Last week I visited the Rules and Open Government Committee which sets the agenda for upcoming Council meetings. The Rules Committee includes Mayor Reed, three councilmembers, the City Attorney, City Manager and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The purpose of my visit was that two memos that I wrote were going to be heard.

The first memo was to request that the city update it’s travel policy by using technology. I asked that the “travel request” form include a question asking if the proposed trip could be done via a “web meeting.” And if not, why not?

Web meetings are used by organizations of all sizes, both public and private—it’s not a new concept. Web meetings will not replace all travel, but I suggest that they be considered as a viable alternative. Reducing travel will save money and help by lowering CO2 emissions. San Jose companies like Webex and Adobe offer this technology for as low as $39-$59 a month and it requires zero infrastructure investment as all you need is an internet connection and web browser.

The recent audit of the Retirement Board found waste and abuse on travel expenses. I am not sure why the audit didn’t include everyone, however, since we found problems with 14 travelers. Just imagine what we might have found if we actually did an audit for the other people that traveled last year for $1.3 million.

For example, a few months ago, a city department director shared with me that they were flying two employees to Minnesota to visit with a company regarding a software product. I suggested that perhaps they consider web conferencing. The director took my advice and instead did a two-hour web meeting which accomplished the same goals.  So the city saved money on airfare, transportation, lodging and food. Wasn’t this better for the city employees who did not have to leave their family and go through the hassles of travel? Of course if the intention was to get a mini-vacation, then web meetings won’t help that.

At the Rules Committee, it was shared that my memo regarding web-conferencing was violating city policy. The City Charter section 411 states that the council is not to “interfere with administrative matters.” That makes sense, but I do not view a public memo—whether authored by me or any of my colleagues—as “interference,” but instead offering an idea that saves the city money and is good for the environment.

One reason a councilmember is elected is to bring ideas to the council for discussion and consideration. Consequently, I suggested web meetings at a study session on the Green Vision back on Feb. 1. However, no movement after seven months was yet another reason to write a memo and save the city money.

The other memo was asking that affordable housing be held accountable for paying park fees and/or dedicating land. I also asked that a temporary moratorium be placed on affordable housing until we change the policy. Currently, San Jose exempts affordable housing developments from paying park fees or donating land. However, market rate housing developments are required to pay park fees or donate land.

San Jose has a history of cramming too much housing together without enough open space. As a result, we have problematic neighborhoods that turn into SNI’s (Strong Neighborhood Initiatives). SNI’s are where we spend your RDA tax dollars ($60 Million) to fix problems, like providing parks in park-deficient areas. The 19 SNI’s come up with their wish lists, and in almost every SNI they want parks. In fact only two of the 19 asked for more affordable housing. So why keep making the sames mistakes over and over again?

Prior to writing my memo I met with the housing, parks, and planning departments and the RDA where I asked a question to housing. Would you choose 4,000 units of affordable housing without parks OR 3,500 units of affordable housing with parks? The housing director chose all housing and no parks. I expected that answer, as housing does not want to talk themselves out of a job. However, I don’t believe that San Jose residents would choose that answer.

The audience at the Rules Committee was filled with affordable housing advocates (from as far away as Santa Cruz), home developers, real estate brokers, business interests and one resident. That resident spoke about her experience living in a District 3 neighborhood with affordable housing developments surrounding her existing neighborhood without any open space for the new residents.
I believe we can do both affordable housing and parks. I support affordable housing communities—not housing at any cost. Again it is important that councilmembers bring policy ideas to the public so they can be discussed at public meetings.

I was pleased that the Rules Committee asked staff to do a workload assessment to better gauge the importance of the affordable housing/parks question. Since land use is a core service of city government, I am not sure what other items would have more importance than finding productive ways to provide parks for affordable housing in our city. After all, if we stick to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) numbers, San Jose is supposed to create over 20,000 affordable housing units. Although ABAG has no legal authority over San Jose’s housing development, these are the numbers that San Jose chooses to use instead of creating it’s own policy of what is good for San Jose.

In the meantime, bake some muffins to welcome your new neighbors. There is more affordable housing coming your way with no open space. So get ready to share your existing park with more and more residents.