With the Nov. 3 Town Council election approaching, Los Gatos is experiencing something more consequential than an ordinary contest for three council seats. The campaign has become a revealing test of our town’s political culture, and of whether we can disagree about important issues without allowing those disagreements to undermine the community we share.
The signs are everywhere. Letters to the Editor in the Los Gatan challenge candidates’ statements, question their judgment, and scrutinize their affiliations. On Nextdoor and Facebook, residents debate candidates and their records, sometimes passionately. Allegations, counterarguments, endorsements and rebuttals compete for attention. What should be an opportunity for thoughtful public discussion can quickly become an exercise in determining whom to distrust.
There is nothing wrong with vigorous campaigning. Quite the contrary. Residents should question candidates, investigate their records, demand explanations and challenge assertions that do not withstand scrutiny. Letters to the editor and online forums can provide valuable opportunities for people who might otherwise have little voice in local government.
But there is a difference between holding candidates accountable and creating a political atmosphere in which suspicion becomes the default, disagreement is treated as evidence of bad character and winning the argument matters more than understanding the issue.
Consider the housing debate. Los Gatos’ failure to meet the state’s Housing Element deadline, followed by the arrival of Builder’s Remedy applications, has created legitimate frustration and disagreement about leadership, planning, and local control. Candidates have different records and competing ideas about how to manage development, protect neighborhood character and prepare for the next housing cycle.
Those differences deserve a serious look. So do candidates’ positions on public safety, surveillance technology, traffic, fiscal discipline and the use of public funds.
The Oct. 7 Los Gatan letter challenging Jeff Suzuki’s account of the Los Gatos Anti-Racism Coalition’s rental-assistance program illustrates the importance of asking specific questions about nonprofit governance, financial disclosures and the use of taxpayer money. Such questions should not be dismissed simply because they are politically inconvenient. Equally, allegations and criticisms should be assessed against verifiable records, complete explanations and the opportunity for a fair response.
That standard should apply to every candidate, regardless of political affiliation, ideology, endorsements or personal relationships.
Social media makes maintaining that standard especially difficult. Nextdoor and Facebook allow residents to participate in civic life without attending council meetings or candidate forums. That is a genuine benefit. But online exchanges can reward the sharpest accusation rather than the most carefully reasoned argument. A claim can circulate widely before anyone checks it, and a personal attack can overshadow a candidate’s actual positions on the issues.
Candidates also have a responsibility. They cannot reasonably expect voters to accept their campaign messages while treating difficult questions as unfair attacks. Nor should they encourage supporters to portray political opponents as unworthy of consideration simply because they disagree on housing, policing, inclusion or the town’s finances.
The same principle applies to those who write letters, post online and attend public meetings. Criticism should be direct, evidence-based and proportionate. If a candidate has made a mistake, identify it. If a policy is misguided, explain why. If public money has been mishandled, produce the evidence. Insults, innuendo and speculation are poor substitutes for facts.
Local government depends on residents’ willingness to trust the process even when their preferred candidates lose or their preferred policies are rejected. That trust becomes difficult to sustain when every decision is interpreted as proof of someone’s hidden agenda or every disagreement becomes a test of political loyalty.
Voters have six candidates to evaluate for three seats. They should examine each candidate’s record, ask difficult questions, attend forums, read competing arguments and decide which individuals demonstrate sound judgment, integrity, preparation and a willingness to work constructively with others.
Most importantly, we should judge candidates by consistent standards. Transparency matters regardless of who is responsible. Fiscal discipline matters regardless of who proposes the expenditure. Civil liberties matter regardless of whose speech or privacy is at issue. Competence matters regardless of a candidate’s ideology.
