You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Brian Lowery' tag.
Dr Shanks asks us how do we act when we are at our best? We are service orientated, ethical and he believes that in the city of Santa Clara we are better than most places but he admits it is a work in progress. Phew because as I listen to him via the streaming system the city had it makes me wonder if the people running for Santa Clara city council all went to the workshops he talks about candidates went to at the start of the campaign.
We all know that politics is dirty but here in Santa Clara this year it appears it’s dirtier than normal. Clearly the 49ers issue was at stake and as such who gets to sit on our council for the next few years. Dr Shanks clearly wanted to limit the discussion and to address the ‘hit pieces’ and to focus on how the candidates ran their campaigns.
The campaign between, Bouza, Kennedy and Emerson was very amicable and the candidates all spoke well of each other, same goes for Mathews and Lowery. Brian Lowery commended Mr Mathews for pointing out that there are rules that did not allow for his suit to be a deduction. He quickly addressed the fact and he reimbursed his campaign. Mr Lowery used his own money to fully fund his campaign – not one dollar came from an outside organization or individuals. He unlike Mr Mathews did not have money from other groups buying big postcards, making phone calls etc. I commend him for doing a grassroots campaign vs mega bucks. That to me is a person who clearly has our city at heart not the interest of other cities or other large groups. Touche to him – I hope he does well tomorrow. And how fair of Mr Mathews in pointing out this issue – I hope he wasn’t the one that leaked the story to Internal Affairs in the SJ Merc? That would be sad.
Dr Shanks reminds as that this event tonight is to clarify and set the record straight – so here are some questions still:
What is the story on the hit pieces Mr Blair’s supporters had put out on Jamie – Mr Blair said that they were not his hit pieces they were hit pieces by other interested parties and his supporters and went out without his knowledge or agreement. That those hit pieces were not authorized by him. He actknowledges that at his website but he says he would have done them differently. So even though he didn’t authorize them he admits he would have done them but in a different way. Good for him for being honest about how he would have done them had authorized them. However, remember the ethics program says that if there is inaccuracies or anything misleading the candidates need to correct that – he does not refute them even though Dr Shanks indicated that there were mistruths made regarding Ms McLeod’s voting record. After some prodding Mr Blair says he should Apologize – you got to watch the streaming and this little snippet it’s like seeing someone caught and trying to get out of a trap. Bottom line is the pieces were sent out – they were not sent with Mr Blairs approval and they are not factual. They were dirty hit pieces – will they harm Jamie – probably – boy I hate dirty politics.
The other issue is that there were automated telephone calls made by Mayor Patricia Mahan and Don Van Raesfeld. The city did not pay for the calls – but the calls did go out without saying who paid for those calls. So I can understand that people felt that they were misleading and it sounds like they are being investigated. There was obviously some issue regarding the phone calls being made out of State because when they are made out of State they are not regulated. What does that mean? The main issue is that they did not clarify who paid for the calls – so today as the school bell goes off, so to speak, they made a third call clarifying who made the first two calls supporting those three candidates. Wow what would have happened had they not have made that call? Apparently these three candidates were concerned that there would be a hit piece put out on them, according to what Mr Mathews says on line. Which makes me wonder what were they worried could be said against them? Hmmm very interesting. That the three of them amount to a full deck on city council? that the three of them all have connections to one major city family? That should Mr Blair and Moore get elected that with Mr Caserta sitting on council that Santa Clara would now have three employees of one Real Estate office on council? Wow I don’t know what could be said that is not already known by a lot of local residents.
Dr Shanks thinks this process is a work in progress – well I think a work in progress is a city council that is hell bent on stacking the numbers that is ‘a work in progress’ and I hope that the residents tomorrow when they go to vote remember it’s time for Change here as well as in the country.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
Scott Herhold of the San Jose Mercury News each year gives awards for campaign ads. He dishes out trash cans for political hit pieces, and bouquets for well done pieces.
He awards three (3) Garbage Cans to the hit piece that took the side of challenger Chuck Blair, by the Santa Clara Police Officer’s Association against councilwoman Jamie McLeod. Personally I think it should have got four but he gave four to a Vietnamese-American group associated with the LIttle Saigon movement that did a hit piece on Councilman Dave Cortese who is running against Sunnyvale Councilman Otto Lee. I trust Herhold if he says that, that ad deserves 4 garbage cans I’m sure it does.
Clearly the hit piece done on these two candidates warranted the attention of the greater community otherwise Mr Herhold would not have written about it. Local city politics here is definatley more intense and there seems to be more at stake if you win the race. Which begs the question Why? What is it that have people so hell bent on being on a city council? What do they get out of it? A gravy train? Junkets? I don’t know what the answer is? Perhaps is it civic duty? Civic pride? a Vision for something ….
and if it is a vision then let us hope that those that get elected in Santa clara this time can earn some bouquets from the residents and that they look at issues like
Cleaning El Camino in Santa Clara,
Planting trees along El Camino
decrease the number of high rise buildings planned
Give us a proper downtown area
and start to listen to what residents want
Once again I say support Jamie because she appears to be one of the few current council people who has listened to residents and asked questions. She is a thinking person, and I believe that there are others out there running in this election that representing thinking people, such as Brian Lowery and Mary Emerson.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
So last night was Halloween and though I was home late from work I missed many of the early trick or treaters, though I think the weather kep peole at bay. I hope the weather will not stop people voting on Tuesday or the unwillingness to take an hour out of their day to vote. I saw that Google is endorsing a plan for their employees to remember to vote. They will be sending mail out to their staff to remind them on Tuesday.
So as we go into the final days of this election it’s worth reflecting on the race and what I have observed:
The candidates that have dropped by personally and door knocked are: Mary Emerson, Brian Lowery and Jamie McLeod.
I have seen two mud slinging postcards against Jamie Mcleod which totally turned me off. The language on those cards were particularly disgusting.
I’ve not had a visit from: Bouza, Kennedy, Blair, O’donnell, Moore or Matthews – I guess they have been too busy elsewhere
I’ve had voicemail from the Mayor and someone else at city hall endorsing some candidates
I’ve seen ‘paid’ for endorsement from Blair and O’donnell
I’ve caught: Bouza, Blair and McLeod on comcast TV.
I’ve saw the San Jose Mercury News endorse Jamie McLeod, do an expose on the who called whom regarding the Bouza and Moore, and a article about Mr Lowery’s suit expense.
I’ve not heard from Moore but I have spoken to the Write in Candidate Karen Hardy that is running against Mr Moore.
I walked the gauntlet at the Wine and Art Festival: O’donnel, McLeod, Kennedy, Bouza, Lowery, Emerson – and saw them talking to locals.
I’ve seen the issues be: 49ers stadium and the more and more proposed high rise buildings. Though the Santa Clara weekly feels that the tight run closed ranks city council is not an issue the San Jose Mercury News did pick up that it is an issue and a concern that one family has for a number of years managed to control the Santa Clara City council. I too am alarmed that this has been the case and the fact that it is always pooh poohed as a non issue, which again then makes it an issue.
I noted that Kennedy was not endorsed by the Mayor – which surprises me but she didn’t endorse McLeod either. Why is that?
So if you have any questions outstanding and feel you haven’t touched base with a candidate and need to learn a little more about them before you vote remember Monday Night City Hall all the candidates will be gathered. You can hear them for the final say and if you have a concern about ethics you can have your say as well.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
So in reading the Santa Clara, the Mission City blog I caught up on the lies being spread on Jamie McLeod. Please read these stories being spread by one of Jamie’s opponents. It’s a shame because if its true that person seems like such a nice guy, I think he probably has a heart of gold. I bet he’d be the first to help out a family member in strife or be willing to pitch in at a school event.
On his free 5 minute comcast interview he said he had no endorsements from large organizations but only local people. What that means is he didn’t go to the parties to ask for endorsements like Jamie McLeod or Mary Emerson did. Why not? Well as I understand it having talked to Mary Emerson about how this works, you have a questionnaire you fill in that the party sends you and they ask for your feed back on how you stand on issues. I’m wondering if that person couldn’t align himself with a party because he just didn’t want to be held more accountable? Food for thought, or perhaps he’s just not a very politically minded person and doesn’t quite understand the whole depth of what’s really going on here.
Though I’m not one for endorsements and I’m certainly not swayed by them – I couldn’t give a rats tail if Mayor Mahan called me up and told me to vote for him. Which she actually did. It made me think why isn’t Ms Mahan more hands off when it comes to endorsing?? I’ve learnt that in politics and in any committee you run it’s always good to have some opposition. You might actually gain a new perspective to what it is you are trying to accomplish. It’s kind of boring have a committee of completely like minded people. I think that there is a name for that. It’s called stacking the odds. Sure the odds are in your favor, but what if your favor is biased. It certainly seems at times that the city council in Santa Clara is biased to one point of view on certain issues. They certainly haven’t heard the residents when it comes to high density, traffic concerns, clean up El Camino.
It’s time for a change, as I’ve said before and Jamie has been the forerunner in Santa Clara politics who emulates change. Let’s have Jamie McLeod, Mary Emerson, Brian Lowery and write in Candidate Karen Hardy on our ballots and in local government this year. Bring in the Change that Santa Clara city council needs.
So the word is out the 49ers issue is causing concern for some voters. Finally some people are starting to ask questions about why and how this affects them. They are asking candidates and wondering how the dollars and “sense” of having a stadium in our city works. What’s interesting as the campaign gets closer to election day the knives come out. Well isn’t that to be expected? Aren’t we seeing the same type of dirty tactics in the National news?
Haven’t you been reading the news about the Obama / McCleain election. That campaign is also starting to sling mud. I figured once they started flinging mud, it too, would start at a city level. So apparentlythe heavy hitters are out to sling mud at Jamie McLeod and her stand on ‘let’s know the numbers’ before we decide if it is financially a good idea for our city to have a stadium. My parents always told me ‘don’t spend more than you have’. So the question still remains: do we have the money to even build this stadium? And what do we as a city get out of it? Nothing probably, not that I expect anything from it but I do expect responsible decisions.
If there are sweet heart deals to be had out of this from developers could they please spend some money on cleaning up our part of El Camino – after our part looks like it got stuck in time – the 50’s, maybe the 60’s. Or perhaps we could get the developers to put into funding some of the elementary schools – after all we are gong to start bursting at the seams here. Or perhaps we could get a downtown that resembles a downtown and not a hotsh potch of something slapped together at the last moment. Maybe we could have an arts program for Grafitti artists? Maybe we could have a current 24/7 study of our traffic issues, needs and wants – especially on El Camino, Kiely & Lawrence. Maybe we could have a halt on all new development till we take stock of current developments and where they are in relation to filling the supposed need this city has for housing. Maybe we should reconsider how many people can live in a ‘confined’ space? Maybe we could stop trying to fix it – when we need to actually need to stop and assess ‘it’. Maybe we could consider that there is something not right with the current ‘majority’ run city council.
Make your vote count and think about the real issues: the stadium, the plan for more high density, the lack of a real downtown, the unwillingness of planning to hear residents issues about more housing in this area, the traffic concerns on Lawrence and El Camino. I’d love to tell you how to vote for but I won’t. I’ll suggest you think twice before casting a ballot for the ‘old regime’ and start thinking outside the box and consider voting for people that have been willing to be outside the favored officials. So if you feel you are willing to have a change consider anyone that has either spoken out against the majority stack holders of Santa Clara or is not affiliated with them. There are quite a few of them: Jamie McLeod, Mario Bouza, Mary Emerson, Brian Lowery, Cirian McDonnel, write in candidate Karen Hardy, – each of these candidates are not part of the anointed party. They all have their own twist on their different issues and some are perhaps not as strong as others but at the very least they are running against the ‘family and friends ticket’. It’s about time Santa Clara City Council looked like a real city council and had more Jamie McLeod’s sitting ‘up on stage’ listening to your average Plumber Joe.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
So as a country looks towards change is it not fair to say that cities should look towards change.
CNN (constant negative news) has done a survey of some of the States that were leaning toward the Republicans before the Wall Street Turmoil and found that those voters are now favoring Democrats.
There are certainly enough candidates in this Santa Clara election to give you reason to look towards change – unfortunately some candidates are either more of the same or been here done that type candidates and don’t necessarily give you the Change that you might be looking for.
Without endorsing any of them I would recommend asking them what is the change they see is needed in Santa Clara? Is it in housing, is it in having the 49ers, is it in cleaning up El Camino …
whatever the change does it warrant them representing you? I may not agree with Jamie McLeod on some of her view points but I rather a person like her that asks questions and thinks than someone who blindly votes as the ‘caucus’ recommends. There are other candidates like Jamie McLeod running who I feel will also ask questions, inquire, disagree and think for themselves rather than be the party ‘hack’.
And remember one vote can make a difference.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
You got to hand it to Brian Lowery he’s got a lot of guts standing as an independent in this city – sure he may have his name on a ticket that the group who doesn’t care for the stadium put out but I’m not sure he endorsed that ticket. But he certainly seems to come across as a person who is not into games, endorsements, or campaign financing.
Sure he has endorsements on his web site, they however, seem to be your average bloke endorsing him. He doesn’t have the big ticket endorses like past and current council people, chiefs of this or that Government department just your average Joe or Mary Smith. Good for him taking his endorsements from the grass roots of the community.
His campaign is fully funded by his own dollars. He has run for city council before and lost. At his website you will learn though that he turned that result into a positive and learnt more about how the city worked and got involved more. Kudos to him.
I hope he wins this time around he seems to have his heart in the right place with his concerns for some of the development that is proposed for the city.
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
Well I went strolling back up to Central Park yesterday as I did want to touch base with some of the candidates that were spending their day doing meet and greet. I dropped by Will Kennedy he seems like a very interesting young man, nevertheless an attorney. I think he is a little wishywashy on the stadium and maybe a flip flopper on some other issues – it’s hard to tell in a 2 minute conversation with anyone especially political people. Hmmm – makes me think it’s not a good idea. As I have said I’ve not made up my mind on this 49ers Stadium - but I do have to ask what is in it for the Residents? Or is it just the big guys that are going to win this game? Those people who are opposed to it were busy talking to people – they attempted to talk to me again, but as I said I’m not sure and I’m actually thinking of buying that book on why stadiums don’t work for in larger cities – I have a link at this site if you are interested.
Then Brian Lowery, I like his campaign slogan “get on board” – very clever. He should be elected for that reason alone. A play on words, very clever indeed. Another smart thing he had was a business card with his main policies. So you put that in your pocket and keep that rather than a piece of paper you are more likely to recycle. Plus he’s not afraid to mention his religious affiliation – I found this amazing – no Catholic in Australia would mention that fact until after the fact. They would be on the DLP (vote Mack Back) ticket or the NCC – boy those are parties I haven’t thought of in years. I wonder how Bob SantaMaria is doing in heaven, he’s probably sitting next to St Peter.
Then I made a point of finding Council Women Jamie McLeod, again she was very busy meeting and greeting and listening to residents. I got talking to someone that had a Tshirt on with Jamie McLeod for City Council printed on it – turned out she had designed and created that Tshirt 4 years ago and was still very proud to wear it. She felt Jamie had done a lot for the older folks in her area and was telling me a bunch of great things Jamie has done. Well there you have it – Jamie McLeod wins the hearts of some of her constituents still 4 years later in politics. That’s good – I like hearing about followings like that.
In fact Jamie McLeod and Ted Mack have a lot in common – in Ted’s case the North Sydney City Council threatened to build a 17 story building behind his back fence. This turned this quiet Sydney architect into a public persona and political activitist. Ted’s campaign was “Vote Mack Back” and I can remember each year on TV these inexpensive but effective ads reminding voters to “Vote Mack Back” – Ted always did well. I suggest to you too “Vote Mc Back” this time the Mc being short for McLeod!
©Letters From Silicon Valley 2008
