My first post on San Jose Inside spoke about the lack of maintenance the San Jose parks were receiving, particularly the historic Municipal Rose Garden Park.

As I mentioned then, I met with city staff and residents to do an initial walkthrough of the park and I saw firsthand the disarray of the park. Shortly thereafter, I submitted a memo asking the council to consider a “pilot program” for outsourcing maintenance at the park.  My pilot proposal was heard on May 15 during the evening meeting.

I came to the meeting prepared for a couple of things.  First, I knew my pilot proposal would not pass, even though I and many residents of San Jose felt it was the right thing to do. Second, that labor would be against any proposal that contains the word “outsourcing.”  On the dais, I spoke about the need for the city to save money and deliver efficient and effective neighborhood services, and the fact that my proposal was just that—a one year pilot that would be measured.

During this process, there were a few individual people against my proposal under the veil of “Rose Garden neighbors.” They put out a press release which I obtained via email as a Microsoft Word document. When I went to the “properties” section of the press release document, I found that the “neighbors” group was not the author. Instead, I saw the name Bob Brownstein as the author and the software had been licensed to Working Partnerships USA (Union). Bob Brownstein works for Phaedra Ellis-Lampkins, the head of the South Bay Labor Council.
I made my comments and asked the council to send my proposal to “meet and confer.” The meet-and-confer process can take as long as a year! It involves sitting down and negotiating with the labor unions. Unfortunately, none of the city council members supported me.  However, Mayor Reed was supportive of the pilot program and also warned the council that our city budget is in such a severe deficit that we need to be innovative.

I was taken aback when speakers from labor that spoke before the council that evening said that I didn’t follow “the process.”  I thought to myself: I didn’t?  How is that?

Throughout my campaign of seven months, I spoke of the need to investigate outsourcing some park maintenance. The city currently outsources some street paving and saves money and receives good service. I thought we should do the same with park maintenance.  Once elected, I wrote a memo which went to the Rules Committee.  I wanted my idea to be placed on the city council agenda as soon as possible for open discussion.

Simultaneously, I held a press conference with Rose Garden residents present.  Over 30 residents were in attendance and very supportive of my idea.  The neighbors also organized a neighborhood meeting for me to share my proposal with over 40 residents at the Hoover Community Center.

On May 15, I shared my proposal and then I heard the cliché “I didn’t follow the process.”  I believe that I followed the process and from the feedback that I received from residents throughout San Jose, they believe that I did.

The “process” was that they thought this issue should have gone to committees first and that I should have called the unions before coming to the city council. I respectfully disagree.

I feel that every city councilmember should be able to bring forward ideas to their team—in this case the team is the city council—so that ideas can be expressed in the open and not behind closed doors.  I don’t believe that I have to contact the Chamber of Commerce or the Labor Council before I bring an idea to the city council.

The city council is the elected body charged by the residents of San Jose to create and implement policy.  Commissions, committees and various groups are not directly elected by the people.  I have no problem if the city council chooses to send an issue to a committee for review.  Having a smaller group review and make recommendations to the city council is a good idea. However, I strongly believe that in order for government to be open and honest, all issues, ideas, etc., need to be brought to the city council for open dialogue.  The city council meetings are televised so that every single person with a TV can watch them.  Calling special interest groups or sending an idea to a committee whose members are appointed—not elected—before bringing the idea to the city council is not what residents want. They want you to solve problems as soon as possible.

My pilot proposal is now going to the private/public committee, and then it will be brought back to the city council in June.  Fair enough.  I am looking forward to what the committee’s thoughts are and I deeply appreciate my fellow team members (city council) for supporting this.

Today, May 17, my office again received numerous calls from the Rose Garden area—but this time with good news.  Seven trucks from the parks maintenance department were spotted this morning taking care of the park—proving that the idea of outsourcing works.

It is 11:00 p.m. on Tuesday May 8. I just finished attending my second community meeting of the night. The day has flown by!

My day began at 9:30 a.m. with a long closed-session meeting followed by a “Good Government” event at Adobe. I then went to the 1:30 p.m. Tuesday afternoon city council meeting. The garbage rate increase was on the agenda today. Although many people attended the meeting, I felt that this item should have been heard at night.

On a side note, my agenda item regarding outsourcing park maintenance at the historic Rose Garden Park was moved from the 1:30 p.m. May 2 city council meeting to the 7:00 p.m. May 15 evening meeting. My item was deferred and moved to the evening so that the unions could attend the meeting. However, the garbage increase of 28 percent was not moved to accommodate San Jose residents.

The council was asked to approve a 28 percent increase for the new garbage and recycling contract. Why? The current council policy on bidding ties our hands in delivering efficient and effective city services. Other garbage companies did not even bid on the San Jose contract because of the restrictive rules.  These “rules” do not benefit the residents of San Jose; they benefit special interest groups. Unfortunately, the city does not have a true, open, competitive bid where more companies participate. San Jose should deliver better service without having to raise fees. In addition, San Jose should guarantee some sort of safeguards that service will improve before asking for any increase, especially a 28 percent increase.

I acknowledge that the price of services in relation to waste collection may rise due to labor cost, fuel, and new equipment. However, why did the cost have to rise so much? The percentage seems pretty high to me. For example, what would you do with a 28 percent increase in your household expenses? Wouldn’t you try to shop around for something cheaper? You probably would compare prices for a more affordable alternative.

Countless San Jose residents lined up and spoke against the fee increase at the council meeting.  In addition, the city clerk’s office received over 2,000 protest letters. One speaker in particular stood out. She spoke against the increase at the city council meeting and pleaded with the council. She said: “Fight for me…I don’t feel that anyone is representing me.” Her words solidified my vote. I don’t think passing on higher than needed garbage rate increases is “representing my constituents.”

The only person who spoke in favor of the rate hike was the head of a labor union who blamed the increase on the war in Iraq. Whether you’re for or against the war, this problem of passing the buck to San Jose residents was grown in San Jose, not Iraq.

I believe the bidding process in our city leads to inflated prices for our residents. If we are a true democracy who cares about the wellbeing of our residents, we would work to change policies that hinder productive outsourcing capabilities that the city could utilize. In addition, the residents have to pay the fee regardless of whether the garbage companies pick up the refuse or skip a house.

The City of San Jose should run the city as a provider of services for its residents, not as an employer who pays above-market rates to its employees because of special interest polices.

During my first month in office, I have attended various community meetings. The residents at these meetings continue to share that they want their parks maintained, swimming pools opened, traffic calming measures funded, historic neighborhoods preserved, bike lanes installed, trails completed and the list goes on.  Most, if not all, of these needs require money. Streets don’t pave themselves and speed bumps to calm traffic don’t just bubble up from the street.
For a city of its size, San Jose is the “biggest city” that receives the least from its sales tax revenue base. Part of the sales tax problem is that San Jose has made poor land use decisions regarding the location of retail centers. For example, Campbell and Milpitas built retail centers on the periphery of San Jose; therefore, their sales tax revenue increased because San Jose residents went there to shop. San Jose needs to take advantage of its borders and make land use decisions that generate tax revenue.

This brings me to the discussion of IBM’s land on which one of its former buildings—Building 25—has sat vacant for the past twelve years.

On May 1st, I voted to allow Lowe’s to develop a store on the IBM site.  This vote will result in the demolition of Building 25. I acknowledge and recognize the building was constructed in 1956 and that it was occupied by IBM employees. (An important historical fact is that the invention of the “hard drive” occurred in downtown San Jose at 99 Notre Dame Ave., not in South San Jose.)

The building has been dormant since 1995. In fact, for the past twelve years, no one spoke up for preserving Building 25. Only when Lowe’s had a proposal on the table did the discussion of “historic value” enter the picture in an attempt to save the building. However, two other IBM buildings across the street at the Hitachi site have been preserved.

Placing retail in South San Jose is a smart decision; it retains the sales tax in San Jose and stops the sales tax dollars from bleeding to the south. Lowe’s also provides incentive to residents of Morgan Hill and other cities to the south to shop in San Jose.  Lowe’s will be an anchor store providing a foundation for other retail to locate there.

My goal is to preserve our historic neighborhoods where people actually live. Communities like Willow Glen, Buena Vista and Shasta-Hanchett, among others, deserve to have their neighborhood characters preserved.

At the council meeting on May 1st, I proposed to put a portion of the $450,000-$500,000 of sales tax revenue generated from Lowe’s into initiatives that promote conservation districts in our historic neighborhoods. The cost to fund an audit of a conservation district in San Jose is roughly $25,000. Conservation districts offer some protection for our historic neighborhoods, like Palm Haven in Willow Glen and Naglee Park downtown.

If we are serious about preserving our historic neighborhoods, then we need to put money towards establishing those conservation districts now. That is why I support a portion of the sales tax revenue generated from Lowe’s to fund conservation districts for our established historic neighborhoods.

San Jose has opportunities to build tall buildings in North San Jose and create large parks at the same time.  I am hopeful that we will take advantage of these opportunities so that we can create great places and huge parks.

Currently in North San Jose, we are in the midst of a “build up” for commercial office and transit village housing. I support this for many reasons: jobs, tax base, light rail, and the Guadalupe River Park Trail, among others.  Industry leads housing development; thus, I believe we should move forward with land use incrementally.

At the past two San Jose City Council meetings, the council voted to allow two large parcels to be developed into housing off of North First Street in North San Jose.  Locating housing next to jobs makes sense. Now an area that is usually abandoned on the weekends will come alive with people, in addition to providing short work commutes.

Coincidentally, Polycom, the world leader in voice and video conferencing, is moving from Milpitas to North San Jose, right next to one of the housing developments.  This is great news for San Jose. Polycom designs a physical object which produces sales tax; therefore, Polycom will generate revenue for our neighborhood services.

As a rule, I drive to each land use site that will be heard before the council meetings. I believe that to make a good decision, I must physically go to the site.  After visiting the two parcels in North San Jose, I envisioned TALL residential buildings with retail at the bottom and an abundance of park space. Not your regular “tot lot” parks, but extraordinary parks with lots of trees.

North San Jose is the perfect place for TALL residential buildings outside of downtown San Jose. We could have towers encircled by large parks, similar to when you’re at the Children’s Discovery Museum and you look across the meadow to West San Carlos Street and you see the tall buildings.

With each development there is land designated for park space. Currently most of the proposed buildings in North San Jose are three to four stories over podium parking. This type of building takes a lot of land.  If we built higher, we would have more land available for parks. Therefore, we can create large meadows, soccer and cricket fields, and the list goes on.

As we continue with infill housing, we must keep our historic and established neighborhoods intact. A high-rise does not belong in older established neighborhoods. However, in places like North San Jose, I believe that it is okay to build very tall so that we can receive more land dedicated to parks. San Jose needs to make wise decisions regarding our last open space parcels by incorporating retail and great parks.

Do you remember getting an allowance as a kid? I do and it wasn’t very much, so I had to learn to manage my money very carefully. My chores were visible to my parents and they judged me on my performance. They could clearly see if I was not performing up to par.  In addition, my parents would oversee how I spent my money. They wanted to make sure I was not wasting it and that I spent it prudently.

This past week, at the April 17 city council meeting, my fellow councilmembers and I heard from the Mexican Heritage Corporation (MHC).  As you may know, the MHC is suffering from severe financial trouble and they are looking for the city to assist them from their own short fall.

MHC is not alone. Within the past two weeks, Economic and Social Opportunities (ESO) closed its doors, and it was just within the past six months that The Rep was given $1 million to keep its doors open.  I haven’t even mentioned the Northside Community Center for which its president bought computers for personal use.  Unfortunately, these stories are not isolated incidents and the people who suffer are not the folks running the non-profits—their salaries have been paid—but those who depend on the service the non-profits provide.

The City of San Jose has got to do a better job in making non-profit agencies fiscally accountable. Therefore, I support the idea that non-profits who receive over $100,000 from the City of San Jose should be required to publish their audited financials and balance sheets on their websites on a quarterly basis.

To be fair, non-profits are required by the State of California to publish an IRS Form 990 on http://www.guidestar.org.  However, there are a few hiccups in retrieving the financial information:

1). A resident must actually know that GuideStar exists

2). A resident must enter personal information to access the database that could be considered an infringement upon personal privacy.

3). Pertinent financial information requires a $1,500 annual subscription. This is an accessibility problem.

4) The IRS form 990 for MHC is available; however, it is not an audited statement and is dated from June 2005, making it 22 months old.

At the past city council meeting, the executive director of MHC assured me that MHC’s financials were online.  She misspoke. MHC has a City of San Jose operating grant form on their website—not a signed balance sheet.  I spoke to our city auditor regarding this issue.  He stated that he could not work judiciously with financial information that was over 22 months old.

Residents have a right to know how government is spending their money—this includes the agencies that government allocates money to.  Therefore, I continue to stand by my belief that non-profits who receive over $100,000 from the City of San Jose should be required to publish their financial statements online on a quarterly basis.  Perhaps if the city had access to non-profit financials, we could have helped groups in difficulty sooner.

Non-profits serve fragile communities that otherwise would go without.  The people who rely on non-profits deserve fiscal accountability from those who are managing the non-profits they depend on.

When I was a child, my family and I would patronize the downtown. I fondly remember attending shows at the Center for the Performing Arts and the San Jose Symphony. Like many families, we would walk to Original Joes after the shows.

The arts act like candles for the downtown, shedding light on the wonderful museums, restaurants and other amenities that draw people out of their homes and to the city center.  Whether it’s theater or music, the arts brings people to the downtown core. Without the arts, our downtown would have ceased to exist.

I am thankful that my parents introduced me to corduroy clothing and the arts as a child.  Those early experiences have led me to continue to patronize the arts as an adult. The past two weekends, I have attended four theater venues: San Jose Repertory Theater, San Jose Stage Company, City Lights Theater and Comedy Sportz Improv. The patrons thoroughly enjoyed themselves at all of the shows. However, the caveat to the evening was that after the performance, the patrons could not stay at the theater and enjoy an after-the-show cocktail.

Although we have many nightclubs and bars for “twenty-somethings” in the downtown, we lack options for “grownups” to hang out. I propose that we promote a different entertainment option with on-site full liquor licenses for theater venues. I believe that an on-site liquor license would increase revenues for the downtown theaters and provide a place for patrons to gather after a show. There is more profit in a cocktail than a theater ticket, so having a lounge with seating and music would be a great business opportunity and a nice alternative to a nightclub.
Currently, several theater companies are facing uncertainty because their lease agreements are expiring. I propose that San Jose work with its theater companies and listen to their needs. Assistance with relocating the theaters in the downtown by issuing permits in a timely manner would be a step in the right direction.

I also propose that San Jose considers locating theater companies closer together to create an “arts district” that will help promote other small businesses, like restaurants, and produce a “feel” for our downtown area. Other cities have succeeded in creating something similar.

Historically, the arts have been the differentiator for downtown. We must work to ensure that the arts not only remain downtown, but that they grow and thrive there too. Investments in the arts reap returns both in quality of life and economic growth. Arts stimulate consumer spending and attract creative people who tend to start new companies that provide employment and add to our tax base.