Rebuttals? No, not at the 2-minute public forum at council meetings but, rather, for ballot statements.

This past Tuesday, the council decided to match the State of California in allowing rebuttal statements so that voters could hear more than one side of a ballot issue. The State of California ballot statements carry a full debate on the particular state propositions. However, San Jose (prior to last week’s vote) only allowed the options of arguments in favor of or against a measure, with no rebuttals. Mayor Reed drafted a memo that changed the “no rebuttal” rule, and that’s a good thing.

Of course, nothing is free. There is an estimated $30,000 fiscal impact in this new policy (for printing costs) for each rebuttal statement per citywide measure—a small price to pay for democracy. Whoever prints the ballots for the county must make a decent margin for one extra black-and-white printed page. This is on top of the $250,000 the county charges the city to put a measure before the voters of San Jose.
When people or groups submit ballot statements they must be reviewed by the city attorney for accuracy and to ensure that nothing “disparaging” is said. In addition, full names must be listed and titles may be used.  Rebuttal statements are due one week after the initial pro and con statements have been published so they are true rebuttals.

This year we have a star-studded cast signing onto ballot arguments, including the mayor, vice mayor, council members, former mayor, county supervisor, the Libertarian Party and San Jose residents.

Do you read ballot arguments, pro and/or con?
Do they influence your thought process about how you may vote?
Do you pay attention to who has signed ballot statements?
Do you like the addition of rebuttal statements?

After nearly four hours of back and forth, the council emerged with measures for the November 2008 ballot. The first is the reduction and update of the telecommunications user tax. This would allow the city to capture new telephone technology like Voice of Internet Protocol (VOIP). The second is a reduction of the 911 system support fee which would result in stronger legal footing of our 911 fee that pays for the 911 call center. Years ago, the 911 call center moved from the California Highway Patrol and was given to local government to oversee, with no funding, of course. The money collected is to be cost recovery only for 911 call center staff and equipment. It appears that if both do not pass it would hurt the city with a loss of $48 million annually.

A ballot measure that Pat Dando (Chamber of Commerce) and Bob Brownstein (labor) both supported was increasing the card room tax and number of tables. Unfortunately, the council did not move forward with this proposal. This would have allowed the card clubs to add nine more tables which would bring an additional $5.5 million to the city. If you don’t know already, you should be aware that card clubs pay the city $2 million a year for the police to regulate them by charging table fees, and then, on top of that, they pay a tax to the city to operate, which brings in $12 million a year. So if you add the $12 million we presently collect and the additional $5.5 million we could have collected, that $17.5 million exceeds the annual budget for staffing all the branch libraries citywide!

The majority of the council thought gambling carries many social ills, and to bring in more revenue from that legal source would be morally wrong. These are called “sin” taxes, where we put fees on cigarettes, liquor and gambling.  These taxes affect only those that choose to partake in these activities, unlike a sales tax that affects everyone and is regressive.

The card clubs in San Jose are a legal business for adults and they are popular. People travel to gambling destinations like Las Vegas, Reno and Atlantic City. (Actually the biggest gambling destination in the world is in China, the former Portuguese colony of Macau.) California alone has 60 Indian gaming casinos plus race tracks, card clubs and the lottery that bring in revenue to state and local coffers. Also, many people don’t leave their home at all and just gamble on the Internet.  Nearly everyone in the 3-year structural budget deficit group agreed that card clubs would be an easy source of revenue for the city to collect.  Here we have a group that is a good representation of the city, and the council votes against them!

Sadly, on another ballot item, the city council voted 6-5 to support city management and proceed with a ballot proposal that would allow the use of parkland to locate a new fire station, known as “37,” going against signed petitions and four neighborhood associations.  The elephant in the room is that the city ran out of money in the public safety bond and is taking the easy way out by removing land from the Willows Senior Center and Lincoln Glen Park instead of buying land more centrally located.  We have $20 million for golf courses and $2.26 million for golf nets, but no money to buy land for a fire station? I want to thank my fellow council members who I call “The 4 C’s”—Campos, Chu, Constant and Cortese—for their vote of support.

Most importantly, I want to thank all the community members who waited over three hours to speak for 60 seconds before the council.  We all agree we need a new fire station and the data supports one. However, city staff should not pit neighborhoods and council members against each other by opening one station and closing another. In the 2007-2008 budget, city staff snuck in the sale of Fire Station 6 (page 703, section V), which made the construction of Fire House 37 directly dependent upon the sale of Fire House 6.  I argued vehemently to remove the sale of Fire House 6 from the budget.  My request was granted “for now.” However, current verbiage in the budget allows for the sale of Fire House 6 at a later date. Oh, and by the way, for those who say that the city “wasn’t planning on selling house 6 at this time,” then please explain why Fire House 6 was listed in the City of San Jose’s surplus land as being “for sale” property to a local non-profit? This just confirms that on any given Tuesday the city can close fire stations and sell land that they sit on without voter approval.

The city council did make a good faith gesture via my second motion to keep Fire House 6 and not sell it.  The city attorney will look into how the council can adopt and formalize some kind of policy that will keep it open (I brought the same issue up on June 19 when this issue was first heard).  This time, Councilmember Chirco seconded my motion.  I am pleased that the council made a good faith effort at the meeting and I will be holding them to their commitment when this issue returns to council.

Finally, we accepted a labor agreement with Municipal Employee Federation (MEF) where the amount of increase was modest. However, even a modest increase adds to our structural budget deficit. Year 1 it adds an additional $6.8 million to the deficit; year 2 it adds $3.1 million; year 3 it adds $4.2 million; and every year it is cumulative, so by year 3 it adds $14.3 million to the deficit and so on—which is more then we get from the card clubs. The $14.3 million does not include step increases that would occur over years 1-3, which is approximately another $8.1 million added to the deficit, bringing us to a total of $22.4 million. (Step increase detail: Year 1, $2.6 million; Year 2, $2.7 million; Year 3, $2.8 million.) So even with a zero-percent raise, payroll costs escalate with step increases.

Perhaps the last paragraph explains why we need revenue generating ballot measures.

…well, actually, I toured District 2 with Councilmember Forrest Williams. However, sometimes people mistakenly call him by the actor’s name instead. Who could blame them? Councilmember Williams has star power; especially driving his Batmobile Mercedes. Councilmember Williams is very energetic and shared many stories about District 2 with me. He does his morning jog up the local hill and eats oatmeal every morning. I hope to have his energy as my hair grays.

We covered every inch of the district, driving the entire boundary, which is the southern border of San Jose. District 2 is a mix of newer and older homes, and highways 87 and 85 and have had a big impact on the area.

Some of the newer developments in the southern part of the district are luxury homes that can be partly seen from Highway 101. Nice homes to look at—and a nice park to boot. However, this type of development costs us more as we stretch out our city services to this new neighborhood. District 2 is also home to Coyote Valley, where the same challenges come up of stretching already thin city services.

Neighborhoods have different nuisances. For example my pet peeve is my neighbor down the street and his feral cats that wake me up every other night. However, in parts of District 2 it is hungry pigs. These pigs, otherwise known as “wild boars,” come down from the hills to munch on landscaping and they love to dig big holes to eat roots. I hope the Realtor who sells these houses is forthcoming about the hungry pigs.

Edenvale has had a reduction of crime in the last few years and some of it can be attributed to RDA dollars spent on the SNI neighborhood in District 2. The vision is for a community center to be built on a public school property where it can be jointly used for both the school and the neighborhood. Funding would come from RDA, however we as a city will have to find the money to staff and maintain the facility. In my district we just did the groundbreaking for the Bascom Library and Community Center where once open in 2010 we will need to find approximately $1 million to staff it annually.

Edenvale itself has a major focus of locating jobs to South San Jose. There has been success with the recent arrival of several companies, such as NDS Surgical from Morgan Hill, VNUS Medical from North San Jose and IDT Semiconductor from Santa Clara. However, there have also been some losses, including ONI, Clearlogic and Agile Software, which are no longer there because of acquisition or failure. Vacant commercial buildings can be occupied again by a new company however if the land itself is converted to another use then there is a future dilemma.

Locating churches in industrial areas is one example of industrial land use policy. A growing congregation was looking for a larger church space and wanted to use an industrial building as a church. The council approved this against planning department recommendations a few years ago to allow the church in the Edenvale industrial area in exchange for a guarantee that the prior church building would revert back to industrial use (which it did not).

Conflicts occur when an industrial parcel has a prospective tenant who generates a lot of noise, or uses chemicals such as those used to manufacture semiconductors. Often, locating uses like these next to places where people gather causes conflicts.

Perhaps growing churches can schedule multiple services on Sunday to maximize their existing building’s occupancy over an entire day. Services with high attendance can be powerful, however many cars at one time can overwhelm neighborhoods, and land is scarce. This is another topic the General Plan Task force that I sit on will discuss.

Finally, we visited Valley Christian High School, which sits atop a hill. This privately funded high school is impressive, with incredible facilities like a performing arts theater rivaling the Rep, a huge pool (two simultaneous water polo games), baseball field with sunken dugouts and a football field with an amazing view of San Jose. The view from District 2 looks good.

Vice Mayor Dave Cortese wins the prize for having the most historical knowledge of his district. I had the opportunity to tour District 8 with the vice mayor and get a better understanding of the land we call Evergreen and its agricultural history.

The housing boom started in 1975 with single family houses galore. Transportation congestion quickly became an issue. In 1993, there was the open allocation which allowed the building of an additional 3,900 houses that were swallowed up by the market. Part of the reason for housing development was the change in the cost of water to Evergreen farms from an agricultural rate to market rate. The cost was $60 per acre foot of water and then rose to $600 per acre foot. Evergreen farms at the time were competing with central valley farms who paid $12 an acre foot for water. Try selling cherries against other farms when you’re paying 50 times as much for water. Therefore, farmers had an incentive to sell their land for housing. (Should we subsidize water to save local farms and open space?)

We drove through the neighborhoods that were built in that 1993 allocation and I must say that there was some good planning. I saw large parks, trails and attractive homes. If you are in the market for a house in San Jose and value parks, you should consider Evergreen. During this build-out, the developers paid for much of the infrastructure and even funded maintenance.

The schools are supported by a Mello-Roos district set up for 1993 housing allocation. Evergreen High benefits from this district and is physically impressive and has a great reputation for academics.

The problems of Hwy 101 congestion are huge. The Cortese’s plan of pooling land owners and developers to create a larger community benefit for infrastructure investments made more sense after our tour. No single development can fix the aggregate infrastructure problems. The Berg property, for example, is not the best location for industry. However, since the prior council converted so much industrial land, there was a case to hold on to it. Now that the housing market has crashed, I would imagine this property will sit for a while, unless new, fast-growing, cutting-edge companies like Tesla Motors or Infinera see the value of a large parcel with incredible hillside views.

Evergreen has three sides. One is farmland that still remains in a pristine state as part of the greenbelt. The second is modern luxury housing, like Silver Creek, with predominately affluent families. The third is more working class, eastside-type housing, like we saw on Rigoletto by Eastridge. This SNI area had a fatal shooting of a 15-year-old. Since then, the Rigoletto initiative has been launched with police to combat crime in this neighborhood. Surprising to me was that are very fewer apartments in District 8 in comparison to the rest of the city.

The Eastridge area has gained new restaurants, allowing for people to eat out without trekking to downtown, and has had success with locating luxury car dealerships, like Infiniti and Mercedes. I have to say that Eastridge is looking really nice. Every store space was full and it is ultra clean. Outstanding questions for this specific neighborhood are: Will the VTA fund the extension of light rail to Eastridge? Will the Reinhard/Arcadia property remain vacant?

Finally, during our tour, we drove past a utility box blocking the visual entrance to a park and Vice Mayor Cortese pointed and said, “How much do you think it costs to move one of those metal utility boxes?”  The box was about 6 feet by 4 feet, and the answer was $275,000 to move it—gulp. Guess that box is staying put just like some parcels of land in Evergreen.

After finishing lunch at Pollo Loco on Winchester Blvd., Councilmember Pete Constant took me on a District 1 tour.  District 6 and District 1 share a long border along Winchester. Recently, both of our council offices have been working with the RDA and small businesses to help build a larger business district for Winchester.

We started off on Cadillac and Impala Streets in the Winchester SNI.  As in Hoffman Via Monte in District 10, I saw more “stacking” of the 1970s apartment structures that have “out-of-town owners” who neglect their buildings, negatively affecting the neighborhood. Two homicides occurred in this west side area recently.

Driving down Eden Ave. (which is parallel to Winchester), we looked at some of the traffic calming devices installed by the RDA aimed at slowing cars down on this street. However, one of the roundabouts was removed because local residents did not want it there after it was installed. It is tough to make everyone happy.

We then checked out the community policing station in a converted office building and the Calabazas library that will soon be closing to be remodeled (watch out to not hit your head in the bathroom).

Next, we visited San Jose’s only BMX park, a place where youths can show off their tricks and get some air.  We chatted with some kids who told us of their love of the park.  I’ll bet it looked pretty peculiar to see the two of us chatting it up with “bikers.” I told the kids not to talk to strangers next time.

Then we visited the Starbird Youth Center at Starbird Park, a newly built facility that took “green building” much too literally by not installing air conditioning! On hot days, youths sit outside the NEW facility.  This center is just down the street from Waterbury Ct. and Boynton, where there was another homicide.

Now don’t get me wrong, District 1 is not just apartments and tragic homicides. It is filled with many single family homes, including both starter and expensive houses. It also has a few really big parks, like Rainbow Park, and awesome schools, like Lynbrook High.

The most bizarre thing about District 1 is the border it shares with Campbell, Cupertino, Santa Clara and Saratoga. As we drove, Constant constantly pointed out, “this side is San Jose and that side is Saratoga” or “Cupertino that side, San Jose this side.” Throughout the tour along the border, I was extremely pleased at the amount of commercial land San Jose was able to maintain on the city’s western edge. This is the reverse of the San Jose-Milpitas border, with Milpitas capturing most of the sales tax of San Jose residents.

However, it is pretty clear that some cities actually “get it” when it comes to signage for retail.  The most obvious example is the Stevens Creek Auto Row. One side is San Jose and the other Santa Clara. Santa Clara has HUGE signs where the car brands are easily visible from a distance, versus the San Jose side, which has Lilliputian signs.  No wonder Constant wanted to include areas other than downtown in the sign ordinance.

We finished our tour with a ribbon cutting in my district for a new furniture store on Bascom Ave., where we shared in a feast of food.

It is the latest City of San Jose acronym. GFSDEPSG stands for the three-year General Fund Structural Deficit Elimination Plan Stakeholder Group. Whew! Try saying that fast even once.

This group is chaired by my colleague Pietro Constantino (Pete Constant in Italian).  The GFSDEPSG includes city workers, unions, various city department directors, nonprofit executives, the Chamber of Commerce and San Jose residents.  I have attended all six meetings the GFSDEPSG has had thus far and have enjoyed the arithmetic.

The group is charged with exploring new ideas and talking about touchy topics to solve the structural budget deficit.  Sometimes their discussions will include “taboo” topics which are not discussed on the dais since these topics are “political dynamite.”  However, this group speaks straight from the hip, which is refreshing.

Last Monday, July 7, the group talked about how the city chooses to pay a “living wage” even though it is not required by state law for contract work.  “Prevailing wage” is required by state law for construction jobs but not for “charter” cities like San Jose.  In 1988, the city voluntarily adopted the state of California prevailing wage law. Then, in 1989, the council increased the scope of the law to include service jobs like street sweeping, parking lot attendants, janitorial, etc., though the state did not require it.

Moving onward and forward, the city adopted a living wage policy in 1999 which included contract work.  Living wage is $12.83 an hour with medical and $14.08 without medical.  It is determined by the Federal poverty threshold for a family of three and then is adjusted each year for inflation.  It has never decreased since 1999, even when there is a recession. The city of San Jose has ten fulltime employees to monitor contracts to make sure that contractors are paying their workers the correct city mandated wage.

Some group members spoke about the importance of a living wage and how it may prevent people from being dependent on state and federal welfare programs.  Others spoke of its elimination, since it increases the cost to the city and, therefore, residents.  The group requested more information in order for this topic to be discussed again at a future meeting.

No one from the public attended the meeting.  By contrast, the General Plan 2040 meeting usually generates about 25 spectators. It is also televised. Unfortunately, the GFSDEPSG is not.

If you are looking for an air conditioned room to escape the heat, then consider attending the seventh meeting of GFSDEPSG on Monday, July 21, 6:00 PM, in the wing rooms at City Hall, 200 S. Santa Clara Street.

For more information, go to:http://www.sanjoseca.gov/stakeholdergroup08.asp