Solving San Jose’s Budget Mess
We keep hearing that San Jose has a “structural” budget deficit problem, but seemingly little is being done to fix the problem at its core. The City of San Jose spends more than it takes in. But is this deficiency due to insufficient revenues, or is it the product of misplaced priorities and poor spending choices? How can cities find new ways to raise money in these challenging economic times?
At the state level, Governor Schwarzenegger is thinking “outside of the box” by advancing a funding scheme that would have the state borrowing against future lottery revenues. If the Governor can do that, why can’t San Jose come up with some constructive ideas to correct its budgetary woes? Here are a few suggestions:
SUSPEND BART TO SAN JOSE: The VTA receives a larger share of sales tax revenue than the cities do, in the name of a project that keeps getting delayed and keeps getting more expensive. By now, almost everybody knows that there is not enough money to run the existing bus lines, expand light-rail, AND bring BART to San Jose. Why not table BART, and ask the voters to amend the way that the sales tax revenues are distributed, with the cities receiving greater shares than the VTA?
MAKE THE RDA WORK FOR THE PEOPLE: By law, the Redevelopment Agency can subsidize a nightclub run by an out of state corporation, but that same money cannot be used to pay for teacher’s salaries etc. What sort of logic is that? The Santa Clara Taxpayer’s Association (SCTA) estimates that around $140 million in tax money is shifted from the schools to the redevelopment agencies in Santa Clara County! (Source: Doug McNea, President, SCTA)
CIVIL SERVANT JOBS FOR LIFE: When the City of San Jose can’t even get a Starbucks into the City Hall building, you know the degree to which the unions have influence on city leaders. Where is it written that working for the City of San Jose should be a “job for life,” with benefit levels seldom seen in the private sector? Isn’t it time for the city to hire and retain people based on market principles rather than on external conditions imposed upon them by political forces?
ELIMINATE NON-ESSENTIALS: As mentioned in a previous San Jose Inside post, the City of San Jose has a Cultural Affairs Department, but not enough cops. Could San Jose possible survive without a Cultural Affairs Dept? How do surrounding cities get by without one? How many other non-essential city departments are there?
Yikes! Somebody pinch me. Somebody slap me. Somebody wake me up. Mr. Campbell is making SO MUCH SENSE it can’t be real. Soon, somebody will suggest that government entities might actually have to be accountable to the people who fund them. Then I’ll really know I’m dreaming.
Work with the county to close Reid-Hillview and develop the 180 acres in a manner than enhances East San Jose, and generates tax revenue for both the county and the city.
I’m surprised you made that much sense without even bringing up the stadium. I do disagree on the “not enough cops” bit, though. People compare our police—per-capita to other cities as if all are uniformly dangerous (hardly the case). Perhaps you should apply your redistribution theory to law enforcement and get all those bored cops out of downtown. They can actually seek out crime instead of fishing for it.
Pete –
In tough economic times, people need to make tough choices in order to live within their adjusted means. I think your solutions make sense, and should be considered with a littany of other things that need to be on the table. I would however, be very careful asking our leaders in San Jose to follow the Governor’s lead in thsi area.
The gov’s “outside the box” plan is to securitze the lottery system by borrowing an inflated guess of $5 billion+ per year(the lottery currently generates approximately $3 billion per year)in order to establish a “rainy day fund” by which they then plan to draw from immediately in order to balance the current budget deficit.
Anyone confused? Think of it this way. This proposal is akin to someone maxing out their credit cards with a cash advance in order to establish a savings account. It makes no sense and should not be rewarded with praise or heaven forbid, copying by other government entities.
We need governments to step up and make the hard choices required to live within their means and to stop electing to utilize gimmicks and paper shifts of unrealized monies in order to pass the buck (and further deficits) to the future.
Perhaps we can outsource our police department to Los Banos and Tracy.
It’s time for our political leaders to take a serious look at how they are funding public safety. The fire departments, in particular, have been such a sacred cow for so long that as soon as anyone suggests a finding a few efficiences in the department, Fire will pull out their campaign of fear and deception telling people that babies will die and homes will burn down.
The reality is that the City has not taken a hard look at how they can make the department more efficient and I’m tired, as a taxpayer, for funding too many guys and gals to sit around waiting for calls to come in most of the time.
The public safety pension and salary mega-deal is untouchable thanks to binding arbitration, but that doesn’t mean we can’t look at how to run the department for cheaper and better.
Mayor Reed made an excellent point today in his opinion piece about funding for public safety. Their budgets have increased 75% in the past 10 years and we have 1% more cops to show for it. What the hell?
It’s time for a politician with some balls to stand up and demand some efficiencies and a system re-design that spends our dollars more wisely. In the meantime, all we’re doing is paying needless dollars for our firefighters to sleep all night and work-out during the day. Just look at their statistics. Could that be the reason there were thousands of potential candicates vying for only a handful of open positions at Fire recently?
Where do I sign up?
Great column Pete.
Has the idea of pegging the city budget to population + inflation been seriously considered?
That’d be one I’d like to see on the ballot.
Great column Pete!
#4- Mark,
Excellent observations on the ridiculousness of depending on lottery funds to fill the coffers! I completely agree with you. Our old City Council did exactly the same thing you are explaining about the incorrect usage of credit cards. They spent money like water and ignored street repairs, parks, and many other vital city services.
Depending on the lottery is unwise for many reasons. Some of the reasons are that the chance of winning the lottery is very low, and I read in the paper awhile back that, less and less people are buying tickets. The lottery was supposed to help the schools and we all know that didn’t work!
#6- Simon,
We do need strong leaders to start taking a stand on waste. If you look at both the City and County, you’ll see way too many programs that could be cut and save us millions. Council Member Oliverio, to my pleasant surprise, has done a wonderful job of speaking out against the old way of doing things, and has brought some great money saving ideas forward. I think Mayor Reed is doing a great job in finding ways to trim the fat too, but they have a long way to go yet to get the budget balanced and city services up to par. Hopefully, newly elected Council Members will help find a way to create new revenue, and find ways for San Jose to become a much more business friendly city!
Making everyone pay their fair share of property tax is plenty ‘outside the box’, Governor. Fair tax burden for all property owners, all ages.
Great column Pete. Great comments all except #s 2 and 9.
Kenny & Common Sense are both demonstrating the kind of thinking that got us into this budget mess in the first place.
Folks, the answer is not on the revenue side of the equation. It’s on the spending side.
I agree entirely with Pete’s column today, especially the item on the proposed BART project.
How bad is the BART project?
It is such a stinker that transit advocate Michael D. Setty and “antiplanner” Randal O’Toole, who don’t agree on much of anything, both have written articles against the project. In fact, Setty’s article is titled “I Must Agree (Somewhat) with O’Toole in This Case” which emphasizes the point. See the following:
http://www.publictransit.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=50
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=423
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=289
The “Santa Clara VTA Riders Union” [not affiliated with VTA] has a useful “BART to San Jose News and Hidden Facts on BART” page here:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/bartsjx/
Also, transit advocates Bay Rail alliance are promoting a better, more cost-effective alternative:
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/caltrain_metro_east
Finally, for some general observations on VTA, see:
http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/
Pete Campbell asks “Why not table BART, and ask the voters to amend the way that the sales tax revenues are distributed, with the cities receiving greater shares than the VTA?” I think that’s what all the people who voted against the 2006 Measure A were saying also.
Postscript: Re: BART…
“Gov Schwarzenegger proposes taking hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for BART, Muni, and other agencies to help erase a $17.2 billion budget deficit.” (SF Chron. 6/3/08).
Pete Campbell
Great comments by all, except for #10.
He continues to sing the same old tired song that has gotten us into this mess. It is time to start thinking creatively for ways to make society better while generating more tax revenue.
Pete,
The question should be,“why BART”?
On April 2006 Greg Perry said it well about the BART program,”…The transportation part of (Measure A-BART)is essentially taxing poor people to bring in “out of town commuters” to compete with them for jobs”.
It`s 2008 and San Jose is desperatly in need of more jobs for local S.J. residents, more employers are needed.When compared to Palo Alto,Mt View,Sunnyvale,Santa Clara and Gilroy, San Jose is job poor.
Time has come for San Jose`s Office of Economic Development to get agressive and offer incentives to new employeers to relocate in San Jose,this is what the EOC Exec`s get paid to do.Bringing more people to San Jose from the east bay on BART “Is Not going to help”.
Consider this!
The Standard Tax of 1/2% plus the `2000 Measure A Tax of 1/2% total 1% Sales Tax for BART will be paid for largely by the citizens of San Jose and other Santa Clara County Cities contributing.
We (Santa Clara County Residents) pay for BART,$15 billion. East Bay City citizens ride the BART to San Jose to work and take our jobs. The East Bay Citizens contribute “ZERO” sales tax to the cost to bring BART to the City of San Jose. They only pay the fare when they use BART which only has a 12% cost recovery.
We pay and they benifit.
Most of us paying the Tax don`t use BART.
Our freeways #280,101,85,87 and 237 remain cloged after BART is compleeted.
Are we better off today `2008 than we were in `2000 when we voted for Measure A?
Who will ride BART if is built to San Jose?
(1) Mid level Tech Workers
(2) Low income people
(3) Gang members from Hayward
(4) Drug dealers from Oakland
Mid level people living on the East Bay where rents are much lower,used to being paid less will come and compete for our jobs.
Low income people from Hayward,San Leandro,Oakland and Union City will ride to San Jose and take our low income jobs from our residents.
Gang clusters hang around transit stations.
BART parking lots have been averaging 49 car brake in`s per lot per month.
BART Police are asking for 200 more police officers to ride bicycles in BART parking lots and operate in plain clothes on BART trains.
Criminals use BART as a choice to escape.
While I agree with the basis of the argument of #17 above (and others) about BART being an expensive burden on the region, I am perplexed by the sense of entitlement people like Reality Check feel about the jobs in this area. Employers appreciate the opportunity to have a large pool of applicants to compete for those positions. They don’t hire you just because you live in the same zip code as the corporate office. They do not “owe” you a job just because you are “neighbors”. Silicon Valley is what it is today because the multi-national technology firms that compete on a global scale are able to recruit and retain the best and the brightest to fill vital positions. If that happens to be John Doe in San Jose, fantastic, but the guy in Hayward or the gal in Singapore have just as much right and opportunity to compete, and the Valley based companies (and those of us who benefit from living in the region) are better for it.
Furthermore, to your “mid-level tech worker” comment, technology company positions in Silcon Valley are some of the most highly competitive and sought out in large part because of the high compensatin and generous benefits afforded. That compensation is not predicated on what city you live in, it is determined by the individuals qualifications. To suggest someone commuting from the East Bay makes and/or would settle for less for the same job as someone living in our little “dream” city here is ignorant at best.
Blaming some individual in the East Bay for taking “our” jobs is just another excuse people throw out when they get out-worked by individuals who actually appreciate the opportunities provided to them.
That said, I am 100% on board with scrapping the whole BART extension. We have spent too much money for no or little return for far too long, and the region can’t afford to contribute to this black hole any longer.
BTW: “Criminals use BART to escape?” Unless they have some magic escape track unkown to the regular Joe, don’t the police know where to catch up with them?
Mark,
BART is a politically driven project. At the May 1,2008 Board meeting VTA General Manager answered VTA Board member Casas from Los Altos question,“how much has been spent on the SVRT-BART Extension project consultants? Mr Burns, VTA General manager replied that”$600 million has been spent to date to accomplish 65% of the design”.Mr. Burns went on to say,”…in the next year or two the amount would reach $800 million in Measure A Expenditures”. Burns also noted decisions need to be made weather to do “double tracking” to San Jose and Santa Clara. Now VTA is running out of money and they want to cancell the “Light Rail Extension to East Ridge Shopping Center, aka the “East Ridge Light Rail Extension”.
My question is why are they proceeding with the BART project if they are running out of money.
I believe you called it a “black hole”, our money is going down a black hole?
Putting money in a black hole, flushing it down the toilet or just pissing it away; all apply equally well to the BART to SJ project. Carl needs to go find another project to build a legacy upon. This flawed project is a bloated drain on the region’s resources and needs to be put out of its misery.
The May 1,2008 Meeting of the VTA Board of Directors,caused a number of Board members to express serious concerns with the cost in 2008 to build and raise the necessary financing to build out BART in San Jose.
Chairperson Kniss recomended a revisit to the VTA and BART Agreement.
Member Kishimoto from Palo Alto requested cost estimates on the Measure A projects.
Chairperson Kniss asked Mr Burns to address the yearly fee that must be paid by VTA to connect to BART.
Mr Burns commented that the agreement with BART requires VTA to pay for every and all conceivable costs associated with the BART Extension including 100% of the net operating costs to operate the system as well as a contribution to capital for replacement and upgrade of the exhisting BART facilities.
“Burns stated the agreement is extremely challenging for Santa Clara County”
Burns said,“an alternative agreement and structure that is more eqitable “must”be formulated.
Member Ken Yeager commented that all options should be considered in the quest to obtain revenue sources.
Member Gage,(Gilroy) expressed concern that the assumption that raising fees would add to the capital budget is not prudent.
Member Gage stated that alternative scenarios are needed so the Boardhas options to evaluate those scenarios.
Member Liccardo expressed concern with the two-tired approach indicated in the Revised Projections of Sales Tax Revenue.
Member Casas expressed concern with the Inflation and Interest Rate Projections and Inflation Assumptions by O&M Object class.
Member Williams (San Jose) asked about VTA`s financial stability.
Mr Liccardo expressed concern with the construction cost assumptions.
Mr Casas, (Los Altos) expressed concern that VTA is cautiously and conservatively estimating the impact of some of the transportation options.
Vice Chairperson Sandoval expressed that VTA`s partnership questions with BARTmust be addressed.
Member Nora Campos expressed concern that the Capitol Expressway Light Rail to Eastridge project must move forward according to schedule.
Member Kishimoto asked how the fairbox return of 25% recovery is included.
Kishimoto commented that the ridership model should include issues with roadways,highways,local agencies and projected parking changes at transit stations.
This is a lot of serious concerns.It sounds scary.
#20
So correct. The whole concept that BART to San Jose was going to reduce traffic on 680 was insane.
I think we should consider Richard Zappelli’s idea of a monorail above 101. That makes a lot of sense, and certainly has more potential to reduce traffic than does the BART extension.
Monorail is a solution looking for a problem. See:
http://www.planetizen.com/node/70
#23
The point is an elevated rail system up 101 makes more sense than does BART to the East Bay.
The right of way already exists so no land purchases are necessary.
The business destinations are already located along the 101 corridor.
Adding mass transit onto 101 would encourage commuters out of their cars and onto the monorail, maglev, or whatever.
What would really be nice is adding a bike lane to the elevated rail line. Even at 60 years old, I would like to ride a bike to work between San Jose and Santa Clara, but I sure as Hades am not going to do that on the surface streets between the two end points.
Richard,
May I ask where you come up with some of your numbers. Please do the simplest research before you spout inconsistent data and hearsay.
BART’s fare box recovery system wide as of 2005 was 50%, much higher then 20%?
While it isn’t an optimal solution, do you really think a monorail over 101 would be that much better, come on people, monorail was built at Disneyland for a reason, it isn’t practical, much less practical then BART. Disrupting 101’s traffic flow for 5 years to build a monorail is going to piss a lot more people off then using current UP purchased right-of-way. Caltrain is 101’s public transit brother; it practically follows it all the way up the peninsula.
Richard, I know you are interested in transit, but please take the time to research.
Hugh,
I`m not sure Monorail is the answer, but more specific “overhead rail” is the key solution.the light rail travels on overhead rail in Milpitas and BART travels on overhead rail from Oakland all the way to Union City and does the same thing from, to and into the San Francisco International Airport.
The “real important” thing for the residents of San Jose and Santa Clara County to understand is we need to spend our sales tax dollars and any other tax dollars that are transportation specific on alternate forms of travel ,“RIGHT HERE IN SAN JOSE AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY”.
BART is a “Regional transportation program”, not San Jose or Santa Clara County specific.Regional meaning it will help the entire Bay Area, specific to the east bay.
“VERY IMPORTANT”, at the San Jose “General Plan Update Meeting” last meeting, Mr.Levey from the University of California @ Berkley made a presentation and spoke to the growth in the “South bay” and told all of us that by the year `2040 San Jose`s popuation will grow by 500,000 residents and, a great deal of that growth will come before the year `2017. That isn`t that far away.
VTA, our County transportation arm needs to get busy planning a comprehensive transportation system for our City and County. Our freeways can`t handle commuter hour traffic now, they all get gridlocked.
Putting BART first does nothing to solve our problems in our City and County.BART is not putting San Jose residents first.BART puts the burden ald “ALL COSTS” on the back of San Jose Citizens, not fare!
Richard:
Read what I said earlier. I’m against the BART project, big time. We should use the existing measure A money to:
Upgrade Caltrain service. No need for an elevated something down 101, let’s optimize what we already have and improve connections from Caltrain stations to employment centers.
Consider alternatives to BART to connect with the East Bay. Regional connections are important, but must be affordable with existing funding sources. Bay Rail Alliance has a good proposal called Caltrain Metro East, let’s use that for a starting point. The route is here:
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/caltrain_metro_east_maps
According to this
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/planned_growth_san_jose
it will better serve planned growth in North San Jose. The current BART route swings too far east and misses the airport. There will have to be an expensive “people mover” built to connect with BART at the proposed Santa Clara. CME would actually serve the airport:
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/fewer_transfers
I think we can agree that we’ve got to do better than the current BART plan, which I recently read was not projected to cost more than $6 BILLION.
When you refer to expressways and freeways, I personally don’t think you can develop those any more then they already are, it isn’t practical. In ten years it will be ten times as bad, we need a dedicated right-of-way, BART or no BART, freeways are a thing of the past.
Hugh,
Margret at Bay Rail Alliance is a very well informed lady,I have worked with her. We both attended the recent MTC meeting in san Jose. Eugene Bradley and other Santa Clara County experts from our sister cities were in attendance. Margret is correct about a CalTrain type operation connecting the East Bay like CalTrain does on the West Bay.Don`t forget we have the Light Rail overhead already in Milpitas which, is very close to Warm Springs projected BART Intermodal Station.This light rail could reach Warm Springs in just 10 min. from Milpitas.This would be a lot cheeper than a $15 billion BART System to San Jose.
You mention a $6 billion cost to build BART to San Jose.This figure we believe will be the cost to build BART from Warm Springs to Berryessa Station at the Flea Market area only. We can`t pin anyone down in our City Council regarding what we get for the $6 billion dollar figure,the reason is they don`t know either.They are being asked to vote on a concept not on a total cost. This is why the five San Jose City Council people on the VTA Board are so concerned now.I have been attending the VTA,MTC and BART meetings.
The downtown San Jose 4.9 mile extension to be tunneled is estimated to cost $1billion per mile per the San Francisco Chronicle.That`s just for tunneling almost $5 billion.
The May 1st meeting the question was asked of the VTA Board do you just want one track or do you want two tracks? Two tracks will again cost even more.
The City of San Jose will have to hire the BART police force. Then there is the cost to purchase property along the route and build 5 story BART parking lots, these costs are not in estimates given us. Vta tried to purchase a City block downtown S.J and bid $39 million for just one site.
This is a 16 mile BART route and will need a lot of parking garages.Because BART has to go through downtown San Jose it will be just like the Light Rail,“SLOW”!
The people pushung the BART program refuse to give us the total cost to build BART.They are not telling us that the minuite BART crosses the Santa Clara County we will have to guarentee BART people a $85 million annual membership fee for which we get nothing but a simple membership.
Richard we badly need afordable housing in San Jose.Everyone can`t live in Almaden Valley or Willow Glen like you.With BART we will get affordable housing in Berryessa,North San Jose and Fremont.We need low cost housing and without BART we won`t get low cost housing.Give us a brake.
Not everyone has a “Pot of Gold” either.We need that “Pot of Gold” to build our housing.So support BART.
POT OF GOLD! VTA FOUND A NEW ONE!
The June 5 meeting a NEW VTA anouncement,VTA is going to close one lane in each direction and convert the two to toll lanes aka “Hot Lanes”.VTA anounced that their study revealed they will be able to raise $5 billion dollars this way and the funds could go toward building BART.They also plan on adding a new ballot Measure on the November ballot to add a new tax to raise additional dollars to fund the BART project, another sales tax increase.
Hot Lane Tax + new Sales Tax, more taxes.
I attended a meeting with other San Jose leaders from neighborhoods and School administrators in Sacramento and the Governor is proposing a Sales Tax increase of 1% being added as a Measure in November put before the voters.
“ALAMENDEN VALLEY”,we raised our boys in the valley and sold our home and moved to Willow Glen to get in closer to the city and cut down our commute time.My wife and I were spending all kinds of time trying to get home through heavy traffic.
Traffic lanes on 85 including the diamond lanes have been backing up during commute hours.We began using Almaden Expressway to get to Lincoln Avenue to avoid the 85 grid lock. If I had to get to Interstate 880 I would follow my neighbors from almaden Valley down Lincoln and turn left onto Pine Ave. which becomes Hamilton and enter I-880 at Hamilton, just to avoid all the traffic on 85.
Try to imagine all the traffic that will back up now on the two remaining lanes of 85 and in Willow Glen.All this because the VTA wants to add “toll lanes to 85 to pay for BART.
Pete you say San Jose needs to find new ways to find Revenue to pay for our City services but Bboth the VTA and the State are a little ahead of us.
School Administrators would like to see the Governor bring back the “licence plate tax” we lost during his last “re-election bid,Legislators and State Senators told us that this loss of revenue from the licence plate tax cost the state $6 billion in loss revenue, most of which went to schools.
The Governor claims the Lottery revenue benefits the schools and was a good trade off but reports tell us that revenue source is on a downward slide and is not the big benefit we thought it would be.
Lobbiest and insiders have a lot of money to spend on pushing new taxes like the sales tax and hot lane revenue on us.“The people with the “Gold” make the riles”. The Pot of Gold belongs to them, not us.
#32 Give me a Brake asks:
“Give us a brake.”
Okay, any particular type? For example, foot brake, hand brake, parking brake, etc.
#31 and #32,
Do you really believe that if we don`t build BART from San Jose to Warm Springs to connect to the main BART rail that the developers and builders from San Jose will not build low cost housing in Warm Springs and the Berryessa Negiborhood?
Do you believe that BART is the only thing holding back “high density low income housing in the Berryessa Neighborhood?
This is the “New Fear” the insiders,developers, builders and their lobbiest are pushing on our politicians and us,“BART IS GOOD BECAUSE IT WILL BRING US LOW COST AFFORDABLE HOUSING”. This is both a Public Relationship and fear mode they are pushing.What`s next,“housing for poor seniors like they used at BAREC! There people will stop at nothing!
Ask your Council Person or Supervisor or any State Legislator that has talked to their favorate lobbiest if we really have to build BART to get more affordable housing?
The same group that were trying to push develop Coyote Valley and lost are now trying to build BART to the East Bay, more urban sprawl. Go on line and check out the leading lobbiest in Coyote Valley and you will find they are the same people that are pushing Warm Springs and Berryessa Development on us.Only this time they have learned their lesson and need the support of the Enviromentelist Organizations like the Sierra Club, this is why this group changed their position to “Tunnel Downtown” San Jose`s 4.9 mile dig. The Sierra Club said they would not fight the BART program if we Tunneled,not creating all types of construction dust. Now they have the Sierra Club`s blessings.
Please don`t fall for the story that only with BART will we get low cost housing.They are selling “Pitty” or “fear “.
This group of Lobbyest and their financial backers are the same people selling the Smart Growth and dencification of San Jose in San Jose`s Urban Core.They are telling us they are opposed to “Urban Sprawl” and that we must do “Smart Growth-Densify”. Again go on line and check out the names.You will be amazed.
These people are only in the development business for “Profit” and they are entitled to a “Profit”.But Smart Growth shold come with all the benefits of “Smart Growth” all it`s poilcies.
We need parks and all our “Core Services” we need schools to support Smart Growth, not “Over crowed schools”.We need VTA to develop a “Comprehensive Transportation Program” to help San Jose and Santa Clara County Citiesove residents around our cities.We need land set aside for Parks and Recreational facilities for our children while both parents are at work,
Smart Growth is not building more prisions to house our gangs.Crime prevention begins with our young children and being sure they have recreational facilities to keep them busy so that they don`t join gangs when both parents are at work.
A good example to be concerned about is the VTA project at Tamien Station where the VTA`s Intermodal Station on Alma and Lick avenues is built on the edge of what our police depart tells us is one of the worst crime area`s in San Jose.
The Tamien Specific Plan called for multiple hig density high rises on both sides of Alma St. with a “Park” and a high rise Parking garage.Now the developer” a “Smart Growth Developer” so he claims, in the interest of “profit”, now says he can`t build the Park and there is no Parking Garage either.
Smart Growth calls for a “LIVEABLE CITY”. We have to fight to protect what the public percieves is “Core Services” Core Values.
In San Jose the same people pushing for high density are the same people pushing for “urban sprawl in Warm Springs and Coyotte Valley.Their motive is to develop and build because it is very profitable.Nothng is wrong with profit as long as we get our Core Services.Driving on Minnesotta or Willow Street near the Tamien location is a very bumpy ride because both streets are in terrible condition. “Core Services”.
#30 Great post.
Makes me want to take to the street and start throwing rocks.
If I were WiPro or TaTa or Haliburton, I’d be putting “Outsource Government” prop’s and measures on our state and local ballots.
My sense is that JMO’s long called for and long overdue Boston Tea Party is close at hand.