Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

Explore and Enjoy Arts Locally

By

Arts and Culture are words used quite often to describe the vibrancy of cities; particularly big cities looking to attract business, tourists and new residents. City folk have enjoyed arts and culture entertainment for centuries, which has been funded both privately and publicly. It is not uncommon for people to travel out of state and even internationally for festivals that explore various unique arts and culture.

Residents of a particular region will usually travel closer to home to experience arts and culture. For example, people in the Bay Area drive over an hour to San Francisco (SF) to partake in the Arts. For many of those that seek out the Arts in SF, their first thought is not about the city’s crime rate or road conditions but rather about the entertainment. They will spend $20-$40 on gas, their time driving back and forth, $20-$30 to park, and in some places navigate the sidewalks through panhandlers, alcoholics, drug users, drug dealers, etc. to arrive at a venue to be entertained and escape from their daily lives.

I have traveled north many times to see unique art, one-of-a-kind venues and paid handsomely in time and money to experience it. However, I value art closer to home without all the obstacles and safety concerns. Last week, I was able to enjoy the world premiere play, “Death of a Novel.” What a fantastic show with a full house at our own San Jose Repertory Theater. Powerful monologues, witty banter and racy material all in our downtown.

A criticism of the classic Arts like theater and opera is that the audience is mostly geriatric. Well, if you ever have been on the fence about seeing a play, this is the one to see. For those under 50 who may have been turned off or simply not interested in theater, this is a show for you. The play ties in social media, deception, profanity, sex and a story that you are not sure how it will end.

In San Jose, we are very fortunate to live in a place where people have devoted years of their lives providing entertainment for the region bothDowntown and other locations, like the new Renegade Theater Experiment in the Rose Garden.

This week the Zero1 Biennial returns to Downtown displaying art and technology on a grand scale. The last Zero1 Biennial in 2010 attracted 47,000 visitors to Downtown, which resulted in a great crowd, full restaurants and hotel room nights. Zero1 is funded mostly by foundations and corporate sponsors, however, the city of San Jose has allocated $68,000 from the $13.1 million Hotel Tax fund. In past events, ZeroOne artists like the Rockwell Groupare famous for lighting up the City Hall with interactive art comprised of lights.

With all the madness and chaos cities face across the country with reduced revenues and reduced services, this does not stop the individual resident from pursuing their intellectual curiosities or experiencing sheer escapism through entertainment. As humans, we seek many different facets in life beyond shelter and food. One of which is connecting with others in the physical world and enjoying a common experience providing a cultural literacy that we can discuss and relate to one another. In a small farm town it may be a barn dance; in San Jose we have a substantial variety of arts and culture.

If you would like to volunteer at the San Jose Municipal Rose Garden then join me and the Friends of the San Jose Rose Garden this Saturday at 9am. This particular volunteer effort will be done in the memory of Ivan Kolte. Ivan was a 94-year-young San Josean who loved the Rose Garden and passed away recently, joining his deceased wife and high school sweetheart.

Influence of Society on Career Choices

By

When I was a kid, I would watch the old 1950’s show, The Honeymooners. I remember one scene where the main characters, Ralph and Ed, were talking about future vocations for their children. Ralph spoke about his child going to college, while Ed said—if he had a boy—that he would get him a job working with him side by side in the sewer. At that point, the audience laughs and Ralph’s eyes bulge out. He yells that Ed is nuts for suggesting a career in the sewer.

Although parents and their children may not always agree, more often than not parents only want the best for their children. For example, it is not unusual for a parent to want their child to be a doctor or a lawyer because these occupations often offer prestige, autonomy and good pay. These occupations require an academic education rather than trade school. The 1967 film “The Graduate” comes to mind when Mr. McGuire says to Ben, “Just one word. Are you listening? Plastics. There is a great future in plastics.”

For many high school graduates, college may not be pursued. Like Ed in the Honeymooners, many in society are employed in vocations that use a trade and/or manual labor that is also mentally challenging.

Last week, the City Council approved spending money from sewer fees—not the general fund—to hire a private company for the next year to assist at the Water Pollution Control plant. These private contractors will be used to augment city staff and do tasks that current city employees will choose in the near future not to do. The contractor will also provide relief for city employees to take vacations.

In 2007, when I started on the council, I heard over and over again that the plant employees were predominantly baby boomers and that getting new staff would be a challenge. Why though? Is it not just like filling a job in any other organization?

This takes me back to the Honeymooners analogy. Out of the general population, not many people were pursuing working in the sewer system because society did not deem it a positive career. We do know that these positions require a learned skill set over time and the jobs pay well and it is literally lifetime employment.

The general public has become more interested in sewers with the connection to keeping our environment clean. I believe individuals may choose a previously overlooked vocation in the sewer system once they understand the salary and job security. However, this will not change in weeks or months; it will most likely take time to garner the skill set for senior positions.

As I have written before, there is an opportunity for veterans returning to the USA if they choose to obtain work with the city. Or, perhaps it is the chronic unemployed who get laid off during every economic downturn and want more stability. Perhaps a better use of an outside contract would go to a company to help the city set up an apprentice program, so people with entry-level skills could learn the ropes and all the positions are permanently filled.

In an organization like the city, which has thousands of employees, 11 unions and a litany of job titles, it is nearly impossible to pay certain positions more within a union because it requires negotiation. If one job classification has people who work in the Water Pollution Control Plant and also work in City Hall, the increased salary must go to both even though they are inherently two different jobs. In any other organization you could simply raise the salary of that specific job, but that is not the case in municipal government. This instead must be dealt with in the long, arduous and secretive meet-and-confer process with the union.

Issues like this one would seem to be an easy matter, where the discussion could be held in public so we could get to “yes” faster and allow everyone to understand the details easily.

Fire Station Policy and Airport Workers’ Pay

By

Last week, the council voted on two noteworthy items: a citywide fire station policy and pay for airport personnel. The most important item was the new citywide policy for the closure and consolidation of fire stations. Up until now, San Jose did not have a policy of how or when a fire station could be closed or relocated. The lack of a process was not good for the city. Closing a fire station in any neighborhood of our city that diminishes response time and/or reduces the ability to muster an effective force of fire personnel in the instance of a large fire, natural disaster or terrorist action is bad public policy.

The council unanimously adopted the new policy that was authored by Mayor Reed, Councilmember Chirco and me.  This policy provides a framework for how and when the city can close or relocate a fire house.  The new policy is important because it includes a comprehensive community process and uses quantitative data from the San Jose Fire Department before any change can occur to an existing fire station.

Public safety is a core citywide service; and yes, it is expensive.  However, the public is dependent on the city to provide safety services. There is no alternative to funding public safety except with city funds. In fact, all of San Jose’s property tax and sales tax revenues combined do not cover the cost for police and fire. So we must continue to be creative on how we prioritize funding for public safety along with sewers, roads, libraries and parks.

The other agenda item was about including approximately 400 airport personnel under the City of San Jose’s Living Wage. Several people spoke about the struggle of the working poor and having to work two jobs. The labor unions organized the workers and framed the debate well. Their moral argument is certainly a just one. Who does not sympathize for those struggling to make ends meet? The real dilemma, however, is that San Jose has invested over $1 billion in an airport. It is my responsibility as a council member to make sure that investment pays off.

The airline industry has been in turmoil since September 11, 2001. The price of jet fuel has risen from 70 cents a gallon in 2002 to over $3 today. Year after year passenger count has decreased locally, statewide and nationwide. Technology, like web meetings, is reducing business travel. Eight airlines have gone out of business since end of 2007 and the industry as a whole will lose billions again this year.

San Jose alone is losing flights and market share and we have a higher domestic Cost Per Enplanement (CPE) for the airlines then San Francisco or Oakland.  We are reliant on Southwest Airlines for 50 percent of our traffic, which is risky. No organization wants half of their revenues coming from one source, since it brings too much risk should the relationship end. I cannot, on the one hand, say let’s issue a billion dollars in bonds, and then pass regulations that may negate our investment.

Part of the issue was not only a 50-percent wage hike, but that the workers have to pay for parking. I would like to find a way to provide free parking for workers at the airport. Parking was brought up to me when I met with union officials regarding this issue. They told me that paying for parking was a hardship for the workers and I agreed.

As an employer, when I give employees a raise, it is not just the dollars that end up in their checks but the payroll taxes that go along with it. For example, employers pay Social Security, Medicare, State Disability Insurance, Federal and State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Training Tax on top of any increase in compensation.  However, if the airlines paid for parking, then that is less than the total aggregate output of the wage increases and payroll taxes. Free parking would be a direct benefit to the workers because it negates the out-of-pocket expense and the workers are not taxed on it as it is not included in their paychecks.

The direct hidden cost to the city is that we would now hire a new fulltime city employee to monitor how much these privately employed airport workers get paid. So would you rather hire a fulltime librarian, or someone to monitor how much private sector employees get paid? Would you rather open your branch library an extra day every week, or hire someone to push paper?

I was the only council member that voted “no.” However, that is OK. Groupthink is dangerous. Alternative points of view are what democracy is about.

Quality not Quantity

By

San Jose’s population has grown by leaps and bounds and the city has provided more housing—including both market rate and affordable housing—in Santa Clara County and the Bay Area than any other municipality. Once a city filled with orchards, San Jose is now a sprawling suburb and still growing. Although you may see open space in the city, much of it was zoned for housing 2-20 years ago and just hasn’t been built on yet.
When it comes to San Jose being compensated for parks, there is a significant monetary difference between market rate and affordable housing. Currently, San Jose receives park fees when building market rate housing. This money can go to improving an existing park in the area of the new development, or it can purchase land close by (if there is any available to purchase), or the park fee could allow for a donation of land to be used for a new park or trail.

On the other hand, affordable housing is exempt from park fees. The thought behind the exemption was that the development could be “even more affordable.”  For several years, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) came to the rescue and paid the park fees ($43.4 million) on behalf of the affordable housing developers. However, that well ran dry September 2005.

The city of San Jose has a housing department funded mostly by the RDA and a small amount of federal money. Approximately 20% of the RDA budget mustgo to affordable housing according to state law. This year, the RDA will give the housing department $38 million for affordable housing, compared to $30 million in 2007. These RDA funds are then bonded out by the housing department to raise more funds.

The housing department has a $9.7 million personnel budget to staff 83 people to provide funding and technical assistance for the construction of new affordable housing and home buyer assistance. Also, they provide direct and indirect assistance to the homeless and those at risk of homelessness, and services that secure housing and related services. Finally, they lobby for state and federal money and, alarming to me, they lobby the San Jose city planning department for land conversions from industrial to affordable housing. Currently, the city will allow affordable housing on land that is zoned for industry or commercial (our tax base), but not market rate housing.

The housing department and affordable housing advocates are on a quest to build as many units possible in San Jose. The financial markets are in the dumps when it comes to financing market rate housing. This allows affordable housing to rise to the top because of its ability to move forward and be built today.

In my opinion, I believe affordable housing should pay park fees or preserve land on site of the development for a park.  If the city continues to exempt affordable housing builders from park fees, then we will be creating problematic neighborhoods. For example, in my own district I have the Richmond/Menker neighborhood. This area is packed with apartments and no place for kids to play, so they play in the street. It is not just my district; District 1, off of Winchester, or District 10, off of Blossom Hill, and countless areas of greater downtown have too many people without enough open space.

We should fund park land acquisition out of the housing department budget and/or developers should pay the park fees. As a hypothetical example, let’s say the council wants to approve 3,000 affordable units in a year with no land/money for parks. Then the City of San Jose should scale down to 2400 units that have parks—quality vs. quantity.

If San Jose is serious about providing good homes to folks who cannot afford market rate, then we should be building affordable communities that have a quality of life and are not just providing shelter. The race to sainthood for the city on how many affordable units can be built might have a nice PR ring, but I believe that without parks attached to these projects, neighborhoods will suffer.

Poor people need parks as well as market rate people. With new residents, our current parks will become overused.  San Jose should focus on the quality of developments and their amenities instead of meeting some housing quota suggested by people who do not live in San Jose.

Do you think that affordable housing should be built on land that is zoned for commercial or industrial uses?

Do you think that the council should stop approving new affordable developments until we figure out a way to pay for parks?

Labor Day

By

Labor Day is a time that many of us celebrate with BBQs and rest. It’s a day to acknowledge the work of everyone in our society. However, many people work on Labor Day, including but not limited to 9-1-1 dispatchers, grocery store clerks, nurses, and sewage treatment plant workers, etc.
This is also a day that I think of the show “Dirty Jobs” on the Discovery channel.  The host, Mike Rowe, travels around the USA doing the most hardcore gross work. He could be shoveling pig manure in one segment, running around in liquid compost at a turkey farm or the back of a “roadkill” recovery truck the next minute.  The jobs he profiles will make you grimace.

However, we don’t have to go that far in this area to see jobs that are less desirable. You make choices in your employment options as much as you are able, while others have fewer choices based on their skill set or physical capabilities.

So as you enjoy your BBQ and libation today on Labor Day, can you think of jobs in San Jose that you simply would not do, or jobs you did when you were younger that were not fun?

For example, when I was 15 years old, I worked at Burger King (don’t tell Councilmember Campos) and worked the fryer station. There is nothing like being a teenager who is already prone to acne being exposed to all that greasy air. The job was hot and tedious and I made $3.35 an hour before getting promoted to “Whopper Board” making $3.65.

I am not in a rush anytime soon to work at Burger King again. It was fun to race against my colleagues, Tung and Ajmir, who could make burgers faster, which was a big deal then. However, cleaning out the fryers, broilers and dumpsters was less prestigious.

Do you have similar work experiences that you would like to tell us about?

Raising Money Year-Round

By

From my experience in running for elected office, one of the difficult hurdles was raising money. Now I don’t have a problem “asking” for money per se. However, the difficulty for me was “who” I should take money from and who I shouldn’t.  Who I take money from during an election can equate to access and/or even the perception of personal favors later when in elected office.

Traditionally, you have a few places you can go to raise money. One is the labor unions, who have a big stake in government since their business model relies on their dues-paying membership expanding. Another is the lobbyist community that wants to have as much access as possible to elected officials, since a large part of the value for their clients is relationships. Yet another place to raise money for local government is from housing developers, since cities decide how to zone a parcel of land and what will be built on it.

For me, I concentrated on raising money from friends and family first, then others second, including calling friends from grade school is an excuse to connect.
However, raising money only starts when you are campaigning. It does not end once the campaign (election) is over; the raising of money continues. Once you are in office, elected officials are allowed to have a “friends account.” A friends account allows elected officials to solicit donations year-round to pay for things they want in addition to their office budgets, or to use on things they are not allowed to pay for from an office budget.  I never set up a friends account because I did not want to be beholden to anyone or start campaigning for the next office. I believe once the election is over, so is raising money.  The city council voted wisely in early in 2008 when they banned these accounts. (See my column from June 4, 2007.)

Elected officials are asked to raise money for other candidates, ballot measures and charities while in office.  All three of these can be worthy of raising money for, especially charities and/or notable causes like raising money for the Library Foundation or our local schools, among others. Each is great on its own merits and provides valuable service to the community.

I have been asked by many groups and even some individuals to raise money for very good causes.  However, once “I” as the elected councilmember begin asking developers and others for money for “my special cause,” then I set myself and those I represent up for having to “pay back” the one who donated at some future date.  The elected official might be an effective fundraiser, but at what price to their independence?

Often residents curse developers one day, but are happy to take their money the next day for their cause.

As a result, I do not have a friends account, nor do I raise money for “pet projects.” Sometimes I think my stance might be too harsh.  For example, I would love to raise money for schools in my district. However, I believe keeping myself free from influence as best I can is best for everyone.  Better to be too cautious then not cautious enough.

I have heard the line before that a politician should be able to take money and be impervious to influence from the donor. Yet, when I look at the reality of politics in this country, I don’t believe that is true.