Disneyland in Alviso?  Not quite, but the comparisons are definitely there.

Several months back, I accompanied Councilmembers Chu and Liccardo on a tour of the San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant.  We rode on electric carts that were linked together like those at an amusement park.  Our tour guide spouted off words like, “sewage back-up, micro-organisms, aeration, methane gas”—much different then “Pirates of the Caribbean.”

The facility itself is quite large (2,600 acres) and old (built in 1956). The tour included the carts going from different facilities and walking down into the bowels of some of the buildings. San Jose could easily rent this space to the maker of a horror movie since these basements were eerie. Some of the rooms looked like scenes from a large naval ship, with long dark hallways and big pipes running overhead.  Down below, we were able to view wiring that is 20–40 years old; life expectancy of the wiring is only 25 years.

This facility treats over 110 million gallons of water each day to serve 1.4 million residents in eight cities.  The water that we flush from our toilets travels north to the plant where it goes through a series of phases. The finished product is clean water that flows to the bay.  Also, “recycled water” can be pumped back out to the city through “purple pipes” to manage industrial and irrigation needs. In some cities it becomes drinking water. I am leaving out a lot of detail on all the phases since this would get too wordy, and I must leave you with some mystery.

You may actually tour the plant yourself! The city offers a two-hour free tour on Saturdays. You may choose 9–11a.m. or 1:00–3:00 p.m. The remaining dates available are June 7, July 12, August 2, and September 6. Call 408.975.2551 to sign up or email carolina.camarena@sanjoseca.gov.

The San Jose Water Pollution Control Plant is an important facility.  Although many people may not realize it, the plant is an important part of San Jose government. We would quickly forget about any other city issues we discuss on this blog if in the future we were told we could not flush our toilets.

I support investing in the infrastructure so that we can continue to rely on this resource. Water will continue to be a scarce resource locally and globally; therefore, San Jose should take advantage of this unique opportunity to be in the driver’s seat with a leading-edge Water Pollution Control Plant by making capital investments today.

I encourage you to stop and have lunch in Alviso (before or after the tour) and enjoy your own “Bay Area Backroads” experience.

Last week, the council spent 90 minutes deliberating the sale of a 0.19 acre parcel of surplus downtown property for $450,000. The current tenants, the Arab American Community Center and the Indochinese Refugee Center, are nonprofits who pay $12 a year in rent (month to month) on an expired lease. They were notified in January 2006 about the city’s plans to sell the property.

The city is selling the property “as-is” and the new buyer is paying for all closing costs. The buyer offered $85 per square foot, even though surrounding parcels are appraised at $70 per square foot, and has even offered to give the nonprofits $20,000 each to help with moving expenses.

During December 2007, when the outreach for the 2008-2009 budget started, the city polled San Jose residents and asked them a variety of questions regarding the budget. The top response from those polled was that residents wanted the city to maximize its assets, such as selling surplus land.

The math seems pretty simple to me regarding this parcel: $450,000 vs. $12. Perhaps my calculator is not working correctly, but I think $450,000 will go much farther in keeping city employees employed and providing some street maintenance than the current $12 can.

When the issue of selling surplus property first came to the council late last year, I had concerns. I wanted to make sure that we did not sell land that the city might need in the future for a firehouse or park. I also wanted to make sure that we were getting fair market value. In the end, the council voted to sell the land and the new owner has even offered to allow the nonprofits to stay until the end of they year.

The council spent a lot of time questioning if the city was being fair to the nonprofits. My answer to that is: YES, we have been very fair. Allowing nonprofits to have building space for $12 a year is very fair indeed.

However, while on the dais, I couldn’t help but think about all the other deserving nonprofits. Should the council favor certain ethnic nonprofits over ones that help troubled youth and/or seniors?  Do the residents of San Jose (those folks the city council represents) want the council to provide land at well below market value to nonprofits? Or, do the residents want to make sure the city is paid fair value for land it sells? Should the council “fill up” the Old City Hall with nonprofits and never maximize the value of the land?

Perhaps the City of San Jose should place the Old City Hall, Hayes Mansion, Rancho del Pueblo and Los Lagos golf courses on the ballot for November 2008 as an “advisory vote” which would allow ALL voters in San Jose, not just special interest groups, to provide direction for the council regarding real estate matters.

In a prior blog I wrote about the “mystery” of closed session meetings. These meetings occur every Tuesday morning and cover real estate, litigation and labor negotiations. In addition, everything covered at the meetings is confidential. Last week, the city council voted to release a revision of a closed session memo for public distribution called “Confidential Legal Advice Related to Imposition of Appropriate Conditions in Land Use Approval.” This memo was released on May 16 so it could be shared with the general public and the development community.

The issue at hand is whether or not individual council members may ask for neighborhood amenities (like architecture, trees and parking for examples) when residential developments are being approved, so they may fit better into the existing community. The problem is that items the community asks for may not be required by existing city rules; therefore, those requests may not be allowed.

The release of this memo got me thinking of other things that should be released from closed sessions.  Why stop at a memo about land use when our largest financial decisions do not see the light of day?

For example, labor negotiations are a long arduous process. In the past, the city and the unions have both pointed fingers at each other.  Perhaps if these meetings were discussed in public, then there would be no finger pointing.  In the era of sunshine, maybe we should consider making these meetings public, as is done in other parts of the country.  It would be interesting to know, for example, the full dollar amounts of costs on proposals from each side through each stage of the negotiation, prior to final agreement.

If the city was being unfair, then everyone would know. If labor was asking too much, or they had good points about cost-of-living adjustments, then we would know.  With the bankruptcy of our neighbor, Vallejo, it seems like we should shine more light on collective bargaining, or, at least, the city should provide some type of summary of the negotiations to the public at an earlier time. If allowing the public to view the negotiations in real time would harm privacy, then, perhaps, the negotiations should be taped on video and shown after the agreement has been reached.  The negotiations could be viewable on the internet or channel 26.  That way, the public would at least get to see what took place.

In the end, we on the council vote on compensation and benefit increases. However, we as a council will be long gone when the aggregate effect of past votes impacts the budget and neighborhood services. If decisions are made behind closed doors without public scrutiny, then it is easier to make unrealistic financial choices.

Making negotiations public will not take anything away from workers or make negotiations a game of “winners” and “losers.”  People need to be paid a good wage with good benefits, that’s for sure. However, these decisions are nearly 70 percent of the budget and I think that public awareness is important.

So, in my opinion, if we can release a closed session memo on land use, we should certainly consider allowing more sunshine into collective bargaining that is currently done behind closed doors.

What are your thoughts? Constructive suggestions are welcome.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about my biggest regret as an elected official: my support last year of the unanimous vote that converted commercial property to residential on Lincoln Ave—820 units to be exact.  Going forward, I will vote on what is best for San Jose and our future.

Last week I was put to the test. A project was before the council requesting the conversion of a prime seven-acre commercial parcel next to Santana Row to residential. Was I going to stand true to my genuine principle that converting tax-generating land is bad, or was I going to pick apart all the “exceptions” to the rule and cave in?

Santana Row generates over $2.2 million in sales tax each year.  Two million is not a number to dismiss, especially when we are suffering through budget deficits and nearby cities are filing bankruptcy. This prime seven-acre parcel has great potential for office space right next to Santana Row.  It is a prime piece of commercial real estate and clearly more centrally located then the Evergreen industrial land that was highlighted in 2007.

The employment land framework was unanimously passed by the city council in October 2007. The goal was to stop conversion of land that generates jobs/taxes for the city. On the dais I spoke of the lost opportunities of not having land available for jobs, and the loss of a revenue opportunity for the city, (sales tax, utility tax, 911 fees, etc). The city has already converted hundreds of acres of employment land. Conversion of these parcels creates two problems: the loss of commercial land and the strains on neighborhood services which end up costing the city more money.

Unfortunately, some property owners will choose to neglect their property in hopes of convincing the council that a commercial use is outdated.  This excuse will not work for me.  If commercial owners can’t take care of their property, then the city should use code enforcement resources to cite and remove blight.

The real estate agent for this parcel spoke at the meeting and said that he “only had two offers for the office use.”  Two sounds good to me. Don’t you only need one? Or, since the parcel is seven acres, perhaps the two interested parties could share?

Unfortunately (as I have seen many times before), the public speakers that night, including nearby residents, spoke in favor of the conversion. In fact, none of the activists who say they are against the conversion of land neither showed up to the meeting that night nor sent any written correspondence against this conversion.

Professional developers and knowledgeable lobbyists showcase some of the best salesmanship I have ever seen, using terms like “LEED certified” and “extraordinary benefit.”  However, I still stand by my belief that good housing projects need to be built on land that is already zoned for residential.

I made the motion to deny the applicants request of converting the land which passed. The developer is probably going to blame the city, the process and me, saying that we were, and are, not consistent. However, the only “inconsistency” would have been if we converted the land. The land has always been commercial; conversion would have been an inconsistent use of the land.  Because of the Reed Reforms, the next time conversion of land will come before the council will be in the spring of 2009, instead of every 3 months.

Over and over and over again, I hear from developers and lobbyists that vacant commercial buildings are of no use and we should convert the land the building stands on to housing.  With that said, should we then convert the empty Sobrato building downtown to housing? It is vacant, after all.