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.

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.

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.

There was a brief mention in Sunday’s Mercury News about the HP grant funds that are allocated by elected officials in San Jose. I thought that I would take a more in-depth look into the topic by sharing my perspective and providing greater information regarding my allocations.

Each fiscal year, councilmembers are allocated $20,000 that can be utilized to provide grants to cultural, educational or recreational groups. The mayor is allotted $50,000, for a grand total of $250,000 in available funds.  These funds are allocated solely at the discretion of the elected official. As the name implies, HP grant funds became available to city officials as a result of the naming rights arrangement for our arena, which will be known as the SAP Center in the future.

HP funds are separate from the annual $1.3 million that goes to the city’s general fund, which is also attributable to naming rights.

My allocations, listed below, represent my personal priorities and values not only as an elected official, but also as a proud citizen of San Jose.

Public School and Youth Athletics: $52,000
Upon review of my allocations since taking office, I found that my largest allocation by a wide margin was for public schools and youth athletics. I myself attended K-12 public schools in San Jose, and perhaps because of this, I have an affinity for public education and feel that supporting local school organizations is valuable. I have great respect for PTA and youth sports organizations. Volunteers staff them all, they work within timelines towards measurable goals and they spend every dollar judiciously.

Beautification & Revitalization: $13,000
I have also allocated funds to efforts aimed at the further beautification of San Jose. Specifically, I funded the Art Box Project organized by community volunteer Tina Morrill. Her volunteer work brings art to the neighborhoods in the most cost-effective manner I know of, and it has the added benefit of dissuading graffiti. I also allocated funds to Friends of the San Jose Rose Garden. Earlier this year, the Great Rosarians of the World presented the city of San Jose and Friends of the San Jose Rose Garden with an international award for Best Municipal Rose Garden. With this honor, San Jose joins award-winning gardens in New York and England.

Community and Cultural Organizations: $11,000
In my opinion, San Jose is such a desirable place to live due in large part to its diversity, both in terms of the multiculturalism of our city and the vibrancy of our LGBT community. Thus, I have allocated funds to such worthy organizations as the Billy De Frank Center, the African American Heritage House, the Italian American Heritage Foundation and Gay Pride.

Charities: $10,000
These are larger groups like the YWCA, American Cancer Society, Planned Parenthood and Stroke Foundation. In each case, these groups help San Jose residents not only in times of need, but on an ongoing basis as well. They also host local events like Relay for Life, Walk a Mile in Her Shoes and the Stroke Walk.

City Foundations: $8,000
My allocations also went to foundations associated with city services, such as auxiliary organizations that support our police, police chaplain, library, parks, and Happy Hollow Zoo. Allocations in this category provide funds that can be utilized to augment core services by providing financial support above and beyond the city budget.

Performing Arts: $8,000
I enjoy the performing arts and appreciate the added economic stimulus that groups such as City Lights Theater and San Jose Stage Company provide to our downtown. Cultural groups that perform for audiences of all ages deserve our continued support. To this end, I have allocated funds to Children’s Musical Theater, San Jose Jazz, San Jose Young People’s Theater and Shady Shakespeare Theater Company.

Miscellaneous: $11,000
Other allocations I made that do not fit neatly into any of the categories listed above include: Veteran’s Day Parade; Rose, White & Blue Parade; San Jose Day Nursery; Books for Treats; Christmas in the Park; Good Karma Bikes; California Pioneers of Santa Clara County; Pat Tillman Foundation; Turning Wheels for Kids; and Silicon Valley Roller Girls.

These allocations were all made directly on behalf of my office, and reflect my values as a citizen of San Jose. My colleagues on the City Council have given their support to many of the same organizations, as well as others. I cannot speak on behalf of my colleagues nor would I criticize any choice they made. Ultimately, there are many good causes. The funds that are allocated, although small, are helpful to these organizations and their beneficiaries.

Dear Netflix,

Congratulations on your company’s success in the marketplace. Your first-to-market strategy, technology and service offerings have made Netflix a well respected global brand.

Netflix has not only created millions of satisfied customers, but your success has also generated substantial wealth for shareholders, employees and their respective families. Netflix has also increased tax revenue to government, whether by capital gains and income taxes from employees to state and federal government, or sales, utility and property tax revenues from business operations to local government.

Companies have choices when it comes to expansion—they may expand locally, or they may take their business out of state. Many would argue that California does not provide a hospitable environment for business. It has earned this reputation due to nonsensical laws like CEQA, which delay and prevent companies from expanding and employing people. The same anti common sense law has even been used to block the construction of bathrooms at parks and the remodeling of an existing library.

CEQA law was used to block Netflix’s first attempt at expansion in Los Gatos, and it could potentially be used again. Unfortunately, time is money. Delay, uncertainty and lingering doubt can really take a toll on even the most optimistic among us. Based on public testimony from Los Gatos Town Council meetings, one could easily conclude that Los Gatos residents simply does not want Netflix to expand in their town. Los Gatos is a great community with many positive attributes, and residents may have a vested interest in ensuring that Los Gatos remains unchanged.

As an alternative, the city of San Jose would be ready to act quickly on the entitlement of the Netflix corporate headquarters. Netflix would be welcomed with open arms, and appreciated for the value you bring to the community. San Jose can also offer additional perks to your workforce that are different from the standard offerings of an office park. For example, Santana Row, located just down the road, would offer a dynamic work environment that does not require your employees to get in car to enjoy all of the amenities just outside of their workplace.

Another site on the 280 corridor is located at Meridian Avenue, next to the Echelon Corporation. This facility would be adjacent to light rail and within walking distance to the Willow Glen business district. If Netflix is open to looking further east, then locating in downtown San Jose may be an even better fit for your company. Since a good portion of Netflix’s business entails mailing or streaming movies, why not locate closer to where performing arts thrive in the form of live theater and musicals, in the same city that is also home to the Cinequest Film Festival?

San Jose would be proud to have Netflix call our city home. San Jose is a good long-term choice for Netflix, as the majority of your workforce is likely to live in San Jose, which can accommodate more residents than a small town. San Jose could also get creative when it comes to sharing tax revenues generated from your new campus. A portion of these funds could be directed to local philanthropic organizations in the name of Netflix.

In conclusion, encouraging businesses to locate in San Jose can either be done quietly under the table or it can be done out in the open. I am personally a fan of negotiating out in the open, with no hidden agenda or secret deals. The simple fact remains: We want your business.

Regards,
Councilmember
Pierluigi Oliverio