Oliverio for Supervisor 2018

Independent - Transparent - Fiscally Responsible

  • HOME
  • ABOUT PIERLUIGI
  • WE KNOW PIERLUIGI
  • COMMUNITY LEADERS
  • ISSUES
  • CONTACT
    • CONTACT
    • MAP OF SUPERVISOR DISTRICT 4

Plastic or Cloth?

September 28, 2009 By Pierluigi Oliverio

It is well known that the city of San Jose is on its way to banning single-use plastic bags starting in Jan 2011. An ordinance will come back to Council in 2010 for final adoption which will contain different options. The most problematic option I could see is a fee put on single-use bags.

The 25-cent fee would be charged for each bag and would not go towards libraries or police but rather to hire new people to administer the program and regulate retail stores. The store owner would have to collect the fee, record it, give it to the city and then possibly have to undergo audits. This is a painful process that a business does not want to take on. For the resident who pays the fee there is little value in paying for salaries of people to manage this program. It seems to me that most residents would rather have fees or taxes go towards neighborhood services that would enhance their daily lives.

If plastic bags are so bad, then let’s ban plastic bags altogether rather than create a plastic bag fee bureaucracy.
However, I believe the plastic bag debate is the beginning of discussions regarding the environment. Americans use more resources per person than all other countries. American consumers’ choices have an impact on the environment. Banning products that are not environmentally friendly will also have an effect on those who are employed in those industries. But are plastic bags the number one problem for San Jose? No. The City of San Jose needs to avoid bankruptcy and switch to a two-tier pension system for new city employees.

However, staying on topic, the plastic bag issue does speak to the impacts of consumption. Certainly plastic water bottles are menace to society with the plastic bottle island in the Pacific Ocean. (Sidenote: Did you know there is less then one person in the US government regulating bottled water for health and safety?) How about banning Styrofoam? Or all that packaging to protect our consumer electronics that could certainly be done in a more environmentally friendly away.  Or maybe banning beef, as it takes 500 quarts of water to produce one pound of beef while the same amount in grain takes 2-20 quarts. Or banning incandescent light bulbs since new CFL bulbs use 75 percent less energy, produce 75 percent less heat and last 10 times as long.

If we really want to divert waste from our landfills to implement the San Jose Green Vision then perhaps we look at disposable diapers. Disposable diapers take up the most non organic space in land fills. Back before the days of convenience and mass consumption people used cloth diapers that were washable. Having changed a diaper in my life, I can definitely see the value of getting rid of that smelly diaper but it has its impact.

Eighty percent of the diaper changes in this nation are done with disposables. That comes to 18 billion diapers a year which is a $3 billion industry in the USA. Each diaper has an outer layer of waterproof polypropylene and an inner layer of fluff made from wood pulp plus super-slurper sodium polyacrylate that can hold a hundred times its weight in water.

Those 18 billion diapers add up to 82,000 tons of plastic a year and 1.3 million tons of wood pulp—250,000 trees. After a bowel movement these diapers are trucked away to landfills, where they sit as neatly wrapped packages of excrement, it is estimated to take 250-500 years to decompose, long after your children, grandchildren and great, great, grandchildren will be gone.

The instructions on a disposable diaper package advise that all fecal matter should be deposited in the toilet before discarding, yet less than one half of one percent of all waste from single-use diapers goes into the sewage system. Cloth diapers are reused 50 to 200 times before being turned into rags. Disposable diapers generate sixty times more solid waste and use twenty times more raw materials, like crude oil and wood pulp then cloth diapers. In 1991, an attempt towards recycling disposable diapers was made in the city of Seattle, involving 800 families, 30 day care centers, a hospital and a Seattle-based recycle for a period of one year. The conclusion was that recycling disposable diapers was not economically feasible on any scale.

I believe consumers and different levels of government will be dealing with these choices in perpetuity and there will be many debates and long council meetings across the country.

Thank you to the more than 100 people that turned out to City Hall last Monday to watch the film about water scarcity called FLOW.
The next event is discussion with the San Jose Redevelopment Agency at the Willow Glen Library on Saturday Oct 3 at 10:30am.

Filed Under: Plastic Bag ban, Politics

Land Banking Without Public Money

September 21, 2009 By Pierluigi Oliverio

Last week, at the Council meeting, there was a contentious land use item. A housing developer is asking the council to approve a rezoning of land to allow a 117-unit affordable Shared Room Occupancy (SRO).

Currently, there are business owners, adjacent property owners, and residents who do not support this project. I have been a councilmember for more than two years and I have never seen each of these groups on the same page. Ninety-five percent of the adjacent property owners are against the rezoning. They took the time to file and get their signatures notarized for a zoning protest application and therefore it requires eight council votes to approve the project instead of six.

Ninety-five percent is unheard of—thus showing a high level of opposition. One of the adjacent industrial property owners said, “where will people work in San Jose if the Council continues to change land for jobs to land for housing?”  Industrial uses are becoming harder to locate in this City since residents do not want noise or truck traffic.

All of the speakers spoke against the rezoning at the council meeting. I had already heard these comments, because I attended the community meeting in my district for this project and watched the entire planning commission discussion. Furthermore, they have e-mailed the council and mayor regarding their concerns. For many of the residents, this was their first experience with the City of San Jose since their neighborhood is being annexed.

I am a member of the General Plan 2040 Task force (GP2040). This makes me think of the best long-term uses of land citywide. In the past the council has made decisions based on the short-term rather then the long-term view. GP2040 is about learning from historical mistakes, being strategic with land use and planning our future.

The council spent over $100 million being strategic by «land banking» to provide development sites which have led to economic development. However, we also have the power to land bank without spending a dime … by simply voting no on projects that do not have the best long term interest for the City.

I believe that saying “just say no” to conversion of commercial/industrial land equals more land for jobs and a tax base to pay for neighborhood services.

The location is a gateway parcel on San Carlos between Sunol and McEvoy linking Downtown to Santana Row. The current proposal divides two other parcels (Sam’s Downtown Feed & Pizza Jacks) which does not allow for a development that is more focused on economic development. This odd shaped parcel does not allow for proper parking to be built out underneath since it divides two other properties. Otherwise the proposed parking is problematic for the neighborhood since it only provides 65 parking spaces for maximum occupancy of 234 people.

Shasta-Hanchett neighborhood board members have said, “If we are going to get a baseball stadium, wouldn’t this land would become more valuable?” I agree with them. This parcel should have an economic development aspect that could also have housing (affordable or market rate) on the top of significant retail by developing the entire parcel and not a divided one.

The current affordable housing proposal does not pay park fees or construction tax fees in a neighborhood that is identified as park deficient. We spoke about this deficiency Sept. 8 at the council study session for the Greenprint, and this rezoning would exacerbate the problem. San Jose has lost out on as much $60-90 million in park fees alone.

There is some concern about the concentration of affordable housing in this area. There is an affordable housing project right down street at the old Fiesta Lanes Bowl (another commercial-to-residential land conversion). 1,000 feet away we have eight stories of affordable housing on Bird and San Carlos and 300 feet from that another affordable project called Esperanza. A 100-percent affordable project on Lenzen, affordable senior housing next to MidTown Safeway. 400 feet the other direction 777 Park Ave. will be another 100 percent affordable project of 200 units.  The Council just approved 42 affordable units on San Carlos and Meridian this Spring.

In December of this year, the Council will get another proposal on a mixed use project of 160 affordable units right across the street however that parcel is already zoned residential. Unlike the 1,500 additional housing units where housing was not planned, like DelMonte Cannery (600 units), Lou’s Village (100 units) and Sobrato office park (800 units).

Based on annexation zoning rules we can look at this parcel in two years when we know if there will be a future ballpark or not. Construction on this development was not going to occur for 2-3 years anyway so now is not the time to rezone. Due to the 2-3 year out construction schedule, there is no viable argument that this will spur construction jobs.

The proposed SRO would be in the vicinity of a proposed light rail station that other developers have given money towards; however, the VTA has not given a firm commitment to fund the station. (By the way, a light rail station does not need to be art, just give me an ADA compliant concrete slab and then in the future if we have the money we can do something fancy.)

I made a motion to deny the rezoning and was seconded by the mayor. The developer asked for another week to try and work with the adjacent property owners to make the project better. The council gave the developer a week to make it work. It’s not about the project; its about the loss of employment land and the loss of infrastructure fees for the City.

Saying no to bad proposals is cheaper then land banking with public funds.

Filed Under: Politics, zoning

San Jose Greenprint in the Red

September 14, 2009 By Pierluigi Oliverio

Since Sept. 7 was the Labor Day holiday, the City did not have a regular city council meeting. So, instead the Council had a “study session” on the Greenprint, which is a vision for our parks and community centers. (It is not a legal binding document.)

Study sessions are sort of like the “News Hour” program on PBS. We spend extra time on one topic where we get a presentation from city staff, and then we ask questions and make statements. Public comment is encouraged; the usual rule of two minutes; however, some community groups write letters in advance to be part of the public record.

The city has grown in square footage both in parks and community centers. However San Jose still ranks lower then many cities in its ratio of parks to people, even when you include school property (which is where I used to play as a kid). By 2020 we will be 1,124 acres short of our goal/vision. In fact, we exacerbate this ratio every week by approving affordable housing that is exempt from park fees or land dedication.

I brought this issue up a year ago at the Rules Committee. However I have been waiting for over a year now for the Housing Department to come back with some options for the Council. By my back-of-the-envelope calculations, San Jose has lost out on approximately $60-90 million in park fees from housing developers. Actually, this is another question I asked city staff: What is the amount of money the City of San Jose has lost on exempting fees/taxes for affordable housing? But I never heard back—probably since it is a big number.

With the passage of Measure P in the year 2000 with 78 percent voting yes, the city was able to build new community centers, remodel existing community centers and build out park amenities. For example Happy Hollow will open up next year brand new because of Measure P.

Measure P is financed by general obligation bonds. Without Measure P these improvements would be typically funded through the construction and conveyance tax, or if the park/community center was located in a redevelopment area, then possibly diverting RDA money meant for economic development. But without Measure P it is unlikely that much of what has been accomplished would have occurred.

The primary funding of new parks comes through building new housing, since market-rate housing (not affordable) pays park fees or donates land for a new park. So if you do not want any housing then you do not get new parks.

The question is: Would you be willing to vote yes on another Measure P to buy land and possibly construct new trails and parks?

A new Measure P may for example fund the entire completion of our proposed trail system and two new medium-sized parks. It would also provide money to be held in reserve to buy one or two school sites if and when a school district decides to close a school as has been done in the past. Actually we have two great facilities in the Willows Community Center and Kirk Community Center that used to be elementary schools.

Cities get the “first right of refusal” to buy other public-agency owned land. However, if one of these schools was for sale today, San Jose could not buy it because we don’t have the money, and it would likely become more housing.

One could counter and say that the way the city delivers park maintenance is too expensive and therefore we cannot provide the ongoing maintenance for existing facilities so lets not add new park acreage. Should a new Measure P be changed to a parcel tax so it provides money for ongoing maintenance that keeps up with the rate of wage-medical-pension inflation? Change the maintenance model? Or would you rather pay more in taxes for police or street paving than parks?

Here is a link to the Greenprint.

There is a public meeting to discuss this topic Wednesday, Sept. 16 at 6:30pm at City Hall in room W-120.

Filed Under: Affordable Housing, Green Print, Parks, Politics

Water Today. Water Tomorrow?

September 7, 2009 By Pierluigi Oliverio

San Jose’s population is officially 1,006,892!

1,006,892—confirmed by the State Department of Finance on April 30th of this year. I thought it would be interesting to share how San Jose has grown since 1950. Take a look:

1950   95,000 residents
1955   112,000 residents
1960   204,000 residents
1965   328,000 residents
1970   459,000 residents
1980   629,000 residents
1985   782,000 residents
1990   894,000 residents
2000   950,000 residents

The General Plan 2040 Task Force is discussing land use and how that plays a part with San Jose’s growth through 2040. There are members of the task force and interest groups that would like to see San Jose grow to a population of 1,500,000 by 2040. I do not share this opinion and feel 1,200,000 is a more sensible number. I blogged about this in the past, advocating for “stage gates” and/or triggers so that we get more jobs and not just more housing.

The General Plan Task Force Meetings are public. We generally meet the last Monday evening of the month through 2011. I encourage you to attend.
This link to the Planning Department’s General Plan update provides more information.

On Sept. 28, the General Plan Task force will be taking up the topic of water supply. In past blogs I have written about the importance of recycled water to our city.
This discussion on future water supply coincides with a documentary film that I am showing at the City Hall Council Chambers in partnership with the Sierra Club and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The film is called FLOW, and I am showing it on Monday, Sept. 21 at 6:45pm. FLOW was also an Official Selection for the Sundance Film Festival, and Wired Magazine called it “the scariest film in the festival.”

Please RSVP with me if you would like to attend since seating is limited. Cost is free. Pierluigi.Oliverio@SanJoseCA.gov.

This is a link to FLOW’s two minute video trailer.

Filed Under: General Plan, Politics, Water

Retirement Board Governance

August 31, 2009 By Pierluigi Oliverio

Last week, I chose to attend both outreach meetings regarding the issue of retirement board governance, so I could hear concerns first- hand instead of reading a staff report. The possibility of changing the makeup of the current retirement board was presented by the consultant. The biggest change, if adopted, would be to remove city councilmembers from the board and add “independent” board members with a finance background.

Discussion about changing the amount of pension contributions or starting a second-tier retirement system for new employees was not part of the report. If you want to review the entire report by Cortex then go to this website.

Since 99.95 percent of city residents did not attend the meetings I thought I would share a synopsis of the comments that were made by attendees:

• Ken (City retiree and former retirement board trustee)
Status Quo is fine. Like none of the report

• Yolanda (union leader)
City employees have a stake in the pension, independent people would not.
Leave the the Councilmembers on the board. Why fix what is not broken. More outreach to city employees is needed. City is taking advantage of the recession. City wants to implement a two-tier retirement system.

• Jerry (SJ taxpayer)
Change pensions to 401K’s

• David (SJ taxpayer)
Thinks Council appointment of “independent” finance experts would be political and council would appoint union approved experts. The taxpayers are on the hook for pension fund losses. Cortex should have studied current board system.

• Steve (City retiree)
The report is a slap in the face. The City is stingy. Picking of Cortex was biased. There is no problem with current system.

• Brad (City retiree and 12-year trustee of retirement board)
Report is flawed. Only people that live in SJ should be on retirement board, currently not the case.
Council in the past appointed people the board that were Union favorites and not the most qualified.

• Carmine (City retiree and 13-year trustee of retirement board)
The current pension losses is not due to current governance model.
Council would appoint “independent” experts that serve their wishes and possibly not the employees.
How can we look to financial experts when many financial institutions have people in jail?

• Ben (union leader)
It would be bad policy to exclude elected councilmembers from the board. People with fiscal experience will not solve problems-not a cure all.

• Pete (City retiree)
Changing board will do nothing. No trust of financial experts. San Jose retirement plans should be a model of the nation. Yale lost 25 percent last year in pension fund and they are a Cortex client. Ontario teacher fund lost 18 percent last year and they are a Cortex client. You are awaking a sleeping giant of city workers that will go out and inform the public of the real story.

• Mary Sue (spouse of city retiree)
Feels that the “independent” experts represent city management and not the unions.
Unions should have a majority control of board not “independent” experts.
Life experience more valuable than education and expertise. City Councilmembers themselves are against us because they do not get retirement benefits.

• Rodney (SJ taxpayer)
No protection for taxpayer.

• Dan (union leader)
The board has done a wonderful job.
The theme is that there is a lack of trust. More outreach needed to Labor.

• Susan (SJ taxpayer)
Small business owners should be on retirement board. Investments should strive for safety and security and not be invested in risky assets. SJ needs pension reform. Taxpayers are not an ATM.

• Michael (city retiree)
I am a taxpayer too. City management is the problem.

• Naomi (spouse of city retiree)
This is not the time to make changes

• Bob (city retiree)
Suspicious of city management. Why hire a firm from Canada? Don’t trust people in suits.
Posting reports on website is no good-we want paper.

• Linda (union leader)
Concerned about the option of active employees electing a non active employee representative.

• Ashok (SJ axpayer)
Pensions are a structural problem.
Totally disappointed that SJ not considering true pension reform
Why should SJ residents have to pay for pension losses?

• Jeffrey (city employee)
This is a power grab by city management.

• Gail (spouse of city retiree)
Against any changes. People invested in the plan have a stake in the plan. Wrong time to make changes. Don’t trust the Council they make bad financial decisions like funding Mexican Heritage Plaza.

• Bill (union leader and former neutral retirement board trustee)
The reports touts “flexibility” but he does not see “flexibility” this is more of a concession.
Would give too much power to the Council

• Don (City retiree)
City management has been after our money for 30 years.Banker and attorneys are not experts.
We are not broke since we control it. We don’t need your expertise.

• Joyce (SJ taxpayer)
Mercury News is not favorable to business interests.
My 401K is a 201K. Add SJ taxpayers to retirement board.
Heads of Unions have conflicts of interest.

• Dorothy (city retiree)
All people should have guaranteed pensions. 401K’s bad.

• John (union attorney)
Likes removing veto power of council on board trustee nominations.
Prefer Florida model of pension boards which is 3 from employees, 3 from city/council and then 7th person is appointed by the 6 board members for a neutral member.

• Dave (city retiree)
Gave King Solomon analogy.
Mayors and Council will go but the benefits need to stay.
Bankers getting big bonuses. Something about selling Tulips in Holland.
Experts have nothing to bring to the table.

• Craig (SJ taxpayer)
Thank city employees for their work.
Former CFO. Nearly all companies have 401K’s. Pensions are the same as Social Security and are destined to go bankrupt. Why does not the city do a comprehensive pension overhaul. Taxpayers are the guarantee on pension losses.

• Walter (city employee)
Against report. No need to make changes.
Concern of removal of trustee and how super majority would work for pension fund investing in SJ projects.

• Bob (city retiree and president of retired employees, 2900 pensioners and 4600 with spouses/partners)
City councilmembers are good to have on boards. Board should stay the way it is.
Majority vote by non union trustees is not good. Next decade may have modest investment returns and if we pay “independent” experts that will raise the cost to administer the pension funds.

• Paul (city retiree)
I vote and pay taxes. Why fix what is not broken.
City management power grab that last 30 years. Leave it alone. Cortex is the low bid-it is a sham.
We want elected councilmembers on the board.

• Tony (city employee)
We do not have to support your proposal.

• Bobby (union leader)
City Management and staff lie. Police union only given two hours to give input.
Distrust of city manager over the years, lies. We are all taxpayers. Not broken-no trust.
City wrong in facts and makes financial mistakes.
Councilmembers on the retirement board safeguard the system. Want fairness

• Gay (union leader)
Concerned how budget will pay for “independent” financial experts.

• Eric (union leader)
Nothing broken. City Mgr trying to mess around with benefits. Do not agree with the report.

• Tim (city retiree and former retirement board trustee)
City management trying to control. We have experts already. I have a vested interest in pension and only people with vested interest should serve on the board. Companies like Apple and Intel get in trouble for options backdating. Unions need to be the majority on pension board.

• Tom (city retiree)
Not paid enough. Proposed governance model is a charade.
Mercury news is biased and not telling the whole story. It is my money.

• Mike (city employee)
Current systems is not broken. More experts will overkill board. Prop 162 split government from pension boards.

This topic will come to the Council in late September/early October.

Filed Under: Politics, Retirement Board

Buyer Beware

August 24, 2009 By Pierluigi Oliverio

One of the most important responsibilities a councilmember has is working on constituent issues. So far, my office has managed 4,675 constituent issues, which I refer to as “cases.” I set up a web database that allows constituents to track our case work in real time online.

In most cases we are successful in resolving the issue or concern. In other cases, constituents just want to share their comments on a particular matter. Some of the cases are comments on federal or state policy or other requests that are above and beyond what the city budget can provide, like, “please spend millions of dollars on a certain project” or “we want vintage street lights” when others streets do not even have street lights.

Recently, I had a request that came from a constituent who is a professional in the commercial real estate industry and is a veteran at purchasing property. He contacted my office a few months ago after purchasing a piece of property on Meridian Avenue. Unfortunately, this person did not contact the San Jose Planning Department before he bought the property to check how the property was zoned. He wanted me to tell the Planning Department to change the zoning to fit what he thought should be there instead of what the zoning has been for the past 30 years.

This request reminds me of the old adage: “buyer beware.” For example, someone may buy a home near a bar, school or church and then complain about the noise and parking. Well, it is the due diligence of the buyer to research the area, check zoning as well as any inspections a home or property may need. To choose to complain instead of taking responsibility for the purchase lacks credibility.

There are two things to remember when purchasing property; one, when you buy property, check out the zoning first so you know what you’re getting into—and if you do not like the zoning do not buy it.  Second, if you buy a property and want to change the zoning, be prepared to invest time and money to do so, and figure that into the cost you pay for the property. Councilmembers cannot snap their fingers to change the zoning in the General Plan or at the whim of a real estate professional who thinks that their opinion should override the General Plan process.

I feel sorry for this person since he put himself into a predicament. However, blaming government for your own lack of due diligence is probably not going to help matters. In this particular case, I have met with the planning department and even asked the planning director to get involved to see how we might be able to help this person even though he is the one that did not take responsibility. The director is pursuing possibilities on how we might be able to help, but the real estate professional is still not pleased.

I remember from the private sector that sometimes there was the client who was never happy no matter how much you gave of yourself to help them, even when they made the mistake. So, in those cases sometimes you parted ways with the customer, since mutual respect was absent. Sometimes working on constituent issues is like working with private-sector clients, and we try to help, but have to admit that we cannot please everyone every time.

Filed Under: City Council, Politics, zoning

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • Next Page »

Vicious Attack of Pierluigi Oliverio Unwarranted

Ones’ good name and reputation is a most prized possession. It is unconscionable for any person or entity to maliciously endeavor to destroy another persons reputation The lack of integrity the public special interest groups showed recently when they maliciously sought to destroy the reputation of Pierluigi Oliverio, candidate for Santa Clara County Supervisor, is […]

Op-Ed: How to make Santa Clara County government more effective

Residents should hold supervisors accountable for how efficiently core services are deployed to meet stated goals Federal, state, county, city, school and special districts all have distinct and important roles to play in community governance, and each body has a primary set of responsibilities. Elected officials, and especially candidates, will often urge action on hot […]

Op-Ed: Helping the mentally ill is good for public safety

After every mass shooting, we have a public discussion about mental illness, but what about the rest of the time? 25 to 40% of police calls nationwide are related to the behavior of someone who is mentally ill, and such instances include a higher risk of injury and death to those involved. This is a constant […]

Op-Ed: Tired of trash along roads? Get Santa Clara County inmate crews to clean it up

Our streets are filthy. I cannot recall a time when there has been so much trash on our roads. Traveling extensively for work I am amazed how other thoroughfares in the state and country are so clean, in contrast to Santa Clara County. This blight is highly visible, and seems worse than ever with no […]

Letter to the Editor: Labor bill would hurt Santa Clara County

State legislation AB1250 would negatively impact Santa Clara County.  It would not only increase the cost of county government unnecessarily, but would also inflict harm on our most vulnerable residents. Fortunately for taxpayers and recipients of county services, the bill stalled ​this month , but will likely be reconsidered in January. Passage would remove the flexibility of […]

Merc News condemns Unions

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Councilmember Davis Supports Pierluigi

audio

Your browser does not support the audio element.

Mayor Reed Supports Pierluigi

audio
http://fromhereforus.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Oliverio-for-Supervisor-Chuck-Reed-043018.mp3

Like Me On Facebook

Facebook Pagelike Widget

Copyright © 2025 Paid for by Oliverio for Supervisor 2018 ----------- FPPC# 1394828-- Phil Rolla, Treasurer · Log in