Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

A Few Good Lobbyists

By

As many of you know, the San Jose City Council is on recess for the month of July.  Therefore, I thought I would share something lighthearted with you.

“Monday Night Live,” a comic theater production by the San Jose Stage Company, is an ongoing tradition for some. The yearly event started about ten years ago and depicts well known San Jose officials in a comical manner. The event acts as a fundraiser for the theater company and mimics the TV show, “Saturday Night Live.” “Monday Night Live” can be very sarcastic, silly and even self-deprecating. I was asked to participate this year as an Italian (what an original idea) in a “Sopranos” skit.

The theme of the production this year was lobbyists. Worth noting is that the person behind “Monday Night Live” is none other than the front-man lobbyist himself, Jerry Strangis. If you remember, I don’t like lobbyists (smile). Rather, I don’t like what lobbyists have done, so I was excited to participate in this “let’s rip on lobbyists comedy.”

I love theater in my own right and enjoy movies old and new. One of my favorite movie scenes was in “A Few Good Men,” where Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise exchange words at the trial on the witness stand.

My imagination got the best of me. I was thinking about this scene and decided to put words to paper. I took the scene and rewrote it, modifying the words in the original dialogue to a courtroom exchange about lobbyists between Allen Ruby—the attorney for ex-Mayor Ron Gonzales—and me.

Here is my rewrite:

ALLEN RUBY: I would like an answer to the question Judge. Councilman Oliverio . . . you made the call. You Placed the Order. You personally gave approval and made it happen. Councilman Oliverio, did you place the order?

OLIVERIO: I’ll answer the question. You want answers?

ALLEN RUBY: I think I’m entitled to them.

OLIVERIO: You want answers?

ALLEN RUBY: I want the truth!

OLIVERIO: You can’t handle the truth! Allen, we live in a city that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded from lobbyists. Who’s gonna do it? You?  Les White? Rick Doyle? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Ron Gonzales and you curse SanJoseInside. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that the downfall of Tony Arreola and Sean Kali-Rai, while tragic, probably saved San Jose’s remaining industrial lands. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves Coyote Valley from development . . . You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at the Chamber and Labor Temple, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like “no bundling of checks,” “no back door meetings,” “clean money” . . .  we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ‘em as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the Reed Reforms I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said “thank you” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a checkbook and write me a check for $250. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!

ALLEN RUBY: Did you order the blow-up doll to Jerry Strangis’s house?

OLIVERIO: I did the job the people sent me to do.

ALLEN RUBY: Did you order the blow-up doll?

OLIVERIO: You’re goddamn right I did!

My script wasn’t used; however, I stand by it.

Have a good week.

2006-2007: Rest in Peace

By

I survived another late night city council meeting. This one was the last of the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The meeting began at 1:30 p.m. but did not end until 11:30 p.m.  I am not quite sure if having a ten hour meeting allows for the time needed to go over important items like Coyote Valley, a hazardous waste facility, and Evergreen, among others.  Members of the community come to the city council meetings and have to wait for hours just to be heard for one or two minutes regarding their particular issue.  And, of course, we had a smorgasbord of last-minute issues that either couldn’t wait until August, or were not planned appropriately to come up at an earlier meeting date.

Here are a few important issues with my opinions.

Surplus city owned property
In an attempt to acquire revenue, the Public Works Department brought forth a proposal to auction off various parcels of city owned land.  A few of those parcels were identified by community leaders in my district for possible parks. I removed this proposal from the consent calendar and asked that it to be deferred to October. As we know, land is a precious commodity; once we sell, it is gone forever.  If the city is serious about saving money, then I think the city should do a better job of managing its everyday expenses—not sell land that will only increase in value.

Coyote Valley
As I have mentioned before, I am not supportive of developing or planning for Coyote Valley at this time. Currently, there are many reasons why this development would be harmful for San Jose, such as the lack of tax base, depletion of city services, sprawl, and depleting open space. The question I have is: Is the city being disingenuous with allowing the planning to continue? For example, if the city as a whole does not want to develop Coyote now, then we should stop planning. Some of our best planners are working on this project which takes them away from other infill developments that deserve expertise.

Evergreen
The discussion of Evergreen reminded me of a mathematics class: a complex formula of merging both Mayor Reed’s and Vice Mayor Cortese’s memos together with a few amendments. In the end, we had something to move forward with and will review each proposed development case by case.

$2 million nets for the Los Lagos Golf course
After spending over $100, 000 on a consultant, it was determined that the city owned golf course, Las Lagos, needed new netting at a cost of $2 million to keep the golf balls from going in the street. Yes, $2 million for nets.  The golf course was “supposed” to be profitable. Instead, the city has spent $24 million on the golf course already since it was opened approximately a decade ago.  Las Lagos has operated at a loss every year—absolutely no profit.

Las Lagos sits on 200 acres of city owned property.  One might think that the investment of $24 million on a golf course isn’t working and the city should cease spending money on it.  Perhaps we could use the 200 acres for organized play.  I believe that San Jose should open a similar business like Twin Creeks in Sunnyvale, which offers organized fee-based team sports for both men and women. Twin Creeks is a private company that makes money offering organized play to our residents.

I am confused as to why a city government would continue spending millions on a golf course. Decisions like these keep me up at night. Rancho Del Pueblo, which is another city owned golf course, has also operated at a loss since it opened.

Hazardous waste site at Las Plumas
After looking at six other sites, the City of San Jose decided to place its hazardous waste site at Las Plumas.  This facility will serve the city well.  Residents will be able to drop off paint, batteries, aerosol cans, etc.  We don’t want residents throwing these items into the ground or gutter.  I must share that the city is feeling the ramifications of the poorly made decisions of converting industrial land to housing.  Fewer and fewer options for industrial uses in San Jose are available. Another example was the difficulty of finding industrial land for CWS, the new garbage hauler in San Jose.  As Mayor Reed, a few other council members and I have stated, we need to stop the conversion of industrial land.

For the month of July (during the council recess) I will be working at my private sector job.  I think it is important that I continue my profession so that I don’t lose perspective of the “real world.”

The Scarlet Letter

By

Last week, the San Jose City Council passed additional rules for governing lobbyists.  I supported this item and made a few comments of my own.

It is important to specifically define—as best that the city can—who lobbyists are and what they do. Lobbyists who are registered with the City of San Jose are individuals who are hired and paid money and/or receive in-kind gifts to influence government decisions on behalf of their respective clients.  Lobbyist’s use their influence—“influence” being purposeful communication for the purpose of supporting, changing, opposing or intentionally affecting the actions of city officials by persuasion, incentives, studies or analyses—to obtain an outcome in their favor.

To be fair, I don’t think that lobbyists are evil people nor do I believe that they are intentionally out to destroy city processes. Many lobbyists are former staff aides and council members in addition to being developers.  These folks have an internal knowledge base by default because of their employment at city hall.  However, the problem there lies in the fact that registered lobbyists use their knowledge base and influence to push issues through city government.  Since many people know them, and the fact that lobbyists usually represent clients with deep pockets who give money to and raise money for campaigns, those being lobbied can be placed in an uncomfortable position and “give in” to the lobbyist.

Of course one could argue—successfully so—that those being lobbied, such as elected officials, should have the guts to say no to something they disagree with.  However, the relationship between a lobbyist and a council member usually begins when the council member is a candidate. During the campaign, lobbyists can raise thousands of dollars for a candidate.  If the candidate should win, he/she may feel obligated to support the lobbyist and their clients because of the money they raised for the campaign. (When I ran my election, I did not accept money from lobbyists nor did I ask lobbyists to raise money for me.)

In an effort to have some fun with a serious subject, one of my fellow council members asked if we might consider requiring lobbyists to wear a badge that says “LOBBYIST” when they roam city hall. This Nathaniel Hawthorne Scarlet-Letter approach, albeit funny, does not accomplish the overall goal that we are trying to achieve. The goal is to make visible to the average citizen what a lobbyist does and how their influence can impact the outcome of policy that affects our everyday lives.

An important part of disclosure is for the city to require candidates for city council and mayor to identify those persons who are lobbyists on their campaign fundraising reports. I raised this issue from the dais on Tuesday. This is important because I believe that the public should know whether or not the candidate is taking money from lobbyists. These reports are viewable on the city clerk’s website.

Another amendment was to change the revolving door from one year to two years. As I mentioned, many former staff and elected officials leave public service with hopes to immediately use their knowledge base to benefit themselves personally.  Many lobbyists make a six-figure income based entirely on their familiarity with city government.

As a council member, I only meet with lobbyists if their clients are present. In addition, my web calendar lists the word “lobbyist” next to those individuals that are registered lobbyists.

What are your thoughts regarding the amendments made to the lobbyist ordinance?  What other changes/additions do you think should take place in the future?

Passing the Budget

By

Whew—just before midnight, we passed the budget!

After many long budget hearings, staff presentations, public testimony and robbing Peter to pay Paul, we have a “balanced” budget.

The City of San Jose cannot borrow funds like the federal government. Therefore, we must balance our books every year. We do have bonds to pay for our capital projects such as new libraries, fire stations and parks; but for the most part, we have to make sure we have funds that match expenses—which is one of the most difficult jobs of a city government.

As hard as it was this year to find funding for much needed projects and to make an attempt to be fair to all people, it will be an even harder task next year to meet the same expectations.

I believe that the city needs to spend money prudently. We should not convert industrial land that will create revenue for the city and not be “lawsuit happy.” The city had to pay over $30 million to settle just two lawsuits. One was to take land away from a small business owner (Tropicana), and the other was to sue the county because we had an issue about who could build an outside theater. Now, neither the city nor county have an amphitheater. What the city council could have paid for with the $30+ million we wasted on lawsuits.

The budget process is tough, even for folks like me who consider themselves penny savers.  For example, I supported allocating $257,000 to EHC for their homeless center rather than funding the “insourcing” of the graveyard shift janitors at $1.2 million a year. There are some that argue that bringing janitors on as fulltime employees is a better use of money than providing for the homeless, but I disagree.

I requested that EHC put their financials on their website.  As I have mentioned before, any non-profit group receiving over $100,000 from the city should have their audited financials posted on their public facing website.  They agreed.  To compare, I supported $257,000 to assist 125 homeless people rather than spend $1.2 million a year for 25 janitors, who are already employed with a living wage and medical benefits, to become city employees.

At the end of the final budget hearing, my request to put aside almost $1 million to help fund public/private partnerships for park maintenance was accepted by the city council. I felt a sense of camaraderie at that moment and I was honored that my fellow council members supported this request. It is an allocation that if used innovatively and appropriately, could be put to good use for all parks in San Jose.

Other choices and questions that we will have to make in the future include funding for “green” (LEED certified) buildings. Are we willing to spend more on one building even though that may mean we sacrifice a new library for another San Jose neighborhood?

What ideas and thoughts do you have regarding the budget?

Big Wheels and Officeholder Accounts

By

Did you ever borrow a friend’s toy as a kid because you didn’t have one of your own? I did.  I would borrow my friend’s Big Wheel.  My parents advised me to be happy with what I had and warned me about becoming dependent on borrowing my friend’s toy for fulfillment.  Well, I didn’t listen to my parents’ sound advice.  Instead, I wanted to ride the Big Wheel more and more.  So, I gave the owner Twinkies and cupcakes in exchange for riding the Big Wheel.

After a short time, I did become dependent on my friend’s Big Wheel.  Sometimes I would become angry if I couldn’t ride it because I felt it was my right. After all, I gave my friend a cupcake and, in turn, he should return the favor.

My borrowing of the Big Wheel is like asking for money for an officeholder account; neither is unconditional and both have expectations that might get out of hand. An officeholder account, also known as a friend account, is a pot of money that council members have solicited from people they know. It is campaigning.  The limit for an account is about $10,000. Most of the time, the folks who give money want something from the council member—perhaps funding for a group or, more often, a zoning change and/or land use issue passed.  The soliciting of funds for an account to use while in office is a conflict of interest.

For many years, San Jose city council members have had the ability to have an officeholder account to pay for items and expenses at their own discretion.  Most of these expenses from the account are spent in the community for constituent functions like school and community events.

Council members are expected to attend these community events as part of their job and are happy to do so.  As we know, the council member’s pay is low and to assume or expect council members to spend thousands of dollars on events would not be fair.

Officeholder accounts should be eliminated as we know them today.  Instead, I would propose that each council office should receive at least $3,000 a year to attend community events (NOT political events). $3,000 is an appropriate amount. If a council member has an existing officeholder account, then they should be allowed to spend down that account; but, in the future, the city should do away with them.

I believe that most council members use the money justly and appropriately. However, with the city converting industrial land, it makes me wonder what would happen if the big developers, lobbyists and people of influence were not able to fund officeholder accounts. Would elected officials be less likely to be influenced?

Let’s do away with officeholder accounts and find out.

Neighborhood Business Districts

By

Happy Memorial Day

The backbone of San Jose is made of its neighborhood business districts. District 6 has three viable ones: Lincoln Avenue, The Alameda and West San Carlos.  These neighborhood business districts provide tax revenue for our city.  In addition, they are a compliment to the residential neighborhoods they border.

The business districts in D-6 have had empty storefronts; however, those empty storefronts might be becoming something of the past.  This past week, I attended one meeting and one grand opening of two small businesses owned by people who live in the area.

On May 23, I attended the opening of Powell’s Sweet Shop on Lincoln Avenue. Powell’s is a Northern Californian chain that started up in the North Bay. They sell vintage candy, gourmet chocolate and gelato. The store was packed with excited patrons who couldn’t wait to unwrap the candies. Although it took a long time for Powell’s candy store to move through the process, its new home is sure to attract an anxious crowd.

In addition, directly across the street from Powell’s is the upcoming 3 Dog Café, a new concept restaurant from the creators of Aqui’s.  As many people know, Aqui’s started on Lincoln Avenue and is owned by a gentleman who grew up in San Jose. I hope the process for 3 Dog Café is not backlogged.  I will be tracking this process to make sure that the city departments charged with helping small businesses actually provide assistance. Willow Glen residents want more neighborhood-friendly businesses on Lincoln Avenue; therefore, I do not want to hold up private investment in our neighborhood business district.

I also attended a community meeting this week for a new business on The Alameda, Wine Affairs, which will locate on the same block as the Towne Theater. The woman opening the business formerly worked in high-tech.  Now she is pursuing her dream to open a wine bar that serves desserts and also offers classes.  Her target audience is the nearby neighborhood.

City staff, neighborhood and business leaders and various community members attended the Wine Affairs meeting.  Usually at these meetings there is disagreement, especially with alcohol being served.  However, no one in the room disagreed. Everyone was happy and delighted with the proposed business.

One member of the audience asked how much money was needed to start a business like this. He was told that the start-up costs were over a quarter of a million dollars.  I am glad the question was asked.  I am not sure if folks understand what a financial commitment small business owners make when they open a business.

These enterprises chose to locate in these areas because they wanted a central business district feel.  They also appreciate the neighborhoods in which the business districts are located.  The city needs to continue to provide infrastructure for these areas like pedestrian safety, slowing cars down, trees, benches, bike racks, lighting, etc….

What are your ideas for neighborhood business districts San Jose?