Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

Youth Employment and Life Lessons

By

I remember making minimum wage, $3.35 per hour, when I worked at Burger King during high school. Most of my coworkers were high school students, college students and very few were adults. Prior to my job at Burger King, I had a paper route that, according to my memory, netted out to less than minimum wage. In the case of the paper route, I had to pay for the newspapers, rubber bands, and bike expenses, not to mention my time to fold and deliver the newspapers. In addition, back then we had to go door to door to collect the monthly subscription.

Over time, I received raises at Burger King by passing tests on food preparation and positive performance evaluations. Merit-based raises of 10 cents were earned, and I achieved my top rate of $4.15 and a promotion to Production Leader. I recall enjoying the job except for the increased acne from working the fryer station and those ever-attractive brown polyester uniforms. Around this time, I actually contemplated quitting high school and pursuing a management position at Burger King. Instead, I stayed in school and went on to college like many of my fellow high school co-workers.

It seems like today that the opportunities for employment and taking on responsibility have decreased for our youth. The paperboy on a bike has turned into paperman in car. And Burger King-type jobs have changed from youth to adults, many of whom are recent immigrants.

I am voting “no” on Measure D, which would increase the minimum wage only in San Jose from $8 to $10 an hour. As a councilmember that represents a district that borders two other cities, I see firsthand how San Jose competes for retail sales, filling vacant commercial space and jobs. Westfield Valley Fair shopping center, for example, is split between Santa Clara and San Jose. If a new prospective tenant has a choice of space in the mall, they will choose Santa Clara should measure D pass, as I will explain.

Residents do not stop in their tracks when they reach the invisible border of a city limit. They shop based on convenience, quality and the big one—price. Measure D will put San Jose at a disadvantage just like the currently proposedHabitat Conservation Plan that Mayor Reed lampooned for over an hour at last week’s council meeting.

Measure D will create wage inflation. Workers that make $10 today will seek $12 tomorrow and so on. If a business only has so much money allocated for payroll, then the result will be laying off a certain number of employees or reducing hours to keep payroll in line with actual sales. I believe youth will comprise the majority of the layoffs and reduced hours. Measure D, which is a 38 percent increase in payroll (wages & payroll taxes) to employers who pay minimum wage, would not increase sales 38 percent nor even 1 percent.

A business in San Jose that employs minimum wage workers will simply have less profit margin and some of them will inevitably move. In the case of my district, these businesses will move just over the city border and those that remain in San Jose will increase prices. My dad, who grew up during the Great Depression, will drive to another city just to get a free plastic bag. When prices increase, my dad, who could easily win the game show, “The Price is Right,” will simply shop in another city.

Those that make $10 today instead of $8 are either performing well or have a more difficult job, which is why they make 25 percent more. Is it fair that the current $10 a hour worker would now be equal to a $8 hour worker? Does it create the expectation for future two-dollar wage increases through no effort of the individual? That is a debate in itself, however, the real problem is that San Jose is not a silo and we are surrounded by other cities.

Measure D would create retail vacancy in San Jose, especially near the border of other cities. Over time, new business will choose cities where payroll costs are lower and, most importantly, where their payroll is not regulated and audited by city government. For San Jose to comply with Measure D requires the hiring of people to oversee and regulate business for compliance with no revenue to pay for those new positions. I would much rather higher five new people in our planning department to expedite the process for industrial and commercial development than positions that add zero value, which Measure D would mandate.

The few cities that have raised the minimum wage are anomalies bordered by water or desert: San Francisco, Washington D.C. and Albuquerque.

To my original premise, I believe Measure D will result in less jobs for youth in San Jose. Employment for youth outside of compensation provides the opportunity to learn valuable life lessons.

On a related note, the majority of my council colleagues voted—but not me—to discuss and take a position on various State Propositions like the Death Penalty at this week’s council meeting. In my opinion this is a waste of timethat has nothing to do with the City Charter and we might as well discuss, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

How the Council Set Its Priorities

By

The San Jose City Council met last week to discuss and prioritize certain ordinances the city should pursue in the coming year. Creating an ordinance requires staff time from the department that the ordinance will affect and, as always, time from the City Attorney’s office. In many cases, outreach for ordinances must be done to garner resident and stakeholder input which takes time and staff facilitating the public meetings.

The city is unable to move forward with every ordinance on the “wish list” much like any other organization public or private. Therefore, councilmembers are asked to prioritize by selecting their top choices and see which of those match their council colleagues’ preferences. An ordinance moves forward if it gets six votes, and those that don’t get selected remain on the list for next time, which is approximately one year. The council selected their top choices twice and was able to prioritize seven ordinances out of 30, which include:

● Converting Hotels & Motels to affordable housing.
● Closing Medical Cannabis Collectives that do not pay Measure U tax.
● Restricting Tattoo parlors near K-12 schools.
● Development Agreement Policy (Negotiate deals for Economic Development).
● Restrict burning of wood in residential fireplaces.
● Ban any construction within 100 feet of creeks.
● Survey vacant buildings to house the homeless and more to be discussed in detail at council study session on October 29.

Some of the other ordinances that did not make it include: limiting new Wal-mart stores; a healthy eating initiative; neighborhood preservation; liquor store conversions; downtown bars that provide music pay to fund police officers.

We could have had an extended discussion on each topic, however, the items selected will come back to the council for further discussion at least two more times.

Two items I voted for that did not make the list were liquor store conversion and distinctive neighborhoods. The liquor store conversion ordinance would have the potential to eliminate existing liquor stores. Liquor stores do not really add a lot of value in my view, and I would prefer to see alcohol sold at grocery stores, because grocery stores offer a variety of food. Over time this would allow for more grocery stores to open, which is seen by many as an essential component of a neighborhood.

Neighborhoods of distinction would allow private property owners to create their own zoning based on the majority of the property owners’ desires. So, rather than government mandating regulation, it is a tool that allows private property owners to make their own decisions. For example, an Eichler neighborhood may decide that it wants to maintain Eichler architecture (Post and
Beam) for any new construction within its neighborhood boundary.

One item that made the list was converting existing hotels and motels into low income housing. This seems like it would be an interesting discussion and would have a wide variety of viewpoints, depending on how it would be potentially implemented. More to come on this topic, for sure.

Prioritizing and ranking priorities is important for organizations. However, in the case of government, certain priorities may not always represent what constituents want. The only real way is through the election process, because we have a representative democracy where we choose to elect an individual to vote on behalf of a larger population. Maybe someday residents will vote by electronic devices from their homes to select priorities midstream. Until then, it is what it is.

This week the Council will again take up the proposed Habitat Conservation Plan. Personally, I have found it curious that most of the emails I have received advocating for the implementation of the HCP are from residents outside of San Jose.

Identity Theft and Affordable Prevention

By

Last week, I hosted a community discussion on identity theft. Our expert that evening was the Director of the Identity Theft Council. The meeting was filled with shock, drama and some hope at the end.

The stats are brutal: 1 million people are victims of identity theft each month in the USA. If we only look at property crimes in 2011, there were more victims of identity theft than all burglaries, attempted burglaries, arson, vehicle theft, purse snatchings, pick-pocketings, check fraud and shoplifting combined.

Out of the 12 million incidents in the USA last year, only 1 percent were investigated and an even smaller portion of that 1 percent is caught and prosecuted. Identity theft is the number one complaint to the FTC for 12 years in a row. One reason for such a low investigation rate across the country is the jurisdictional issues—the victim may live in Denver but the multiple offenses were done in other states or countries.

The speaker at our meeting said that if your social security number is stolen, you will endure years of pain dealing with debt collectors because the Social Security administration will not do anything to resolve this issue. The new trend with stolen social security numbers is to file false tax returns and make up information that enables a tax refund check to be mailed to a temporary address. The IRS lost $5 billion last year in fraudulent tax returns and the IRS expects to lose the same amount this coming year.

Recently, an organized crime ring in Florida was caught. They stole approximately $130 million, which seems more profitable than drug dealing. Sadly, a Florida postal carrier was killed so the assailants could get a postal key that opens up mailboxes. Closer to home, in San Ramon, a corner mailbox drop was recently ripped out of the concrete by a car with attached chains to steal mail within the mailbox.

When it comes to online shopping, there has been a breach of personal information every day for the last five years, and these are the companies that will admit a breach has occurred. Millions of people have had their personal information exposed via these breaches.

Now for the glimmer of hope. How can we avoid becoming a victim?

Freeze your credit
Consumers may call the three credit agencies (Transunion, Experian,Equifax) and have their credit frozen. This blocks anyone from opening a new line of credit with your credit history. Once your credit is frozen you will no longer need to monitor your credit for anything odd. You may unfreeze with a pin number that will be provided to you by each credit agency.

Do not use ATM machines for anything but withdrawing money
Only use credit card at stores to charge something, not an ATM card. (The reason is a stolen ATM card number drains money out of your own account versus charging the credit card company.)

File your tax returns early
This helps prevent someone from filing a fraudulent return using your social security number. The IRS only verifies the SS# and not the address or employer.

Only use one computer or device to access online banking
And avoid unsecured WiFi.

Avoid using banks “Apps” 
Technology still needs to improve.

For passwords, choose a sentence that contains proper nouns and numbers rather than a password.
This type of sentence has everything you need to make it unbreakable with capital letters and numbers. Tweak/change your sentence password phrase periodically.

Do not send money or share personal data via email with your new friend from Nigeria, as this and others like it our scams.

At this point in time the best web browser is Microsoft IE, which identifies 96 percent malware while Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox detect less than 10 percent of malware. Apple Safari was not mentioned. Even free Anti-Virus software is effective like AVG, Panda & Immunet.

Instead of shopping online, purchase items at stores in San Jose.

Avoid signing up for identity/credit services like LifeLock that make big promises when all you need to do is freeze your credit.

When disposing of a computer or PDA, strip the device of all data.

Use a crosscut shredder for your financial documents before disposing.
If you have already implemented a strong password phrase for your email, then go paperless with your current paper financial statements.

An ounce of prevention is worth peace of mind.

On Another Note:
If you enjoy theater with strong and complex dialogue, then I highly recommend the David Mamet play, “Race” now being performed at the San Jose Stage Company.

Tuesday is for Meetings

By

image
Woody Allen had a theory on success. He said most of the hard work was just by showing up. (Photo by rasdourian, via Flickr)

Tuesday is the day that councilmembers reserve for City Council meetings.Closed session council meetings start at 9-9:30am and often continue past noon. The public council session starts at 1:30pm, often merging into the evening session with a short break. If no evening session is scheduled, then the afternoon session simply continues into the evening until the entire agenda is covered.

Woody Allen once said that, “Eighty percent of success is showing up,” and many would agree with that statement. Fortunately, I have not had any family emergencies and thus I have been able to attend every council meeting and council committee meeting since 2007. Many council meetings, especially the years 2007-2010, went from morning till near midnight. It is our duty to attend the council meetings, specifically for the agenda items that require voting, and stay for as long at the meeting takes; just like an employee is expected to attend a meeting hosted by their employer.

Councilmembers have an obligation to attend council meetings and council committee meetings; however, there is no requirement that you must actually stay the entire meeting. But attendance is taken multiple times at council meetings.

First, you are marked absent if you are a few minutes late at the very start of the morning closed session meeting. Attendance is taken again during the closed session meeting, when each attendee signs a document. Finally, attendance is again taken at the afternoon and evening meetings.

Councilmembers are able to leave as needed if they are not feeling well or have some personal matter to attend to. Councilmembers need only be present for half the meeting to avoid being marked as absent. If not present for the vote of an agenda item(s), then they are marked as absent for the vote(s). If councilmembers are in the restroom during a vote, they are still marked as absent—so best to monitor one’s intake of water.

Every level of government has official legislative/committee meetings and attendance is the minimum requirement. However just because one elected official wants to leave the meeting does not mean everything should come to a stop. If you need to go, then go, but leave it at that.

Many wish that the actual council meetings were shorter than they are today. The bulk of the council meeting is actually the unlimited discussion by council and mayor. On the other hand, public discussion is limited to two minutes and sometimes only one minute per each speaker. While members of the public speak, each Councilmember has that ability to view a timer that tracks the speaker’s time till you hear the famous words, “Your time is up.”

In the U.S. House of Representatives, members are limited in their speaking time. For example, members are given five minutes for committee meetings. So, rather than limiting the amount of time that the council or mayor may speak, perhaps the same timer used for the public should be allowed to run, tracking how long a councilmember, mayor or staff has spoken or is still speaking. This would allow for more concise and direct dialogue rather than circuitous speeches.

For example, tomorrow the council will burn a couple of hours discussing county and state ballot initiatives.

If you are the type of person who dislikes meetings, then I would discourage you from seeking elected office.

Habitat Conservation Plan

By

For over 10 years, San Jose has been struggling with implementing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). HCP is a regulation imposed by the Federal government to restore natural habitats and preserve wildlife, like the spot checkered butterfly and the burrowing owl. HCP is an unfunded mandate from the Federal government levied on local government. Federal agencies are not big on waivers or tweaks, as they have one goal and that is the regulation and job security.

The main premise is that any and all new development—even if rebuilding an existing structure—would pay a substantial fee under an adopted HCP. This fee would create yet another hurdle for economic development in the name of saving wildlife. To some, this may just be fine since wildlife may have a higher value than economic development, like jobs. To others, they may not care since much of the wildlife in San Jose actually resides in much of California. Relocating burrowing owls, for example, within the existing city infrastructure to outside the city is frowned upon.

For others, who would rather see near zero development in San Jose, they will very much enjoy the potential outcome of a HCP. The implementation of a HCP would potentially cease development and have San Jose become more expensive than surrounding cities like Santa Clara, Sunnyvale and Milpitas. Now that we have an adopted General Plan that emphasizes development of land for jobs, this is a great time to encourage economic development. However, with this new fee, San Jose could lose out on new job growth, and, as a consequence, tax revenue. The cities to our north in Santa Clara County are exempt from the HCP, because they are built out and San Jose, on the other hand, is punished for implementing a green belt. The HCP would include Morgan Hill and Gilroy.

Other areas like San Diego have enabled residents to decide this question by taxing themselves via sales tax or parcel tax. The premise of the HCP is that there is a high value to preserving the natural habitats of certain animals and restoring habitats. If it is such a high value, then residents may choose that value when they vote to tax themselves for that value. If it is not highly valued by the electorate, then we will have to go down the road of taxing all future development to pay for the sins of the past. Implementing the plan at one point would have cost $1.2 billion, and it has been scaled down to $660 million. I would propose this question be placed on the 2014 ballot.

If nothing was done, Federal agencies would not approve permits for new construction. New construction creates water and that water must go somewhere like a storm drain—and that requires federal approval. It could also block public infrastructure improvements, such as a bridge or rebuilding of theWater Pollution Control Plant. Coyote Valley and the Almaden reserve are areas that provide ample land for habitat. Building within the city infrastructure is the prudent thing to do, but not if the tax is so high or a burrowing owl is on a parcel within the city existing city infrastructure, like North San Jose. For example, if HCP was in place today San Jose would have had to pay $170,000 fee for the Convention Center expansion. (Convention Center expansion is being paid for by the hotels, which have increased the hotel tax paid by overnight guests.)

The cost, $170,000, may not sound like much since we talk about billions all the time with Federal and State dollars, but at the local level that level of fee could dissuade new development, like the large office building the City Council unanimously approved for Santana Row last month. Another way to look at it is the city of San Jose has removed fees to promote building in downtown and North San Jose, and this new HCP fee would negate this effort.

I’m not sure how things became so disconnected between economic development and providing federal funding to comply with federal regulation. Be sure to ask your elected Federal representative. This topic will be discussed at this week’s council meeting.

Unshackle the Police Reserves

By

San Jose Municipal Code Section 8.12 authorizes the use of the Police Reserves. Although the Reserves are available, the city is not utilizing their full potential. Use of the Reserve officers could offer valuable assistance to the city because they are fully sworn and have the authority of a regular officer under California Penal Code Section 832.6(a). Reserves have already completed the police academy and carry a gun.

If the city requested, the Reserves could potentially put an extra 20 officers on the street tomorrow. There are currently over 80 Reserves on the roster. If just 25 percent responded, the city would have 20 additional sworn officers available to patrol our neighborhoods. I realize that this may require negotiation with the labor union, and there is the possibility that the Police Officers Association may not be supportive. However, I am hopeful that the city and the POA could work collaboratively and bring forward a plan that would utilize the reserves; even if the plan were in the form of a pilot program and/or for a certain amount of time. For example, if the police union and the city could agree to use reserves for one year for specific purposes, etc. At the very least, we should try.

Another goal to strive towards is allowing the hiring of retired SJPD officers to work and be paid on an hourly basis—but not accruing further pension benefits.  These retired SJPD officers could do background checks, burglary investigations, evidence gathering, get warrants, etc. for a one-year period.

Currently, the Chief of Police mandates that Reserves can only work alongside a regular officer, in the same car. Quite often the Reserve is not even counted as being in the car; thus, while there are physically two officers in the car, they are signed on as a one-man car and can only be dispatched as a one-man unit. If that practice were changed, we would see an immediate 800 hours per month of extra police patrol. Every Reserve must currently do a 10-hour shift on patrol each month (80 x 10 = 800). The Los Angeles Police Department allows Reserves to work by themselves or with other Reserves:
If the Reserves that are qualified to work as solo officers—about 80 of them are—were allowed to work on their own, they would add additional patrol cars on the streets; making a more visible police presence. I have heard that some current officers may resent the utilization of reserves and would rather not drive in the same car. If that is true, then the city and POA should allow Reserves to drive by themselves as most current officers do or allow Reserves to team up in the same car. If we allowed this, we might see many more Reserves volunteering more hours.
Reserves could also be utilized in other ways, too. For example, they could provide prisoner transport, be the second officer on a crime scene, assist in back-up when officers are sick, in court, etc. Having Reserves be part of the SJPD team would also lower overtime costs and provide time for police officers to take a vacation.

The Chief and the command staff know of the authority of the Reserves to backfill units because they already use the Reserves for the “Keith Kelly” Relief night (twice a year), as well as relief for the Police Olympics (one week a year).  Therefore, there is a current and active precedent for using the Reserves for SJPD backup.
Although the Reserves work for free, they are allotted $1 per hour of work for their uniform allowance. Therefore, the city would incur an $800.00 per month fee for uniforms for the Reserve for a second voluntary shift per month.

San Jose needs to do the best we can today and we need to utilize all of our available resources now by allowing the Reserves to be visible patrolling San Jose neighborhoods. Utilizing Reserves and Retired SJPD is a cost effective way to provide law enforcement during this time with limited tax revenue.