The city of San Jose recently completed a scientific poll of 902 residents. This poll cost $50,000. As I mentioned in a prior blog, I took many of the poll questions and posted them on the District 6 website (the district I represent) and here, on San Jose Inside. I entered the questions and three of my own into a web-based survey solution which costs $20 a year. The survey closed yesterday with 839 completing the 15 page survey (973 respondents completed part of the survey). Unlike past surveys where District 6 residents were 90 percent of the respondents, only 43.9 percent of the respondents were from District 6 this time.
The city’s poll found that:
48% would support a half cent sales tax increase.
53% of likely voters would support a 1/4 cent sales tax increase.
The web survey poll showed:
54.4% of respondents would support a 1/2 cent sales tax increase.
51.2% would support a 1/4 cent sales tax.
When I removed all non San Jose respondents the numbers were 52.1% would support a 1/2 cent sales tax increase and 51.3% would support a 1/4 cent sales tax increase. A web survey does not control demographics and likely voters.
The City’s poll found that a majority of residents were supportive to some of the proposed cuts:
Delay opening the South SJ Police Substation 67%
Reducing public information hours at police station 66%
Reducing police patrolling downtown on horseback 61%
Reducing park rangers at regional parks 61%
Reducing senior nutrition 57%
Reducing enforcement of building codes 55%
Reducing graffiti removal 55%
Reducing park maintenance 53%
The web survey with only SJ residents were supportive of some of the proposed cuts:
Delay opening of South SJ Police Substation 73.%
Reducing public information hours at police station 86.6%
Reduce police patrolling downtown on horseback 75%
Reducing park rangers at regional parks 71.1%
Reducing senior nutrition 77%
Reducing enforcement of building codes 57.2%
Reducing graffiti removal 49.4%
Reducing park maintenance 56.6%
Reducing library hours 68.2%
Reducing recreation programs 64.9%
When asked how they would divide $100 among five different goals:
City’s poll:
Safe City $25
Prosperous City $23.80
Infrastructure $20.10
Green City $16.40
Vibrant City $14.80
Web Poll, SJ residents only:
Safe City $33.08
Prosperous City $18.26
Infrastructure $28.87
Green City $13.01
Vibrant City $13.41
When asked which one of the following three strategies the City of San Jose should place the highest priority on to address its budget shortfall?
City’s poll:
Reduce employee compensation & benefits 41%
Reduce existing city services 21%
Raising taxes & fees 25%
None & Don’t Know 13%
Web survey, SJ residents only:
Reduce employee compensation & benefits 58.2%
Reduce existing city services 15.9%
Raising taxes & fees 13.3%
None 7.5%
Don’t Know 5.1%
Here are results of SJ only respondents to the three questions I added:
Tax Medicinal Marijuana: 83.5% Yes, 9.6% No, 6.9% Don’t Know
New tax only for Trails: 43.9% Yes, 46.3% No, 9.9% Don’t Know
New tax only for Police: 30.8% Yes, 59.2% No, 10% Don’t Know
The support for taxing marijuana for medicinal uses tracks the voting results in the recent Colorado and Oakland elections.
However the biggest feedback from the survey for me was the 564 comments (495 from SJ residents). These comments are feedback to policy makers and are likely voices we will not hear at an actual council meeting.
Here is a link to all the questions and the 564 comments from respondents.
One person who participated in the survey made reference to me as a specific animal; that’s okay, this is America, land of free speech. I thank everyone who participated.
On another topic, I attended a vigil on Saturday for the missing 83 year old woman who disappeared on Kingfisher Way in San Jose. Please go to this link for more information or if you have information that could help find her.
This is a good reminder for all of us to look out for our neighbors.
Shouldn’t there have been a pre-survey survey to see which question we wanted on the survey and how we wanted them to be skewed?
The questions were developed by the City Manager’s office, the survey firm and with opportunity for the Council to give feedback prior to moving forward.
Where was the question on the survey asking if we think San Jose City Council members should receive $140-150,000 a year when including very generous benefits and s car allowance, or should this be a part time position as it is in every other city in the county paying a stipend to reimburse some out of pocket expenses?
You are correct that question was not asked.
That is why it is important to have a question where people can express their thoughts in their own words, as 564 people did on the web survey.
$87,300 salary and $7200 a year for car allowance.
You are not including the benefits….
Thanks for making my point.
I can only guess that the survey participants were heavily drugged. Given SJ’s track record, who in their right mind would champion another tax increase?!
Most likely a November ballot item for the city of San Jose. However the only tax that would most likely pass is only increased tax on card rooms with 9 more tables. This brings in almost as much a 1/4 cent sales tax increase.
P.O.—Thanks for the survey and for reporting the results.
Another question not included: “Do you believe the mayor and council will take into serious consideration the results of the survey, or will they just ask labor what they should do?”
I had the survey results submitted into the public record by asking our city clerk to attach it to the Council agenda. All 564 comments are available to be viewed by Council and city staff.
Todays Mercury News Editorial ” Pension Board Plan is strong but not enough” makes great points
http://www.mercurynews.com/editorials/ci_14360263
“They fail to ensure that taxpayers — who must cover pension shortfalls — have majority representation on the boards. “
“Council members generally lack financial knowledge, and they face serious conflicts when they serve on these boards. They’re supposed to act in the best interest of the pension funds, but that can conflict with what’s best for the city — or for labor groups on whom some rely for re-election.”
“Given the city’s responsibility to cover pension shortfalls — $38 million in the coming year alone — this final seat should be controlled by the public’s representatives: the City ”
Council members generally lack financial knowledge..
That is one of the most accurate statements to ever come out of the SJM. It amazes me how often council members fall for the voodoo economic numbers that are presented for various items; such as the airport, Grand Prix, etc., etc.
These numbers are always made up, and are nothing but wishful thinking. The official term is induced and indirect income, and they usually comprise at least 70% of some entities expected revenue.
But they are not measureable!!! They are based on fantasy and wishful thinking.
The airport is a prime example. The direct revenue from the airport, that is the revenue that can actually be measured, is next to nothing. Yet, the induced and indirect income is sky-high. This is how the airport was sold to the council. On fantasy figures, and they fell for it; hook, line, and sinker.
Now we are stuck with their bad decision, all the negative effects, and lost real revenue from wasting 1000 acres on a red herring.
Your surveys are a good idea, particularly the REMARKS section.
The diversity of opinions is very informative.
The City’s budget is out of control and the Council will never solve the problem by trying to cut here and there.
Try turning off the power at City Hall for a month and let’s see who we miss. The Police and Fire Departments do not work at City Hall so they would not be impacted.
What we really need is an independent Performance Audit of the entire City Government including the Redevelopment Agency. The Auditors should look at everything including salaries and benefits and what departments may not be needed at all.
Everything should be on the table…realty is …that government is not efficient…and it is not designed to be…that is ok…but the core service needs of the community have long ago been expanded beyond to include unneccesary items….like the state and feds…we have redundent over compensated staff…if it is in the phone book…contract it out…an example is my “San Jose Business Tax Certificate” costs me 1500.00 annually…for what? The excessive need to regulate….then charge for it….the old model will no longer function…The City has 6500 plus FTE staff….until that burden is reduced…no ammount of gerrymandering the budget will get at the core cost issue
– Eliminate Sick pay out to city employees at retirement
– Reduce overtime clauses for police and fire
– Contract non-essential city services like mail and IT support
– Eliminate services that are better provided by market providers. Why do we subsidize gyms at community centers? Why do we own golf courses. If we want to compete with the private sector, charge like the private sector for services used!
– Have a “Permit Fee Holiday” to stimulate building and home improvement
Holy Moly Joe,
The unions will chastise you for such heretical words! The reason the city doesn’t outsource work and continues to add non-core services can be summed up in one word – “WORKFARE!”
Thanks for sharing the results.
A couple of thoughts, if people really want more police how come more people did not choose a specific tax just for police? On the other hand almost everyone thought taxing of medical marijuana was a good idea. My guess is we will probably see outright legalization of marijuana in the next decade.
The answer is simple; back in 2002 we voted for measure O to fund $159 million for more public safety. Our politicians instead used the money for their own pet projects. Some was used for public safety but we still don’t have a southern police station which was a big part of this measure.
People want more police but don’t trust an increased tax will be used for that by our politicians.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2002/03/05/ca/scl/meas/O/
Pierluigi,
I just read in the San Jose Mercury, although I hate using information from them, that amongst the 20 largest cities in the United States, SJPD currently ranks dead last amongst officers per capita. This does not include the 100 or so officers leaving this year. Also, the academy has been indefinitely postponed, and even if it were to start today it would be a couple years before new officers are on their own. We have slipped from the 1st safest large city to the 4th safest large city. Talking to officers at the department they are going out extremely, extremely short staffed meaning low priority calls go unanswered, danger to the officer is increased, and the investigative units are being gutted meaning many cases are not getting investigated. Pier, what is your answer, your solution to this?
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/the_thinner_blue_line/
Where do the other council members and mayor stand on this? This is a crisis in the making. Not only is the amount of officers going precipitously low and falling, it does not take into account the extra areas we are annexing and our city is now going to be responsible for policing and providing fire. I don’t envy your job right now.