Back in the year of our Lord 1985 -- it seems like yesterday, I swear -- I did an investigative piece about a handful of people who were speculating on property in the path of the city of San Jose's expansion for its convention center and Children's Discovery Museum.

Almost all of those speculators had loose ties with City Hall or the Bellarmine cadre that supported Mayor Tom McEnery, who was trying to reinvigorate downtown. None of them did anything illegal. But some made sweet profits.

In one case, a well-liked real estate broker bought two run-down properties for a total of $110,000, plunking down $20,000 as down payment. Sixteen months later, helped by a favorable appraisal, he sold them back to the city for more than $500,000.

I thought I would get plenty of calls of outrage. But the only calls I got were from people who said, "Gee, interesting piece. You have any idea where the city is going next?''

A classic story

I tell that tale because it's a classic San Jose story. When it comes to mismanagement, waste or fiscal giveaways, we demonstrate the outrage of a graveyard (Sex, on the other hand, keeps our interest).

Did the city lose $60 million, or something less, after lawsuits, in the 1980s bond market? Do we have the worst-performing light rail system in the country? Did we give away too much to police officers and firefighters under Mayors Susan Hammer and Ron Gonzales? Well, yes. We shrug.


I was reminded of this recently when I did a piece about how the Santa Clara County Water District, the Golden Spigot, quietly agreed to two $90,000 payments to two board members, Joe Judge and Tony Estremera, in lieu of retiree health benefits.

The outrage was not so much the payout -- the two had threatened to sue, and this was a pragmatic call -- as the board's attempt to hide it with a nondisclosure clause.

The story hit with a collective thud: It got all of one comment on our website, though three members of the board have now proposed a new policy dealing with disclosing payouts to board members.

Why do we have such a long fuse? I count three reasons.

WE'RE BUFFERED Because of Proposition 13, we're protected from hikes in our property taxes to cover fraud or abuse. While sales tax has crept up, voters have to approve increases. Term limits have given public officials their own buffer. By the time the consequences of a bad decision are clear, they're in a new job.

WE'RE BUSY In Silicon Valley, most people have more pressing concerns than governmental miscues. They have to earn a living, fight a commute and raise their kids. A hot budget debate at the council, however critical, grabs less public attention than a minor roster move for the 49ers. People aren't dumb. They're preoccupied.

WE'RE BIG Because San Jose is so sprawling and so diverse, we have a weak center of gravity. And authority is diffuse. Reporters make a mistake if they assume that the public understands the basic architecture of government -- like the difference between the San Jose City Council and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The alphabet soup of agencies -- VTA, MTC, COE -- offers one more invitation to yawn.

I wish it were different. I've spent my career trying to quicken the response. But our lack of outrage is deep in our DNA. And we suffer for it.
