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.

On Mar. 9, 2009, I wrote about homeless encampments in San Jose. At that time, I shadowed police and social workers on five different occasions. They went out to relocate the homeless and clean up property they were occupying.

On July 25, 2011, I wrote about mental illness and how deinstitualization has in part contributed to an increased homeless population:

Most recently, the homeless encampment issue has come up again. Specifically, there is a Fresno court case and recent state legislation providing more rights to the homeless people/encampments that impacts all California cities ability to dismantle encampments.

Government has offered—and continues to offer—assistance to the homeless. There could be a debate by some on how much or how little in social programs we as a society offer the homeless. As detailed in my past writings, some of the homeless suffer from mental illness, while others struggle with substance abuse or have experienced grave misfortune in life.

The homeless are offered emergency shelters, potential transition to Single Room Occupancy (SRO) facilities, federal work programs, county programs and non-profits services which may include assistance with substance abuse or medical care. The cost of these services comes out of our taxes. Some would argue that when more assistance is offered it attracts more homeless people to where those services are provided.

I don’t necessarily agree that an individual city could ever build enough housing for the homeless or extremely low income housing, as more individuals would come. However, there may be a more cost-effective solution for a portion of the homeless population that could also help reunite families.

As mentioned in my 2009 post, many of the people I encountered within the homeless encampments were not from San Jose or even California. Regions known for good weather and being generous have become places where homeless individuals are more inclined to relocate.  We live in a borderless society between states and cities in the USA, and social problems ebb and flow based on the movement of people.

For all the programs we offer, I believe we should also offer one-way transportation to homeless individuals who desire to be reunited where they may have the support of family and friends. I understand, however, that not everyone who has family and friends in their hometown may be welcomed due to personal conflicts, abuse or shame. But some people may prefer this option.

Families that have abandoned their homeless relatives, for whatever reason, may find that distance allows them to easily forget. Perhaps reuniting homeless individuals, even where there has been abandonment, could change circumstances, especially if medication is appropriately provided for those who need it.

New York City offers one-way transportation to homeless individuals, some of whom are even flown to other continents. Even international air transportation is less expensive than the cost of housing associated with homeless individuals in New York. Reunification is also spreading to Hawaii and Florida.

Does this pass the buck? Maybe. But if someone wants to return to his or her hometown and we can facilitate the less costly alternative, then why not? It may be easier for some of these individuals to get into a regular groove with their family or friends. For those who may label this idea heartless, I would like to see them advocate for a homeless shelter adjacent to their home or show a willingness to pay for these services by allocating money from one government department budget to another.

It is not realistic to ask the same critic to pay a tax to support the homeless, because it would never pass with voter approval. So, inevitably, we pay today in many ways, and that means less money for something else government may provide to residents.

In conclusion, a percentage of San Jose’s homeless population would like to be reunited with family and friends. Enabling reunification would allow government to better provide the necessary services to the remaining homeless population.

As a councilmember, I interact with many different people on a regular basis and have a chance to observe the different stages of life.

One day I might meet a newly engaged couple and, behold, they are married with kids who attend the local elementary school. Or it could be a young family and the next thing I know I am shaking their son or daughter’s hand at a high school graduation ceremony.

It is sad to witness divorce. I see divorcees out and about individually in the community, helping with their child’s education but carrying the stress on their face. Sometimes people ask me why we build apartments in San Jose and who would actually live there. Well, in many instances it is divorced spouses who have to start over and are looking for a place nearby.

Monitoring the plight of a small business can be a pensive process, as the owner takes the risk to open a retail store only to close the doors after another bad year. I am amazed how people want “cute” little stores to visit but then will go to a chain store when the small business charges 10 cents more. Even more problematic are those people who buy online to save on sales tax and yet still wish for more retail stores. Personally, I like to walk into a store, which is why I don’t purchase items online.

Other observations come from hearing people speak candidly about San Jose—things they would never say in public. Some of these thoughts are good and some are bad, but they’re mostly positive because the people acknowledge they have the freedom to move elsewhere if they choose.

A final observation is when good people you know from the community pass on in this life. Some live a full life surrounded by family and friends, while others leave too quickly like a resident in my district who died last week at 43 from cancer. Not the youngest person I’ve known but the most recent. He was generous with his time both in little league and PTA, and all he touched will miss him.

From my observations, I’ve come to realize that we have a good city. Although it is not perfect, it is still a place we call home.

I recently attended funerals for individuals who were older than 90 and 100 years old. As usually done at funerals, family and friends shared stories about the deceased. One theme that emerged at both funerals was that the older generations were more frugal. Shaped by the depression, they spent less than they made and had no expectations for assistance. At the funeral people repeatedly quoted the refrain, “Live beneath your means.”

Living beneath your means is a great lesson that some people have no concept of; instead they choose immediate gratification via debt. Another wise quote passed on to me at one of the funerals: “It is not about how much you make but how much you save.”  It may mean giving up something in the short term for safety and security down the road.

Government is made up of people, and government’s results are dictated by those same people’s expectations. It seems like fewer people want to manage government by the numbers. Instead, they leave the ramifications of short-term gratification to someone else in the future.

I miss those who have passed. However, their life lessons live on.

Do you remember the childhood story about a Troll under a bridge who threatens to block passage and eat the three Billy Goats Gruff? Well, this is similar to the county of Santa Clara and the city of San Jose.

The county government as a whole, was never a fan of the Redevelopment Agency, as RDA had the long-term potential of minimizing future property tax revenues to the county. The county was always unsure what it would have actually collected in property taxes had it not been for RDA. Without RDA, North San Jose would have been the mecca for mobile home parks and downtown San Jose would have remained a collection of surface parking lots. There was simply not much property tax to collect from undeveloped property in these RDA zones.

The county, like the troll, had an option of eating or stopping the Billy Goat/RDA by blocking the RDA from raising its debt limit. Instead, the county entered into an agreement to let the RDA borrow even more. In return, the county had the most generous payout by a RDA in the state of California.

The county, again like a troll on a bridge, has the ability to block passage. In the case of the county, it is the official body that collects property taxes and then divides and distributes revenue out to school districts, cities and special districts. The county would have nothing to lose by withholding property taxes, hoping that San Jose would capitulate and make a deal. A deal could put the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (SARA) at possible default of bond payments.

The nothing to lose posture of the county caused all RDA bonds to be downgraded in the state of California, because the rating agencies saw potential risk by trolls on other bridges in the state. This increased cost of financing, as a result of the downgrade, puts the County further behind in getting paid, as the county is last in line to get paid behind the bondholders and lines of credit.

State Controller John Chiang played mediator between the county and city, and he found that the county is wrong and should give San Jose the property tax money it is due.

The County has withheld some of the funds to pay for the PERS (Public Employee Retirement System) tax. As a result, the city of San Jose has filed a motion against the county in a Sacramento court. The letter from the state controller specifically called out the PERS levy, noting that the county was not eligible in retaining those funds. Again, the county has nothing to lose by posturing in this manner.

Going back to the Troll and Billy Goat story, the last of the three Billy Goats lowered his horns, galloped along the bridge and butted the Troll into the air.  After this, the troll no longer blocked passage on the bridge.

Last week, the City Council spent nearly two hours discussing the development of four new recreational soccer fields that would be located next to the new San Jose Earthquakes soccer stadium by Lowe’s and In & Out Burger on Coleman Avenue. The soccer fields were a specific line item under Measure P, which voters passed in November 2000.

The larger parcel was purchased in 2005 under the guise of “economic development.” The land was purchased with lease revenue bonds. These types of bonds do not require voter approval and were the same type of bonds used to buy land for golf and the Hayes Mansion.

The general fund is currently leveraged at about $800 million for these type of bonds. We currently pay $4.5 million in debt service for the land. In my view, the city should keep industrial land zoned industrial and not convert to housing. If we did, then we would not be so inclined to buy land for “economic development”—which usually takes money away from our general fund. I like to call this land banking without spending money.

Quite a bit of the repetitive discussion at council was spent on the fact that each council district will put $100K towards the new soccer fields. This money comes from a fund that is restricted for park use and could otherwise be used to fix playground equipment. Some felt that $100K was a huge amount of money and that it really was not equitable, because people will have to pay to use the soccer fields and not all residents can teleport to the new soccer fields.

These fields will be run like our other playing fields in San Jose, where users pay a fee. The hope is that the fees from people who play soccer will make this pencil out, otherwise we do not build the soccer fields. Unfortunately, the golf course fee to play does not pay the entire cost and the city subsidizes golf for more than seven figures.

San Jose has public transportation options, but we will not be providing point-to-point transportation. If each council district wants their own soccer field then it is a matter of available land and money. For example, a soccer field requires nearly three acres of land, which costs approximately $2 million an acre for a total of $6 million. But this is just the price of land, assuming you have a willing seller. The cost to build out a soccer field with artificial turf is $2.8-3.8 million, depending on whether there will be a restroom, parking and other public works improvements.

I am looking forward to the soccer fields for co-ed adult and co-ed young adult teams, so that the neighborhood fields that we do have can be made available for neighborhoods.