October 28, 2004


District 10 candidates duke it out

De La Rosa delivers broom to clean opponent’s ‘dirt;’ Pyle tries to tie De La Rosa to Tropicana lobbyists, lawsuits

By Sheila Sanchez
Staff Writer

San Jose District 10 City Council candidate Rich De La Rosa is accusing opponent Nancy Pyle of dispersing a false and inflammatory last-minute hit piece two weeks before the election linking him to two well-known San Jose lobbyists who were under investigation by the San Jose Elections Commission.

De La Rosa said he was infuriated on Oct. 19 when he received a copy of a press release written by the Pyle campaign claiming lobbyists Tony Arreola and Sean Kali-Rai worked for him. He said he has never hired any lobbyists.

Pyle sent the press release to several media outlets and neighborhood groups with a copy of a letter she received from the lobbyists’ attorney, Glen W. Schofield, in which he takes her to task for allegedly making inaccurate verbal and written statements about Arreola and Kali-Rai during the campaign to cast a shadow on De La Rosa’s reputation. The release was headlined, “De La Rosa lobbyists threaten Nancy Pyle. Lobbyists try to keep Pyle from telling the truth.”

Schofield states in the letter that on Sept. 29 the commission dismissed a complaint against Ar-reola and Kali-Rai be-cause there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations made against them by San Jose City Attorney Rick Doyle.

“As you are no doubt aware, statements which state or imply inaccurate information can be very damaging, both financially and personally to the subject of such comments. I hope this letter has been helpful and will eliminate any further inaccurate statements regarding my clients,” Schofield wrote.

He warned: “Should inaccurate statements be made in the future, Mr. Arreola and Mr. Kali-Rai are prepared to pursue appropriate legal remedies.”

Doyle had filed the complaint against the lobbyists, former aides of San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales, alleging they had violated the city’s revolving door ordinance—which bans former city council members and key employees from being hired to lobby city officials on certain matters for one year after they leave City Hall.

Arreola and Kali-Rai were hired to work for the owners of the Tropicana Shopping Center who faced a hostile takeover by the San Jose Redevelopment Agency at the beginning of 2001. They also worked on a $61 million affordable housing apartment complex called Evans Lane, located near Communications Hill. The commission concluded the lobbyists’ work happened before a two-year statute of limitations. Arreola and Kali-Rai left the mayor’s office in 2000.

Pyle’s release stated Arreola and Kali-Rai threatened legal action “if she referred to their involvement in Rich De La Rosa and partners’ lawsuit against the city of San Jose,” and that they were his fundraisers.

Calling the release “ridiculous,” De La Rosa explained he was not a plaintiff on any of the Tropicana lawsuits seeking damages from the city. He did, however, join a suit to force the city to comply with the Brown Act after council members conducted a series of closed meetings to discuss a vote on the fate of the shopping center.

He was also one of three plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging Avo Makdessian, an aid to Gonzales, libeled him when he wrote in an e-mail that De La Rosa was running an illegal business and had not paid taxes. A Santa Clara County Superior Court judge dismissed the lawsuit last March. “We wanted to protect our names and our businesses. We weren’t going to stand for this kind of injustice,” De La Rosa said. “I’ve never received any money from any of the Tropicana suits. She’s totally twisting this.”

A judge in March granted $1.44 million in attorneys’ fees and costs to Tropicana landlords and some of the merchants who fought to prevent the city’s seizure of the center.

De La Rosa said Arreola, a personal friend, has never been involved in his campaign. He said Kali-Rai is also a personal friend and was a campaign volunteer for the primary election, but has not been involved in his campaign for the general election. He also said two members of Kali-Rai’s family contributed money to his campaign, which was legal. “Once he (Kali-Rai) became a registered lobbyist I couldn’t use him anymore,” De La Rosa said.

“Neither I, nor anyone in my campaign, has ever threatened Nancy,” he said.

Pyle’s release further tried to link De La Rosa to a $240,000 “success” fee that Arreola and Kali-Rai, acting as consultants, received from the city as part of their work for Silicon Valley Strategies.

De La Rosa said the allegation was another “punch below-the-belt. These last-minute attacks are designed to mislead voters.”

In response to Pyle’s claims, De La Rosa’s campaign issued its own release under the headline, “De La Rosa wields broom to sweep up Pyle’s campaign dirt. City Council candidate Nancy Pyle launches last-minute mud bath to mislead District 10 voters.” About his opponent’s tactics, he said: “We don’t know whether to be mad at her or feel sorry for her.”

“She has unleashed a barrage of facts and e-mail accusations against me that are not true. Unfortunately for Pyle, her dirt flew wide to the mark due in part because she quoted non-existent facts. She needs to clean up her campaign.”

De La Rosa also said many of his campaign signs are missing, but he didn’t want to blame Pyle’s campaign for it. He pointed out that many of Pyle’s signs, however, are posted illegally in the district. Signs can only be placed on private property and candidates must have permission from property owners to post them.

Ana Maria Rosato, Pyle’s campaign manager, said Schofield’s letter speaks for itself. “We are meticulous about what we say. We have our ducks in a row. Rich De La Rosa is trying to sweep his record under the rug. Just last week he insisted that it was right for taxpayers to pay for the Tropicana lobbyists. These are the same lobbyists who are threatening Nancy Pyle for telling the truth to District 10 voters.”

De La Rosa lamented that taxpayers will probably have to pay between $6 and $10 million due to the “arrogance and abuse of power by the San Jose Redevelopment Agency, which is the San Jose City Council. Eight of these people are the same folks who will be responsible for all the costs being paid to the Tropicana owners.”