October 13, 2006

Candidates face off at community forum

By Lorraine Gabbert
Staff Writer

Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez and City Councilmember Chuck Reed locked horns regarding the questionable spending and ethics of the Gonzales-Chavez administration, during a Mayoral Candidate Forum held Wednesday night at Gunderson High School.

San Jose Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez.

Councilmember Chuck Reed expressed his concern with previous misconduct and miss-spending by the Gonzales-Chavez administration while keeping an optimistic eye towards the future. Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez was more cautious, expressing the need to face educational and city planning challenges.

Reed stated that if elected, his first order of business is to deal with the ethical problems that have plagued San Jose during the last few years. “I ran for mayor because I want San Jose to be the best place to live, work and raise a family,” he says. “We can’t do that if our government is corrupt and engaged in reckless spending as has been the hallmark of this last administration.”

“We have to make it better to tell the truth than to hide the truth. We will use that foundation to build San Jose into a great city,” Reed said, “…with all of the things we want in our neighborhoods. We have to have a solid foundation that has to do with policy, fiscal responsibility and open government. With six years on the city council, I’ve been working on those for a long time.”

Chavez said that when she considers the future of San Jose she knows that its success is not guaranteed. “We became the tenth largest city in the country in part because Detroit got smaller,” she says, “and you learn something from that. Seventy years ago, Detroit was the technology capital of the world. We have an opportunity to learn from other cities and do it better.”

Although Chavez re-marked that San Jose is one of the safest big cities in the country and holds more patents than any other state in the nation, she noted that in California almost four out of every ten students will not graduate from high school. “It’s hard to imagine how we will be the center of technology and innovation if we don’t figure out as a city a better way of partnering with our schools and help children thrive and succeed,” said Chavez.

One audience member expressed concern that while San Jose voters approved funds to build and expand libraries, parks and community centers, there is not enough money to operate and maintain them. “Residents see funds spent on things like the new city hall and the Champ car race,” said Marshman. “As mayor, how will you address our infrastructure needs and make sure what we build can be operated and maintained?”

“Through measures ‘O’ and ‘P’ at the height of the boom you allowed us to build libraries and parks,” replied Chavez. “Since then, we’ve lost a lot of our general fund money. One of the other challenges is money for construction. I think it’s important for us to maintain resources for maintenance.”

Reed believes that regarding the city’s infrastructure, they cannot waste money they don’t have. “The Gonzales-Chavez administration has made some reckless spending decisions,” he says, “that cost us a lot of money, like the $500 million for the new city hall. It costs $33 million a year to pay for the operating costs and debt on the new city hall—twice what we spending before—that’s money that cannot be spent for services.”

San Jose City Councilmember Chuck Reed.

Reed noted that $22.5 million was paid to the county regarding the theater project at the fairgrounds as well as $8 million in damages to the Tropicana Shopping Center out of the redevelopment budget due to the abuse of the power of imminent domain. “We have lost a lot of money due to bad spending decisions,” he says. “We have to be sure that all infrastructure needs are on the table and prioritized during budgeting when we’re talking about new spending.”

Chavez was quick to retort. “There are times we could do a much better job at being more judicious with public money,” she said. “Relating to the fairgrounds, part of the challenge we have with our relationship with the county wasn’t just that we sued the county over the fairgrounds—we need to improve our relationship and not just spend time and money doing that—but, we really got leverage because we wanted to build out North San Jose and I think it was the right direction to go. We need to be careful of spending but also doing a better job of partnering with the county.”

Reed continued on his charge. “The fairgrounds litigation cost us $22.5 million and sucked the North San Jose development plan into the litigation,” he said. “Every grievance we’ve had with the county was drawn into this litigation.”

Regarding housing, one audience member said: The cost of housing in Silicon Valley is among the highest in the nation. On the other hand, San Jose has provided more than its fair share of housing. What is the extent of San Jose’s responsibility to provide additional housing for the region and how does Coyote Valley fit in?

“Silicon Valley must remain the innovation center of the world and continue to thrive,” says Reed. “We need to build affordable houses for people coming into the workforce. We need to balance jobs and housing across the city.”

Chavez noted that in Santa Clara County, San Jose is the most responsible city in terms of development. “We are trying to encourage other cities to do their fair share in terms of affordable housing,” she said.

Regarding Coyote Valley, an audience member stated that planning has proceeded even though triggers were not met. “Should Coyote Valley development also start in spite of not meeting triggers?” asked Marshman. 

Reed replied without hesitation. “Coyote Valley is a long-term thing,” he said. “Let’s not put 25,000 housing units down there impacting on traffic.” Reed insists that triggers should not be changed because it will have a huge impact on the city. The audience agreed, erupting with applause.

“We put triggers in place to ensure that when Coyote Valley was developed, it would not be at a time that would injure the city,” explained Reed “but a time driven by jobs. The language in the general plan, which I helped write, says that you should not consider changing the triggers until you have a citywide general plan task force look at it. We have to be very cautious with when and how we do it.”

Chavez agreed that Coyote Valley development should be job driven. “Sprawl isn’t good for San Jose,” she says, “We don’t even have a Caltrans station there. Coyote Valley has to pay for itself and this has to be dealt with by the developers. BART is very important to the City of San Jose. The January 2007 General Plan will give all of us the opportunity to weigh in on the type of city we want to have in the next ten, twenty, thirty years.”

Reed agrees that BART is very important for the infrastructure of San Jose. “Silicon Valley companies need to see we’ll have a better transportation system so they will stay here,” he says. However, he has a bone to pick with the VTA, claiming it has not been a well-run or managed organization.

“We did have a problem with management,” allows Chavez, Chair of the VTA Board, “and we now have a talented general manager. We’re doing a full audit which will help VTA be solvent as we pursue new ventures including BART.”

Reed questioned Chavez on her claim that she was proud of her vote on the Tropicana. “How can you be proud of your vote which caused the city $8 million in damages?” he asked. “You did not have to use eminent domain but could have worked with the property owners.” Chavez quickly replied. “The Story and King area was a gang-ridden, unsafe place,” she said. “If you go there now, it’s beautiful and safe to walk in. We did use eminent domain for part of that. There is a school next to it and I guarantee that none of you would want your children in a school in an area that looked and felt the way that area did.”

The discussion next turned to the attendance and economic impact of the San Jose Grand Prix. “We didn’t have that information when the city council voted to give them a $4 million subsidy,” stated Reed. “We didn’t see financial statements or projections or bank accounts. We have to do an economic impact on that and subtract what would have been made that weekend anyway. I don’t think that the council got a fair view of the cost of the race or the economic impact before the decision was made. I voted against it because it was dropped on the council at the last minute. Vice Mayor Chavez sits on the Rules Committee; she knew about it months before and could have put it on the council agenda. Last minute staff reports are a bad way to do policy. Policy by surprise is not something I support.”

Chavez noted that the accounting for the recent Grand Prix will not be available until late November or early December, but the previous year’s figures, compiled by the Visitors Bureau, shows a $42 million rate of return to businesses in San Jose. “More than 150 thousand people came out that weekend to watch that event and our city was publicized all over the world,” she said. “I invested in the Grand Prix because I thought it was good for San Jose long-term. I do agree that the process was flawed. If there was one thing I could do over again, I would definitely have taken that vote at a later time, but I still think it was the right vote to take.”

Regarding neighborhood 9-1-1 fees and garbage rates, Reed stated that city garbage rates increased in part because “$11 million went to the garbage company in order to pay for the mayor’s secret garbage deal. I think rates will continue to increase due to expenses,” he said, “but we need a good competitive bidding process.”

“Garbage rates will continue to increase,” says Chavez, “because we don’t want to use general fund money. We have some new contractors. Norcal underbid and re-bid for more money and pulled out.” Chavez noted that although it’s easy to say we shouldn’t have the 9-1-1 fee, it’s more difficult to say what we should cut. “We are already at bare bones as it is,” she says, “especially with regards to police and fire services.”

Regarding campaign funding, Reed questioned Chavez on the $55,000 donated by gambling interests to the United Democratic Campaign, one of her major supporters. “I have asked the United Democratic Campaign not to use any of that money on my campaign,” replied Chavez, “and to return it.”

In return, Chavez questioned Reed on a report that he met with representatives of a tribe regarding gambling in San Jose. “I was contacted by phone to see if there was a place to put a nice casino and resort here,” he said, “But, I said, ‘No. Not in my district. Not in San Jose. Not in Santa Clara County. Go some place else.”

Heated water district debate
Santa Clara Valley Water District Director Rosemary Kamei kept her cool despite repeated attacks by contender Ram Singh that the Water District is bloated by overspending.

The approach of the two candidates vying for a seat on the board of the Santa Clara Valley Water District was worlds apart. Singh’s heavily accented booming voice rang out with indignation against what he termed the mismanagement of the Water District while Kamei calmly refuted his claims. “I really take my responsibility as a board member to be fiscally responsible,” she says.

Santa Clara Valley Water District contender Ram Singh.

Singh, Head of Water Resources Engineering at San Jose State University, has served on city and state commissions as well as the Flood Advisory Board. He believes that the Santa Clara Valley Water District is inflated in its staff and spending and if elected, proposes to lower water bills, eliminate waste of taxpayer’s money, protect water quality, prevent ecological damage to rivers and watersheds, provide flood protection and re-establish the oversight role of the water board.

Incumbent Kamei has served on the Water District board since 1993, having been re-elected three times. She strives to be an advocate for fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, a clean and safe water supply and flood protection and management. Kamei is endorsed by Santa Clara County Supervisors, senators, members of congress and the city council among others. Singh is endorsed by former Director Joe Pandit and primary opponents Terry Mahurin and Johne Baird.

Starting off the evening’s discussion, an audience member stated that the Water District seems to build overly elaborate facilities, has a fleet of vehicles and a large, well-paid staff. “Is the Water District being fiscally conservative?” asked Marshman. “Would you support a management audit of the organization to find out if the staffing and spending levels are appropriate?”

Santa Clara Valley Water District Director Rosemary Kamei.

“They have built the Taj Mahol,” replied Singh. “They spent $12 million for a testing lab when there are private companies good at testing and are the third largest organization in the state. You have to do things right that are economical.” Singh said that he decided to run for office due to his frustration with the Water District’s spending and mismanagement and the need for change.

“We are currently in the process of completing an independent audit which will come out in November,” replied Kamei. “A grand jury found the water district to be a well-run organization. We work with the city to reduce fees whenever possible.”

Singh believes that water district rates can be lowered, although Kamei says that they lowered their wholesale rates although these weren’t passed on to the public.

“The public should pay more attention to the Santa Clara Valley Water District,” says Singh. “They are spending too much money.” Kamei believes her record speaks for itself. “I’m proud of the work I’ve done in the community,” she says. “Consider what I’ve done. I commit to continue the fight to safeguard our water quality in our drinking water, for flood control measures and for the environment.”

The San Jose Mayoral and Water District Candidate Forum and Debate was hosted by the Almaden Valley and VEP Community Associations. AVCA President Lee Dimmitt says they host debates to provide a more personal approach to the candidates and allow people to make more informed decisions while having their questions asked and answered. Barbara Marshman, Assistant Editor, San Jose Mercury News, mediated the debate, posing questions from the audience to the candidates in turn.