Renaming the Milpitas Library: A missed opportunity for thoughtful dialogue & community input

Recently, the Milpitas City Council voted 4-1 (with Councilmember Hon Lien voting no) to rename the Milpitas Library to the Milpitas Jose Esteves Library. 

Esteves, the classy and eloquent former six-time Mayor of Milpitas (with a Councilmember term to boot), played a significant role in the library’s creation back in 2000, campaigning for hotel tax measures that funded its construction, then later heading up the Library Project Subcommittee that ushered in the building’s opening.

Yet the renaming of the library has proven unpopular with the community…

First, though, some history: This past January, Councilmember Anthony Phan raised the idea of renaming the library. Later on, in August, Councilmember Garry Barbadillo revisited the selfsame prospect. Soon he and Phan were publicly floating the idea of Mr. Esteves as a worthy figure whom the library could be named after. But they couldn’t get traction at the time as the matter had to be handled by a naming subcommittee, which would place Esteves’ name on a list of prospective options, and in any case they didn’t (yet) have the votes.

Soon an ad hoc subcommittee meeting was held, then the item appeared on the consent calendar in the form of a double feature: (1) put Esteves’ name on the list (so as to position him for formal consideration) and (2) vote to rename the library after him. In other words, the item was agendized so as to make way for a built-in conclusion; the same way when my wife starts an argument with me, she goes in planning on winning (which she does). 

For context, the consent calendar is designed to power through uncontroversial items about which the Council is not inclined to disagree — the theory being that not every issue needs to be subject to the drudgery of democratic debate. But Hon Lien, seeking debate and therefore evoking controversy, pulled it off the consent calendar for discussion.

The thought process being that a choice as meaningful as renaming our city’s only library should at least be thoroughly talked about.

Again, Lien issued the only no vote, with the stated reasoning of not wanting to uphold a political figure’s legacy in such grand fashion in the thick of an election. To be sure, Esteves remains a presence on the Milpitas political scene, having aligned himself with the four Councilmembers who voted for the use of his name (Phan, Barbadillo, Mayor Carmen Montano, and Vice Mayor Evelyn Chua) as recently as 2022’s election.

In addition, as mentioned, the naming subcommittee was an ad hoc subcommittee, consisting only of Montano and Chua. And the only name that came under formal discussion to be used for renaming the library was Jose Esteves’. (One member of the public did attend, and proposed another name, but that person’s idea was dismissed.) In the past, when renaming city parks for example, generally a variety of names have been brought under discussion. 

Moreover, as was confirmed after the vote to name the library after Jose Esteves, the City doesn’t currently have the $40,000 required in its budget to carry out the renaming properly (changing the signage and so forth). Which begs the question: If it can’t be paid for, then why do it now? And even if it could be paid for, why prioritize such a move when the money could be put toward other concerns? 

But these questions about timing, logistics, and prioritization pale in comparison to the question of why the process was undertaken in a top-down manner as opposed to encouraging and encompassing an array of public perspectives. To review: A renaming candidate was generated within the Council. The Council tried to put the matter to a vote, the subcommittee requirement was cited, an ad hoc subcommittee therefore met, and the sole name that got suggested in the first place made it through the process unchallenged and intact. 

Is this what the spirit of the City’s naming policy intends? Let’s take a look…

Says the naming policy, “Although the City will have full control and final decision-making authority on any names selected, public input will be received, and other names may be raised and requested to be considered by the City Council.”

This sounds a little different from one citizen showing up and suggesting a single name, then seeing their idea get shot down. To be sure, we can’t expect our Councilmembers to go around pulling people out of their homes to participate in their meetings (I certainly didn’t know what was going on at the time of that meeting!), but when the factor of public input is so flagrantly marginal, should not greater care be taken? 

The naming policy goes on to state, “From time to time, the City Council shall approve names to be added to a list(s) of names suitable for streets, parks, and facilities.” 

Where was that list during this process? Shouldn’t there at least have been a theatrical monologue wherein somebody in power read the other options aloud before they ultimately settled on Esteves? 

Here’s one last line from the naming policy: “The name of a historical figure can be considered, if the figure had a significant and extraordinary historical influence on the area, state, national, or international level.”

The core question, then, at the heart of this issue, is whether Mr. Esteves qualifies as a historical figure who has had extraordinary influence on the region. Since this question is inherently subjective, it probably called for deeper scrutiny from people (i.e., the public) who don’t know Mr. Esteves personally. It’s the potential lack of perspective on the part of Mr. Esteves’ political descendants that makes the matter so delicate and controversial. 

To be clear: proper procedure was adhered to technically. But the democratic underpinnings of the procedure, which exist to promote diversity of thought and healthy public input, were cleanly skated past. And if the reaction from the public is any indication, I think regular people can feel that. 

I like all the members of our City Council who voted in favor of this move. These words are not designed to vilify their character. In fact, my first concern after I heard this news — before I started wondering about how it happened — is why they didn’t think to name the library after me. It’s the least they could do, since the library offended my entire bloodline by refusing to carry “Red Dennis” back in 2020. But I digress. My point is, were I in the Councilmembers’ position, I can see falling prey to the seemingly benign casualness by which I might seek to elevate an old ally.

On the other hand (and everybody can agree that this is for the best), I am not in their position. I’m too informal. I cannot stomach bureaucracy. As a result, I’d be too predisposed to the creeping currents of age-old human corruption.

We have sound democratic systems in place to resist those currents. The Council would dignify itself and its public if it held this important matter to another vote, and this time made robust use of them.