Interesting New Website, Interesting Vote

Interesting New Website, Interesting Vote

By Robert Haugh

An interesting new website has been generating some buzz on Facebook:  JamesRowenWatch.com.

For those of you that may not know, James Rowen is longtime Santa Clara political “gadfly” who has repeatedly harassed, annoyed, insulted, threatened, and demeaned a lot of people in our community (including me). He’s used emails, phone calls, and once wrote a blog that attacked Santa Clara elected officials and community leaders. That was until local attorney John Mlnarik sued him for defamation and won, and killed his blog. It’s like when Roman Reigns defeated The Undertaker and ended his career.

Now, a website has been put up to collect evidence of Rowen’s vitriol. It’s unclear who created it. But it was actively shared on Facebook by Unofficial: Santa Clara City Council and Stand Up for Santa Clara.

Here’s some interesting things the site highlights:

  • The Santa Clara Police Department has a case opened for complaints about Rowen (#T17001022).
  • Rowen’s various types of harassment may violate California Penal Code 653m.
  • Rowen was once arrested for battery against a female VTA bus driver and was put on probation for a year.

We’ll continue to monitor this site.

Because of time, we didn’t cover an interesting vote at the July 18 Council meeting in our Wednesday Council Recap.

City staff wanted the Council to clarify the Freedom Circle Specific Plan. Greystar who owns about 14 acres of the vacant land bordering Highway 101 and the San Tomas Aquino Creek (near Pedro’s Restaurant) doesn’t want to be part of the Specific Plan. They’d like to build a mixed use development and don’t want to wait.

Another major developer, the Irvine Company opposed Greystar’s effort to pull out of the Specific Plan. Irvine wants all property owners to participate so no one (i.e. Greystar) gets away with building a project without paying their fair share for infrastructure, parks, or even a school.

City staff believes that Greystar should be part of the Specific Plan so that the area can be better planned as a whole, rather than piecemeal. The Council agreed (5-2, Pat Kolstad and Patricia Mahan opposed).

But here’s what’s interesting. Vice Mayor Dominic Caserta didn’t vote. Well, he eventually did. But only after Mayor Lisa Gillmor asked him to record his vote. You can watch it at the 2:06:40 mark.

We’re not sure why Caserta ducked the first vote. But there’s a lot of buzz at City Hall about it.

19 comments

  1. Is it because noone else:

    – Throws softball questions to developers/49ers after being paid off by developers/49ers like Dom?

    – Talks condescendingly and berates Santa Clarans like Dom?

    – Shills for votes/endorsements like Dom?
    (suddenly he’s the friend of labor? wtf?)
    (what is he not willing to fake to get Ken Yeager’s endorsement?)

    – Turns red and flips off certain people in the audience like Dom?
    (thin skin?)

    – Posts on this site as “Lance?”

    – Builds up a nest egg of $$$ like Dom

    – Has buried “sexual harrassment” chages like Dom?

  2. I’m not sure that I’ve seen anyone more nasty than James Rowen.
    Anyone associated with his sleazy tactics should be ashamed.

    So given his long track record of nastiness and ego filled tactics,
    I have a key question:

    Can you find out if the “anti” James Rowen site isn’t the brainchild
    of none other than James Rowen?

  3. Robert, there was a posting on Nextdoor about Caserta in a somewhat negative way. All the postings after that, from many different people, were negative regarding Caserta.
    I suggested the difference might be that you can’t post on Nextdoor anonymously as you can here.

  4. I agree, a cheap shot at Caserta. “Here’s what’s interesting”??? It was a simple confusion which was predicated by Councilmember Davis voting against her own motion! Caserta never changed his vote. Why was this point highlighted with nothing mentioned of Davis’s changed vote? Her voting light was clearly and simply an honest mistake. Neither was worth reporting.
    I appreciated the quick recap yesterday of Tuesday’s late meeting. But, I certainly don’t think an update raising this voting light confusion added anything at all except a distraction. What purpose did that serve?
    Rather frightening that City Hall might be “buzzing” about this. …now, that might be a story!

    • MikeOH would be right for most politicians. But Caserta is known for bowing to developers and the 49ers in exchange for money. The man has the gall to brag about his fundraising. So when he fails to vote it raises questions and yes buzzzzzz. Was he trying to avoid pissing off two developers by ducking the vote? With Caserta you never really know.

      • He voted! Watch the tape…Robert is flat wrong again! And watchdog Caserta voted against what Greystar wanted in spite of receiving a contribution from them and he has disagreed with the 49ers quite a bit. You are wrong in that too must be another Oliverio surrogate…

  5. Teachers in Santa Clara, including me, will be voting for Susan Ellenberg. She has the best commitment to education and is a person of high moral character.

    • Is Susan a teacher? No she is an employee of the Chamber. Dominic has devoted 20 years of his life to the classroom. Susan wants to take money from public schools as evidenced by her voting record…

      Dominic is the choice for educators..,

  6. I believe Mr. James Rowen is working on the Caserta for Supervisor campaign. Mr. Caserta talks to him a lot. Is he the person that Mr. Caserta gives envelopes of cash to? Just kidding about the envelopes. But serious about the calls.

  7. I’d like to know how much Greystar and Irvine contributed to Caserta. Just guessing that Irvine contributed more. That may be the simple answer. Maybe you can do a follow up report with this info.

    • If you look at the reports Graystar contributed to Caserta and Irvine did not so that blows up your theory R. Runeel. According to your negative view Caserta would have been voted with Greystar and he didn’t!

  8. Robert this is a blatant lie about Caserta. I just watched the video. Caserta voted yes on the first motion by Davis and the voted yes again on the second motion and it is clear as day on the video. Then the Mayor asked Davis if she voted against her own motion and then the mayor asked to clear the lights again and Caserta the voted A third time yes in the motion.

    This is such false reporting AGAIN and to say city hall is buzzing about then quote someone directly such laziness and inaccuracy again trying to make Caserta look bad. Interesting you did not mention his passionate speech on raising the minimum wage which was unanimous but you mention this garbage and flat inaccuracy anothe confirmation of your bias.

    Shame on you and grow up!

    • And if you had any ethics at all you would retract this falsehood and apologize to Caserta you will do neither!

      Folks watch the clip starting about 2:03 and you will see what a liar Robert is pls watch it!!!

      • Lance: I will give Dominic an opportunity to write a column and explain this vote or anything else he would like. The video clearly shows that an issue was made regarding council member Davis’ vote, then when the vote was held, Caserta didn’t vote until prompted.

        It was late. We were tired too. Hence why we missed writing about this key vote in the first place.

      • No Robert you are lying again Caserta vited a second time then the issue came up with Davis I can’t speak for him but he thought his vote was recorded as seen clearly in the video apaologize and retract the lie, you won’t so lazy and biased!

      • The mayor did ask for caserta to record his vote, and then clarified the vote with the city clerk. This item had two separate notions and votes, As we reported. There are no lies.

Leave a Reply