One issue that everyone who is paying attention to San Jose politics agrees with is that the City of San Jose’s General Plan is outdated and is in need of revamping.

At the August 7 city council meeting, all of Mayor Reed’s recommendations for the General Plan Update Task Force (which included Councilmembers Liccardo and Chirco and me) were supported by the council. The task force is a diverse group of people representing environmentalists, developers, unions and community members, among others.

The General Plan will take time. It is not a process that can be rushed (finishing early does not count here). I will take the time necessary to read the information that is brought forth and ask questions and challenge the status quo. I will also listen to all members of the community regarding their thoughts, ideas and recommendations for the future of land use in San Jose.

Two of the members on the General Plan Task Force were my recommendations to the mayor.

I chose Nancy Ianni, a former council member who served District 6 from 1981-1993, and Harvey Darnell, the current President of North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association. Both Nancy and Harvey are neighborhood advocates who will serve the task force well.

Nancy’s history in San Jose planning dates back over 40 years. In fact, she was one of the founders of the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association back in the mid-seventies when Norm Mineta was mayor. As a council member, Nancy was well liked and respected by the neighborhoods.  She led and funded the Mid-town Specific Plan and was part of a community group that stopped the City of San Jose from expanding Willow St., Pine Ave. and Cherry Ave. into four lanes. In addition, she made sure that the Shasta Hanchett neighborhood did not suffer from Arena traffic. Nancy is sharp, witty and fair. Her roots are in the neighborhoods and we are fortunate to have her.

Harvey Darnell was the chairman of Counter to Council and very active in CalSJ, which is a group that protects the riparian corridor (waterways) and advocates for parks.  Harvey is not afraid to speak up for what he believes in and has challenged developers and fought for increased park fees. He is genuine and has the ability to see the whole picture, not just what is right in front of him. The task force needs community members with this skill.

The questions that we all should be asking are: How do we want our city to grow? How do we want to define net loss? Is it time to perform an audit of historic buildings?

The General Plan meetings are not set yet, but I encourage all of you to attend and speak when the time comes.

I took advantage of the great Bay Area weather that San Jose benefits from and attended two night time events that were held outdoors in downtown.

I went to the Christmas in the Park fundraiser at the Circle of Palms two weeks ago.  The night was filled with great company, a silent auction, wine and opportunities to win trips. All of this was outside in the heart of San Jose.

The Circle of the Palms is located in the central area between the San Jose Museum of Art, the Fairmont Hotel and the Knight Ridder building. The palm trees were planted in a circle to commemorate San Jose as the first capitol of California before the capitol was moved to Benicia and then Sacramento. The Circle of Palms also serves as the home to San Jose’s ice skating rink in the winter. The view from the second story of the Fairmont looking down upon all the people ice skating is picturesque.

The second event I attended was the Grand Prix. As we know, the car races were held on our downtown streets. However, there was also an evening event which was held at the City Hall rotunda and the outside plaza area. Once again, this was a great event with fun people, catered by Smoke Barbeque, a local small downtown business, with music and beverages.

Although I acknowledge the financial pains the new City Hall has cost the city, I also recognize the importance of being proud of the building and the ambiance it offers. I would like to see more events there.  For example, San Francisco City Hall hosts the Black & White ball for their symphony, a great outdoor event that I have attended several times.

However, one hiccup that events at City Hall encounter is the city policy of not allowing hard liquor and cocktails in public places. So, currently, you may not take your drink made with hard alcohol outside the rotunda to the plaza where the food is located and the dancing is taking place. I am hopeful that we can change this absurd policy for City Hall so all groups can enjoy the evening weather on the plaza with food and drink.

What I remember most about the events I attended was that I loved being outside in downtown San Jose. I think we should promote our outside facilities. Why not make it easier for non-profits to host charity events in our public open spaces downtown?  I do know that San Jose needs to improve its permit and setup process for outdoor public spaces. Could you imagine hosting our sister city dinners outdoors? Visitors from states that do not have the weather that we do would enjoy the climate, the views and ambiance. We are missing out on using opportunities like this to promote our open-air locations.

San Jose competes with many cities for hosting conventions; therefore, I think we should promote our downtown outside spaces to local businesses and other groups. For example, Portland has done a great job by taking advantage of its greatest outdoor asset: the Columbia River in Portland’s downtown core. Why shouldn’t San Jose make the most of its outdoor assets too? There is no reason why many of our local companies would not want to host their annual employee parties, user groups or other corporate events on the plaza at City Hall.

Summer is not over yet; I suggest visiting San Pedro Square and Saint James Park for their free movie nights every Wednesday and Friday through August. In addition, there is Music in the Park (Cesar Chavez) on Thursday nights. Or, go find something new in downtown San Jose that you haven’t done before!

Four people died in Almaden Valley on July 24th, 2007—two teenage boys just beginning their lives as young adults and a married couple walking together for a stroll.

One teenage boy was driving his car with a friend as a passenger. He lost control of his car on Graystone Lane as he was traveling faster than the posted speed limit. He hit and killed a married couple walking on the side of the road before slamming into a tree, only to have his car explode into a fire. Everyone was dead at the scene. This was so tragic that I was despondent when I read the story.

The real tragedy here is the innocent victims that were on a walk who were killed by these kids. The Batras often took walks together like so many couples after work.
Think about it: you are happily married, proud of your kids, chatting about your first upcoming grandchild, holding hands and then BAM! The impact of the speeding car separates the two of you where you die on your neighborhood street. This same incident could occur in any neighborhood of San Jose.

I have done some early morning walks in different neighborhoods in my district watching traffic patterns.  I noticed what many of you already know: the speeders often live on the same street they speed on. There is this notion of freedom with a car and that you should be able to drive however fast you desire. There are consequences from this notion, but often times we learn the lesson too late.

What could have changed this? Certainly a cop on every corner would stop this behavior, but we know that this is not possible. However, we do know that a traffic officer covers his or her salary with fines they give out, making hiring traffic officers revenue neutral for the city.

Cities often have to solve the problems that federal or state governments choose to ignore. We will never have enough police to patrol all streets, but if we have higher fines that deter deviant behavior, then that is what would actually change drivers’ behavior.

Let’s work with our local state legislators on writing a bill that allows cities the ability to raise the amount of the fine on neighborhood streets to deter this deadly behavior.

I have had five neighborhood meetings and speeding is a top issue of concern, and the residents are fed up and so am I.  It’s time to send a wakeup call to speeders.

What would you propose to really solve speeding on neighborhood streets? How would you pay for it?

It’s my turn to complain about traffic. Traffic: another reason to keep jobs in San Jose.

I join over 50 percent of San Jose residents who leave their homes every day to travel to their jobs to earn a living outside of San Jose. Those of us who commute, trek highways 101, 880, 85, 87 and 280 mostly north to the “land of jobs.” I am getting back on the road and joining my fellow residents on our neighborhood streets as we try to snake our way to the freeway entrance—a feat in and of itself.  I hesitate to say this, but now I am reminded why people cut through neighborhoods. Saving a few minutes commuting is a big deal to many with all the traffic congestion to slow us down.

As I mentioned last week, I thought it was important to keep my private sector job so that I would stay in touch with “reality.” Well, reality includes the severe traffic problems that residents face every day while commuting back and forth to work. Over half of San Jose residents leave the city with long commutes, which equates to time away from their families and communities.

For me, my commute wasn’t so bad when I first started with my company because they were located in San Jose. Unfortunately, my company didn’t see any advantages to growing in San Jose and moved its offices away. Now, any route I take north usually has standstill traffic. It doesn’t matter whether I take 87 to 101 or 280 to 85 to 101. There seems to be no alternatives—no short cuts—to escape the traffic.  I marvel at all these San Jose drivers who travel to their respective destinations for work and then travel back to “the Capitol of Housing: San Jose,” spending much time waiting in traffic. Thank goodness for books on tape!

Often my work takes me onsite to client locations which include new venture capitalist funded companies. This month I have visited companies in San Mateo, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Dublin, Hayward, Cupertino, and Menlo Park, among others.  At every company I visited in these cities, I met people that live in San Jose. In addition to their commute, they also spend their money close to where they work on items such as gas, lunch, dry cleaning, etc. Their sales tax then generates money for the respective city’s public safety officers, parks and libraries.

In my opinion, San Jose has done more than any other city in the Bay Area with regards to providing housing. The council recently passed the five-year housing budget for the first time and included “extremely low income” (ELI) opportunities.  Although it is important to provide housing opportunities for people of all income levels, I do believe that we need to be proactive in retaining land for future employment in San Jose. We don’t need to convert every piece of open space to housing. In fact, I think it is a good idea to let land sit for a while. San Jose has many attributes, including our diversity, neighborhoods etc., to which we should also add “land for jobs.”

It is important for our city’s future that new companies start in San Jose, grow in San Jose and, finally, stay in San Jose. Commutes are not going away; they are getting worse.  I look forward to our 2040 General Plan where we can discuss and define what net loss means to San Jose, and hopefully somewhere in those conversations, we can also show how keeping jobs in San Jose will equal less traffic and more time with family and friends.

Public and Private Sector Jobs

As I mentioned before, I am working full time in the private sector during the council recess. I enjoy my private sector job and I believe it is healthy for anyone who runs for public office to keep their “day job.”  I like working in the software industry and helping different companies solve problems. I believe that my experience in private industry keeps my brain sharp and ensures that I don’t lose touch with reality.

I am not the first to keep my non-governmental job; Ken Yeager continued to teach and Chuck Reed continued with his law practice. These are two people I admire and who (in my opinion) are leaders worthy of emulation.

I consult with companies that design physical objects like optical networking, medical devices, biotech, consumer electronics, etc. These up and coming companies must move fast to survive. If they do not move fast enough, then another company will make a better, faster and cheaper widget. Their competition may come from anywhere in the world, so being organized and ready to seize an opportunity or defeat competition is paramount.

Launching a sophisticated product takes time and energy. Launching the product before it is ready will lead to disaster and possibly put a company out of business. Timing is everything for inventive companies.

I realize the wheels of government do not move at the same speed as in the private sector, nor does government have the best track record of planning well or using money wisely.  The survival skills in government do not exist like they do in the private sector since there is no risk of capital. I don’t want to lose focus of how important it is to plan ahead and use money as prudently as possible.

What government does do is provide for the needs of the community, and that is what the private sector lacks; although, to be fair, the majority of businesses that I work with are generous in funding specific causes and various non-profits. The reason I ran for office was to be part of keeping our neighborhoods healthy and vibrant. I take pleasure working in the community and with my council colleagues. As much as I enjoy the private sector, I am looking forward to returning to my council office in August.

As I have mentioned before in a few of my posts, my parents taught me the importance of saving my money and using it prudently at a very young age. I think my parents taught me well; they practiced what they preached and I learned by example.

Twenty years ago, my father was diagnosed with cancer.  My parents, both teachers, with two children and a mortgage, were able to pay for my father’s healthcare bills which cost over $130,000. How?  Because they saved money every day of their lives.  The insurance they had twenty years ago would not cover all of the costs of cancer treatment; therefore, it was up to my parents to pay the bills.  In today’s world those costs would equal $250,000-300,000.

Like my parents, I believe it is important to be conservative with my own money.  As a consequence, I treat the public’s money like my own—responsibly and carefully.  Catastrophes, hard times, or a national emergency may come at any time for San Jose.  So, it is up to the city council to ensure that the City of San Jose has security and liquidity of its finances to take care of the tenth largest city.

San Jose has a pattern of not being as prudent and responsible as it should have been with city finances.  Our city experienced a $60 million bond loss in 1984. (Not to mention all the money the city has wasted suing small business owners and other public governmental agencies, etc.) In fact, I remember attending the hearings at City Hall when I was in the 8th grade. To be honest, I would cut class to attend. I did not understand exactly what was transpiring at the age of 14, but I did know that the community was shocked that the city was not more prudent with the public’s money.  (On a side note, I also remember that former Mayor Tom McEnery and Councilmember Jerry Estruth had really big hair!)

This past week, on June 5 at the city council meeting, the finance department proposed contracting out a portion of the city’s portfolio to an investment firm.  This would be similar to investing in a mutual fund portfolio through Fidelity or T. Rowe Price.  The firm would be paid for their services to manage a portion of our portfolio. Going forward, their evaluation would be performance-based on the return on investment they earned for San Jose. The finance department believes we could gain a higher return by doing this.

However, for us to change course, the city would need to hire additional staff and subscribe to investment technology for the first year at a cost of $470,000.  This amount will be ongoing and grow over time, which then cuts into how much more the city could make. This model would be like you investing in mutual funds—doing the work by yourself without any problems and earning money—and then stopping only to hire a financial planner to oversee the portfolio that you were doing perfectly well with on your own.  I am not sure why the finance department would propose a new method when the previous method was not broken.

In addition, there is an incomplete audit of the finance department that was being conducted by the city auditor’s department. This audit would have been completed by September. I would prefer to see what that audit report says before we implement changes.  At the finance committee meeting, I couldn’t help but notice how adamant the finance department was against the completion of this audit and their push for the city council to move forward with their idea.

Anyway, as I said, I voted against changing a system that is not broken and that has earned a secure return on investments in commercial paper, treasuries, money markets, etc.  (This information is located right on the finance department’s website.)

An argument was made that other cities like San Francisco have earned more than San Jose on their investments this past year. However, we are not San Francisco and we should be careful comparing ourselves to other cities.  In my opinion, with the upside of a higher return, there is also the downside risk.  Would you rather have a guaranteed safe return or a more volatile return?  When it comes to the one million people who live in San Jose, earning a secure and liquid return is the most responsible way to invest money.

Let me ask you: Do you believe we should have a guaranteed secure rate of return for city investment or do you trust the City of San Jose to invest your money at a higher risk for a higher return? Of course, that is after we pay over $470,000 for additional staff and not including commissions.  What do you think?