San Mateo Daily Journal Editor- Jon Mays

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Today on Podcast by the Bay, we speak with longtime journalist and editor of the San Mateo Journal, John Mays. [00:00:09] Speaker B: It is significantly more difficult for people who are millennials and gen zers and next to gen A's or alphas, I guess. Right. Gen alphas are still children, so it's hard to really say, but there's a definite malaise in that, in that group, because they feel like they were. It's. It's out of reach. Right. So if, if you have this malaise and there are people who are talking to you about how the system doesn't work, then of course you're gonna want a new system. Right. And so that's sort of like what is happening with young people right now is that they feel like they're not able to sort of get in the game, like. Like older people were able to, and that's a problem for our society overall. [00:00:53] Speaker A: All coming up on today's episode of Podcast by the Bay. Stay tuned. Podcast by the Bay is a production of Bay City Communications and is sponsored by Liberty Realty. Liberty Realty, serving the peninsula and surrounding areas since 1986. For all your real estate needs. Www.liberty-realty investments. And now another Podcast by the Bay. [00:01:43] Speaker C: Welcome to Podcast by the Bay. Today is Thursday, October 30th. I have the honor of interviewing John Mays, the San Mateo Daily Journal owner and editor. I first of all, want to congratulate him on 25 years of ownership. We're very lucky in the Bay Area to have the opportunity to have a newspaper that is printed six days a week. Thanks, John. How are you today? [00:02:07] Speaker B: Good. How about you? [00:02:08] Speaker C: Can't complain. [00:02:09] Speaker B: Excellent. [00:02:10] Speaker C: Well, it's been a little bit of time since I've interviewed you. I think it was about two years ago, and I guess we were in the nitty gritty at that time talking about how you function. So I'm going to encourage the listeners to go back to that podcast. It's still there to get a little more details. I guess my first question, how has things changed? Has the tariffs influenced your overhang? Yeah. [00:02:31] Speaker B: Yeah. One thing I just wanted to clarify is that Jerry Lee is the owner, majority owner and publisher. I am one of the owners, but he's the majority owner. So just to clarify that, I don't want people thinking that I'm paying all the bills. I'm just mainly the editor. So, yeah, whenever someone says tariffs, the. The cost of paper, double the cost of paper has quadrupled in the past eight years. It's one of our biggest expenses. So the tariffs have had an impact. Whether or not they are in effect or not doesn't matter, because as soon as someone talks about having a tariff, then immediately the paper costs go up, the printing costs go up. It's just people sort of prepare for that. So the higher that paper costs go up, the fewer newspapers there are who print. And so that means the printer has to increase the rates of the papers that remain. And that means that our rates are going up exponentially and have been for quite some time. [00:03:39] Speaker A: Okay. [00:03:39] Speaker C: And that means what's going up is the cost. Cost for ads. Advertisement. When people put their ads in the news. [00:03:46] Speaker B: No, no, no, no. The cost for the ads remain pretty consistent overall. You know, it's like the same as any business. Right. So, for instance, you know, if it costs you twice as much for ground beef, you're not going to all of a sudden make your burgers twice as much. Right. You have to make sure that you can still sell them. So we still have to have a price that people can afford to. And so where we end up doing is just sort of trying to figure out ways, other ways that we can trim costs overall. And that's the big challenge. It's what keeps Jerry up at night. [00:04:19] Speaker C: Okay. I think the last time we talked, one of the things you were doing predominantly was trying to encourage more online subscriptions. [00:04:27] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:04:28] Speaker C: How's that going? Because it's been a couple years since I've interviewed you, and I still think you've got quite a few more online subscriptions than you had two years ago or three years ago. [00:04:38] Speaker B: Yeah. It ebbs and flows during election season. It tends to go up a little bit. We have a variety of ways that people can subscribe. It's the easiest way is just to do it for either $60 a year for basic subscription or $100 a year for. It's like a higher level, which you get to see the e edition, a PDF of the website. Some people do the $100 and never look at the E Edition just because they want to support us and give us an extra four forty dollars. But there's also ways that you can subscribe for a week. It's a little bit more expensive per week. The best value is, of course, a year. And so some people just do that for a week, a month, a few months. So it ebbs and flows, but it's definitely on the upward trajectory overall. You know, our goal generally is to get to 30,000 subscriptions by 2030 online subscriptions. And I think that's pretty much doable and it's, you know, more and more people are moving online. Right. So that's sort of the trend. And so we just hope to kind of capture that trend as well. [00:05:48] Speaker C: Are you going to be capturing AI at all? Or have you introduced any of that? Or is that just so new right now that you're thinking about it? But it's not part of your plan? [00:05:58] Speaker B: AI is not part of our current plan. I think AI will. I mean, there's opportunity there for journalism, I think, but I. I think how it's being used right now is in a predatory manner. So there's a lot of websites that are scraping content from sites like us, and we're doing this work. They'll scrape it and then repackage it and then pretend that it's theirs. And they do that through bots. There's a few online publications. One of them locally is Street Line or Hoodline. Hoodline. Hoodline, that just uses AI. Their reporters are not real. They're just basically just repackaging content that's already out there. It's just an acceleration of what's been happening for the past two, two and a half decades, that tech companies are basically using our content to make money for themselves and leaving us to sort of try to figure out what to do. So it's. There's been a number of ways that we've been trying to make up for that, but, you know, tech companies are pretty powerful. And so there's been some legislation that's been proposed and it's been diluted to the point of ineffectiveness. [00:07:12] Speaker C: Well, kind of like a small example, as a. As a realtor, we do not own our multiple listing service, which is service that we do. They sell that information to Zillow, to many different other. So it's a reflection of us, but it's not necessarily us. [00:07:28] Speaker B: Right, right. [00:07:29] Speaker C: So it makes it a little bit more challenging. You know, the last time we. We talked and I just was seeing if things changed in your mind, it appears, and that there you kind of like using podcasts. Calling podcast journalism. Maybe that is a little bit better. Better than printing the paper. What's your take on it? What's your take on podcast? And as far as using those, because it seems to be a big vehicle now, I didn't think it was going to last as long as it has. [00:08:02] Speaker B: Right. I think your question is basically what. I think a podcast is a form of journalism. [00:08:07] Speaker C: Right? [00:08:08] Speaker B: Yeah, of course it is. I mean, it's an interview format, and I think it's definitely more popular There was a big surge of true crime podcasts. [00:08:20] Speaker C: Right. [00:08:20] Speaker B: And that sort of captured a lot and then seems like everyone has a podcast. You're one of the original locally to have a podcast. Right. How long has it been since you've. [00:08:27] Speaker C: Been A little over four years. [00:08:29] Speaker B: Four years. I'm surprised. [00:08:30] Speaker C: I still have pretty good ratings. [00:08:31] Speaker B: Yeah. Overall. Right. So I think people are interested in it because it's something that you can have on in the background or while you're driving. And it's something that, you know, you don't necessarily have to like sit down and concentrate to do. It's just sort of listen in and you can do other things while, while you're listening. So I think that's kind of an interesting format. I've. I've listened to a couple podcasts, usually if I'm at the gym. And so there's one, it was presidential, I think, about the presidents and then one about the constitution that I thought were pretty interesting. It was done, I think by the Washington Post or Washington Post reporter. So they use a reporter lens to explore a topic and will interview people according to the topic and say for instance, one topic is James Garfield, for instance. And so they'll interview experts about James Garfield and then come up with know 45 minute podcast that if you're interested in James Garfield would be interesting to you. So I think a lot of it has to do with who is being interviewed and what the topic is and what the content is. But it seems like your format of having, you know, interviewing people, you know, movers and shakers and whatnot in a particular area would be of interest to people because it allows for a little bit more of a discussion about something beyond what their day to day is. [00:10:02] Speaker C: Well, I appreciate that you've had this year has been quite a few interesting stories. I see the challenge as an elected official and I see the challenge as a business person and as an editor of a newspaper. You have a major challenge in front of you to put out the facts and not necessarily always give your opinion. [00:10:27] Speaker B: Right. [00:10:28] Speaker C: And so that you could have the input of making sure that you're delivering well rounded news. Most recently we had a controversial thing with our police chief for the county Board of supervisors made some decisions on as. As removing the sheriff's corpus from her office. Do you have any opinion on that? [00:10:54] Speaker B: Yeah. As far as removing her from office? [00:11:00] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:11:01] Speaker B: I mean it had to be done. I mean we made it well known. So our coverage is one thing. And then we also have editorials, which is the opinion of the newspaper. Right. I write those, but I wrote one even for today, basically saying that appointing a sheriff is the right direction, which they took on Tuesday night. That is the right direction to go. She had to go. I mean, regardless of whatever happened leading up to her tenure and during her tenure and the challenges within, she didn't rise to the occasion of making sure that those challenges were met. And basically, the sheriff's office is. Is a reclamation project at this point. It's in complete disarray. Morale is very low. It's probably the worst I've seen of any office or department in this area in the 27 years that I've. Or 28 years that I've been working here. And so the leader was not being. Was not leading. And so we supported Measure A as a mechanism to remove the sheriff. We supported the decision to remove her, and we support the decision to move forward with an appointment for the next three years. And I think it's just a matter of solidifying and stabilizing that office to make sure that there's some capability of the deputies there to have confidence again in their leadership. It's going to be a big job. It's going to be an interesting three years for whoever is chosen to lead that department. But it had to be done. And it's not just some podunk department or office. It's the sheriff's office. And it has 800 sworn and civilian staff members who do a variety of things that are very important to this community. And it's not as if having a rudderless leadership didn't have impact. There have been a number of deaths in the county jail. It's just a matter of time before something else happens. Right. So removing the sheriff, getting new leadership immediately is the best course. And so that's my opinion. That's been the opinion of the paper on the editorial pages throughout. So I think it's going as well as it can as far as proceeding and moving past this. [00:13:32] Speaker C: Well, I'll give the county credit because they bent over backwards to do everything, plus impossible, two judges and also having a court proceeding. And also I think it was supposed to have gone to a grand jury, too. [00:13:44] Speaker B: Yeah, the civil grand jury is still active on it, but I don't think it. They'll proceed. No, I don't think there's no need to. [00:13:51] Speaker C: Well, this kind of goes into something similar, but a little bit different. The controversy that we currently have in Milbray, and that's with the police chief. Right, right, right. So that's a little bit more Dicey. But it also speaks volumes for a lot of our police officers. He's a chief, so he needs to be there for emergencies, catastrophes, pretty readily available on the spot. So recently I think he established that he was living out of state and that he was currently living close to the police station. So what's your opinion on that? [00:14:32] Speaker B: Well, I mean, I'm not sure, honestly. It's an interesting story in the fact that he. The information that we have so far is pretty limited. Right. We do know that there has been some modification of the police station in Millbury for living quarters. We don't know exactly when that took place. Right. There's an idea that Eamonn Allen, the sheriff's captain who acts as the police chief for Millbury, does live out of state. I don't think that is against any policy necessarily. Right. And I think that there are number of other deputies and police officers and firefighters and all sorts of first responders and city staff, county staff who live outside of this county. Right. And that speaks to the inability to have affordable housing in this area. Right. A police chief makes a captain, makes pretty decent money, but these are the choices that people make. So I think having a full fleshed out understanding of what exactly was occurring and what the policies are, are necessary for me to know exactly how to feel about this. [00:16:03] Speaker A: Right. [00:16:04] Speaker B: I do know that it's an interesting story and it's just beginning and so I look forward to following it and kind of seeing what is discovered, what we discover as well, and then sort of determining what the best course of action might be after that. But I do think that it was brought up to point to the fact that without leadership at the top of the sheriff's office, without a sheriff in office right now, there is a potential. We're not saying that this is actually one of it, but there is a potential for wrongdoing. Right. So I think that sort of was brought out to sort of reveal that that could be the case and it could be, but I'm not sure. But I think the sooner that we move ahead with leadership at the sheriff's office, a new sheriff, then I think that we can and all eyes are going to be on whoever this person is. That potential wrongdoing will not happen. Right. But I think that we need to sort of look into the situation and figure it out. You know, having quarters in a police station or is not that unusual. Firefighters sleep in their quarters. Right. The city of San Mateo has quarters in a former fire station on Norfolk specifically for the long commutes. That so many officers have to make because they live out of the area, or if they have a long shift or they have a court date early in the morning, there's a place for them to go. So it's not unusual to have living quarters. But if this was done without the city's knowledge, then that's a little bit different. So we'll figure all that out at some point and then figure out if there was wrongdoing. [00:17:45] Speaker C: Well, I think you bring up a good point. And looking at the sheriff, as you know, that 3 to 2 vote on the board of Supervisors was real critical because former Sheriff Corpus had appointed the person that was below that's currently in command. So they find it critical if they're going to go change morale and get that thing back, that they're going to have to go outside and appoint somebody for that period up to 20, 28. [00:18:10] Speaker B: Well, he did. He was appointed by Sheriff Corpus, but also he is one of the captains who also had no confidence in Sheriff Corpus. So it's not as if just because he was named by Sheriff Corpus doesn't necessarily mean that he's an ally of hers. [00:18:26] Speaker C: Because. [00:18:26] Speaker B: Because, I mean, she named a bunch of people, right? [00:18:28] Speaker C: Sure. [00:18:29] Speaker B: But not there weren't. I really don't know. But the number for no confidence in the sheriff is ridiculously high in the 90s. Right. So there's not a lot of people who had confidence who were within that office had confidence in her. So just because he was named by her doesn't mean that he was an ally of hers. You know what I mean? [00:18:49] Speaker C: Right. Well, this brings us back to the one point and you were talking about police officers, firefighters living out of the area. You're absolutely correct. Many years ago they used to have a restriction on how many miles you could live from that. We don't have that right now, to my knowledge. And obviously it is is the housing issue. But I'm kind of a little bit concerned about the safety thing. I mean, I live in a town in Foster City. They had a population around 31, 32,000. We only have two exits out, 3rd Avenue and Hillsdale Boulevard. If a catastrophe happens, we might not be able to get our officers back in town to take care of it. Is there some mindset that we have to look down the road and figure out a solution for the housing or a solution to be able to keep? Because all of our police departments, to my knowledge, are short officers. I don't know about fire departments, but we're short officers. And not that they're not offering good benefits. It's just the, maybe the affordability or not the desire to be an officer. [00:19:55] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think that in the last few years there's been a challenge in recruiting officers generally to the profession. Right. And I know that if you have some experience in San Mateo county and you live in the Central Valley, say for instance, Lathrop, why wouldn't you just. If they're hiring, why not just work there? It's, it's easier for your commute overall. You can have a bigger house up there, you know, you can have a two car garage, you know, that kind of thing. So why wouldn't you do that if you're a police officer? You know, so it's hard to keep people over here. But you're right, I think, you know, we have asked the shit we asked the sheriff's office a couple weeks ago before this case came to light with amen living in the quarters, how many deputies actually live in the county? And we were told that that was personnel. And so we'll see how it goes with as we get new leadership if we can get that information. Personnel matter means that you can't sort of reveal that kind of information, but I disagree with that and so we'll probably pursue that. But I think it's an interesting question to ask of our police departments, of what percentage actually live in this county and what are the plans for disaster in getting some of the officers and other first responders over here to make sure that we're safe. So I think that's an important point that you brought up. And I think it's something that maybe there might be something good that comes out of this as far as planning and understanding sort of what will happen in an emergency. Because I think it's been so long that we've had any kind of major emergency. The last one was the CZU fire and that didn't really touch a lot of people here. But we have an earthquake. There are people who have never ever once been through a major earthquake, who live here now, who have moved here in the last, you know, since 1989, that have, are not prepared, have no idea what to do in an earthquake. And so I think that that's something that we should probably all think about. We just had the shakeout and I think that, you know, our school communities prepare, you know, for these things. But we as an overall society should also be prepared as well. So that's why we're asking those questions. And that's why we'll probably continue to Ask those questions. [00:22:07] Speaker C: Well, that kind of brings back what happened, as we know, with 9 11. Eventually they developed Homeland Security. And under that, Homeland Security was certified emergency response that somehow is working, somehow is needing to be revived a little bit. I know that with the consolidated fire Department, which is San Mateo Belmont and Fire Foster City, they've consolidated their cert together so that at least we've still got that out there. But it's underfunded too. So the audience knows that San Mateo Consolidated, I think, only has 30,000 to fund that. And obviously that's training civilians on how to turn off their gas and how to, you know, get your neighbors to work with you together through the crisis and stuff. Not too long ago, the San Mateo county grand jury indicated that most surrounding cities do not have an adequate amount of water to sustain themselves for more than two or three days. Have you. You heard about that? And have you. [00:23:13] Speaker B: When did this report come out? [00:23:14] Speaker C: It was a grand jury report about two years ago. [00:23:17] Speaker B: I'm not. [00:23:19] Speaker C: I took a special interest in. Because it said fall Foster City did not have an. [00:23:24] Speaker B: Oh, right, right. Okay. Yeah. We reported on Foster City's response to that grand jury report, saying that there was. There was some inadequacies to the report that Foster City actually did have enough supply. Right. [00:23:35] Speaker C: Well, basically we. We responded back to the grand jury. They have not responded back to us. Right. Whether they. They agree with us or disagree with. [00:23:43] Speaker B: Us, you may not hear from them. [00:23:45] Speaker C: Right. We might not. [00:23:46] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:23:46] Speaker C: I've been on the grand jury. [00:23:47] Speaker B: Right, right. [00:23:48] Speaker C: I know that. [00:23:49] Speaker B: Yeah. I don't know. I mean, I think there's a number of different things that you're saying. Emergency water supply. Right. [00:23:57] Speaker C: Well, they say in a natural disaster you should have at least up to a week's supply of water. [00:24:03] Speaker B: Right. [00:24:04] Speaker A: Right. [00:24:04] Speaker C: Now, as you know, we've improved with San Mateo, the sewer treatment plant, and we do have an extra water binners out there too, but I don't know if we are adequate. I know we put improvements into the sewer treatment plant, so maybe. [00:24:21] Speaker B: So where is Foster City's emergency water supply? [00:24:24] Speaker C: That's a good question. I'm not sure. I haven't got a complete answer on that too. They're just telling me it's okay. [00:24:29] Speaker B: Okay. [00:24:30] Speaker C: All right. [00:24:30] Speaker B: Well, I know that we have. Yeah, we have a couple big reservoirs right over here, but in an emergency, maybe there might be some inability to access that. [00:24:40] Speaker C: Correct. [00:24:40] Speaker B: So that's the issue. [00:24:41] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:24:42] Speaker B: We did do a report recently about the Crystal Springs Dam because we get that question a couple times a Year. What about the Crystal Springs Dam and an earthquake and. And the chances of that? I mean, it would have to be a substantial earthquake, you know, one that we haven't seen for that thing to go. I don't know if you've ever seen pictures of it and how it was constructed as sort of like this Tetris sort of locking thing that happened in the early 1900s. Right. And I think they understood the need to have it be earthquake safe. And so there's never been. It was retrofitted to bring it up a little bit higher. And so they checked it out. But there's a notification system. We did a story about it. And so everyone kind of feels secure about that. So no need to worry about the. [00:25:29] Speaker C: Yeah, no, I. San Mateo Creek, you. [00:25:32] Speaker B: Know, the Crystal Springs Dam. But I think that having the Crystal Springs reservoirs there obviously have a. Some salve in worrying about emergency water supply, you know, is that we do have two very substantial reservoirs right here. [00:25:50] Speaker C: We're in some unique times right now. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech seems to be challenged. Maybe in your opinion, do you feel that is the case now? [00:26:02] Speaker B: You know, we're pretty low level. We're not at the national level. So we've had. No. Yeah, I know that there's been some discussion about that at the national level, but we haven't been affected by it by any means. And there's been no seeking to control what we are reporting or things like that. The one thing that we have a challenge with sometimes is the inability of city officials to. To communicate with us in a normal way because they feel they hide behind the Brown act and say that, well, we can't discuss that because it could be discussed in a public meeting. And so we can't discuss that. But we feel that it's part of a job of both city staff and city council members to talk about things that are of interest to the public. And so if someone can't, there could be anything that could be in front of a city council. So really you could say, I can't talk about anything because it could be something we discuss at the city council. So that's been frustrating for us because sometimes people don't want to discuss something as basic and important to the public as like a city budget, for instance, because they say, oh, well, we might talk about the budget, but you can certainly talk about your concerns or your thoughts on the budget, what you're hearing in the community without indicating which way you're going to vote on the budget. Right. So that's Sort of what the Brown act sort of tries to protect is that you're not indicating how you will vote, but you can discuss at length publicly any topic. And I think that there's been some misunderstanding of what the Brown act is really supposed to do. It's supposed to bring about transparency, not bring about a lack of transparency. And so. Or that it's not supposed to clamp down on discussion, it's supposed to provide for discussion. [00:28:02] Speaker C: Yeah, I quite agree. As an elected official, I think there's a misunderstanding. Of course, they're also trying to legislate back to modify the Brown act so that that availability of being able to have more of those discussions would be there. It's my understanding, too, you can have a discussion, you just can't make it just decision on which way you want to go. [00:28:19] Speaker B: Right, right, right. [00:28:20] Speaker C: Because if you can't have the discussion. [00:28:22] Speaker B: Right. [00:28:23] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, currently. So your situation with your funding, you. You're not receiving any federal or state money? [00:28:32] Speaker B: No, no. Okay. No, we don't receive any government money. No. [00:28:36] Speaker C: Well, you know, and I. I sit on a liaison for the high school district, and it's very fascinating the diverse people that are there, and they're all speaking to Title nine. And a lot of the people with different interest groups have different preferences on that, too. But the main thing that seems to keep coming up is that the school district would have to comply with Title 9, and if they don't comply to Title IX, there could be funding that could be taken away from the school. Currently, the school is financially okay and their budgets have been approved. But if the school district takes a different stance on something, whether it's Title nine or whatever, they could lose funding. [00:29:23] Speaker B: Right. Well, I think the csba, the California School Board association, offered some guidance on how to rectify the discrepancy between Title IX at the federal level and move those rules over to a different area. And so the state. Now you're adopting it, you're moving it from the federal guidelines to the state guidelines. So basically, you have the same intent in protecting certain student populations that Title IX always had, but now you're doing it under the auspices of having it under the state guidelines rather than federal guidelines. And that allows for the federal money to continue going on because it's no longer the regulations that the federal government may disagree with are no longer there in those federal guidelines, but rather in the state. State guidelines. [00:30:07] Speaker C: Well, I think it's kind of a thin area. Obviously, we saw that situation with Harvard, you know, with certain money and other Universities too, which. So it's. [00:30:15] Speaker B: Right. [00:30:15] Speaker C: It's still in the works. I agree. There seems to be something that can be worked out with parameters. So. [00:30:24] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think understanding and sort of modifying your policies to ensure federal money comes to you, comes to a school district is, Is a challenge and has been a challenge for a number of years. It might be a little bit more pronounced right now because there's been some significant changes in policy based on our current administration. But I think also that federal funding is not a huge percentage of our school budgets overall. I think there's a. It's probably in under 10%, I would say, per district. And it depends on the districts as well. Right. [00:31:03] Speaker C: Well, it's special types of funding. Special, special people. You know, I appreciate you, you. I think freedom of the press and freedom of speech are important and I appreciate your earlier answer talking about the, the format of your, your newspaper and, and saying that, you know, you're. You're dealing with a lot of local issues, county issues, state issues, but you don't really get into the national. [00:31:30] Speaker B: Right. [00:31:31] Speaker C: Well, the thing that I'm concerned about is what we call the United States or the Republic, the three branches of government. Is it working right now? [00:31:49] Speaker B: I don't know. I mean, we'll have to see. Right. I mean we've. Our country has been through a number of different situations with. I'm assuming that you're talking about President Trump. Right. And sort of the administration and what. And how that's affecting the different branches of government. [00:32:04] Speaker C: Right, exactly. Because I mean the formation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and all that was to everything to work together. [00:32:16] Speaker B: Right, right. [00:32:16] Speaker C: Separate but equal. [00:32:17] Speaker B: Yeah. I mean I think we've had. We've had situations in the past. So people ask me this, is this the worst you've ever seen? Right. And I say, well, there's been other times in our country, certainly in the world, but in our country in which there have been challenges, whether it be the caning of Charles sumner in the 1850s. Right. Or whether it be the Alien and Sedition act, certainly the 60s when we had our president assassinated and his brother assassinated with. Was running for President. Martin Luther King assassinated. Malcolm X assassinated. The Weather Underground that came out of that was a. And while we're in a war that was extremely unpopular, I think the 60s were a very challenging times before my time. I think you were around for the 60s. [00:33:08] Speaker C: Yeah, a little actually. I was draft number 88. I had a pre. Physical 75 and then Richard Nixon and. [00:33:17] Speaker B: Into the draft okay, well, there you go. [00:33:18] Speaker C: So I, and I was just watching the documentary the other day on the Vietnam, and it's very interesting when you look at it. We play both sides of the fence on it, and that's some way how we settled it in Paris, too. [00:33:33] Speaker B: Right. So I think in a roundabout way, answering your question is that we have seen challenges to our country before and have come out of it okay. And I think that the country will come out of this okay. If you are a fan of President Trump, you think this is great. If you're not a fan of President Trump, then you think this is not good, right? I think he's definitely pushing hard and he is working very hard and pushing a lot of boundaries, but there are so many different areas of power in this country that. And one of the limits to this power is that he has three more years. Right. And so, and anyone who says that he's going to run for a third term is like, well, that's not really going to happen. Right. I think if you really think it through, it's not really going to happen. But in three years we'll see. Right. But I think after three years, we'll have a new administration and there will be changes with that as well. So the pendulum swings back and forth in this country. Right. And if it goes too far left, it goes too far right. And then it just keeps going back and forth. So I just see this as right now the pendulum is over to the right, and then eventually it'll come back into the middle. And this is in the middle is where sort of progress is made. And I think at some point we will come back to the middle and progress will be made. [00:34:59] Speaker C: Well, I think that middle is still there. It's just not pronounced right now. [00:35:03] Speaker B: What do you mean? [00:35:03] Speaker C: Well, if you take a look at it, if you consider Republicans to be a little bit more conservative than Democrats, a high portion of the nonpartisan people, I think 30% in San Mateo county do not distinguish themselves as Republicans or Democrats. Nonpartisan. So I think it's a fair comment that you made. I guess what I'm really going. Shouldn't it be a rule of law, not of a rule of who you know, because obviously we're. The public is realizing that even when we had the overthrow of the, the Capitol, that people that committed crimes were pardoned. [00:35:41] Speaker B: So I'm sorry. Yeah. [00:35:43] Speaker C: There should be a rule, a country of laws, not of who you know. [00:35:48] Speaker B: Yeah, I agree. Yeah. [00:35:49] Speaker C: But it doesn't appear that the current administration is following that rule. [00:35:54] Speaker B: Well, I Mean, if you're talking about January 6th, the pardons of the people in January, I mean, that's, that's within the confines of our Constitution. Right. [00:36:02] Speaker C: And within the confines of the president that he can do that. [00:36:05] Speaker B: Right. [00:36:05] Speaker C: I think that's not the question. The question I. From a voter or a taxpayer, do you think if you do the crime, you should do, you know, I mean. [00:36:15] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, of course. Yeah. I mean, that's what, that's what our judicial system is for. But I mean, if we could have a discussion about all the pardons over the years and whether they're justified or not. [00:36:26] Speaker A: Right. [00:36:26] Speaker B: Like, I think that one's an easy batch to sort of say, like, well, that's questionable. Right. But there have been a number of pardons over the years that have been questionable. Right. And they usually happen not so early in administration. Usually it's within the last, like, week or so because they're questionable. Right. So, yeah, I mean, I think even, even if you're a diehard Trump supporter, you might say, well, that's a, that was a little bit questionable. Right. But, you know, you may not. [00:36:52] Speaker C: I don't know. [00:36:53] Speaker B: But, yeah, I think there should be a rule of law overall, but I don't think we should get rid of the presidential pardon necessarily. Right. I don't think that that's possible. Right. There's a number of things that we could change, but when's the last time we had an amendment to the Constitution? I mean, it seems like that that's. [00:37:15] Speaker C: Yeah, yeah. [00:37:16] Speaker B: It's been an impossible. I think it was the 1992. Was it? Or I'm not sure we should look it up. Yeah, but it was the, it was the pay raise that you couldn't have a pay raise until the next term of Congress. That was pretty easy. [00:37:29] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:37:29] Speaker B: But the Equal Rights Amendment had a tough time in the 70s, so I don't know. I mean, it's, it's, it's. We're a much bigger country than we used to be and we're much more diverse. And I think if you look at the impact of our media, social media in particular, I think that is designed to sort of spur people in opposite directions. Right. And so getting people together to do something like that, to change the Constitution, I think is going to be. Might be a challenge that's beyond my lifetime, but it would be good. I would like to see someone who can sort of synthesize the needs of the right and the left, which are actually very similar when you're talking about populism. You talk about Bernie Sanders and talk about Trump, probably about 40% of what they say when it's talked is very similar. You know, it's the horseshoe, right? So if you go so far left that you start going back into the center, so far right, you start going back in the center, then there is an overall concern in this country about. The government's role in our lives and what can be done and technology's role in our lives and business's role in our lives and what can be done to make it better for the average person. If someone could synthesize that in a centrist way that makes sense to more people, that person will be very successful. But I haven't seen anyone who can talk like that right now. There is no. There is no one like John Kennedy. There's no one like Teddy Roosevelt. There's no one out there right now who has that type of dynamicism. What you have is Trump, who is so dynamic that everyone out there tries to play that game, and every time they try to play that game, they fail. If you're trying to go against Trump, like, you just. You just can't. He's a master of it. If you look at. If you look at, Teddy Roosevelt was a master of the press. Right. Franklin Roosevelt was a master of the radio. Reagan was a master of tv. Trump is a master of social media. And so there is no one else out there who has a master like he is. [00:39:46] Speaker C: So maybe there's some truth. If you remember, TikTok was a thing that President Trump wanted to get rid of. [00:39:55] Speaker B: I don't know if that's true. [00:39:56] Speaker C: Well, initially, he did. Initially in his first term. [00:40:00] Speaker B: Okay, in the first term, yeah. [00:40:03] Speaker C: But this term, which he strategically did, it had 175 million audience base of young people. And whatever they did, he captivated the young people. And I want to use a kind of a line. That was the word that we used in the 60s and the 70s, the haves and have nots. Do you think that that gap has. [00:40:21] Speaker B: Gotten bigger between the haves and have nots? Absolutely. And I also think that there's a. There's a problem right now with. With our younger Americans feeling that they're outside of the game. You know, if you look at. It's very pronounced in this county, but boomers and a few Gen Xers have. Have been able to get the American dream. They have a house, they were able to raise their families and all this kind of stuff. It is significantly more difficult for people who are millennials, Gen zers and next The Gen A's or Alphas, I guess. [00:40:58] Speaker C: Right. [00:41:00] Speaker B: Gen alphas are still children, so it's hard to really say, but there's a. There's a definite malaise in that. In that group because they feel like they were. It's out of reach. Right. So if you have this malaise and there are people who are talking to you about how the system doesn't work, then of course you're gonna want a new system. Right. And so that's sort of like what is happening with young people right now is that they feel like they're not able to sort of get in the game like older people were able to. And that's a problem for our society overall. [00:41:34] Speaker C: We have less kids being born in the country. And that's not only true in the United States, that's true in a lot of other countries. [00:41:40] Speaker B: Yeah. Because it's expensive. Right. And so that's an issue overall. And then you have gaps of workers and such and these kinds of things. So I think that's sort of. And that speaks to. What I'm saying is that there needs to be someone, and I don't know who this person is who can capitalize on that overall malaise of the populist movement either. Both. Right and left. Right. And sort of talk about what can we do for young Americans to make it. Make it work again for them. Right. And once you have that, then I think that maybe it'll all come together if that ever happens. I don't know. [00:42:20] Speaker C: Do we? You know, currently the ballroom that's going to be built is. Is sponsored by President Trump, but it's also sponsored by Mega Apple and a bunch of other companies. This is. The seven mega stocks are putting the money into the ballroom. Do you think there's an inequity that Somehow maybe the 7 mega companies need to put something back into the community to help help people get ahead? [00:42:53] Speaker B: Yeah, it's hard to say. I mean, I mean, I think one of your questions earlier was about AI. Right. And AI is nascent and will have such a big impact on our society. It's difficult to tell what the responsibilities of companies will be. Right. It seems to me at some point the government should probably get involved with the impact on AI. Right. When it comes to employment overall, I don't know to what degree and how, but, you know, guaranteeing employment I think. Might help. There's also this idea of, you know, mechanization or that it eliminates jobs, but actually sometimes it creates jobs. And so we're seeing jobs being created in new ways. If you look at Caterpillar, stock just went up because there's more construction work for AI data centers. Right. That kind of thing. When ATMs came around, everyone said, oh no, all the bank tellers, all the bank employees will no longer have jobs. But actually after bank ATMs were created, there was more bank jobs because there was more bank tellers. And there's more people using the bank tellers. Yeah. Service them, but also just there's more people using them more often. And so those transactions are automatic, but people need to have, there's, there's back end stuff. And so there's actually there were more jobs created because of the mechanization of tellers. Right. So I'm not saying that AI is going to eliminate all jobs. I don't, I don't think so. But I think that this is something that we need to pay significant attention to and see what we can do to make sure that our society overall gets through this. I don't have trust in large companies to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Right. So that's why I think that there probably should be some sort of larger. I mean, we have discussions right now, everyone's talking about AI, but larger discussions about what we can do to ensure that our society makes it through AI in a positive way. One of the things that I've been talking about with a lot of school officials recently is that right now we have the Big Five Protocol, which is basically for emergencies in schools. We have a number of different levels of threats and what schools will do. There's a secure campus, there's lockdown, there's shelter in place. There's a couple other ones. This was created after Sandy Hook by a summit in San Mateo county saying that it was beyond Sandy Hook. We need to figure out a way to ensure that we're all speaking the same language, the same vocabulary, using the same type of devices to explain when something happens. So I wrote a column about this a few weeks ago because there was confusion about what happened. There was a secure campus at MA in Carmont, but other media was saying there's a lockdown. There's a big difference between a secure campus and a lockdown. Lockdown means that there's an active threat on campus. Secure campus means there's a possible threat. So this all, the big five protocol came out of this summit that happened 20 years ago or so. And we all sort of decided that we would all use the same language and it would be unified within the county. Now it's a model for other counties. [00:46:28] Speaker C: Right. [00:46:28] Speaker B: I think that there needs to be some sort of summit for AI in education in this county Right. [00:46:33] Speaker C: Now that kind of goes back to the report on 9 11. If you read the report on 911 where they had the miscommunication with the fire department and the police department on their frequencies. So probably Even in the 911 incident, we might have lost a few less people. But the main thing is during the safety thing is communication. [00:46:53] Speaker B: Sure. [00:46:54] Speaker C: John, you've had an opportunity for over 25 years, probably almost 30, to be in journalism and newspaper. What else would you do if you had an opportunity? Now? [00:47:05] Speaker B: I think I took a test when I was in high school to see what I could do for a living. Right. And it said that I could either be a hotel manager or a priest. And so I think those two kind of merged into newspaper editors. I've been told numerous times by multiple people in the newsroom that I should be. Was it crisis communications? Because I get a lot of people who are in crisis who reach out to me. And, you know, people call the newspaper because they're. They're frustrated. They have a problem. Right. They're not getting solutions in the normal avenue, so they feel that newspaper might be able to help. And so sometimes it's just a matter of connecting him with a phone number at behavioral health because they're going through something that, you know, behavioral health or some sort of drug problem or mental health crisis. And sometimes I can be on the phone with them long enough to have me convince them that they should call this number and get additional help. I'm not a professional at this. Right. But. But I can direct people to that. And then sometimes when people are upset about whatever, I listen to them and I try to figure out a solution based on, you know, all the different circumstances. So, yeah. So I think maybe I would be the person that. [00:48:31] Speaker C: Well, I must have taken the same test because I got some of the similar results. [00:48:34] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, yeah. Hotel manager. [00:48:36] Speaker C: Well, not the hotel manager. It did recommend a minister. [00:48:41] Speaker B: Okay. Minister. Yeah. Interesting. [00:48:42] Speaker C: Well, what. I might say that that's pretty much what an elected official has to do a lot of times, too, is listening to people on all sides of it. [00:48:52] Speaker B: And we talk to the same people. I mean, the people who are upset with you are upset with me. You know, like, they're upset. Right. So they reach out to whoever. [00:48:58] Speaker C: Right. [00:48:59] Speaker B: And so, yeah, a lot of the same people will come to elected officials or city officials will also come to me. So. [00:49:05] Speaker C: Well, John, on behalf of Podcast by The Bay. I want to thank you for the opportunity to take your time to interview and I hope you appreciate it. [00:49:12] Speaker B: Yeah, sure. [00:49:27] Speaker A: Thanks for listening to this episode of Podcast by the Bay. You can contact us by email at. Podcast by the Bay Podcast by the Bay is a production of Bay City Communications and is sponsored by Liberty Realty. Liberty Realty, serving the Peninsula and surrounding areas since 1986 for all your real estate needs. Www.liberty-realtyinvestments.com all material and content is property of Podcast by the Bay but does not necessarily reflect the views of Podcast by the Bay. You can follow us on Twitter odcastbythebay as our handle or on Facebook facebook.com podcast by the bay. And remember, you can listen to any of our episodes anytime on any podcast site. Until next time, stay Tun. [00:50:33] Speaker C: Ram.