Saratoga News

Four candidates vie for two open seats

By Sarah Lombardo

Saratogans will have a choice in the race for two open Saratoga City Council seats between candidates aligned with the current council, which opposed last March's Measure G growth control initiative, and supporters of the ballot measure, which restricted the council's power to rezone property.

All four candidates agree Saratoga needs to nurture its rustic identity and strong education, protect its open space and environment, reduce traffic and noise and maintain fiscal responsibility. But the similarities end there.

Candidates Jim Shaw and Stan Bogosian, both supporters of the campaign to pass the Neighborhood Preservation Initiative, are building their platforms around respect and a promise to implement Measure G with the intentions of residents in mind, something they say the current council--including incumbent Ann Marie Burger-- is not doing.

"I think we have to get in there and implement [Measure G] in a way that it works for the citizens," said Bogosian, a traffic school instructor, former Planning Commission member and co-founder of SONIC (Save Our Neighborhoods Initiative Committee). "If a particular plan, for example, would fall under the category of officially under a Measure G guideline but, in fact, did not materially increase the density or affect the neighbors and there was no opposition whatsoever to it, why should we spend the time and money and effort to put it to the voters? I believe this is something the current council, in that they all unanimously opposed Measure G, are doing to make it as uncomfortable as possible for the electorate."

Shaw, a retired Westinghouse marketing and government contracts manager, agreed that the council could be doing much more.

"I was really appalled by the reaction of the City Council in dealing first with the initiative . . . and then when Measure G did succeed, they still didn't get the message," Shaw said. "They seem to want to maintain their own point of view and a very reluctant and minimal application to Measure G. They say it's based on a legal interpretation, but we have an equally valid and legal interpretation."

Burger maintains she and other councilmembers put the battle of Measure G behind them and are implementing it fairly.

"People who went to the polls in March, the majority of those people voted for Measure G. It is now an ordinance in this community; it's law here. I don't have any trouble with that, and I enforce that just as vigorously and as thoroughly as I do any other ordinance in this community," said Burger, who owns her own financial-management business. "I know that the proponents are saying, 'Well, that's not the way we meant for it to be applied.' And my answer to that is if it's not what you meant, then perhaps it should have been drafted differently."

Burger said the councilmembers are advised by legal counsel on how to interpret the measure the way it was written.

Between these two camps stands Wyman, chairwoman of the Heritage Preservation Commission, a management analyst for the Santa Clara County Community Development Program and an instructor at San Jose State University. Wyman was not active in the campaign for or against Measure G, but said she did vote against the measure.

"I did not take sides in the campaign for Measure G. I did not pay any money or sign any petitions. I was neutral in the campaign for Measure G," she said. "I voted no because I thought that it would be very hard to implement. And perhaps I was right."

Wyman has experience in the implementation of a controversial growth-control initiative; she was active in Morgan Hill government when voters there passed such an initiative. She said she thinks it is going to take a lot of effort on everyone's part to reach an agreement.

"I think we all need to sit down together and talk to each other," she said.

But Measure G is not the only issue separating the candidates. a utility users' tax, Measure L on the November ballot, has also been a point of contention. Although all four candidates seem to agree with a tax in theory to maintain services in Saratoga, candidates disagree on whether the tax specifically should be renewed.

Burger said the tax is vital to keep youth and street maintenance programs alive. She and the council have pointed out that 100 percent of the tax money that residents pay, which amounts to about $77 a year per household, comes back to the city. Compared with how little of the property taxes residents pay actually comes back to the community, Burger said, the tax is very important to residents. Without the tax, city officials have said, the city could face having to cut $800,000 from its budget, and that could mean drastic reductions in city staff and programs.

Wyman has also said she supports the tax, calling it a great deal for residents. "For $77, I got a beautiful new street," Wyman said in reference to the tax's role in street maintenance. "I think it's a really good thing to keep."

Shaw and Bogosian said they support a utility tax in theory, but would like to see the city first trim its budgets to see if such a tax is really needed and then put the tax to a public vote.

Whether the tax, enacted by the City Council in 1985 then extended by council vote in '90 and '95, is a legal tax has been the subject of debate since the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 62 in the 1995 case of the Santa Clara County Local Transportation Authority vs. Guardino.

Prop. 62, enacted in 1986, requires a majority public vote for general taxes and a two-thirds vote for special taxes. The utility users' tax was put on the ballot by the City Council after the Pacific Legal Foundation threatened to sue the city unless it stopped collecting the tax and put it to a vote. The city maintains the tax is legal because it was enacted before Prop. 62.

"The utility tax device, that is a tax on utility bills, I think is an excellent device to obtain revenue," said Shaw, who told a Saratoga Woods Homeowners Association candidates forum that, as a native of New England, "Frugal is my middle name."

"The utility users' tax is a shame because it is an illegal tax," Shaw said. "We need to correct this situation. I want to keep programs, but not with an illegal tax."

Shaw said he favors a "top to bottom" review of the city's needs and expenses that involves resident participation. During that review, Shaw said, the city can use some of its $2 million in reserves to keep programs running. He said the city could hold hearings in which the public would help prioritize expenses. "We need to use our rich resource of smart, civic-minded people," he said.

Then, he said, the city could put a tax of some kind before a public vote.

Bogosian agreed and also said he questioned some of the things on which the council was spending its money. Specifically, Bogosian said he thought it was inappropriate for the city to have spent about $100,000 defending itself against a lawsuit by the Friends of Santa Clara County Creeks and San Francisco Baykeepers, who allege the city is not complying with water-safety standards involving the Saratoga Creek. Bogosian also criticized the city's plan to spend between $500,000 and $1 million on a new computer system for City Hall. Burger said the city is only spending $500,000 for the new system.

"Let's look at priorities, and let's look at cutting some of the budget items and, if we've done all this stuff and done a diligent effort at it, then come back and say, 'OK, voters, we're going to have to ask you for a tax,' " Bogosian said.

In defense of the council's position on the creek, Burger said the council is being responsive to the issue.

"Saratoga Creek is not polluted. It is in better shape than probably any other urban creek in California," she said. "And the city has vigorously pursued the health of that creek. We've done everything we can do."

All candidates have said they support efforts to maintain Saratoga's environment, and all can claim to be environmentally friendly in some way.

Wyman, who mortgaged her home to pay for legal expenses in the successful effort to prevent development on El Toro, a mountain overlooking Morgan Hill, has been endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters. The league said they could not decide between the other candidates, calling them all "able."

Bogosian and Shaw have received the endorsement of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club. And Burger has also won favor with that chapter of the Sierra Club as a member of the council for its work in the West Valley Hillside Preservation efforts of the past year between the cities and the county. The City Council voted to adopt the Hillside Preservation Strategy Final Report at its meeting Oct. 16.

The issue of endorsements opened the door early in the campaign for candidates to argue about the role of political action committees (PACs). Bogosian and Shaw, both in letters the the Saratoga News and in statements to the press, have said they would not attend candidates forums sponsored by PACs and would not accept money from PACs. The candidates refused to attend a forum sponsored by the Los Gatos-Saratoga District of the Penninsula-West Valley Association of Realtors on Sept. 18, and one held by the Good Government Group on Oct. 3. Shaw said he wanted to make a statement about local politics with the move. Bogosian said he didn't think PACs and PAC influence served any purpose in Saratoga.

Wyman and Burger, on the other hand, said they were willing to attend any forum at which they could interact with Saratoga residents. They said it was their responsibility as candidates to listen to all segments of the community.

But, regardless of the battle, the specter of PAC influence has not seemed to arise--at least not yet. According to the first of three campaign finance statements, filed Oct. 7, none of the candidates has received contributions from PACs.

This article appeared in the Saratoga News, October 23, 1996.
©1996 Metro Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved