I wanted to see this celebrated fence with my own two eyes to understand what all the controversy has been about—why it ran in the Rose Garden Resident, then as the lead story of the Mercury News’ local section, followed by a piece on San Jose Inside. The media fascination with a minor boundary squabble, cast in the David and Goliath mold of big, bad developer versus the trampled neighbors, appeared at first read like a bit of media sensationalism. So I drove up San Carlos Street for a site visit to the as yet unnamed townhouse construction site in a part of town that is definitely not the Rose Garden neighborhood, as articles have claimed.
ROEM’s Jeff Ware was nice enough to walk me around the perimeter of the property in the 90-degree late afternoon heat. I saw a small section of handsome new fence, constructed of rough-cut plank redwood. The fence was topped off with lattice and a 2x4 top rail.
The redwood one will replace a patchwork legacy of various styles, eras, heights and states of deterioration. The old bowling alley fence is horizontal, with broken slats. There are other wood fences, chain link cyclone fences, jury-rigged chicken wire and sections patched by sheets of corrugated metal, like in a Jamaican shantytown.
Over the years, some of the neighbors have crossed the line onto former bowling alley land, in most cases by three inches or less, but one of the bolder ones poured a cement patio, of which pieces still remain. Another braced a roof overhang to an old fence. But for the most part, it doesn’t look like anyone is going to lose a noticeable part of their backyard or be horribly inconvenienced, and they’ll have a more attractive fence to shade their yard.
Ware isn’t adamant about reclaiming every inch of squatted land, but thinks it makes sense to build along the surveyed perimeter. “What we would like to do is use the correct property line,” he says.
In some cases, there may be some adjustments to the benefit of the neighbors, he says. “I just want to make sure the fence is straight, so it will probably be right here,” he says with a hand gesture a few inches back from the property line in the northeast corner of the parcel.
Good fences make good neighbors, it’s said. In this case the fence will be good, but it can’t make all the neighbors that way.
A couple might have preferred that the notice to clear out their debris had come with a basket of fruit. That the developer would send a fat check their way if they make enough noise. Or that the bowling alley would stay forever.
Neighbors may not like it when a townhome project is dropped into a neighborhood of low-rise single family homes. I can understand that. I can’t understand all this to-do about a redwood fence, and how one angry homeowner managed to sucker a daily newspaper into a minor property line dispute.
A nice privacy fence doesn’t seem like such a bad thing if you don’t like what’ s on the other side.
Perhaps part of the issue is “who pays?” I’d be angry too if the developer asked me to tear out a perfectly good fence at my expense. Want a new fence developer? Then pay for it.
Yes, it is about fence and property line dispute but real story dispute is about fed up residents angry about politically connected billionaire / millionaire out of town developers Roem -Santa Clara – Santa Monica ( KB – Los Angeles, Irvine Co – Orange County, Summerhill Hill Homes – Palo Alto, Mission West Properties / Carl Burg – Atherton / Cupertino, Green Republic Urban – Washington DC ) making San Jose bigger, taller and worst and unlivable
San Jose Council has lied to public for years and are more interested in campaign contributions, political careers and future lobbyist jobs than a livable San Jose with paid lobbyists – Silicon Valley Leadership Group greedy CEO don’t live in San Jose promoting bad San Jose public policy of excessive houses and not enough jobs for their own well known greed
Together greedy home developers, downtown property owners and irresponsible Council have made San Jose bigger and worst, created years of budget deficits with excessive houses that don’t pay for city services while not building employment / retail job base, wasting tax billions taxes on downtown , neglected rest of city, ruined neighborhoods with excessive infill development, traffic congestion, decreasing city services, and raising taxes and fees to pay for excessive housing
After decades of greed, irresponsible Councils that made bigger worst San Jose –greedy developers, downtown property owners which includes former politicians and their families, irresponsible Council who stole from public with public pen to enriched their friends and former politicians and staffers now lobbyists – too many to list
Many angry people across San Jose are waking up and saying “ I’m as Mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore”
… and they’ll have a more attractive fence to shade their yard.
Fences do not shade the yard, except for a few square feet at sunrise or sunset.
Dan,
Isn’t Roem one of Metro’s home builder or real estate advertisers?
If so, shouldn’t you disclose to SJI that you have possible conflict of interest?
The fence issue aside, these monstorous new townhouses are built right up to the property lines of the old homes completely overwhelming these properties. They block the sun and any view these older homes had and are completely out of place with the existing neighborhood. How could the city ever have let this happen in the first place? At some point in the review process this project should have been stopped or changed, and it was not.
Dan, thanks for pointing out that this area is not the sort of neighborhood that people equate with the Rosegarden, but its proximity to the park can’t be dismissed. Real estate agents are notorious for stretching boundaries. In this case we have a seriously Burbank flavor a stone’s throw from the Rosegarden, and it is not the only such part of the greater neighborhood where this situation exists. That doesn’t make the fence issue any more or less important, but it does make one wonder if we’ll soon be facing a tagging problem on the various buildings inside the park or the new brick pillars outside after the ROEM project is completed. The location is hardly an exclusive one and the neighborhoods bordering this stretch of San Carlos are more low brow than just about any other area on the city’s west side. Why would the Council approve a beehive for more lowlife activity in an area that already has too much?
I’m in agreement with what “Mad as Hell” has stated above. It has become so bad with the Council rubber stamping anything a developer presents to them that I have come to seriously distrust anything that comes out of a developer’s mouth. They will say anything to get their projects built and pockets lined and are right up there with lawyers when it comes to being absolute weasels. Based on that alone, I would side with the neighbors, as the developer has the resources to foot the bill for a new fence and should not place any portion of the financial burden on the people whose fences would not be an issue had ROEM not pursued this development. ROEM stands to make multiple millions off of this development. Surely they can afford to pick up the tab for the fence THEY want and the neighbors did not even ask for.
Dan:
Good article, even though you will probably take a lot of heat for…gasp…siding with a “developer.”
The Merc, with it’s woefully inadequate reporting, seems to have been snookered on this story. You’ve got to wonder how this piece ever got past the editors.
While folks like Mad as Hell and Mark T rail about the city council supposedly rolling over for developers, that particular red herring is not at issue here.
Either the fences are on ROEM’s land or not. If a neighbors fence encroaches onto ROEM’s land then ROEM (like any property owner) has the absolute right to remove the fence. In this instance the developer has even offered to replace the existing fences with a better fence. Why is this a problem?
I wonder: did the Merc bother to check the public records in this property line dispute to see who’s right? Something tells me they skipped that step.
To completely saturate San Jose with multi-story condos, all it takes is an unholy alliance between lobbyists pimping for developers, and those on the city council who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag.
#8- Greg Howe is absolutely correct. Our City Council continues to allow San Jose to be destroyed- always caving in to developers but able to hide behind the excuse of “Affordable Housing”.
It’s obvious that it isn’t the fence that has rankled so many people. It’s the frustration shared by so many who are appalled at the prevalence of high density housing projects plonked down right in the middle of low-medium density housing.
Don’t blame the developers. They are just doing their jobs. Blame your City Council and Mayor. They are clearly NOT doing theirs’.
Dan,
We`ve reached a point where some developers have an image problem. no ones problem but their own.They need a public relations person to help them out. It`s too bad Peter Carter has retired. Where is Peter, maybe he could recomend someone.
Developers like Sobrato and Ed Thrift have given back to the community where they made their money.The others are simply greedy. They just want to take from the community/city and give nothing back.
#8 – Greg Howe,
Actually, it takes groups like the Affordable Housing Alliance to point out, with facts and figures, that San Jose is 20,000 housing units short of where it needs to be. It takes City Staff to review those numbers against their own, and agree. And all of this to happen while the Economy is BOOMING. That is exactly what happened. And, interestingly enough, all these pro-housing groups and businesses were screaming for more housing for lower income people and their employees, residents are talking to their Council People about how it is too expensive for anyone to live and buy a house in San Jose lead to a plan to add 20,000 affordable housing units to San Jose. It was in the Paper, Politicans talk about “more affordable and infill housing units” in elections all the time. Reports were done at the time and periodically since in the Mercury News. To get angry and say “Politicians couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag” isn’t true. It is just that a good case was made for the need for more housing units.
Unfortunately you miss the point, Dan. It’s not about inches, feet, yards…etc. It’s about the letter sent to these residents that says “Move your fence-line back within 15 days or we’ll do it for you” or something to that effect. He’s had five years to deal with this issue and he waits til now to give these residents a 15-day ultimatum? What happened to the old-fashioned art of compromise? Couldn’t he have sent a letter to the residents stating, “there is a property-line discrepancy and we would like to sit down with each one of you so we can resolve this to the satisfaction of everyone”? Please stop trying to make futile, short-sighted arguments for one of your publication’s sponsors.
This is a good debate, with some excellent arguments all around. Clearly SJI’s intelligent commenters appreciate a good political debate. Unlike the anonymous cowards on another blog site who think that publishing a map to someone’s home as an intimidation tactic will somehow compensate for the fact that they are, according to the wise voters of San Jose, Losers.
I’ll try to respond to a few of the points that have come up, and will post some more if any are unaddressed.
First off, I don’t think I “sided with the developer.” My item tried to address the media sensationalism of a rather minor human drama and the simplistic stereotyping of the big guys as evil and the smaller players as automatically
virtuous. I agree to some degree with Jack’s point that the communications by the developer with the neighbors were not handled as delicately as they should have been, but this is hardly a case of some horrible injustice being committed.
Rather than rely on written accounts, I popped in to the construction trailer unannounced, asked the supervisor for a tour, walked the entire perimeter and reported what I saw. That’s what journalists do. Nobody is losing a chunk of
their backyard, and ROEM is paying for the fence. It’s a good looking fence; I wouldn’t mind a fence like that in my own backyard.
As for the invasion of high density housing into single family home neighborhoods (#2), that’s a compelling argument. I share the emotional attachment to the valley’s mix of agrarian, suburban and technology-era lifestyles. There are economic and environmental factors that are driving the townhome/condo/highrise trend. Anyone who feels strongly about neighborhood preservation should get active on this issue at the political stage, before public and private funds are at risk. They should ensure that the development approval process functions properly and that the process
respects neighborhood quality.
Commenter #4 purports to be a “Metro reader,” but I don’t think this commenter has been reading the paper in a while. ROEM has been making major buys with two of our competitors, but not with us.
People without facts or arguments expose the bankruptcy of their positions when they have to resort to ad hominem attacks. I appreciate the quality of the debate here on San Jose Inside, which separates the community here from inferior blogs.
So you can’t convert areas from industrial to residential. And you can’t increase the density of housing in existing residential areas.
So where, exactly, should new housing go?
If you say there should be no new housing, do you have a plan to stop population growth?
#11- Christian.
City Hall listens to groups. They listen to the Affordable Housing Alliance. They listen to corporations. They listen to unions. They DON’T listen to individuals. They couldn’t care less what their constituents, the people that they supposedly represent, think.
So far, over the past 20 years or so, San Jose’s push to create more affordable housing has left the City practically broke and incapable of taking care of the most basic functions of government, and has transformed a nice community into a motley collection of segregated groups who have little in common, can’t even talk to each other , and are perpetually squabbling over handouts from the government.
Yeah, let’s cram this valley full to the brim. Then what?
The Affordable Housing Alliance is a special interest group with an agenda. Is it really any surprise that they are in favor of more affordable housing? City Staff asking their opinion about affordable housing is like a sick person asking a snake oil salesman if snake oil is the remedy for his ills. What do you think he’s going to say?
Yeah, let’s cram this valley full to the brim. Then what?
John Galt #15- The people who need housing are also individuals, and constituents.
When the council zones for more homes, it is meeting the needs of real live families, not some abstract “special interest group”.
#14
Don’t you get it? The less housing that is built, the higher our property values go!
Now if there was only some way that we didn’t have to pay all the taxes on this increased value…
Strangely enough, a couple of blocks away from this disputed area, I noticed that some potholes that have been there for over a year have just been filled. Is this what it takes?
Take a look at the site on Google Earth. The north-south fence line looks pretty straight. The diagonal fence line does have one small jog in it.
Dan, in your response, it seems that you have fallen back on a straw man argrment. I am not sure if anyone is claiming that there is some grave injustice happening here. If some people are, claiming that, then yes, they are taking their NIMBYism too far. That being said, a person’s home is his/her castle, and that point of view should be respected. One shouldn’t hand down a 15-day ultimatum because he/she has the resources to do it, legally and physically, but one should respect his/her fellow landowner and come to a reasonable compromise.
#15 – John Galt –
I hear what you are saying – yes, the Affordable Housing Network is a special interest group. Interestingly enough, they do a majority of their lobbying in San Jose, not Los Gatos, Saratoga, or other small Cities. But that is beside the point…
“Yeah, let’s cram this valley full to the brim. Then what?”
The problem is that it is not just the Affordable Housing Network – it is businesses, the Chamber of Commerce, Labor, and their members. When Cisco Chief Exec (can’t remember his name right now), or business leaders like him come before Council and asks for housing for his employees, it is powerful. They talk about employees who live far away from their work because housing is not affordable here. I know a guy who lives in Stockton, owns a house there, and commutes to San Jose. EVERY MORNING. That is not an unusual occurance. Those are the type of stories that have, and continue to back up the facts the Council hears.
Having said that, your point of view has merit, and you are not the only one who believes this. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, Council has passed an ordinance that governs the appropriateness of housing in certian neighborhoods – I think it was after that ‘Monster Homes’ issue. The Council does listen. You could start with United Neighborhoods and other community groups – build a consensus. And don’t just tell the Council “NO”; instead, propose another solution that would help the Council achieve their goals while at the same time, incorporating your points.
#15 – John Galt –
Also, add the mountain of information on the need for affordable housing that the Council recieves continuously, the 1% vacancy rate for apartments and that because of the mortgage meltdown, apartment owners are jacking up the rents to ridiculously high rates.
…..the 1% vacancy rate for apartments and that because of the mortgage meltdown, apartment owners are jacking up the rents to ridiculously high rates.
Supply and demand, econ 101.
Which means many renters can afford the monthly payments in buying a house. Maybe you cannot get your first house in Palo Alto, but that does not mean a house cannot be purchased.
Try a less expensive neighborhood, and work with your neighbors to make it better.
#22, Opportunities Exist:
I understand your point, but what Apartment owners fail to understand is that instead of moderating their rents due to high gas prices and a troubled economy, they are taking advantage of the mortgage meltdown to make money. I wonder if those individuals who were making money in the 20’s before the Great Depression were ultimately happy with their decision.
While I understand there are differences between now and the 20’s, it is still true that a group of individuals is taking advantage of other people’s bad luck, and making money at their expense. They are not concerned with whatever ramifications may result. Mortgage lenders issues ‘subprime loans’, to make money, and the economy is suffering because of it.
#22-
Many renters don’t have the down payment necessary to enter into the housing market, even if they could easily make the mortgage payments- particularly now that lending standards are more stringent and one needs a larger down payment to qualify for a loan (which I think is absolutely appropriate.)
Believe me, this renter is saving every penny towards a down payment. I agree that for a first time homebuyer, this is a great time to enter the market.
You folks complaining about “too much development” ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Elsewhere in the country, inner-cities are literally crumbling, and you’re complaining about the horrors of living in a prosperous region where people are actually willing to invest in neighborhoods?
Get some perspective.
#22 misses the point when he claims that renters could afford to purchase.
There are not enough homes for that to happen. An individual renter or in-commuter might be able to purchase a home.
But, before most of them can purchase a home, there have to be enough homes available for them to purchase. That number of homes does not exist.
I’m not ashamed of wanting to maintain a certain quality of life. As more and more development fills the last remaining space, our already stretched city services will become even more stretched. Our quality of life in San Jose will continue to deteriorate as development continues to run our city. The only thing to be ashamed of is our elected officials who refuse to say “no” to development. The time has come to focus on taking care of what we have instead of not being able to take care of anything.