Last week, the council voted on two noteworthy items: a citywide fire station policy and pay for airport personnel. The most important item was the new citywide policy for the closure and consolidation of fire stations. Up until now, San Jose did not have a policy of how or when a fire station could be closed or relocated. The lack of a process was not good for the city. Closing a fire station in any neighborhood of our city that diminishes response time and/or reduces the ability to muster an effective force of fire personnel in the instance of a large fire, natural disaster or terrorist action is bad public policy.

The council unanimously adopted the new policy that was authored by Mayor Reed, Councilmember Chirco and me.  This policy provides a framework for how and when the city can close or relocate a fire house.  The new policy is important because it includes a comprehensive community process and uses quantitative data from the San Jose Fire Department before any change can occur to an existing fire station.

Public safety is a core citywide service; and yes, it is expensive.  However, the public is dependent on the city to provide safety services. There is no alternative to funding public safety except with city funds. In fact, all of San Jose’s property tax and sales tax revenues combined do not cover the cost for police and fire. So we must continue to be creative on how we prioritize funding for public safety along with sewers, roads, libraries and parks.

The other agenda item was about including approximately 400 airport personnel under the City of San Jose’s Living Wage. Several people spoke about the struggle of the working poor and having to work two jobs. The labor unions organized the workers and framed the debate well. Their moral argument is certainly a just one. Who does not sympathize for those struggling to make ends meet? The real dilemma, however, is that San Jose has invested over $1 billion in an airport. It is my responsibility as a council member to make sure that investment pays off.

The airline industry has been in turmoil since September 11, 2001. The price of jet fuel has risen from 70 cents a gallon in 2002 to over $3 today. Year after year passenger count has decreased locally, statewide and nationwide. Technology, like web meetings, is reducing business travel. Eight airlines have gone out of business since end of 2007 and the industry as a whole will lose billions again this year.

San Jose alone is losing flights and market share and we have a higher domestic Cost Per Enplanement (CPE) for the airlines then San Francisco or Oakland.  We are reliant on Southwest Airlines for 50 percent of our traffic, which is risky. No organization wants half of their revenues coming from one source, since it brings too much risk should the relationship end. I cannot, on the one hand, say let’s issue a billion dollars in bonds, and then pass regulations that may negate our investment.

Part of the issue was not only a 50-percent wage hike, but that the workers have to pay for parking. I would like to find a way to provide free parking for workers at the airport. Parking was brought up to me when I met with union officials regarding this issue. They told me that paying for parking was a hardship for the workers and I agreed.

As an employer, when I give employees a raise, it is not just the dollars that end up in their checks but the payroll taxes that go along with it. For example, employers pay Social Security, Medicare, State Disability Insurance, Federal and State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Training Tax on top of any increase in compensation.  However, if the airlines paid for parking, then that is less than the total aggregate output of the wage increases and payroll taxes. Free parking would be a direct benefit to the workers because it negates the out-of-pocket expense and the workers are not taxed on it as it is not included in their paychecks.

The direct hidden cost to the city is that we would now hire a new fulltime city employee to monitor how much these privately employed airport workers get paid. So would you rather hire a fulltime librarian, or someone to monitor how much private sector employees get paid? Would you rather open your branch library an extra day every week, or hire someone to push paper?

I was the only council member that voted “no.” However, that is OK. Groupthink is dangerous. Alternative points of view are what democracy is about.

San Jose’s population has grown by leaps and bounds and the city has provided more housing—including both market rate and affordable housing—in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area than any other municipality. Once a city filled with orchards, San Jose is now a sprawling suburb and still growing. Although you may see open space in the city, much of it was zoned for housing 2-20 years ago and just hasn’t been built on yet.
When it comes to San Jose being compensated for parks, there is a significant monetary difference between market rate and affordable housing. Currently, San Jose receives park fees when building market rate housing. This money can go to improving an existing park in the area of the new development, or it can purchase land close by (if there is any available to purchase), or the park fee could allow for a donation of land to be used for a new park or trail.

On the other hand, affordable housing is exempt from park fees. The thought behind the exemption was that the development could be “even more affordable.”  For several years, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) came to the rescue and paid the park fees ($43.4 million) on behalf of the affordable housing developers. However, that well ran dry September 2005.

The city of San Jose has a housing department funded mostly by the RDA and a small amount of federal money. Approximately 20% of the RDA budget mustgo to affordable housing according to state law. This year, the RDA will give the housing department $38 million for affordable housing, compared to $30 million in 2007. These RDA funds are then bonded out by the housing department to raise more funds.

The housing department has a $9.7 million personnel budget to staff 83 people to provide funding and technical assistance for the construction of new affordable housing and home buyer assistance. Also, they provide direct and indirect assistance to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, and services that secure housing and related services. Finally, they lobby for state and federal money and, alarming to me, they lobby the San Jose city planning department for land conversions from industrial to affordable housing. Currently, the city will allow affordable housing on land that is zoned for industry or commercial (our tax base), but not market rate housing.

The housing department and affordable housing advocates are on a quest to build as many units possible in San Jose. The financial markets are in the dumps when it comes to financing market rate housing. This allows affordable housing to rise to the top because of its ability to move forward and be built today.

In my opinion, I believe affordable housing should pay park fees or preserve land on site of the development for a park.  If the city continues to exempt affordable housing builders from park fees, then we will be creating problematic neighborhoods. For example, in my own district I have the Richmond/Menker neighborhood. This area is packed with apartments and no place for kids to play, so they play in the street. It is not just my district; District 1, off of Winchester, or District 10, off of Blossom Hill, and countless areas of greater downtown have too many people without enough open space.

We should fund park land acquisition out of the housing department budget and/or developers should pay the park fees. As a hypothetical example, let’s say the council wants to approve 3,000 affordable units in a year with no land/money for parks. Then the City of San Jose should scale down to 2400 units that have parks—quality vs. quantity.

If San Jose is serious about providing good homes to folks who cannot afford market rate, then we should be building affordable communities that have a quality of life and are not just providing shelter. The race to sainthood for the city on how many affordable units can be built might have a nice PR ring, but I believe that without parks attached to these projects, neighborhoods will suffer.

Poor people need parks as well as market rate people. With new residents, our current parks will become overused.  San Jose should focus on the quality of developments and their amenities instead of meeting some housing quota suggested by people who do not live in San Jose.

Do you think that affordable housing should be built on land that is zoned for commercial or industrial uses?

Do you think that the council should stop approving new affordable developments until we figure out a way to pay for parks?

Labor Day is a time that many of us celebrate with BBQs and rest. It’s a day to acknowledge the work of everyone in our society. However, many people work on Labor Day, including but not limited to 9-1-1 dispatchers, grocery store clerks, nurses, and sewage treatment plant workers, etc.
This is also a day that I think of the show “Dirty Jobs” on the Discovery channel.  The host, Mike Rowe, travels around the USA doing the most hardcore gross work. He could be shoveling pig manure in one segment, running around in liquid compost at a turkey farm or the back of a “roadkill” recovery truck the next minute.  The jobs he profiles will make you grimace.

However, we don’t have to go that far in this area to see jobs that are less desirable. You make choices in your employment options as much as you are able, while others have fewer choices based on their skill set or physical capabilities.

So as you enjoy your BBQ and libation today on Labor Day, can you think of jobs in San Jose that you simply would not do, or jobs you did when you were younger that were not fun?

For example, when I was 15 years old, I worked at Burger King (don’t tell Councilmember Campos) and worked the fryer station. There is nothing like being a teenager who is already prone to acne being exposed to all that greasy air. The job was hot and tedious and I made $3.35 an hour before getting promoted to “Whopper Board” making $3.65.

I am not in a rush anytime soon to work at Burger King again. It was fun to race against my colleagues, Tung and Ajmir, who could make burgers faster, which was a big deal then. However, cleaning out the fryers, broilers and dumpsters was less prestigious.

Do you have similar work experiences that you would like to tell us about?

From my experience in running for elected office, one of the difficult hurdles was raising money. Now I don’t have a problem “asking” for money per se. However, the difficulty for me was “who” I should take money from and who I shouldn’t.  Who I take money from during an election can equate to access and/or even the perception of personal favors later when in elected office.

Traditionally, you have a few places you can go to raise money. One is the labor unions, who have a big stake in government since their business model relies on their dues-paying membership expanding. Another is the lobbyist community that wants to have as much access as possible to elected officials, since a large part of the value for their clients is relationships. Yet another place to raise money for local government is from housing developers, since cities decide how to zone a parcel of land and what will be built on it.

For me, I concentrated on raising money from friends and family first, then others second, including calling friends from grade school is an excuse to connect.
However, raising money only starts when you are campaigning. It does not end once the campaign (election) is over; the raising of money continues. Once you are in office, elected officials are allowed to have a “friends account.” A friends account allows elected officials to solicit donations year-round to pay for things they want in addition to their office budgets, or to use on things they are not allowed to pay for from an office budget.  I never set up a friends account because I did not want to be beholden to anyone or start campaigning for the next office. I believe once the election is over, so is raising money.  The city council voted wisely in early in 2008 when they banned these accounts. (See my column from June 4, 2007.)

Elected officials are asked to raise money for other candidates, ballot measures and charities while in office.  All three of these can be worthy of raising money for, especially charities and/or notable causes like raising money for the Library Foundation or our local schools, among others. Each is great on its own merits and provides valuable service to the community.

I have been asked by many groups and even some individuals to raise money for very good causes.  However, once “I” as the elected councilmember begin asking developers and others for money for “my special cause,” then I set myself and those I represent up for having to “pay back” the one who donated at some future date.  The elected official might be an effective fundraiser, but at what price to their independence?

Often residents curse developers one day, but are happy to take their money the next day for their cause.

As a result, I do not have a friends account, nor do I raise money for “pet projects.” Sometimes I think my stance might be too harsh.  For example, I would love to raise money for schools in my district. However, I believe keeping myself free from influence as best I can is best for everyone.  Better to be too cautious then not cautious enough.

I have heard the line before that a politician should be able to take money and be impervious to influence from the donor. Yet, when I look at the reality of politics in this country, I don’t believe that is true.

Rebuttals? No, not at the 2-minute public forum at council meetings but, rather, for ballot statements.

This past Tuesday, the council decided to match the State of California in allowing rebuttal statements so that voters could hear more than one side of a ballot issue. The State of California ballot statements carry a full debate on the particular state propositions. However, San Jose (prior to last week’s vote) only allowed the options of arguments in favor of or against a measure, with no rebuttals. Mayor Reed drafted a memo that changed the “no rebuttal” rule, and that’s a good thing.

Of course, nothing is free. There is an estimated $30,000 fiscal impact in this new policy (for printing costs) for each rebuttal statement per citywide measure—a small price to pay for democracy. Whoever prints the ballots for the county must make a decent margin for one extra black-and-white printed page. This is on top of the $250,000 the county charges the city to put a measure before the voters of San Jose.
When people or groups submit ballot statements they must be reviewed by the city attorney for accuracy and to ensure that nothing “disparaging” is said. In addition, full names must be listed and titles may be used.  Rebuttal statements are due one week after the initial pro and con statements have been published so they are true rebuttals.

This year we have a star-studded cast signing onto ballot arguments, including the mayor, vice mayor, council members, former mayor, county supervisor, the Libertarian Party and San Jose residents.

Do you read ballot arguments, pro and/or con?
Do they influence your thought process about how you may vote?
Do you pay attention to who has signed ballot statements?
Do you like the addition of rebuttal statements?

After nearly four hours of back and forth, the council emerged with measures for the November 2008 ballot. The first is the reduction and update of the telecommunications user tax. This would allow the city to capture new telephone technology like Voice of Internet Protocol (VOIP). The second is a reduction of the 911 system support fee which would result in stronger legal footing of our 911 fee that pays for the 911 call center. Years ago, the 911 call center moved from the California Highway Patrol and was given to local government to oversee, with no funding, of course. The money collected is to be cost recovery only for 911 call center staff and equipment. It appears that if both do not pass it would hurt the city with a loss of $48 million annually.

A ballot measure that Pat Dando (Chamber of Commerce) and Bob Brownstein (labor) both supported was increasing the card room tax and number of tables. Unfortunately, the council did not move forward with this proposal. This would have allowed the card clubs to add nine more tables which would bring an additional $5.5 million to the city. If you don’t know already, you should be aware that card clubs pay the city $2 million a year for the police to regulate them by charging table fees, and then, on top of that, they pay a tax to the city to operate, which brings in $12 million a year. So if you add the $12 million we presently collect and the additional $5.5 million we could have collected, that $17.5 million exceeds the annual budget for staffing all the branch libraries citywide!

The majority of the council thought gambling carries many social ills, and to bring in more revenue from that legal source would be morally wrong. These are called “sin” taxes, where we put fees on cigarettes, liquor and gambling.  These taxes affect only those that choose to partake in these activities, unlike a sales tax that affects everyone and is regressive.

The card clubs in San Jose are a legal business for adults and they are popular. People travel to gambling destinations like Las Vegas, Reno and Atlantic City. (Actually the biggest gambling destination in the world is in China, the former Portuguese colony of Macau.) California alone has 60 Indian gaming casinos plus race tracks, card clubs and the lottery that bring in revenue to state and local coffers. Also, many people don’t leave their home at all and just gamble on the Internet.  Nearly everyone in the 3-year structural budget deficit group agreed that card clubs would be an easy source of revenue for the city to collect.  Here we have a group that is a good representation of the city, and the council votes against them!

Sadly, on another ballot item, the city council voted 6-5 to support city management and proceed with a ballot proposal that would allow the use of parkland to locate a new fire station, known as “37,” going against signed petitions and four neighborhood associations.  The elephant in the room is that the city ran out of money in the public safety bond and is taking the easy way out by removing land from the Willows Senior Center and Lincoln Glen Park instead of buying land more centrally located.  We have $20 million for golf courses and $2.26 million for golf nets, but no money to buy land for a fire station? I want to thank my fellow council members who I call “The 4 C’s”—Campos, Chu, Constant and Cortese—for their vote of support.

Most importantly, I want to thank all the community members who waited over three hours to speak for 60 seconds before the council.  We all agree we need a new fire station and the data supports one. However, city staff should not pit neighborhoods and council members against each other by opening one station and closing another. In the 2007-2008 budget, city staff snuck in the sale of Fire Station 6 (page 703, section V), which made the construction of Fire House 37 directly dependent upon the sale of Fire House 6.  I argued vehemently to remove the sale of Fire House 6 from the budget.  My request was granted “for now.” However, current verbiage in the budget allows for the sale of Fire House 6 at a later date. Oh, and by the way, for those who say that the city “wasn’t planning on selling house 6 at this time,” then please explain why Fire House 6 was listed in the City of San Jose’s surplus land as being “for sale” property to a local non-profit? This just confirms that on any given Tuesday the city can close fire stations and sell land that they sit on without voter approval.

The city council did make a good faith gesture via my second motion to keep Fire House 6 and not sell it.  The city attorney will look into how the council can adopt and formalize some kind of policy that will keep it open (I brought the same issue up on June 19 when this issue was first heard).  This time, Councilmember Chirco seconded my motion.  I am pleased that the council made a good faith effort at the meeting and I will be holding them to their commitment when this issue returns to council.

Finally, we accepted a labor agreement with Municipal Employee Federation (MEF) where the amount of increase was modest. However, even a modest increase adds to our structural budget deficit. Year 1 it adds an additional $6.8 million to the deficit; year 2 it adds $3.1 million; year 3 it adds $4.2 million; and every year it is cumulative, so by year 3 it adds $14.3 million to the deficit and so on—which is more then we get from the card clubs. The $14.3 million does not include step increases that would occur over years 1-3, which is approximately another $8.1 million added to the deficit, bringing us to a total of $22.4 million. (Step increase detail: Year 1, $2.6 million; Year 2, $2.7 million; Year 3, $2.8 million.) So even with a zero-percent raise, payroll costs escalate with step increases.

Perhaps the last paragraph explains why we need revenue generating ballot measures.

…well, actually, I toured District 2 with Councilmember Forrest Williams. However, sometimes people mistakenly call him by the actor’s name instead. Who could blame them? Councilmember Williams has star power; especially driving his Batmobile Mercedes. Councilmember Williams is very energetic and shared many stories about District 2 with me. He does his morning jog up the local hill and eats oatmeal every morning. I hope to have his energy as my hair grays.

We covered every inch of the district, driving the entire boundary, which is the southern border of San Jose. District 2 is a mix of newer and older homes, and highways 87 and 85 and have had a big impact on the area.

Some of the newer developments in the southern part of the district are luxury homes that can be partly seen from Highway 101. Nice homes to look at—and a nice park to boot. However, this type of development costs us more as we stretch out our city services to this new neighborhood. District 2 is also home to Coyote Valley, where the same challenges come up of stretching already thin city services.

Neighborhoods have different nuisances. For example my pet peeve is my neighbor down the street and his feral cats that wake me up every other night. However, in parts of District 2 it is hungry pigs. These pigs, otherwise known as “wild boars,” come down from the hills to munch on landscaping and they love to dig big holes to eat roots. I hope the Realtor who sells these houses is forthcoming about the hungry pigs.

Edenvale has had a reduction of crime in the last few years and some of it can be attributed to RDA dollars spent on the SNI neighborhood in District 2. The vision is for a community center to be built on a public school property where it can be jointly used for both the school and the neighborhood. Funding would come from RDA, however we as a city will have to find the money to staff and maintain the facility. In my district we just did the groundbreaking for the Bascom Library and Community Center where once open in 2010 we will need to find approximately $1 million to staff it annually.

Edenvale itself has a major focus of locating jobs to South San Jose. There has been success with the recent arrival of several companies, such as NDS Surgical from Morgan Hill, VNUS Medical from North San Jose and IDT Semiconductor from Santa Clara. However, there have also been some losses, including ONI, Clearlogic and Agile Software, which are no longer there because of acquisition or failure. Vacant commercial buildings can be occupied again by a new company however if the land itself is converted to another use then there is a future dilemma.

Locating churches in industrial areas is one example of industrial land use policy. A growing congregation was looking for a larger church space and wanted to use an industrial building as a church. The council approved this against planning department recommendations a few years ago to allow the church in the Edenvale industrial area in exchange for a guarantee that the prior church building would revert back to industrial use (which it did not).

Conflicts occur when an industrial parcel has a prospective tenant who generates a lot of noise, or uses chemicals such as those used to manufacture semiconductors. Often, locating uses like these next to places where people gather causes conflicts.

Perhaps growing churches can schedule multiple services on Sunday to maximize their existing building’s occupancy over an entire day. Services with high attendance can be powerful, however many cars at one time can overwhelm neighborhoods, and land is scarce. This is another topic the General Plan Task force that I sit on will discuss.

Finally, we visited Valley Christian High School, which sits atop a hill. This privately funded high school is impressive, with incredible facilities like a performing arts theater rivaling the Rep, a huge pool (two simultaneous water polo games), baseball field with sunken dugouts and a football field with an amazing view of San Jose. The view from District 2 looks good.

Vice Mayor Dave Cortese wins the prize for having the most historical knowledge of his district. I had the opportunity to tour District 8 with the vice mayor and get a better understanding of the land we call Evergreen and its agricultural history.

The housing boom started in 1975 with single family houses galore. Transportation congestion quickly became an issue. In 1993, there was the open allocation which allowed the building of an additional 3,900 houses that were swallowed up by the market. Part of the reason for housing development was the change in the cost of water to Evergreen farms from an agricultural rate to market rate. The cost was $60 per acre foot of water and then rose to $600 per acre foot. Evergreen farms at the time were competing with central valley farms who paid $12 an acre foot for water. Try selling cherries against other farms when you’re paying 50 times as much for water. Therefore, farmers had an incentive to sell their land for housing. (Should we subsidize water to save local farms and open space?)

We drove through the neighborhoods that were built in that 1993 allocation and I must say that there was some good planning. I saw large parks, trails and attractive homes. If you are in the market for a house in San Jose and value parks, you should consider Evergreen. During this build-out, the developers paid for much of the infrastructure and even funded maintenance.

The schools are supported by a Mello-Roos district set up for 1993 housing allocation. Evergreen High benefits from this district and is physically impressive and has a great reputation for academics.

The problems of Hwy 101 congestion are huge. The Cortese’s plan of pooling land owners and developers to create a larger community benefit for infrastructure investments made more sense after our tour. No single development can fix the aggregate infrastructure problems. The Berg property, for example, is not the best location for industry. However, since the prior council converted so much industrial land, there was a case to hold on to it. Now that the housing market has crashed, I would imagine this property will sit for a while, unless new, fast-growing, cutting-edge companies like Tesla Motors or Infinera see the value of a large parcel with incredible hillside views.

Evergreen has three sides. One is farmland that still remains in a pristine state as part of the greenbelt. The second is modern luxury housing, like Silver Creek, with predominately affluent families. The third is more working class, eastside-type housing, like we saw on Rigoletto by Eastridge. This SNI area had a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old. Since then, the Rigoletto initiative has been launched with police to combat crime in this neighborhood. Surprising to me was that are very fewer apartments in District 8 in comparison to the rest of the city.

The Eastridge area has gained new restaurants, allowing for people to eat out without trekking to downtown, and has had success with locating luxury car dealerships, like Infiniti and Mercedes. I have to say that Eastridge is looking really nice. Every store space was full and it is ultra clean. Outstanding questions for this specific neighborhood are: Will the VTA fund the extension of light rail to Eastridge? Will the Reinhard/Arcadia property remain vacant?

Finally, during our tour, we drove past a utility box blocking the visual entrance to a park and Vice Mayor Cortese pointed and said, “How much do you think it costs to move one of those metal utility boxes?”  The box was about 6 feet by 4 feet, and the answer was $275,000 to move it—gulp. Guess that box is staying put just like some parcels of land in Evergreen.

After finishing lunch at Pollo Loco on Winchester Blvd., Councilmember Pete Constant took me on a District 1 tour.  District 6 and District 1 share a long border along Winchester. Recently, both of our council offices have been working with the RDA and small businesses to help build a larger business district for Winchester.

We started off on Cadillac and Impala Streets in the Winchester SNI.  As in Hoffman Via Monte in District 10, I saw more “stacking” of the 1970s apartment structures that have “out-of-town owners” who neglect their buildings, negatively affecting the neighborhood. Two homicides occurred in this west side area recently.

Driving down Eden Ave. (which is parallel to Winchester), we looked at some of the traffic calming devices installed by the RDA aimed at slowing cars down on this street. However, one of the roundabouts was removed because local residents did not want it there after it was installed. It is tough to make everyone happy.

We then checked out the community policing station in a converted office building and the Calabazas library that will soon be closing to be remodeled (watch out to not hit your head in the bathroom).

Next, we visited San Jose’s only BMX park, a place where youths can show off their tricks and get some air.  We chatted with some kids who told us of their love of the park.  I’ll bet it looked pretty peculiar to see the two of us chatting it up with “bikers.” I told the kids not to talk to strangers next time.

Then we visited the Starbird Youth Center at Starbird Park, a newly built facility that took “green building” much too literally by not installing air conditioning! On hot days, youths sit outside the NEW facility.  This center is just down the street from Waterbury Ct. and Boynton, where there was another homicide.

Now don’t get me wrong, District 1 is not just apartments and tragic homicides. It is filled with many single family homes, including both starter and expensive houses. It also has a few really big parks, like Rainbow Park, and awesome schools, like Lynbrook High.

The most bizarre thing about District 1 is the border it shares with Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Saratoga. As we drove, Constant constantly pointed out, “this side is San Jose and that side is Saratoga” or “Cupertino that side, San Jose this side.” Throughout the tour along the border, I was extremely pleased at the amount of commercial land San Jose was able to maintain on the city’s western edge. This is the reverse of the San Jose-Milpitas border, with Milpitas capturing most of the sales tax of San Jose residents.

However, it is pretty clear that some cities actually “get it” when it comes to signage for retail.  The most obvious example is the Stevens Creek Auto Row. One side is San Jose and the other Santa Clara. Santa Clara has HUGE signs where the car brands are easily visible from a distance, versus the San Jose side, which has Lilliputian signs.  No wonder Constant wanted to include areas other than downtown in the sign ordinance.

We finished our tour with a ribbon cutting in my district for a new furniture store on Bascom Ave., where we shared in a feast of food.

It is the latest City of San Jose acronym. GFSDEPSG stands for the three-year General Fund Structural Deficit Elimination Plan Stakeholder Group. Whew! Try saying that fast even once.

This group is chaired by my colleague Pietro Constantino (Pete Constant in Italian).  The GFSDEPSG includes city workers, unions, various city department directors, nonprofit executives, the Chamber of Commerce and San Jose residents.  I have attended all six meetings the GFSDEPSG has had thus far and have enjoyed the arithmetic.

The group is charged with exploring new ideas and talking about touchy topics to solve the structural budget deficit.  Sometimes their discussions will include “taboo” topics which are not discussed on the dais since these topics are “political dynamite.”  However, this group speaks straight from the hip, which is refreshing.

Last Monday, July 7, the group talked about how the city chooses to pay a “living wage” even though it is not required by state law for contract work.  “Prevailing wage” is required by state law for construction jobs but not for “charter” cities like San Jose.  In 1988, the city voluntarily adopted the state of California prevailing wage law. Then, in 1989, the council increased the scope of the law to include service jobs like street sweeping, parking lot attendants, janitorial, etc., though the state did not require it.

Moving onward and forward, the city adopted a living wage policy in 1999 which included contract work.  Living wage is $12.83 an hour with medical and $14.08 without medical.  It is determined by the Federal poverty threshold for a family of three and then is adjusted each year for inflation.  It has never decreased since 1999, even when there is a recession. The city of San Jose has ten fulltime employees to monitor contracts to make sure that contractors are paying their workers the correct city mandated wage.

Some group members spoke about the importance of a living wage and how it may prevent people from being dependent on state and federal welfare programs.  Others spoke of its elimination, since it increases the cost to the city and, therefore, residents.  The group requested more information in order for this topic to be discussed again at a future meeting.

No one from the public attended the meeting.  By contrast, the General Plan 2040 meeting usually generates about 25 spectators. It is also televised. Unfortunately, the GFSDEPSG is not.

If you are looking for an air conditioned room to escape the heat, then consider attending the seventh meeting of GFSDEPSG on Monday, July 21, 6:00 PM, in the wing rooms at City Hall, 200 S. Santa Clara Street.

For more information, go to:http://www.sanjoseca.gov/stakeholdergroup08.asp

A while ago I wrote that I wanted to tour each council district. Well, I got my wish. I have been touring San Jose over the past few months and last Friday I spent the morning with my colleague, Nancy Pyle, who represents District 10.

I met Ms. Pyle off Blossom Hill Road where we began the tour driving through the Hoffman Via Monte SNI neighborhood, which is right next to Pioneer High School—and, where I believe we made a mistake in planning. This area has about 40-50 apartment buildings that are clustered on three adjoining streets.  This 1970’s planning mistake is replicated all over San Jose.  Perhaps the recent focus of using RDA funds in partnership with the code enforcement will encourage landlords to clean up their properties. Neglect of the property leads to blight which leads to people not caring about their area.  It’s nice to know that the SNI program has brought improvements to the area.  Last year, I attended the grand opening of the new community center which was the number-one priority for the Hoffman Via Monte SNI.

We then went on what I call the “Almaden Valley Home Tour!”

Having grown up in San Jose and having friends that live in Almaden, I thought I had seen every street. However, I soon realized that I had not seen everything D-10 has to offer. There are some incredible streets with vintage ranch houses and houses that I pictured as being like ones in Los Altos, complete with families of deer passing by.  One advantage of having housing stock occupied by upper income families is that some of these individuals start companies that employ people.  If these individuals are living in Almaden, it is less likely for those new companies to be located in Palo Alto and Mountain View. At least that’s the hope.

On the way out to the Almaden Urban Reserve we passed the historic Feed and Fuel. It’s a shame that it is closed; it was like a tavern in the old west.  The Almaden Reserve is HUGE (1000-plus acres) and quite scenic.  This is the area where former Vice Mayor Pat Dando proposed building soccer fields but was met with opposition.  The questions that came to my mind were: Do we plan for the development of this land now?  If we plan, does it lead us to build on it prematurely?  Is there an alternative route other then Almaden Expressway for the future?  Where will the water come from?  If we do “nothing,” there will be one house per 20 acres but no master plan—is this a “bad” thing in an effort to preserve open space?

Our tour also included the location of the tragic accident on Mockingbird Lane where Leland students died in the mid-80s while driving too fast.  In this particular case, the youths came over a steep hill (and got some serious air) and crashed right into a garbage truck.  Three of the four students died—very sad.

We stopped off for a tour of the Almaden Library and Community Center. What a gem! It’s an impressive structure teeming with people of all ages.

We drove the outline of the district and finished at a future VTA development site. There is a VTA station at Capitol and Highway 87 which has a surface parking lot. The VTA would like to build a transit-oriented development at this light rail station.  The biggest questions from the neighborhood are how tall and how many units?  I am glad that I am not the only one with the same issues; even District 10 has to wrestle with the density question.

Last Tuesday, we considered whether to continue preliminary discussions with the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and three private property owners regarding San Pedro Square. The issue under consideration was should RDA spend money to do capital improvements like sidewalk widening, streetscapes and loans to rehab older buildings in the area.

Let me first talk about the elephant in the room, former Mayor Tom McEnery. I think it’s pretty well known that his family owns a chunk of the outlying property at San Pedro Square.

I do not carry Tom’s water; nor do I share his puritan views on nightclubs or past fears of Santana Row.  In fact, I support a livelier downtown and frequent Santana Row on a regular basis. However, as someone who has lived in downtown, I do share a vision that it can and will be home to people, businesses and social gathering spots.  I have had this vision since 7th grade, when RDA visited my school and brought in the physical model of our future downtown.

So should the city collaborate with three property owners who are willing to invest approximately $15–21 million of their own money above and beyond RDA’s $6 million?

City governments have complex and confusing pots of money and rules on what the money may actually be spent on.  Some money can be spent on people (police, librarians, code enforcement), and other money can be spent on capital projects (roads, equipment, building construction). Even more confusing, some money may only be spent in certain geographic areas to acquire property or build things, like in “redevelopment” areas or the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI) neighborhoods. (SNIs cover 1/3 of the city where we have spent $60 million on capital improvements.)

The question of “Return on Investment” (ROI) came up since the amount is more than $1 million. The idea brought forward would add retail on San Pedro Square and St. John Street by creating an urban market similar to, but not the same as, Pikes Place in Seattle or the Ferry Building in San Francisco.  In addition, we would create a walkable attractive paseo highlighting the historic Peralta Adobe of 1797 and the Fallon House of 1855, which are hidden gems of our downtown.

ROI is a loosely thrown-around term and is always up for scrutiny based on what criteria you choose to measure.  ROI has “hard” measurable aspects like saving dollars, eliminating costs, and new sources of revenue, etc. And, on the other hand, “soft ROI” can be an externality of the main benefit. The investment makes it possible to leverage future dollars from future investors. For example, we do façade grants to make businesses look nice in the downtown and in our neighborhood business districts. Outside of looking nice, there is a hope that because of these façade improvements, more private investment will occur in this area. These façade improvements individually require less than $1 million, but the aggregate costs are well over that amount.

When it comes to ROI, we are sometimes kidding ourselves because we try to stretch it to make us feel good. Unlike the Grand Prix (that came and went, costing the city a loss), we have investments like this one where we actually get to retain physical improvements to the area.  Sometimes we do things without instant ROI

On the one hand, we could continue to do nothing because it’s the McEnery family’s property and let only nightclubs downtown. However, nightclubs do not bring nor create the family friendly downtown that we are looking for, as Councilmember Chu stated at the council meeting. The central question is: Will this investment—regardless of the owner—provide benefit for the downtown core?

To the North of San Pedro Square, the city has planned several residential towers that will help this proposed development succeed by joining newly opened residential towers, Axis and City Heights. This is an exciting opportunity for San Jose and I am confident that all of these components together will bring more life into downtown.

The final proposal will come back to the council around October.

The bigger questions I ask again are: How should we spend our RDA dollars?  Should we spend it only on economic development where there is ROI?  If so, do we stop funding any items that do not generate sales tax, hotel tax or utility tax?

Here are some downtown building and restoration projects that were done because of the RDA:

Adobe Headquarters, Convention Center, Hilton Hotel, Marriott Hotel, Fairmont Hotel, Children’s Discovery Museum, Tech Museum, California Theater, Hyatt Sainte Claire, De Anza Hotel, Jose Theater, San Jose Museum of Art, San Jose Repertory Theater, six office buildings and seven condominium developments.

The city council spent 12 hours on “Budget Tuesday” last week.  Here are three of the topics we covered.

Budget:
It was the end of a long budget process and I lived through it.  We had tough choices to make. San Jose is involved in many things—some questionable and others necessary.  I think we need to consider starting fresh with a clean slate by making “core” city services—sewer, public safety and land use—our first priorities.

We need to fully fund these core services first and then move on from there to roads, libraries, attorneys, and accounting (collect revenues/pay bills), followed by code enforcement, parks and community/senior centers.  Perhaps San Jose should consider dropping things that are not core, such as taxpayer subsidized golf.

I know that folks might think I am “Mr. No Fun” because I am upfront about the fact that there are tradeoffs we have to make. Casual fiscal responsibility, when it’s convenient, does not cut it. We must have a sober discussion on tradeoffs.  Why not have high ratings for our core services rather than being average at many things?

Traffic Calming:
Last year I chaired the traffic calming meetings in an effort to gather community feedback on how best to update San Jose’s policy. We had a meeting in each council district, shared the policy twice at the Transportation and Environment Committee, and held a final community meeting before the council unanimously passed the new policy last Tuesday. Two of the important changes to the policy are partnering with schools and neighborhoods adjacent to schools in an effort to make the streets in these areas safer, and allowing private funding for traffic calming devices.  The entire policy was revamped and I encourage you to check it out.

Inclusionary Housing:
Wordsmithing was at its best when “inclusionary” housing was discussed last week. I was starting to get dizzy with the constant back and forth about literally one word.  I have given this issue considerable thought and, as a result, it is not one I support the way it is presented today.  In the end, I want what is best for San Jose and its residents. I don’t believe building housing on every parcel is in anyone’s best interest, nor do I think raising the prices for first-time home buyers to subsidize others that earn less money is fair either. San Jose has done more then its fair share for both market rate housing and affordable housing. I am not alone. Councilmember Pyle did a good job by offering an alternative. I supported her, along with my colleagues Cortese and Constant.

San Jose’s structural deficit isn’t over yet, so stay tuned as this week’s council meeting should also be a long one.

Last week the city council unanimously approved a concession agreement for the new airport terminal.  Believe it or not, the Chamber of Commerce and the Working Partnerships Labor Union both agreed on the selection. Whew!  If only agreements like this could happen more often.

However, in my opinion, the best part of this selection is that many local small businesses that have made their mark in San Jose by risking their capital years ago will now have the opportunity to be showcased at the airport. These include local favorites like Schurra’s Chocolates on The Alameda, Chiramonte’s Deli on North Thirteenth, Hicklebee’s Children’s Bookstore on Lincoln Ave, Willow Street Pizza, Paolo’s and San Jose Sharks Bar & Grill.  I can’t wait.  Can you just imagine all of these great businesses all in one location?  San Jose here we come!

Last July, during our council break, I co-hosted a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce to raise the awareness that local small businesses should have a fair chance of being selected as tenants at the airport. The attendance was great and I believe that meeting played a part in bringing awareness; thus, we have many San Jose small business tenants moving forward.

City staff and a committee representing labor, the chamber and the convention visitors’ bureau reviewed the proposals that were submitted.  The council was not directly involved, although I did make my support known for local businesses. By awarding these contracts, the city and the airport do not have to manage individual rental agreements with each tenant.  If we did, it could take a lot of staff time and inevitably become political by having individual tenants lobby the council members.

The new concessions will not only change perceptions of our airport, but they are projected to bring in double the sales tax from today’s amount of $280,000 to $564,000. Revenue to the airport via rents will increase from $3.7 million to $8.2 million, and there will be 271 new jobs. Granted, they are service jobs; however, they will be paid living-wage hourly rates.

As much as the airport is criticized, most people still find it valuable for air travel. In fact, a former colleague of mine who happens to live in Menlo Park chooses to drive to San Jose instead of San Francisco Airport (SFO) to fly to Seattle every week. Even though SFO is closer, he finds San Jose’s airport easier to get in and out of.

San Jose will have a new face to show off in 2010 and I hope that you all check it out. Whether you are traveling or not, it will be worth the visit.

Disneyland in Alviso?  Not quite, but the comparisons are definitely there.

Several months back, I accompanied Councilmembers Chu and Liccardo on a tour of the San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant.  We rode on electric carts that were linked together like those at an amusement park.  Our tour guide spouted off words like, “sewage back-up, micro-organisms, aeration, methane gas”—much different then “Pirates of the Caribbean.”

The facility itself is quite large (2,600 acres) and old (built in 1956). The tour included the carts going from different facilities and walking down into the bowels of some of the buildings. San Jose could easily rent this space to the maker of a horror movie since these basements were eerie. Some of the rooms looked like scenes from a large naval ship, with long dark hallways and big pipes running overhead.  Down below, we were able to view wiring that is 20–40 years old; life expectancy of the wiring is only 25 years.

This facility treats over 110 million gallons of water each day to serve 1.4 million residents in eight cities.  The water that we flush from our toilets travels north to the plant where it goes through a series of phases. The finished product is clean water that flows to the bay.  Also, “recycled water” can be pumped back out to the city through “purple pipes” to manage industrial and irrigation needs. In some cities it becomes drinking water. I am leaving out a lot of detail on all the phases since this would get too wordy, and I must leave you with some mystery.

You may actually tour the plant yourself! The city offers a two-hour free tour on Saturdays. You may choose 9–11a.m. or 1:00–3:00 p.m. The remaining dates available are June 7, July 12, August 2, and September 6. Call 408.975.2551 to sign up or email carolina.camarena@sanjoseca.gov.

The San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant is an important facility.  Although many people may not realize it, the plant is an important part of San Jose government. We would quickly forget about any other city issues we discuss on this blog if in the future we were told we could not flush our toilets.

I support investing in the infrastructure so that we can continue to rely on this resource. Water will continue to be a scarce resource locally and globally; therefore, San Jose should take advantage of this unique opportunity to be in the driver’s seat with a leading-edge Water Pollution Control Plant by making capital investments today.

I encourage you to stop and have lunch in Alviso (before or after the tour) and enjoy your own “Bay Area Backroads” experience.

Last week, the council spent 90 minutes deliberating the sale of a 0.19 acre parcel of surplus downtown property for $450,000. The current tenants, the Arab American Community Center and the Indochinese Refugee Center, are nonprofits who pay $12 a year in rent (month to month) on an expired lease. They were notified in January 2006 about the city’s plans to sell the property.

The city is selling the property “as-is” and the new buyer is paying for all closing costs. The buyer offered $85 per square foot, even though surrounding parcels are appraised at $70 per square foot, and has even offered to give the nonprofits $20,000 each to help with moving expenses.

During December 2007, when the outreach for the 2008-2009 budget started, the city polled San Jose residents and asked them a variety of questions regarding the budget. The top response from those polled was that residents wanted the city to maximize its assets, such as selling surplus land.

The math seems pretty simple to me regarding this parcel: $450,000 vs. $12. Perhaps my calculator is not working correctly, but I think $450,000 will go much farther in keeping city employees employed and providing some street maintenance than the current $12 can.

When the issue of selling surplus property first came to the council late last year, I had concerns. I wanted to make sure that we did not sell land that the city might need in the future for a firehouse or park. I also wanted to make sure that we were getting fair market value. In the end, the council voted to sell the land and the new owner has even offered to allow the nonprofits to stay until the end of they year.

The council spent a lot of time questioning if the city was being fair to the nonprofits. My answer to that is: YES, we have been very fair. Allowing nonprofits to have building space for $12 a year is very fair indeed.

However, while on the dais, I couldn’t help but think about all the other deserving nonprofits. Should the council favor certain ethnic nonprofits over ones that help troubled youth and/or seniors?  Do the residents of San Jose (those folks the city council represents) want the council to provide land at well below market value to nonprofits? Or, do the residents want to make sure the city is paid fair value for land it sells? Should the council “fill up” the Old City Hall with nonprofits and never maximize the value of the land?

Perhaps the City of San Jose should place the Old City Hall, Hayes Mansion, Rancho del Pueblo and Los Lagos golf courses on the ballot for November 2008 as an “advisory vote” which would allow ALL voters in San Jose, not just special interest groups, to provide direction for the council regarding real estate matters.

In a prior blog I wrote about the “mystery” of closed session meetings. These meetings occur every Tuesday morning and cover real estate, litigation and labor negotiations. In addition, everything covered at the meetings is confidential. Last week, the city council voted to release a revision of a closed session memo for public distribution called “Confidential Legal Advice Related to Imposition of Appropriate Conditions in Land Use Approval.” This memo was released on May 16 so it could be shared with the general public and the development community.

The issue at hand is whether or not individual council members may ask for neighborhood amenities (like architecture, trees and parking for examples) when residential developments are being approved, so they may fit better into the existing community. The problem is that items the community asks for may not be required by existing city rules; therefore, those requests may not be allowed.

The release of this memo got me thinking of other things that should be released from closed sessions.  Why stop at a memo about land use when our largest financial decisions do not see the light of day?

For example, labor negotiations are a long arduous process. In the past, the city and the unions have both pointed fingers at each other.  Perhaps if these meetings were discussed in public, then there would be no finger pointing.  In the era of sunshine, maybe we should consider making these meetings public, as is done in other parts of the country.  It would be interesting to know, for example, the full dollar amounts of costs on proposals from each side through each stage of the negotiation, prior to final agreement.

If the city was being unfair, then everyone would know. If labor was asking too much, or they had good points about cost-of-living adjustments, then we would know.  With the bankruptcy of our neighbor, Vallejo, it seems like we should shine more light on collective bargaining, or, at least, the city should provide some type of summary of the negotiations to the public at an earlier time. If allowing the public to view the negotiations in real time would harm privacy, then, perhaps, the negotiations should be taped on video and shown after the agreement has been reached.  The negotiations could be viewable on the internet or channel 26.  That way, the public would at least get to see what took place.

In the end, we on the council vote on compensation and benefit increases. However, we as a council will be long gone when the aggregate effect of past votes impacts the budget and neighborhood services. If decisions are made behind closed doors without public scrutiny, then it is easier to make unrealistic financial choices.

Making negotiations public will not take anything away from workers or make negotiations a game of “winners” and “losers.”  People need to be paid a good wage with good benefits, that’s for sure. However, these decisions are nearly 70 percent of the budget and I think that public awareness is important.

So, in my opinion, if we can release a closed session memo on land use, we should certainly consider allowing more sunshine into collective bargaining that is currently done behind closed doors.

What are your thoughts? Constructive suggestions are welcome.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about my biggest regret as an elected official: my support last year of the unanimous vote that converted commercial property to residential on Lincoln Ave—820 units to be exact.  Going forward, I will vote on what is best for San Jose and our future.

Last week I was put to the test. A project was before the council requesting the conversion of a prime seven-acre commercial parcel next to Santana Row to residential. Was I going to stand true to my genuine principle that converting tax-generating land is bad, or was I going to pick apart all the “exceptions” to the rule and cave in?

Santana Row generates over $2.2 million in sales tax each year.  Two million is not a number to dismiss, especially when we are suffering through budget deficits and nearby cities are filing bankruptcy. This prime seven-acre parcel has great potential for office space right next to Santana Row.  It is a prime piece of commercial real estate and clearly more centrally located then the Evergreen industrial land that was highlighted in 2007.

The employment land framework was unanimously passed by the city council in October 2007. The goal was to stop conversion of land that generates jobs/taxes for the city. On the dais I spoke of the lost opportunities of not having land available for jobs, and the loss of a revenue opportunity for the city, (sales tax, utility tax, 911 fees, etc). The city has already converted hundreds of acres of employment land. Conversion of these parcels creates two problems: the loss of commercial land and the strains on neighborhood services which end up costing the city more money.

Unfortunately, some property owners will choose to neglect their property in hopes of convincing the council that a commercial use is outdated.  This excuse will not work for me.  If commercial owners can’t take care of their property, then the city should use code enforcement resources to cite and remove blight.

The real estate agent for this parcel spoke at the meeting and said that he “only had two offers for the office use.”  Two sounds good to me. Don’t you only need one? Or, since the parcel is seven acres, perhaps the two interested parties could share?

Unfortunately (as I have seen many times before), the public speakers that night, including nearby residents, spoke in favor of the conversion. In fact, none of the activists who say they are against the conversion of land neither showed up to the meeting that night nor sent any written correspondence against this conversion.

Professional developers and knowledgeable lobbyists showcase some of the best salesmanship I have ever seen, using terms like “LEED certified” and “extraordinary benefit.”  However, I still stand by my belief that good housing projects need to be built on land that is already zoned for residential.

I made the motion to deny the applicants request of converting the land which passed. The developer is probably going to blame the city, the process and me, saying that we were, and are, not consistent. However, the only “inconsistency” would have been if we converted the land. The land has always been commercial; conversion would have been an inconsistent use of the land.  Because of the Reed Reforms, the next time conversion of land will come before the council will be in the spring of 2009, instead of every 3 months.

Over and over and over again, I hear from developers and lobbyists that vacant commercial buildings are of no use and we should convert the land the building stands on to housing.  With that said, should we then convert the empty Sobrato building downtown to housing? It is vacant, after all.

Berkeley and Santa Cruz have a reputation of voting on proclamations or supporting causes that are outside their domains, such as the independence of Tibet, the genocide in Darfur, and federal issues like immigration or going to war. Topics like these are worthy of discussion on a blog, in person, or for our elected officials in Washington DC. However, is it the best use of time dealing with these at a level where you have limited influence instead of spending time on what you can really make an impact on? Like the “City” Council meetings?

Last week we were asked to support certain federal bills. These bills start one way and then end up out in left field, and before you know it, you are supporting a bill that has a pork barrel amendment that is paying for a bridge in Alaska.

One particular bill was on immigration—a program for people from another country being able to live and work in the US. (I do acknowledge that a sizable portion of our agricultural labor is made up of non-US citizens.) My job as a council member gives me plenty to do already, and having to read through federal legislation on top of it is too time consuming. The city does not have a role in immigration or agriculture. These are issues that must be dealt with at the national level.  I do believe in supporting legislation that directly impacts the city, such as transportation legislation with dollars tied to a Santa Clara County project, for example.

In discussing the immigration bill at the council, it was said that it would help with the escalating food prices we have seen locally. Actually, food prices are rising globally and it has little to do with farm labor. We have seen riots break out over food in Haiti, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Senegal, and Cameroon, where 24 people died. In fact, hoarding rice in the Philippines is now punishable by life in prison! Prices for rice since January have soared 141 percent, and prices of other grains have also risen sharply.

The reasons for price increases are the growing affluent populations of China and India, who are eating more grains and meat, as well as using grains for biofuels like ethanol, quotas and tariffs that restrict trade, and the USDA paying farmers not to plant crops on their land.

Whatever the reasons, I just don’t see it as my main focus on the council to spend 30 minutes peeling back the onion on all the nuances and amendments in a single federal bill that does not have a direct impact on San Jose. I remember as a candidate filling out questionnaires for organizations that asked me federal questions, and I would write in “N/A” or “bogus.”

NOTE: If you happen to be reading this on Monday, April 28, there are three important meetings that deal directly with San Jose tonight. One is the General Plan 2040 which will be discussing water and population growth; another is the 3-Year General Fund Structural Deficit Elimination Plan Stakeholder Group; and, finally, the Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force.  Public comment is welcome at all the meetings.

Last Tuesday, the city council had two agenda items to vote on that would allow for applicants to sell alcohol: one for a Whole Foods grocery store and the other for a gas station.
State law limits the number of liquor licenses in an area. The City of San Jose went one step further by blocking certain new liquor licenses at the planning commission level. The planning commission must deny liquor licenses so they are heard at the council level upon appeal. I understand this is because the prior council wanted to ensure that the council would hear liquor license applicants. Unfortunately, I think the extra step is a hurdle in encouraging new grocery stores.

Who should sell alcohol? Restaurants? Grocery stores? Gas stations?  My answer: grocery stores and restaurants. I believe we should use the prize of a liquor license as a carrot to promote neighborhood-facing businesses.

Liquor licenses are a source of major revenue for the grocery and restaurant industry.Most grocery stores and restaurants would go out of business if they did not have a liquor license. The profit margins from alcohol allow for the creation of new business, jobs, sales tax and community. Residents feel a sense of community around grocery stores and restaurants as they are where we gather.
In a prior blog, I wrote about grocery store economics and the sad fact that grocery stores are missing in San Jose’s neighborhoods. I think of the many grocery stores that have closed and have been converted to gyms, drugstores, discount shops or, worse, converted from commercial land to housing. Grocery stores make very thin margins on food, but they make good margins on beer, wine and spirits. Carrying a variety of different products is how grocery stores keep the doors open.

There are arguments that if you grant a liquor license to a gas station, they will make more money which they can use to spruce up the station. I acknowledge this point and would agree. However, what happens if one gas station gets a liquor license and the one across the street doesn’t? What happens when all the gas stations in one area take all the liquor licenses? What happens when someone wants to open a grocery store or restaurant in an area that is already concentrated with liquor licenses and they are not able to open for business? Let’s face it: alcohol will produce profits for anyone who sells it.

Can you imagine a young family buying a house and one spouse saying to the other, “Wow, honey, let’s buy this house. Even the local gas station sells beer!” Or, can you imagine the same person saying, “Let’s buy this house. It even has a neighborhood grocery store.”

I voted for the grocery store and against the gas station. Both passed.

The end of March marked my first anniversary as an elected official. As I reflect on my first year in public office, I am amazed at all the different topics I have been involved in as a councilmember. I am pleased that employees who work at companies like Cisco and Adobe are now allowed to volunteer in our parks and that the Rose Garden was adopted by volunteers. I am ecstatic that Coyote Valley has been shelved—for now. I am feeling positive about the evolution of residential towers downtown and saving our city money on technology.  The council is making progress with balancing the budget and I enjoyed being part of the efforts of updating the traffic calming policy.

With that said I still have one vote that causes me pain—literally. After reading my blog for a year, do you want to try to guess which one it was?

I think we can all relate to experiencing a bit of trepidation when we start a new position at a company. When you start a new job you inherit what was there before. You might be asked to complete a project; the only problem is that you don’t agree with it.  It’s too late to stop it, promises have been made and people are depending on it to be finalized and it’s up to you to see it through.  Because you are new, and you don’t want to let people down, you do what’s expected.

A month into office there was a land use proposal before the council to convert industrial land to housing on Lincoln Avenue. I am against land conversion, as you may know. My gut said no. In fact, it screamed NO! It is not the right decision to convert light industrial land to housing! The loss of jobs! The strain on city resources! STOP! Time Out! Especially when there are large parcels right next to this one already zoned for residential.  This particular industrial land was in a much better location then the widely publicized Evergreen industrial land that the council voted down the same night.

As usual, the landowner whined that the land sat vacant for years and that no company wanted to locate there. The problem with that line is that a few months after the vote, a new company called Vocera Communications relocated to San Jose from Cupertino. Vocera, the leader in “instant voice” technology, brought 100 high-wage jobs and a business that produces sales tax. Just think if the land Vocera is now sitting on had been converted to housing. Who knows where Vocera would have ended up. Sunnyvale? Campbell? Santa Clara? Sometimes land needs to sit idle to allow for greater future opportunities.

This project was supported by my predecessor. In fact, District 6 had lots of commercial/industrial land converted to housing in recent years. For example, Fiesta Lanes and Lou’s Village on West San Carlos were both commercial properties. Also, K-Mart on Southwest Expressway/Fruitdale and Del Monte Cannery were on industrial land in the midtown specific plan that got converted to housing—tax revenue-generating land that was lost forever.

In this particular case, we had a savvy property owner and lobbyist that chose to work with the community over an extended period of time regarding design and height, and who was offering amenities like trees. Hold me back: trees, the carrot that gets the community every time. What would we have done without the developer including trees? Well, I recently spoke to the RDA Director and I could have provided the area with trees without having to convert land.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame anyone but myself.  Even if I voted “no,” some members of the community supported it. They even showed up and spoke in favor of the project. In reality, my “no” vote may not have made a difference on the council since it was a unanimous vote and the project would most likely have passed.

This is my City Hall diary and I wanted to share with you that I do have regrets. In fact I have had retrospective conversations with other elected officials and they have regrets as well. My diary is open so you see the good and the bad. What I have learned is that I will listen to my gut as I move forward on votes that are best for the future of San Jose—and even promising me trees won’t change me.

Many people ask what my biggest surprise has been since becoming a council member. I have shared that my biggest surprise has been closed session meetings. “Closed session” meetings are private meetings which include the mayor, city attorney and city council. The city manager and two other attorneys who record the minutes are also present. Sometimes, depending on the subject material, specific city staff will also join the meeting, but the public is not allowed to be present.

Closed session meetings occur every Tuesday morning and are held in the “green room” which is located behind the council dais. The green room is large with a TV monitor on the wall and a very large table and chairs in the center. Mayor Reed sits at one end of the table and Rick Doyle, the city attorney, on the other.

The mayor leads the meeting agenda and will recognize council members to speak. Usually the city attorney starts the meeting with information on pending and ongoing litigation and threat of litigation. I have found people love to sue the city. It could be anything. Many times the council settles out of court. Settling a case out of court could be less then the cost of going to trial and possibly losing and having to pay out more. $3.5 million of the city budget is allocated each year to legal settlements and that amount is really a best guess since lawsuits do not follow statistical trends.

In order to prepare for closed sessions, each councilmember receives advance information in sealed envelopes with the word “confidential” on the front.

The city attorney will talk about a case and then the appropriate city staff will add more detail or explain technical issues. After that particular case is done then the next group of city staff will join us to start on another issue.

Some of the confidential matters are personnel related. The one that attracted the most attention lately was the issue of our former city auditor. We received reams of paper that we needed to read through, and as with all closed session material, it cannot be shared with staff. It adds another level of stress knowing that you are reading information that impacts a person’s career.

Labor negotiations are also covered in closed sessions. It is similar to talking about litigation; however, instead of talking about winning or losing, it is more of a discussion about balancing resources and priorities.

All comments that are made in closed session are to be confidential and not to be revealed to anyone, including staff and family. We are allowed to talk about closed session items in generalities, but not specific cases or quotes from other council members or staff.

Closed session meetings are serious business.

This week at council we discussed the upcoming 2008-2009 budget process.

The budget for San Jose is a year-round process tracking the revenue that comes into the city, like sales tax and construction and conveyance tax (C and C), and expenditures that come from the General Fund (non-restricted money), or capital expenditures (restricted money) like building new libraries.

The city’s budget is a topic that takes a considerable amount of time to master. To Mayor Reed’s credit, he is the first mayor who started a community process that helped share information regarding the budget process and the complexities that accompany it. For example, in January 2007, Mayor Reed held the Neighborhood Associations Priority Setting session, where neighborhood association presidents and others had a voice in the budget process. In January 2008, the mayor held the same meeting and went over the consultants report regarding budget options for San Jose.

During the 2008 meeting, the audience was asked to rank the choices that the consultants report came up with. I attended this meeting and had mixed feelings. I felt that our city staff was better versed on the topics then the consultant and that four hours is not enough time for the budget.

In addition, I also attended two of the mayor’s Budget Shortfall Taskforce meetings (similar to Mayor Hammer’s New Realities Taskforce in 1995) as well as three of labor’s community budget working group meetings. More people offering new ideas in the budget process is a good thing.

A broader discussion of the budget, where we can do a deep dive into ideas brought by the public, will be on the Rules agenda on March 5. This would allow the residents to understand the trade-offs of budget policy and allow more time to discuss good ideas.

Scenario:

There is a budget meeting at City Hall that you decide to attend with your neighbor. Your neighbor does not follow local government; he just knows that he pays his taxes and complains about potholes and hears about Little Saigon on TV. Knowing that both of you are attending and that you have two different levels of budget knowledge, what would you both want to learn from the meeting?

Do you want Budget 101?
Scholarly discussion?
PowerPoint mania?
Q & A?
Debate team?
Deep dive on only a few topics?

As some of you many know via Sal Pizarro of the Mercury News I have grown a beard. I stopped shaving the morning of the mayor’s State of the City speech. I joked with Sal that I was not going to shave until we fixed the structural budget deficit. Getting our city’s finances in order is the number one priority and will take hard work and more community outreach. By that time, my beard will end up competing with Moses or the members of the band ZZ Top.

So for now the beard remains, providing shock value to those who see me with it for the first time. It is also a great disguise, as I am now able to go to the grocery store without being asked to fix a pothole or other like matter.

It came in quite handy on Fat Tuesday. Our Tuesday evening council meeting was cancelled, so I chose to spend my time as I have done many nights on the streets of downtown with our SJPD and Mounted Unit. Mardi Gras has been a small curse for our downtown in past years with many people outside of San Jose looking and hoping for something out of a “Girls Gone Wild” video. Quite the opposite occurred on Fat Tuesday. The mostly young male crowd that traveled from other cities simply just roamed around the downtown.

My beard, along with my black beanie and trench coat, provided me the appearance of Al Pacino in the movie “Serpico.” This look allowed me to blend in instead of drawing attention by wearing a suit or dressed as a spokesperson for Banana Republic. Walking on the street with the crowd provides me a street level perspective that cannot be experienced in a police car.

This out-of-town crowd for the most part was not spending any money in the bars or restaurants. Early on, there were plenty of minors roaming, some even with beer in a bag. Later the crowds grew larger and older, but still they were not patronizing our downtown establishments, and, instead, just loitered.

Luckily, most of the convention visitors were in bed before the large crowd came. Mardi Gras and Cinco de Mayo have to be the worst PR nights for our downtown. To our SJPD’s credit and hard work, the crowds are lessening each year. I saw firsthand the effectiveness of the police on horses riding through the crowd, patrolling on bikes, riding motorcycles etc., but this comes at a cost to the taxpayer of police overtime.

Our downtown continues to evolve for the positive as we look forward to new residents in the residential towers and recently filled storefronts in restored historic buildings. There are currently three solid plays downtown at City Lights Theater, San Jose Repertory and San Jose Stage. I have seen each of them and recommend them. So come on downtown to see a play for Lent, as Fat Tuesday is over.

At the General Plan Task Force meeting last week, we discussed transportation and how future VTA projects will guide San Jose’s land use. The VTA budget for new projects is funded out of the voter-approved half-cent sales tax. The tax provides partial funding for BART, light rail extension, bus rapid transit improvements, some road paving, trails and bike lanes.

The big-ticket item is BART. The low estimate to bring BART to San Jose is $5 billion, but some say the amount is closer to $10 billion. Whether you are a BART cheerleader or a skeptic, one thing both sides agree on: BART is a huge investment. It is fair to say that BART will at least have a $1 billion overrun and that the $200 million that is budgeted for trails and bike lanes alone will not close the gap on the BART shortfall.

Trails and bike lanes are two of the most important transportation options available to us. They are the smallest items in terms of funding on the “to do” list at $200 million, versus $5 billion plus for BART.  I have had many different forums in my district where residents are constantly asking me about trails and bike lanes. These residents ask how they can help with grant writing, private/public partnerships, etc.

I ask myself: Why not spend the money on trails and bike lanes first since the money needed is much less than any other transportation options like BART? In addition, the talent that can be gained by working with volunteers and the community would be an asset for the VTA, city and county in our goals for trails and bike lanes.

One caveat with trail land is that for the city and county to get its best value, we must purchase land now because land appreciates in value. Trails can be expensive at around $1million a mile. However, in comparison, BART is around $500 million a mile, with an estimated completion of no sooner then 2017.

Another form of transportation discussed was the bus rapid transit lines. In addition to special preference at traffic signals, these buses travel major routes and have fewer stops. However, I would encourage that ALL the buses are equipped with real time GPS information. For example, the bus stop would have a display that would communicate to waiting passengers how many minutes till the next bus arrives. The GPS system has already been successful in Europe and many US cities today. Instead of passengers having to guess what time a bus will arrive by looking down the street from the gutter, they would simply look at the display. This would bring a higher level of consumer satisfaction and increase the number of bus riders.

I think it is prudent to pick off the lower hanging fruit for transportation projects while keeping an eye on the big picture.

What do you think?

Several months ago I wrote a blog “Try It Before You Buy It,” where I spoke about the importance of making sure that the city has the option of using technology before actually purchasing it. I shared how large organizations struggle with information technology (IT) implementations when dealing with vendors who often make promises that differ from the actual results received. I also pointed out how the VTA and City of San Jose have spent millions on unwise technology decisions to purchase software.

Since my first council meeting, I have asked “perspicacious” questions regarding software expenditures. Questions that I asked included: What is the return on investment (ROI)? Have references been checked? Was piloting the software allowed? If so, did city staff use the software? Was web-based software available?

Sometimes I think I might come off as “prickly.” However, it is important to me to ask these questions—to dig deep. In my opinion, if a company wants city money, then staff needs to make sure they drill the company hard so that at the council meeting, staff is ready to make the case.  From my private sector experience, a private company will not shell out dollars without making completely sure they are getting exactly what is promised, because if they don’t, they could go out of business or people would get fired.

Let me share an example of what I am talking about. In May 2007, the San Jose Parks Department proposed spending a one time, drop-in-the-bucket amount of $1.6 million on software to manage the scheduling of parks, reserving facilities and family camp. The scheduling and reservations were previously done by hand on paper.

I challenged the expenditure and asked the questions I mentioned above to staff. I wasn’t completely satisfied with their answers, and it appears when it came down to it, they were not satisfied with their answers either. They took on the challenge to investigate my questions further; they went looking to see if money could be saved and if there was a better, more efficient alternative out there.

I am happy to say that staff exceeded my expectations (and I think their own) and brought back a much better proposal in December 2007, which the council accepted.

Staff began by doing a very thorough ROI, justifying the expense by the amount of hours it would save city workers at the community centers. Then, staff chose a web-based solution which is hosted and reduces our upfront and ongoing costs. The amount for this new alternative: $125,000. Yes, indeed.  So, we might have—could have—spent $1.6 million in one-time money for the same solution that we are spending $125,000 on instead.

The $1.6 million proposal is the typical software sale of massive upfront license fees and servers. However, the $125,000 proposal does not require servers or massive upfront dollars. Instead, we spent $125,000 on implementation and training and received a better model.

The city would have owned the software with the $1.6 million dollar option. However, we do not want to own it. Ownership equals expensive and timely upgrades, bug fixes and daily maintenance. Plus, in five years the software and servers would be outdated and we would have to spend more money to update them. Thus the process of spending to keep up would be never ending.

Also important to mention is that the city does not pay any future fees for this purchase. The costs are covered by fees the users pay when they book a room or recreation area. So residents can make reservations from home on the internet vs. driving down to the community center. The vendor of the software company makes money over time based on a portion of individual user fees instead of $1.6 million up front.

My value-add is that I can do my part in trying to save the city money when I can. Every bit of money saved is a good thing in my book. With money saved—especially on technology—we can help pay off the deficit, hire public safety officers and fund traffic calming.

Last week the San Jose City Council discussed the issue of co-payments for retired city workers and their dependents. The recommendation from the city manager was to defer adding co-payments for one year to allow more time for this issue to be researched. Whatever the outcome, the decision will affect 3,000 retired city employees, including dependents, and the city budget.

The city would save $1,121,000 by applying co-payments to retirees and their dependents. This is quite a savings in itself—even more of a savings when you look at the city’s deficit.

Why is the topic of co-pay being discussed?  Well, the fact that applying co-pay could save the city money is a good reason. Also, co-pay makes those who choose to go to the doctor accountable. For example, if one does not have to pay to see a doctor, then the service might be overused since it is free. If the city applied co-pays for each doctor visit and prescription, it would make one think twice about the necessity of a doctor visit.

This is largely due to the effect of “consumerism.” Employers find that having co-payments reduces health insurance premiums; however, by doing so it increases out-of-pocket costs. I have always had a co-payment attached to any and all of my doctor’s appointments. In addition, both my parents, who are retired teachers, make co-payments with their Medicare and out-of-pocket private insurance—no exceptions.

The issue here is what the city has “promised” its retirees and making sure the city keeps its promise. An overhaul of retirement benefits will not happen soon; however, thoughtful ideas should not be ignored.  I think there is an opportunity for the city to keep its promise to retirees and save the city money.

One idea that I shared at the council meeting last week was to apply co-payments with the security of the city reimbursing the retirees and their dependents for them.  For instance, a retiree would go to the doctor and pay a $10 co-pay to see a physician.  The retiree would receive a receipt for the co-pay and mail it in to the city who would reimburse the retiree 90 percent, or in this case $9.

Let’s take, for example, that all 3,000 retirees/dependents go to the doctor four times a year and receive a monthly generic prescription twelve times a year. The twelve prescriptions would be $54 and four visits would be $36, which totals $90. (Original out of pocket for beneficiary is $100.) Therefore, $90 x 3,000 retires=$270,000. You then have the “difference,” or, better said, the “savings” to the city of $851,000 (the difference between $1,121,000 and $270,000).

Now, some of you out there are probably saying that it will cost the city more then $851,000 to manage the reimbursement.  I have an answer for you: No, it won’t.

The city could easily implement a system that allows for reimbursements of this nature. For example, we could spend a few hundred dollars for Quick Books online—a web based system. Then, the city could import, via Excel, the information of all those eligible for reimbursements—retirees and their dependents—into Quick Books. Then, when a retiree/dependent receives their receipt, they can mail it in to the city and the (one) accounts payable person will enter the receipt into the system and mail the reimbursement check. The city auditor could have real-time access to Quick Books to oversee the transactions. Another viable alternative is that we consider contracting with a reimbursement service as is done for State of California employees.

Of course there are variables; however, I think it is important to ask the question: How can we do both? How can we keep our commitments to retirees and save the city money?  The answer does not have to be one or the other.

Saving the city money and keeping promises can be accomplished.  It’s not easy, but those involved, including me, are going to have to try harder to find the middle ground.

As I bid 2007 goodbye and welcome 2008, I think of the many issues that my colleagues and I will be working on in one way or another. Whether balancing the budget, protecting our resources like industrial land or implementing the mayor’s Green Vision, among others, it will take collaboration, perseverance and, above all else, a good sense of humor to keep us all in check.

As I make my list of resolutions for 2008, I have decided to make an attempt to not get “stuck” in the office. If I really want to learn more about San Jose then I will need to spend time in the field and explore the different facets the city has to offer.

San Jose reminds me of a jigsaw puzzle where the neighborhoods are the pieces and we are trying to make them all fit together. Each neighborhood and district has its own history and demographics that are unique.

All ten districts are drawn according to population. Therefore, when the population changes in each district, the boundaries of the districts are then redrawn. For example, does anyone remember when former Mayor Hammer represented District 3?  Well, guess what? Susan hasn’t moved but she now she lives in District 6 because district lines fluctuate.

I love my district because I am familiar with it. I was born and raised here and now own a home here. However, insulation is not something that one should base citywide decisions on. I want to challenge myself to go outside of my comfort zone and explore San Jose and all its wonders.  Therefore, I have decided to tour each district with its councilmember. This is sort of like “shadowing” different occupations within a company like engineering, marketing, sales, operations, etc.

I could continue to go out on my own and investigate each district; however, I would rather look to the “experts”—my fellow elected colleagues—for their expertise regarding the districts they represent. Sure, I have lived in San Jose for 38 years, but so many things have changed and will continue to change that I feel touring the districts will be a good start for 2008.

I am in the process of scheduling a tour with each councilmember. I started my tour with Councilmember Madison Nguyen who represents District 7. It was good for me to listen to Madison explain the different areas, points of interest, etc. in her district. The opportunity to listen to my colleague outside of the office on her turf was a great experience for me. I learned so much more from actually being there than I would have by reading a memo.

Life is good in San Jose. I have a feeling that 2008 is going to be a productive year.

This season is a fun time of year—getting together with friends and family whether it is for Christmas or Hanukah or another celebration—with holiday parties, a lighter work load due to the end of year, shopping for gifts for loved ones and getting extra rest. This is also the time of year for enjoying the plentiful decorations that compliment our city.

San Jose is a destination point for holiday celebrations. Our city is known for its traditions of Christmas in the Park, skating under the palms, and the beautifully decorated Fairmont Hotel. In addition, there are the many neighborhoods that go all out to decorate for the holidays.

I like to take the opportunity to drive around the neighborhoods and look at all the decorations and lights. Some homes are decorated with the intensity of Chevy Chase’s home in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, but without all the chaos. There are many streets in Willow Glen and the Rose Garden where house after house have Christmas trees on their front yards. This has become a tradition over the decades and is growing in other neighborhoods as well.

I would like to share three favorite locations that I enjoy visiting each year:

Cherry Ave/Glen Eyrie Ave:
Five home owners got together and combined forces. Each home has a huge reindeer, including Rudolph. One home has Santa suspended in the air so it looks like he is flying. The sleigh is connected to the reindeers by lights on a string.

Cherry Ave/Robsheal Dr:
An actual live Santa sits on the porch in the evenings for photo ops. The display includes lights on the roof and many scenes on the lawn. This family takes donations for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. With lights on the roof and displays galore they must have a massive PG&E bill. However, be aware that they take their lights down on December 26 every year.

Minnesota Ave /Newport Ave:
This beautiful historic Victorian is lit up each year. The attention to detail with lights is breathtaking.

Please take this opportunity to share homes or neighborhoods that you enjoy visiting.

No, I am not referring to the subprime mortgage crisis and the subsequent foreclosures but rather last week’s three-hour city council study session regarding inclusionary housing. Many comments were expressed on how inclusionary housing should be dispersed. What exactly is “inclusionary housing?” Is it for extremely low income (ELI), or for others? No one can argue that San Jose has not done a good job at building affordable housing, especially when you compare San Jose to other municipalities in the Bay Area.

San Jose has typically moved forward with infill development specifically within RDA areas. Most of the RDA areas are located downtown or in SNI areas. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency puts 20 percent of their funds (tax increment) aside for affordable housing which has built over 10,000 units.

The purpose of the study session was for city staff to clearly define inclusionary housing, how it has been done in other cities and the potential benefits and impacts of a citywide policy.  Many interest groups attended the session, including PACT, Catholic Charities, Home Builders Association, labor groups, the Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club and others.

The overview was a good start with a variety of views expressed from staff, consultants and builders.  Ideas included taxing homeowners every time a home is sold with some type of transfer tax, adding taxes to developers and/or landowners as the cost of building in San Jose for a greater good. There were other ideas of allowing higher densities on housing developments to make it pencil out for developers or allow for preferential zoning when it comes to affordable housing.

There were many thoughtful speakers from the audience who shared personal stories regarding how they spend 50-70 percent of their income on rent alone. Even working full time as a senior cashier at Home Depot still meant sharing a room in a rental unit.

Teachers spoke who sacrifice income for service and are having difficulty with finding affordable housing. Then there were comments from double-income young people who wanted to buy their first home but felt that affordable housing drives up the cost of entry-level market housing.

The council voted unanimously to allow an additional six months of study and outreach on this topic.  Please take advantage of this opportunity to share your opinions and ideas regarding inclusionary housing.

Is there a moral responsibility for all cities to provide affordable housing?

Does San Jose have a larger responsibility then other cities since we have more land?

Should affordable housing be citywide or in certain areas?

Should we target affordable housing to certain groups? Seniors? Occupations like teaching and public safety?

Has San Jose done enough for affordable housing and now it’s time for other cities to step up to the plate?

The San Jose City Council received a North San Jose Task Force update last week.  North San Jose is a grand opportunity for the city. The prospects are endless: industrial land which adds revenue to the city budget, residential properties to allow people to live close to where they work and an abundance of land which can be used for open space and parks.

Most importantly is the enormous economic engine that we have in North San Jose. The fact that San Jose can make money from this area and use that money to pay for neighborhood services throughout the city is a winner. I have worked with many companies in North San Jose—big companies like Cisco, mid-size companies like Pillar Data, and fast growing start-ups like Wichorus. The variety of businesses located there offers us a great future.

I support the North San Jose plan since it is incremental in nature in that we only do a certain amount of housing and then wait for additional industrial intensification and development. With that said, however, blueprints need to be planned a certain way, which is why the taskforce gave the update that included issues like schools, parks, retail development and so on.

Currently, I have some concerns about the density of the project. As we know, each parcel is precious and once we build on the land then open space is gone forever. For example, most of the current housing being proposed is three stories over underground parking.  This design is the norm and not the best use of land. I admit that we did approve one 100-foot-plus building but that has been the exception, not the norm.

I think that taller buildings should be built in North San Jose. I would like to see the City of San Jose and/or the North San Jose Task Force direct the developers to propose taller buildings which would allow for larger parks as I stated in a previous blog. Three stories over parking is the easy choice for a developer, but taller is better and employs more of our well-trained local construction workers.

In addition, I also think that we should investigate building schools at least three stories high there. School districts should build new schools with density in mind instead of schools sprawling across acreage. Therefore, schools could utilize more of the land for organized play, playgrounds, etc. Also, when it comes to new retail centers, housing should be on top. Strip malls are out; housing over retail is in.

San Jose has been built out of mostly single family homes. There are few places in San Jose really appropriate for tall housing and those are in our downtown and North San Jose.

So let’s do density right. If we really want to support transit, jobs and retail, then let’s give it our best shot. Otherwise all we end up with is more traffic since lower densities never let you reach that real turning point that we always talk about for our city. We have taken the first steps with high rises in downtown. Let’s be sure to include those opportunities in North San Jose.

As we know, San Jose is made up of council districts and, as a result, many of us have come to identify with these boundaries and/or borders. I know I have. I was raised in Willow Glen. My parents live in the same home they bought over 30 years ago.  Most of my life experiences centered around my neighborhood; therefore, my view of the world was somewhat sheltered until I became an adult when I moved to downtown San Jose for 10 years and traveled to over 40 countries.

I often refer to my travels as my best learning experience. My travels taught me that the people of the world have many more similarities than differences. Other countries may have different food, geography and languages, but the need for love, a safe place to live and some kind of economic vitality was present in everywhere I visited.

When I look at the council districts in San Jose I compare them to the countries that I went to.  Each district may have subtle differences based on geography, etc. However, for the most part, each district wants the city to provide the services it is expected to provide, such as street maintenance, slowing cars down on neighborhood streets, maintaining parks, code enforcement and public safety. I have chaired the Traffic Calming Meetings in which we had one meeting in each council district. Although the issue was traffic calming, many of the residents would speak to me afterwards about these other essential services.

I was a bit surprised to hear so many people in every district in San Jose sharing the same needs with me. In response, I encouraged them to attend and be part of the Mayors’ Community Budget Process which is open to everyone. It’s important for different groups to share their opinions regarding the finances of City Hall.

For example, Bob Brownstein, former budget director for Mayor Susan Hammer, recently told me that if you add up all property taxes from residential and commercial properties that the city of San Jose receives, it only pays for 60 percent of the annual police budget. Did you catch that? The other 40 percent of the police budget and the money needed for the salaries for the other approximately 5,000 city employees comes from sales tax and utility tax, among others. It is important to have basic information like this to fully appreciate the magnitude of the city’s revenues and costs.

Help put the San Jose puzzle together and become part of the budget process. Put these dates in your BlackBerry:

Mayors Budget Shortfall Advisory Group Thursday Jan 10th from 6:00-9:00 PM at City Hall. For more information go to this link.

Mayors Community Budget for Neighborhood Priorities meeting Saturday January 19 from 9:00 AM 12:00 PM at City Hall.

Strong Neighborhood Initiative areas have top-ten lists for action items in their specific areas.

What should San Jose’s top ten be?

This week I am writing about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Most of the time, sadly, we hear these words of good advice but don’t make the conscious effort to apply healthy choices to our usual routines. Perhaps some of you who are reading this may think that writing about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, one which includes “eating right” and “exercising,” may not have anything to do with city government. I politely disagree.

Rising healthcare costs are a detriment to every employer—public or private. Higher healthcare costs equate to less city services; or, in private sector, it may mean not hiring a new employee.

I recently met with Eric Larsen, President of AFSCME Local 101, regarding wellness programs. Eric shared with me that 15 percent of the employees of the City of San Jose are responsible for 80 percent of the medical costs that the city endures. This percentage shines light on a serious issue.

The issue of wellness and preventative care is not new; however, its implementation is rather slow.  Popping a few pills takes much less time than walking the Guadalupe River Park.  Eating healthy and exercising regularly is called preventative care.

For example, a member of my staff recently suffered a swollen knee which made it difficult for her to walk.  The doctor explained that she had a weak knee and that for her knee to improve she would need to exercise or have surgery.  Her treatment consisted of different exercises specifically for her knees.  Even though it took time, her knee is much better and she is now exercising and avoided costly surgery.

People who maintain a healthy lifestyle pose less of a health risk and thus less of an economic risk to health care providers.  Avoiding extra weight, lowering blood pressure, keeping cholesterol in check, among other things, are positive ways that we can demonstrate that we take our health seriously.  Sadly, many adults do not see a doctor on a regular basis but only when they are already sick or have a problem that needs immediate and more costly attention.

In an effort to bring awareness to the importance of exercise, I am continuing the City Hall Stair Challenge on November 7th at City Hall.  This event was started by Supervisor Ken Yeager.  Ken was a smoker at one point in his life.  He decided to stop smoking and is now an accomplished marathon runner.  Although many people will be participating in the eightee-story Stair Challenge, it is also a symbolic gesture and reminder that any type of physical activity is important.

Recently, the City of San Jose was voted the “8th Best Walking City in the United States.” This great news leads me into an idea that I want to share.  Why not take advantage of San Jose’s “Best Walking” title and incorporate walking tours from City Hall.

I want to challenge you to think about putting together walking routes that start and end at City Hall. They should be different in length and take you to different areas within the downtown.  There are many different options that one could take going in all directions from City Hall that include different neighborhoods, park, landmarks, and retail stores, etc., that are missed by driving in a car.  Let’s get out of the car and start experiencing our surroundings by walking.

The city has over 2,000 employees that work at 200 East Santa Clara Street.  Can you imagine if just half or a quarter walked 3 times a week?

I propose that the City of San Jose take a proactive approach to promoting healthy lifestyles and that we get the insurance carriers involved so that we can attempt to get quality healthcare that costs less.

Something else I learned from Mr. Larsen was that the City of San Jose has been given a $200,000 grant for wellness.  The city has not yet decided how the money should be spent.

I will take this opportunity to share my thoughts about how the money could be spent. For example, I would like to promote web-based tracking that all city employees (including myself) could log into when they walk and/or exercise.  Sharing personal exercising data would not be mandatory; however, the system could be accessed by the healthcare providers and if employees wanted to share their information with others, they could.  The City of San Jose could use this information to attempt to receive lower healthcare rates.  This idea resembles car insurance.  When one has a good driving record, their costs are lower.  Of course, it would be cumulative. However, if the City of San Jose negotiated right, I think it would be pretty hard for the healthcare industry to ignore the nation’s tenth largest city’s proactive approach for promoting healthy lifestyles.

The walking routes (that I mentioned above) could be located on the cities intranet so that city employees could choose to walk different routes during lunch or on their free time. The intranet setup would allow for employees to track their progress.  This set-up could cost well under the $200,000 grant.  Imagine if there were 15 plus walking routes that employees could choose from. The walking routes could be shared with others and possibly used as promotional material for City Hall and the Downtown Association.

And, if there is not the support to spend a portion of the $200,000 for database purposes, there are many FREE websites that allow you to track your fitness goals. Even if we did not create an intranet to store the employees’ fitness information, the city could ask employees if they would like to share their results from the FREE fitness websites so that the city could share this information with the health insurance carriers when it’s time to negotiate, thus showing that San Jose is serious about proactive preventative wellness care.

Do you have a favorite walking route you want to share?  Even though it’s October, the weather still lends itself to walking downtown.

This past Tuesday, the City of San Jose discussed its midyear point, which is where we consider how we should spend or not spend any “extra” money that was not part of the regular budget proposal.  This year approximately $13 million is up for discussion.

Cities have some accuracy in forecasting budgets, but there is always an unpredictable deficit or overage. The final budget dollars are predicated (as best as they can be) on economic actions outside of City Hall. For example, San Jose’s coffers are fed when consumers buy “stuff” at Santana Row, Eastridge, Valley Fair, Oakridge, etc., by creating sales tax.  In addition, developers building a housing development will generate construction and conveyance tax. However, a slowdown in the housing market will affect real estate transactions and a slowdown in our spending habits will limit the amount of tax the city receives.

This midyear money ($13 million) could be spent on anything, including police, parks, etc. Having extra money at a midyear point is positive, since there is always the risk that it could be the other way around.  The city’s economic uncertainty reserve fund has shrunk from $15 million to $4 million over the last few years.

The reason we have $13 million extra is due to the spending cuts which closed the gap on the $16 million deficit for 2007-2008. Also, the city has kept most of its open positions frozen by not hiring anyone.

Unfortunately, San Jose is forecasted to have an even larger $25 million deficit for its next fiscal year (2008-2009), so the need to watch our spending is still a major concern.  In June 2007, we passed a balanced budget and also made a policy to use any extra funds we had midyear in a limited manner to correct errors and reflect updated cost information, and then split the funds 50-50 between street maintenance and future deficit reserve.

Many neighborhood roads are in disrepair and saving money is a wise thing to do; therefore, I support the 50-50 split between roads and reserve funds. Street maintenance and saving money may not deliver a new capital project, but we have to make choices that serve the long-term goals that are best for the whole city, not just individual districts.

I believe our personal upbringing can influence the way we decide to spend or save money. My parents (who grew up during the depression, own their home outright and have paid over $100, 000 for personal medical bills, all on teachers’ salaries) taught me to save money, live below my means and to try to make more money overall. As an adult, I saved to buy a home, drive used cars and have kept weekend employment, even though I was fully employed during the regular work week.

I think the city should do the same by putting money aside in reserves, being prudent in money spent (which includes community-based budget reviews) and allowing land use policies for new retail opportunities in San Jose to capture more sales tax.

Related to this, the city council last week also passed the San Jose Retail Strategy to allow for more areas to construct retail shopping. San Jose as a city has sales tax leakage of 24 percent, based on a Bay Area Economics (BAE) study in 2004. If San Jose were able to cut that leakage in half, where San Jose residents purchased products in San Jose versus neighboring cities, we would add approximately $12 million to city coffers or roughly half of next year’s budget deficit.

Also, based upon the methodology developed by BAE, if our city grows in population as per the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2005 Report, and assuming our sales grow at the rate they have over that last five years, our leakage would increase to 41 percent by 2015.

As San Jose continues to grow, we must be fiscally prudent and prepared. Saving money and balancing budgets should be commonplace. We all know that there is “that one project” that just needs “a couple million.” However, if we don’t commit to saving and spending money on prudent citywide necessities (like public safety officers), then our city will never get out of the rut it’s in.

A few months ago I wrote about the chronic problem of speeding in San Jose. My concern about this problem peaked when two parents were killed recently by a speeding driver while walking on Graystone Lane in Almaden Valley. At that time, I proposed that the City of San Jose review its traffic calming policy in an effort to update it so that it reflects the needs of residents today.  For example, the current policy refers to using NASCOP (a photo radar device) that would take pictures of drivers in their cars as they sped by. Recently, NASCOP was ruled illegal by state courts, leaving a hole in our current policy.

Although I am concerned about speeding that occurs on expressways and freeways, my main concern is speeding on our neighborhood streets. Eighty percent of our streets in San Jose have a speed limit of 25 mile per hour. These 25 mph streets are where people live, kids play, and seniors walk. Speeding is a serious issue that does not discriminate against any neighborhood. Streets in Almaden, Willow Glen, Berryessa, Alum Rock, Northside and others echo the same sentiments: Stop speeding cars on our neighborhood streets.

Speeders affect our quality of life in San Jose and limit our outdoor activities—for example, not being able to allow our children to play in the front yard. In addition, another limitation speeding causes is that many people will not walk in their neighborhood for fear of crossing the street—and I am not referring to Almaden or Capitol Expressways, but 25 mph neighborhood streets which drivers continue to speed on, even where there are crosswalks.

In an effort to address the neighborhood speeding problem, the San Jose City Council unanimously supported Mayor Reed’s memo to update our traffic calming policy (on September 18) which would allow the City of San Jose to have a series of traffic calming meetings throughout the city—one meeting in each district.  I am proud that the mayor recommended that I chair the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Hearings because this issue is important to me.

The meetings will begin on October 18 and run through November 29 (see link below). Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation (DOT); Laura Wells, DOT Division Manager; and Captain Diane Urban and Lieutenant Jeff Smith from the San Jose Police Department are members of the traffic calming meetings. Our group is required to attend the meetings and then from the input received, write a report that will be presented to the city council in December.

The purpose of the meetings is to gather input from all residents in San Jose on what they would like to see us do. Residents can share any ideas, suggestion and concerns. From what has been shared with me thus far it seems that many residents would like to see more enforcement, the appeals process for traffic calming expanded and funding allocated to traffic calming efforts.

In 2001 our city had $5 million budgeted for traffic calming; this last year we had zero.  Our budget should echo the priorities of our residents and I believe after the traffic calming meetings are completed, money to slow cars down on the neighborhood streets will be validated as a priority.

The City of San Jose has not stopped collecting taxes; therefore, we need to prioritize the funds we do have on items and issues that are important to residents. Erik Larsen, President of AFSCME, MEF Local 101, shared with me at a meeting recently that he is looking forward to the traffic calming meetings because they represent a democratic process which encompasses the needs of San Jose residents directly. I agree.

The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Meeting Schedule.

At the evening meeting last Tuesday night (Sept. 25), the San Jose City Council discussed prevailing wage and volunteers and how this relates to city jobs for parks.

I am sure most of you have volunteered your time at some point, whether in your children’s school, as a coach or to pick up trash, etc. Most of you did so because it made you feel good to do something that benefits something larger than yourself.

For example, two weeks ago Terry Reilly and Beverly Rose-Hopper, community leaders and longtime residents of the Rose Garden neighborhood, coordinated a “deadheading” for Rose Garden Park. “Deadheading” is another name for “shearing” which is when you cut a rosebud so that another can emerge while the weather is still warm.

Over 140 volunteers came to shear roses at the San Jose Municipal Rose Garden. Folks came from Los Altos and Morgan Hill, but the majority of volunteers were San Jose residents from Rose Garden, Willow Glen and Almaden.

Deadheading was an annual event; however, because of the lack of volunteerism to help maintain the roses, the Rose Garden Park was put on “probation” from the All American Rose Society due to the lack of maintenance.

I am happy that this year community members organized volunteers and came out to help. I support volunteer events like this and hope to see more in the future. I also support corporations who promote volunteerism for their employees.

At the council meeting, the memo regarding prevailing wage and volunteerism included groups like Our City Forest, Habitat for Humanity and KaBoom as examples of organizations that do good volunteer work. The city also funds some of the groups who provide this volunteer work.

Although I supported the memo as it was written, I noticed that one of our greatest local volunteer resources was left out: corporations. The memo lacked the clarity that I was looking for that would allow a corporation to have its employees spend a day volunteering for something that belonged to the city, like a park for example.  Therefore, I asked for an amendment that would allow people who work for corporations who wanted to volunteer their time be allowed to do so. My amendment was unanimously accepted.

It appears that we want companies to be philanthropists, but the way the memo was written, we would not allow them to donate their human capital for volunteer services. I found this to be unfair.

Large corporations often have team building and/or volunteer days which allow teams or divisions from a company to take a day or half a day off from working at their “regular job” and clean up a park. Companies will pay their employees for a regular work day, but the employees get to lend their time to a volunteer effort. Many Silicon Valley companies are known for lending their time to cleaning and pruning the Guadalupe River Park and Gardens.

There was concern that if large corporations paid their employees for spending one day cleaning up a park, they would somehow take over all the park maintenance. I understand the concern, but it is invalid.

As I shared at the meeting, folks who volunteer their time for a day are not looking to go into the park maintenance business. For example, Junior Achievement sends business people into high school classrooms to supplement curriculum. They reach over 7 million students a year. They do not put teachers out of work. Volunteers do not take away jobs; they supplement much needed park maintenance.

The acreage in parks keeps growing and, because of the structural deficit, we may not have enough gardeners for many years. We should not pass up the opportunity for volunteers, paid or unpaid, to lend a helping hand. City workers and volunteers go together and can accomplish much more by working collaboratively.

Open space is a very important quality-of-life issue. With so much development happening everywhere, we need to remember to include open space in our plans. I attended two outdoor events this week that reminded me about how important open space is, especially where there are trees. Both of the events were located in pristine areas.

It isn’t mandatory that I attend all events, but in these two cases I am glad I went. I was invited to attend “Best in the West,” which was the sixteenth annual SWAT Team competition held at the Sheriff’s firearms range south of Metcalf Power station in Coyote Valley. SWAT Teams from all over California competed in sniper exercises, the jungle course, and shotgun competitions among others. The event was hosted by Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. This area is beautiful, with rolling hillsides, trees, etc.  It is the area that I am thankful that former Mayor Susan Hammer set aside for the urban growth boundary.

I went to support the San Jose police SWAT team called MERGE. They did quite well. As we know, our SWAT team is not utilized on a daily basis (which is a good thing) but is called out for more life threatening crises, like a hostage situation. Watching the SWAT team in action gave me much admiration for the training that our San Jose Police officers do on a continual basis. I fully enjoyed seeing them in action and appreciate their service to our city.

The second event that I attended was the San Jose Water Company’s fifth annual Leadership BBQ.  It was an evening event located in the Los Gatos Mountains off Bear Creek Road and Black Road. The San Jose Water Company owns several acres of land by the Sierra Azul Open Space in the Los Gatos Creek watershed. I felt like I was in Switzerland with the lush greenery and beautiful lake. Unfortunately, San Jose Water Company has discussed the idea of logging 1,002 acres of trees in the watershed to make way for a “future property owner.” I am not sure what the status of this issue is now, but I couldn’t imagine allowing for such a large amount of the trees to be cut. It is a picture-perfect venue that could not be recreated, even if one tried.

These events reminded me of how important it is to preserve and promote our open spaces in order to maintain our quality of life.

Large organizations often wrestle with enterprise software implementations. They are often promised big returns, quick implementations, user friendly programs and then—the real “kicker”—that costs will not exceed a certain given price.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The VTA spent $30 million on finance software and currently is in the process of spending another $3 million for an upgrade which does not include hardware.  The City of San Jose purchased software for the call center and billing system at a cost of $2 million with another $11 million for implementation services, almost $1 million for hardware and another $1.9 million for implementation services this past August. Get a calculator: the total price tag is just short of $16 million.

What can we learn from our millions of dollars in expenditures?  Or, do we want to learn anything?  Or, do we feel more comfortable in justifying costs, since it appears no one is paying much attention anyway?

I understand that technology is not free.  However, I do think that the city can save money when purchasing IT and, further, should stop spending the millions it has so far and take into consideration other forms of technology that could achieve the same goals for less money.

I am a fan of pilot programs.  Pilot programs allow a new “system” to run its course for a specified time to see if the item in question (in this case, new software) will provide the promised benefits.  “Pilots” are done in the private sector all the time.  One would not buy a car without doing a test drive first, so why should San Jose spend millions of dollars on software or consultants before we make sure the services will work as promised.

When it comes to a proposed technology pilot, I would recommend that we choose 2-3 vendors to run use cases. This way we have actual experience to judge what each vendor does well and what it does not do well. Even if we chose to do a pilot with one vendor, I think we would be better prepared to know what to ask for from other vendors. This process may take a little longer; however, it allows the city to make an informed decision based on actual use rather than hypothetical power point slides.  If the vendor does not want to do a pilot program, then that is a telling sign and I would recommend that they be dropped from the list.

Currently, the city purchases software which, in this case, equates to the city taking on the responsibility of handling total costs of ownership like IT-burdened labor rates, software bugs, patches and upgrades. In addition to the software, we also take care of the servers by configuring, maintaining, and backing up the servers where the software resides.  Servers are expensive in the start-up and ongoing costs. In my opinion, maintaining servers are also a burden because they use a tremendous amount of energy which creates greenhouse gases and, in addition, we need a special facility to store the servers that is temperature controlled.

Personally, I believe we should outsource enterprise software at City Hall and subscribe to software via the web as a service. Software as a service would relieve us of the maintenance costs, hardware costs and energy-hogging servers. Plus, if the software service does not work as promised, the cost to switch is minimal. Millions of Americans log into financial software via a web browser every day to manage their finances without having any software or servers at their home or work.

I am aware that change takes little steps.  I just hope that San Jose begins to take those little steps that will save us money and make us more environmentally friendly.  Millions overspent on software that does not deliver as promised means less for parks, streets and public safety.

Grocery stores are an important element of our neighborhoods. They remind me of libraries and parks: a place that is usually open and serves everyone. Some of my fondest memories of childhood include grocery stores—whether it was cooling down on a hot day in the freezer section or spending my paper route money on snacks. Of course, those were the days when one dollar could get a kid four candy bars (which led to my 38-inch waist in elementary school!).

Unfortunately, it appears that many of the neighborhoods in San Jose are having problems getting grocery stores to locate within their environs. From Willow Glen to Berryessa, from Sherman Oaks to downtown, residents have few or no choices. A trend that I am fearful of is that grocery stores are often replaced by drug or discount stores that do not have a produce section or meat department that shoppers tend to depend on.

The grocery industry is being challenged on a macroeconomic level and stores are closing all over the United States. Just last week, Lunardi’s in Evergreen closed its doors, leaving the community at a loss. In the case of Lunardi’s, unlike Safeway, they are a small regional player, but they still must operate under the same challenging business model. Grocery stores have low single-digit profits overall as they are distributors of products grown or manufactured by someone else. Margins are low in the distribution business, plus there are all of the other usual business costs like rent, utilities (24/7 freezers for example), labor and growing medical costs, etc. Higher margins exist on alcohol and value added services like a deli or bakery. Such value added services allow a grocery store like Zanotto’s to stay open.

As we know, former “grocery giants” like Alpha Beta, Albertsons, Lucky’s etc. have fallen to the new “big box” stores like Costco and Wal-Mart—with their discount prices and sophisticated supply chains—or to “specialty” stores like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, with their unique products. Therefore, traditional grocers are being squeezed by both ends of the market with little room to move.

When I was a child, my parents would shop at the local grocery store. 90 percent of the family food budget was spent at a traditional grocery store. My parents did not have the many choices that we have today. However, now my father, a retired teacher, shops all over. He may visit Whole Foods, Safeway, Trader Joe’s, Mi Rancho and, of course, La Villa within just one week. Nowadays, the family food budget is split among various retail choices, thus compounding the problem of the traditional grocery store.

This leads me to ask: What can we do to promote our local grocery stores so that they stay open? How do we locate them in our neighborhoods? Certainly cities can control zoning and the permit process. Here in San Jose, we have used Redevelopment monies for Trader Joe’s at the Market Center, Whole Foods on The Alameda and Zanotto’s downtown.

One thing we all can do today is support our local grocery stores and shop in San Jose.