East-West divide is different now in San Jose
Before they become entrenched in popular knowledge, it’s time to correct a couple of misconceptions about San Jose’s recent political history.
The 2014 election for mayor exposed a deeply divided city, with areas to the West strongly supporting Sam Liccardo, the winner by a few thousand votes, and areas to the East supporting Dave Cortese. Some people have said this division is nothing new in San Jose politics and that it dates back decades.
There’s some truth to this, or as Stephen Colbert might say, some “truthiness.” Neighborhoods on the West Side have long tended to be less liberal than those on the East Side, but the division was not so consistent or so rigid until recently.
Every successful candidate for mayor, from Norm Mineta and Janet Gray Hayes in the 1970s to Tom McEnery, Susan Hammer and Ron Gonzales in the 1980s and 1990s, has won the East Side and done well enough on the West Side to beat more conservative opponents. Hayes even won the East Side in 1978 running against a Latino candidate, but she also won the West.
The more rigid East-West division we saw in 2014 only began in 2006, when Chuck Reed was elected mayor. It’s not just a division of ideology, it’s a division of class and race, and we need to recognize that’s it’s relatively new and address it before it’s set in stone.
To his credit, Mayor Liccardo has made serious efforts to reach out to the East Side. I hope he will continue to do so and that future candidates will work to bridge the East-West divide in our city.
Another frequently repeated observation about San Jose politics that’s becoming a cliché is that Measure B, the pension reforms approved by the voters in 2012, was “the will of the people.”
Of course, there is also truth in this; 69 percent of San Jose residents who cast ballots on Measure B voted “yes.” Clearly, they supported pension reform. But only 36 percent of the city’s registered voters bothered to cast a ballot.
To be precise, Measure B is “the will” of 95,716 voters — 25 percent of the electorate.
Fair enough. That’s democracy.
But I can’t help wondering just what their “will” really was. Certainly, it was for pension reform. Almost everybody agrees it’s necessary. But how many people can cite the specifics of Measure B?
Was it really the “will of the people” to reduce promised benefits to current employees, suspend cost of living adjustments, change disability provisions and more? Were they supporting legally dubious provisions that have resulted in over two years of litigation? Maybe, but I think that for most folks, the “yes” vote was for pension reform in principle, not for the details.
This matters right now as Liccardo and the City Council negotiate with the unions about dropping the court case against Measure B and reaching a settlement that will both maintain a balanced budget and stop the hemorrhaging of city employees — not just police— to other cities with better pay and pensions and better balanced budgets.
City employees need to recognize that pension reform probably is the “will of the people,” but the mayor and council should not interpret that as literal support for the specifics of Measure B.
Both sides have expressed willingness to compromise lately. Let’s hope they reach an accommodation soon and we can all move on.