By Robert Haugh
Tomorrow’s Council and Authorities meeting includes:
- Action on the FY 2020/21 Budget Rebalancing Actions to Address COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts (Continued from February 23, 2021 and March 2, 2021)
- Study Session: Draft 2021 Non-NFL Events Marketing Plan for Levi’s Stadium in Accordance with Section 4.10 of the Stadium Management Agreement (Continued from March 2, 2021). This is the document where the 49ers layout their plan to get rid of the curfew.
- Study Session: Proposed Santa Clara Stadium Authority Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget, Compliance and Management Policies (Continued from March 2, 2021)
- Proclaim March 2021 as Red Cross Month
- Proclaim March 2021 as Women’s History Month
- Verbal Report from City Manager regarding COVID-19 Pandemic
[…] The budget approval discussion started two weeks ago. […]
They don’t make these public, so I thought I’d post what I sent the council here:
Dear Mayor and Council,
I would open by reminding the council that, as figureheads for the City of Santa Clara, you should remember that your words and actions have an immeasurable impact on the morale and motivation of all City employees. Act as a source of inspiration whenever possible.
With that in mind, I found last week’s budget discussion to be shameful politics. We all know that you have very real and difficult budget decisions to make. However, I thought the slander of the POA for not “coming the table” was particularly venomous. It is shameful to hold a private negotiation with a group and then lambaste them publicly for not agreeing to whatever you offered. Either keep the negotiations private entirely, or let the public know what was offered. You can’t have it both ways. As it stands, my assumption is that you are too embarrassed to publicly state what the “offer” entailed because it was a long-term financial reset and not a short-term solution.
I found it particularly ironic that Council Member Hardy led this charge as a member herself of the most obstinate public union in the entire state (Teachers). A Union that has done untold damage to our children by refusing to open up for in-person learning (quick tangent – why is there no discussion from the Council on how to safely open up? Or are we just permanently living under the decree of the unelected?). Private schools in the area have been open since at least October. But most problematic is that your decision to cut positions is inconsistent with your general tendency to want the police involved in every minor matter. You argued for the police to throttle teenagers in possession of tobacco! (Yes, we pay attention to your lack of consistency and noticed that you were probably the only person in the entire nation that would have pulled the abolition of that ridiculous tobacco ordinance from the consent calendar). I wonder what other police issues you have complained about, and whether or not your complaint was consistent with a severely diminished force?
The POA has not missed a beat during the entire pandemic, no matter the difficulty. However, if a difficult vote comes up our Vice Mayor Chahal frequently abstains, oftentimes citing a “lack of information.” But now you want to place the budget burden on the shoulders of the POA, without giving the public the requisite information to make that determination fairly. That doesn’t seem fair.
Council Member Jain dismissed the numerous complaints about this proposal as “form letters.” This shows a troubling disconnect with the people he represents and the people of this City. We are busy. We don’t have the ability nor the time nor the inclination to write original opinion pieces about the topics in front of the Council. However, when something is brought to our attention, particularly if we agree and view it as urgent, many of us copy the language that we see in an email or a social media posting and use it while attaching our name. This allows us to say, “hey, I agree with this!” (or, in this case, “don’t agree!”). But I guess your desire to see information in this form betrays why we can get a sneak preview of your thoughts on the SVVoice the week prior to the meeting.
And Council Member Park, your voting decision didn’t follow the logic of your opening statement where you pointed out how rapidly we are growing and the incredible number of developments that are on tap. If I heard you correctly, you said roughly, “we need more services,” but then voted to cut. There is a train coming down the tracks at our city (quite literally). When BART gets here in 10+ years, along with ALL of the other developments, we are going to be so far behind the 8-ball it won’t be funny. We have to start at least planning for that now. Part of that planning would be to freeze the positions, rather than cut, so that they can more easily be filled once the economic data allows.
Council Member Becker, I believe that in the campaign you said the police department “needed to be trimmed.” THANK YOU for entering this discussion with an open mind, listening to your constituents, and reassessing your position. Thank you for voting with the interest of your District in mind (That’s my rep!!).
Judging by the activity I saw this weekend, the shopping, the traffic, etc, our economy is going to snap back with a vengeance. Freeze the positions if you must, but don’t cut them.
Thank you for your time. I wish you wisdom.
YOU ARE AWESOME 🙂
How is it possible that I forgot Anthony Becker, that makes five.
Let’s hope they all remember they were voted into represent Santa Clara, not Jed York!
It will be interesting to see if there’s more chatter from the council members that don’t really care about the negative impact on residents that live near and lives are impeded by the stadium.
Kevin Park were all elected to represent Santa Clara. I don’t believe they’ve done their research and have spoken to the people of the north side that live in a very close proximity to the stadium. They are the true victims as the stadium was pushed on them. It’s up to these four council members to decide whether the residents or Jed’s pocketbook is more important.