San Jose Inside

These two measures conclude SJI’s week-long consideration of the State Propositions voters will be asked to decide on in a couple of weeks. One will redraw the state map, and change the way politics is done in Sacramento. The other will make it possible for war veterans to buy homes.

Claim City’s Intoxication Title is Not Accurate

Claiming that San Jose is trying to subvert their hard-earned title, a group of drunken sailors from San Francisco have filed a cease-and-desist order against San Jose, hoping to quash the city’s latest efforts to brand itself with another title.

“Capital of Silicon Valley, Safest Big City, Valley of the Heart’s Delight…these are all nice titles,” said Commodore Brad McGuinness. “Do they really need Capital of Drunks also? Shameful.”

Operated by die-hard fans of the San Jose Earthquakes Major League Soccer franchise, the Soccer Silicon Valley Community Foundation (SSVCF), an official 501c(3) nonprofit group, calls itself the “only all-volunteer fan-based philanthropy in American sports.” In what looks to be a serious hoedown this Friday, SSVCF will stage its first annual fundraiser and nosh-up at the Starlight Banquet Hall on Minnesota Avenue, complete with full sponsorship from the Earthquakes franchise itself. Silent auctions will take place. Politicos and luminaries will hold court. Old-timers from the original NASL Quakes in the ‘70s will be there.

“She Made It!” Exhibition at History Park

One of San Jose’s most precious possessions is History Park—located in Kelley Park—under the direction of the good group of people at History San José (HSJ). It’s a great place to take your family for a weekend visit. I learn so much every time I go there, which isn’t nearly often enough. We can never know enough about our past and History San Jose is doing an excellent job of bringing that point home with small but very interesting exhibitions. A new exhibit, “She Made It! — The Tradition of Women’s Arts and Crafts in Santa Clara Valley,” that opens on October 24 in the Leonard and David McKay Gallery at the Pasetta House, is a good example of what I am talking about.

Twelve state propositions is a lot to consider, and every California voter is being asked to do so. It is admittedly an iffy way to make political decisions—but this is what we’ve got to work with. To assist in the effort, SJI has been presenting two a day, including today. We finish the list tomorrow. Then it’s on to 21 local measures. (Whew.) 

The San Jose City Council needs to get a grip on its demeanor in public.  They’ve been a bit out of control with some recent comments. I was surprised but not amazed to see the statements from City Hall revolving around the topic of public drunkenness and arrests by the San Jose Police Department in the Downtown area. Basically, several members were quoted saying they’re appalled at the number of arrests, and the disparity in the arrest rate of Hispanics, far out to proportion to their one-third share of the San Jose population.

It is not surprising that the Council is out of touch on certain issues.  But the situation has become frightening to those trying to live or run small businesses in Central San Jose.

SJI continues the pre-election discussion that began in this space last week, today offering a clear “no” to a muddled plan for promoting renewable energy, and a loud ‘no” to an effort to enshrine one definition of marriage in the California Constitution. Again: These endorsements were prepared by our colleagues on the the editorial staff at Metro Newspapers, and are presented to stimulate discussion of the issues.

San Jose Councilwoman Nora Campos made a brief appearance at City Hall recently when she parachuted into the middle of a council committee hearing, asking the group to vote a second time on a plan to extend living wages to all airport workers. The vote had already gone her way, mind you, but why shouldn’t city government drop everything to make her feel included?

As we gear up for the election in a few weeks, I thought about a few situations that bring up a question for our public schools. We have all seen the advertisement for Proposition 8, where a little girl comes into the kitchen and tells her mom that today in school she learned that a prince can marry a prince and she can marry a princess. Then the deep voice comes on and says something to the effect of: “Don’t want this to happen to you? Well it can!” (A scare tactic at it’s worst, isn’t it?)

This raises the question: Should this topic be off-limits when it comes to our kids?

Check out this video Jason Wallach made for the East San Jose group Somos Mayfair. It chronicles one of the most interesting get-out-the-vote drives we’ve seen around these parts—a campaign that includes activists in “Luchador” wrestling masks.

The vid portrays such heroes as Super Voto Latino, Super Mama and Super Futuro, doing battle with the black-clad villains Apatio and Discriminacion.

Measure A and Measure B got me thinking…why can’t ballot measures ask voters more than one question?  Think about it…why aren’t California voters presented with choices?

Measure A asks voters to approve $840 million in bonds to “prevent a state mandated shutdown of one-half of Valley Medical Center’s beds…”  Santa Clara County voters are asked to spend money to bring Valley Med up to state required seismic standards.  Why not dedicate the $840 million to the construction of an additional medical facility at another site?

About a month ago, I came upon a car accident at a signalized intersection. One car was completely flipped over and on the opposite side of the road. The other car was spun around in the intersection. I stopped to speak to people on the scene and the police. Apparently, a middle-aged driver blatantly ran a red light, striking the other car and flipping it over. Luckily, no one died.

In 2006, almost 900 Americans were killed and an estimated 144,000 were injured in crashes that involved red-light runners. About half of the deaths in red-light-running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles.

SJI’s esteemed editor, Jack Van Zandt, has adopted a strict (Groucho) Marxist policy regarding the twelve state propositions on the Nov. 4 ballot: “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It.” For those who’d prefer to approach the ideas on a case-by-case basis, we present here the third installment of SJI’s pre-election discussion of state props and local measures.

Rants & Raves is taking a sabbatical this weekend to make room for discussion of two specific questions: one about children’s hospitals and the other about abortion. This is the second installment of a two-week pre-election marathon, during which SJI is presenting endorsements of the state propositions and local measures appearing on the Nov. 4 ballot. The pieces were written by Metro editorialists, and are presented to inspire discussion and debate.

Over the next couple of weeks, SJI will be presenting a series of endorsements of the state propositions and local measures that will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot. These were written by reporters and editors at Metro and its sister-publications, and are presented here not so much to preach any one point of view, but more to spur conversation and debate. Of course we are counting on all of you to contribute your two-cents worth.