At the recent televised priority session, the city council and senior staff discussed the priorities for San Jose which included the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and the dollars spent on the Strong Neighborhood Initiative (SNI).
SNI is a policy implemented about eight years ago. SNIs are suppose to represent areas in the city that are “run down” and/or in need of “special attention.” There are 20 SNIs in San Jose where the RDA has spent approximately $60 million.
I asked a question about the equity of the SNIs. For example, how much has been spent to date in each SNI area and what did the overall neighborhood receive in return. This data has been attached at the end of my post.
People have asked me how a particular neighborhood became an SNI area and their concerns for “non-SNI areas” that were left out. In addition, I also wanted to understand the equity between SNI areas themselves. I wanted to understand how funds where allocated. Was it by population or by need?
Each SNI chooses their “top ten” list and it is from this list that the RDA funds what the SNIs want. These “top ten” lists resemble what most other neighborhoods want citywide.
What if one SNI wants a million dollar community center but another SNI just wants new trees? It appears that there may be a lack of equity. What about the “non-SNI area” who needs traffic calming or street maintenance? They don’t even have the right to a top ten list. My concern is equity.
I applaud our city for trying to reach out and help underserved communities. However, I think we need to “self check” ourselves. With the city in a budget deficit, other non-SNI areas are actually becoming underserved.
SNI Projects: Expenditures by Project to Date
SNI - 13th Street
COUPLET CONVERSION 2,796,239.46
BUSINESS FACADES 384,202.70
STREETSCAPE 1,523,950.00
BACKESTO PARK 200,000.00
SNI - 13th Street 4,904,392.16
SNI - Five Wounds/Brookwood Terrace
WILLIAMS 24TH ST IMPROVE (FAÇADE) 397,416.75
MCLAUGHLIN AVE. IMPROVEMENT 858,456.00
BART STATION AREA VISIONING 837.37
SELMA-OLINDER PARK 1,000,000.00
WILLIAM ST. STREETSCAPES 50,000.00
HOUSING REHABILITATION 256,615.51
Roosevelt Comm. Ctr. Skate Park 500,000.00
SNI - Five Wounds/Brookwood Terrace 3,063,325.63
SNI - Delmas Park
RESIDENTIAL PARKING 13.00
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC PLAN 50,000.00
W. SAN CARLOS STREETSCAPES 1,199,387.53
AUZERAIS STREETSCAPES 573,700.00
SIDEWALKS 60,000.00
SNI - Delmas Park 1,883,100.53
SNI - East Valley/680 Communi
NOISE STUDY 42,120.00
SIDEWALKS 1,000,000.00
COMMUNITY FACILITIES 40,388.05
STREET SWEEPING 25,000.00
SNI - East Valley/680 Communi 1,107,508.05
SNI - Edenvale/Great Oaks
GONA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 243,828.17
ERCA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 538,076.82
MASTERPLAN FEASIBILITY STUDY 1,518,967.10
COMMUNITY GARDEN 175,000.00
SKATEPARK 440,632.52
TRAFFIC CALMING AT SCHOOLS 20,333.00
IMPROVE LIGHTING 56,000.00
SNI - Edenvale/Great Oaks 2,992,837.61
SNI - Greater Gardner
STREET IMPROVEMENTS 2,288,311.39
SCHOOL TRAFFIC CALMING 80,000.00
FULLER AVENUE OPEN SPACE 746,000.00
BUSINESS FACADES 121,974.93
W. VIRGINIA STREETSPACES 634,280.18
HOUSING REHABILITATION 130,000.00
SNI - Greater Gardner 4,000,566.50
SNI - Hoffman/Via Monte
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 166,456.37
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS 443,520.49
HOUSING REHABILTATION 250,000.00
SNI - Hoffman/Via Monte 859,976.86
SNI - Union/Curtner Bus Cluste
FACADE 295,313.93
SNI - Union/Curtner Bus Cluste 295,313.93
SNI - University
O’DONNELLS’S GARDENS PARK 689,000.00
COYOTE CREEK TRAIL 546,500.00
COUPLET CONVERSION 300,000.00
PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS 499,000.00
BUSINESS FACADES 76,715.56
STREETLIGHTS 486,000.00
SNI - University 2,597,215.56
SNI - Washington
PARQUE DE PADRE MATEO SHEEDY 731,183.18
ALMA CENTERS IMPROVEMENTS 397,255.00
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 785,000.00
COUPLET CONVERSION 700,000.90
WASHINGTON SCHOOL IMPROVEMEN 100,000.00
ALLEYWAYS 99,719.39
ALLEYWAYS RECONSTRUCTION (CD 527,420.54
TAMIEN SKATEBOARD PARK
SNI - Washington 3,340,579.01
SNI - West Evergreen
MEADOWFAIR COMMUNITY CENTER 834,475.89
PARKS & REC SPACE 172.92
BARBERRY lANE TRAIL 84,000.00
ABORN PED IMPROVEMENTS 61,498.00
LOWER SILVER CREEK IMPROVEME 15,000.00
ADA CURB RAMPS 187,000.00
SNI - West Evergreen 1,182,146.81
SNI - Winchester
EDEN TRAFFIC CALMING 74,750.00
WINCHESTER STREETSCAPES 2,458,217.42
TRAFFIC CALMING/STREETSCAPE
SNI - Winchester 2,532,967.42
SNI - Blackford
IMPROVE LIGHTING 70,000.00
ACCESS TO RECREATION 5,434,376.84
WILLIAMS/BOYNTON IMPVTS (FACADE) 56,177.32
STREET TREE PLANTING 9,500.00
TRAFFIC CALMING 30,000.00
SNI - Blackford 5,600,054.16
SNI - Burbank/Del Monte
OPEN SPACE
SCOTT/AUZERAIS IMPVTS 996,755.00
FREEWAY PARK 48,812.10
PROGRAM/SERVICES INVENTORY 5,080.62
Richmond-Menker Apt Complex 320,000.00
SNI - Burbank/Del Monte 1,370,647.72
SNI - K. O. N. A.
BULK WASTE STRATEGY 10,230.00
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB 500,000.00
TRAFFIC CALMING 25,000.00
SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS 41,133.00
WELCH PARK 235,000.00
ADA REMPS 275,000.00
SNI - K. O. N. A. 1,086,363.00
SNI - Market/Almaden
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 50,228.02
PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS 1,073,297.30
SNI - Market/Almaden 1,123,525.32
SNI - Mayfair
ADULT LEARNING CENTER 3,200,000.00
STREET LIGHTING 343,470.16
TRAFFIC CALMING 221,000.00
SNI - Mayfair 3,764,470.16
SNI - Spartan/Keyes
OPEN SPACE 140,000.00
TRAFFIC CALMING 1,053,896.00
KEYES STREETSCAPE 1,023,440.11
REVITALIZE BUSINESSES (FAÇADE) 145,186.86
NOISE STUDY 43,000.00
ACCESS TO SCHOOL 25,000.00
SNI - Spartan/Keyes 2,430,522.97
SNI - Tully/Senter
SHCOOL HUB 186,110.98
MCLAUGHLIN AVE. IMPVTS 682,683.36
NISICH DRIVE PARK 1,600,000.00
TRAFFIC CALMING 64,377.56
CHAIN LINK FENCE 120,236.98
Holly Hill Infrastructure Im 150,000.00
SNI - Tully/Senter 2,803,408.88
SNI - Gateway East
SANITARY SEWER IMPVTS 950,000.00
STORM DRAIN IMPVTS 75,000.00
PARK FACILITIES 862,401.64
COMMUNITY GARDEN 26,000.00
STREET IMPROVEMENTS 441,123.81
TRAFFIC CALMING 75,000.00
SNI - Gateway East 2,429,525.45
PO,
the RDA money should be to produce jobs; to stupid projects in the nieghborhoods. You council people operate a budget with continuous shortages. The only way out in increased job and commercial property growth. More jobs and more development mean more money for road repairs, parks, schools and librarys.
Invest in jobs, and the nieghborhoods will take care of themselves!
SNI – 13th Street
COUPLET CONVERSION 2,796,239.46
What’s a coupledt conversion, some kind of new poetry slam???
SNI – Delmas Park
RESIDENTIAL PARKING 13.00
What does one get for $13.00??
SNI – East Valley/680 Communi
SIDEWALKS 1,000,000.00
A million bucks for sidewalks????
SNI – Edenvale/Great Oaks
MASTERPLAN FEASIBILITY STUDY 1,518,967.10
A million five to study the feasability of what?
SNI – Greater Gardner
FULLER AVENUE OPEN SPACE 746,000.00
Three quarters of a million for empty space? WOW!!! Empty ain’t cheap.
SNI – Hoffman/Via Monte
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 166,456.37
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS 443,520.49
The new alleys must be much nicer than the neighborhood center. Whew!
SNI – University
COUPLET CONVERSION 300,000.00
PEDESTRIAN CORRIDORS 499,000.00
More poetry slams. What’s a pedestrian corridor—a sidewalk?
SNI – Washington
PARQUE DE PADRE MATEO SHEEDY 731,183.18
ALMA CENTERS IMPROVEMENTS 397,255.00
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 785,000.00
COUPLET CONVERSION 700,000.90
WASHINGTON SCHOOL IMPROVEMEN 100,000.00
ALLEYWAYS 99,719.39
ALLEYWAYS RECONSTRUCTION (CD 527,420.54
TAMIEN SKATEBOARD PARK
$527k for a skateboard park, but Alma Ave. Between Monterey Highway & Minnesota is like driving on railroad ties.
How can the governement take money from its citizens and hand it out to pet projects however it sees fit? Community gardens here, noise studies there…
Vote for me, I’ll give you this!
No doubt some of these endeavors are positive, but the entire priniciple is just wrong. How did we get here?
Pierluigi—
I certainly cannot disagree with the concept of equity among neighborhoods, both within the SNI and without. But the data you supply only tells a very small part of the story and, as such, is perhaps misleading. Moreover, the real question is not one of equity (how to divide the existing pie) but of innovation (thinking of new and better ways to grow the pie.)
(Disclosure to other readers: As Pierluigi knows, I am president of the 13th St. SNI area. I am also a member of the SNI PAC, the city-wide SNI residents’ advisory group.)
Not every SNI area is of the same geographic size or populated by the same number of residents. Thus, per capita spending in SNI is a better guage of equity than overall dollars spent. Further, it appears that your data only includes money actually spent or encumbered in each SNI area to date, not money allocated. For example, 13th St. business facades were allocated $750k over five years but only $384k is listed in your figures. If so, the snapshot in time approach does not accurately measure the equity of investment in various SNI areas because some monies have been allocated and not yet spent which are not reflected in your figures.
In terms of the equity of investment in SNI neighborhoods versus non-SNI neighborhoods, the SNI neighborhoods have legally been determined to be “blighted.” These are the neighborhoods that have been, by definition, under-served by city resources for decades and the SNI is a belated, and insufficiently funded effort to rectify these historical inequities. In your own District 6, I think you would acknowledge that the Burbank and Buena Visa neighborhoods have not historically received the same level of service as the Rose Garden neighborhood, for example.
Investment in neigbhorhoods, especially blighted neighborhoods. is important to the economic vitality of our city. A significant chunk of SNI dollars are spent on neighborhood business districts, like the 13th St. facade money I alluded to, an effort designed to directly improve the business climate. Also, capital improvements for our parks and community centers make San Jose a more attractive place for business to relocate.
So, SNI is a valuable—and in my view—equitable program.
However, it is not without its faults. It is run by a bureaucracy, RDA, and is beset by bureaucratic ailments. The “partnership” with the community promised by SNI has never really materialized. The 13th St. facade program I mentioned, for example, is great in theory but has, due to a heretofore unwillingness by RDA to collaborate with residents, been largely a failure in practice. Also, there have been plenty of great ideas among residents to leverage private investment that have gone unexplored. Too much money has been left on the table, so to speak. As I’ve said, that’s the real issue: how to grow the pie, not how to divide it.
The citizens of San Jose should elect the members of the RDA Board. And, there should be a citizen-based oversight committee (much like the Planning Commission) that oversees the RDA Board and makes recommendations.
Regarding the Stong Neighborhoods Initiative…I hope that your area has improved, because my area has declined over the past 10 years!
Pete Campbell
Hello Pierluigi,
I agree with you that we need to audit the project spending to see the return on the investment. The council did this with the Arts program in San Jose and now they are profitable. It is always good to have a system of checks and balances.
My neighborhood is not part of the SNI but our association did apply for neighborhood grants. I remember there used to be an interview process before you could get the grant and one of the questions they asked was, “What is your plan to become self-sustaining?” That was a hard question to answer but we were informed that after four years (if memory serves me correctly) you could no longer apply for the grant or a ceiling would be hit which was a minimal amount.
We worked hard to develop projects that would break even or make a small profit. Projects like a neighborhood yard sale and community newsletter both made us a profit. We covered our expenses on our general meetings by getting sponsors which allowed us to provide snacks. The one major project that we couldn’t cover the expense, even though we charged a fee and had a sponsor, was dumpster days.
Profits from the other projects allowed us to have a Halloween parade and Holiday showcase. Both of these projects really get the neighborhood involved and bring us closer together. I think that is really what the city wants out of its investment; community involvement with a close-knit environment.
Cheers,
Art
Pete Campbell (#5): The citizens of San Jose DO elect the members of the RDA board, who are also the mayor and city councilmembers wearing different hats.
Also, virtually EVERY neighborhood in San Jose—including those within the SNI—has declined over the last decade because of the failure of the city, largely due to budgetary constraints, to provide adequately for ongoing maintenance of parks, streets and other city faciliities across the city.
And if your neighborhood is not within SNI, then redevelopment money cannot legally be spent there. So, it’s not really a question of my officially blighted downtown neighborhood getting money while your more affluent west side neighborhood does not. But, you’re right, if the city does not provide a baseline of service in all our neighborhoods with general fund dollars, sooner or later they will all be blighted within the legal definition.
Peter, will it be ok for you if Irish Americans serve on the RDA Board. We know that you do not want them in your neighborhood.
Thoughts for diversity.
#1
So would you only use RDA money for economic development? No SNI? I think the amount for affordable housing is locked in by state law.
#5
The board is elected as it is the city councilmembers.
Declaring a city’s older areas blighted and under eminent domain where city / developers can take private property at below market prices – SNI neighborhoods – requires that city spend RDA tax dollars to fix blight – deferred street, sewer, sidewalk, park, building etc maintenance for neglected areas –
Economic development by state law comes after fixing blighted areas – bringing them up to other city areas
Many other areas of San Jose have been underserved / neglected for years since city government wastes millions on economic development projects with little or small real return on taxes spent and city government has used fake economic impact numbers to try to fool unknowledgeable residents and Council
Now city government tells us they believing their own fake numbers or economic benefits when we can all see lack of results in few jobs, lower quality of life and lack of infrastructure repairs
Economic development dollars – city taxes – have gone mostly to developers, corporations or insider friends with few jobs or public benefit for millions spent Time to get real and stop wasting taxes on fake economic development projects and main benefit is to insiders
Amazing how SJI comments continue to show lack of basic understanding about city government
Council is elected and are RDA Board but there is no Board or Commission overseeing RDA Board / Council like other city government activities resulting in poor accountability and oversight Some Redevelopment Boards are separately elected / appointed or have citizen oversight boards
Many San Jose economic development projects are wasting tax dollars and return little to city / RDA in tax revenues , jobs or real benefits except to people paid economic development dollars
RDA dollars are required to be spent in RDA areas only BUT RDA pays part of Council salaries, staff , code enforcement , planning. 20% (was up to 3)% some years ) RDA dollars go to affordable housing restricted to RDA areas etc + $20-25 million per year By spending RDA tax dollars in RDA areas city taxes that would have been spent can be spent in other non RDA areas – happens all the time in SJ and other cities
If used properly redevelopment can be great for jobs and tax poor city like San Jose but history of San Jose RDA until recently with new Exec Dir has some successes – SNI, neighborhood business districts increased both economic activity, affordable housing and housing / business property values more than rest of San Jose resulting in new property /sales taxes and jobs but also has many examples of wasted money – many economic development projects where lesser amount of tax dollars ( 2/3, 1/2 or less ) spent would have gotten most of benefits Grand Prix, BEA Tower or too much taxes spent for few benefits received – Story /King Shopping, Downtown retail etc
Isn’t time for Peter Campbell to fess up to his anti Irish sentiments??
#12- Rowen,
What part of SJI’s Mission Statement don’t you get?
“Mission Statement
This site is designed to encourage political debate, discussion and change in our city, started by people who value San Jose and are interested in her future and in this valley’s place in the state and nation.”
Quoted from Don “In terms of the equity of investment in SNI neighborhoods versus non-SNI neighborhoods, the SNI neighborhoods have legally been determined to be “blighted.” These are the neighborhoods that have been, by definition, under-served by city resources for decades and the SNI is a belated, and insufficiently funded effort to rectify these historical inequities. In your own District 6, I think you would acknowledge that the Burbank and Buena Visa neighborhoods have not historically received the same level of service as the Rose Garden neighborhood, for example.”
Are you crazy Don? Some of those very neighborhoods being served by the SNI have homes selling in excess of 1 million dollars. That’s far more equity than my house has gained in the same time period. SNI is an real estate equity handout to under appreciated neighborhoods, I’ll give you that, but the SNI has long since served out it’s purpose and now those areas are almost exceeding every other “average” neighborhood in san jose. Why do you compare to Rose Garden. We all know Rose Garden is a historically affluent neighborhood. Why not Santa Teresa area? Or Seven Trees by Monterey HWY? Or areas being impacted by development like Cory?
I am sick of the “high and mighty” SNI folks always fighting to keep their dollars in the name of saving “neglected” neighborhoods. The bottom line is those neighborhoods are NO LONGER NEGLECTED and a lot of neighborhoods are selfishly being left out of the good ol boys club.
#13 Kathleen Flynn
re: Mission Statement “designed to encourage political debate, discussion and change “
BART – SVRT will draw $450M /yr out this County
At $160M generated from every 1/2 cent sales tax, that would take our sales tax from 8.25% to 9.50% and still leave little-to-nothing for VTA and the rest of our transportaion problems.
I wonder if naming a business district is more important than a 9.5% sales tax.
A 9.5% sales tax will be real good for drawing business down here.
When the people ask for more Police, Fire, Parks and other staff, is the City going to give out free BART passes and hope they quiet down?
A related question is whether we need RDAs at all. The RDA takes money away from other agencies, such as schools, the county, and the city’s general fund.
SNI just completes the money grab, transferring the funds to what ought be mundane city tasks. (Community gardens, street paving, storm drains, and so on.)
We would be better off if the state just cancelled all RDAs statewide. The county would have more money for health care, and the school would have more money to educate kids.
James…
I agree. RDA has enabled San Jose to do much for it’s downtown and nearby areas. Like anything, there’s always room for improvement, but on balance I believe it’s been good for our city.
Hey Rowen:
I’m 1/4 Irish…as we Irish like to say, “F-Off!”
Pete Campbell
#15
It is my understanding that without RDA, San Jose would not have a developed Downtown (Adobe, Conv Ctr, Arena, Office towers,condos, SJ Rep, SJ Stage,etc…) North San Jose’s tech hub would not exist and no tech center in Edenvale. Instead we would have mobile home parks in North SJ, a sad Downtown and lots more houses in Edenvale. If I am wrong correct me however it seems like RDA has been a benefit to SJ. Also the state replenishes schools for any money lost to RDA. Curious if others think if SJ would have been better off with no RDA at all?
Actually pete the correct term is:
Feck off
And I agree with you. Rowan is a lunitic.
David 18 and James 16-
You’re both looking at only one side of the equation. Did the RDA help downtown?
This treats the RDA as a source of free money, flowing in at absolutely no cost. It’s hard to argue with free cash- no matter how poorly it is spent, you can always point to some moderate successes.
Unfortunately, the RDA money is not free. It comes at a cost of depriving other agencies of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The question is not whether there was some benefit to downtown. It is whether that benefit is greater than the harm of taking hundreds of millions of dollars from schools, county health services, and other agencies.
16- The state does replenish moneys lost by most school districts. (excluding basic aid districts.) When it does so, it reduces the total statewide pool of money for schools. So the San Jose RDA ends up taking a little bit of money from every school in the state. And similarly for every other RDA. The net effect is significant.
This is why I suggested eliminating all RDAs statewide. It avoids the question of “does this particular RDA take much money from this particular school”, and replaces it with the more relevant question of “do RDAs in general take money from schools in general.”
The call for an independent RDA oversight body seems logical since there appears to be little evidence that the current structure with the City Council acting as the RDA board is working effectively. If there is evidence that the RDA is getting meaningful strategic and fiduciary guidance from the current board, then please post that evidence. If there is evidence that the effect of the RDA in San Jose is considered as part of the budgeting process, then please point to it. My sense as an average community minded San Jose citizen is that the RDA is like an open loop publicly governed REIT, not necessarily acting for the greater good of the City, especially when you consider the issue of potentially draining tax revenue from schools or other core services. Has anyone on the City Council, in recent years, ever called for a critical assessment of the RDA? And even if you go to the extreme and argue that the RDA did an outstanding job of fostering the development of downtown, that does not mean you can not ask questions about ongoing performance and whether this should be a perpetually endowed agency. The bond dividends are good for me, but I’m not necessarily proud of the source of this investment income.
How was the new Gardner Community Center paid for? I thought it came from SNI funding…
SNI is another level of city government that allows the “Few” selected neighborhoods to receive money year after year and not be questioned.
This is the typical political process.
Give them a blank check and let them spend, spend, spend!
When is the city going to do the job they were elected to do?
If the program will remain (I do not agree it should), then there needs to be strict guidelines to measure and manage this so all neighborhoods have the opportunity to reap the rewards of “OUR” money.
– All neighborhoods must qualify each year
– There is a fix $$$ amount
– They must provide a details list of improvements and why and how this will add value to them and the city of San Jose
– Once a neighborhood is selected it is only for that year
– Once selected can not be eligible for XX years later
This is just a thought – but it’s better than what we have now.
Oh another thought – make all work open for bids with the private sector. This will make the city rethink their ways and become more efficient rather than costing us more and us getting less for our dollar.
Yes this will upset the unions, but who cares.
Look at Vallejo – will we be next?
So San Jose City government – Do your job!
#24
I believe San Diego is about a year ahead of us. Everything San Diego does San Jose dittoed and continues to ditto!
RDA has “saved” downtown??? This place is still a dead zone on weekends during the day. I often watch sports @ Capers Loft, which opens @ noon Sat. & Sun. More often than not, I am the only customer. Tres Amigos & SH whatever across the street don’t open ‘til 4:00 p.m.
Is there more there now than before RDA? Yup? Is there a 24-hour downtown sought since at least Tom McE’s reign? NO WAY!
Three Billion or so, for what?
Have you ever:
* had to trudge through mud alongside your dark street because your street neither has street lights nor sidewalks? And your neighborhood was incorporated into the city seventy years ago?
* had raw sewage back up into your bathtub because of a decades-old problem with the city sewer on your street?
* fallen when crossing the street because you are disabled and the neighborhood in which you live has high curbs and no curb cuts?
SNI isn’t a panacea, but it’s done a lot of good for a lot of people in a lot of neighborhoods that would have continued to suffer many third-world-like living conditions.
Enough about SNI`s. The drain on the City of San Jose is not the SNI`s. I don`t live in a SNI but San Jose is made up of “10 districts”, One district has done very well at the cost of all the others.
You don`t build a great city by pouring all the money into one district, while all the others suffer !!!
Pierluigi and #26, johnmichael,
Compare RDA`s investment downtown to Santana Row. Downtown San Jose delivers about the same tax revenue to San Jose as Santana Row`s revenue to the city. Now compare the ROI.
When we look at all the retailers at Santana Row and at Westfield Mall/Valley Fair that generate revenue for the City and find out those retailers have signed a “no compete contract within four miles of Valley Fair/Santana Row`s owners,Consider what that means? Those retailers can never come downtown, so how will downtown ever generate the sales tax dollars for the city that was promised to the RDA people?
Downtown needs retailers like Santana Row/Valley Fair has to be successful. San Francisco downtown has those big retailers downtown and help make the city vibrant.
Johnmichael and Pierluigi is SNI`s the big problem?
Downtown looks bueatiful, it`s all cleaned up but look at the cost, you say $3billion?
Consider for a moment the money pumped into the Downtown San Jose`s not for profits. Many of these organizations goals is to create a better downtown. These too are an investment the city supports each year that are not given to the neighborhoods. These organizations are all a good cause but, how about neighborhood associatins.
The City has been discussing once again developing Open space in Almaden, and Coyote Valley. Instead we should continue to follow the trend that is starting in Downtown, which is to concentrate on the core of the city, instead of continue to spread the San Jose poulation away from downtown. San Jose has ignored it’s greater downtown core with neighborhoods such as 13th street, west san carlos, East Santa clara etc that are prime for urban development. Put more money to continue to develop in these area’s around downtown and leave the few open spaces we have left alone.