On Aug. 30, The Weekly submitted the following questions to District 5 candidates — incumbent Suds Jain and challenger David Kertes. Candidates had until Sept. 13 to reply.
After multiple attempts to reach Kertes, the candidate chose not to reply.
Below are the answers The Weekly received from the candidates. Answers are presented verbatim.
What are the biggest resident concerns in your district?
Jain: I would say we have 4 major concerns in District 5. The first is getting our downtown built now that we have passed the Specific Plan with form-based codes which allows developers to know what they can build without needing to do a separate EIR. The second is impacts of University students on residents. We have loud parties with red Solo cups littering our streets and many student cars parking on the streets. The third is homelessness as we regularly have unhoused people at the Franklin Mall. The fourth is preserving historic homes and character of the Old Quad.
Do you support the Neighborhood University Relations Committee? Explain why.
Jain: I do support the NURC because it keeps pressure on the University to do more to minimize student impacts on our neighborhoods. While NURC rarely has action items to be referred for council action, it is a great forum for SCU leaders to hear from neighbors as well as the police department. I expect that NURC had influence on SCU to make Freshman and Sophomores live on campus. I want to establish a NURC-like committee to address issues at Levi’s Stadium.
Do you support Reclaiming Our Downtown?
Jain: Yes, I have often complained that my wife and I had to go to downtown Campbell, Mountain View or Sunnyvale to enjoy an evening out. I attended many meetings of the Downtown Community Task Force and supported the idea of form-based code to promote the density we need and the aesthetics that will draw people to the area. I think that after 44 meetings of the Task Force they came up with a good plan that should attract developers once the interest rates come down.
What would you do to promote a collegial and respectful city council?
Jain: I have tried to greet Kathy Watanabe and Lisa Gillmor every time I see them at an event and am usually rebuffed. Often Councilmember Watanabe pretends to not see me. I hear that other councilmembers receive the same treatment from Watanabe and Gillmor so unfortunately I see little prospect of things improving. Hopefully trainings recommended in the Grand Jury report will help but only if ALL councilmembers do the trainings.
What are your thoughts on negative campaigning? Unless you support such campaigning, how do you plan to address the inevitable campaigns targeting your opponents? If you support such campaigning, please explain why.
Jain: There are many levels of negative campaigning so it’s hard to make blanket statements. For example, pointing out my opponent’s lack of experience could be considered negative campaigning. Certainly lying and making false accusations crosses the line. I will not do that and hope that no one else will be doing that. It seems that there have been push polls on both sides. I don’t know who is doing those polls. I don’t communicate with any PACs. I don’t take any money from any special interest – not PACs, 49ers, unions, or businesses.
What actions would you take with respect to the long-stalled Related project? What is your opinion of Related’s new plan?
Jain: As a planning commissioner, I opposed the size of the Related project. I much preferred a smaller project. I also asked for them to pay option payments for locking up our land for 15 years. I didn’t like the idea of an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA). COVID changed everything as did Amazon. As people work from home the demand for office space is way down. Also brick and mortar retail is struggling. I agree that Related needed to change their plan and the new plan makes sense. I wish there was more housing in this plan.
How can Santa Clara benefit from hosting the Super Bowl and the World Cup? What do you plan to do to ensure this?
Jain: I opposed the Stadium coming to Santa Clara. The Stadium has certainly put Santa Clara on the map because so many people around the world follow the 49ers and the tour dates of Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran and Beyonce. Billions of people around the world will know Santa Clara because of the Super Bowl and World Cup. But how does that benefit Santa Clarans? I opposed spending $2 million on the SuperCommunities events around SB50. Big events such as these are often money losers. We need to ensure that the Bay Area Host Committee covers all City expenses.
What initiatives have you supported during your tenure on the council that demonstrate your priorities?
Jain: I pushed for the Homelessness Task Force and money for outreach to unhoused people. I advocated for form-based codes in the Downtown Plan. I pushed for deeper levels of affordability for inclusionary housing at the Patrick Henry Specific Plan. I was the key driver to get VTA to change the Santa Clara BART station design to have the at-grade concourse, saving $75M. I pushed for retention of City council emails for 2 years to improve transparency and accountability. I also pushed for more aggressive carbon reduction targets in our Climate Action Plan (80% by 2035).
Election day is Nov. 5, 2024. To register to vote, visit the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters website. The deadline to register to vote is 15 days before the election.
View Comments (17)
The questions posed appear unbiased and of importance to all Santa Clara. The last question would need modification for Kertes as he is a newcomer, but that wouldn't be a tough task for The Weekly Editors.
.
Kertes apparently responded to the San Jose Spotlight's article which was published yesterday (9/18) so not responding to The Weekly's inquiry seems like he's already polarized; Santa Clara doesn't need any 'yes men' on the council.
.
Most residents believe Suds Jain "has done a marvelous job on council for District 5." https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-mayor-wants-to-reshape-council/
.
Vote to keep Suds Jain as representative for District 5.
I refused to comment for this story because of the previous interaction with David A. His previous article about me was missing many details and seemed to have been made up. I did not want to have the same experience this time around. I have been giving interviews to three other news sources that are not biased.
I've only seen you quoted in the San Jose Spotlight and SilconValley.com (aka Mercury News), what's the third news "source"?
Probably that fake news blog that is basically an outlet for any information Lisa Gillmor wants to spread. It is SO blatantly biased it's not even funny, but it is exactly like she has always operated--find a blogger who likes to pretend to be a journalist but really has no idea how to write a balanced piece of news.
Isn't Kertes involved in some way in a fraud case?
Hello Fred, It was not fraud. Below is my post about the subject I have on Nextdoor:
David Kertes
•
Santa Clara Old Quad
•
2w
Caln
Hi, I sure will since the SVV got everything incorrect. I am not being sued or suing anyone. I have an NDA in place with Micro Technologies, so I said I could not answer any questions without a Subpoena. Micro Technologies' manufactures HVAC pressure switches for Heaters. They wanted to get into sensors for the Cooling portion of the HVAC unit. I put a business plan together and it was approved by the board and the President of Micro Technologies. I reached out to Tom N since he was already making these units, but his joint venture was closing. We moved his manufacturing equipment from San Jose to Santa Clara to begin building samples units for various companies in the HVAC market. I had my engineer from Florida work out of Santa Clara for four to six months building samples. We also had one other tech and Tom N helped out. I had been working with Tom, my engineer and the tech to move the equipment from Santa Clara Ca to San Jose, Costa Rica. The equipment was worth about $750,000 and I negotiated with Tom to get the equipment for $250K to help us out. Tom was also going to Consult for 4 to 6 months to get the production up and running in Costa Rica. This was the same exact equipment used to build the samples. We were just moving locations. Micro paid an initial down payment of $75,000 and would pay the balance to Tom in Jan 2024. In Jan I received an offer for a new position (Not in the same market) and I accepted the offer. Since nobody else knew how to build the sensors, Micro decided that they did not want the equipment even though there was a signed agreement (Micro and the board was fully aware and agreed on signing (I have proof in Messages from the president of Micro on WhatsApp). Tom was told over and over again he would be paid and finally had to bring a lawsuit in order to get paid. In the reply to the lawsuit, Micro technologies said I was working with Tom to get $250,000 from them. This is not true as we had been working on this project for over a year. I was doing them a favor to get the equipment for $500,000 less. They were mad that I had left and nobody at the company could engineer and sell the product. I also have a copy of letter from the attorney indicating that I am not being sued or suing anyone. This is the part I do not understand about the SVV. Instead of giving me time (which they gave me 24 hours) to meet with them, they wrote a story without all the facts or the real side of the story. The 49ers will now try and use this against me in a a mailer indicating that a news source gave them this info. . If you need any further information, you can e-mail me (DavidKertesForCouncil@gmail.com) and I would be happy to chat about it more. Thank you for asking and letting me tell my side of the story.
So, David, your comment made me go back to the original article to see what exactly was false.
I'm not concerned with what you BELIEVE to be true--if there is a lawsuit, there will be two sides to the story, and a judge or jury will make a decision. I'm not going to trust the word of either side.
1.) The previous article says your "former employer is accusing" you "of colluding with a vendor to fleece the company out of $250,000."
Is your former employer ACCUSING you of this action? Their accusations don't make it true, but is it true that there are making these allegations?
2.) The article states "In early July, a Florida court ordered Kertes to appear via Zoom in a case involving his former employer, MicroTechnologies, a Costa Rica-based sensor and switch manufacturer."
Is this a true statement? In July, did a Florida court order you to appear via Zoom in a case involving your former employer?
3.) The article states: "In October 2022, Kertes, as vice president of sales, signed a contract to secure a pressure transducer — a device used to electrically and mechanically gauge pressure with high accuracy — from vendor Thomas Nguyen."
Did you sign such a contract? If not, do you have the document that showed someone else signed this contract?
4.) The article states: "In documents filed with Florida’s Broward County Circuit Court, the company claims the equipment Nguyen provided is “of little to no value” and that its “fair market value” is not “anywhere close to $250,000.” Further, MicroTechnologies categorizes itself as “unwitting,” alleging that Nguyen and Kertes were chummy and conspired to bamboozle the company out of money."
Is this an accurate statement of the CONTENT of the DOCUMENTS your former company FILED with the COURT.?
If not, what did your former company actually say in the documents they filed?
5.) The article also quotes from the documents your former company filed: "“Mr. Kertes and [Nguyen] worked together to help [Nguyen] unload the subject equipment at a value substantially more than its actual worth,” according to court documents filed by MicroTechnologies."
Again, is this an accurate statement of the CONTENT of the DOCUMENTS your former company FILED with the COURT.?
If not, what did your former company actually say in the documents they filed?
6.) The article ALSO quotes from a response filed by Nguyen’s lawyer that states: "MicroTechnologies “fails to allege sufficient ultimate facts” to substantiate a conspiratorial relationship between Nguyen and Kertes."
Is this an accurate statement of the CONTENT of the DOCUMENT Nguyen's lawyer FILED with the COURT.?
If so, this response raises a defense position for YOU and provides a reason why you might not be found guilty in this case. In short, it is presenting the other side of the case, which you apparently refused to do other than say:
"there was “nothing to comment on,” attaching a letter from Nguyen’s lawyer, J. Marshall Fry. The letter, addressed “to whom it may concern,” clarifies that Fry subpoenaed Kertes to testify and that his client is not suing Kertes."
(NOTE: this means NGUYEN is not suing you.)
“I was asked questions and answered for the two attorneys,” he wrote in an email exchange. “The case does not involve me, so I have no idea what happened on the case. I have not had any further interaction with either attorney on the case.”
This statement is FALSE--the case "involves" you if you were subpoenaed to testify. You might not be a defendant--or a defendant yet--but you ARE INVOLVED.
And this is DIRECTLY from the documents your former company filed:
"Plaintiff (Nguyen) had a prior and, upon information and belief, ongoing business/professional
relationship with the individual that executed the alleged contract on behalf of the Defendant, Daniel Kertes. [sic]
Upon information and belief, Mr. Kertes and the Plaintiff worked together to help Plaintiff unload the
subject equipment at a value substantially more than its actual worth on the unwitting Defendant. Plaintiff should not be permitted to profit from this subterfuge."
Everyone knows that this is ONE side in a court case, and you obviously have a very different view, but the COURT will decide what is true or not, and just because YOU believe your former employer is wrong does not make it so.
Thank you for taking the time to dispell rumors going around that he can’t vote in the downtown or station area plan.
thank you I see the critics on line saying Jain has done little for the city. it appears that is not the case, I question those that criticize and who they are loyal to. Could they be Gillmor supporters who have sadly divided this city with their rhetoric? it appears this type of rhetoric has gone on for too long. Jain and the other 4 counsel members have had an up hill battle from the Start. Lisa with her snide comments, some under her breath, her rolling of her eyes, Watanabe with her nasty behavior, her less than inclusive gestures and remarks like "stop Harassing me" .
The disappointment of how council behaves should be put on the less than kind attitude that Lisa and Watanabe bring to the table.
I've had dealings with Jain over the years of different local issues, he has always been a good listener, willing to listen to my concerns when they may not reflect his point of view. We don't agree on some larger political issues but he has a care and clear love of our city.
I have not met Kertes, but I have seen him on line at council meetings of late, I saw some posts he has made on different platforms on line. There appears to be quite a bit of anger and frustration, he is has been combative and threatening. This is sadly not the style of leadership we need in our city. Maybe bully tactics work in Congress or in the Playground but do not consider this the Santa Clara way.
My vote is for Jain.
Hello Julie,
I would like to understand better the threatening you mention above. I have only spoken up when lies or false statements are being made against me or other candidates that are running. I am also frustrated at the council, that is true. That is one of the reasons I am running. I will be at the Santa Clara Farmers market again in two weeks and would love to have the chance to speak to you in person. I could also meet at any other location if you wish.
Regards,
David
Considering that the SVV published the candidate's answers verbatim, it seems like Kertes has already shown he is willing to write people off who don't agree with him, just like the last candidate who ran against Suds.
Let me guess--he probably ALWAYS responds to that fake-news blog site that pretends to be "news"?
He appears to be a bully who has fallen in line with Lisa Gillmor's narrative, and we don't need more of that polarization and hostility at City Council.
I agree with Julie above who said that Suds Jain "has always been a good listener, willing to listen to my concerns when they may not reflect his point of view. We don’t agree on some larger political issues but he has a care and clear love of our city."
That's why I am PROUD to support Suds Jain for re-election to Santa Clara City Council.
It sure sounds like Kertes is taking a page from Trump's playbook and complaining about biased news reports that don't portray him exactly as he expects.
Doesn't seem like he is prepared to be a representative for ALL residents--only the ones who agree with him.
I saw the post and was shocked and scared by it. I'm scared to post this but even more worried about what David will say or do to Mary because she is such a nice woman. It was not just mean words.
It was a threat.
It made me very uneasy because these kinds of things should not be said by someone running for Council. I don't know how someone like this can be allowed to ruin our city with his hateful words. I removed my friend's name to protect her from others who think like David.
This was from the Santa Clara District 5 Community group on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/groups/188314108911526/permalink/1183335496076044/
- & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - &
you have no idea if I can vote or not. You should stop posting false statements. You will need someone like me to negotiate, put together strategic plans, timelines, and work with city and council to get things moving. What has Suds actually done in the past four years to help find a developer or move things forward? Answer is nothing. Do you even know the cost of the Precise project? It would be $3 to $6 Billion dollars. Even the first phase would be $500M+. You should not insult people that could help your cause If they win. Does Suds still own railroad stock that would prevent him from voting on any station project. You should be neutral in case your 49er Jed york backed candidate ($250,000+) does not win."
Jain states he does not take money from PACs and while technically accurate, he does nothing to denounce the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the 49ers have put up to back him in this election and the last one. He could not come close to winning until Jed put up money backing him. As a Santa Clara resident, I ask what's the payback Jed expects? I'm guessing is the consistent 5-2 votes in favor of everything Jed York wants. The firing of the city attorney, the firing of the city manager. These were people holding the 49ers accountable to the stadium agreement and Jed saw them as an obstacle to enrichening his pockets. The 5 sellout sock puppets of Jed's continue to give him everything he wants and I'm certain they will continue. Jain also admitted he knew Anthony Becker leaked a civil grand jury report prior to the time it was legal to do so. He said nothing about it until he was under oath, testifying before a grand jury. The wreaks of a lack of ethics. We all expect more of our elected officials. Why won't Jain loudly denounce the support of the 49ers? Because behind the scenes he enjoys the benefits of it. In my opinion, that's tacit approval of the 49ers tactics. Santa Clara can do WAY better than Suds jain.
Even for you that's an embarrassingly ignorant perspective. The organization most deserving denunciation is the SCPOA who have openly harbored bad police officers in their ranks. Nothing brings more shame to Santa Clara than overt employee racism and felony conviction of crimes within the ranks.
OK, November is getting closer, let’s cut through the noise and get down to brass tacks. Here’s a fun little challenge: Can you pinpoint what, exactly, the 49ers haven’t done that they were supposed to do according to that original stadium agreement?
And no, I’m not talking about whatever fantasy version Lisa Gillmor wishes she’d gotten into the deal. I’m talking about the cold, hard facts of the agreement she actually signed—warts and all.
I watched the city council meeting on the grand jury report (yes, the whole thing—don’t ask me why), and from what I heard, the agreement lets the 49ers call more shots than a bartender on Super Bowl Sunday. They even get to set a public safety reimbursement rate so low it’s practically a joke, with zero obligation to adjust it once the real costs came in.
Now, Lisa will tell you they could’ve yanked the stadium management contract away from the team, but that sounds like more of her wishful thinking—kind of like when she swore up and down that the city would win that CVRA lawsuit. And how’d that turn out? Six million dollars of taxpayer money, gone.
But hey, that’s just another day in the magical world of Lisa Gillmor’s political theater!