This past Tuesday, members of the San Jose City Council, city executives, and city staff got together to try and arrive at some about possible solutions for San Jose’s budget mess. They found none. According to the Mercury News, some of the “solutions” that were kicked around included keeping libraries open for only three days, closing some park restrooms on weekdays, and raising all kinds of fines and fees for expected city services.
“The city manager’s office asked the police and fire departments…to reduce costs up to 5 percent…all other city departments were asked to reduce costs up to 21.7 percent.”
But rather than cutting city departments evenly across the board, why doesn’t the council and the city manager’s office re-examine just what city departments are essential to the workings of a major, modern American city. In other words, should some city departments be eliminated alltogether?
Do we really need an office of economic development? (Can’t the local Chamber of Commerce fascilitate many of these same functions on behalf of the city?) What about the Cultural Affairs Department? (Can’t private donors, corporations, and other groups sponsor events and programs?) How about the city’s housing department? (Couldn’t this function be provided through the county government on a regional basis with San Jose contributing its fair share?).
To me, a city government should provide the basics: police and fire, parks, libraries, streets, sewers, and social services to the poor. IF (and when) these basic service levels are realized, and there’s money left over, then spend it on other pursuits like subsidizing rich developers or building glass rotundas
You really do hit the mark with your suggestions. I think, however, that our politicians somehow believe the City should be run like a charity, not a business.
I’ve heard nothing more about layoffs; you may recall that the recent plan was to reduce headcount by 18 out of approximately 7500. That amounts to 24/100 of one percent while our budget shortfall appears to be in the neighborhood of $75 million.
As for the glass rotunda, isn’t it a shame that we spent a half billion dollars for the new city hall, yet it’s fair market value is likely no more than $100 million. We could have instead purchased the Sobrato Building and pocketed $400 million… oh well.
Bravo, Pete! I’m with you all the way (up to “social services to the poor” because I think churches and private community organizations do a better job helping the needy). In these difficult times government, like business, needs to focus on the basics and make sure that they’re executing impeccably on the fundamentals.
Let’s see. Suppose you were an owner of a tennis shop near a large planned development for mixed use, and you were angry that no one paid you enough. What would you do?
Hmm, what would you do?
By the way, another note, our state budget has been approved. Abel Maldonado, a name that will go down in California history along with William Gwinn and Dave Terry, voted to approve the state budget. He gets his extortion money, an open primary. From now on, a maldo is someone who uses the political process to extort promises. Someone should have asked for tennis shop subsidies from the state using the Maldo.
“IF (and when) these basic service levels are realized, and there’s money left over, then spend it on other pursuits like subsidizing rich developers or building glass rotundas.”
How do you think we got into this mess? The basic services were being provided, some extra money showed up, the city spent it. Politicians have a huge problem with taking things away once they’ve been granted, but never seem to have difficulty spending found money.
RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m declaring victory because Pete Campbell actually believes in social services for the poor being a good thing!
To that end, I’ll concede that he may be, just may be right in his belief that some of these city departments may be unnecessary. But I’m just not sure which ones those would be.
Greg #1 wrote:” I think, however, that our politicians somehow believe the City should be run like a charity, not a business.”
Why didn’t I think of that as a way to describe what government at all levels has become?
That’s what government in the U.S.A. at all levels does these days—takes money from those who make it, and redistributes it—sometimes to individuals who don’t make any money, and at other times to individuals and companies who hire the best lobbyists to convince our rulers that they deserve the money more than those who actually earned it by hard work and perseverance.
At the end of the day, this redistribution of wealth to those deemed by the then-current administration as “deserving” is nothing more than the same kind of theft the feudal lords once exacted.
Government spending should be restricted to those areas where individuals and even groups could not posible provide the goods or services.
Government needs to get out of the charity business.
J #6—a large percentage of the “social services for the poor” which you praise is money distributed to people who have one or more children that they cannot possibly support, based upon their education and training.
Reinforcing that behavior is not a good thing.
My office is near the Mexican Consulate. Every day I see legions of well meaning folks line up for whatever reason. Yet, soooo many who are trying their best have way too many kids in tow. You can tell by a quick glance that so many of them cannot possibly support their families (I see women with four kids under the age of seven)no matter how hard they work.
If you want to help these folks, give them an education into not bringing into the world more kids than they can ever hope to support properly.
#8-JMO said, “If you want to help these folks, give them an education into not bringing into the world more kids than they can ever hope to support properly.”
Amen to that! Do it for the sake of the kids for God sake because in the end and at the end of the day, they are the ones that end up suffering for it.
Amen!!!!!!! The best column I’ve read on here in weeks.
Let San Jose lead a much needed revolution. Provide only basic services, nothing more, ever.
I disagree on only one point, if and when there’s money left over…DON’T SPEND IT! Save it for tougher times, or lower the tax burden.
Thanks Pete. Perfectly stated. Now if you wouldn’t mind, don some pointy ears and do a “mind meld” with the people down at Silly Hall.
#10 Joe Average, You’re right. Basic services only. If San Jose was the best in the USA at Basic Services, I think people would be amazed at the positive side effects.
Some members of the council and the mayor may read these comments. None will take them to heart.
Too bad we can’t add some names to the D-7 recall election coming up next month.
Nicely stated situation summary. When I think about what city government had become in San Jose, I come up with Entropy, Intertia and self-perpetuating growth.
When you start a new program or department, the people you hire want to move up, and rather than cross train or leave for another city, they’ll hire beneath them to enlarge their jobs. This means you can grow in place with a little paperwork magic and go from a 40k entry level job to a 90k job basically doing the same thing, but with a team under you (interns, part-timers, entry level people who actually do the work.)
When the budget gets bad, worst case scenario is you cut everyone who does the actual work and keep all the managers who have insulated themselves from real work, and then prepare reports on how closing public bathrooms, shuttering librarians and not repaving streets is good fiscal management in tough times.
Fundamentals say we can lose the managers who don’t do line work before we can afford to lose the workers. Flatten the org chart and eliminate 1 out of 3 at will workers (managers who aren’t paid by the hour but probably well compensated with car allowances, cushy offices, lots of assistants and 120k per year.
Then implement radical succession planning by allowing some on the job training opportunities for younger staff to cross train and cover some of the vacancies. Off voluntary furloughs for key staff just waiting to retire so you can take their monster salaries off the books for a year (off them some cash incentive to take a lot of sick and vacation time as well as unpaid time off) and then see what you can really do without.
As far as departments, if you have to close branch libraries before closing every other fluff department that provides “intangible benefits” its time to recall each and every member of the city council.
Great Post this week, and #12 well said. Personally I am tired of hearing that the same services are constantly on “the chopping block” – The collective intelligence in our city should be producing new ideas. I mean after the restrooms are closed, libraries scaled back, etc. what’s next?
#14, Helen, as I’ve long said, the model of balancing budgets by raising taxes and cutting services has to fail. We eventually run out of people to tax and services to cut!
California is experiencing a net out-migration of non-immigrant citizens. Businesses are leaving, or not entering or not expanding (can you say “Intel?”). The situation will not get any better until we change the paradigm.
We’re down to closing park bathrooms and libraries to keep funding incredible benefits for city employees, as well as the special interest groups feeding at the government trough.
The time for new ideas is now.
Here’s a starting thought. Let’s remove MLK’s Birthday, Presidents Day, Columbus Day, and Veterans Day as paid holidays for government workers. Give the employees one floating holiday to use as they see fit. It’s a small start, but different (OK, Arnie did something like this at the state level, but this is 50% more).
Pat, far too little… layoffs are the only way out. Do what businesses do – a 10% headcount reduction would just about balance the budget.
Did I see this correctly? On Monterrey Highway out by Tully there is a “City of San Jose” veterinarian facility. Is that run by the City?