When you think of San Jose and its financial ability, its real strength, I wonder what comes to mind: downtown, and places like the TECH Museum, the beautiful Fairmont Hotel, or perhaps the Arena? I imagine it might be any of those. It might also be another place, that is, more a state of mind than a physical location, namely, Silicon Valley. But if those or similar sites leap to mind, I have one other location to conjure: North San Jose. Sometimes known as the “Golden Triangle,” it is one of the largest and richest pieces of real estate in the world. There are big plans for it still. These plans call for adding 83,000 jobs and 32,000 homes in the area north and west of Interstate 880 and south of Highway 237. About 8,000 residences are currently planned for this very special area.
By the way, all of the improvements that occurred in San Jose in the last 25 years were financed by the largely unassisted redevelopment of the north side of the city. That includes all of the highways that the state would not build, much of the low to moderate income housing, and all of the special public/private projects like the Fairmont, HP Pavilion, Convention Center, REP, TECH, and the Museum of Art. From palm trees to fountains, each was financed by the real dollars that accrued to the city from these 4,000 acres of land that used to be farms and mobile homes well into the seventies.
However, there are problems with the project. There is a serious conflict between the Santa Clara Unified School District on the one hand, and the city and Redevelopment Agency on the other. As usual, it revolves around money and who is going to get it. Nonetheless, there is every reason for San Jose to push this agenda. In times of economic distress, like San Jose is currently experiencing, we need to push hard for healthy development. Now that the Coyote Valley plan is off the table (it will have to rely on “reason” not political payola) and will not be an immediate reality, the staff of the planning and public works departments will be able to turn to the areas of the city that we can and should push to maximize reasonable development.
North San Jose is a special area and a real, practical plan must be put in place to make sure that we are able to continue to finance a good and citizen-friendly city. It is within our grasp and we must now be wise in reaching for it.
Mr. McEnery opens with the question:
“When you think of San Jose and it’s financial ability, it’s real strength, I wonder what comes to mind?”
What comes to my mind;
-With all that financial strength why are our parks in such pathetic shape?
-Why are our city streets so bumpy?
-Why hasn’t the City upgraded the storm sewer system in my neighborhood to relieve us from our “flood district” status?
-Why are the rows of palm trees that we’re always skiting about untrimmed and shaggy looking?
I think I know the answer. It’s because our “leaders” are more concerned about our image than about the reality. They focus on style over substance. All the revenue gets spent trying to convince the rest of the world that San Jose is a “big-league city”.
I pray that it doesn’t become more characterless sprawl. North San Jose now doesn’t look much different than Stockton or Tracy. Let’s not be proud of any and all development. There are enough people who talk about “10th largest” this and that, as if it’s a reflection of our whole city. We now have a nice city core and I hope it can spread north and south so that SJ is a place with personality, not just persons.
The hyper-development set for North First Street to Hwy 237 is primarily to create evidence to submit to Washington, DC, to get funds to build BART. If that seems a little too devious for San Jose’s leaders, consider all the other changes made to our north San Jose neighborhoods that don’t make sense otherwise, eg, the vast increase in interchange congestion approved in 2005, and the light rail that seems to go nowhere unless you factor in planned BART stations.
The planning process for North First Street has been sloppy and the conflict with the Santa Clara school district is evidence of that, as were the lawsuits by Milpitas and Santa Clara during the first stages of this development nightmare.
There is something humorous about it all, however, and that was while the City had 20 or so dignified residents on a “task force” mulling over the plans for North First Street over the past 6-8 months, the City had already submitted its North First Street plans to a regional planning association for a prize last August, and then won a statewide prize this January. So it’s not even a secret that the “task force” was played for fools when the planning was already a completed deal.
Mr. McEnery-
When I think of treasures, I think of people, like those in the most neglected area, East San Jose. I see streets with rundown homes, streets in poor conditions, gang problems, poverty.
What is the “10th largest city” doing there?
Like Tom said, our downtown is dandy and spiffy. We need to grow the north San Jose area into a vibrant office/residential hub, so it keeps generating money for downtown + neighborhoods. Mayor Reed, keep up the good work of Tom McEnery’s and make sure we thrive in the future.
#5
What is the “10th largest city” doing there?
Hopefully, the city will remove their collective head from the sand, and support Santa Clara County’s effort to close Reid-Hillview.
By redeveloping the 180 acres in an intelligent, neighborhood friendly manner, we will do more to improve East San Jose than in any other way.
Did you guys see this?
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9028327
Tom,
Just curious… will adding 32,000 homes increase our rainfall enough to sustain the additional population, or will we all be subject to draconian water rationing forever?
Mr. Galt
The reason that we are in such a pathetic shape is the simple fact that the building of our tax base and the preservation of our industrial areas and the Downtown was sold out to a group of lobbyists, developers, and con men, with the active assistance of the last Mayor and Council – I spoke out against it. Did you? The citizens were forgotten as 1400 acres of tax base were ‘given’ to housing developers who made a fortune while our parks and neighborhoods were forgotten. Silence is not a good friend in such situations. TMcE
Mr. McEnery,
The reason that we are in such pathetic shape is not because there isn’t enough tax revenue. It’s because of a total lack of fiscal restraint in City Hall- and yes, I did speak up to the previous corrupt administration. Regrettably, though, I and many others have had no success in penetrating the insulated bubble that these “leaders” of ours reside in.
To continue to pack San Jose with more dwellings full of more worker bees in the hope that one day there will be enough of a “tax base” for Government to finally live up to its’ responsibilities, is a futile plan that is destined to fail.
Unless the powers that be in the Taj Gonzales come to understand that Government exists to serve its’ citizens (but not just those infatuated with gaudy cultural symbols) and not vise versa, we will all continue to live in a second-rate town with a permanent “structural deficit”.
A city is not a corporation, the success of which is dependent on never ending growth.
The measure of a community is not the average salary of it’s residents. Good government
Greg Howe #1-
Why on earth do you ask about the water for 32,000 homes, and not ask about the water for 83,000 workers?
Are all 83,000 workers going to be camels?
Each of those 83,000 workers will use as much water as anyone else. Even more, if they end up living in the Central Valley with larger lawns in a drier climate.
Mr. Galt – I agree – with some of what you say. The city did not expand one sq. in. for housing when I was Mayor. The measure of a city – I feel you agree – is the type of neighborhoods that we have and the services that we provide. There is also a need, for many reasons, for museums and arts. It is puzzle to assemble and the current mayor is really on the right track. TMcE
PS Call me Tom.
San Jose for 30 years since 1978 Prop 13 has too few jobs and sales taxes from poor land use polices and spending on downtown which has same sales taxes as Santana Row and while neglecting or ignoring basics of post Prop 13 local government finances required San Jose to build our jobs and tax base to balance excess housing costs
We wasted billions on 1) bad tax subsidies with no tax or jobs paybacks to improve our situation – Grand Prix, downtown stores and buildings, developer paybacks 2) gave away city property leases for pennies on dollar 3) wasted taxes on city buildings 4) provided free city services to those who should be paying – clubs, events, etc 5) over paid city senior staff for poor performance and 6) our politicians did not tell truth to public or were just dumb and gave millions in special deals to their friends ever year for decades
Yes building housing for Silicon Valley is part of problem but not having jobs and tax revenues is real problem
Try to pin all or most of blame on Gonzales is just plain wrong although he make bad situation way worst – it was 30 years of political decisions and bad city staff recommendations not just 1 politician
Look at facts and figures not SJI’s rewriting history BS
Dear 13
As one of the few public officials to support Prop13, I believe I have some credibility here. Your example of the Downtown providing no tax base – after it was systematically destroyed by bad land use policies and insider ‘deals’ – is equivalent to saying that Germany in 1945 did not have a very good economic base. You have to have some knowledge history. And Gonzales, I prefer to just forget his sorry regime most of the time – arrogant and incompetent – but the fact that 1400 acres of prime tax base industrial land was converted to housing, housing that demands and needs cops and librarians, is an economic misfortune that dwarfs anything that the Grand Prix, foolish as it was, caused San Jose. One or two single mistakes pale in comparison to long-term financial burdens – learn your San Jose mistakes, 13, they are not all equal. TMcE
Tom,
I hope you’re right about Mayor Reed being on the right track.
Unfortunately, from my perspective he is not.
I guess where I diverge from the political Establishment here in San Jose is in the policy of “infilling”. There has not been a single mayor or councilperson over the past couple of decades who didn’t favor zoning changes on “infill” parcels that allow for high density housing.
I live in an average neighborhood that has about 6 houses per acre. The whole area around us is like this. Recently, however, a church parking lot down the street was sold by the church. Yesterday the development proposal sign went up and sure enough, they are planning to pack it with 20 houses/acre.
The cumulative effect of this type of development, which has been sanctioned by City Hall has been a massive increase in traffic, congestion, noise, etc.- not to mention depressing the value of my own home.
Why should the City not allow me to demolish my house and pack 4 houses on the lot and make a killing just like property owners who are lucky enough to own “blighted” property or vacant parcels?
Or what if I got together with all the others on my block and we all decided to tear down our houses. There would suddenly be a 3 acre parcel of land that, presumably the City would love to see packed with 50 houses instead of the measly 12 houses that are here now.
As for Prop 13. I was in favor of it when I first bought my house and was paying higher taxes than my neighbors and I’m still in favor of it. Any tool we have to keep the politicians’ cotton-pickin hands off of at least some of our money is not to be discarded.
Tom #14-
Your logic escapes me. You support prop 13, and complain that residential development doesn’t pay the bills.
Prop 13 is the #1 reason that residential development doesn’t pay the bills.
It’s like saying you love red bull and hate caffeine.
Greg
Prop 13 was a reaction to a billion dollar state surplus, seniors taxed from their homes, and a Sacramento establishment that refused to help – it was a cry in the night. Now 30 years later, just because nothing has been done to ameliorate the financial situation, by pols and hacks, more worried c. Reelection that the next generation, don’t blame decent people who were trying to protect themselves. I protected my city w. solid land use policies, and left a surplus when I left office – All attempts by me and other mayors to reform the way Sacramento does its land use and budgeting, fell on deaf ears, and apathy – you know the history, Greg. Oh, and I hate red bull too.
TMcE