Voting for Fairfield Residential?

Boy would I hate to be the city council tonight – here we go again having to show our true colors to the residents that vote for them.  Hopefully, they will know that we are not small children who need to be ‘guided’ and ‘convinced’ that what they are doing is a good thing for us – but they will hear the words of the residents that go something like this regarding the proposed project at 900 Kiely, Gallery on Central, fairfield residential project in Santa Clara;

The current project is;

Too Dense – too many units proposed for this site – as it currently stands 806 units amounts to 2% of the local Santa Clara population

Traffic concerns  – some of the local intersections have been deemed as failures by the vTA and this project will add more traffic to these interesection ans the surrounding streets

Trees – most of the trees at the current site will be cut down being replaced by saplings – how sad when those current trees add to the current feel of the area and blend in with what is already there.  why cut down mature trees when we already know so much about global warming?  Odd idea

Schools – do we have right numbers – it seems that we have conflicting reports on numbers – this is alarming. how can we get the right figures? is there some way to have this clarified.

Swim center – apparently there is mail out there from the developer attempting to have the local swim center swamp (excuse the pun) the meeting with supporters for the project.  But unfortunately for the developer he does not realize that some of those swim center emails went out residents who are not in favor of the project as it now stands.  Oxy Moron stuff don’t you think?

Also the developer has been talking to the chamber of commerce and local businesses attempting to have them speak in favor of the project because businesses need economic assistances and they are touting the idea that more residents will increase their business.  Yes maybe some truth to that but perhaps many of these business need to reassess what it is their business does and what their service is like.  Just a thought – rather than look to the potential new residents as ’saving grace’?

oh dear the list goes on and I pity the city council tonight – because I am sure like me in their heart of hearts they know that the project as it now stands is not ideal but we do need something there but not this.  This developer has only talked to people who seem to benefit from the project such as the swim pool center and the local stores, they have continously refused to listen to local residents who share streets with this new developer.  They have refused to be a part of the community but rather are waging a war of ‘hate’ behind the scenese by attempting to create a ‘us’ and ‘them’ attitude.  We are the old wiser parent who has done this many times before and we know what we are doing – but do they?

They are attempting to turn small Santa Clara with heart into a concrete jungle – just as was mentioned in the mission city lantern blog.  Hopefully the council will stand up to this giant corporate America and say ‘Yes we hear our residents’ and ‘come back with something that is more in keeping with the area and have your project blend in’.

This developer has turned this project into a political debate – how sad – had they worked with the locals and heard their requests for less density, more parking, more open space, fewer units, more amenities for the general public, it might have been an enjoyable working relationship.  However as it now stands we have disgruntled residents who look to their elected leaders for resolution.

Final results

Congratulations to Mr Obama on a fabulous victory.  His speech was a most gracious and exhilarating speech.  Though I have memories of Kennedy, I felt Obama spoke far more eloquently and touched the hearts of all voters not just Democrats but he reached out to Republicans as well.  A true moment in history, right before our eyes.   May his tenure be one of grandeur and success and may the country restore it’s dignity in the world.

Jamie McLeod, Jamie Mathews, Will Kennedy all won their seats.  Congratulations to them all.  To view the final results you can go to this link.  Here you will find how much they won by.  Mr Moore’s results are there too - it would be interesting to learn how many peole wrote in Karen Hardy – just out of pure interest. 

I had been waiting on publishing this blog because I was waiting to get email from various candidates and view their blog/websites but it seems that only one candidate has updated their website with the result and that is Jamie McLeod.  I nearly feel like adding and of course there because it seems that Jamie is more on the beat than most.  Anyway congratulations to the winners may their judgements be honest ones and not tainted by endorsement or associations.

How do we act?

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