at least be intellectually honest enough to demand the same for the politicians.

          • What negotiations? if there are no unions there is nothing to negotiate. adopt standards for pay/benefits and be done with it. There would be no need for negotiations. Then we the public avoid transit worker strikes which is really irksome because the taxpayer/employer can’t get to work (as an example). it is just a form of extortion.
            Just the notion that public employees via their unions could/should be “accountable” is madness.
            sign up for a job at an agreed upon wage and do the job. or not! The idea of union negotiations and accountability flies in the face of common sense and logic.
            we’re in the 21st century now and public unions are as outdated as coal tenders and blacksmiths. they are a waste of everyone’s time (except for the union bosses of course) and public resources. Again – public unions are a cancer on the civic body.

          • Hugh get real the unions aren’t going anywhere. They are an institution that is older than our country… You sound just like Liccardo when he was trying to sound “smart” when he concluded out loud that the solution to the “pension” problem was to “fire everyone on Friday and hire them back on Monday under a new pension plan.”

    • Well Hugh. Let’s focus on one line in your comment. City of San Jose employees are not, for a fact, even close to being compensated in any category like their fellow city comparisons.

      This is true for attorneys, mechanics, policeman, or anyone. So, with that in mind, would you vote for liccardo who self-admittedly thinks that the police officers and firemen should take an additional 16 percent paycut as prescribed by measure B?

      Answer that. Until then. Save your comments.

      In this country, we vote by what people say. Not what we hope they’ll do.

      Unrelated, I remember this same website getting comments about how police officers should leave if they don’t like what’s going on. Well, they did. A lot of them left for better careers at different, local police departments. Now the fix is force them to stay? What ever happened to if u don’t like it, leave it?

      Vote wisely people. You can’t have it both ways. For me, like Hugh (maybe), I’d rather pay city employees what their worth. Then they’ll have nowhere to go. Not force them to stay.

      My votes cortese.

      Maybe liccardo should pay city attorneys as well as Santa Clara county prosecutors (liccardos old day job). If he did, there would be some happy city attorneys.

      Get real San Jose.

  10. The debate between the citizens of San Jose and the public employee unions is a WIN-LOSE debate.

    There is no WIN-WIN.

    Somebody wins and somebody loses.

    All of the “facts” that all of the arguments are purportedly based on are known, or are irrelevant.

    At this point, the only meaningful debate left is: “I want my side to win, and I want your side to lose”.

    What else is there to gain from this IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCE?

    • Sure there is (was) aside from the Unions offer to switch to CalPERS they also offered to revert to the pension benefits that preceded the benefit package that preceded the misleadingly phrased “90% retirement at age 50” we hear so such about but in reality does not exist in San Jose. The benefit plan that was in existence 2 plans prior to the one Measure B ended topped at 75% after 30 years and would have solved SJ’s unfunded liability problem almost immediately. Ask Reed why he didn’t accept that offer much less entertain it.

      • Ummm.

        So, are you saying that:

        “they also offered to revert to the pension benefits that preceded the benefit package that preceded the misleadingly phrased “90% retirement at age 50″

        is this the WIN-WIN proposition?

        If so, why don’t both sides jump on it?

        I think the answer is: it’s a WIN-LOSE proposition. Somebody loses.

        Which is my whole point. There is NO WIN-WIN option. It’s only a WIN-LOSE debate.

        The debate is over.

        All that is left to do is pick the side you want to LOSE.

        • Why didn’t both sides jump on it? POA was willing. Mayor and council majority was not since they were “all in” with commitment to Measure B – which was probably motivated by the big money that that was backing it/them.

      • Public unions are a relatively new pestilence. But they are severe and cause great harm on the public. And they multiply like vermin. Do you know how many public agencies we have in CA? me neither – but here – you add them up it very sobering – especially when you realize that they are all unionized and many, many w/ benefit packages that no one knows where the $ is coming from. The unions are killing the state and every little municipality and agency that flies the Bear Flag Republic sign in front.
        Here’s just one example:
        And note here – from Seuwer Union’s own page is admission that the Dills Act was copied from a 1935 Federal law regarding collective bargaining in the PRIVATE sector. smarty pants MoonBeam thought this would work well in the Public sector
        However the private sector and public sector are two different worlds. Whereas unions in the private sector are shrinking , as they should be, in the public sector without the natural forces for the marketplace to temper them the unions have run amuck.
        Can you name a California municipal agency that is not deep into the pension hole because of union negotiated plans and benefits via bought/paid for politicians with crony union bosses skimming big doses?
        Forget negotiating w/ public unions – outlaw them, vote them into oblivion and eradicate them because daily their cancerous growth only spreads. Our civic body cannot sustain itself much longer. Too many ticks (a blood sucking insect) kills the dog.

        • Hugh,
          Here is a link to one of the funeral’s for a slain Las Vegas officer assassinated last week while having lunch, with a fellow officer who was assassinated. As you can see, the funeral was attended by many of his fellow “ticks” as you put them. I never knew ticks grieved and cried when fellow ticks and family members are slain. Or were these the ticks you referred to as a “pestilence” who “multiply like vermin”? No matter how low down on the food chain you put these ticks, you are lower down, as these ticks are the first people you would call in an emergency, and these cancerous ticks would be there to help you.

          • Dear Mr. Observation”

            A completely cynical and invidious post.

            Your suggestion is that a police office can be heroic or an innocent victim ONLY if he is a member of a public employees union. And if he wasn’t a member of a public employee union, his life would have been meaningless, worthless, and unmourned.

            Public employee unions are among the most abusive instances of primitive tribalism that is the underlying social survival paradigm of modern “progressive” politics.

            In 10,000 years, there is no change in the mind set of the public employee unions from the primitive hunter-gather foragers:

            1. Our tribe GOOD; other tribe BAD.
            2.The tribe provides security and “fairness”.
            3. Tribe members will be loyal to our leader/shaman/witch doctor/warlord/community organizer because he is the voice/mind/fist of the tribe.
            4,The tribe’s hunting and foraging territory is everywhere, the tribe can take anything and everything, because it will be distributed “fairly” to tribe members.
            5. Other tribes are either prey or predators.

            The emergence of civilized society fostered broad prosperity and superseded the primitive instincts of tribalism, but the instincts of tribalism remain deeply imbedded in the DNA of humans.

            Sadly, the alpha males of progressive politics don’t seem to be able to cope with civilization and never tire of trying to organize another tribal war party.

          • I am not referring to the people who work in the public sector. It is the unions that are the problem – of course you know that and are A. really dense for not realizing that or B. foolish is thinking you could pull a bait and switch such as this. I have family in law enforcement – so tread lightly

          • If anything, the proliferation of public employee unions have made it more difficult for *legitimate*, essential government functions such as police and fire to get the attention and resources they deserve.
            It’s not in a police officer’s or a firefighter’s own best interests to support an organization that encourages our government to behave irrationally and wastefully. In the end, there’s less money left over to pay them.
            Police and fire, I’d be quite happy to pay you guys double if you’d just quit using your political clout to elect politicians who are determined to turn San Jose into a cesspool. Your beloved union is nothing but a tool used quite deftly to advantage by developers, by subsidized housing advocates, by parasitical “non-profits”, by newspapers such as the Mercury News, by ambitious “neverdidanythingusefulinmylifepoliticians”, and by unlimited illegal immigration advocates.

  11. Are you better off with Reed as Mayor? Are you safer? Are the roads repaired? Reed endorses Liccardo. I will vote for Cortese. More importantly I would like to vote off the entire city council. Evidently surrounding communities are able to recruit our police officers. Maybe we could pay them to run San Jose.

  12. I would rather have a Reed endorsement than a Campos endorsement…however, Dave was so smitten by Xavier he endorsed him back….please explain Cortese supporters, please explain his endorsement of Campos :-)

  13. Its funny, did anyone catch what these clowns approved on Tuesday 6/16/14 City Council Meeting? No? Well, they managed to alienate and destroy an entire neighborhood and the Merc didn’t say a word.

    They approved a huge facility right next to ALL the children’s services and a whopping 3/4 size of the neighborhood. 100% opposition by double digit attendees, 910 signers (in just 6 days) on the submitted petition and a clear violation of the master plan. Watch the City council video from that evening, click on item 11.6.

    Check out this article and the comments at the bottom where community members sound off..

    • Liccardo voted YES, along with Reed, Khamis, Herrera, Oliverio and worst of all was Constant. He had the audacity to post on Facebook how hard he was working that night TWICE during this agenda item, instead of listening. He argued that he doesn’t feel diesel is a big deal.

    • They have ALWAYS done what THEY wanted to do. Arrogant, don’t listen, etc, etc. You get to see what many others see. Anyone who would want to continue this inefficient administration by electing Liccardo is off their rocker. We don’t want any more of the same ole BS. When they are all out of office, this city will start to heal.