Santa Clara, CA - This quiet community has joined the ever growing list of cities in, not just the nation, but the world, plagued by seemingly random acts of violence, known as drive-by's. Although all the facts aren't available, what is known is rival groups have attacked and counter-attacked each other with so far, one fatality.
Drive-By Webbings
Drive-by Webbings are the latest example of the potential violence of the internet. Post a blog and feel free to say anything about anyone you want with no practically little to no accountability. While most web postings can be downright funny - such as the T.W.I.N.K.I.E.S. PROJECT (www.twinkiesproject.com), others can incite nonsensical responses.
The First Shot
This series of Drive-By Webbings started when a group dedicated to keeping Dominic Caserta from winning in his bid for the Assembly posted a website, "NotCaserta.org". I'll skip repeating here what they've said - you can read it on your own at your leisure.
Taking even a brief gander at the site, it's obvious the folks behind it are pretty steamed about Caserta's record during the previous election cycle concerning the BAREC property (www.SaveBAREC.org).
The Response
The Caserta camp appears to have tried to distance themselves by not actually responding themselves, but instead leaving that to Caserta's Campaign Consultant, James Rowen. As of today, Rowen has received $1,850 for his services.
Their Money's Worth?
Rowen would never be described as a slouch. To date, Rowen has produced fourteen (14) posts on his blog, missioncitylantern.blogspot.com with "NotCaserta" (more or less as the subject). More or less because at least two (2) of the posts have Caserta's name spelled incorrectly - as "Casera" or "Casrrta".
Sleeping Dogs
Maybe it'd have been best to let a sleeping dog lie. It's difficult to say how much publicity the website was getting before - after all, I didn't know about it - but now, it's getting a lot more attention. Not because there are any fascinating, stellar, must-read arguments there, but because Mr. Rowen did his job as Campaign Consultant, perhaps a little too well. Already steamed with Caserta's history, the NotCaserta folks became even more rankled when the first website they ran, "NotCaserta.com" was shutdown through Mr. Rowen's actions.
Freedom of Speech Issue?
The NotCaserta.org camp claims their rights to Freedom of Speech were trampled directly by Rowen and indirectly by Caserta who hired him in the first place.
There's really two issues here. Freedom of Speech and Legal Intimidation.
First, the Freedom of Speech issue. I ran the facts past a few lawyers along with the questions, "Is it a violation of their 1st Amendment rights to have their website - that they're paying for - closed by threatening emails?" The lawyer's response, "Quick answer, no. The First Amendment restricts only governental actions ('Congress shall make no law . . . ') That's why private businesses like shopping malls can bar protests [and] rallies on their property."
So, the claim of having their First Amendment Rights violated doesn't seem to hold much water.
Second, the threats of legal action. Rowen has several posts on his blog - missioncitylantern.blogspot.com - along with what's available on NotCaserta.org - that show the arguments made. From NotCaserta.org, we have two (2) parts of emails from Rowen - "Dominic - It is a federal crime... I am advising the authorities in the USA." and "....Get a lawyer..... Who are the people that registered this website with you."
Both pretty impressive looking emails, but both pretty laughable. Unfortunately, the NotCaserta.com website was shutdown because the web hosting company was intimidated - at least that's what NotCaserta.org says.
Racheting It Up
Having had their first website shut down, the people behind the NotCaserta effort opened a new website hosted by a different company and NotCaserta.org was born. Not having seen the content of NotCaserta.com, I can only conjecture that the content was much the same, minus of course, the news about the first website being shutdown.
I can also assume similar threats have either been made or will be made, but presumably, the new hosting company either has not or will not be intimidated - unless I assume, they're accompanied by "I've got a Court Order" - something I doubt will happen.
Up next: Strange Bedfellows, Love/Hate Relationships and Endorsements.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
49ers Stadium Announcement - April 1, 2008
SF 49ers To Buy Santa Clara
A source close to the negotiations has reported to the Santa Clara Weekly, the 49ers and the City are close to announcing an agreement rumored to be nearly $600 million. The area involved in the negotiations is bordered by Great America to Lafayette Street and Tasman Drive and Mission College/Agnew Road. Part of the agreement will have the City still paying $75 million for their portion of the stadium (rumored to have been negotiated down from the original $136 million) but that has been negotiated into the price which is rumored to be close to $700 million before the stadium subsidy is taken into account.
The Players in the Deal
The 49ers
The 49ers and City officials refused to comment on the rumors but a source close to the 49ers who is not authorized to speak indicated the 49ers “are excited at the prospect of getting even more involved in such a thriving community. The North of Bayshore Area is, of course, the area where we’re already in discussions with the City and this just seemed to be a good way to move the process along. ” The 49ers have already indicated to Cedar Fair their intention to fully support Cedar Fair and any businesses that wish to object to any changes Cedar Fair wants to do will face having their leases either revoked or rewritten at substantially higher rents.” The fact the City does not currently own the land is not seen as a stumbling block as the City is expected to use the process of eminent domain to obtain the rights to the land under the various industrial parks. While it is possible some companies might choose to move if faced with higher rents, we feel the existing lower rates, lower utility costs and discounted tickets will be enough of a perk to keep companies there.”
Cedar Fair
No one at Cedar Fair was willing to go on the record, but Cedar Fair would still operate the theme park with rental revenues now going to the 49ers instead of the City. A person close to the negotiations for Cedar Fair who is not authorized to speak for the organization reported “Cedar Fair is excited about working with the 49ers. We assume under their leadership we’ll be able to get our new rollercoaster height approved, something we have not been able to do under the City’s tutelage. We’re already planning lots of 49ers themed items – a 49ers Hall of Fame where we hope to have 49er greats past and present on hand when it’s officially announced; 49ers themed foods including a ‘Gold Rush’ series of health foods such as smoothies, tofurkey and low-cal garlic fries.”
The City
The City is also expected to announce a partnership between the City-owned utility, Silicon Valley Power, and the 49ers. While a name hasn’t been announced, rumors of the Silicon Valley Power Gold Rush persist in homage to the Power Company and the 49ers Gold Rush. “The Gold Rush Cheerleaders evoke so much energy among our fans that we think people will immediately see and appreciate the combined efforts. Gold Rush that are not busy with other duties are expected to work in the offices and on the customer service lines. “The Gold Rush are the face of the 49ers in the public and we expect people will be thrilled to be waited on by them when they contact the power company either on the phone or in person.”
This is a breaking news story – as news reveals itself, please return to this page for further updates.
Friday, March 21, 2008
I Got Them Old Convention Center Blues
This past week I spent some time in the San Jose Convention Center, giving me a refreshed appreciation of our hometown's facilities. The occasion was the VON -- voice on the 'Net -- conference.
Unlike the Santa Clara Convention Center, San Jose's operation has all the convivial charm of, well, the set of a low-budget slasher flick. It's big, barn-like, frigidly cold -- literally -- and eerily empty.
But the piece de resistance is that parking costs you $1 every 20 minutes. So if you spend an afternoon at a trade show, the tab is $20 or more. Adding insult to injury, half the time the clever little machines that take your money (don't expect to find a human being on the premises) spit out your credit card with a cheery message that your credit card is unreadable. Ditto for the $20 bill you try as an alternative.
By the end of the day -- and this may sound corny, I know -- I was homesick for Santa Clara's Convention Center with its bright, sunlit spaces and ample free parking. The irony is that the VON show started in Santa Clara but outgrew our exhibition space.
I can't wait for the expansion to be completed.
Unlike the Santa Clara Convention Center, San Jose's operation has all the convivial charm of, well, the set of a low-budget slasher flick. It's big, barn-like, frigidly cold -- literally -- and eerily empty.
But the piece de resistance is that parking costs you $1 every 20 minutes. So if you spend an afternoon at a trade show, the tab is $20 or more. Adding insult to injury, half the time the clever little machines that take your money (don't expect to find a human being on the premises) spit out your credit card with a cheery message that your credit card is unreadable. Ditto for the $20 bill you try as an alternative.
By the end of the day -- and this may sound corny, I know -- I was homesick for Santa Clara's Convention Center with its bright, sunlit spaces and ample free parking. The irony is that the VON show started in Santa Clara but outgrew our exhibition space.
I can't wait for the expansion to be completed.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Practiced Deceits
First, link love to James Rowan at Mission City Lantern for a nice mention of my last post about the old Kaiser hospital site.
Practiced Deceits
Sometimes you go to the theater and simply enjoy the show. Other times the performance sucker punches you, lays you out flat and sends you home feeling transformed. The Greeks, who invented theater, called it catharsis.
It doesn't happen often -- at least not for me -- but when it does, I wallow in it. Like last Friday night at the opening of Santa Clara University's current show, Dangerous Liaisons, Christopher Hampton's adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos' 1782 novel.
Staged by San Francisco director Tracy Ward, this visually sumptuous production hit the ground running the minute the house lights dropped and didn't let up until they went up.
Liaisons tells the story of aristocratic French libertines, Marquise de Merteuil and Vicomte de Valmont. Members of a social class with no legitimate occupation – today's Hilton sisters -- society is their playing field and other people their chess pieces.
The pair devotes considerable talent, wit, dissembling skill, and all their waking hours to this game. (It's something with lots of resonance today, when most of us have forayed at some point into cyberspace's fluid identities, alternative realities or e-romances.)
As the story opens, we see the two betting whether Valmont can seduce the virtuous Madame de Tourvel. The Marquise, meanwhile, sets Valmont on young Cecile de Volanges, recently graduated from a convent school to marry one of Merteuil's former lovers.
When Cecile falls in love with her music teacher, Chevalier Danceny, Merteuil and Valmont step in, ostensibly to help -- setting up the young couple as pawns in their ongoing game.
As diabolical as it sounds, the story is more Moliere than Marquis de Sade.
Hilary Tarver (the Marquise) and Alexander Tavera (Valmont) glitter as the "virtuosos of deceit," delivering the rapier-sharp dialog with panache.
Tarver bewitches as the predatory Marquise. This young woman has something better than Bette Davis eyes -- she has Bette Davis stage presence. She is dead-on in her rendering of a woman who, brought up to be society's victim, becomes a master predator among the predatory. Tarver puts every movement, every gesture and every inflection to work, putting spectators as helplessly under her spell as her onstage victims.
As Valmont's valet and accomplice in seduction, Chad Eschman hit exactly the right balance of slapstick and satire. The company ably brought the play's comedy to life, with the sex jokes -- and there are plenty, like Valmont's "Latin lessons" for Cecile -- drawing plenty of belly laughs.
But while sex is the story's language, it's not the subject, and Ward's staging and direction deftly unravels the subtext prowling below.
The erotic power struggle between Merteuil and Valmont smolders continuously at the edges of the action. But because the first to yield loses the game, so neither can ever drop the mask. In the ensuing tragedy, the winner loses by winning and it turns out that the greatest lie isn't professing love you don't feel, but denying love you do.
Written on the French Revolution's brink, Liaisons is often probed for social commentary. I'll leave aside the very obvious one about women's education and social position.
What interested me more was the way Ward gave us another drama in the intervals between scenes -- which also keeps the action going during a multiplicity of scene changes. As the servants move the props between scenes, they show us their hidden lives. Ward's staging makes us "see" the people who exist for the privileged classes only insofar as they're needed for life's dirty work. Until, of course, they turn murderous.
While Hampton's script ends with a guillotine's shadow falling across the stage, Ward wisely declines this particular lily-gilding device. Instead she chooses a more ambiguous ending -- a more ambiguous one than Laclos' own, which always seemed to me like an afterthought. Instead, Ward leaves it open. Does the Marquise continue her villainous career? Repent and join a convent? Lose her lovely head in the Revolution? Or escape the mob and fetch up on the shores of the New World, ready to reinvent herself yet again?
Ward lets us consider all the possibilities.
Dangerous Liaisons is playing at SCU's Mayer Theatre, Wed. through Sat. at 8pm through March 8. Admission is $5-$16. Call (408) 554-4015 for tickets. This show isn't appropriate for children. For more information, visit www.scu.edu/cpa.
Practiced Deceits
Sometimes you go to the theater and simply enjoy the show. Other times the performance sucker punches you, lays you out flat and sends you home feeling transformed. The Greeks, who invented theater, called it catharsis.
It doesn't happen often -- at least not for me -- but when it does, I wallow in it. Like last Friday night at the opening of Santa Clara University's current show, Dangerous Liaisons, Christopher Hampton's adaptation of Choderlos de Laclos' 1782 novel.
Staged by San Francisco director Tracy Ward, this visually sumptuous production hit the ground running the minute the house lights dropped and didn't let up until they went up.
Liaisons tells the story of aristocratic French libertines, Marquise de Merteuil and Vicomte de Valmont. Members of a social class with no legitimate occupation – today's Hilton sisters -- society is their playing field and other people their chess pieces.
The pair devotes considerable talent, wit, dissembling skill, and all their waking hours to this game. (It's something with lots of resonance today, when most of us have forayed at some point into cyberspace's fluid identities, alternative realities or e-romances.)
As the story opens, we see the two betting whether Valmont can seduce the virtuous Madame de Tourvel. The Marquise, meanwhile, sets Valmont on young Cecile de Volanges, recently graduated from a convent school to marry one of Merteuil's former lovers.
When Cecile falls in love with her music teacher, Chevalier Danceny, Merteuil and Valmont step in, ostensibly to help -- setting up the young couple as pawns in their ongoing game.
As diabolical as it sounds, the story is more Moliere than Marquis de Sade.
Hilary Tarver (the Marquise) and Alexander Tavera (Valmont) glitter as the "virtuosos of deceit," delivering the rapier-sharp dialog with panache.
Tarver bewitches as the predatory Marquise. This young woman has something better than Bette Davis eyes -- she has Bette Davis stage presence. She is dead-on in her rendering of a woman who, brought up to be society's victim, becomes a master predator among the predatory. Tarver puts every movement, every gesture and every inflection to work, putting spectators as helplessly under her spell as her onstage victims.
As Valmont's valet and accomplice in seduction, Chad Eschman hit exactly the right balance of slapstick and satire. The company ably brought the play's comedy to life, with the sex jokes -- and there are plenty, like Valmont's "Latin lessons" for Cecile -- drawing plenty of belly laughs.
But while sex is the story's language, it's not the subject, and Ward's staging and direction deftly unravels the subtext prowling below.
The erotic power struggle between Merteuil and Valmont smolders continuously at the edges of the action. But because the first to yield loses the game, so neither can ever drop the mask. In the ensuing tragedy, the winner loses by winning and it turns out that the greatest lie isn't professing love you don't feel, but denying love you do.
Written on the French Revolution's brink, Liaisons is often probed for social commentary. I'll leave aside the very obvious one about women's education and social position.
What interested me more was the way Ward gave us another drama in the intervals between scenes -- which also keeps the action going during a multiplicity of scene changes. As the servants move the props between scenes, they show us their hidden lives. Ward's staging makes us "see" the people who exist for the privileged classes only insofar as they're needed for life's dirty work. Until, of course, they turn murderous.
While Hampton's script ends with a guillotine's shadow falling across the stage, Ward wisely declines this particular lily-gilding device. Instead she chooses a more ambiguous ending -- a more ambiguous one than Laclos' own, which always seemed to me like an afterthought. Instead, Ward leaves it open. Does the Marquise continue her villainous career? Repent and join a convent? Lose her lovely head in the Revolution? Or escape the mob and fetch up on the shores of the New World, ready to reinvent herself yet again?
Ward lets us consider all the possibilities.
Dangerous Liaisons is playing at SCU's Mayer Theatre, Wed. through Sat. at 8pm through March 8. Admission is $5-$16. Call (408) 554-4015 for tickets. This show isn't appropriate for children. For more information, visit www.scu.edu/cpa.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
On the Street Where I Live
Last week I had an interesting conversation with Kevin Park of Concerned Santa Clara about Fairfield's development proposal for the old Kaiser hospital site — 900 Kiely. One of the things that we talked about was the fact that the plan doesn't include any retail space — which we both agreed was a mistake.
One of the surest ways to get people out of their cars and onto their feet is to bring everyday services and shopping into their neighborhoods. From that perspective I have an enviable address.
In the 21 years that we have lived in our townhouse, a lot of people have come and gone. Young people buy here with the grand plan of moving to a free-standing house in a more "residential" area as soon as they can. But to me, this address is a destination.
First, I'm in the City of Santa Clara -- the little city that works.
Second, I'm right across the street from Lucky's, Long's, Starbucks, San Tomas Liquors, Carl's Jr., a pizzeria (not to be compared with Slice of NY, but still, it's right there), a drycleaner, and a sushi bar. Walk another block, and there's a 7-11, Vanna Nails (where I've been going for 15 years and which is one of the most expert nail salons around), 4-5-6 Chinese food, a laundromat, a shoe repair, three hair salons, the Pruneridge golf course, and, if you hustle pool, the Sportsman's.
We used to have one of Santa Clara's best restaurants, Brigitte's, until the building owner jacked up the lease beyond what the traffic could bear. That piece of real estate acumen sure paid off — the space has been vacant for 18 months.
Not only does neighborhood shopping make you feel virtuous about all the $4-a-gallon gasoline you're not burning, it also builds community. You see and talk to people. You get to know something about the people you share your neighborhood with. Sure I wish this was a more attractive, downtown-like spot. But I'll take the cash and let the credit go.
I like having people around me. I like casual conversation — the kind women used to have over the backyard clothesline and neighbors shared sitting on the front porch (we called it a stoop in Brooklyn) on hot summer evenings.
It makes me feel sorry for people living in Los Altos or Woodside. How dull to be cocooned in your one-acre lot and multi-million dollar house, having to fire up the Mercedes just to be able to while away a rainy afternoon with a book and a cappuchino, watching the world go by. Sitting by yourself in your private media room is not the same thing — not at all.
I'll be following the 900 Kiely proposal as it unfolds. And I suspect that, as usual, I won't make any side of the question entirely happy with my coverage. And I'm sure that the final development won't be perfect — like everything else in this less-than-perfect world.
But some shops and cafes would sure make it less imperfect.
One of the surest ways to get people out of their cars and onto their feet is to bring everyday services and shopping into their neighborhoods. From that perspective I have an enviable address.
In the 21 years that we have lived in our townhouse, a lot of people have come and gone. Young people buy here with the grand plan of moving to a free-standing house in a more "residential" area as soon as they can. But to me, this address is a destination.
First, I'm in the City of Santa Clara -- the little city that works.
Second, I'm right across the street from Lucky's, Long's, Starbucks, San Tomas Liquors, Carl's Jr., a pizzeria (not to be compared with Slice of NY, but still, it's right there), a drycleaner, and a sushi bar. Walk another block, and there's a 7-11, Vanna Nails (where I've been going for 15 years and which is one of the most expert nail salons around), 4-5-6 Chinese food, a laundromat, a shoe repair, three hair salons, the Pruneridge golf course, and, if you hustle pool, the Sportsman's.
We used to have one of Santa Clara's best restaurants, Brigitte's, until the building owner jacked up the lease beyond what the traffic could bear. That piece of real estate acumen sure paid off — the space has been vacant for 18 months.
Not only does neighborhood shopping make you feel virtuous about all the $4-a-gallon gasoline you're not burning, it also builds community. You see and talk to people. You get to know something about the people you share your neighborhood with. Sure I wish this was a more attractive, downtown-like spot. But I'll take the cash and let the credit go.
I like having people around me. I like casual conversation — the kind women used to have over the backyard clothesline and neighbors shared sitting on the front porch (we called it a stoop in Brooklyn) on hot summer evenings.
It makes me feel sorry for people living in Los Altos or Woodside. How dull to be cocooned in your one-acre lot and multi-million dollar house, having to fire up the Mercedes just to be able to while away a rainy afternoon with a book and a cappuchino, watching the world go by. Sitting by yourself in your private media room is not the same thing — not at all.
I'll be following the 900 Kiely proposal as it unfolds. And I suspect that, as usual, I won't make any side of the question entirely happy with my coverage. And I'm sure that the final development won't be perfect — like everything else in this less-than-perfect world.
But some shops and cafes would sure make it less imperfect.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Strange Bedfellows
Truly the end times have arrived. The lion is lying down with the lamb.
I am, of course referring to the January 15 City Council meeting where Chris Stampolis and Miles Barber came down on the same side of an issue; namely the 49ers stadium.
When did you last see that happen? It's certainly something to think about.
I am, of course referring to the January 15 City Council meeting where Chris Stampolis and Miles Barber came down on the same side of an issue; namely the 49ers stadium.
When did you last see that happen? It's certainly something to think about.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Stadium Follies
After the Oct. 23 City Council meeting, I can only assume the Santa Clara Plays Fair advocacy group intends the word 'play' in its theatrical sense. In which case, its troupe might do better to tour its act on the comedy club circuit rather than at City Hall.
Its show bombed when the anti-49ers stadium group flung its fanfold computer paper petition across the width of the Council Chambers in streamer after streamer. It reminded me of the Marx Brothers in A Night at the Opera when Groucho, Chico and Harpo all try to get through customs with Maurice Chevalier's passport.
The performance wasn't improved by a spontaneous encore from the city's reigning municipal rage-monger, a guy with comedian Lewis Black's psycho delivery but none of Black's cleverness or wit.
Perhaps you shouldn't judge the message by the messenger. On the other hand, as Marshall McLuhan famously said, the medium is the message.
Belligerence, confrontation, adolescent antics, clumsy sarcasm, and snide -- and not-so-snide – insults all telegraph a clear message, although probably not the one SCPF intended.
The message that came through is a zero-sum power play: I win, you lose. It denies compromise and consensus. It's the Bush-Cheney modus operandi. It leads to waterboarding, not fair play.
And tactically, it makes no sense to alienate people right out of the box. Take me, for example.
I have no opinion about the proposed 49ers stadium project. I'm not a football fan. I will probably never set foot in the stadium. If anyone has no horse in this race, it's me.
But after last week's meeting, although I remain undecided about the stadium, I sure do have an opinion about SCPF.
And that's a lose-lose. I didn't gain any more insight into the question and they lost the opportunity to gain a vote.
There are other ways to do things. In fact, there's someone right here in town whose name is synonymous with win-win politics: retired State Senator John Vasconcellos.
The senator was a master at finding consensus with people of widely disparate views. In the process he racked up significant legislative achievements. Since retiring, he's been actively advancing his approach through his non-profit Politics of Trust foundation.
Its guiding principal is simple: "Human beings are innately inclined toward becoming affirming and constructive, responsible and trustworthy." So far the organization has launched three projects to coach and mentor elected officials and advocacy groups in the art of influencing and governing through building common ground.
What does that have to do with the price of a 21st century sports stadium?
Vasconcellos' approach suggests, for a start, assuming that those who disagree with us are honest and want the best for Santa Clara, just as we do. That precludes last week's sideshow.
Second, let's keep the discussion on the issue facing us: Is it a prudent investment for the City? Asking why the Yorks don't ante up to fill the $200 million funding gap is specious. Cities have revenue streams that private businesses don't – taxes.
How does tax revenue look 10, 20, 50 years into the future? Can the stadium help the City reduce its vulnerability to the boom and bust cycles of technology and real estate? Because this would be a regional asset – and a regional sales tax generator -- shouldn't the rest of the region contribute?
These are some of the questions I look forward to hearing answers to as analysis goes forward. However, I'm not likely to tune in to reruns of the Santa Clara Plays Fair show any time soon. Maybe TV Land will air them, right after All in the Family.
Its show bombed when the anti-49ers stadium group flung its fanfold computer paper petition across the width of the Council Chambers in streamer after streamer. It reminded me of the Marx Brothers in A Night at the Opera when Groucho, Chico and Harpo all try to get through customs with Maurice Chevalier's passport.
The performance wasn't improved by a spontaneous encore from the city's reigning municipal rage-monger, a guy with comedian Lewis Black's psycho delivery but none of Black's cleverness or wit.
Perhaps you shouldn't judge the message by the messenger. On the other hand, as Marshall McLuhan famously said, the medium is the message.
Belligerence, confrontation, adolescent antics, clumsy sarcasm, and snide -- and not-so-snide – insults all telegraph a clear message, although probably not the one SCPF intended.
The message that came through is a zero-sum power play: I win, you lose. It denies compromise and consensus. It's the Bush-Cheney modus operandi. It leads to waterboarding, not fair play.
And tactically, it makes no sense to alienate people right out of the box. Take me, for example.
I have no opinion about the proposed 49ers stadium project. I'm not a football fan. I will probably never set foot in the stadium. If anyone has no horse in this race, it's me.
But after last week's meeting, although I remain undecided about the stadium, I sure do have an opinion about SCPF.
And that's a lose-lose. I didn't gain any more insight into the question and they lost the opportunity to gain a vote.
There are other ways to do things. In fact, there's someone right here in town whose name is synonymous with win-win politics: retired State Senator John Vasconcellos.
The senator was a master at finding consensus with people of widely disparate views. In the process he racked up significant legislative achievements. Since retiring, he's been actively advancing his approach through his non-profit Politics of Trust foundation.
Its guiding principal is simple: "Human beings are innately inclined toward becoming affirming and constructive, responsible and trustworthy." So far the organization has launched three projects to coach and mentor elected officials and advocacy groups in the art of influencing and governing through building common ground.
What does that have to do with the price of a 21st century sports stadium?
Vasconcellos' approach suggests, for a start, assuming that those who disagree with us are honest and want the best for Santa Clara, just as we do. That precludes last week's sideshow.
Second, let's keep the discussion on the issue facing us: Is it a prudent investment for the City? Asking why the Yorks don't ante up to fill the $200 million funding gap is specious. Cities have revenue streams that private businesses don't – taxes.
How does tax revenue look 10, 20, 50 years into the future? Can the stadium help the City reduce its vulnerability to the boom and bust cycles of technology and real estate? Because this would be a regional asset – and a regional sales tax generator -- shouldn't the rest of the region contribute?
These are some of the questions I look forward to hearing answers to as analysis goes forward. However, I'm not likely to tune in to reruns of the Santa Clara Plays Fair show any time soon. Maybe TV Land will air them, right after All in the Family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)