A lead story in the Mercury News this week stated the obvious in its headline that pointed to the axiom that growth will be crucial in the San Jose mayor’s race. That was fine, as far as it went, but not far enough in charting some of the nuances in this election. It is more instructive in what it did not say. A few years ago, a race for the presidency was won by the simple rejoinder “it’s the economy stupid.” Well, here in San Jose, we can just as easily say, “it’s the General Plan dummy!”
Outside of egregious acts on garbage contracts or incompetence in the implementation of building our new City Hall, the way to chart the rise and fall of our city’s economic fortunes, and the success of most aspirants for mayor in the past, can be seen clearly in General Plan decisions. Now, you have to know a bit of insider baseball to really know the “winks and nods” that candidates give on issues as complex, and as fraught with political danger, as the Coyote Valley Plan. Any candidate would shrink from really saying that I’ll give the “boys just what they want.” Such a statement would be suicidal, but a wink can tell a lot. The recipients know the sign language only too well. And “we” know how far the city has descended when one candidate promises “fair” treatment and is roundly denounced by the development crowd.
In attempting to chart the positions of Cindy Chavez and Chuck Reed, the simple point that the paper missed was this: the next mayor is the single bulwark against selfish or foolish decisions by a city council that cannot, or will not, see the big picture. A council routinely does what is easy, not what is in its fiduciary responsibility to protect for the next generation. A mayor is created in our system to redress just such shallow decision making. A city manager—such as the current, gutsy manager—is another vital failsafe point. I will leave for another time the absurdity of the constant tinkering and changing of the General Plan to suit every whim and fancy of the shills and lobbyists that infest City Hall now, resulting in the silliness that moved away from a once-a-year amendment process— allowing ample time to change the plan, but putting the lion’s share of the time into implementing it! It has been a fatal error to recent good planning in our city that the current amendment process is just one long feeding frenzy for the “bought and paid for” hacks of the new cottage industry of lobbyists.
Also, the mayor must be the last guardian of the sanctity of solid, long term planning that finally turned the corner on the race to build a tax base—and a skyline—for San Jose. The race is still going to the swiftest, and our city is not too fast any more. Individual council members, through lack of forethought or, in a case or two, simple mendacity, have played a disquieting part in the abandonment of many staples of our General Plan and city health, such as the preservation of industrial property, the reverse commute, and the avoidance of major new residential areas unless the budget can accommodate such new neighborhoods.
The bottom line in the preservation of a livable city is still the same: a mayor with the sense and courage to go “up the up staircase” when the rest of the council is tumbling blissfully down it. Just dodge them or, better yet, kick them out of the way in order to create a better city. It is such actions that speak better than any wink.
Although Pandori may have been the only candidate with a decent stand on growth policy, his arrogant style would have made it impossible for him ever to get six votes. So now, Tom, it’s up to you to put pressure on your boy Chuck to take stands:
—against premature development of Coyote
—against conversion of industrial land to housing
—for investment in downtown
Winks and nods won’t do.
Tom, I agree that the General Plan and the permitting process has gone awry. I truly hope that Coyote Valley doesn’t get paved over and overbuilt with thousands of new homes. As well, projects within the core of San Jose are sometimes inexplicable. Witness the Swenson debaucle on Alma across from the Elk’s Club. My gosh, twin eleven story condo towers don’t belong there, even with the proximity to Light Rail. Projects of that scale belong in the Downtown area, not older stable neighborhoods.
Can the city really afford to bail out the Rep? I realize there are some strings attached but what kind of a message does this send?
On the General Plan and Coyote development, Chuck Reed’s position is that it too important to not be a part – a critical part – of a major General Plan update. All of our citizens must be involved. He is committed to that approach much to the consternation of the “Coyote crowd” who were sure that it was “wired” by the current Council. It was a courageous act in the middle of an election. TMcE
Use your influence, Tom, and help Chuck keep Coyote Valley the treasure it is.
Also, maybe you can help craft an ordinance to fix the problem as pointed out in today’s Merc—there is nothing that prohibits councilmembers from taking money from those who do business before the council. Talk about conflicts.
Tom:
Good comments on the general plan. Chuck does seem to have more experience in this arena. However, Cindy did a good job of interacting with the community on the development of the Taylor Towers.
I’m interested in your opinion and the candidates opinion on the N. San Jose “Downtown II” planning that is going on. Tom, you have been a champion of downtown development and also very critical of Santana Row and I’m interested from afar if you think “Downtown II” will come to pass and how you think this issue fits into the campaign.
Tom McE: Is there a publicly-accessible database that will inform us of Chuck’s votes while a Planning Commissioner?
i appreciate tom’s sentiments, but after having lived here 15 years i have to ask this question: Hasn’t anybody noticed that whenever we try to ‘plan’ something in san jose (pavilion, grand prix, airport, downtown generally) it bombs, and when we just let market forces work their own wonders (santana row, s.j. giants baseball, the flea market, neighborhood groups) we score? Maybe we’d do better doing less. Just a thought.
Dear San Jose:
Sorry, but every time someone mentions the new city hall project, I have to weigh in. Tom McEnery mentioned, “…the incompetence in the implementation of building our new city hall.” It was not “incompetence,” it was corruption and deceit. The authors of the alternative sites study “cooked the books” by arbitrarily assigning the high construction costs of the Meier designed building to their so-called “analysis” of the old city hall site. One strategically placed sentence in the deputy city manager’s report “killed” the prospects of building a less expensive new city hall.
I still don’t know why the Mercury news won’t publish the contents of that city memo. (I’ve sent it to them twice). Perhaps they don’t want to admit that the missed covering the behind the scenes manuevering that pushed through on of San Jose’s largest and most expensive public projects.
Pete Campbell
#9’s comments are worth thinking about and discussing.
Pete #10, you can publish it here instead of decrying the fact that the Murky News hasn’t.
Look at the Alma Bowl Twin Towers and you can understand how Smart Growth a city policy for 30+ years is not consistently ignored but used as an excuse to do more envirnomentally unsound development that generates more San Jose politiical campaign contributions
City Council continues it’s environmentally and fiscally unsound aggressive housing development policies that we will see is irresponsible for San Jose
Smart Growth means walkable pedestrian friendly development with mixed use – housing, offices, retail and recreation / parks accessible to public transit but Alma Bowl Twin Towers is only homes which gives developers more profit
Alma Bowl Twin Towers is another example of how our local clueless environmental groups for 30 years have missed dozens of opportunities to develop sound environmental and Smart Growth implementation practices in San Jose, green building practices at City Hall, Airport etc and workable VTA envirnmentally and fiscally sound transit policies
So why exactly is a high density housing development “environmentally unsound”?
A high density development uses less land and water per person. It reduces the amount of agricultural areas converted to homes.
And, if you build high density homes in a jobs rich area like here, you reduce oil dependency by shortening commute distances.
Where, exactly, is the environmental damage?
Councilmembers from taking money from those who do business before the council has been done for decades adn is why San Jose has many of it current problems. Yes public believes it is is a major Conflict of Interest but politicians do not see any conflict
Proposition 89 – Clean Money Initiative could be part of solution See Yes On 89 TV Ad: “Stop The Pounding” video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXsIs5ouX8
It’s not Friday but see About Time for 89” Best Rap Music Video About a Proposition – Pay to Play – Time to come clean – Capital up for sale – Big Boys Club
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDhk5J6FGpE&feature=PlayList&p=4FC42ABE736CB83B&index=0
Alma #12 posits: “Smart Growth means walkable pedestrian friendly development with mixed use – housing, offices, retail and recreation / parks accessible to public transit but Alma Bowl Twin Towers is only homes which gives developers more profit.”
So, let me get this straight, Alma—in order for growth to be “smart”, each and every development proposal must contain all of the elements you mention???
So, the come clean rap features Batman. Who holds the rights to his name and likeness? Have they sued yet?
As a concept, “Smart Growth” has almost lost all pro-community, pro-neighborhood meaning. A better cluster of values for planning is “Wise Growth.” To see these two concepts compared go to:
http://www.saveopenspaces.com/
When you see the words “Wise Growth,” click to see a thorough comparison. We’re not stuck with “Smart Growth,” we’ve got some choices for a better city.
Alma Bowl Twin Towers is high density housing development built in the wrong place to be environmentally sound planning and does not meet Smart Growth’s multiple requirements or any green building requirements
San Jose is jobs short and provides much of Silicon Valley’s housing to our financial determent for other job rich local cities so tens of thousands of our residents daily travel (environmentally unsound ) to other cities in some of the worst traffic congestion ( environmentally unsound ) in the US. We also have to travel to stores and recreation by car (environmentally unsound ) rather than live in housing built where retail and jobs exists which is environmentally sound Smart Growth
Just because a housing development meets one criteria ( high density ) does not make it Smart Growth environmentally sound when the other criteria are not met and out weigh the high density building
Alma Bowl is a automobile-oriented high density development that contributes to increased air and water pollution; global warming, traffic congestion and neighborhood does not have the street grid to support increased resident traffic unlike downtown. It lacks job, retail ad parks requiring residents to drive thus violating Smart Growth environmental planning principals since shopping, many jobs and many recreation / parks are not eaily available by VTA
Alma Bowl is developer Greenwash – giving a positive public image to many environmentally unsound practices
See Smart Growth Scorecard for Development Projects
http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/scorecards/project.htm
The Metro has endorsed Chuck Reed for mayor [1].
Today’s Metro also mentions that Chavez refuses to speak to reporters from the Metro because she feels the coverage is not fair. [2] Didn’t Gonzales have a similiar policy?
[1] http://www.metroactive.com/endorsement-chuck-reed.pdf
[2] http://www.metroactive.com/metro/10.18.06/fly-0642.html
David Pandori is the only candidate from the past election who showed the right planning leadership for the city. I have asked the two present candidates directly what their “vision” is for the Coyote Valley and I have not gotten the answers I wanted to hear from either of them.
Dale,
Does Alma Bowl Twin Towers meet Wise Growth choices fot neighborhood or community and a better city or not?
Would you want Alma Bowl Twin Towers in your neigbhorhood?
Do you agree Alma Bowl is developer Greenwash – giving a positive public image to many environmentally unsound practices?
Silicon Valley Community Newspapers – among which the Willow Glen Resident is included – have also endorsed Chuck Reed.
It is important that we as citizens stay informed. The Alma area has been identified as high density for years in the General Plan. The one environmental group that stood up to the developer on the Alma project, that I can remember, was PAC SJ. The only way we can make a difference is to get involved. We all need to have a voice at the table. Just wait until you see what is planned for the Elks property!
#18 You mention green building. Where are the “green buildings” in San Jose??? Building next to mass transit is one aspect of green building, but it’s certainly not enough to be called green.
Communities like San Fran, Alameda County, Contra Costa, Pittsburg, Marin, Santa Rosa, San Mateo all provide incentives to developers to build green, mostly through expedited permit processing. Hell, there are production home builders in those communities building green homes. Why have these other cities figured it out and not SJ? Oh, I know why….NO LEADERSHIP!!
While these other communities grab this opportunity and run with it, San Jose just sits in the locker room and twiddle its thumbs.
#23, you bring up a good point. The Alma Bowl development is small potatoes compared to the plans for the Elk’s Club property. By my recollection, that project is destined to have something like 2000 condo units in high rise fashion. In spite of all the bad legislation contained in Proposition 90, I’m inclined to vote in favor of it to stop this sort of nonsense for once and for all.
I understand the frustration that many feel, and agree with much of it. However, if Prop. 90 passes it will be a disaster not only for San Jose but the entire state. This is a good example of why government by initiative is not a good way to legislate. Our elected officials need to be more sensitive to the issue of eminent domain, but Prop. 90 will not do that.
I urge a NO vote on Prop. 90.
“It’s the General Plan, dummy!”
Too true. What a Stalinist place California and the rest of the country has become.
Commenter #9 has it right. The Planning Dept is just a mechanism to squeeze out political tribute. Unlike pure pollution control laws, land use design ordinances are purely exercises in what government can get away with.
Did our local Democrats actually return the Indian casino money?
Mr. Preminger said in the Mercury News article the central committee “sent the money on.” I believe “sent” is past tense as in the check was in the mail already.
According to the Secretary of State website:
“Contributions and independent expenditures of $1,000 or more are disclosed within 24 hours of the time they are made or received.”
So far there are no filings by the Santa Clara County Democratic Central Committee [1]. The Merc should do a follow up to let us all know where the money went, if anywhere.
[1] http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1044224&session=2005&view=electronic
The Metro blog is reporting Chavez received seven $500.00 donations from East coast employees of Republic Properties [1].
The Santa Clara Democratic Central Committee received a $50,000.00 donation from Republic Holdings Corporation, Greenwich CT [2].
Searching Google, the website for Republic Properties has a description of its chairman that says he is also chairman of Republic Holdings Corporation[3].
There are many companies on the Internet named Republic so this could just be a coincidence. Even If the companies are not related, does anybody have an idea why Chavez is so popular on the East coast?
[1] http://www.sv411.com/
[2] http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1204602&amendid=0
[3] http://www.republicpropertiescorp.com/page.cfm?name=Richard Kramer
Just saw a hit piece from Chavez supporters bashing Reed on the reimbursement issue yet again. The mailer said it is from San Jose First, 240 South Market, “a coaltion of labor and business. “
A Google search show this address is that of the UFCW Local 428, Unitied Food and Commercial Workers Union [1].
Its too bad that organizations such as the Local 428 are willing to send mailers such as this, disguising the funding sources.
[1] http://www.ufcw428.org/
Just a note: Republic’s website states they developed the Great Mall of Silicon Valley (Milpitas).
Dear Tom,
I’ve written several responses to your and other “Inside SJ” authors that took quite some time to compose. They all dealt with the need for a large urban Silicon Valley-San Jose (or Santa Clara City) Hostel.
However your over-zealous censor apparently has rejected my articles for some unexplained reason.
Please have your censor return unpublished articles to the sender with some explanation why they are not acceptable and not fit to be included.
Also you might have your webmaster add a search field so it’s easier to find articles on some particular subject. Currently I have to go outside your web body to search for articles and comments pertaining to my interests.
PGP
So, I guess we all have to thank the city council for upping park fees paid by developers. It’ll certainly save me some money.
Since new large developments will pay most if not all of the fees, the developers will simply pass the full additional cost on to those who buy their new homes. The rest of us skate—we pay nothing under this proposal. The pain could have ben spread citywide, but instead it was limited to those who buy new houses.
There appears to be some discrimination in the new law, however. According to The Murky News: “The new fees range from $13,600 for new homes in Alum Rock to $31,750 for those in Willow Glen. Wassup widdat? So, the developer just adds that to the price of the house. Good luck, new home buyers! As if homes weren’t expensive enough here in San Ohaze.
But most of the rest of us are off the hook.
JMO’C-
There’s more reason behind the parks fees than you give them credit for.
State law (Quimby Act) limits the ability of cities to add fees for parks. The general idea is that new projects pay enough that park acres per person doesn’t decline. For most cities, the standard is 3 acres per thousand people. So, if you add enough homes for 334 people, you need to pay a fee that could buy one acre of land.
That’s why a new home in Alum Rock pays a lower fee than a new home in Willow Glen. An acre of park costs less in Alum Rock than Willow Glen.
I don’t think developers get to pass on the whole cost. Developers charge what they think people are willing to pay. If people are willing to pay 36000 more, the developers will raise the price for that reason alone.
33- Thanks for your comments. Folks need to understand that the city has been park deficient for many years as it rushed to cram as many housing units as possible into every nook and cranny. The fees have been too low for too long and we all suffer as a result.
Hopefully, as the dark ages of Gonzales leave us to clean-up the damage he and his supporters leave behind, this is one small way we can begin to improve the quality of life in San Jose.
#33 & #34: I don’t go to parks much, but the ones I go to in San Jose would look better as condos.
Take St. Jame Park. Way back in 1996, I believe it was, Dustin Hofman and John Travolta shot a few scenes for a movie @ SJ Athletic Club & St. James Park. They added landscaping for the movie. It died within a few months of the end of shooting.
Check out the parking strip “lawn” Mostly dead. Lots of just yellow remains of grass. I’d bet the farm that not one of the park employees who “cares” for that park ever told a supervisor that the sprinklers are messed up so the lawn died.
The budget system is skewed. We buy lands or have developers contribute lands for parks that are not maintained.
And who uses urban parks, anyway? I know who uses St. James Park—drug sellers/users and homeless folks. Wow, just what I want to spend my money on—a place for some low life to sell drugs to other low lifes.
How many parks are there on Manhattan besides Central Park?
There’s a lot of confusion and misinformation about park fees, so let me clear up some of it:
1) Home builders are required to dedicate 3 acres of raw land/1000 people their development adds to the community based on federal census data, or pay fees “in-lieu” of land dedication. They can also receive up to 50% credit toward the land dedication/fees for private recreational amenities in the development, and also receive credit for improvements to public parkland. So what’s required in the end doesn’t amount to much, compared to what many cities mandate. Some offer no private recreation credits at all, and others require a dedication of improved land!
2) The land dedication required did not increase, but the “in-lieu” fees were previously discounted. They were set at only 70% of 2001 land values based on MLS zones, which only translates into from approx. 19% of 2005 land values in Alviso to 80+% in Alum Rock and a few other areas where raw residential land values declined since 2001.
3) Having the fees set well below more recent land values created an extreme disincentive to land dedications for park and recreational amenities, and also created disparity between the various MLS zones, as the percentages above reflect. The “in-lieu” fees should move with the market for raw land and adjust annually, or they aren’t truly fees in-lieu of land dedication.
4) The new ordinances will allow trails, urban plazas, community gardens, etc.. to be included (not just traditional parks), so that more urban formats and needs are recognized.
5) Recreational infrastructure is important to how our city looks, and whether we will be able to retain livability. This translates into economic sustainability. As the city grows (see ABAG growth projections), it will become harder for people to access recreational amenities outside of their own neighborhoods/communities due to congestion, so having adequate infrastructure of all kinds is important to traffic internalization.
5) The land dedicated or fees paid are to primarily serve the new residents of the development, so the neighborhood/community serving recreational infrastructure must be within a maximum 2-mile radius from the development. This also takes pressure off of existing facilities.
6) Adequate impact fees don’t automatically drive housing prices up. While fees are costs to builders and all businesses like to pass on costs, market forces ultimately determine housing prices. Land prices also fluctuate, based on market forces. If anyone believes that market rate home builders will offer homes for less because they pay a lower fee, think again!
7) Our Acting Planning Director estimated that the city lost out on about $73 million in park “in-lieu” fees by not bringing the fees to 100% of land values over the past several years. This is likely a conservative number. Meanwhile, home builders made very healthy, and in many cases record, profits. The city and its residents were essentially cheated out of needed recreational infrastructure, because decision makers didn’t move to correct the situation sooner.
8) We all acknowledge that we have park maintenance issues in San Jose. Adequate funding, better design, installation and maintenance practices can remedy these problems in the future. But if we overdevelop without securing the land needed for park/recreational infrastructure, who will want to live here in the future? If smart people don’t want to live here, businesses won’t stay here. The only residents left will be those who have no choices.
9) And if decision makers continue to approve industrial/commercial to residential conversions that go against city policy, we won’t have any hope of ever refueling the very economic engine that can provide core services, like park maintenance, community center and library operations, in addition to police and fire. San Jose needs to create great plans and follow them!
10) We need quality, balanced, sustainable development. Businesses, please change your mantra from, “Put housing near jobs and transit” to, “Put sustainable communities near jobs and transit”. If we build dense housing developments near jobs without adequate infrastructure, there will be no linkage between the jobs and the housing. The jobs will go away, because employees won’t want to live nearby and won’t be able to get to work due to congestion.
Items 1-6 by Kerri #36 is the longest piece of bureaucratic drivel I have read in a while.
A committee of bureaucrats meets endlessly to put this jibberish language together about park needs vs. housing vs. business in a given area. The bureaucrats’ jobs depend upon endless community input meetings, expensive studies by analysts and consultants, all leading to NO REAL RESULTS. They issue a “report” laden with drivel like what she wrote above.
It’s like the city pool closure thing. The “professional staff” decides that we should pay some consultant a ton of money to “analyze community pool needs” and such, then the consultant sends the report to the bureaucrats to meet endlessly to come up with some bureaucratic-speak drivel like the stuff above on parks. Clearly the job is too much for the “professional staff” so they farm it out at great expense to the taxpayers so that someone else can tell them what should be done. Then the “professional staff” wastes a lot more time massaging it around to come up with a recommendation to the council. Whew, at least a year and a lot of dollars wasted, with NO RESULTS.
The community knows what it needs, even though the consultants do not. THEY WANT THE POOLS OPEN, STUPID…SOON!!!
So just repair the pools and everyone’s happy…except the consultants, who make no money unless they can study the obvious to death, and the “professional staff” who have no direction from outside, and no paper to push upline and downline.
And people wonder why we have budget deficits.
#36 Nope, I’m not a bureaucrat! And I don’t even get paid for what I do. State Quimby Act based park ordinances are by nature complicated. I agree with you that everyone wants to see results! So do I. Getting adequate funding for basic infrastructure is only one part of the puzzle. The city needs to be able to maintain its amenities to provide access to people during their lifetime. The endless studies drive everybody nuts!