Misleading D3 voters in the SJSU Votes debate
From Housing to Crime to Parking, Omar Torres struggled to tell the truth in the final D3 debate. We fact-checked his most dubious comments below.
On parking:
Torres’ Claim: “I have no idea where my opponent thinks I am against neighborhood parking”. SJSU Votes debate (minutes noted below)
Fact check: False and misleading.
Analysis: Torres is trying to airbrush out his comments at the SJDA debate (9/9/22) when Torres stated he supported the elimination of parking requirements for new buildings. SJDA Debate At minute 49:13 Torres states “I do not support building more parking structures or building more parking” And at minute 49:34 Torres states again “No I do not support building more parking here in the city of San Jose”.
His SJSU Votes Debate comments at minute 56:43 are a flip flop, stating “I have no idea why my opponent thinks that I am against neighborhood parking”. Or at minute 57:13 “my opponent thinks I don’t want any more parking in our neighborhoods.” And of course at minute 57:22 “parking should be readily available to all our residents”. Torres further muddies the situation by saying at minute 57:30 “I am not completely sold on getting rid of the parking requirements in new development because we are not entirely a walkable city.”
On passing the Reimagining police:
Torres’ Claim: “Our city council unanimously passed the Reimagining.”10/28/22 at the SJSU Votes Debate minute 20:09.
Fact check: Mostly false
Analysis: Council did not pass the recommendations from the Task Force, but gave the recommendations — without any up or down vote — to the City Manager and The City attorney to review. City Council Agenda 5/10/22
On defunding police:
Torres’ Claim: “I am for the police reimagining…the police reimagining is not going to defund our police department.” 10/28/22 at the SJSU Votes Debate minutes 19:36, 19:56.
Fact check: Misleading doublespeak.
Analysis: According to Wikipedia: “‘Defund the police’ is a slogan that supports removing funds from police departments and reallocating them to non-policing forms of public safety and community support, such as social services, youth services, housing, education, healthcare and other community resources.” Broadly speaking this type of reallocation is prominent in the recommendations of the San Jose Reimagining The Police Task Force, which Torres claims to support. That Task Force called for the following in order to reduce reliance on the police:
*Training residents on how to de-escalate potentially violent situations. *Training residents on how to de-escalate mental health crisis situations. *Putting untrained department of transportation bureaucrats in charge of enforcing traffic stops.
It is possible that Torres defines “Defunding the Police” differently, but his positions appear to align with this most commonly understood meaning.
On local vouchers:
Torres’ Claim: “Her {Smith’s} rental voucher is more of a federal issue than a local issue.” 10/28/22 at the SJSU Votes Debate minutes 43:18, 42:50.
Fact check: False.
Analysis: The City of San Jose is already using rental vouchers for rapid rehousing. SCC housing vouchers and SJ Rapid rehousing vouchers. Other municipalities are also implementing their own housing vouchers. There is nothing about rental vouchers that limits its implementation, funding, or management to the federal government.
On Smith’s housing plan:
Torres’ Claim: “I am the only candidate in this race supporting permanent and interim solutions to housing our unsheltered.” 10/28/22 at the SJSU Votes Debate minute 13:53.
Fact check: False
Analysis: Since April 2021, Smith has advocated a multi-pronged approach to solving the local housing crisis — and permanent supportive housing has always been a key plank of that plan. Where Smith differs from Torres and others is in her belief that immediate Shelter, Security, and Services should be our housing plan’s highest funding priority — not $1m/unit apartments a decade from now. Incremental Ladder of Housing Success
On housing providers:
Torres’ Claim: “Landlords and slumlords like my opponent were forcing people out of their home(s) during this terrible recession.” 10/28/22 at the SJSU Votes Debate minute 12:48.
Fact check: False
Analysis: Smith has been a landlord for more than 33 years and has never ever filed an eviction, including and during the pandemic and Great Recession. Nor has she had any successful legal action brought against her. She meets none of the commonly understood criteria of “slumlord” Slumlord — Wikipedia as she is:
- Local owner of local property.
- Manages rent controlled units
- Never flipped a property
- 100% compliance with code enforcement recommendations for older buildings
- Never had any habitability actions brought against her
- Properties are in Naglee Park and SUN neighborhoods, hardly slums.
- Has public support from apartment residents The building of a resume
Most notable: during the recession and pandemic, and contrary to Torres’ claims, Smith had no evictions on her properties.
{Note: Torres’ comment recalls similar unprofessional insults he has thrown at other women who are his ideological opponents. San Jose: Council aide apologizes for remarks about councilman, candidate}
On nonprofits:
Torres’ Claim: “My opponent is attacking nonprofits.” 10/28/22 at the SJSU Votes Debate minute 13:20.
Fact check: False.
Analysis: Smith, like Mayor Liccardo San Jose releases withheld Liccardo emails — San José Spotlight, has called for increased formal accountability of non profits who do business with the City. Smith said at SJS debate: “We need accountability from both our government and any extension of the government like nonprofits. The same rules that apply to government should apply to nonprofits.” Smith started a non profit and sits on the board of 2 non profits, and acknowledges the centrality of nonprofits to the City’s business.
