Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

Education mayor? San Jose should focus on city responsibilities

By

Recently much has been said about the next San Jose mayor becoming an “Education Mayor.” It is easy to make public statements that play upon parents with school-age children during an election year, but the fact remains that the city has absolutely no control over public schools. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Section 1400 of the San Jose city charter lays out clearly that the city of San Jose is a separate entity, and that public schools govern themselves. This is different from the cities of Chicago and New York, where the mayor does oversee the school system.

Residents of San Jose, however, have always had a say in their public schools. They elect local school board trustees who directly govern their respective school districts, and I have the utmost confidence that the trustees not only do the job that is expected of them, but do it well.

Residents also have the opportunity to financially augment their neighborhood schools, and have done so with the passage of a plethora of school bonds and parcel taxes. And keep in mind that public schools already receive the lion’s share of property tax remittances (five times the rate the city of San Jose receives).

I care about our schools and have a personal connection to this issue, as I actually attended San Jose K-12 public schools. My teachers were hired by the school district, not the city. Textbooks were state approved, and discipline was handled by principals, not the police. Many of my classmates went directly to UC and CSU colleges.

What they had in common was personal motivation, excellent preparation, and in many cases, parental involvement — not the interference of the city’s mayor.

I had many wonderful teachers while I was a student, and both of my parents were public educators themselves. Perhaps either or both of these reasons contributed to my motivation to enter the teaching field. I obtained my teaching credential at San Jose State University, and completed my classroom instruction in San Jose public schools.

Some of my former students now pursue professional careers in fields such as dentistry, engineering, business and education. Good things do, indeed, happen in San Jose public schools, and I have witnessed much of this goodness first hand.

Often times, governmental organizations interject themselves into issues that are not within their jurisdiction, in an attempt to be all things to all people.

This may take the form of a city or county debating foreign policy, or Sacramento meddling in local affairs. In a similar fashion, while an English teacher could theoretically teach mathematics, one could easily argue that students are better served by an instructor who is showcasing his or her core competency.

It is my belief that we as a city should focus on what is actually under our legitimate and direct control. Whoever the next mayor is, he or she will have major challenges in dealing with issues that are directly under the domain of the city, such as law enforcement, roads, land use and budgeting.

What we do not need right now is further distraction from providing core city services by the efforts of some to muscle our way into other levels of government. The simple fact is there is not enough money to cover the current city obligations, never mind take on new responsibilities that are not in the city charter.

‘No’ Vote was an effort to save millions for San Jose

By

The front-page article about “reuse” staffing a community centers in the Dec 13 issue of the The Resident, indicated that I was the only vote opposed to the return of the facilities being run by the city.

However, the article did not explain the cost savings we are walking away from by doing this, and thus why I voted no.

“Reuse” has allowed the city of San Jose to keep community centers open to the public by partnering with nonprofits that provide services onsite. Partnering with organizations such as the Boys & Girls club saves the city approximately $5 million a year. This cost savings can be allocated to city services like police and libraries. If we go back to business as usual, with city staff running these centers and removing the nonprofits, it would require a reduction in spending by approximately $5 million from core city services.

The City Council is constantly faced with policy decisions that have a future and direct impact on the budget. I consistently vote in a manner that saves money, thus allowing the opportunity to prioritize police, since law enforcement services cannot be duplicated by a nonprofit.

Arresting Developments

By

A recent discussion within our community has focused on building even more single-family homes in areas that are reserved for jobs or fall outside of the urban service area. The proposal would allow those who convert industrial land to pay a fee per housing unit created. Those dollars would then be used to purchase open space in Coyote Valley.

Although this idea may be worthy of discussion in theory, my concern is that such land use decisions would ultimately hurt San Jose’s economy.

Here are my views on land use in San Jose:

1. Growing San Jose beyond its current boundaries, solely focused on housing, is BAD. It would cost more money to extend sewers, road infrastructure and police services to cover a larger area.

2. Building single-family homes on large pieces of land is not ideal for any city, in terms of revenue generation. Single-family homes not only use up more land, but they also fail to generate significant tax and fee revenue payable to the city. By comparison, high-density market rate development optimizes land use and generates increased tax and fee revenue for our city, which then can be utilized to pay for services.

3. San Jose has ample land already zoned for housing, and some 20,000 housing units that have already been approved but not yet built. There is no need to rezone more land in the short term, while the pipeline of pre-approved projects is still full. Scarcity will help San Jose get the type of mixed-use developments that people relish in other cities, like Portland, Seattle and Vancouver.

4. Approving housing that is exempted from property tax is short sighted, since we do not pay city employees with goodwill. Instead, we pay them with tax revenue. I have consistently voted against these types of developments—ongoing revenue is needed to cover the additional city services residents demand.

Ultimately, the future of our city rests on the will of San Jose voters. If voters choose political representatives that later vote to allow housing build-outs in Coyote Valley, South Almaden Valley Reserve and other industrial zoned parcels, then those same voters must be willing to accept fewer city services.  Voters need to keep this connection in mind at the ballot box. How San Jose grows has a direct effect on revenues and services.

I understand that, as a candidate for mayor in 2014, some of my positions on land use may put me at a fundraising disadvantage, in terms of garnering contributions from certain housing developers. Sometimes my goals as a city representative are in alignment with those of the development community, and other times they are not. My tenure on the City Council has not been about their interests, but rather with the objective of creating a better overall city.

There are some development projects that I am happy to support, because they are fiscally pragmatic and are located in strategic locations. For example, I am supporting a new mixed-use development that is on The Alameda, next to the Whole Foods Market currently under construction. This development will have 98 units of housing, located above 22,000 square feet of retail and office, all on one compact acre. This location is ideal, because it lies within the existing infrastructure of our city, and is walking distance to retail, public transportation and our downtown.

Any policy decisions that directly affect land use issues need to take a more long-term vision in scope. Ultimately, my hope is that San Joseans will realize that, through land use policy, we DO have control and CAN make our city better. Alternatively, we can continue to go down the same ineffective path and repeat the mistakes of the past. I know I am not alone in thinking that San Jose deserves better.

Santa Clara County policy puts residents at risk

By

The current county policy, which shields illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, defies common sense. When the federal government wishes to detain and potentially deport violent criminals, local government should not stand in the way. Rather than protecting violent criminals, we should focus on preventing heinous crimes such as the tragic murder of Martha Casillas (Mother of two) who was viciously stabbed to death by a foreign national. We should work with our federal counterparts in anyway necessary to ensure the safety of our residents first and foremost.

Environmental Innovation Center a Risky Project from Day One

By

The San Jose Environmental Innovation Center (EIC) has been in the news a lot recently, due to the fact that it is $1.6 million over budget and six months behind schedule. This project was always risky, as it utilized complicated tax credits that expose the general fund—the guarantor of the project—to future risk.

During my tenure as a San Jose councilmember, I have had to deal with numerous general fund debt obligation issues. Some of these projects end up totaling millions of dollars each year, for expenses related to golf courses, the Hayes Mansion and similar ventures that reduce available funds for other core city services. So, being in the position to avoid future financial risk, why would I support yet another project such as the EIC, which could imperil our general fund? When this issue came to the council, I voted “no” several times, where was I often the only “no” vote. When there is a single dissenting vote, this automatically means that any substitute motion would die for a lack of a second. This is true in all cases.

The first time I voted against the project was on May 17, 2011, when I was the only “no” vote. This is important, because the project could have technically been stopped that day, thus avoiding the current situation. The next time I voted against this project was on Oct. 25, 2011, when once again I was the only “no” vote. On Jan. 10, 2012, the item returned to the council, and this time I was joined by my colleagues Xavier Campos, Kansen Chu and Ash Kalra in voting “no.” However, the 7-4 vote was still not enough to stop the project and place the general fund at risk. The item returned to council twice more on Oct. 2, 2012, and April 30 of this year, and in both of these instances, I was once again the only “no” vote.

In each of these prior decisions, councilmembers were allowed to vote unencumbered by legal limitations. However, on May 31, 2011, the council was constrained by the city charter. The charter requires the council to accept the lowest cost bid for public works projects. This requirement—accepting the lowest cost bid—has been reaffirmed by voters of San Jose in eight municipal elections.

Whether or not an individual councilmember supports a particular project, the council must accept the lowest bid. If the lowest cost bid is not accepted, it opens the door for a lawsuit from the winning contractor, as the city would not be following the process laid out in the city charter.

The winning contractor had its attorney speak at the May 31, 2011 council meeting, and he noted that nothing was done improperly in the bid. The council must select the lowest bid, he reasoned. The city attorney and public works director both reaffirmed this opinion on lowest responsible bids. After listening to my colleagues speak at length on the issue, I knew that this was going to pass—even the head of the building trades union spoke in favor of accepting the lowest bid.

A substitute motion to reject all bids would have had zero support since the tax credits were expiring and the project would be dead. The overwhelming majority of the council wanted to move forward with this project. It stands to reason then, that this is exactly what the council did that day. The die had already been cast on moving forward with the project in a prior vote, and now the council was simply following the legal mandate laid out it in the charter.

Going forward, the council may want to consider asking voters to amend the charter in a way that allows for more flexibility during the bid review process. This may be difficult, however, as many voters feel that the lowest bid is always the best bid, and this stipulation avoids awarding contracts to friends, relatives and major campaign donors. Where the council really has discretion, in my opinion, is during the deliberation phase of the project, when we are debating whether or not to build something at all. This is where I respectfully disagreed.

Shakespeare San Jose a Great Success

By

For some time now, I have wanted to see Shakespeare performed outdoors in San Jose. I have had the opportunity to see outdoor Shakespeare performances as far away as Ashland, Ore., and as close by as Los Gatos, Santa Cruz and Saratoga. In every instance, it was a great time. Each time I thought this type of event would be nice for San Jose, and I pictured a specific location. Willow Street’s Frank Bramhall Park in Willow Glen has an amphitheater that hosted events back in the1970’s, but it has gone largely unutilized in subsequent decades.

Two years ago, I approached the talented group Shady Shakespeare Theatre Company and asked staff to walk through Bramhall Park with me to see if they would consider performing at the venue. At first glance, it was viewed as less desirable, due to the fact that the grass was dead in the summer, and the amphitheater had electrical connections that no longer functioned and sub-optimal lighting. Despite these less than ideal circumstances, we agreed to keep in touch.

In order to improve the venue, the city of San Jose parks department worked to enhance the space by installing a sprinkler system that would allow for healthier grass in the summer. This improvement would not only benefit event-goers by providing a more comfortable “cushion” to enjoy performances, but it would also enhance the space for general everyday recreational activities, such as laying down to read a book or enjoying a picnic lunch. The following year, the electrical connection was repaired, and the amphitheater lighting system was vastly improved.

With these modifications, the need to rent lights and noisy generators that power them was eliminated, and the ability to enjoy a quiet and odor-free outdoor theater experience was born.  It is important to note that all of these improvements were made with capital parks funds that are dedicated to such endeavors.

Even with these improvements, there was an inherent risk that no one would show up. Outdoor, evening performances of Shakespeare had not been done before in San Jose, and the concern—shared both by the city of San Jose and the theater group—was that these improvements may have been done all for naught. But lo and behold, hear ye, hear ye, on opening night there was an audience of well over 400 patrons!

People of all ages and demographics, and nearly every breed of well-behaved dog, enjoyed picnics, sipped wine and shared their enthusiasm for Shady Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” against a backdrop of towering redwood trees in San Jose’s only natural grass amphitheater, all of which made for a picture perfect event. The number of attendees far exceeded our expectations, and the final tally of 4,000-plus people was more than twice the pre-performance estimate of around 2,000. With such a fantastic turnout, it is very likely that this event will become a tradition in San Jose, and our hope is that Shady Shakespeare will return to perform in this park for many years to come.

Successful endeavors are almost always characterized by careful and diligent coordination of many groups of people, and this event was no exception. A special thanks goes to the PRNS staff that worked to bring this cultural experience to San Jose. Appreciation is also due to the Public Works department for the infrastructural improvements that were made on the amphitheater. Financial contributions from the following sponsors allowed this series to be free to the public: The Office of Cultural Affairs gave $3,800 from a competitive art grant (funded by the hotel tax), and $5,000 came from semiconductor capital equipment maker Applied Materials.  Also, special thanks to the patrons themselves who were willing to donate during and after each performance.

And finally, a big THANK YOU to Shady Shakespeare for taking a chance on San Jose. All in all, the inaugural series of Shakespeare in Bramhall Park turned out to be a magnificent tale, indeed.