In reality a $15.00 fee would discourage the gadflies.  Hell, Safeway and others struck impotently for months last year because the new contract proposal would have required them to pay a $15.00 co-pay for the mostly useless doctors office visists they scheduled because it was free.  No-one wants to pay for their own health care any more out of their own pocket, so why would they pay any fee just to mouth off?

But they really didn’t have to charge a fee at all, because the workday hours would automatically exclude most, since many of us actually have to show up at work to make money, unlike Carl G. and the CEO types he may want to lure to this event.  At the end of the day a slick press release will announce the findings of this “diverse???” group who attended during the workday @ $50.00 per.  RIGHT!

Get a clue on this Carl—if you want across the board participation, scheduling during work hours just ain’t right.  Its like Gonzo scheduling a hugely important issue for “public comment” during the day on Tuesday. If you want a big circle jerk of like-minded people to pat each other on the back collectively, schedule it as you did, and charge a hefty fee.  If you want a true cross-section (including a few pesky gadflies) then reschedule and drop the fee.  Just charge a nominal amount for the coffee and snacks.

And ya know, Carl, the new name is really lame—just a lot of self-aggrandizement.  True leaders don’t have to self-proclaim.  You and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group have done a lot of forward thinking work.  Rethink the name change.

The answer is not on how may problem we have but in how many solutions we can find.

Evaristo Guerrero II
Let me be your Friend

On your point that this is too little, too late.  To be fair, I just want to point out that we did receive this for publication last week, but considered the Chuck Reed blog the most timely and held this until Monday because that’s when we run guest blogs.

I have never found the SVLG to resist alternative viewpoints when it comes to solving our region’s transportation, housing, education or energy problems. Kudos to Carl Guardino – and all the sponsors of Projections 2006 – for moving the debate beyond political slogans and for inspiring our region’s best and brightest to start fixing what seems to be going wrong.

While I’m not a fan of local politics, the issue may not be political arrogance so much as economic forces beyond their control.

I wish the participants of the SVLG forum well, but I suspect it’s going to be the usual hot air, generating reports that nobody really reads suggesting actions that do not solve any problems.

The kicker: by this time next year the median home price in Santa Clara County will be up around $800k.

If they really want some Leadership, they’ve got to be willing to allow new ideas…not just the same old BS from the same old players.  But, alas, Silicon Valley is no longer wired that way.

If you limit your panel participants to only business leaders and politicians that support your business group’s viewpoints how is your event anything other that another special interest group discussion with the group’s supporters?

Many local government public policies have never been actually widely discussed in non partisan public policy discussion forums with all viewpoints represented.

Almost all local pubic policy discussions are put on by groups like yours that have already expressed their special interest viewpoints and could be considered by the public not be a fair and balanced discussion.

There is wide spread belief that many public policies if voted on by local residents would be defeated since they have not been widely discussed in non partisan forums, the short / long term consequents are not well understood or agreed on by the majority of the community.

It does not encourage a true public policy discussion when it is held at a time / day when many can not participate and a high admission fee to participate is charged which many local excluded leaders and organizations question if it is worth paying to participate since you have organized this event to limit balanced participation and public discussion. 

Do you really want a non partisan balanced public policy discussion or is this just a special interest group publicity event of your viewpoints and recommendations supported by the Mercury News?

So the valley will become more competitive by:
– extending a failed lightrail system that is already a drain on the tax base
– foisting an even bigger drain on SJ taxpayers in the form of BART

hmmm.

Housing.
I don’t think much can be done about housing unless we convert all the unused office space into dorms/lofts. 

But come to think about it, a lot of geeks in the valley would jump at the chance to domicile with their high speed networks and server farms!

Habitat for Hightech-noids?  (Just half kidding)

Schools.
The continuous hue and cry is that schools aren’t teaching our kids the math and science that our kids will be need to be competitive.  Where else in the US could you possilbly find more engineers and scientists?

I don’t think there’s any shortage of humanitarian minded companies in the valley that would gladly participate in such a program.

I’m always amazed at the lack of partnerships between the private sector and public sector in this valley.

Perhaps Mr. Guardino can tell us how many opponents of the BART extension will be appearing on his panel? This typically one-sided, stacked deck does not speak well of the “collaborative spirit” of this “debate.”

To his credit however, I’m somewhat surprised to see Carl’s blog appear in this particular sand box. Maybe next time he puts together a panel he might be inclined to include dissenting views. It could lead to a true “collaborative spirit” on some of these vexing local issues.