Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

Birds, Dogs and Debt! Oh My!

By

 

All Nippon Airways will now provide a new direct flight from Mineta San Jose International Airport to Tokyo.

All Nippon Airways (ANA) hosted a reception last week in honor of a new direct flight from San Jose to Tokyo. The inaugural flight is scheduled for Jan. 11, 2013. ANA will also offer connecting flights to 22 cities worldwide. This is good news for SJC, because the new connection will create a positive economic ripple effect for San Jose and the region at large. A special thank you goes out to all those who advocated for a new direct connection to Asia.

While attending the event, I looked at the large ANA model of the 200-seat Boeing 787, and I thought about the council meeting from the previous day. The result of the discussion was to allow airport staff to shoot birds if they interfere with aircraft. When the time came to vote on this matter, one of my council colleagues expressed genuine concern and continued to question the best course of action.

It is very dangerous for birds to get caught in an airplane engine. Not only would such a scenario be fatal to the bird, but it could also cause the airplane to malfunction and potentially lead to a deadly crash. During council discussion, concerns were shared about the shooting of birds in vain and the net impact of such action as part of the grand bargain for airport safety.

It was also suggested that guns should be utilized only as a last resort, and that perhaps dogs could instead be deployed to scare away the birds. The suggestion of dogs being utilized in this capacity raised a whole new set of concerns for me, due to the potential cost and lack of practicality associated with implementing such a program.

I am a self-professed animal lover, and yet I still thought it was odd that a relatively lengthy council discussion would contemplate the life value of a bird over the potential death of 200 passengers on a plane. Human safety comes first in my book, plain and simple, end of discussion.

In the same meeting, the council reviewed the Comprehensive Annual Debt Report, which documents the total debt for the city of San Jose, currently a whopping $5.2 billion. This figure does not include unfunded liabilities for pension and health care, which would add an additional $3.6 billion to the total. At the Federal level, the national debt does not include unfunded liabilities like Social Security or Medicare. When unfunded liabilities are included, the National Debt catapults from $16 trillion to $70 trillion.

Once the meeting concluded, what struck me most was that the council discussion on the $5.2 billion debt was 15 minutes long, while the discussion on birds at the airport was 12 minutes in duration. Going forward, I am hopeful that the council will invest more time on the debt issue and, dare I say, less time discussing the fate of a flock of birds. Too bad we can’t shoot the debt.

There are many different forms of debt, but suffice it to say, we are tapped out. Onerous debt payments and servicing obligations take money away from the general fund, and therefore leave us with less money to pay for city services today. Whether we are looking into training a special service canine unit for avian abatement, or we are paying interest on our municipal debt, the money has to come from somewhere. This is why I take the role of a fiscal pragmatist seriously and advocate investing more time and effort on plausible solutions to reduce our municipal debt.

Park in the Sky or Pie in the Sky?

By

Planning departments across the USA commonly create “specific plans” and/or “master plans” for certain streets and neighborhoods within a city. San Jose, not unlike other cities, has many of these same plans.

These plans tend to have colorful illustrations depicting what life in the future would be like, and almost always seem to be utopian in nature: happy residents walking with their animal companions in tow, people on bikes, massive parks that melt into the horizon, cafes filled with laughing people laughing, and my favorite … children with balloons.

Most of the time these plans are put together with the best of intentions, but they end up sitting on a shelf due to their inherent lack of practicality or feasibility. For example, many of these plans depict large parks that have no funding source—this is deceptive. If a plan calls for a large park, then many market rate housing units are required to fund that park. (Only market-rate housing, not affordable housing, pays 100 percent of park fees.) In one instance in my district, Cahill Park could have been larger. However, the City Council prior to my tenure approved a housing development that was less dense, and therefore a smaller park resulted.

Sometimes staff solicits ideas from the community, and in doing so propagates a false hope that can only exist in an alternative universe separate from our fiscal reality. For example, one idea involved building a park “in the sky” over the 280 freeway, which would have ended up costing approximately $100 million. This idea should have been eliminated instantly, due to the prohibitive cost. Instead, it was kept alive by the somewhat absurd notion that San Jose voters may someday tax themselves to support a nine-figure project.

In the past, staff and ultimately the council have limited the development potential in a specific plan area when it has been deemed that residents would prefer to maintain the status quo. Case in point, based on community feedback, the 1998 Alviso Master Plan limited the construction of any new industrial office buildings to one or at most two stories on North First Street.  The unfortunate consequence of the height limitation is that we have had to forgo market driven demand for taller, 5-8 story buildings. In effect, this specific restriction in the premier technology corridor of San Jose has limited the city’s economic development as a whole.

An alternative approach that would be more conducive to economic growth would involve first identifying a limited number of job creation sites in San Jose located within specific plan areas. We should then re-examine any existing limitations within these job creation sites and remove any restrictions that may block private investment, as in the Alviso example cited above.

Another reason these plans are often doomed to failure can be attributed to the fact that a private property owner may simply not want to develop their land. In other instances, residents will express a desire for a new park on land that is privately owned, and oftentimes this same parcel has an existing structure with tenants already in place. At the end of the day, America is a country that places high value, rightfully so, on private property rights. Thus, successful development is most likely to occur when the private property owners themselves initiate plans, not when an outsider who does not actually own the property injects impractical conceptual drawings into the process.

Currently, staff is planning the development of “Urban Villages,” with the goal of mixing residential and employment activities. Furthermore, the development of such villages would establish minimum densities designed to support transit use, bicycling, walking, high-quality urban design, revitalization of underutilized properties, and the engagement of local neighborhoods and private property owners in the process. Here is a map of the future Urban Villages.

Having attended three Urban Village planning meetings in October, it is my hope that the plans ultimately approved by council are realistic and allow for expedited development. However, I believe a disclaimer acknowledging private property rights should be on the first page of any proposed plan, and that ultimately development will be initiated on a timetable that government cannot control—especially if the plans are too far from market realities.

Sometimes, a proposed development is in harmony with a pre-existing plan, but just as often this is not the case. In either instance, my objective as a councilmember has always been to consider different points of view and support or oppose development based on the long-term economic benefits to San Jose as a whole.

My Thoughts on the next Police Chief

By

Tonight marks the start of another series of community meetings designed to garner input about a prospective Police Chief. The city of San Jose conducted a nationwide search for a police chief less than two years ago, which ultimately yielded limited interest and few qualified applicants. The city spent an exorbitant amount of money and time on this effort. I wrote about these community meetings back in August 2010.

I am not convinced that conducting another search will bring about different results this time around, or, with the upcoming holidays, quickly yield the best candidate. Keep in mind that our nationwide search for a library director is taking longer than previously anticipated—the recruitment of our Police Chief is much more complex and pivotal than a library director.

San Jose is facing many challenges with an increase in various service calls for the whole city. We have pulled officers from other areas within the department to try to assist with increases in call volume. Furthermore, and perhaps more damaging yet, is the possibility that a lack of solidarity, which is already evident, will increase within our police department by virtue of having a chief who has announced he is leaving.

At this point in time, San Jose needs a police chief who is a leader. We cannot afford to wait to see what we might find from a search. We need a person who acknowledges the need for pension reform, is not afraid to embrace and implement new ideas, and has the courage and backbone to take charge. In addition, the next chief needs the diplomacy and intellect to bring the council, management and police union (POA) on the same page in order to improve SJPD morale, strengthen the working relationship between police and management ,and provide peace of mind to residents that their police department is keeping San Jose safe. Retired SJPD Captain Gary Kirby encompasses these traits among other qualifying attributes.

Born and raised in San Jose, Gary Kirby graduated from San Jose State University before joining the SJPD, which led to 25 years of experience in municipal law enforcement field operations, criminal and administrative investigations, administration and project management.

During his tenure with the SJPD, Captain Kirby earned respect from the SJPD rank and file, POA and elected officials for his no-nonsense yet thoughtful approach in managing and overseeing sensitive, complicated and fiduciary matters. As captain, he was responsible for the human resource management of 2,200 sworn officers, non-sworn staff, the Police Academy and Police Officers Standard Testing (P.O.S.T.), as well as overseeing criminal investigations for homicide, robbery, sexual assault, child abuse, domestic violence and gang assaults. Further, Captain Kirby has experience in state and federal grant applications, management, audit compliance and promotional testing.
Captain Kirby developed innovative and nationally recognized best practices via public-private partnerships with technology firms and he has led and built relationships on complex police projects with heightened political sensitivity and budgetary constraints for the city.

For example, Captain Kirby was the project manager for the voter approved $89 million dollar public safety bond to build the 110,000 sq. ft. police substation. Kirby was also the project manager for the $6 million dollar federal grant to build Emergency Communications Digital Microwave—ECOMM microwave interoperability connecting 13 agencies. Captain Kirby also brings private sector experience from Apple Corporation, building threat assessment and security device integration.

Captain Kirby was the Keynote Speaker of the 2008 NAACP National Convention on Racial Profiling in Washington, DC; graduate of the Los Angeles Police Department West Point Leadership School (2009); the recipient of the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s award for Homicide Investigator of the Year (1996 & 1998) and he attended the US Air Force War College Academy week-long National Security Forum.

Captain Gary Kirby has a unique combination of education, experience as an officer, roots in San Jose, a private industry background and solid respect from his peers. Approximately three years, ago I shared my support of Captain Kirby in a post advocating his promotion to Assistant Police Chief.

I strongly believe hiring Captain Kirby as San Jose’s next Chief of Police is a start down the path towards reconciliation. We need to think about our rank and file, who need a leader they know, someone they can respect and count on. What we don’t need is a prolonged process that may create an exodus of police officers.

We have a leadership void that may take a year to fill. However, we have crimes being committed today that cannot wait for a perfect Chief when, in my opinion, we already have an optimal candidate that may serve if called upon. Chief Kirby would perform as Captain Kirby has always done, which is to say he would fix the situation.

The appointment of a Police Chief in San Jose ultimately requires approval from the City Council. Therefore, if the majority of the council approves of Gary Kirby, then our job is done. By truncating the standard process in this fashion, we can forgo a futile exercise that will waste money, time and cause undue fatigue on our police force.

Affordable Housing Study Session

By

The City Council had a study session last week devoted to affordable housing. The session covered how San Jose could build more affordable housing, even though it has already publicly funded and completed roughly 21,000 such units in years past and has 1,500 additional units currently in the pipeline. As a point of comparison, other cities have done little during the same time period.

Comments from the council included advocacy for the building of more traditional single family homes, potentially in the Almaden Reserve and Coyote Valley, with the objective of bringing down the average cost of such dwellings. The economist who was invited to speak at the meeting said any newly constructed houses in the urban reserve may indeed sell, but following this path would be contrary to the changing, age-based demographics of San Jose (more seniors, more young people). In addition, statistics indicate that committed couples are having fewer or no children today compared to past decades, which highlights a demographic shift that alters demand for single family homes.

Most economists and urban planners agree that suburban sprawl is bad for city revenue and the environment. The majority of homes in San Jose are single family dwellings, and the resultant suburban sprawl has contributed to the city’s economic problems and transportation woes. Building out houses across the valley in Almaden and Coyote would only magnify the pain.

It was mentioned during the study session that 4,500 units of market rate apartments are under construction in North San Jose. Had the council approved the construction of single family houses instead of high density apartments, the result would have netted roughly 300 houses or 4,200 fewer housing units overall.

I asked the economist, point blank, which of the two options he would choose: 4,500 apartments or 300 houses. Not surprisingly, he chose the 4,500 apartments. The 4,500 units in North San Jose would create more overall affordability by providing additional housing (supply and demand). Three hundred single family homes is a drop in the bucket when considering the over 175,000 similar units that already exist. In contrast, the creation of 4,500 market rate apartments would add significantly more construction jobs, aggregated property and utility tax revenue, and larger park and road paving remittances than the 300 single family homes.

Additionally, the development of density in North San Jose does not create conflict with traditional single family neighborhoods and enables more of an active urban community that both young professionals and seniors alike seek out. This is significant, because young professionals and seniors are the two fastest-growing demographic groups in San Jose. And not coincidentally, they are also less inclined to choose a single family home and all of the inherent maintenance responsibilities that come with it.

The Housing Department will return to council in February 2013 with further information to consider. One option is to look at borrowing money by issuing bonds that would provide funding for more affordable housing construction. This is the same method utilized to purchase golf courses and the Hayes Mansion. San Jose is already in debt for over $800 million for past bond issuances, and this figure does not include the $1 billion plus attributable to airport bonds.

Yet another option would be to make market rate housing developers pay an “impact” fee to fund affordable housing. The enactment of such a fee would increase the cost of market rate housing to the future resident. The theory behind this approach presupposes that for every new, highly paid professional, more demand is created for workers in the service industry who will also need housing.

Speaking of “impact”, we should consider the impact of affordable housing developments on our police officers. I wrote and shared data on this impact 18 months ago.

I was not supportive of the ideas mentioned above at first glance, so I asked if some alternative options could be considered. One course of action would be to follow the example of Santa Clara and Mountain View, and waive adherence to prevailing wage ordinances on affordable housing construction. Doing so would lower the cost of construction, which in turn would mean that San Jose no longer has to subsidize these projects by continuing to waive infrastructure fees for road paving and parks. To date, the city of San Jose has waived more than $100 million of infrastructure fees to promote affordable housing.

Another idea I suggested concerns the distinction of affordable housing that is built by for-profit entities versus non-profit entities. Non-profits build the majority of the affordable housing in San Jose and are exempt from paying property tax. For-profit construction results in property tax revenues being paid to San Jose and other government entities, such as schools, that need the revenue to pay teachers. Property tax revenues are the largest annuity stream payable for ongoing city services in San Jose, and each and every time the council approves another affordable housing development exempt from property tax, we move one step closer to laying off another police officer or teacher. I have written before about the consequences of this lost revenue.

At the end of the day, I believe in quality over quantity when it comes to affordable housing. Everyone—not just some—should pay property taxes and contribute to the costs of road paving and the creation of new parks. This provides a good example of equity and paying as we go for infrastructure and ongoing city services.

Development Rekindles Small Town Feel

By

The new, privately developed Willow Glen Town Square held its grand opening party Saturday. The event was well attended by happy residents, eager business owners, loyal patrons, and other local well-wishers who came to celebrate this wonderful new addition to our community.

This well-planned development replaced a liquor store and non-optimized parking lot with a three-story office and retail complex complete with an on-site, updated garage. The property owner thoughtfully designed the corner (Lincoln Avenue/Willow Street) by choosing to create a public plaza that includes a fountain, seating pavilion and beautiful landscaping.

This new fountain area is constantly filled with people both young and old alike, united in their enjoyment of this enhanced open space. The Willow Glen Town Square serves as an example of how development can lead to successful outcomes. When more building height is accepted, there is an ability to provide amenities like the plaza. The credit for the overall vision and successful execution of this project belongs largely to the civic-minded private property owner.

Neighborhood business districts are comprised of brick and mortar storefronts, but it is the surrounding physical environment—as well as the variety of goods and services offered from merchant storefronts—that bring animation and “life” to commercial streets. It is in convivial environments such as Lincoln Avenue, where one can frequently see smiling couples walking hand in hand, people strolling with their animal companions in tow and families simply enjoying a beautiful day together. One could argue that, in contrast to the environments created by indoor mega malls or online e-commerce sites, thoughtful development of neighborhood business districts encourage greater social interaction among members of our community, offer a more personal, stress-free opportunity to shop, stroll, or dine, and help encourage a more desirable small town “look and feel” in our neighborhoods.

Private property owners on Lincoln Avenue stepped up and taxed themselves, forming a Community Benefit Assessment District to pay for services the city cannot provide like landscaping and tree trimming. It is especially important to patronize and support an area that has engaged property owners willing to self-fund improvements to the business district.

When this development was first proposed, I decided to host a community meeting for the purpose of sharing information and garnering feedback from residents prior to the developer applying for a permit. Some in the neighborhood were fearful of any development or change to the status quo. However, others felt that development would be a net positive for the business district and the neighborhood. After the architect and property owner finished the presentation at the community meeting, one neighborhood resident, when asked for feedback, said to the entire audience, “I have two words … Bra—Vo!”

I couldn’t agree more with this sentiment. “Bravo” is indeed the perfect word to describe this new addition to our community. Mindful, well-planned and executed development has the potential to increase property tax, sales tax and utility tax revenues, as well as the number of jobs available to those seeking employment.

I am grateful that this property owner—and all individuals who contributed to Lincoln Avenue in the past—had the confidence to risk spending millions of dollars in San Jose, which paves the way for future prosperity and reinvestment in our neighborhoods. My hope is that property owners in all of our neighborhood business districts will now see that more can be done with their existing properties, creating a greater sense of place and more commerce in San Jose.

This large investment from the property owner allows for additional investments by small business in this development. Many of these same businesses are independently owned and not large corporations. Whether it be the two brothers that recently opened up a restaurant, or the husband and wife team opening up a candle making store, these enterprises contribute to the diversity of product and service offerings in Willow Glen. They bring vibrancy to our commercial district. Unfortunately, it is businesses such as these that would be at an immediate competitive disadvantage should Measure D pass.

As I have written before, Measure D will put San Jose at a disadvantage to neighboring cities by raising payroll cost 38 percent for business that employ minimum wage workers. Measure D will do nothing to bring in more sales for these business to cover the substantial cost increase nor provide any exemptions for small business, non-profits or tipped employees. Vote “no” on D so we can avoid creating another government bureaucracy and instead continue building a tax base to pay for city services.

On another note, my condolences to the Chaid family of San Jose, who lost David—a great teacher, coach and veteran—to cancer this week. Please consider attending the Veteran’s Day Parade this Sunday downtown to show support for all of our veterans.

City Council Meetings at Night Would Allow Greater Civic Participation

By

If you are like the majority of San Jose residents, you probably work during the day and/or are involved in a child’s education at school/home. Your ability to attend a daytime San Jose City Council meeting is limited.

The council conducts the overwhelming majority of its business during the day. This includes voting on matters that directly affect our lives, such as law enforcement, sewers, transportation, medical/fire response, code enforcement, libraries, parks, city finances, etc. These meetings are suppose to be for the public, yet usually the only people that attend the daytime council meeting are lobbyists or other paid representatives of special interest groups.

Last week, the topic of “what is important enough to have on the monthly evening meeting agenda” was brought up. The request via council memo was to restrict land use items to be heard only during the evening session. Currently, the council has been hearing economic development land use items during the day to speed up the process, because waiting for an evening council meeting may delay a decision for up to 3-4 weeks.

I asked the city attorney to clarify if the memo from my colleagues was correct; that it would actually limit all land use items to 7pm, which would cause a 3-4 week delay or the need to schedule impromptu special meetings just to hear one economic development land use item. The city attorney confirmed that if the memo was passed as written, that it would in fact limit the council on expediting land use for economic development.

In my opinion, this would impede approval of new commercial and industrial development, making the city less responsive. We need to grow our tax base sooner versus later, and to artificially impede the council with yet another rule is silly. Moreover, the goal is to allow development that brings more jobs to San Jose, so residents do not have continue commuting outside the city for work.

After the city attorney answered my question, the memo was changed verbally at the meeting, allowing our planning department the ability to schedule land use items during the day; thus allowing for more responsive decisions for new office buildings in North San Jose and Santana Row, or new tall buildings in our Downtown, or a liquor license for a new neighborhood grocery store, or new retail on the periphery of our city. (I believe San Jose will suffer higher retail vacancy if Measure D is passed, so vote “no” on Measure D.)

However, I support having the weekly council meeting in the evening for all issues. We should scrap the current daytime meeting and instead schedule a 6pm meeting with ceremonials items starting at 5:30pm. In my view, residents would be better served by night meetings, which would provide greater opportunity for civic participation.