BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff Writer
Whether or not Los Altos should pursue a theater for live stage shows downtown is one of the key questions in the race for City Council.
Two of the candidates have supported the theater, while the mayor opposed it and says her opponents are backed by special interests.
The split on the theater isn’t unique: Mayor Anita Enander and Councilwoman Neysa Fligor have been opposed on many issues in their four years together on council.
Parks and Recreation Commissioner Pete Dailey is aligned with Fligor, and thus opposed to Enander, on many of his positions. For example, Dailey favors recent development on First Street and prefers bike lanes over parking on El Camino Real.
Dailey was on a theater working group that recommended the city pay to study the feasibility of building a new theater on a downtown parking lot.
“Los Altos is an affluent and educated community, and a nice theater for the performing arts, as well as video and corporate presentations, is the kind of amenity that is appropriate for our community,” he said.
Fligor also has supported the theater so far, though she and Dailey both said they would wait for the results of the feasibility study before deciding whether the city should pitch in more money. Council also voted to set aside a city-owned parking lot for a future theater.
Enander said she is the only candidate not supported by special interests, particularly theater advocates. She also said she isn’t supported by a former mayors club, and her opponents are.
Enander said the city is in a big hole with its pensions and its buildings and roads, and council needs to focus money there.
“I take responsibility for keeping our city on a sound financial path, not kicking the can down the road,” she said.
Dailey criticized Enander for running long meetings that often go past midnight. He said that when he was the chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, most meetings lasted less than two hours.
Dailey said that council members should stop editing ordinances line by line at meetings, like they did with an ordinance regulating new wireless sites earlier this year.
Council members should state their intention and leave the language to professionals, he said.
Dailey said he successfully advocated for a dog park at Hillview Park by working with 250 dog owners to bring a proposal to the city manager.
He also criticized Enander for voting to spend money to preserve the historic Halsey House and said that she contradicted her position as a fiscal conservative. But Enander said the city attorney told council members that they were required to preserve the Halsey House as a historic asset.
Fligor said she is running on her record. She said she helped get grants for businesses and increase vaccination rates as the mayor during the pandemic.
Fligor also took credit for the first affordable housing project in the city at 330 Distel Circle, which council approved last month.
“I feel like I did make a difference,” she said.
Dailey has received $4,930 in donations and loaned his campaign $33,405. Fligor has raised $27,640, and Enander has brought in $8,977.
Dailey says, “Los Altos is an affluent and educated community, and a nice theater … is appropriate …” True. Los Altos is the second wealthiest small town in America. So why does Dailey and the rest of his theater club want taxpayers to fund a new theater? Surely the resident multi-millionaires could all chip in to make it happen without dipping into city funds.
Dailey criticized Mayor Enander for running long meetings. When he was chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, most meetings lasted less than two hours. Could it be that Council has far more issues to discuss than any city commission? Over the years, city council meetings have often gone into the wee hours, regardless of which mayor was running the show.
Responding to “Los Altos is the second wealthiest small town in America. So why does Dailey and the rest of his theater club want taxpayers to fund a new theater? Surely the resident multi-millionaires could all chip in to make it happen without dipping into city funds.”
So, sarcasm aside, how would you propose to have the affluent pay for this exactly? Tax the top 1%? Perhaps this perspective loses sight that the theatre is intended for ALL residents, guests, tourists and visitors and not for the top 1% and can bring in business to the other local small business owners that surround it. This certainly would be more appealing to the local and broader community than to do anything other than demolishing the delapitated and historically-insignificant eyesore call the Halsey House in Redwood Grove. The redwoods were there a bit longer than Halsey, and it is these groves of redwoods that draw most visitors to walk this park.
No sarcasm intended, but my point is that residents should not fund a theater in any way — not by dipping into city funds or by a new tax. Those who want the theater should pay for it through donations, which is what wealthy people do. If they think it’s so important, they should fund it. The theater may be intended for all residents, but those who choose to attend would have to pay. Our parks are free and that’s what our park fund is intended for. Meanwhile ALL residents NEED police and fire protection. That’s every city’s top priority. It’s essential, not just nice to have. Until we figure out how to pay for a new public safety building and fix essential infrastructure, a theater should be at the bottom of the list.
As for Halsey House, I agree it should be demolished. BUT, because it was declared a historic building many years ago, it would be illegal to tear it down. The city would have to pay a fine. That’s why the city attorney said we have to leave it there. That’s why Council voted to “mothball it.”
The City Attorney did not say we have to leave Halsey House there. They could easily vote to remove it from historic status and tear it down. There are about a dozen people in Los Altos who think we should preserve this decrepit building that my children referred to as “the bathrooms” when they went to Redwood Grove Camp. Keep Redwood Grove and get rid of Halsey House and the $3-5 million budget required to renovate it.
Pete Dailey is forgetting the excruciatingly long Council meetings that Neysa Fligor ran when she was mayor. Some lasting until way after midnight.
While I may not agree with Anita Enander’s position on every issue that comes before Council, this is a critical time for housing in Los Altos (and California). And there is no one on Council who knows more about this topic than Enander. As a longtime resident, I want her representing our interests.
Remember Fligor crying during council meetings when she didn’t get her way?
[Post deleted. Violation of Terms of Use. Commenter is using different names on the same thread. No sock puppets, please.]
Would you be so kind as to list the “special interests” backing Enander? If Los Altos Residents is a special interest group, would you agree that the Old Mayors Club is too? And if you don’t agree with big government about global warming, then you’re a “denier”? Sad but i guess we can’t have disagreements on policy without your side calling the other side names. Anyway, list the special interests backing Enander. Don’t change the subject. It’s time to put up or shut up.
[Post deleted. Violation of Terms of Use. Commenter is using different names on the same thread. No sock puppets, please.]
Nobody said the city would fund the whole thing. Fligor promised no money and no staff time would be spent on the theater when she pushed for support of the theater group at the January council retreat. But she, Weinberg and Meadows already voted to reserve a parking plaza for the theater. That’s prime downtown PUBLIC property. Probably worth about $4M.
[Post deleted. Violation of Terms of Use. Commenter is using different names on the same thread. No sock puppets, please.]
You say LAR does “NOT represent the view of a majority of the city.” Does the theater group represent the majority? Both are small groups of people, but as far as I can tell, LAR isn’t asking the city for anything — not land, not money, not special treatment.
If Dailey and Fligor are against funneling city funds into a new theater, then why did they support the city funding a feasibility study of the project?
City Council meetings in most Cities are longer and cover more complex topics than City Council meetings. Pete “When he was the chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission, most meetings lasted less than two hours.” seems to have problems with math (can we trust him with our finances?) and forgets that meeting minutes include the start and stop time of meetings that are run, including those when he was Chair.
Chari Dailey ran the 5/12/2021 meeting, which started at 7:00pm and ended at 10:04pm
Chair Dailey ran the 7/14/2021 meeting, which started at 7:01pm and ended at 9:38, which is over 2 hours
Chari Dailey ran the 9/08/2021 meeting that started at 7:00pm and ended at
9:39pm
Chair Dailey ran the 10/13/2021 meeting that started at 7:00pm and ended at 10:55pm
Chair Dailey ran the December 8 meeting from 7:00pm to after 9pm, City Staff did not cite the time the meeting finished
Chair Dailey ran the 01/12/2022 meeting starting at 7:00pm and ending at 9:43pm
Chair Dailey ran the 3/16/2022 meeting starting at 7:00pm and ending at 10:40pm
Chair Dailey ran the 4/13/2022 meeting starting at 7:01pm and ending at 9:03pm
Do we need someone who can’t tell time helping run Los Altos?
In most cities, a community theatre is owned by the city and rented out. This ensures that organizations, such as Los altos youth theatre and other non-profits have a reliable performing arts venue.
It is reasonable for Los Altos to have the same community amenities that most other wealthy cities have, and for Los altos to own and control that venue on city land.
Anita Enander is the only non-Democrat in the race, and it shows in her rush to privatize key services. As a Los Altos native myself, its clear to me that she does not represent the values of my hometown.
Regardless of her political party, Enander’s values and priorities are the same as mine: balance the budget! She opposes that because her values include keeping Los Altos fiscally sound. Is it “reasonable” for Los Altos to have a performing arts venue when we need a new public safety building and we have $22M unfunded high priority projects?
Sorry for typo. I meant “She opposes the theater because her values …”
Amen, Chris. Let’s recognize her for who she is. She’s a registered Republican who has donated to the Republican Party, could not acknowledge that humans contribute to climate change a few weeks ago, voted repeatedly against the award-winning Community Center that she cut the ribbon for, and apparently fails to recognize that the current Los Altos Bus Barn Theater is owned by the city. If she was so concerned about city finances, she wouldn’t have cost taxpayers millions of dollars in settlements and legal fees with the owners of 40 Main Street, Verizon and AT&T Cellular, and former City Manager Chris Jordan’s wife, Andi Jordan, who alleged harassment by Enander.
The State Law named The surplus Land Act requires that excess or underutalized land be used for Housing. The Bus Barn Theater can stay where they are on the Civic Center site, where there is a lot of parking. The Parking lots downtown should be used for housing and parking. If people do not have a place to park downtown they will not shop downtown.
“In most cities, a community theatre is owned by the city and rented out.”
Nonsense. Easily disproved as other cities–similar sized, similar demographics e.g., Saratoga, Orinda, etc.–don’t “own theaters that they rent out…”
“Anita Enander is the only non-Democrat in the race”
That makes it all the more imperative to reelect her. As the sole non-Democrat she can be the sole check and balance against the other four. Chris and those against Enander believe Los Altos would be better if its Council members were all affiliated with one political party. They want to eliminate any voice of opposition. Reasonable people would find that disturbing and contrary to the very principles of a democracy and well-functioning Council. We don’t want any one ideology or dogma to prevail and operate unchecked.
“As a Los Altos native myself, its clear to me that she does not represent the values of my hometown.”
Nonsense again. Chris has clearly confirmed his values are to operate unchecked and wipe out any opposition that might otherwise reveal to the public actions and agenda which he and his cohorts prefer to keep concealed and private. Enander presents a threat and risk to them. For that reason alone, to keep them honest as best possible, Enander deserves to be reelected.
The thing with Los Altos Residents as a lobbying special interest is that their main tactic is to criticize. No matter what is the issue, they can find reasons to be against it, and to be against even discussing it or studying it. So too is their attitude to the Theater idea. It’s really sad, and it is by itself a good reason not to vote for Anita Enander for a 2nd term in office. Too much sway is given to this small but organized and vocal special interest.
There seems to be this attitude that we should support Enander because she will shoot down the idea of a theater, but if so, what else will she just shoot down without due consideration? The most I have heard is that this theater would raise a lot of money for itself, and then come back to the city for the next step. To me, that’s not the only way to go, but it’s a far cry from this idea that the city will be cheated.
“Too much sway is given to this small but organized and vocal special interest.” I assume that refers to the Theater Working Group, of which Pete Dailey is a member.
“The the theater would raise a lot of money for itself …” I assume you heard that from the theater people. They’ve been promoting this for years. If it’s such a good idea, why haven’t they already raised enough money to build it?
If we do not take the time and effort to continue the excellent work of Los Altos Stage Company and its many opportunities provided to our citizens including our students through summer camps and more, then what kind of town are we? Do we bicker about commercial issues while just ignoring that which actually builds community like our festivals, fairs, parades, and yes, our theater? Remember what makes Los Altos special. It’s citizens and its fun.
“Anita Enander is the only non-Democrat in the race, and it shows in her rush to privatize key services”
Chris, can you explain how a theater is a “key service” that is suppose to be provided by a City?
hi All
The firehouse and emergency services buildings are in need of repairs to structures. Doesn’t that come first before entertainment?
Nobody has argued we shouldn’t fix our fire and police buildings. Anita has been Mayor for almost a year. Why hasn’t she done anything to remedy this situation?
“Why hasn’t she done anything to remedy this situation?”
A check of Los Altos City Council voting record would readily confirm a consistent pattern of 3-2 (sometimes 4-1) the past decade+. The 3 are currently: Fligor, Meadows, Weinberg. Before it was Fligor, Bruins, Pepper; or Pepper, Prochnow, Bruins, Mordo. Ad nauseum.
Simply put, under these circumstances, what could Enander or Eng Lee or anyone else have done? What would you have done “to remedy the situation” concerning the fire and police buildings if you were in their shoes? To rub this in further: the 3 or 4 also voted to expend taxpayer dollars to accommodate Bruins’ “allergy” to the “smells and malodors”–of none less than a taxpaying citizen and homeowner–that Bruins had a personal antipathy toward and demanded she be evicted from Council meetings (**) and then demanded Council meetings be moved to another building/location.
Fiscal Conservative, what did you do to remedy that situation?
**: Bruins’ demand, a violation of a person’s Constitutional rights to attend/participate in public meetings, was in fact even carried out by none other than former City attorney Chris Diaz who demanded the citizen leave the building. Upon protest, Diaz (who should know the law better, being an attorney) backpedaled. All this reported in the Daily Post. Fiscal Conservative, where were you and what were you doing then?
Los Altans would do well to learn about and become informed of the cabal that’s behind the anti-Enander, pro-{Fligor, Dailey} campaigns. The cabal, comprising of rich white Los Altans, primarily elect their own and those that do their bidding. Members include current and former members of Council: Jean Mordo, Curtis Cole, King Lear, Mary Prochnow, Jeannie Bruins, etc. They have, and long had, control of Council majority with 3 of the five seats in their pockets. Not content with that, with Dailey in and Enander out they aim to make it 4 of 5.
The same cabal with then Mayor Mordo leading the charge hired former City Manager Chris Jordan, former City attorney Chris Diaz. That has cost the City millions in legal fees already; the costs continue to escalate, with the Courts reprimanding the City for its bad faith and routine flouting of the laws.
Time for us to reelect Enander. That is our only option to some sense of a check-and-balance to render sanity and transparency is otherwise murky and concealed with untold conflicts of interests benefiting Council members and their backers: the cabal.
“Too much sway is given to this small but organized and vocal special interest.”
The small but organized and vocal special interest operating in Los Altos is none other than the cabal mentioned in my previous post whose members and supporters include current Councilmembers Sally Meadows and Jonathan Weinberg (proteges of Jean Mordo, King Lear, and other former council members).
The Daily Post has reported on the many dysfunctions during Jean Mordo’s tenure as Mayor. It included Council’s coddling of bad decisions by those they championed and hired: Chris Jordan, Chris Diaz, Jon Biggs, and so on. Los Altos’ legal bills, as is public knowledge by now, are about 8X that of Saratoga, a similar sized city with similar demographics. How can that be? Trace it all back to the actions by City officials sponsored and given license by Council majority and backed by the cabal.
Should a council member in the interests of us taxpayers inquire or protest they are outvoted, blackballed, and besmirched by the cabal and its toady Councilmembers that make up for 3 of the five seats on council i.e., the majority. That same group now wants to increase their capture of Los Altos to 4 of five if they can get Dailey in place.
Well meaning and informed Los Altos voters would not want that; it is in their interests to reelect Enander.
Well, of course we do have an election for the purpose of selecting representatives to the city council. We are increasingly unusual in that we have city wide representatives voted for by everyone instead of reps with districts. But the down side is if you have marginal group that is very determined to change things, they can unite to elect more reps than they merit, while the mainstream 90% have multiple candidates aligned with their views, who then split the vote. That’s why this election is good in that there are 2 seats and only 3 candidates. I do not think Enander has enough support to get more votes than either of the other two, because they are both aligned with mainstream values. When there are too many candidates, those with extreme views or maginal views can unite behind the only 1 candidate who they like, then take one of the seats letting the other candidates cancel each other out to an extent.
Saying that their supporters are a unified special interest is not supported by the facts, because all the groups supporting them are mainstream and only LAR supports Enander as a group. You’d have to define a group as non-LAR to be the union of all the groups supporting Pete and Neysa…..
Former Mayors are a diverse bumch, but they are hardly the only supporters. Those interested in the Los Altos Youth Theater and the Los ALtos Stage company could be defined as another group, but you also have most of the people active in the Community Foundation, the various school districts in the city and their foundations, the PTA’s, Hidden Villa, Assistance League, the Parent Preschools, and a whole lot of other community interest groups that support each other and council members who in turn support their organizations. LAR supporters are all without minor childrena and so are less connected to the community than all these various affinity groups. Race isn’t so much of a factor as is age–those who are set in their ways and stingy with their resources and concerned with personal security and so over emphasizing of alleged shortfalls in police buildings or city hall as a building.
This is why we have elections, so we’ll see how the cotes tally.
“over emphasizing of alleged shortfalls in police buildings or city hall”
The Courts have already found Los Altos (i.e., City Hall, City Council) “routinely flouted the laws, acted in (extreme) bad faith” and such actions were “not in benign error.” The City was even ordered to place a $7M bond were they to appeal the Court’s findings. The City opted not to appeal knowing they’d lose the $7M having lost all credibility already. As for more of the City’s shenanigans inclusive of the PD, all sponsored and authorized by Council majority, they are a’comin soon. Watch the Courts. Blaming the Courts findings on LAR, as Mortimer does, is only indicative of the extent of the lies and deceits and misrepresentations those behind Dailey and Fligor and against Enander engage in.
In short the cabal socializes the costs (legal and other) of its antics and makes all Los Altans pay even while it privatizes the benefits (e.g., the “theater”, Bruin’s ‘allergies’ prompting a $250K expense in moving Council meetings away from City Hall thus also limiting public participation, payoffs to Chris Jordan and his wife Andi, funny sales of public lands to private parties without public participation/knowledge or an auction, Bruins and Mordo’s casual racism toward minorities and an Asian-American council member, etc.) And the cabal wants to retain its capture and strengthen its stranglehold over the City. Hence the spurious arguments against Enander (“the sole non-Democrat”? “the theater is a key service, akin to police and fire safety and such…”) and their overlooking of Dailey’s dubious credentials and background.
“A court” has found that the handling of the 40 Main Street development proposal was flawed, not that the city in general shows bad faith in common practice. Who was one of the biggest attack dogs against the 40 Main Street approval, which the court felt was required by law? Anita Enander. Enander has also voted against at least one development proposal where city staff said approval was required by law. Sounds like there are multiple reasons to question Enander’s benefit to the city lawsuit plague.
And Enander was a council member who made comments to Andi Jordan early on just after arriving in the city suggesting that she would get Jordan fired. Doesn’t sound like that was based on his record, but then Enander went on to abuse Andi Jordan in their respetive rolles in the cities assocation, causing Andi Jordan to receive a compensation settlement for the improper work conditions in that roll. More and more reasons why Enander is quesitonable.
Enander an attack dog against 40 Main? Hardly. The Sorensen’s had been trying to get their project approved since 2008. The planning department nit-picked it to death. Enander didn’t start on Council until 2018, when the new planning department again denied the project. Sorensens appealed. Upon a motion by Councilmember Fligor, seconded by Councilmember Bruins, the Council unanimously denied the appeal, upholding staff’s determination that the proposed project is not subject to SB35. (Now you know why we have a new planning director and a new city attorney.)
Enander worked with Councilwoman Meadows to negotiate an agreement with the Sorensens that prevented a lawsuit, paying them $1.2M to settle all claims. No idea when we’ll see their 5-story building, but we could have had a nice 3-story building if the previous incompetent planning departments hadn’t stiffed them — and if previous councils had been smart enough to fire them.
Enander voted against 40 Main, and blamed it on the city attorney and city manager. You can look it up yourself. Maybe she should admit her vote was a mistake?
Is there any evidence, other than Andi Jordan’s self-serving allegations for which she pocketed a fraction of what she demanded, concerning Enander that Mortimer echoes? NONE, none whatsover.
As events soon would prove Chris Jordan’s tenure was replete with gross violations of the law. A Federal court has already ruled those violations were egregious enough that his immunity as a public official does not apply. In short he is personally responsible, as are other City agents.
The “city lawsuit plague” does not end; in fact it has barely started as events soon would confirm. The costs to the City, all paid for by taxpayers, are solely traceable to the cabal that continues to maintain control of Council, seeks to increase such control (to further conceal their wrongdoings), attacks, gaslights, projects onto those who seek transparency and objects to those wrongdoings. As can be confirmed by the comments by Mortimer, David Roode concerning Enander even as they would exercise the same “logic” on their toadies, namely Fligor or Meadoes or Weinberg.
What the cabal seeks is a totalitarian system, a Council where their ideology and dogma prevails unhindered. Enander presents a threat, increases the risk of the public learning what the cabal is up to. Hence their opposition to her. And hence the need for Los Altans to vote for Enander.
““A court” has found that the handling of the 40 Main Street development proposal was flawed, not that the city in general shows bad faith in common practice.”
NONSENSE. Read Judge Helen Williams’ Court Order, including the one where she ordered the City place $7M in bond with the Court were it to appeal her order. They reflect what she thought of the City’s actions and “explanations”. Read the press articles that called our her reprimands of the City citing its “Bad faith, not in benign error”, “routine flouting of the laws”.
All that Mortimer can come up with is to dissemble…and then blame Enander. What were Fligor, Meadows, Weinberg doing, constituing as they do the majority of Council? In Mortimer’s and the cabal’s world: heads they win, tails we taxpayers and voters lose. And all legal costs, already 7X-8X that of Saratoga’s and mounting by the day, are paid by us taxpayers, not a dime from their pockets. And they want to fortify that with Dailey on Council.
All this is just cause and good reason for Los Altans to reelect Enander.
While Enamder and and Lee Eng were on the council at the time, neither Meadows nor Weinberg had assumed office when the rejection of 40 Main Street was approved for the relevant time. Judge Helen Willians didn’t consider anything done by the council with them on the council. They later voted to appeal her ruling, but it was not about something they voted to do.
It appeared to me that pandering to LAR was causing some bad influences of the council overseeing the rejection of 40 Main street. Leaving the LAR input aside, there were better arguments about the 40 Main Street project and what affected the city. These got drowned out by LAR input to the council.
LAR was not even started until July 2019 and thus had no position about 40 Main Street! You are wrong about most things because the actual facts don’t help you!
“neither Meadows nor Weinberg had assumed office…”
Mortimer attempts to move the goal posts but that’s not going to save him or his cohorts. Who then were the majority on council until Meadows and Weinberg took office? Jeannie Bruins, Jan Pepper, Jean Mordo (who sponsored Meadows on the Planning Commission as a gateway to her Council seat), all prominently backed by the cabal. Who hired Chris Jordan overlooking the many complaints about him by those who oversaw him–Council members–at his former place of employment West Linn, OR? the FBI investigating him? the many lawsuits that he birthed that left the taxpayers gasping? Mordo who, as the Daily Post reported, stated “I’ve great chemistry with him” and backed by Pepper and Bruins. Ditto for their hiring of Chris Diaz and Jon Biggs.
Read Judge Williams’ Order re Biggs’ prevarications and misrepresentations to the Court. Read why she ordered the City place $7M in bond with the Court were they to appeal. Despite the stark language and the beat down Mortimer states Meadows and Weinberg and Fligor “later voted to appeal (Judge Williams) ruling”. What does that say about the trio’s judgment? That they were willing to lost $7M atop what they and their cohorts already expended, all taxpayer dollars.
“”These got drowned out by LAR input to the council.”
NONSENSE. As if Council ever listened to LAR input. Check the voting pattern in Council the past decade or more. It’s always 3-2 or 4-1 in favor of the cabal and always against LAR. That should inform us about everything we need to know and clarify how much “LAR input” mattered to Council.
Fligor is also running for reelection. She and her fellow toadies Meadows and Weinberg (and previously Pepper, Mordo, Bruins, Prochnow) are even more responsible for the “lawsuit plague” on Los Altos. Yet Mortimer does not ask her the very Qs he demands Enander answer. Says something, doesn’t it?
“…blamed it on the city attorney and city manager.”
There’s a lot to be said, and a lot more to be said and a’comin, about the (former) City Attorney and City Manager, namely Chris Diaz and Chris Jordan. And their henchmen in City administration: Jon Biggs, Kirk Ballard, David Kornfield, others.
Some of those names were even called out by Judge Williams in her Order reprimanding the City (and implicitly its staff and their overseers, City Council). The “lawsuit plague” the City faces would further reveal far more egregious violations by those individuals, some already fired and others yet to be.
Make no mistake, those individuals acted as they did because they were given explicit cover and protection by the majority of current and former Council members. As the Daily Post reported, those council members didn’t manage and instead “coddled, protected, and covered up for those they were to manage as if they were family members”. Who were those council members? Jean Mordo, Jeannie Bruins, Mary Prochnow, Jan Pepper, Neysa Fligor, Sally Meadows, Jonathan Weinberg, Curtis Cole, King Lear. In fact Meadows and Weinberg are on the record–check the Daily Post–for bemoaning the fact Council, prompted by Enander, fired Jordan and Diaz. Fligor joined that because she, trained as a lawyer, knew what Jordan and Diaz’s actions implied for the City.
It’s fair to blame Enander for relying on Diaz and Jordan re 40 Main. By the same token blame Fligor too. If you are to ask Enander to apologize, when she has already identified the crooks she relied on, ask Fligor and Meadows and Weinberg too (for they continue to coddle and protect the crooks and corrupt, thus revealing their own complicity in the corruption).
All this to come out in due time. Expect the Daily Post to report on them, unlike the Town Crier which is the cabal’s mouthpiece
I blame the entirety of the LAR lobbying effort re 40 Main for its reliance on illegal criteria to allegedly justify rejecting the proposal. There were valid reasons to seek changes to the proposal. LAR’s efforts muddied the water. [Portion removed — stick to facts that can be verified.]
LAR had no involvement in the 40 Main debacle.Talk to the Sorensens about David Kornfield and James Walgren way before LAR was formed. Then Jon Biggs and Chris Diaz continued the incompetent assessment of the project. Why do you think neither of them are still working for the city?
Mortimer’s obsession and fixation on LAR is not just misplaced. It is a red herring, meant to distract us from the real actors.
The 40 Main saga played out over several years, well preceding LAR. Press coverage, including in the Daily Post and that local rag the Town Crier, covered the moves by a cabal of Los Altos individuals with animus toward the Sorensons. The cabal sought to block the Sorensons by hook or crook; toward that extent Jean Mordo, Jeannie Bruins, Mary Prochnow–all cabal proxies–on City Council fired Marcia Somers and also the City Attorney, hired Chris Jordan as the new City Manager and Chris Diaz as the new City Attorney. Jon Biggs was earlier hired as Community Dev Director. The cabal thus has had “the bases loaded”, with the new hires acting at the cabal’s behest.
If Enander were to disregard Diaz’s and Jordan’s and Council majority they’d have been blamed by Mortimer and the cabal. If they voted as directed by them they are being blamed as well. In Los Altos, heads the cabal wins and we taxpayers pay the costs, tails we taxpayers lose and pay with the cabal winning.
The debacle involving 40 Main is but the tip of the iceberg. Other pending and imminent lawsuits confirm the City and its former (and also current) attorneys have acted in ways that a Federal Judge has stated “shocks the conscience.” Jordan and other City agents are personally liable, their immunity removed. Diaz and his colleagues and their law firm have engaged attorneys to defend them. What does it say when attorneys have to hire attorneys to defend them?
What Judge Williams stated concerning Los Altos in her Court Order is merely the beginning, a hint of what’s a’comin.
It would be interesting to know what the heck all these Federal rulings against the city are. The only one that I have heard of involves a civil discrimination complaint suite filed by a city resident who has run through many different attorneys sequentially. That case has seen numerous rulings in favor of the city and the numerous other defendants to the point that the remaining issue is diluted by all the apparently frivolous matters that were among the original complaints. I would agree that that has little to do with LAR. I also think I mentioned some other concerns that the moderator edited out having little to do with LAR.
LAR is not easy to pin down since it has no public meetings, no clear steering committee and releases little info about who is participating. But if elected city council members have all been part of a cabal, then surely LAR is part of larger group which is itself a cabal. I wouldn’t use that term in either case. I would say that there are a small minority of vocal complainers who love to tear government officials apart. I’d say that all the comments here simply demonstrate that by themselves.
Mortimer, earlier, said the City faced a “lawsuit plague”. Now he refers to “the only one I’ve heard of…” confirming he dissembles, knows more than he admits and states.
In a pending case the City AND plaintiff have gone through different attorneys. The City’s former attorneys have attorneys representing them. As would soon the City’s current attorneys. This should give pause to anyone reading this as it suggests the attorneys understand their own licenses to practice law are at risk. Former and current Council members also understand their own liabilities soon to be called to account in both Federal and Superior Court, one of the latter in front of none other than Judge Williams who is well familiar with the City’s “bad faith, not in benign error.”
“Apparently frivolous”? “Run through different attorneys sequentially”? “love to tear government officials apart”? Says a lot about those who “coddle and protect (corrupt, crooked) govt officials as if they are family members”, bemoan those officials who are fired and endorse huge sums as payoffs to send them a warm goodbye, denigrate and attack and retaliate, under color of state authority, against those who lawfully petition and question the status quo.
What transpired re the Sorensons and 40 Main is but the tip of the iceberg concerning what goes on in Los Altos City Hall/Council. Los Altos residents would however want to inquire their City about the status of ongoing litigation, what other notices the City has received of upcoming lawsuits, and why the City had to change its City attorney and attorneys and law firms representing the City a few times the past few years. As mentioned earlier in Los Altos a certain cabal, having captured and maintained a stranglehold on City Council and City Hall the past many years, with the local Town Crier serving as their mouthpiece, has privatized the benefits they derived and socialized the costs (and fees) involved, with us taxpayers responsible for the latter and getting none of the former. Enander and Eng Lee have questioned this and voted against it. They have served to check and balance the rampant corruption. The beneficiaries of the status quo/corruption have railed against them, as with Mortimer re Enander in these comments. Good reason for Los Altans to reelect Enander.
Mortimer and David Rood falsely alleged LAR and Enander had everything to do wit the City’s actions re 40 Main for which it got taken to the wood shed in Court by Judge Williams.
History Buff refuted those false allegations with details: “Talk to the Sorensens about David Kornfield and James Walgren way before LAR was formed. Then Jon Biggs and Chris Diaz continued the incompetent assessment of the project. Why do you think neither of them are still working for the city?”
Add to those names others also fired or soon to be fired or otherwise held accountable: Chris Jordan, Diaz’s colleagues at the law firm of Best Best & Krierger, Jean Mordo (voted out during reelection), Mary Prochnow, Jeannie Bruins, Jan Pepper, and so on.
A search for James Walgren would reveal he was fired for fabricating a record from whole cloth that he represented as legal and legitimate. The City’s practice of fabricating false records didn’t stop with Walgren’s termination, It continued with Jordan and his team, all sponsored and authorized by the majority on City Council and the City’s attorneys Diaz inclusive.
Guess who hired Jordan, Diaz, Biggs?
None other than Mordo, Prochnow, Bruins, Pepper. They singularly disregarded Jordan’s history at his previous employer, the City of West Linn, OR. The FBI investigation, the legal costs taxpayers there faced, the payoff Jordan collected on his termination. And Los Altos Council majority similarly paid off Jordan and later his wife. Why? To buy Jordan’s silence on those actions that served the same Council majority (and the cabal behind them) even as they violated the laws. And now Jordan’s immunity as a public official has been removed, Diaz and his colleagues have attorneys to represent them…
The next shoe is to drop any time for Biggs and others, already named and reprimanded by the Courts.
Not any of this has anything to do with LAR. It predates LAR by no small measure.
[Post deleted — violation of terms of use. Stick to the topic.]
However 40 Main Street ends up (Will it ever get built as proposed and approved by order of the court?) the fact is that the approval could have been granted in that appeal to the city council. The result of that vote is what triggered the lawsuit that the city lost. That’s why LAR’s role was so important of a factor in obfuscating ways the city could have worked with Dr. Sorensen and gotten his 4 story office building down in size. LAR was arguing for a 2 story building. LAR was very loud about the matter and monopolized public input on the decision. And Enander listened to them too much where instead she should have explained the situation to them. So, time for a change in council memeber.
So while it is just my opinion, I do blame LAR for the legal $1M judgement that resulted. There were other factors too. We may still see a 4 story office building there vs. a 5 story version topped mostly with residences.
Mortimer, you seem to have several facts wrong. (1) The proposed Sorensen building is 5 stories, not 4. (2) The owners of the property are two brothers. Neither is a doctor. (3) The Sorensens were proposing a 3-story building in 2017 before LAR was even formed. You can blame whomever you want, but without facts to back up your statements, you have no credibility.
People should realize that even now, the city has allowed Admiral Sorensen the possibility of switching to a different project, and still keeping his $1M from the city. There are other incentives that go along with changing the commander’s mind. Sure, the whole point is that the SB35 enabled project is 5 stories. That was the threat all along, while there was a parallel proposal also being provided by the developers for something lower. They had 2 projects submitted under the one application fee. The other doesn’t use SB35 and so isn’t as tall. I’m not sure whether the alternate scenario was 3 or 5 stories at the time of the appeal and hearings by the planning commission. At this point though, the development could change into a 4 story project even if that hadn’t been the original alternate design. 4 stories would be seen as lower than 5 stories.
It doesn’t matter what was underway back in 2017 and that wasn’t my point. That’s way before Enander had any say. The thing went on and the decision that subjected the city to the loss in court was the ending situation where there was an appeal to the council and the city could have skated free of any judgement. At that point the applicant might well have put forth a 4 story project just as now could still happen. If the city had acknowledge the situation with SB35 over the objections of LAR protestors, then they might have discussed alternatives as Professor Sorensen wanted.
LAR was not formed at the time the Council denied the Sorenson appeal. Mortimer you are proving yourself to be without any credibility at all. LAR was formed in 2019. The Council denied the Sorenson appeal in 2018, LAR had NO involvement with the 40 Main development. I know you can read. Stick to the facts!
” If the city had acknowledge the situation with SB35 over the objections of LAR protestors, then they might have discussed alternatives…”
As if the City registers anything communicated by LAR or anyone not affiliated with the Fligor-Meadows-Weinberg (and the cabal that backed them and previously Bruins, Pepper, Prochnow, Mordo…)!
Los Altos City Council is an echo chamber. It has consistently prioritized what the cabal wants, not what the City needs. A grand jury found Santa Clara prioritized what the 49ers wanted, not what the City needed. Similarly, in Los Altos, the Council consistently prioritized what the cabal wants. It is an echo chamber, confirmed by the consistent 3-2 or 4-1 voting pattern.
In the face of all this Mortimer and his cohorts–David Roode, King Lear, Jean Mordo, Curtis Cole–continue to ignore the facts and present dubious arguments indicative of the vendetta the cabal is waging vs Enander (and Lee Eng). Says something!
Jean Mordo only got one term on the city council, losing his reelection bid. There is no “cabal” controlling things, which is an absurd idea. It’s a way to trivialize the mainstream consensus and deem it the output of something sinister. Far from it. Let’s home Anita Enander also only gets one term on the council, because her performance is worse than Jean Mordo’s by far.
The overall effect of LAR is to make the city council less productive. They take up a lot of time at council meetings with irrelevant points such as complaining that they don’t like what state law requires the city to do. They do this repetitively even about things like climate change planning. They misrepresent what the city is considering to others and cause them consternation that is not warranted. I think some of this could be fixed by establishing districts for election of council members, because LAR is a minority in the city as a whole and in every neighborhood. The current system allows the vote to be split and an outlier candidate to be elected even if unpopular overall. It’s not easy to be sure though and for now voting for Pete and Neysa is the best thing to do.
You seem to have an obsession with LAR’s influence. LAR is simply one grassroots community organization that surveys its members and others through a lot of outreach to try to assess what the majority of residents want the Council to do. It reports to Council on the results of the LAR surveys. The LAR surveys typically get more responses than any other survey done by the city or any other group. Why wouldn’t the Council be interested in what so many of its constituents think? You are clearly mad because the LAR survey results go against your interests. Welcome to democracy Mortimer. It’s a simple concept that this Nation was built upon. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion. Everyone’s vote counts. It’s really sad to see that you have a problem with community members organizing and expressing their views. Think about it – on what legitimate basis do you object to citizens voicing their concerns to their elected representatives?
Mortimer, the council rejected the Sorensen appeal on April 23, 2019. Can you point to any public comments from LAR members that influenced them to make that decision? Not that I think Council has ever paid attention to LAR, but I’d sure like to know why you keep blaming them.
So to clarify, LAR was “born” in July 2019 after the Sorenson appeal was denied and played no part in it at all.
“Jean Mordo only got one term on the city council, losing his reelection bid. There is no “cabal” controlling things…Anita Enander…her performance is worse than Jean Mordo’s by far.”
So says Mortimer.
Mordo ran for 2nd term, the cabal backed him as usual, he got booted out by the voters.
As for performance: Mordo, and his cronies on Council: Prochnow, Bruins, Pepper, hired Chris Jordan as City Manager and Chris Diaz as City Attorney. He is on record–check the Daily Post–stating Jordan’s prior work history did not matter as he, i.e., Mordo had “great chemistry with Jordan.” In short, “chemistry” meant more for Mordo and his Council cronies than the fact the FBI investigated Jordan at West Linn, OR and that City’s Council had nothing good to say about him as he left the City facing several lawsuits that cost them several million dollars. Ditto Chris Diaz. Read what transpired in Milpitas and Colma and Hillsborough and the legal costs they incurred during his tenure with them as City Attorney.
Owing to Jordan and Diaz Los Altos’ legal expenses went from less than Saratoga’s to 8X. That hardly includes the punitive penalties levied by the Courts already and those pending. It also does not include the payoffs to the Jordans (Chris and Andi) whereby Council majority has “bought their silence” concerning the skeletons in the cupboard that majority (and its backers) want to hide from the public.
Mordo (and the cabal) also sponsored Sally Meadows onto the PTC grooming her for Council where she now serves. With Weinberg they still maintain the stranglehold over Council that has long served the cabal. It now seeks to increase that stranglehold from a consistent majority to an overwhelming majority i.e., from three members (Meadows, Fligor, Weinberg) to four with the addition of Dailey.
Against these facts all Mortimer and his allies have to offer is nonsense re Enander and her performance.