Do you ever wonder what it takes to move a bus stop?  Especially those that are located at busy intersections or located right in front of retail establishments? Well, if you have, you are not alone.

My council office gets requests to move bus stops on occasion. Sometimes the request is moving a bus stop that has been in the same location for 30 years, after a the new adjacent homeowner wants it moved. Other times, the request involves genuine safety concerns with bus stops being to close to the intersection.

For example, at the corner of Willow/Meridian, a bus will make a turn onto Willow and then stop, which backs up traffic into the intersection creating gridlock, or causes cars to swerve around the bus blindly.

The City of San Jose does not have direct authority over the location of bus stops, that’s Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) domain.  VTA folks are paid with your tax dollars however.

Let me tell you a story of VTA’s refusal to move a bus stop on The Alameda, although there is written documentation from November 10, 2004 that shows that they agreed to move the bus stop. As you might sense, a lack of common sense.

Back in 2004, during the planning review process for the new Longs Drugs store on the Alameda, a VTA representative signed off on documents that VTA would relocate their bus stop that is located in front of Longs Drugs and put it one block west on The Alameda.  Longs needs to have their delivery trucks deliver in front of the store and they are not able to do so with the bus stop there. This satisfied the neighbors who wanted to prohibit loading on Rhodes Court, a residential street, and it satisfied the City Planners who didn’t want to disrupt the existing neighborhood.  The new loading zone and relocated bus stop were clearly drawn on the plans for the project and discussed during the public review process.

It is the City’s responsibility to send the plans to other agencies, including the VTA, for their review and comment.  The communication between the City Staff and VTA Staff resulted in signed document with the VTA saying in writing that they supported the relocation of the bus stop.

After the planning permit approval, Long’s proceeded through the Public Improvement Plan review with the City’s Public Works Department and Caltrans (since The Alameda is a state highway).  The Public Improvement Plans include detailed engineering drawings of all the street improvements, including the new bus stop and the new loading zoning markings and signs.  The improvement plans showed the new bus stop being designed and built to VTA standards.

In 2005, Long’s then proceeded to spend over $20,000 to construct the new bus stop during the construction of the new store.  Once construction was complete, as required, Long’s contractor notified the VTA that it was time to actually relocate the bus stop.  However, VTA notified Long’s that they would not authorize moving the bus stop afterall.

As a result, the Long’s store has no authorized loading area adjacent to the store as designed. The nearest loading zone is on Rhodes Court, the neighborhood street that is perpendicular to The Alameda. Therefore, delivery people must move products across Rhodes Court and up and down two ADA ramps to get to the delivery doors that are in the front of the store facing The Alameda.  The lack of a convenient loading zone means that delivery trucks will park on Rhodes Court or will use limited customer parking in the parking lot which requires wheeling deliveries through the store aisles past customers to get to the storage area.
These situations discourage investment in the City and result in creating poor relationships with the community. The City wants new retail services in Neighborhood Business Districts because they add character to neighborhoods, provide some jobs which include small business opportunities and sales tax.  But, when taxpayer-funded agencies don’t keep their commitments, then potential businesses ask themselves why they are investing and doing business in this community.

Long’s followed all the rules.  They did everything the neighborhood, the City and the VTA wanted. They spent over $20k installing the bus stop and designed and built the store with the delivery area facing the Alameda. They wanted to be good neighbors and fit in while being an asset for the nearby community.  It is very disheartening to see all this good work and what they get is a slap in a face.

If VTA wants to play fair, perhaps they should refund Longs their money spent building the new bus stop.  To date, VTA has never offered to refund the cost to Longs and the bus stop has not moved.

The 2nd Annual Rose, White and Blue Parade put on by the Alameda Business Association (ABA) with assistance from the Redevelopment Agency, was a fun-filled day for everyone on Saturday, July 4.

In 1896, The Alameda (one of San Jose’s historical streets, dubbed the “Beautiful Way”) was home to the Carnival of Roses, which continued with The Fiesta de Las Rosas Parade in the ‘20s. At that time, it was second to only Pasadena in it’s size. However, this tradition like the trolley car that used to roll down The Alameda and the historic Hanchett Park Pillars faded away.

Through the motivation of the ABA, the parade was reborn last year, with former San Jose mayors Susan Hammer and Janet Gray Hayes as the grand marshals. Although last year marked the parade’s first year since the ‘20s, the turnout was great with neighbors enjoying the show from their front yards while others rode their decorated bikes, scooters and drove their cars in the parade.

This year, the parade and festival that followed experienced increased participation, including groups like the Rose Garden volunteers, Trace Elementary school, St. Martin’s Brownie Troop, vintage car-owners and a «dancing bungalow homes» troupe, among many others. Even Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and Mayor Reed rode in the parade.

More people lined the route this year, which included areas from West San Carlos winding through tree lined streets down to The Alameda. Nearly every house had a crowd outside made up of neighbors and residents from all over San Jose. There were kids selling lemonade and people enjoying food and drinks on their front yards. Houses and people were decorated with American flags for our nation’s birthday. The parade was genuine Americana.

Events like this do not happen by themselves nor do they happen overnight. They happen with volunteers who are dedicated to the vision and goal, which in this case is ABA. I am very proud of the ABA for organizing this event to remind us of our past and to appreciate the future opportunities.

Also on Saturday, there was an unveiling of the the first recreated historical pillar on The Alameda at Hanchett (the corner marked by Pete’s Coffee & Rosie’s Pizza). Last year, I requested funding for this project, fondly known now as “the Pillar Project,” from the RDA; it’s similar to what was done on Jackson Street in Japantown. I think that historic heritage is important, especially when it caters to the entire community, including those who come to visit our historic areas. The goal is to build one pilot pillar so that community members see what it could be like to restore all of the original pillars over time. The residents, led by Lori Bird, formed a nonprofit to raise money. This year, they held a successful historical house tour to bring awareness to their efforts and took a large step in their fundraising goals. Another historic home tour is planned for May 2010.

I believe that all neighborhoods have uniqueness and that giving neighborhoods a sense of place by a marquee of some type adds to community awareness. Projects like this, where some city money is used to jump start the process with the community taking on the majority of the fundraising and organization, represent healthy partnerships that add identity and beauty to our City. I hope we see more of these types of partnerships.

When I ran for city council I was asked many times, “What are you going to do about the schools?” Unlike Chicago or New York, where the care of the schools falls under city government, San Jose has multiple school districts that have separate elected officials that are responsible for the care of the schools, making the City of San Jose and the school districts completely separate.

There are programs that the city may provide for the schools, such as the 50-year crossing guard program, but the actual policy making responsibility lies with the school districts’ own elected boards, and the massive state education code.

Although the City and the school districts are separate entities, I believe that high-quality public schools equate to a more livable city. If kids are learning and active in a positive environment, then we all benefit. I have a unique experience in representing the area where I attended the public schools while growing up, the San Jose Unified School District. I enjoy attending and lending my support to school events.

I have attended numerous fundraisers at nearly every school in my district over the past two years. In addition, I have read books to elementary school students, attended school performing arts and sports events, assisted with student honor awards, participated in safe-routes-to-school programs, participated in recruitment for incoming kindergarten, 6th grade and freshmen students by encouraging then to select their local public schools, and on occasion, spoken to high school government classes.

This past week, I attended the opening of the new Theater Arts building at Trace Elementary. I found myself saying, “well when I was a kid we only had portable classrooms.” The new building is beautiful and gives a great sense of pride to teachers, parents, students and the neighborhood.

Bond projects have built grand public facilities that are pleasing to the eye, and in the case of Trace, will provide a gathering area for residents to watch music and theater performed on an outside stage. A few months ago, I attended the opening of the new science building at Lincoln High. The building is impressive as it reminded me more of a community college then a high school with its grandeur. I also attended Freshman Welcome Night at Willow Glen High School and Booksin Family Fun Night last week. These events give parents an opportunity to meet the school administration and parent groups.

Parent Teacher Associations (PTA’s) are vital to the success of our schools. They raise money and do other tangible things. As a person who is not married and without children, it is hard for me to fathom how PTA parents work full time jobs, raise their kids and still have time to organize and put together events. I am in awe of the incredible work ethic I have witnessed within the PTA circles. My respect goes out to every PTA parent.

Do you have any comments about the role city government and/or elected city officials role in regards to our public schools?

In other business: My Budget Survey is still open but will be closing this week. More than 500 residents have taken the time to complete all 100 questions.

• 42 percent of the respondents have lived in San Jose for over 30 years.
• 64 percent of the respondents were between the ages of 41 and 64.
• 62 percent responded no to spending city budget reserves to avoid service reductions.
• 67 percent responded no to raising sales tax.
• 94 percent thought the recession was not over

The responses to the other 95 questions will be shared next week. Here is the survey link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=bRmrEkMutPaRNDzl3Q3GRQ_3d_3d

The 2009-2010 budget passed with full support of the Council in part by draining the City’s reserves (the economic uncertainty reserve has only enough funds to cover 1.5 days of payroll now) and by the negotiated/voluntary salary freezes by two unions CAMP and MEF (thank you).

In the case of MEF the money saved can be used to avoid layoffs and retain library hours. This tradeoff is good for residents and good for those who would have been laid off, since they would face a job market that has the highest unemployment rate since 1941.

No structural changes were made by the Council that would lower the structural deficit over time. Next year’s budget will be even more of a challenge and next month we might have another budget shortfall since the State is considering raiding local coffers.

I find it interesting that the Legislature gets elected by city residents but then they choose to take citiies’ money. This resembles a bully who takes kids lunch money on the playground.

The big story last week was that the council spent two plus hours talking about the Operating Engineers Union (OE3), last best and final offer in open session. Prior to the council meeting we had spent hour upon hour in closed session discussing the 35 negotiation points starting back in December 2008.

After 17 meetings over six months between the union and city negotiators an agreement could not be reached—on not even one of the 35 negotiation items could the city and the union agree. So, with the budget deadline, and realizing that dollars saved on a zero salary increase could keep the park rangers employed, the Council made a last and final best offer on just four out of the 35 negotiation issues. The words shared between the city and the union in the public public relations war were not necessarily pleasant. All of this because there is zero sunshine on labor negotiations.

As I mentioned in a prior post, I believe labor negotiations should be conducted as public meetings or at the very least, videotaped to be shown at a later date. Since so much time gets wasted in the back-and-forth of «he-said» and «she said»—this does not add value in fixing issues for San Jose residents but rather is a time-consuming and hair- pulling frustration. The back-and-forth is reminiscent of playground rumors that get blown out of proportion.

There are strong feelings out there right now on the labor side of being upset with city management and in turn the council. Instead of wasting valuable time listening to the rants of city staff and the unions, we need to make labor negotiations public and we need to do it now.