February 22, 2008

Business district name creating council problems

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

On Nov. 20, the City Council voted 8-3 to name a predominantly Vietnamese shopping area on Story Road the Saigon Bus-iness District. Since then, a vocal group, which preferred the name Little Saigon, has been protesting and calling for the recall of District 7 Council-member Madison Nguyen.

While many in San Jose would consider the matter a vote for residents in District 7, the City Council may decide to put the issue on the ballot for the entire city in June or November costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars, despite the problems with the structural budget deficit. Putting the item on the June ballot will cost the city $577,000 and must happen before March 7. The cost to put it on the November ballot is $214,000 because the city already has items on that ballot.

The group protests, which have occurred outside City Hall before and during council meetings as well as at the Convention Center during the State of the City were local news, but the latest rounds have even made it to the national networks.

In recent weeks the protests have been growing and two weeks ago, District 2 Council-member Forrest Williams indicated that over the summer Nguyen had asked for and received his support in the vote. Nguyen lined up four other votes prior to the November session. Under the state’s Brown Act it is illegal for a majority of office holders to discuss issues outside of public meetings.

On Feb. 13, Williams re-leased a statement regarding the issue along with his regrets over “misunderstanding or confusion that this situation has generated,” in a press release.

“Councilmember Madison Nguyen and I never held undisclosed meetings to discuss the naming of the business district until the City Council meeting on Nov. 20, 2007,” the release said. “Rather, in passing, I simply stated that I supported her quest for a business district in her council district. At the time of this brief exchange, the idea of a name was never mentioned nor discussed between Coun-cilmember Nguyen and myself. Furthermore, my vote to support any name of this business district was never promised to Councilmember Nguyen. Busi-ness districts bring economic incentives and encourage growth not only for each individual council district, but also for the city of San Jose and this is what I support.”

Just prior to Williams’ release, City Attorney Rick Doyle looked into the situation and while he could not find a violation to the Brown Act, said that Williams’ comments suggested that a violation might have occurred. Even though both council members maintain they did not discuss the matter prior to the vote, and Doyle said the conversation appeared to be “informal water cooler chat,” there is a “perception of a Brown Act violation” that needs to be cleared up. He suggested the council overturn the previous vote and reschedule another vote.

The council, at its Rules Committee meeting last Wednesday, put the item onto its March 4 agenda, but questions circulate about what steps will be taken. Nguyen and Mayor Chuck Reed sent out a memo calling for the citywide vote. Vice Mayor Dave Cortese also sent out a memo outlining several steps including rescinding the Nov. 20 vote. He also suggested the council take a second vote, “If the council approves “Little Saigon,” then the matter can be considered closed and any subsequent vote would be unnecessary.”

However, if the council does not agree on that name, Cortese suggested that council members discuss electoral options including:

- Establishing a business improvement district and vesting it with the power to vote

- Establishing a community assessment district and vesting it with the power to vote

- Establishing a radius around the area in question and vesting it with the power to vote

- Placing the item on the ballot for vote of District 7 electorate

- Placing the matter on the ballot for a citywide vote.

The San Jose Labor Council proposed another potential solution, which advocates for “Little Saigon” support. That idea is to put a range of possible names in front of voters in June.

In an informal survey of Almaden residents (see StreetTalk, page 28), those polled indicated putting the idea on the ballot is a waste of money that could be better spent on citywide issues.

The matter will come to a decision of some sort on March 4. Given the previous fireworks, it ought to be quite interesting.