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.

Now that Cattelus Development has walked away from developing the Santa Clara Fairgrounds, I hope the County will consider something other than housing.  Perhaps a fee based sports complex or even…a horse track.

The goal of the Fairground’s property is to bring in revenue for the long term. Selling the land at a depressed price is not optimal. A long-term lease would be preferred because it could bring in a source of revenue which is every local government’s dream.

Currently, the Fairgrounds is home to off-track betting for horseraces, an operation called San Jose Fair Downs. Although the actual horse track does not exist, gambling does take place at the Fairgrounds. People can go to the Fairgrounds and bet on horseraces from the Belmont Stakes to the Kentucky Derby. So, since gambling already exists at the Fairgrounds, why then not consider using part of the many acres of the Fairgrounds parcel for a horse racing track?

The horse track in San Mateo, Bay Meadows, is now closed and was sold for housing at height of the real estate market. The only other horse track around here is Golden Gate Fields in Berkeley. This lack of horse racing facilities would allow Santa Clara County to have large market share for half of the Bay Area. Further, the land would then be mostly open space instead of thousands of housing units.

The County would make money on the gambling fees, parking, food and beverages. Some quantity of jobs would be created to maintain and service the facility. A racetrack would lock up the land for 10-20-30 years and then if the next generation wanted to change the use of the land they could do so at that time. Perhaps there is a revenue potential for other equestrian uses since some San Jose residents drive and pay to ride horses in other cities.

The horse track could be built in such a way that the infield acts as a park or sports fields by allowing the center of the track to have a dual use. I remember attending the Kentucky Derby and thought the infield was enormous.  So, here is an idea for the County to make money and the city in turn does not have to deal with thousands of more housing units.

I just hope that the County does not intend on adding another public golf course at the Fairgrounds. And, if they do decide to ponder the idea, perhaps the recent Santa Clara Civil Grand Jury report calling San Jose’s public Golf Courses a financial sand trap will change their minds.
To view the 11 page report, go to this link:http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJ.html

One of my favorite TV game shows was the original Family Feud with Richard Dawson. His big line was, “Survey Says!” when the survey answer was shared with the audience. I am pleased that my Budget Survey drew more than 700 participants. Thank you to those who engaged. It was long…but then our deficit is large, so the survey needed to at least attempt to grasp the entire budget.

This survey is not gospel—however, I think it is worth noting that some responses reflect a large consensus and we can discuss them.

Looking back I think changing responses from cut/do not cut to yes/no would have been better for some questions. The length of the survey could also have been shortened, even though the budget presents lots of choices.

Also if the survey had a visual meter that tracked how much money was left to spend or how much one needed to cut to balance the budget—that would have been ideal. That way you could track the deficit as you answered each question. I took a survey about a year ago on how to balance the California state budget that tracked the money as you answered questions on the survey—but I’m sure Sacramento spent more then the $10 I spent on this web survey.

Click here to view the Survey Responses:http://bit.ly/2009_San_Jose_Budget_Survey_Responses.