This season is a fun time of year—getting together with friends and family whether it is for Christmas or Hanukah or another celebration—with holiday parties, a lighter work load due to the end of year, shopping for gifts for loved ones and getting extra rest. This is also the time of year for enjoying the plentiful decorations that compliment our city.

San Jose is a destination point for holiday celebrations. Our city is known for its traditions of Christmas in the Park, skating under the palms, and the beautifully decorated Fairmont Hotel. In addition, there are the many neighborhoods that go all out to decorate for the holidays.

I like to take the opportunity to drive around the neighborhoods and look at all the decorations and lights. Some homes are decorated with the intensity of Chevy Chase’s home in National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, but without all the chaos. There are many streets in Willow Glen and the Rose Garden where house after house have Christmas trees on their front yards. This has become a tradition over the decades and is growing in other neighborhoods as well.

I would like to share three favorite locations that I enjoy visiting each year:

Cherry Ave/Glen Eyrie Ave:
Five home owners got together and combined forces. Each home has a huge reindeer, including Rudolph. One home has Santa suspended in the air so it looks like he is flying. The sleigh is connected to the reindeers by lights on a string.

Cherry Ave/Robsheal Dr:
An actual live Santa sits on the porch in the evenings for photo ops. The display includes lights on the roof and many scenes on the lawn. This family takes donations for the Make-a-Wish Foundation. With lights on the roof and displays galore they must have a massive PG&E bill. However, be aware that they take their lights down on December 26 every year.

Minnesota Ave /Newport Ave:
This beautiful historic Victorian is lit up each year. The attention to detail with lights is breathtaking.

Please take this opportunity to share homes or neighborhoods that you enjoy visiting.

No, I am not referring to the subprime mortgage crisis and the subsequent foreclosures but rather last week’s three-hour city council study session regarding inclusionary housing. Many comments were expressed on how inclusionary housing should be dispersed. What exactly is “inclusionary housing?” Is it for extremely low income (ELI), or for others? No one can argue that San Jose has not done a good job at building affordable housing, especially when you compare San Jose to other municipalities in the Bay Area.

San Jose has typically moved forward with infill development specifically within RDA areas. Most of the RDA areas are located downtown or in SNI areas. The San Jose Redevelopment Agency puts 20 percent of their funds (tax increment) aside for affordable housing which has built over 10,000 units.

The purpose of the study session was for city staff to clearly define inclusionary housing, how it has been done in other cities and the potential benefits and impacts of a citywide policy.  Many interest groups attended the session, including PACT, Catholic Charities, Home Builders Association, labor groups, the Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club and others.

The overview was a good start with a variety of views expressed from staff, consultants and builders.  Ideas included taxing homeowners every time a home is sold with some type of transfer tax, adding taxes to developers and/or landowners as the cost of building in San Jose for a greater good. There were other ideas of allowing higher densities on housing developments to make it pencil out for developers or allow for preferential zoning when it comes to affordable housing.

There were many thoughtful speakers from the audience who shared personal stories regarding how they spend 50-70 percent of their income on rent alone. Even working full time as a senior cashier at Home Depot still meant sharing a room in a rental unit.

Teachers spoke who sacrifice income for service and are having difficulty with finding affordable housing. Then there were comments from double-income young people who wanted to buy their first home but felt that affordable housing drives up the cost of entry-level market housing.

The council voted unanimously to allow an additional six months of study and outreach on this topic.  Please take advantage of this opportunity to share your opinions and ideas regarding inclusionary housing.

Is there a moral responsibility for all cities to provide affordable housing?

Does San Jose have a larger responsibility then other cities since we have more land?

Should affordable housing be citywide or in certain areas?

Should we target affordable housing to certain groups? Seniors? Occupations like teaching and public safety?

Has San Jose done enough for affordable housing and now it’s time for other cities to step up to the plate?

The San Jose City Council received a North San Jose Task Force update last week.  North San Jose is a grand opportunity for the city. The prospects are endless: industrial land which adds revenue to the city budget, residential properties to allow people to live close to where they work and an abundance of land which can be used for open space and parks.

Most importantly is the enormous economic engine that we have in North San Jose. The fact that San Jose can make money from this area and use that money to pay for neighborhood services throughout the city is a winner. I have worked with many companies in North San Jose—big companies like Cisco, mid-size companies like Pillar Data, and fast growing start-ups like Wichorus. The variety of businesses located there offers us a great future.

I support the North San Jose plan since it is incremental in nature in that we only do a certain amount of housing and then wait for additional industrial intensification and development. With that said, however, blueprints need to be planned a certain way, which is why the taskforce gave the update that included issues like schools, parks, retail development and so on.

Currently, I have some concerns about the density of the project. As we know, each parcel is precious and once we build on the land then open space is gone forever. For example, most of the current housing being proposed is three stories over underground parking.  This design is the norm and not the best use of land. I admit that we did approve one 100-foot-plus building but that has been the exception, not the norm.

I think that taller buildings should be built in North San Jose. I would like to see the City of San Jose and/or the North San Jose Task Force direct the developers to propose taller buildings which would allow for larger parks as I stated in a previous blog. Three stories over parking is the easy choice for a developer, but taller is better and employs more of our well-trained local construction workers.

In addition, I also think that we should investigate building schools at least three stories high there. School districts should build new schools with density in mind instead of schools sprawling across acreage. Therefore, schools could utilize more of the land for organized play, playgrounds, etc. Also, when it comes to new retail centers, housing should be on top. Strip malls are out; housing over retail is in.

San Jose has been built out of mostly single family homes. There are few places in San Jose really appropriate for tall housing and those are in our downtown and North San Jose.

So let’s do density right. If we really want to support transit, jobs and retail, then let’s give it our best shot. Otherwise all we end up with is more traffic since lower densities never let you reach that real turning point that we always talk about for our city. We have taken the first steps with high rises in downtown. Let’s be sure to include those opportunities in North San Jose.

As we know, San Jose is made up of council districts and, as a result, many of us have come to identify with these boundaries and/or borders. I know I have. I was raised in Willow Glen. My parents live in the same home they bought over 30 years ago.  Most of my life experiences centered around my neighborhood; therefore, my view of the world was somewhat sheltered until I became an adult when I moved to downtown San Jose for 10 years and traveled to over 40 countries.

I often refer to my travels as my best learning experience. My travels taught me that the people of the world have many more similarities than differences. Other countries may have different food, geography and languages, but the need for love, a safe place to live and some kind of economic vitality was present in everywhere I visited.

When I look at the council districts in San Jose I compare them to the countries that I went to.  Each district may have subtle differences based on geography, etc. However, for the most part, each district wants the city to provide the services it is expected to provide, such as street maintenance, slowing cars down on neighborhood streets, maintaining parks, code enforcement and public safety. I have chaired the Traffic Calming Meetings in which we had one meeting in each council district. Although the issue was traffic calming, many of the residents would speak to me afterwards about these other essential services.

I was a bit surprised to hear so many people in every district in San Jose sharing the same needs with me. In response, I encouraged them to attend and be part of the Mayors’ Community Budget Process which is open to everyone. It’s important for different groups to share their opinions regarding the finances of City Hall.

For example, Bob Brownstein, former budget director for Mayor Susan Hammer, recently told me that if you add up all property taxes from residential and commercial properties that the city of San Jose receives, it only pays for 60 percent of the annual police budget. Did you catch that? The other 40 percent of the police budget and the money needed for the salaries for the other approximately 5,000 city employees comes from sales tax and utility tax, among others. It is important to have basic information like this to fully appreciate the magnitude of the city’s revenues and costs.

Help put the San Jose puzzle together and become part of the budget process. Put these dates in your BlackBerry:

Mayors Budget Shortfall Advisory Group Thursday Jan 10th from 6:00-9:00 PM at City Hall. For more information go to this link.

Mayors Community Budget for Neighborhood Priorities meeting Saturday January 19 from 9:00 AM 12:00 PM at City Hall.

Strong Neighborhood Initiative areas have top-ten lists for action items in their specific areas.

What should San Jose’s top ten be?

This week I am writing about the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Most of the time, sadly, we hear these words of good advice but don’t make the conscious effort to apply healthy choices to our usual routines. Perhaps some of you who are reading this may think that writing about the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, one which includes “eating right” and “exercising,” may not have anything to do with city government. I politely disagree.

Rising healthcare costs are a detriment to every employer—public or private. Higher healthcare costs equate to less city services; or, in private sector, it may mean not hiring a new employee.

I recently met with Eric Larsen, President of AFSCME Local 101, regarding wellness programs. Eric shared with me that 15 percent of the employees of the City of San Jose are responsible for 80 percent of the medical costs that the city endures. This percentage shines light on a serious issue.

The issue of wellness and preventative care is not new; however, its implementation is rather slow.  Popping a few pills takes much less time than walking the Guadalupe River Park.  Eating healthy and exercising regularly is called preventative care.

For example, a member of my staff recently suffered a swollen knee which made it difficult for her to walk.  The doctor explained that she had a weak knee and that for her knee to improve she would need to exercise or have surgery.  Her treatment consisted of different exercises specifically for her knees.  Even though it took time, her knee is much better and she is now exercising and avoided costly surgery.

People who maintain a healthy lifestyle pose less of a health risk and thus less of an economic risk to health care providers.  Avoiding extra weight, lowering blood pressure, keeping cholesterol in check, among other things, are positive ways that we can demonstrate that we take our health seriously.  Sadly, many adults do not see a doctor on a regular basis but only when they are already sick or have a problem that needs immediate and more costly attention.

In an effort to bring awareness to the importance of exercise, I am continuing the City Hall Stair Challenge on November 7th at City Hall.  This event was started by Supervisor Ken Yeager.  Ken was a smoker at one point in his life.  He decided to stop smoking and is now an accomplished marathon runner.  Although many people will be participating in the eightee-story Stair Challenge, it is also a symbolic gesture and reminder that any type of physical activity is important.

Recently, the City of San Jose was voted the “8th Best Walking City in the United States.” This great news leads me into an idea that I want to share.  Why not take advantage of San Jose’s “Best Walking” title and incorporate walking tours from City Hall.

I want to challenge you to think about putting together walking routes that start and end at City Hall. They should be different in length and take you to different areas within the downtown.  There are many different options that one could take going in all directions from City Hall that include different neighborhoods, park, landmarks, and retail stores, etc., that are missed by driving in a car.  Let’s get out of the car and start experiencing our surroundings by walking.

The city has over 2,000 employees that work at 200 East Santa Clara Street.  Can you imagine if just half or a quarter walked 3 times a week?

I propose that the City of San Jose take a proactive approach to promoting healthy lifestyles and that we get the insurance carriers involved so that we can attempt to get quality healthcare that costs less.

Something else I learned from Mr. Larsen was that the City of San Jose has been given a $200,000 grant for wellness.  The city has not yet decided how the money should be spent.

I will take this opportunity to share my thoughts about how the money could be spent. For example, I would like to promote web-based tracking that all city employees (including myself) could log into when they walk and/or exercise.  Sharing personal exercising data would not be mandatory; however, the system could be accessed by the healthcare providers and if employees wanted to share their information with others, they could.  The City of San Jose could use this information to attempt to receive lower healthcare rates.  This idea resembles car insurance.  When one has a good driving record, their costs are lower.  Of course, it would be cumulative. However, if the City of San Jose negotiated right, I think it would be pretty hard for the healthcare industry to ignore the nation’s tenth largest city’s proactive approach for promoting healthy lifestyles.

The walking routes (that I mentioned above) could be located on the cities intranet so that city employees could choose to walk different routes during lunch or on their free time. The intranet setup would allow for employees to track their progress.  This set-up could cost well under the $200,000 grant.  Imagine if there were 15 plus walking routes that employees could choose from. The walking routes could be shared with others and possibly used as promotional material for City Hall and the Downtown Association.

And, if there is not the support to spend a portion of the $200,000 for database purposes, there are many FREE websites that allow you to track your fitness goals. Even if we did not create an intranet to store the employees’ fitness information, the city could ask employees if they would like to share their results from the FREE fitness websites so that the city could share this information with the health insurance carriers when it’s time to negotiate, thus showing that San Jose is serious about proactive preventative wellness care.

Do you have a favorite walking route you want to share?  Even though it’s October, the weather still lends itself to walking downtown.

This past Tuesday, the City of San Jose discussed its midyear point, which is where we consider how we should spend or not spend any “extra” money that was not part of the regular budget proposal.  This year approximately $13 million is up for discussion.

Cities have some accuracy in forecasting budgets, but there is always an unpredictable deficit or overage. The final budget dollars are predicated (as best as they can be) on economic actions outside of City Hall. For example, San Jose’s coffers are fed when consumers buy “stuff” at Santana Row, Eastridge, Valley Fair, Oakridge, etc., by creating sales tax.  In addition, developers building a housing development will generate construction and conveyance tax. However, a slowdown in the housing market will affect real estate transactions and a slowdown in our spending habits will limit the amount of tax the city receives.

This midyear money ($13 million) could be spent on anything, including police, parks, etc. Having extra money at a midyear point is positive, since there is always the risk that it could be the other way around.  The city’s economic uncertainty reserve fund has shrunk from $15 million to $4 million over the last few years.

The reason we have $13 million extra is due to the spending cuts which closed the gap on the $16 million deficit for 2007-2008. Also, the city has kept most of its open positions frozen by not hiring anyone.

Unfortunately, San Jose is forecasted to have an even larger $25 million deficit for its next fiscal year (2008-2009), so the need to watch our spending is still a major concern.  In June 2007, we passed a balanced budget and also made a policy to use any extra funds we had midyear in a limited manner to correct errors and reflect updated cost information, and then split the funds 50-50 between street maintenance and future deficit reserve.

Many neighborhood roads are in disrepair and saving money is a wise thing to do; therefore, I support the 50-50 split between roads and reserve funds. Street maintenance and saving money may not deliver a new capital project, but we have to make choices that serve the long-term goals that are best for the whole city, not just individual districts.

I believe our personal upbringing can influence the way we decide to spend or save money. My parents (who grew up during the depression, own their home outright and have paid over $100, 000 for personal medical bills, all on teachers’ salaries) taught me to save money, live below my means and to try to make more money overall. As an adult, I saved to buy a home, drive used cars and have kept weekend employment, even though I was fully employed during the regular work week.

I think the city should do the same by putting money aside in reserves, being prudent in money spent (which includes community-based budget reviews) and allowing land use policies for new retail opportunities in San Jose to capture more sales tax.

Related to this, the city council last week also passed the San Jose Retail Strategy to allow for more areas to construct retail shopping. San Jose as a city has sales tax leakage of 24 percent, based on a Bay Area Economics (BAE) study in 2004. If San Jose were able to cut that leakage in half, where San Jose residents purchased products in San Jose versus neighboring cities, we would add approximately $12 million to city coffers or roughly half of next year’s budget deficit.

Also, based upon the methodology developed by BAE, if our city grows in population as per the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) 2005 Report, and assuming our sales grow at the rate they have over that last five years, our leakage would increase to 41 percent by 2015.

As San Jose continues to grow, we must be fiscally prudent and prepared. Saving money and balancing budgets should be commonplace. We all know that there is “that one project” that just needs “a couple million.” However, if we don’t commit to saving and spending money on prudent citywide necessities (like public safety officers), then our city will never get out of the rut it’s in.