Conspiracy Con 2011 - The Live Blog - True Otts and Conspiracy Gaming

My first stop is to catch the tail end of Len Horowitz and Sherri Kane who are ranting about…well, I'm not sure what. Something about "True Ott" and the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. "Now that we know that truth about this…we had to ask Brian Hall for extra security. We're not going to stay around for obvious reasons."

Horowitz is a dentist who found he could make a lot more money selling new age cures to the gullible than doing root canals. Unlike most of the people here, he's tan and fit and looks more likely to be shilling for Thigh Master than Rebirthing Ourselves in the Creator's Image.

I'm not even going to try to understand what's going on. So I duck out and stop by Steve Jackson Games where, in my now-softened frame of mind, I part with 40 devalued fiat federal reserve "dollars" for "Illuminati: The Game of Conspiracy."

The card deck features eight illuminati cards – The Bavarian Illuminati, The Gnomes of Zurich, etc. – 83 "group" cards – fast food chains, the FBI, etc. – 15 "special" cards – market manipulation, murphy's law – two black dice (with white dots), and a 16-page instruction book. The object of the game is to control the world. That's about as far as I get.

The more interesting part of the conversation is with a young man named Christopher Gordon, who looks like the host of an MTV music video countdown but who is in real life a mortician. His take on his profession is anything but grim.

Indeed, we're all going to die and Gordon sees his role as supplying a more natural and affordable way to go than the American Way of Death. Before I leave he presses a handful of DVDs on me in hopes that he can persuade me to see the light. One is titled "Henrick Palmgren interviews Michael Tsarion, David Icke PLUS 67 OTHER INTERVIEWS IN 8 DAYS OF AUDIO ON MP3'S."

If nothing else, this cabal promotes a degree of multi-partisanship unseen anywhere else in the political spectrum. I ask: Where else can you find Phyllis Schlafley's Eagle Forum cheek-by-jowl with Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, the MUFON Symposium, and the Green Party?

The next stop is Douglas Dietrich, where I take 2,000 words of notes and wonder about the origins of psychosis. 

Conspiracy Con 2011 - The Live Blog

Dateline: Conspiracy Con, Santa Clara, CA

June 4, 2011 

Ominously, it's raining today. Really raining. Now, heavy rain is an extremely low probability event in Santa Clara in June. And you might be tempted to point to it as evidence of (take your pick):

1.           Global warming
2.          The global chemtrail conspiracy
3.          Project HAARP global weather manipulation conspiracy

Which makes it a perfect note on which to begin live-blogging from Conspiracy Con. That's because it illustrates the predominant fallacies that will be on display for the next 48 hours:

o   Sweeping generalization: It's June and it's raining in Santa Clara. Rain is unusual in June in Santa Clara. Therefore, something unusual is going on.

o   Straw man: Weather manipulation would cause unusual storms. We are having an unusual storm. Therefore the weather is being manipulated.

o   Causal oversimplification: Global warming is the cause of unseasonable weather, rather than a cause.

o   False cause: It's raining. Conspiracy Con is this weekend. Therefore Conspiracy Con caused the rain. 

Actually, the 2010-2011 rainfall year has been – get ready for this – exactly average. And while heavy rain in June is a low-probability event, it's not a zero probability event. In fact, while May 2011 temperatures averaged 7 degrees below normal, so did May 2010 temperatures. And, rainfall for the year at the end of May was slightly below normal.

In other words, today's weather proves exactly…nothing.

So with that note of skepticism, it's time to take a deeper dive into the murky pool that is Conspiracy Con.  

Shell Game or Prudent Planning? The latest Santa Clara RDA money shuffle

Despite the ostensible urgency that demanded an emergency meeting of the Santa Clara RDA/Stadium Authority Monday to transfer $4.5 million to a SF 49ers business entity called Stadco, no one seems to know who called the emergency. 


"[I] Can't pinpoint exactly who was the driving force," is how one member of the City staff -- who have been working on the details of the resolution round-the-clock since Thursday -- answered a direct question from Jamie McLeod. Details of the 26-page proposal -- plus about 50, mostly critical, emails -- were not made public until 5:10 p.m. Monday afternoon. 

Despite the fact that no one is quite clear whose idea it was, the City Council was crystal clear in approving it; with Council Members Lisa Gillmor, Pat Kolstad, Pat Mahan, Jamie Matthews, and Kevin Moore voting in favor, and Will Kennedy and Jamie McLeod opposing. "This is an excellent document," said Council Member Kolstad in his ringing endorsement of the proposal.



Predevelopment Agreement for Stadium Site Infrastructure

The move is the latest in a series of efforts to shield money that the City has allocated to redevelopment agency (RDA) projects. Like many other RDAs, Santa Clara is attempting to protect control over RDA assets by transferring them to city government. However, as the legislation continues to evolve, some fear that transfers between municipal agencies may not secure the assets. Their logic is that the only way to protect RDA money may be to put it in private -- not public -- hands. 

The proposal currently on the table in Sacramento moves control of redevelopment assets to currently unspecified local "successor agencies." And those successor agencies are not necessarily city governments. This raises the specter of successor agencies selling parks, libraries and fire stations to private owners.

Further, it's difficult to pinpoint just how the tax increment pie will be sliced, should the RDAs shut down. (Tax increments are the central funding mechanism for redevelopment, and divert the increase in tax revenues resulting from redevelopment back to the RDA). Presumably, after the first year -- where money will flow back to the state to close the budget deficit -- any revenue above what's needed to pay off debt will be divided by the same formula that is used for distributing other tax revenue. 

What won't happen is that all the RDA assets will flow into municipal coffers, although school districts will see more revenue. Combined with California's zany school district boundaries, this fans the fires of  a zero-sum competition between school districts and municipal governments as each vies for a bigger slice of a diminishing pie. 

For example, if the San Jose RDA is abolished, Santa Clara Unified School District will receive its proportional share of north San Jose property taxes. Currently, those property taxes are diverted by the San Jose RDA, leaving SCUSD to deal with a potential doubling of its student population with no additional revenue. Either SCUSD loses or San Jose 

Santa Clara voters approved a ballot measure last June to go forward with a 49ers stadium project. However, the Stadium Authority and Stadco are still negotiating the project's terms and conditions and  the complex financing plan for construction has yet to be completed or approved. Should the project fall through, "the advanced funds that are spent for makeready work will not be recoverable," explains City staff analysis of the measure.

The "predevelopment funding" aims "to ensure that the $4 million previously earmarked for this project, as well as the project tax increment are protected and are used for the purposes which the Council has identified and the voters have confirmed," said Deputy City Manager Carol McCarthy, in presenting the proposed resolution.

The $4.5 million that the Santa Clara Stadium Authority (SA) will advance to Stadco will pay for "make ready" infrastructure such as demolition, clearing and grading, design, relocating high voltage transmission lines, and regulatory compliance on city-owned land. This infrastructure would be needed for any development on the city-owned land, according to McCarthy. The site is currently leased by Great America for overflow parking.

"It is expected that the City, as owner of the Stadium site, will benefit from the work installed on and adjacent to the site," continues the analysis, "however it is possible that the work may not have value for future development, depending upon the nature of future development on the site."

All of this presents unacceptable risk for Santa Clara say opponents of the measure."The 49ers LLC is an entertainment business operating in our city," Santa Clara resident Clysta McLemore told the City Council. "It is not a bank. Our property tax dollars belong in a public agency to be used for the public good. Tonight's proposal opens the city to absorbing more front-end risk while our city services are being cut, city employees are being furloughed, and school budgets are being decimated," adding that "Measure J didn't discuss predevelopment costs."

"What it looks like from the outside … [is that] you are acting in parochial interests to sequester funds that are ours, not the team's," City resident William Ray warned the Council. "And in doing so you are acting against the interests of the people of California, of which we are members. The idea of racing the clock ahead of the governor and legislature is unconscionable," adding that in his previous home of Palm Beach County, FL, three recent county commissioners -- Tony Masilotti, Mary McCarty, and Warren Newell – are currently serving federal prison sentences for corruption and bribery.

Summary of pre-development funds transfer:

Stadco Predevelopment Costs

• Stadco has incurred a lot of predevelopment costs to date
• Stadco will advance the sa the $40 million for the benefits of SA
• Predevelopment costs includes SA operating costs

Payment of Initial Make-Ready Funds:

• SA advances $4 million to Stadco upon execution of agreement
• Kept in separate account along with any interest earned
• May be used only for make-ready work and SA operating costs in accordance with appropriated budget
• SA will hold RDA potion of development fees in separate account
• Funds returned/retained by SA if stadium is not built

Does the Monday's Emergency RDA Meeting Violate the Brown Act?

One question that is begged by Monday's short-notice RDA meeting is whether the meeting violates the California's 1953 Brown Act, mandating that public agencies conduct their business in a way that is open to public scrutiny. 

The Brown act requires agencies to post meeting agendas at least 72 hours in advance, in a "freely accessible" location, and to describe each item of business – including items discussed in closed sessions – with "enough information to enable members of the general public to determine the general nature of subject matter." Further, public agencies and boards may not discuss, nor take action on, items that aren't on the agenda.

The law allows three exceptions to the agenda requirements: emergencies, a situation requiring immediate action, and items posted on previous agendas. Closed sessions are permitted to discuss personnel matters, pending litigation, real estate negotiation, and labor negotiations. Minutes from closed sessions are exempt from public disclosure rules.

Technically, the meeting and a one-page agenda were posted on the City website Friday, just within the 72 hour limit. But Friday March 18, 2011 was a furlough day -- City offices were closed. However, according to the City attorney, the one page agenda that was posted on Friday does comply with state law. 

"The people, in delegating authority," says the introduction to the Brown Act, "do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." 
The administrative panic about the threat of RDA shutdown might lead some to think that Santa Clara's City Council doesn't agree. 

Candidate recommendations

As we're on the eve of the election, I felt it prudent to get this posted. I've been avoiding doing this mostly because as a reporter, I'm supposed to stay neutral on issues or candidates. But as a citizen of our fine community, it's rather difficult for me to just sit by the sidelines and not speak up, which is probably a reason why I'm a reporter in the first place.

Recommendations:
School Board Race

• Andrew Ratermann (Incumbent) - Santa Clara Unified School District; Trustee Area 3
• Pat Flot (Incumbent) & Anna Strauss - Santa Clara Unified School District; Trustee Area 2

My reasons? I think Ratermann, although a bit verbose at times, is the best candidate for Trustee Area 3. He's intelligent, gives a darn about what happens, isn't running for a political cause (or for political revenge) and is looking out for the best interests of students.

For Trustee Area 2, I think Anna Strauss & Pat Flot are the two best candidates. Flot is articulate, gives a darn about what happens, isn't running for a political cause (or for political revenge). The same goes for Strauss. When I first met her a few years back, I wondered why she wasn't on the school board or running for it. I think she'll be a fresh face and voice on the board.

One BIG problem I have with Christine Koltermann is that Santa Clara Plays Fair has endorsed her, yet she's a member of their board. That just isn't right - see my previous posting about the Sniff Test - Part II. What's even more amusing is she happily lists them as endorsing her on her webpage, but fails to include that she's on the board and then goes on to state that SCPF believes in "...ethical government, transparency in governance..."

One BIG problem I have with Ina Bendis is that two of her endorsements come from fellow board members on Mission City Democratic Club - see my previous posting about the Sniff Test

A problem I have with Christine Koltermann, Ina Bendis and Adela Saadat is that they appear to have copied from each other.

On either their webpage (in Bendis' case) or on the SmartVoter.org page (for Koltermann and Saadat) their ballot statements all include these key words or phrases:

• fiscal responsibility
  
• administrative accountability
  
• transparency in governance
• increased educational opportunities/options/choices
  
• supporting (retaining) teachers and staff
• narrow the achievement gap
  

Those are all great ideas, but for all three of them to have essentially the same ideas, down to the same wording sounds like they should go back to school to learn why plagarism is bad before they consider running for office.

A problem I have with Ashish Mangla is when he states one of his top priorities is to: "Increasing Education standards of the Santa clara city schools along with incentivizing children from economically weaker section of our community"

Except the SCUSD has schools in Sunnyvale and Alviso. Does this mean he'll just worry about Santa Clara schools and those schools in Sunnyvale and Alviso can get by on their own? Also, exactly what does "Incentivizing Children" mean? Is he proposing the district pay students to go to school?

City Council

• Mayor: Jamie Matthews
  

This one was looking like it would be a difficult choice, but one candidate made it easy. I'm recommending a vote for Jamie Matthews. Say what you will about him, I think he'll be more open and honest than Chris Stampolis. Stampolis appears to be a very gifted chameleon candidate - he's able to provide answers he thinks a target audience wants to hear. I've never really seen Matthews do that - he pretty much states his opinion whether you like it or not.

Also, back in 2008, when Matthews was running for Council, I related this story. Even though time has passed, I still think this is relevant in talking about Jamie's character:

"One thing that impressed me about Matthews is his turning down free press. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Matthews and several other Code Enforcement Officers went to New Orleans to help identify houses that were still habitable. Upon his return, I told him the paper could run a story on this, but to my surprise, he declined. He explained that he was just doing what he could to help the victims and didn't want to be in the spotlight. In starting his Council race this time, I offered to do a story on some website shenanigans committed by a former Council member and he declined. Both stories would have shown him to be an upstanding guy but he turned them down. Why tell the story now? I related these stories to a Santa Clara resident who said she felt they should be known."

City Council Seat 2

• Mohammed Nadeem

Nadeem answered a series of questions I put to him that unfortunately, won't make it into an issue of the Weekly. However, the questions I asked of him are questions any Santa Clara resident can ask of a candidate. I'll post the questions and candidates answers soon. Although Nadeem didn't impress me with his answers, I think getting a fresh face on Council could be a good thing.

City Council Seat 5

• Teresa O'Neill

Disclaimer:

• I signed Teresa O'Neill's campaign filing statement - not because I'm now supporting her but because she needed a signature and I thought it would be kind of neat thing to do. Since that time, I've emailed and chatted with Teresa - she answered the questions I mentioned above - but we've never discussed the issues or much of anything else.
  

• I've used Patricia Mahan as an attorney. My wife is quite fond of Patty and has already disagreed with me over this posting. I think Patty is a fine candidate and as a reporter, I've been duly impressed by the gravitas she's displayed sitting on the dais.

That said, I'm in favor of Teresa, in part because of the apparent loophole in how the term limits law applies. I'm sure if elected, Mahan will do a fine job, but I feel term limits should take priority. I think Teresa O'Neill will bring a fresh perspective to the City Council.

The Brown Act and Ina Bendis

Ok. This is not my writing, although I do like the style of this.

This was written by a soon-to-be participating blogger, "Fly on the Wall" on the Around Santa Clara blog, but since the election is almost here and Mr. Fly still can't post, I felt it prudent to get this posted sooner than later. Apparently did Mr. Fly in his email to me asking if I could post it for him (her?) in the meantime. (If I find out Mr. Fly is really a Miss Fly (Mrs. Fly?), I'll correct my salutations).

The appeal of this seems to be how Mr. Fly has managed to capture the spirit and style of Ina Bendis' speaking style.

Once the permissions issue is resolved, then I'll delete this post and allow Mr. Fly to re-post it.

Below is the work of one, Mr. Fly in response to my article about the School Board issuing a "Strong Disapproval" of Ina Bendis.

---------------------------
Mr. Sacks,

What you didn't include in your article was what I see as Bendis' biggest problem. Her commitment to verbosity.

"I should have kept my mouth shut" was a laudable defense, although she rarely will follow that strategy. Instead, she acts more like a crafty petulant child, who caught red-faced with her hand in the cookie-jar intones, that she has done nothing wrong.

Rather, it was the fault of her parents for having purchased the cookies in the first place and then for having placed them in the cookie jar and for not properly securing the cookies in such a way that would truly prevent her from gaining access.

Merely placing them on a high shelf in the pantry actually has forced her to risk life and limb by climbing in an unsafe manner to get to the cookie jar. She, is merely acting the way her parents intended her to act by doing the aforementioned grievances with the cookies and the cookie jar. Had her parents not wanted her to attempt to sneak cookies from the cookie jar, then she would not have been forcibly placed into such a position where her parents are now accusing her of lying, which "quite clearly" (one of Bendis' favorite phrases), she is not doing since quite clearly, this is the behavior her parents sought from her.

On top of that, it should also be pointed out that Mommy and Daddy actually regularly break the law by driving over the posted speed limit, and for not properly stopping before making a right turn on a red light. Furthermore, even though Daddy promised that he would stop smoking, in reality, he has been smoking in the bathroom and blowing the smoke out the window and then washes his clothing and takes a shower to mask the smell of cigarette and cigar smoke.

Additionally, Mommy and Daddy also smoke marijuana on a regular basis in the privacy of their room even though it is quite clearly, a violation of the law and neither of them has a valid medicinal need for it.

Finally, while Mommy and Daddy are smoking their dope, she is left to sit in a dirty diaper as they are both too stoned to know that they are quite clearly violating the Brown Act. This has left her no choice other than to report Mommy and Daddy to child and family services. The social worker assigned to my case was unaware about Mommy and Daddy's heinous actions and she informed them of that."

The “Sniff Test" - Part II

Santa Clara Plays Fair has endorsed Christine Koltermann in her bid for Santa Clara Unified School Board, Trustee Area 2.

Except, "Christine Koltermann... (is) a Board member of Santa Clara Plays Fair..."

Santa Clara Plays Fair's (SCPF) endorsement of Koltermann smells funny since Koltermann is on the board. To be truly objective and easily pass the sniff test, no board member would (or should) ask for, or receive the endorsement of an organization for which they serve on the board.

Also, SCPF includes a link to Koltermann's webpage, but they don't do that for the other candidates. That's really just childish and a way to avoid allowing people to find answers for themselves.