One big part of the disinformation network run by the Builder-Politician complex is to stifle voices which provide an alternative perspective. They achieve that by removing content or banning users who disagree with their narrative on Nextdoor, a social media network for neighbors..
In the lead-up to the election, the following people have had their content removed or their accounts suspended.
1. Steven Scharf: Former Mayor of Cupertino 2. Muni Madhdhipatla: Planning Commissioner & former Vice Chair 3. Vikram Saxena: Former Vice Chair of Planning Commission 4. Rhoda Fry: 2022 Crest Award Winner for Public Safety 5. Seema Swamy: Parks & Recreation Commissioner 6. San R: Safe Route to Schools.
7. James Murasighe: Nextdoor Lead for Inspiration Heights
All of the people whose voices were stifled, support resident focused candidates, Ray Wang and Kitty Moore for the City Council, and Long Jiao for CUSD.
We include some of the posts which were deleted; these posts attempt to reproduce the deleted post since the authors can not access them any more. These posts reflect the authors personal opinions and not as of any city official
Ray Wang and Kitty Moore: Will take Vallco Forward
Rod Sinks is highlighting his negotiating skills and saying he will make Vallco happen.
What he does not realize is that most residents in the neighborhoods around Vallco, do not trust Rod Sinks at all. This is the result of the favors he has granted to Sandhill over the past 12 years. In fact, any agreement with his fingerprints, will automatically be suspect for a large section of the population in Cupertino.
For those who are truly interested in the redevelopment of Vallco, Ray Wang & Kitty Moore offer a fresh start. They do not bring in the baggage of the past decade which Rod Sinks, Gilbert Wong and Barry Chang bring with them; plus their resident focus approach will help create more trust in the agreement.
History of Builders’ Bullying in Cupertino
Builders Cupertino bullying is at a different level: they bully the entire city
• Using the City Manager to pressure Sears to sell to Peter Pau of Sandhill (2014) • Amend City’s General Plan to add 2M office space since Peter Pau asked for it (2014) • Removing all height limits at Vallco (2014) • Putting residents at risk of cancer by not revealing the toxic contamination and Cortese List listing of the Sears site (2016) • Not putting back height limits at Vallco when SB35 was about to become law (2017) • Forcing the City Attorney out when he did not agree to SB35 approval (2018) • Closing three schools in the middle of a 100 year pandemic when CUSD was projecting its highest ever surplus (2021) • Harassing city councilors and commissioners who were not aligned with their agenda (eg: Grand Jury which was tossed out by the DA) (2023) • Fighting City’s lobbying registration requirements with a lawsuit, and after losing it amending them to not have builder’s lobbyists to register (2022-2023) • Trying to upzone 1600 single family R1 lots to R3-condos to enable 5-story buildings towering over our single family homes. (2023) • Sending each household a hidden tax of $3500 by agreeing to waive $77M in development fees for Vallco
You can build without destroying what already exists.
Pro-Residents is NOT Anti Development
There is a canard spread in Cupertino, that people who want the city council to consider the interests of residents are anti-development. The term anti-development is often used by groups backed by big-real estate to stifle discussion about sustainable development.
A well-functioning city-council will balance the concerns of the residents with the developers’ right to develop their property and earn economic benefit. The developers try to maximize the square footage of what they build, but have little interest in how it impacts the people around their development.
Until the November 2018 election, the Cupertino City Council was in control of politicians who are quite close to developers. KT Urban, which was driving the redevelopment of the Oaks Plaza, a project called Westport, wanted to build more than 800K sq ft of offices. They tried to get the office allocation but were asked to wait. The City’s politicians were focussed on enabling the Vallco project and had already given almost all the allocation added to the General Plan (2 Million sq ft) to Vallco.
Cupertino does not get mass transit like BART, Caltrain, Muni or Light Rail. Being a transit desert means that any new office space will lead to a direct increase in vehicular traffic which will make our commute time traffic jams even worse.
After the resident-focussed City Council took over, KT Urban realized that getting the office allocation was even less likely than before because there was resident opposition to it. They decided to pivot the project to housing.
The Westport being built, was negotiated by the pro-resident council. It consists of townhomes, senior housing, an assisted living facility and retail. It is traffic neutra and provides much needed senior housing in Cupertino, and along with a bike path.
The transformation of Westport from giant office towers to much needed housing is a great example of how a resident focussed city council can enable development in Cupertino in a manner which is sustainable
Unlike what the developers want us to believe, pro-residents means sensible development; it does not mean anti-development.
Giant office towers which would have worsened the traffic situation on the Stevens Creek and Hwy 85 junction
In this post we focus on how the Builder-Political Complex uses a sophisticated disinformation network to achieve its goals. The disinformation network has been extremely successful in misleading the residents. Three years ago when CUSD shut down multiple school campuses, most residents believed it was because of a budget shortfall due to falling enrollment. The reality was that CUSD was projecting almost $39.5M of surplus over the next five years. The video by CUSD Trustee Jerry Liu sheds light on it
The modus-operandi of such campaigns is to get articles & editorials published in regional news outlets which support policies sponsored by builders, without providing the readers with a comprehensive or objective view. For example, articles were written blaming falling school enrollment to justify the need for a lot more new housing in Cupertino. However they failed to mention that prior to the drop the enrollment had increased every year for almost 15 years. Or that even after the drop CUSD schools were running way above planned capacity with almost 25% of classes in portable classrooms. Or that the year after the decision to close the schools to save $1.5M, CUSD was projecting the biggest surplus ever in its history, $16M in the next year.
In this article we will focus on the disinformation campaigns organized by JR Fruen’s Cupertino For All, especially those run by its Information Officer, Jean Bedord.
Disinformation: East Cupertino vs West Cupertino
One method employed by the builder’s lobby is to project residents’ concerns of builders’ influence over city council as a conflict between the East and West side of Cupertino. The controversial Sand Hill Properties proposals to redevelop the Vallco Mall disproportionately impact the residents of East Cupertino. It is reasonable that the residents of the neighborhoods around Vallco will be vocal in challenging the resident unfriendly behavior of the council.
However, campaigns are run by the builder’s lobby to frame that community leaders from the East side want to harm the West side, and hence the residents should vote for the builders’ candidates
The reality, however, is the opposite as residents of Linda Vista Drive are now realizing.
Recent Nextdoor Interaction
We wanted to highlight a recent Nextdoor conversation illustrating how Jean makes misleading statements to create confusion in the mind of fellow residents. Jean comments on a post saying:
“Kitty Moore and Ray Wang voted to bring high density housing to Western Half of the City, ignoring the Topography”
Fact Check: Statement is False
In 2019, the resident focused city council voted against development on the Vista Heights property. (details here)
On the contrary, Jean Bedord, spoke in favor of the project on the top of the cliff moving forward (video below), during the 2019 City Council Meeting, “ignoring the topography”
Kitty Moore voted NO, to the July 2024 Housing Element approval which legally up-zoned the Evulich Court site to R3.
The residents focussed council reduced the density for Westport (Oak’s Redevelopment) to just 30% of the original proposal and also put to end conversations of rezoning the Blackberry Farm Golf Course as a residential housing site.
West Cupertino Faces YIMBY Assault
The residents of Linda Vista Drive on West Cupertino are dealing with the impact of the decisions taken by the JR Fruen led council since November 2022 which has led to two new developments which will double the number of homes on their street.
One project on Evulich Ct is the result of rezoning of a series of R1 (single family) parcels to R3/TH (multifamily townhomes) which was approved in July 2024 as part of the Housing Element
The second project is a Builder’s Remedy project near Linda Vista Park, which is proposing an even more dense development than the earlier proposal rejected by the resident-focussed city council during November 5, 2019 meeting.
The city is forced to accept Builder’s Remedy projects because JR Fruen led council decided to completely redo the city’s housing element plan finalized in October 2022, and also agreed to accept Builder’s Remedy projects as part of a settlement of a lawsuit filed by YIMBY organizations.
An element of Jean’s style is to provide a lot of information, with omissions and misrepresentations, to mislead her readers. Since she is perceived as the local expert, people trust her words. Her recent September 10 newsletter highlights that.
In that post, Jean gives a timeline of the housing element but conveniently forgets to mention key details, the role played by YIMBY orgs like Cupertino For All, or highlights information which is irrelevant to the progress of the housing element
In the next section we are including the timeline she published in italics, interleaved with additional context being provided in regular font inblue. Some of Jean’s content is highlighted in RED to represent how Jean highlighted it.
Context
ABAG adopted the RHNA Allocations for the 2023-2032 planning cycle on Decemeber 16, 2021, asking Cupertino to have a plan to construct 4588 new homes. The city starts process in Q1-2022 with the first draft discussed with the city council in August 2022.
In August 2022, JR Fruen, writing as the Policy Officer of Cupertino For All, lists out demands from YIMBY groups, as the city is reviewing the Housing Element Draft demanding more buffer, more upzoning and not to count pipeline projects.
>Oct. 22, 2022, First Draft provided for Public Review After the approval of the HE sites in August, the City published the first draft
>Dec. 10, 2022: new councilmembers Sheila Mohan and JR Fruen sworn in, and Hung Hei(sic) chosen as mayor. As customary, city offices were closed between Christmas and New Year’s.
After JR Fruen’s election, Cupertino For All, wrote to the City Council again, demanding major changes and a redo of the Housing Element. The letter is endorsed by Jean Bedord, Connie Cunningham and Louise Saadati. This letter is in the records for the Dec 10 meeting.
>Feb 3, 2023: First Draft submitted to HCD as a placeholder to show progress.
The City waited more than three months after the 1st draft was available (October 22, 2022) to send the draft to HCD on February 3, 2022, missing the approval deadline by three days
>May 4, 2023: within the full 90 days allowed for review, HCD provided 14 pages of comment requiring the city to basically redo the First Draft.
The May 4, letter by the HCD reviewing the first draft: stated that the draft submitted by the city addresses most statutory requirements! It also states that several YIMBY organizations, including JR Fruen & Jean Bedord’s Cupertino For All, had written to demand changes in the Housing Element.
For context, the Housing Element draft submitted by Palo Alto in December 2022, was only found to address many statutory requirements, a lower level of compliance than Cupertino’s .
It should be evident that there was NO justification to completely redo the draft as claimed by Jean. The draft was deemed as mostly compliant and some edits would have fixed it. The changes made in the subsequent drafts were made to transform it to what was demanded by YIMBYs which JR Fruen had listed in his August 2022 letter
>July 25, 2023: Council Study Session on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Council approved direction to staff to develop a Housing Element with additional sites and policies per HCD direction on a vote of 4-0-1 with Moore (inexplicably) abstaining.
The new housing element draft was submitted about a year after the first draft, This draft proposed that ALL Single Family Home Lots (R1) at corner lots or near mixed used areas, should be rezoned to R3 (Condos). During 2023, when the new draft was being prepared 18 out of 24 Planning Commission meetings were cancelled.
>Oct. 6, 2023: the Second Draft was submitted for public review under the guidance of a experienced replacement consultant
Note, that 2nd draft (October 2023) took almost a year to develop after the first draft (October 2022). But Jean blames the resident friendly council for the delay in the initial draft which was published within 10 months of the RHNA allocation being finalized in December 2021.
>Oct. 16,2023: the Second Draft was submitted to HCD, then revised on Oct. 30
The HCD downgraded Cupertino’s compliance with the law after reviewing the 2nd draft. It said the draft “addresses many statutory requirements”. This was less compliant than the first draft which was deemed to have “addresses most statutory requirements”. Cupertino perhaps is the only city whose second submission was judged to be less compliant than the first submission.
>Dec. 15, 2023: HCD provided 6 pages of comments for revision. (Just in time for holiday shutdown)
On January 1, 2024, the city settled a lawsuit filed by JR Fruen’s YIMBY buddies. In the agreement the city stated that it is open to accept Builder’s Remedy Projects. All active Builder’s Remedy Projects were filed after the settlement of the YIMBY lawsuit in 2024. Jean chose to omit that.
>Feb. 16, 2024: Third Draft submitted for Public Comment >Feb. 27, 2024: Third Draft submitted to HCD, then revised in March. >March 28, 2024: Final Third Draft submitted to HCD >April 10, 2024: HCD conditionally accepts the Third Draft, pending zoning revisions to ensure >May 14, 2024: Council adopted the Third Draft of the Housing Element on, on a 3-2 vote with Councilmembers Kitty Moore voting NO and Liang Chao abstaining. >July 16, 2024, associated zoning changes were approved by council on a 4-1 vote with Councilmember Kitty Moore voting NO.
This was the day the rezoning of sites like Evulich Ct. were approved. Kitty Moore opposed the motion and voted NO. This adopted Housing Element required the city to plan for 1800 more homes than the 1st draft, leading to widespread upzoning across Cupertino.
>Sept. 4, 2024 HCD officially certified the Housing Element, ending new Builder’s Remedy projects.
Jean’s description of the process, has zero references to the letters and actions taken by Cupertino For All (Demanding changes in August 2022, Asking for a redo in December 2022, writing to HCD to oppose the 1st draft, Q1-2023). She also fails to mention the attempt to upzone single family lots to condos (R3)
Do note that Jean highlights that Kitty Moore voted NO to motions when the draft was being redone to meet YIMBY’s demands. She is perhaps attempting to create the impression, that her NO votes led to the delay. The reality is that after November 2022 elections, the builders had control of the council (JR Fruen, Hung Wei, Sheila Mohan) and all the motions Kitty voted NO on, passed.
Kitty Moore’s NO votes were an expression of her disagreement of the process and the outcome; they did not hinder the progress of the HE in any way.
Chief Disinformation Office
We feel that instead of the title of Information Officer at Cupertino For All, the Builder-Politician Complex should recognize her impact and appoint her as their Chief Disinformation Officer.
Whether it is the facilitating the shutdown of schools while CUSD had a huge budget surplus, or the proliferation of Builder’s Remedy projects, Jean has succeeded in misleading a large segment of residents with her disinformation campaigns to drive the builder’s agenda of making billions on the back of our quality of life.
Over 2,200 residents from the Monta Vista and Lynbrook High School attendance areas have expressed opposition to the the Fremont Union High School District’s transition from at-large to by-trustee area elections. Residents have spoken out at board meetings, community meetings, and signed a Change.org petition.
Feb. 13, 2024 FUHSD Board Meeting
A Controversial Move
With the previous at-large voting system, residents were able to elect all five FUHSD Board Trustees. But with the new Trustee Area voting system, residents will only be allowed to elect one trustee in their designated Trustee Area. See our previous article for more background.
FUHSD’s stated reason for transitioning from At Large to Trustee Area Elections is to avoid scrutiny under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA). The CVRA, passed in 2002, helps minority groups more easily challenge At Large elections, on the grounds that they cause racially-polarized voting. However, to date, FUHSD has not done any analysis to determine whether there is racially-polarized voting in its district.
Cupertino Councilmembers Question FUHSD Plan
At the February 13th FUHSD Board Meeting, Cupertino City Councilmember Liang Chao, representing herself only, stated, “In the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in August 2023, the Supreme Court raised the bar for the CVRA challenge. It specifically said alternatives could be ranked-choice voting and cumulative voting.”
Chao called for the FUHSD Board to immediately add an agenda item to consider other voting methods, and also “consider fiscal impacts of going through the lengthy redistricting process every 10 years with by-trustee area elections.”
Cupertino Councilmember Kitty Moore, whose children attended FUHSD schools, also spoke out representing herself only. Moore stated, “I am very concerned about the profound lack of data concerning redistricting, especially considering that we are a high school district known for our academics. This could potentially expose the district to various risks.”
Supporters of By-Trustee Areas
According to the FUHSD presentation delivered by Superintendent Graham Clark, the switch helps North Sunnyvale residents. Historically, most FUHSD trustees have come from South Sunnyvale and Cupertino. North Sunnyvale has not had any trustees. With the transition, North Sunnyvale would always be guaranteed one board member.
One of the decision’s biggest advocates is an organization called Sunnyvale Equity in Education (SEE). SEE has stated in a Facebook post that its goals include achieving equal representation on the board, and, in the long term, opening its own North Sunnyvale school.
Current and former Sunnyvale City Councilmembers are also proponents of the move. “No taxation without representation,” stated Sunnyvale’s Councilmember of District 5, which includes North Sunnyvale. “In the past 50 years, there has never been a Latino or a North Sunnyvale resident on this board. In the 40 years since the closure of Sunnyvale High School, North Sunnyvale residents have not enjoyed the same access or quality of high school educational resources as the rest of this district. Our residents deserve the same access to educational resources as South Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Altos, and San Jose residents.”
Opponents of By-Trustee Areas
Many Monta Vista and Lynbrook area parents expressed frustration with Trustee Areas, across multiple FUHSD meetings. Numerous public comments showed concern that the change would put Monta Vista or Lynbrook at risk of being closed, in order to make way for a Sunnyvale school. FUHSD currently has five high schools; it is unlikely to be able to afford six. During public meetings, several parents stated that it takes only three out of five board members to close a school. With the Trustee Area system, Southern FUHSD would be at risk of not having enough board members to vote against such a move, if it ever arose.
Many parents also stated that the change to Trustee Areas was made without their consent. All community outreach meetings occurred after the decision was made, asking residents to “choose a map” for Trustee Areas, rather than provide input on the Trustee Area decision itself. “By-Trustee Area will undercut the ability of every voter to have an impact, since we can only vote for one trustee every four years,” stated Councilmember Liang Chao.
Next Steps
FUHSD now faces the challenging task of managing the needs of multiple parent groups. The District continues to reassure parents that it “has no plans to close schools”. However, it also refuses to definitively state that it “will not close schools.” Ultimately, this lack of certainty is leaving many questioning the district’s motives.
How To Get Involved
There are many ways local residents can share their opinions on the move to Trustee Areas. Most immediately, there are two remaining Map Hearing Schedules. These are held during the regular board meetings at the District Office (589 W. Fremont Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94087).
March 20, 2024 (6 P.M.)
April 24, 2024 (6 P.M.): This is the final map hearing where the board will approve a final map of Trustee Areas, as well as which areas will be up for election.
A few years ago no one would have thought that CUSD would close schools even though:
CUSD has the most crowded schools in the area
30% of primary school classrooms are non-permanent portable structures
The district is projecting a $39M surplus over the next five years
And the savings from school closure are minimal
Why do our elected leaders take such decisions?
Part of the reason is that they do not face repercussions for their decisions.
And that happens because they have well-oiled machinery to misdirect residents.
One leg of that machinery is media outlets which spread fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) among residents; and the other leg of that is suppression of dialogue among residents which challenges that FUD.
In this email, we focus on the second aspect: the suppression of free dialogue by the coterie of ex-mayors to harm residents’ interests.
Kent Vincent and Censorship on Nextdoor
Kent Vincent has been living in Cupertino for more than 40 years. He worked at HP Labs where he (co)authored more than 50 patents before his “retirement”. For the past 15 years, he has been organizing large travel groups to destinations all over the world.
Earlier this month, Kent wrote a post on Nextdoor challenging the premise of the editorial published by San Jose Mercury News about the Cupertino elections.
Kent’s post was marked as disrespectful, and deleted, twice, from the platform by Nextdoor lead.
Not surprisingly, the six leads who deleted Kent’s post, are vocal cheer-leaders of investor interests on various forums and curtail any discussion which challenges the investor’s narrative.
We are sharing the screenshots of those who voted to delete Kent’s post to suppress discussion, and also the content of the original post below.
Kent Vincent’ Post
Jollyman/Faria • 3 Nov
There is a dynamic in the Cupertino Council race that bothers me. As in recent past elections, our six candidates are marketed by two PACs, three candidates supported by a pro-development PAC of past Cupertino mayors predominantly residing on the west end of Cupertino and three candidates supported by a “sensible growth” development PAC of individuals predominantly residing on the east side of Cupertino.
Virtually all of the high rise, high density, high traffic generating “big city” development that has been built or planned for Cupertino in recent years has been approved exclusively for the east of Hwy 85 east side and its residents by the Councils of the west end PAC mayors. This includes the ill-fated amendment of a Vallco General Plan in 2014 having no building height limitation that now allows the build of multiple 20-story skyscrapers on that site via SB35.
What bothers me is that most of those pro-development PAC leaders personally live in neighborhoods isolated from the impact of their development decisions, areas of low traffic where significant development has not occurred for 40 years nor is planned. It is very easy to be pro-development altruistic when development you approve always occurs in someone else’s neighborhood and doesn’t negatively impact you personally.
I have good fortune to know most of the leaders of both PACs and view all as very decent, well-meaning leaders and residents that I respect and applaud for their commitment to our community. I am bothered, however, that the west end PAC and its influenced San Jose Mercury News editorials have labeled the east side PAC and its slate of current Council members and candidates as “nimbies” (not in my back yard) on development.
That’s “calling the kettle black” in my opinion. Always approving “yes in your backyard” development is just a different form of “not in my back yard” (NIMBY). Fact is, virtually no one wants high rise, high density, traffic impacting development in their neighborhood. We’re all NIMBYs in that sense. In my view, any candidate running on a platform of pro-development (altruistic or otherwise) should state willingness to bear the negative impact of their approvals in the part of the city where they live.
I know the PAC leaders read Nextdoor and I look forward to their comments. Do I have a valid concern?
The Coterie of ex-Mayors and their “Ethics” One of the foundations of the democratic system we cherish, is our freedom of expression. That expression takes various forms, with yard signs being a convenient method for residents to express their preferences during election season.
The security video below shows how those rights are infringed upon by these power-brokers who have no qualms in stealing their opponent’s yard signs. The resemblance to one of the most prominent members of the coterie of ex-mayors is not accidental. While this sign-stealing video is from the 2020 election cycle the behavior continued this cycle also.
Please Stay Engaged and Involved
They have no qualms in shutting down our already overcrowded schools in the middle of a 100 year pandemic, they have no problem trespassing and stealing our yard signs, they have no problem suppressing discussion among residents, but they do have a problem in registering as paid lobbyists.
Whether it is unbalanced editorials in newspapers, or a constant barrage of half truths, vested interests will force the city in a direction which enriches their backers substantially, at the cost of our quality of life.
The only bulwark we have against these vested interests, is an engaged community.. So please stay engaged and come together to preserve your interests. One way to help is to share our content with your neighbors and friends.
A reminder of how desperate the coterie of ex-mayors was to label our Harvard and Princeton educated resident focused council members as “bums” and “scoundrels” since they resisted the deep-pocketed investors.
2. Debunking the “redevelopment needs office space to break even” myth
3. An update on the campaign spending by various candidates
4. A note from a fellow resident about the Bullying of our Treasurer Minna Xu
That is the line of a mailer sent by the coterie of ex-mayors claiming financial ruin in the city.
We would like to reassure the residents that the city is doing great financially, and your Harvard & Princeton educated councilperson (aka “bums”) are strengthening its governance.
The city has also instituted an internal audit function, instituted better financial processes & controls as recommended by Moss-Adams, and has created a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program to allow whistle-blowers to report concerns anonymously to prevent embezzlement like the multi-year scam (2000-2014) which cost the city $800K. The City Manager has the following to say in his introduction to the city budget for 2022-2023
“The City is on solid financial footing in FY 2022-23 with a balanced budget. The budget is balanced with ongoing revenues meeting or exceeding expenditures, and fund balance is being used to fund one-time projects”
“Redevelopment Need Office Space to Break Even”: Not True
Another myth propagated by the investors’ proxies is that redevelopment needs a huge amount of office space to break even. This was the reason given to grant up to 2M sq ft of office space allocation at Vallco, in spite of intense multi-year opposition by the residents. Residents oppose it since it increases traffic, and does not improve the jobs to housing ratio.
The Westport development (Oaks) has zero office space. Later this month, the Marina Plaza redevelopment project is coming for review with the City’s Planning Commission, including commissioners Steven Scharf, Muni Madhdhipatla, and Ray Wang. It’s a 5.1 acre development with 206 condos and 41K sq ft of commercial space.
These two projects clearly establish that redevelopment does NOT need millions of sq ft of office space to be viable, just a City Council which considers the wishes of the residents and the needs of the city, while working with property owners to revitalize our city.
Campaign Spending Update (10/31/2022)
The resident focused candidates for the Cupertino City Council, Govind Tatchari, Liang Chao and Steven Scharf have raised/spent under $25,000 honoring the voluntary limit they agreed to for the election.
JR Fruen and Sheila Mohan have breached the $80,000 mark and are racing towards the $100,000 milestone with investor backed elements and unions pouring money into their campaigns. Claudio Bono is in the middle, near $50,000 (his campaign has a large loan amount)
Bullying of our Treasurer Minna Xu: A note from a fellow resident
Minna is a long time Cupertino resident who is warm-hearted and volunteers a lot in our local community. She has helped with school Yosemite trip fundraising, with boy scouts’ activities, and coordinating several Chinese and Asian events in the past. Whenever friends’ ask for help, if she can, she will help.
Why is she suddenly famous this campaign season? It’s because her friends asked her to help with their accounting. This organization’s name is Cupertino Facts. She read their article drafts and believed they were doing the right thing. They work to deliver the truth. So, she helped just like she did, so many times in the past.
But this time her simple act has resulted in this kind and innocent Asian lady being attacked by an old boys network with a Big Title: the Council of Mayors.
It’s because what Cupertino Facts provides is not something this group of ex-Mayors want the residents to hear. They pick on the weak one, intimidate and threaten, and hope the weak person would back off and never dare to do anything they don’t like. Do you feel disturbed by seeing this? Can you imagine such things happening in Cupertino nowadays?
Our beautiful city belongs to all the residents who love it. Our city belongs to all the people like Minna who believe in kindness, caring, selfless contribution with no return. If you believe that everyone in Cupertino has the right to speak the truth, unite and stand up, protect our fellow residents. Don’t let any of our residents be bullied by those snobbish old-boys network of Mayors.
VOTE WISELY
To save our schools and preserve home values, please VOTE for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stand to keep school closure off the table and roll back past mistakes. They are not funded by external special-interests and will keep the interests of residents foremost.
Please do NOT vote for JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan for Cupertino City Council, and Ava Chiao (CUSD). They have been supportive of school closure and giving the land to developers, and have strong endorsements from the three CUSD trustees who closed the schools. They have also received extensive funding from construction interests, who covet the land our schools stand on, and have not signed the City of Cupertino voluntary spending limit on election expenses.
We became aware of another group of CUSD residents who have formed a group called “Voice of CUSD Residents for Better Education”. You can learn more about them here.
We finish with a video with Mayor Darcy Paul who is now running to help fix CUSD.
This email will debunk disinformation about CUSD with data. We also include video clips from Jerry Liu, a CUSD trustee who opposed school closure, who shares his experience and goes into more details.
Disnfo #1: CUSD Budget Shortfall? No we have surplus!
The big reason cited for the shutdown of schools was a projected budget shortfall. CUSD’s own projections show that it will end up with a surplus (revenue less expenditure in the table below) of $39.5 Million over the next five years.
Please listen to current board member Jerry Liu who voted against school closure, who tells us that even this year CUSD will have a surplus of $16M!
Savings from closing school campuses?It is like saving 50 cents while we have a $200 budget,, a reminder that the projected savings from closing a school campus was minimal
Then why close schools during a once-in-a lifetime pandemic?
Disnfo #2: Collapsing Child Population? No Its Stable!
For the past decade, we have been repeatedly being told that CUSD enrollment is declining because the population of children in CUSD is declining.
That is incorrect.
The children population in CUSD has been fairly stable, fluctuating in a narrow band. The overall population is at the same point as it was about a decade ago.
CUSD enrollment though is declining since parents are preferring private schools due to mismanagement by the CUSD board including the deeply unpopular decision to shut down school campuses.
For those interested in more granular analysis, the date from the ACS Survey is available here including age-wise breakdown within the under-18 age-group
The Future is in Your Hands
To reiterate, a lot of disinformation which has been spread in the community, is debunked by data.
Disinfo #1: CUSD shut Schools because of lack of money
=> No. CUSD is projected to have a $39M surplus over next 5 years
Disinfo #2:. CUSD enrollment is falling because number of Children in CUSD is dropping
=> No. Children population in CUSD is around the same level it was a decade ago
We can only speculate why the coterie of ex-mayors and their protege who they get sponsor via endorsement and campaign finance support misled us. We do know CUSD has hired professional real-estate consultants to evaluate the desirability of CUSD land for investors.
In order to save our schools, and preserve our home values, it is critical that the City Council of Cupertino opposes any rezoning of school land and preserves it for public usage.
VOTE WISELY
To save our schools and preserve home values, please VOTE for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stand to keep school closure off the table and roll back the past decisions. They are not funded by external special-interests and will keep the interests of residents foremost.
Please do NOT vote for JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan for Cupertino City Council, and Ava Chiao (CUSD). They have been supportive of school closure and giving the land to developers, and have strong endorsements from the three CUSD trustees who closed the schools. They have also receive extensive funding from construction interests, who covet the land our schools stand on, and not signed the City of Cupertino voluntary spending limit on election expenses.
Your fellow neighbors from Cupertino
(Some more videos with Jerry speaking are attached below)
(a) The painful journey to the closure of Regnart Elementary School
(b) A note about who we are
The Regnart Story:
CUSD schools have one of the highest per-school enrollment in the region. A rational person would expect that the school board would prefer to distribute students evenly across different campuses. However, what happened at Regnart was exactly the reverse.
Regnart was one of the less crowded schools in the district. Instead of enabling open enrollment students to join Regnart, or open new programs there, the policy of the board was to do the reverse; i.e. to find opportunities to reduce the enrollment even further.
The existing Transitional Kindergarten was shut down and relocated to another school.
Open enrollment students who had applied to Regnart as their preferred school,were waitlisted and not allowed to enroll there..
Regnart had a healthy enrollment of 426 in 2019. Meanwhile, neighboring Blue Hills had 361 students, and nearby Montclaire had about 445. However, those schools which also happened to be the home schools of two trustees (Lori-Montclaire & Phyllis-Blue Hills), received students during open enrollment who were channeled away from Regnart.
This drop in enrollment, which was manufactured by CUSD by closing down the transitional kindergarten and not allowing open enrollment to Regnart was then used to justify the closure of Regnart!
The Regnart community organized itself and offered CUSD many ideas. That included ideas for transforming Regnart into a magnet school, providing stop-gap funding to tide over the pandemic and even raising more than $100,000. However the Board Members refused to consider alternatives.
Deception from the Board
The primary reason given by CUSD to close school campuses was that they did not have enough funds. However, whenever parents dug into the data, they realized that the projections did not justify closing schools. There were two reasons:
1. The expected savings from closing a campus was minimal because most of the expense goes to staff pay; and class sizes in CUSD were already near state mandated maxima, so staff cuts were minimal.
2. CUSD itself was unlikely to face the funding shortage which would have justified cost cuts in the first place. CUSD had an ending fund balance of $45M at the time of closure. This has now risen to $53M and is projected to grow!
Lack of Transparency
A question to ask is why was CUSD in such a rush to close schools during a once in a 100 year pandemic?
While CUSD was shutting down Regnart they were simultaneously expanding the CLIP program to a new site. That goes against their claim of funding gap leading to program closures.
PRA requests have also revealed that the CUSD board has been communicating withReal Estate Development consultants to evaluate the ‘attractiveness’ of various sites to investors.
Regnart is nestled in a quiet neighborhood in Monta Vista with multi-million dollar homes, and is prime land for development of expensive homes.
Choice For Voters?
Is this the way you want your school districts to be run? Why were the lives of children and families disrupted during the pandemic, when there was no compelling reason to close already crowded campuses?
Whose interests is CUSD serving: real estate investors or our children?
If, like us, you feel the need for change, please do NOT vote for candidates sponsored by the coterie of ex-mayors for the Cupertino City Council (JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan) or CUSD (Ava Chiao) who also been endorsed by the three CUSD trustees who spearheaded the effort..
Please vote for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They will work to roll-back school closure, and ensure that the local agencies work for the betterment of the residents.
A note about who we are
Cupertino Facts is an effort is by a group of long-term residents of Cupertino, who have come together to inform our neighbors about the misinformation which the special-interests spread in our city. Most of us hold mid to senior level professional roles in the Tech Industry, and are united by our desire to preserve the wonderful city we call home.
We do not have any big donors, and would love to get your contribution to help fight the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) spread in our city by special interests. We would also like to hear from you about other topics you would like to learn more about.
.
JR Fruen’s Campaign Finance Violations
In closing, we would like to inform our readers that one of the candidates sponsored by the coterie of ex-mayors, JR Fruen, was issued a warning letter by the FPCC due to campaign finance reporting errors in 2020. In the 2022 cycle, there are two other violations by JR Fruen which have been reported to the FPCC under COM-08232022-02558 including Laundering Campaign Contributions.
This email is an effort to inform you of special interest lobbying, and how CUSD schools are being closed to be sold to investors.
Lobbyist Registration
In the first half of 2021, the resident oriented City Council of Cupertino passed a lobbying ordinance asking entities who were receiving compensation to lobby with the city, to register with the city. Similar lobbying ordinances exist in many Bay Area jurisdictions including Santa Clara, San Jose and Palo Alto. At least ten entities who lobby in the city have voluntarily registered increasing the transparency and reducing conflict of interest.
Who Opposes Registering as Lobbyists?
You may have received inflammatory mailers from a self-styled coterieof ex-mayors, disparaging the council chosen by the voters in 2018. Not surprisingly, on Nextdoor, a leading member of the coterie cheered a lawsuit opposing the city’s requirement for paidlobbyists to register.
The lawsuit, which challenges the requirement register as a paid lobbyist based on theFirst Amendment, was filed one year after the ordinance came to force, just in time for the elections. Multiple people, who strongly advocate for the coterie’s agenda like school closure, have had a close association with the particular local chapter of the organization (LVW) which is opposing the transparency ordinance.
Special Interests Abusing Neighborly Trust
As residents of the same city, we tend to trust our fellow residents’ view more than an entity we are not familiar with. However, this trust can be misused by special interests, when the special-interests compensate certain residents to act as lobbyists for their interests.
The lobbying ordinance is designed to empower residents with the information to evaluate whose interests a particular person represents, and then make an informed decision.
That the leading member of the coterie of ex-mayors is not interested in transparency speaks volumes of their approach.
Selling CUSD Land to Investors
Another pet project of the coterie of ex-mayors is shutting down school campuses, in the already overcrowded schools of CUSD. During the recent school closure drama, residents were informed that CUSD has no money to run the schools; a claim debunked by many parents and invalidated by the huge surplus CUSD currently has.
A CUSD parent discovered this email after a public record request, which clearly shows CUSD studying how attractive our closed school sites will be for real-estate investors!.
It should be obvious by now that our school going children and families went through the dislocation during the pandemic, so that wealthy investors could grab more land to profit from.
Note that this pattern of trying to sell the school land is not new; in 2017 CUSD, then led by another protege of the coterie of ex-mayors, tried to sell off the land for Luther School and Park in Santa Clara, to none other than the Vallco investor, Sand Hill Properties (SHP)
Progress after 2018 Elections
The resident focussed council first took charge after Nov 2018 elections, when the voters shunned the money power on display from special interests. Since then, the resident-focussed council has worked hard to fix financial loop-holes (Internal Audit, increase transparency (lobbying), ensure greater resident involvement (Engage Cupertino), and unblock sensible development.
Many of the development projects like Westport and Canyon Crossing, which were stuck in the pipeline with the previous council have been approved with a usage-mix which addresses long standing city needs like senior care, without adverse impact on traffic.
The Vallco project is waiting for the cleanup of toxic waste which is being coordinated by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health.
Please Make an Informed Choice
Please vote for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They will enhance the dignity and respect of our Council and School District, work to roll-back school closure, and ensure that the local agencies work for the betterment of the residents.
Please do NOT vote for the candidates backed by this coterie, who are also endorsed and supported by the three CUSD trustees who spear-headed the effort to close schools. These candidates, supportive of school closures, are JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan (City Council) and Ava Chiao (CUSD) are a risk to our home values and should be actively opposed.
It’s no secret that homes in Cupertino command a significant premium due to the stellar reputation of CUSD schools. However, due to the anti-children policies of the CUSD board, 33% of all eligible children are now attending private schools. This number has grown 3x in the past decade.
With parents fleeing CUSD due to lower desirability of schools, our home values are at risk.
One of the big reasons for the flight was the mismanagement by CUSD including overcrowding, and the deeply unpopular decision to close three campuses on extremely flimsy and unsubstantiated grounds. In order to restore vitality to CUSD, it’s critical that we do not close any more schools, and reopen the recently closed campuses.
In order to secure the future of our children and preserve home values, please do NOT vote for any candidate who is supported (eg: campaign funding, endorsed) by those who spear-headed the effort to close our schools or construction interests who covet the land under our schools
To preserve home values,please VOTE for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board. They have taken a public stand to keep school closure off the table and roll back the past decisions. They are not funded by external special-interests and will keep the interests of residents foremost.
Please do NOT vote for JR Fruen, Sheila Mohan for Cupertino City Council, and Ava Chiao (CUSD). They have been supportive of school closure and giving the land to developers, and have strong endorsements from the three CUSD trustees who closed the schools. They have also receive extensive funding from construction interests, who covet the land our schools stand on.
CUSD has among the most crowded schools in the region. In spite of that there are certain elements who want to close our school campuses.
Ava Chiao & School Board Future
One such candidates is Ava Chaio for CUSD Board.
Ava has stated that she supports school closure. Beyond supporting school closure, she has even proposed plans on how the land of the closed schools should be used to build housing.
Ava is backed by unions who are pouring in tens of thousands of dollars to her campaign; she will not be representing the parents’ or the children’s interests on the board.
Ava is being supported by other candidates who have championed for school closure like JR Fruen. Ava has contributed to JR Fruen’s campaign.
No Plans to Adress Students’ Challenges
However, we have seen little from Ava on how the problems created by over crowded schools will be addressed.
Whether it is the lack of lockers in middle school, children not having table space to have their lunch (they sit on the ground), the large traffic bottlenecks, Ava has no plans to address those.
School Closure & Property Values
With more than 30% of children in CUSD going to private schools, one of the major reasons why people paid premium prices for Cupertino homes is fading away. This will impact the desirability of Cupertino and will impact property prices negatively.
Save Cupertino Schools and Your Home Values
Even if you do not have school going children, your home values are strongly impacted by the quality of schools.
In order to ensure that CUSD schools thrive and your homes do not lose value, please do not vote for any candidate who supports school closure.
Ava Chiao has even proposed plans for how to use land under the closed schools; she has no plans on how to reduce the exodus to private schools from CUSD.
To preserve home values, please vote for Govind Tatachari, Liang Chao, and Steven Scharf for Cupertino City Council, and Darcy Paul, Satheesh Madhathil & Jerry Liu for CUSD Board.
