9 comments

  1. Yes on C
    Last I heard Byron had indeed moved on a few years ago. Why is all of a sudden interested in local politics….answer is….who cares.

    What is important is to understand why they are trying to alter our local elections.
    The 49ers have lost the residents, and current City Government of Santa Clara. If you were the 49ers and really wanted to win this game, you would have to make some serious changes to how you were playing the game.
    What would you do?
    1. Get better at the game. (That’s funny, they can’t even fill out a simple form right)
    2. Quit the game. (Can’t, 35 more years on the contract)
    3. Or just try to change the game, change the rules, change the players, move the goal post so to speak. (Bingo)

    Any local resident will tell you Santa Clara is not a Racial Divided City. Never has, and never will be. Why is race card being played? Answer is real simple it got traction, it worked at least for a little while. Who did this, a Judge who sits outside of our City.

    Sad, but we have just have 35 more years of this….

    Vote Yes on Measure C

    Burt Field

  2. With all due respect, Mr. Fleck, one has to question your residence? San Jose perhaps!
    We Santa Claran’s are tired of the OUTSIDE forces in play here.
    Our council is a bi-partsian council, policy decisions have been made for ALL residents. Not you sir!
    Please point to one policy that has hurt the minority community.
    Asian Law Alliance only cares about the MONEY. The court decision is in appeal.
    The 49ers only care about CONTROL & POWER. They have lost control of the council and resort to personal attacks. Deanna Santana has a red laser dot on her back now for doing her 3 jobs.
    Low, Kalra, Berman and Jodi Muirhead who are backing the 49ers have all received campaign
    contributions from them.
    Again, they do not represent the city of Santa Clara.
    The 49ers can’t even fill out forms correctly, seems the FPPC needs to “jump in and do their civic duty.”
    And you sir who were an unrelenting advocate for NO on J are supporting the 49ers in their pursuit
    to take over the city.
    What a flipper you are, as well as Karen Hardy, our new vice mayor.
    VOTE YES on C! Thank you Santa Clara Council majority for fighting for our city.

    • Hey Richard. You asked the basis of my interest in Measure C as one who no longer resides in Santa Clara.
      I still have dear friends in SC. As you probably know, I have decades of civic (all volunteer) engagement in the City.
      More broadly, there should be nothing more fundamental to any American than fair voting rights. This Measure goes to the heart, as I hope you agree. Many people who marched in the Civil Rights era came from states outside the South. I think we are all thankful they did.
      On this matter, Santa Clara does not and cannot exist on some island of isolation. Intentionally, as the court found, Santa Clara maintained a white political power enclave at the expense of minority voices. If you dispute any fact in the Court’s decision, please identify it.
      You asked that I identify what policy the City has implemented to oppress minority rights. That’s an easy one.
      First, maintaining an at large election system to purposely exclude minorities. Proof? See Court decision and judgment.
      Second, and ironically, the City, shortly after the Court’s decision, picked a seven member committee to draft a regime to respond and prepare for coming elections. The Council, in turn, picked a seven member committee composed of six white people and but one Asian Santa Claran. When the final votes were cast, Five all white committee members voted to perpetuate the City’s discriminatory conduct over the six district which would have provided greater access for minority office seekers.
      That problematic Committee action morphed into Measure C.
      I trust that succinctly answers your questions.
      As a reciprocal courtesy, and as a public representative on the Committee, please answer my four questions posed to you earlier.
      As to the 49ers, I really know nothing about their participation in the NO on C effort other than reported. Their involvement in and of itself, is, of course unrelated to the merits of measure c, which is my focus. They are a side show. I’m guessing their involvement is just their usual tit of tat.
      As to “flip flops,” we need to be clear. Measure C is not and will not be a judgment on the 49ers. Their participation is irrelevant to the merits. Moreover, if Karen Hardy, myself, others, who demonstrably opposed the stadium gift were right in that issue, maybe you should think about that with respect to Measure C. We are right again.
      Then (as now) we anti stadium Santa Clarans having no personal interest in the outcome. None received compensation. We did what was, proven with the benefit of hindsight, right for Santa Clara.
      Conversely, my friends Lisa and Kate and (never met that I can recall) Teresa, were diehard stadium supporters but now support Measure C. That’s a flip flop as well in your world. No biggie. Measure C has nothing to do with the 49ers anyway.
      Looking forward to your response to the four queries.
      Vote NO on C.

  3. YES on Measure C

    Yes my goal is to balance the city to be financially equal. Not being a racist, I don’t put the needs of a specific race above the needs of all residents.

    Stop being lazy trying to change the laws for the entire than city than address the issue of low voter turnout. Get involved with the community and bring them along rather than hold the rest of the city back. I suppose equal isn’t good enough some.

    • Richard, your purported “Goals” for the City are irrelevant to the merits, or lack thereof, of Measure C. Measure C asks voters if they want to apply 3 voting districts for Council elections. Four questions for you especially since you were one of the 5 members of the Charter Committee voting in favor of what has now become Measure C.
      1. Why are three districts better than the court ordered six? Obviously, six districts make campaigning less expensive and thereby opens the field to more potential candidates (including minorities traditionally underrepresented in Santa Clara). Because less money is required, the influence of special interest/dark money, shrinks. How do three districts advance those important public policy goals, if at all?
      2. Do you and/or the 5 members of the Charter Committee voting in favor of Measure C support the the CVRA and its policy to ensure minorities have a fair shake to be elected to public office?
      3. At the last meeting of your committee in September, 2019, the City Attorney informed you that in the event your three district plan passed in the March election, and assuming the judgment against Santa Clara is upheld on appeal, passage of Measure would likely trigger another lawsuit against the City. Did that give any of you pause in your support for three districts over six?
      4. Did it concern you that there was but one minority (Suds Jain) on your seven member Committee with six white residents? Especially where the Committee was formed on the heels of the Court finding Santa Clara’s then voting scheme was illegal because it compromised the ability for minority representation?
      Thank you Richard. You obviously have given serious thought to these issues.
      Vote No on Measure C.

  4. J., You socialist/commie bernie Bros need Daddy to take care of you and tell you what to do. Try planning your life, it is very enriching. Of course the last place I seek advice is from an ambulance chasing lawyer. They never take advantage of anyone.

    Sorry, I didn’t all read your earlier messages.

    • I’m sorry. Who are you? Richard? OMG! You were on the white people’s Charter Committee that pushed through Measure C? That Richard?
      And I’ve got to reprint your post above:
      “ You [as in me, J.Byron Fleck] socialist/commie bernie Bros need Daddy to take care of you and tell you what to do. Try planning your life, it is very enriching. Of course the last place I seek advice is from an ambulance chasing lawyer. They never take advantage of anyone.”
      I think you just proved No on C’s point. It’s only patent Trump people who would dare ram through a measure designed with the sole intent of doing what you can to ensure minorities never serve on the Santa Clara City Council. If that was not your goal, Richard, prey tell what was it? Do tell how 3 districts advance the likelihood over 6 districts that a minority Santa Clara resident will serve on Council? It seems you went on the Committee with the intent from day one of making it more difficult for Santa Clara minority community members to serve on the Santa Clara City Council. Explain where I am wrong, Richard.
      Vote No on C.

      • This post is funny. Look see who represented Dist. 2 on CRC? Did that Councilmember pick his rep? How many applied for Dist 2?And the Dist 2 rep was one of 5 votes for the 3 Districts.
        Don’t point fingers at Richard point at Dist 2 Councilmember for not doing his job and getting a plant on the cmte like hardy and Mahan did.Thank you Richard and CRC for your time.

        • K, in the interest, and promotion of, transparency, could you please identify yourself as I have? That is a fundamental value I hope you share.
          Thank you for your anticipated courtesy.

Leave a Reply