Last week, the City Council voted to direct planning staff to explore how San Jose could build more housing in North San Jose (possibly even exceeding the cap which would go against the incremental plan laid about by the North San Jose vision). The vision for North San Jose has included some housing next to jobs so we could allow the opportunity for people to live close to their work while allowing for intensification of commercial and industrial that would allow San Jose to acquire more jobs which equal more revenues to pay for our core city services.

I blogged on the North San Jose plan back on April 30, 2007:
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/taller_buildings_equal_bigger_parks_in_north_san_jose/

North San Jose is the Golden Goose of our Redevelopment Agency (RDA).  The tax increment financing that comes out of this area funds our Downtown projects, a community center in Edenvale, road paving for SNI areas and gang intervention programs, among others. When property is developed in this area and the assessed value rises, the RDA receives that extra money to provide for those items I listed above.

The North San Jose plan is mostly industrial land conversion. I have nervously voted yes to convert land there because there is a plan in place that limits the number of housing units by waiting for equal amounts of commercial development which equals job growth.  Its even more important to wait now that the economy has gone sour and job growth is retracting. Also, because the housing market is at it worst condition in the last 50 years, the 7,000 plus housing units we have approved may wait since they cannot get financing. (Yet, another reason to not mandate inclusionary affordable housing on Dec 9th when the housing industry is in a depression).

So here is the dilemma, in my opinion, there are others developers beyond the cap who would like to build housing now because they have financing. They want the council to allow for additional land to be converted from industrial to housing before the jobs come.

This is wrong.

San Jose always builds housing far and above any other Bay Area city. These decisions lead us be continually broke; and in my opinion have played a part in our current budget deficit. We need to be patient and wait for the job growth to happen. If we convert industrial land then San Jose’s greatest asset, tax generating land, is lost forever.  This is why I voted no on this item.  Instead, I would rather direct planning staff to find ways to increase revenue for the city.

Now remember my Golden Goose reference above?  When we develop land in an RDA zone, that added tax increment money goes to RDA to fund all those nice projects the community wants. Even if residential development is done in North San Jose it increases the value of the land and therefore money to RDA.  However, for example,  if we decide to allow 100% affordable housing projects that are done through a non-profit they pay no property tax. Therefore RDA receives nothing therefore less projects that residents want citywide. Plus affordable housing does not pay park fees or provide land for parks which is an important part of creating a livable community in North San Jose.

So we need to watch what we as a council approve because it has ramifications to financial well being for all of San Jose.

Last week I attended the 8th annual Tech Awards at our convention center. The Tech Museum organizes this amazing event which is sponsored by a “who’s who” of tech companies. Nearly 1,500 people attended this years event. This is one of the best events for San Jose because of the positive PR.

The greater Bay Area tech giants gather at the Tech Awards to celebrate entrepreneurs and inventors for innovation in the categories of Environment, Education, Economic Development, Health and Equality. Nominees and attendees flew in from all over the world.  Although some may argue that San Jose is not the center of Silicon Valley, the world does perceive San Jose as the epicenter.

Many of the C-Level executives from these tech companies drive into our Downtown to attend the Tech Awards from their company headquarters in Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto, etc., or from their estate homes in Atherton and Saratoga.
Most tech companies today operate in a one-to-three-story campus environments. It might surprise them to see Adobe’s vertical campus or the several new Downtown condo towers. Economic development is often viewed in the press as subsidies from government, however, sometimes it is a soft sell, and decision makers need to be exposed to other environments like our Downtown.  The indirect hope is that perhaps one or two CEO’s may consider Downtown for future growth. Or, when they start their next company, maybe they locate it Downtown.

The awards presentation was filled with video presentations about the nominees in a Discover Channel style. The nominees’ creativity was amazing in fixing specific problems in our society which are often issues related to the developing world like clean drinking water, lighting for children to read at night, medical devices to stop the spread of disease or “software as a service” to collaborate on education.

The highlight of the night was honoring Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, a pioneer of micro-credit and founder of Grameen Bank.  He started the idea of loaning small amounts of money, in amounts such as $27, to mostly poor women (94 percent) who could not qualify for traditional bank loans so they could afford to buy seeds, livestock, weaving materials etc. So they therefore could improve their economic situation. As of July 2007, 7.4 million people have been loaned money by Grameen Bank with over 95 percent of the loans paid back which seems to be better then mortgage repayments in the USA.  This gentleman has done more to help the poor then most elected officials.

The Tech Awards are a world class event held in our Downtown that provides positive PR for San Jose while highlighting our Downtown for possible future growth of tech companies. Here is a link to award winners and nominees:

http://www.techawards.org/laureates/

Last Saturday, Nov. 1, I had the pleasure of meeting 17-year-old Eagle Scout Alex Gregory, who lives in the Almaden Valley. Becoming an Eagle Scout is not an easy process. A person who is seeking this honor must have dedication and perseverance. Only about 4 percent of Boy Scouts exceed expectations and achieve the high level of Eagle Scout.

To become an Eagle Scout, the scout must choose a project to share with the community. Alex chose to build a Veterans Memorial. He decided to create this Memorial at his church, St. Christopher’s in Willow Glen. Alex replaced the church’s flagpole and surrounded it with one-ton pieces of granite. He had every parishioner’s name who had served or is still serving in the military carved into the stone. Two hundred sixty St. Christopher’s parishioners have served in the military. Alex also solicited the $20,000 needed to cover the cost of the project. It is an impressive feat for a young man. I had the honor of presenting a Commendation from the Mayor and I to Alex.

I was also impressed with the 200 or so people who showed up in the rain for the unveiling of the memorial. Both old and young were present, including many family members of those who served in the military. This memorial is located in the parking lot of St Christopher’s, and is open to the public.

There will be a veteran’s parade in Downtown San Jose on Tuesday, Nov. 11, at 11:30am. It means a lot to the veteran’s if people come and show support, so come if you are able to attend, enjoy a parade, and have lunch Downtown.

Last week, I visited the Rules committee to present a memo that Councilmember Constant and I wrote asking that the Council hold off on adopting a citywide Inclusionary Housing policy.

I first blogged on this topic on December 17, 2007 in a post titled ”Coming Soon: Affordable Housing Citywide.” The Council is set to vote on Inclusionary Housing on Dec 9. The proposed policy would mandate that 20-25 percent of all new housing in San Jose be priced below market rate. If the Council adopts such a policy it may raise the price on the market-rate units, which squeezes the middle class. It also may affect the home resale values down the road. There were two other councilmembers (besides myself and Constant) who opposed pursuing this policy during our current housing meltdown.

As you may know, San Jose is and has been the leader in affordable housing. While other cities have done little for affordable housing, San Jose has gone above and beyond. San Jose continues to build housing while falling behind in funding for our basic services. Affordable housing does not pay property tax, park fees or building fees.

The San Jose/Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) goal was to build 26,114 units of housing in San Jose between 1996-2006. We actually built (drum roll) 30,572! (Plus we converted our tax base away by converting industrial land for housing.) Overall San Jose built 30,572 units of housing, of which more than a third are affordable—10,451 to be exact.

The Council has been led to believe that ABAG has authority in mandating that San Jose build housing. ABAG has no legal authority over San Jose’s land use. I am not quite sure why San Jose takes marching orders from ABAG. One would think that San Jose would instead do what is right for San Jose.

At the Rules Committee last week, we asked that Council have the opportunity to check in regarding this topic before there is a final vote so we can see what staff has compiled so far. The last time the Council discussed this issue was in June. I am appreciative that the Rules Committee supported having a special meeting on Nov. 10 at 1PM so that our memo could be heard by the Council.

The Rules Committee also discussed how the Housing Department chose to conduct outreach. The Housing Department spent the past four months having one-on-one meetings with affordable housing advocates and affordable housing developers. A few of these stakeholder meetings were open to the public—for those who knew about them. The outreach seems a bit backwards because the biggest stakeholders are the San Jose residents, but not much outreach has been done for them.  Only now, after all the stakeholders have had input, is the Housing Department holding community meetings.

Last Tuesday night, I heard in passing that a community meeting was scheduled for residents feedback. This meeting is scheduled a mile from my home and was going to occur in less then a week. However, as the elected representative, I was not notified in advance and neither was Councilmember Constant. City staff shared that they sent the notice out to staff and others. This person missed my point which was that all councilmembers should be included with all outreach. I carry my BlackBerry so that I can be instantly notified. Not including Councilmembers on a simple e-mail builds distrust.

On October 31, I received a memo via email from City Manager Debra Figone that shared that moving forward, notices of all community meetings will be sent out via email or by a phone call to the councilperson. In addition, all community meetings will be listed on the city managers weekly report which is delivered via email to Councilmembers. Bravo to the City Manager on improving the process!

Meeting dates and times are as follows:

Nov. 3, Willow Glen Library, 6-8pm
Nov. 6, Edenvale Library, 6-8pm
Nov. 10,  City Hall, 1-3pm & 6-8pm
Nov. 12, Berryessa Library, 6-8pm

Residents from Almaden Valley, Alum Rock, Cambrian, Evergreen and West San Jose will unfortunately need to drive across town.

Last week the San Jose City Council discussed the Hayes Mansion, a historic 100-year-old south San Jose estate. The City of San Jose bought this property about 10 years ago. The story of “why” the City purchased the property is long…and depending on whom you ask, the reasoning can change. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, I will skip the reason why the City owns the 214-room hotel with two restaurants and twenty five conference rooms.

Although the Hayes Mansion is a beautiful piece of property, I do not see it is as a core service of the City. Like our golf courses, which were funded by millions of dollars of bond money without a vote of San Jose residents, this facility was funded by bonds, without the approval of voters. In this case the bonded amount was $65 million. And, like the golf courses, the city is paying millions of dollars every year to re-pay the bond monies—the City spends approximately $4 million annually to subsidize this prior council vote. My preference would be to sell it.

If we sell the Hayes Mansion “as is” as a hotel and conference center, we would only recoup about $30 million of the $65 million, which would not be enough for the City to pay off the bonds. The hotel has approximately a 50 percent vacancy rate, so perhaps south San Jose is not the best location for this type of use.

An idea that I think is worthy of consideration, is that the City of San Jose’s Housing Department look into the possibility of converting the Hayes Mansion to affordable senior housing. Either the Housing Department and/or another affordable housing agency could evaluate the potential.

However I believe the best option that would pay off the bonds and stop the $4 million bleeding is a high-end senior housing development known as “assisted living.” Assisted living facilities exist throughout the USA. The Hayes Mansion could provide a place for seniors to live in a resort-style setting with a pool, restaurant, fitness area and adjacent park. This type of use is in high demand and expensive therefore I believe this would be the best alternative.

Doing nothing costs us $4 million each year. With that $4 million we could open every neighborhood branch library in the city on Sundays and change the libraries from being closed half days on Mondays to being opened all day. In addition, the City would be able to double the budget for graffiti removal. The City could also consider putting this money in reserves to balance the budget since our tax receipts will be lower for a few years due to do the economic slowdown.

About a month ago, I came upon a car accident at a signalized intersection. One car was completely flipped over and on the opposite side of the road. The other car was spun around in the intersection. I stopped to speak to people on the scene and the police. Apparently, a middle-aged driver blatantly ran a red light, striking the other car and flipping it over. Luckily, no one died.

In 2006, almost 900 Americans were killed and an estimated 144,000 were injured in crashes that involved red-light runners. About half of the deaths in red-light-running crashes are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles.

With the City of San Jose’s nearly 900 signalized intersections, it’s impossible to have a police officer on every corner. Also, having police sit at intersections probably isn’t the best use of their time when you take into consideration that they are investigating and catching those who commit crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault, murder, burglary and vandalism, as well as gang intervention and undercover work to catch copper-wire thieves … and the list goes on.

Last year, when I chaired the traffic-calming meetings, we prepared a survey with a list of about 15 questions. People who attended (and those who didn’t) were invited to participate in the survey that was available via the web and hard copy. From the surveys returned, 90 percent of the respondents supported red-light cameras.

I was already supportive of using these cameras, and the surveys cemented my support. Red-light running cameras are legal according to our state vehicle code and are used today in Albuquerque, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC, plus many smaller communities. They take video of cars that run red lights 24/7. If a person receives a ticket from running a red light then he or she will pay a fine, of which approximately 14 percent goes to the city. Since most cities are facing tough economic times, the vendors of this technology have now made arrangements to give the technology to cities for free and instead be paid a percentage of the cities’ share of the citation.

The cameras also provide valuable information to our Department of Transportation on intersections that could be improved to avoid future car and /or pedestrian accidents.

I submitted a memo to council that asked that we do a pilot program for one year to gauge the effectiveness of cameras at intersections. The council accepted the memo and passed it on to the Chief of Police for review and feedback. Unfortunately, the Chief does not agree with the program and asked that the city “terminate” the idea.  However, the Transportation and Environment committee was not yet ready to do so, and asked for more information to be brought back to the committee within the next month or so. (Prior to my memo, former Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez had pushed for red light cameras but was unsuccessful.)

Technology will not replace our police officers or stop all crimes or red-light runners.  However, in my opinion, utilizing technology (especially in this case) could prove to be beneficial in lowering the number of red-light runners, provide some income to the City and influence people’s driving habits to obey the law.

The Police Department, like our Fire Department, is a core service. Fire Departments support smoke detectors; police, in my opinion, should consider supporting cameras at intersections. Smoke detectors haven’t put the Fire Department out of business; red light running cameras won’t put the SJPD out of business.

Do you think that red-light running is serious? If so, do you support using technology to make people think twice about running a red light?