Republic of Gilroy Archives

Different lives, different worlds, same neighborhood

Here in Gilroy we don't like to read much, except for maybe the breakfast menu at Denny's. We already know everything that needs to be known.

In Silicon Valley folks are more compelled to branch out. For instance, Silicon Valley Reads, a consortium of non-profit, community intensive service organizations in Santa Clara county, chooses one book each year for the community to read and discuss. The book must meet the following criteria:

• Reflect universal issues relevant to Silicon Valley
• Appeal to diverse audiences
• Appropriate for both adults and young adults
• Te work of a living author

Tortilla Curtain, by T.C. Boyle, is Silicon Valley Reads' novel for 2007. It's a good book for every Californian. We all have an opinion on immigration, the border, and the impact of illegal immigrants.

The Tortilla Curtain probably won't appear in our local high school's reading list, for issues having to do with the fact that T.C. Boyle is not a Latino author. The ideology of strident multiculturalism does not allow that a son of Irish immigrants would be able to accurately represent La Raza.

Too bad, because Boyle is a damn fine writer. He frames the illegal immigrant discussion by humanizing people on both sides of the curtain. Without preaching. Without resorting to the sanctimony of do-gooders or the myopia of fear-mongers.

The title comes from a common phrase for the Mexican border, the tortilla curtain .... which is the opposite of impregnable. It's three strips of barbed wire with some limp tortillas hanging on it. The central question of this, and of the images of walls that appear throughout the book--the walls, the gates, walling people out, what do you wall in, all of that--has to do with us as a species and who owns what. Do you really own your own property? Do you have a right to fence people out? Do we have an obligation to assist people who come over that border, that wall, that gate? How is it that Americans are allowed to have this incredible standard of living while others do not? All of these questions, I think, are wrapped up in my view of our debate over immigration. (T.C. Boyle)

The most sympathetic people in the novel are the Rincons, the destitute Mexican couple living (squatting) on the fringe of a gated, upper crust SoCal neighborhood. The Rincons are decent folk determined to use their main asset -- determination and willingness to work hard -- to gain a foothold and make a better life. Yet the Rincons are also naive, and not without blame for their miserable circumstances. Their affluent equivalent, the Mossbachers, are equally naive, in their annoying, needy, elitist liberal way. Yet the Mossbachers are also not bad people.

Neither couple is entirely sympathetic or unsympathetic, but like real people evoke both responses in the reader.

This novel is a humanized depiction of the illegal immigration crisis: The lives of illegals, eking out a spare existence in the shadow of affluence, and the lives of the affluent, barely cognizant of the illegals in their midst, overlap and intersect until eventually the burden carried by the invisible society -- poignantly represented by the tribulations of Candido and America Rincon -- imposes its undeniable, accidental will on the Mossbachers' structured, privileged, protected world. 

The Toritlla Curtain illustrates how the "invisible" illegal immigrant society influences, in unseen ways, "normal" society, how ultimately it can't be ignored, can't be legislated away, fenced off, or barricaded against, must be acknowledged, must be reckoned with. The question is how. Boyle doesn't say, except to say that there is no easy answer.

The genius of Boyle's novel is that it portrays the Rincons and the Mossbachers as credible, fallible humans, and makes us look at each other without prejudice, perhaps for the first time.

Read the book and consider the discussion points.

Teachers, schools, libraries, retailers and others who want to buy sets of "The Tortilla Curtain" can purchase them locally for a discount [minimum of five copies each].

For information on wholesale copies, contact Milligan News Co. Inc. at (408) 286-7604 or tollfree at 800-873-2387. Email address is ed-dept@milligannews.com.

             

 

Joyless march to a tainted record

In her 30-jan-07 column -- "After going back to Bonds, Giants do the talk of shame" -- Ann Killion voices the Republic of Gilroy's attitude re Barry Bonds, who represents everything disturbing about celebrity sports culture, and the home run record chase, which typifies the media's twisted obsession with individual achievements in team sports.

["This season is guaranteed to be another joyless march toward a tainted record." -- San Jose Mercury News sports columnist Ann Killion.]

Killion's media peers, especially her radio peers on KNBR, still maintain that, despite the documented steroid use (see Game of Shadows), the baseball home run record still means a lot to a lot of people.

True, a lot of people still care about the tainted, if not meaningless, home run record. But that's still not most of the people. But most of the people stopped giving a damn long ago.

[Even Radnich has stopped defending Bonds]

Most of the people have some self-respect. Most of the people won't waste a second calling into sports talk radio, especially to defend Barry Bonds. Sorry, Gary Radnich, but by and large you are talking to the loser radio demographic, the wannabes desperate for attention (Love your show, Gary, you're the greatest, I listen to you all the time), the population of sad isolated bumpkins desperate for a moment in the spotlight.

For several seasons now some "voice of reason" on the KNBR payroll has been patiently explaining how and why the Giants are obligated to tolerate Bonds. (Before that, they were patiently explaining how Bonds' astounding bulk-up was a result of a rigorous workout regimen. Yeah, was it ever!)

"The bottom line is that Barry Bonds puts people in seats" ... is what former Giants radio announcer Ted Robinson was telling KNBR listeners earlier this week.

So who are these people that Bonds supposedly puts in the seats? They fall into three categories: (a) the truly oblivious who know nothing about baseball, a little about Barry Bonds (lucky them), and are just happy to be at the ballpark, (b) season ticket holders who've made a long-term financial commitment and are determined to grit their teeth and cheer for Bonds in spite of Bonds, and (c) those misguided souls who've paid $200+ for a replica #25 jersey to prove they're Giants fans -- a pathetic corollary to Bonds' real-life sycophant entourage.

[OH NO! "What if he doesn't break the record this year? 'I'm going to stay around until I'm 100,'' Bonds said. 'I'm going to keep playing.''" Aaaaah!]

The people Bonds puts in the seats can have 'em. Most people (I won't use the word "fans" -- Bonds has made that term archaic) can't stomach Barry Bonds. Most people who have followed the Giants through the decades recognize that the lack of interest among the faithful has never been so low, not even in the 100-plus loss years.

Most of the people were tired of Bonds 10 years ago, before Balco, before Bonds sat out the team photos, before public knowledge of 'roid rages and chronic pouting and entourage infestation. After all, we've know Bonds since his Serra High days. And he was a coddled prima donna with a persecution complex back then.

Forget about the almighty home run record. Bonds has already done the impossible. Hasn't he made the job of covering the Giants for the local newspaper an unenviable vocation?

Something the purveyors of sports talk pablum on "the radio home of the Giants" don't get/won't admit: Most people would rather go back 20 years and watch Greg Minton lose a game without Bonds on the roster than watch Barry Zito win a game in 2007 with Bonds on the roster. But then, most people aren't calling in to the radio shows, so KNBR remains blissfully unaware that most people don't give a damn about Bonds or his precious home run record.

Manure spreaders: Don, Laurie, Pete & Jen smother Measure A

[at left: hillside sprawl in L.A. and hillside erosion in Millbrae -- imagery that should have been used to counter the BS spewed by the NO on Measure A coalition]

Measure A, the no-cost, common-sense Santa Clara land use planning measure, lost at the polls on November 7... barely: 51% to 49%.

As a result, instead of preserving hillsides, voters unwittingly preserved the rights of SoCal realtors to build trophy homes on ridgelines, and secured the rights of a few property owners to profit massively from random, sprawling developments on Santa Clara county's unincorporated ag lands.

Give the Measure A opposition credit. They overcame strong public support for slow growth. Heavily funded by SoCal real estate interests, big ranching outfits, and ag consortiums, the NO crowd spread enough disinformation to cast doubt in voters' minds and send Measure A to defeat. A Mercury News editorial commented:

"The failure of Measure A leaves the county's current general plan in place, but its enforcement is spotty. Watch for new pushes to develop the county's open land. the county Board of Supervisors, which must approve development, should take note of that close vote: Measure A's failure means misleading campaigns can work, but it doesn't mean voters want to see building in the hills."

[Powerful Santa Clara county overlord Jabba the Hut -- er, supervisor Don Gage -- wasn't going to let Measure A diminish his control of land parcels on unincorporated areas.]

Leading the NO on Measure A disinformation campaign were some prominent public figures in Santa Clara county. Supervisor Don Gage was the loudest. Measure A threatened his imperial status as lord of the parcels. Currently, it just takes three votes on the board of supervisors to approve subdivisions on unincorporated lands. Measure A would have required a public vote, which would have seriously eroded Gage's power to cut deals on behalf of housing development interests who'd like to build in his district.

Gage is more concerned about preventing erosion of his power base than preventing erosion on hillsides. That's why he was so eager to promote lies about Measure A: "If the farmer wants their children to have a house, they can't pass down their land to build a second home." Horse puckey. Measure A contained no language prohibiting estate sale or inheritance of land. Ranchers and farmers could have built second, third, and fourth homes for other family members. They wouldn't, however, have been able to solicit plans for casinos or gated golf course communities on ag and ranch land, not without a public vote.

 

[Santa Clara county sheriff Laurie Smith was quick to draw the ridiculous conclusion that land development restrictions would bankrupt county services.]

Santa Clara county sheriff Laurie Smith told a whopper when she said "...the intiative threatens funding for basic services like sheriff and fire protection, and limits the county's ability to fund needed road and water improvements." Smith's comprehension of land use planning could fit in a thimble with room left for the trigger finger. Why would she even comment on Measure A? Simple: to pay back political endorsement from her election. But even a sheriff should know this basic tenet of urban development: sprawling housing developments outside city boundaries bring much more cost -- in terms of environmental impact, traffic, extended city services, infrastructure upgrades -- than can be covered by the taxes they generate.

[Santa Clara Farm Bureau flak Jenny Derry also played the daffy "it hurts the farmer" card, as instructed by high-priced political consultant Tom Shepard, who was hired to create paranoia, confusion and doubt about Measure A]

Jenny Derry, the public relations director for the Santa Clara Farm Bureau, told two big whoppers during the NO campaign. The first whopper was that Measure A "will make it very difficult for farmers -- including specifically, organic and ethnic producers -- to establish a new business or expand an existing farm or ranch." Wrong. The measure put zero restrictions on processing facilities or housing for farm employees and it absolutely allowed for the sale of ag and ranch land to organic and "ethnic" operations. But painting Measure A as anti-ethnic farmer was a shrewd marketing move. (Not that the Farm Bureau actually gives a damn about  the little farms.) Jen's other whopper was that farmers "were never consulted" about Measure A. Actually, they were consulted, but their only input was "no way are we getting behind that." After all, American farmers aren't much for land use restrictions, unless attached to trillions of dollars in farm subsidies. Only after deciding not to participate did the Farm Bureau claim that they weren't consulted.

[Pete McHugh: How are farmers supposed to farm without good suburbs?]

County supervisor Pete McHugh spouted the most cockamanie nonsense about Measure A: "The ballot measure threatens the future of south bay farms." Someone needs to ask old Pete to explain what he meant. How exactly does preventing random housing developments inside unincorporated ag land pose a threat to farming and farmers? Especially considering that Measure A was written to support farming by protecting the integrity of ag lands and giving the advantage back to farmers who want to farm?

[Doug McNea, tax-payer advocate, and several land use attorneys advocating on behalf of SoCal realtors, used the sky-is-falling-lawsuits scare tactic to "warn" voters about Measure A]

Doug McNea, Silicon Valley Taxpayers' Association, realized that most voters wouldn't actually examine the language of Measure A, and could be bluffed with the old "invites costly lawsuits" claim -- a scare tactic typically invoked by demagogues desperate to prevent changes to the status quo. Said McNea: "The initiative is very poorly written, it ensures years of expensive lawsuits, making taxpayers liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in potential damage claims." In truth the Measure went through careful iterations, incorporating input from diverse sources. The result was a well-written document that was specific about parcel sizes and building on hillsides, yet open to future refinement, and flexible enough to prevent lawsuits. Note that Alameda county passed and put in place much tougher restrictions -- 320-acre minimum parcels -- without incurring any litigation.

History will record that the lies and disinformation spread by heavily funded real estate development interests worked to defeat Measure A, Santa Clara county's 2006 land use planning intiative. It was a popular cause that was smeared just enough to cast just enough doubt in voters' minds.

Yet land use conservation and intelligent, controlled growth in the county's unincorporated areas still has strong support across the board. Measure A was endorsed by every major environmental organization, as well as the San Jose Mercury News, the League of Women Voters, the Council of Churches, the County Medical Association, the Democratic Party, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the South Bay Labor Council, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (representing more than 200 businesses) and the list goes on.  Measure A also enjoyed the support of more than 100 elected officials, including Morgan Hill mayor Dennis Kennedy.

The NO on Measure A crowd ran a scare campaign, and they won. But Don Gage, Laurie Smith, Pete McHugh, Jenny Derry, and every other prominent Santa Claran on the NO on Measure A coalition had to lose a lot of credibilty to win this fight.  Yes, the people can be snookered, but the truth will out eventually.

Final thought:

A new form of strip mine is being seen more frequently from our mountain highways and byways. It is the high-elevation, trophy-home development. A high-elevation trophy home is a gigantic, energy-gobbling home (or condominium) that is built to take advantage of the view, and more importantly, to be seen by the public. Trophy homes are the product of uncontrolled egos and greed. To all but the owners, builders, and developers, they are a visual blight on a landscape, much the same as a mountainside trailer park...

-- from "High-Elevation Trophy Home Developments, a New Form of Strip Mining," by Andrew J. White, APLD, CLP (see the full article from Land Use Planning Today here).

 

Internet slime squirms free

[Now clear of criminal wrongdoing -- the culmination of a three-year legal battle -- a "jubilant" Frank Quattrone is now looking forward to the dismissal of all remaining charges]

Internet era banker slime Frank Quattrone was prosecuted for our sins. We are all responsible for his rise and fall. Silicon Valley made him a king. Then, when things went horribly wrong, we tore him down. Frank became the scapegoat for our excess.

Last week a judge cleared him of obstructing a federal investigation into his slimy investment banking practices during the Internet boom  (see "The Return of Frank Quattrone" -- International Business Times, 23 Aug 2006). Having paid his penance in legal fees and time away from the game he dominated, Quattrone is finally free to sin again. But that doesn't absolve us of guilt. Even the chumps who lost their jobs and couldn't find work for two years after the bubble burst aren't free of Quattrone's taint. We were all greedy.

We shouldn't be bitter just because Frank was a helluva lot better than we were at converting greed into massive personal fortune... but we are. In 2000, his best year as the head of technology investment at Credit Suisse First Boston (CFSB), Frank made $120 million playing the system. And Frank helped other insiders develop massive personal fortunes in return for future business.

The news of Frank's rescue from criminal prosecution was cheered by his rich Palo Alto investment friends. ""What Frank did was not illegal at the time." they maintain.

"Frank was just doing his job."

If so then Quattrone's job description must have been: precipitate the Internet train wreck by skimming hundreds of millions off the top of initial public stock offerings (IPOs).

But, again, a lot of us gladly jumped aboard that train before it derailed. In the words of Homer (Simpson): "Doh!"

Although Frank has squirmed free, we should not forget what the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) learned when they investigated the scene of the big Internet train wreck. They found Frank Quattrone to be a gatekeeper bleeding Internet startups of profit before they could begin trading publically on the NASDAQ. The acknowledged master of the widespread practice of "spinning" stock options, Frank created an artificial market that benefitted himself, his company, and an inner circle of influential "friends" that included many CEOs and high-profile players inside Silicon Valley high tech companies.