There was a strange and bizarre convergence of issues at the San Jose City Council this week. On the one hand, there was the 1stACT Silicon Valley presentation of proposals for downtown—large and small items that included expanding the Convention Center, building a baseball stadium and 21st century light tower, and creating more Guadalupe River trails, as well as fountains and quiet spots that are a treasure to any city. They accurately presented them as big projects and “small wonders.” A key man behind this was the Adobe CEO, Bruce Chizen, as good a friend as downtown dreamers have had in a long while, and the main presenter was Connie Martinez of the Children’s Discovery Museum. The finances were unspoken, but the vision was impressive. It is a wonderful look at what might be.
On the other hand was the request by police, fire, and other city retirees to increase their pensions by nearly $3 million annually. A pall descended on a chamber full of tremendous hopes and, in the latter case, needs—yet little money.
This could happen only in America, or, more precisely, only in a San Jose, where our city government has been buffeted by years of poor decisions, bad budgeting, and eternally pliable backbones. There are so many self-inflected wounds that they are difficult to count. Our nick name could be “porcupine city.”
Let’s look a bit deeper. Such proposals as these are reflective of two simple facts: a citizenry desirous of a new start for our downtown and a public employee group kept oblivious to fiscal reality while councils were bought by outside interests or merely confused. These are hard workers for our city—good people all. No one values or respects them more than I do, particularly our public safety officers. I voted for increased. salaries, higher staffing, and moral support to those who risk everything for us all the dozen years that I was at City Hall, but facts are cruel things, and the instability of our city budget, abetted by certain union leaders, has cast a shadow over all that San Jose wants to accomplish and to be.
We have come to a fork in the road for our city’s future and, unlike Yogi Berra, we cannot just “take it.” A good deal of fortitude and a lot of hard work lie ahead, but we have a good chance to set things right here if we think clearly and act courageously.
I’m in the dark about the 21st century light tower, enlighten me. I’ve seen the renderings in the paper, but know little else.
Wonder Woman,
The light tower idea would be in the fountain area of chavez park.
The 21st Century Light Tower is a modern, technologically appropriate reincarnation of the old LIght Tower that stood at Market and Santa Clara Sts. from 1882-1915 – the Tower Saloon of past glory was named for it. TMcE
It’s an interesting vision but in typical San Jose fashion, Connie Martinez was quoted as saying “We didn’t come forward with a financial plan. We came forward with a vision.” A vision is great but if there is no money to fund it then it’s a waste of time and talent.
Sorry to correct you Mr. McEnery, but the Light Tower had its groundbreaking on August 11, 1881 and was officially dedicated on December 13, 1881 @ 6:30 pm. It collapsed on December 3, 1915. J.J. Owens was the driving force behind this concept of a “high light”, hoping to illuminate vast areas of the city. I beleive that fifteen of these structures were envisioned to grace our fair city, but that never came to fruition.
A 21st Century Light Tower? Wouldn’t that just be a big neon sign? We can’t have that in little old San Jose…
Thanks, Mr. Stolp – I admire corrections, particularly when they are correct. Good job. My ‘crack’ staff may have thought San Jose was still using the old Julian calender. TMcE
I know more about the old tower than the proposed new one, and the saloon, how could I forget the stained glass widow! I probably still have some matches in my own museum.
Is the new tower proposed throught the Parks and Recreation Commission or the Arts Commission?
Sounds like it’s really going to be great! Let’s hope a race car doesn’t destroy it, maybe by the time it’s built, we will no longer have the race downtown!
San Jose’s major problem is that is that the City is more interested in providing employee benefits than in providing citizens’ benefits!
Bond elections pass because the people want and need additions such a new schools and parks and buildings, but the tax income cash that should be used for upkeep (and for street repairs) goes to pensions and health that the citizens don’t have for themselves!
This MUST change! One solution is to outsource repairs and maintainance!
Jerry R.
Baseball stadium? We ain’t got no baseball stadium. We don’t need no baseball stadium.
Light Tower? We ain’t got no Light Tower. We don’t need no Light Tower.
Plan on building 40 story towers, state of the art theater facilities, stadium, hotels and etc.. Just look outside in downtown and see what it’s showed for, nothing! All they do is talk, talk, talk and talk! Doesn’t this sound like Fresno? They dreamed for the last 35 years to develop downtown and nothing got built! What a lunetics!
The main problem with San Jose is that the the City is more interested in providing employee benefits than in providing citizens’ benefits!
Jerry R
I’m not sure the 21st Century Light Tower is a priority, but one possible funding source for that project might be the Silicon Valley Board of Realtors. In 1979 the San Jose Board of Realtors funded the scale model of the original light tower located in Kelley Park. Maybe the Realtors would like to continue that effort…
The “City” isn’t the citizens and taxpayers; it’s not even the polticians. It’s the bureaucrats.
Doesn’t matter what the folks want or even need. The folks are busy working and living. But the ‘crats’ are there 8 to 5 every day but weekends, and many, many holidays.
They have lots of opportunities, many more than the City Council, to “work” the money. And accountability??? Performance evaluations? Not a tradition in San Jose. Just today the Murky mentioned two 7.5 million dollar contracts for supplying expertise to manage airport construction because city employees don’t have the time(??) or knowledge to manage the project. Isn’t that in itself an evaluation? And please explain retired employee cheekiness in coming back to the money bags Council to ask (demand!) IMPROVEMENTS! in their already bestowed benefits. Tom talks about how wonderful the city employees are, and so does Chuck. But just send in a Nobody to get a building permit, or apply for a zoning change,
or get approval for the simplest building project. One would quickly find out how wonderful the employees are. And what structure is in place to hear citizen complaints about city employee malfeasance? Is there an Ombudsman anywhere in the Taj Gonzales/Chavez? City Councils and other Boards are terrified of the “staff”, and/or they use them. Criticizing staff is totally unacceptable, and you get to experience the consequences. It’s a miracle that there is ANY
money for just plain citizens. It would be helpful to see a chart in the Murky of the number of city employees fired for cause in the last 100 yrs. in SJ.
That said, the “Dream for downtown, lacking any strategy for execution, is just a kids Christmas list. And how exciting to spend more money on that stupid ditch that runs thru downtown, the Let’s Pretend Park that you can’t see, the perfect place to shelter mayhem. And another piece of the past—a light tower, or two or three, put where the city center might, or might not, end up being.
Lots of talk about capitol of Silicon Valley, but we keep coming back to prunes and apricots, and the little fortunes, and grand houses, built on them. There’s not an item in The Dream that projects “Capitol of Silicon Valley”. If Town & Country Village can reinvent itself, how come downtown SJ can’t? Even Santa Clara has, with lots fewer resources. Of course, we’re headed for employee retirement of 100% of top salary, so we’d better get this show on the road while we have 10% of the taxes left for the most modest of dreams. George Green
Jeff, an excellent idea! I’ll bet that giving the SJREB naming rights and ad space on the tower would fully fund construction.
Similarly, I wonder if we could sell naming rights and ad space for the PD and Fire Departments. That might go a long way to funding the pension and health benefits.
#5 is correct. Without a plausable plan to pay for it, the plan’s just a wanking exercise.
The faculty of San Jose State have voted to go on strike. As for the people who cross the picket lines, their name should be SCD
Doctor of Scab
15 – There is not much point in refuting what you say since you obviously have a very skewed vision of city employees. I will take note, though, of your comment the council is “terrified” of the staff and it is unacceptable to criticize them. You apparently did not attend a council meeting during the past 8 years when staff bashing rose to the level of spectator sport by the council. With no real city manager at the time, Borgsdorf sat back a let his staff take hit after hit from the council—even when the council was wrong!
Most of your comments are laughable, from the one about the “ditch” running through downtown to your attacks on staff. There is room for criticism about many things in city hall but it really doesn’t serve anyone to launch attacks with nothing constructive to offer.
Good Evening Tom,
I wanted to try to put some things in perspective. First of all, the Association of Retired Police Officers and Firefightes is not asking for an increase in our pension benefits. What we are trying to address is an inequity in how our survivors benefits are structured. I would acknowledge that adding a survivorship benefit to those who married after retirement can be seen as an increase in pension benefits since it is within the plan. The thrust of our request is directly solely at our survivors. It seems odd that an individual’s spouse would be denied a benefit dependent upon when the marriage took place, but that is what the code dictates. Times change, social demographics change, and it is time to acknowledge those changes and stay current with the times. This specific benefit carries a cost of $242,000. (and affects about 38 survivors, 8 of whom have already lost their husbands and have no benefits or survivorship allowance and are all in their 70’s)
The other change has to do with medical insurance. When a retiree passes away, the plan realilzes a decrease in costs anywhere from $300 to $450 dollars a month in savings (the cost of a “family” plan changing to a “single” plan). At the same time, the surviving spouse realizes an increase from $20 to $80 a month. This occurs with the benefit changing from a pension to a survivorship allowance (a decrease of 50%). It seems to me that there is an opportunity for both sides to share in the cost reduction. The cost of this benefit is $175,000.
So, we are criticized for our “timing”, and insultingly by the “what were they thinking” comment by the newspaper. I agree, timing is everything, and it certainly isn’t the best right now. However, did anyone notice that the San Jose Police and Fire Retirement Plan had a savings of $25 million (City Manage’s budget message)? This would seem like an opportunity to address some of these issues. So what were we thinking? Well, we are thinking that there was a need to address the economic issues that some women are facing today—that with the savings that the plan experienced (a savings reflected by outstanding earnings and a 98.5% funding level) we could stoop down just a little to help some people out. We were thinking that people might put a face on what we are trying to accomplish and not just dismiss our requests out of hand.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should acknowledge that I am a retired Firefighter from the City of San Jose, Vice-Chair of the San Jose Police and Fire Retirement System, and a former President of the Firefighters Union-
Ken Heredia
Mr. Green, you’re getting close to the truth regarding pension benefits. Public employees have been gaming the system for years, much like any union would, looking for “comps” in other locales to justify ever-increasing pensions.
It becomes an endless case of “me too” with city #1 granting a higher benefit, city #2 leveraging off of city #1’s success and so on. Perhaps we should just make the giant leap and offer full salary pensions at age 50, fully indexed for cost of living. That’s really not much more than is offered presently.
Generous health and pension benefits for public sector employees used to make sense when those employees earned less than their private sector counterparts. Currently, however, I would judge that public and private sector salaries are about comparable. Oh well, who might stand up and champion ending this benefit creep?
Pensions for police and fire are way out of line. I’ve been working for the same private company for over 32 years and will be lucky to get a 50% pension. Things need to change…
#15—George Green
You can make complaints and file concerns about City employees using the City’s whistleblower hotline.
Phone: 535-8200
email:
ho*****@sa*******.gov
Even Tom feels obligated to lavish praise on public safety employees before questioning their latest benefit increase request. Hey, I love ‘em too, but when do we draw the line? I mean, it’s a noble profession, so why not increase their salaries another 20%? Hey, why not just double it?
Compensation and benefits for civic employees (public safety included) should be high enough to ensure an adequate supply of well-qualified applicants. And compensation needn’t be any higher! Is there a shortage of qualified fire and police applicants? I very much doubt it.
Let supply and demand set the compensation. It’s the American way.
George Green, surely you are not talking about “downtown” Santa Clara having re-invented itself. That’s pretty tough to do when you obliterate what once was a lively main drag, and the proof is right there in the moribund old quad.
JD, back in the 70’s the focus was on making a San Antonio-esque river walk on the Guadalulpe, and included junkets to San Antonio by Council members. A project that should have gone forward but this town’s leadership has consistently lacked the conviction to pursue such things. But hey everybody around the world, look at us, the Capital of Silicon Valley! We put a turd downtown instead of a river walk! Talk about a backward approach.
For Ken Heredia—- Ken, as usual, you make some very thoughtful and reasoned points. You were a good leader as I remember. Unfortunately, for the last several yrs., your old union and the other municipal unions have not looked at the city’s financial picture, and made reasoned proposals – They have tried to “buy” politicians and subvert the process. Perhaps they figured it was the way things are. That sad chapter is over thankfully, and it will take a long time to regain the trust of the citizens. All progress in the city is based on that simple, and now elusive item. TMcE
With private industry (particularly in Silicon Valley) moving to defined contribution instead of defined benefit retirement plans, why shouldn’t the City of San Jose do likewise.
Old-line corporations like GM and Ford are being demolished by these unfunded benefits. We are starting to see the same thing in municipalities as crediting agencies are demanding that these retirement benefits be accounted for.
All of the talk about savings etc in the current programs doesn’t mean much when the government accounting practices lag behind those required by public companies.
If defined contribution programs are good enough for Silicon Valley’s finest, they should be good enough for public employees.
OK, someone has to explain the concern over “employee benefits” being too high. San Jose has two retirement boards; one for Police and fire, and one for the other San Jose Employees, which San Jose Employees pay into out of their own paychecks. As for other benefits, San Jose Employees negotiate them with the City. Benefits offered to Employees are based on those negotiations. I am assuming that everyone is not taking about the Retirement Boards, but the cost of benefits – Health care, Dental, etc. Can someone explain how this is a problem, and what people think could be done differently?
#23, thanks for the tip on the hotline; might have saved a two year battle in which no staff hotshot ever mentioned the hotline. #22: good point about “vision”, except that Sobrato’s building shouldn’t be included in the duds. It’s the only building downtown that has any “presence” and is far more stately than Richard Meier’s Gonzo/Chavez dome and messy looking albino high rise, “sited” in exactly the wrong place, unless you’re looking for a sandwich or a rebuilt Ford generator. The Big Blue Bldg. does have vision (and public parking). But probably the O-N-L-Y bit of vision downtown is Tom’s Shark Tank. It looks BIG CITY. Quetzlcoatl, the Guadalupe Ditch, the funky “International” airport are visionless. The convention center is so half-hearted, made even worse by the multi-million dollar tent. (managed by high paid, underperforming staff, carefully selected by “persons of influence” on the city staff)(Even the dominant history buffs have their Haye’s Mansion fiasco, involving yet more wonderful city staff, and need for a subsidy to slurp yet more tax money). #27, I said that Town and Country Village reinvented itself—as Santana Row—not Santa Clara. SC may not have a downtown, but it does have Great America, its fun little convention center, its absolutely terrific parks and neat as a pin neighborhoods, once a year throw anything and everything out to be picked up for free campaign, cheap electricity—all testifying to its excellent city staff, good management—-and love for its citizens and taxpayers. Yet the Murky always trashes Santa Clara, and San Jose can’t think of a thing about our well managed neighbor they’d like to copy.
As for visions and wish lists, I would suggest that Chuck and Sam and Pete and Pierluigi and David go about getting a vision from a vision person. DO NOT CONSULT CITY STAFF. Their inflamed egos wouldn’t take the job on anyway; they’d just draw up a contract costing milions for expertise and time. Phone the New Yorker and get someone to come out to find out about the essence of Silicon Valley, then attach it to a business plan. And keep the history of San Jose folks out of it except to do something with all thise cute old houses near Henry’s Hi Life. That’ll keep ‘em busy and out of the way.
George Green
Well stated in #30 George but have to disagree about Sobrato vs. Meir. Other than the east-facing side which was woefully under-architected, CH continues to grow on me as a very well thought out design. Please note I’m leaving cost of constructing these two buildings out of the scenario. I’m just talking architecture here.
I lived in Santa Clara for a time and while the town is for the most part neat and clean, the politics are historically a mess and deserve the treatment they get from the Merc. However, it’s trash days in SC right now and every time I pass through there on my way to work I ask myself why SJ can’t offer something similar on a reduced scale. I completely understand that in a city of 1,000,000 you can’t offer the same level of free wheeling disposal as SC from a cost standpoint, and have to say that I hope SC is doing some sorting and recycling, otherwise that whole clean-up routine is on a large scale environmentally irresponsible. All I’ve seen SJ offer is dumpsters maybe every other year, and they are only there for a few hours on a Saturday morning and you have to sort everything. I can work with that and would like to see it as a scheduled yearly event all over town. The way it’s being presented currently is like your council rep is doing you this favor of providing dumpsters. Cut out the middle man and just do this for the citizens on a yearly basis regardless of who their council rep is.
I wouldn’t want to live in Santa Clara again. I don’t know what it is, but there’s a creepy Stepford vibe in that boastfully “All American City.” Another contrast between SC and SJ is most evident when you drive up The Alameda. As soon as you see the SC city limit sign, the trees stop. Same thing to a slightly lesser degree on Park Avenue and on Monroe. So many parts of SC are not tree-friendly and don’t even have parking strips to accommodate them. I don’t find Santa Clara neighborhoods beautiful. They are tidy, yes, but beautiful, no. Trees can make a big difference, but SC is so hung up on cleanliness that they don’t want trees messing things up. Something about that town that’s just a bit off and I wouldn’t want to live there again. I’ll pay my higher electric bill here in SJ. It’s an OK trade-off in my book.
Kinda sorta related to the “Vision.” Anyone know the status of the EIR relating to the proposed high speed rail route from the Central Valley to Bay Area? Odds are that the bullet train system will never get built, but I think we can all agree that the Pacheco Pass route should get the nod over the Altamont Pass alternative; emphasizing San Jose as the gateway into the Bay Area. If this thing ever does break ground, it will go along way toward enhancing the “Vision,” tranforming Diridon Station into a “Grand Central Station West.”
John B. says that supply and demand should set compensation of city employees. I heard that the city gets thousands of applications for firefighter jobs.
There doesn’t seem to be much of a problem on the supply side.
#30 George Green
“And keep the History of San Jose folks out of it” Without the History of San Jose folks, we would have lost the Peralta Adobe, Jose Theater, Montgomery Hotel, California Theater, First Church of Christ Science, River Street, Haughton Donner Mansion, Del Monte Plant#52, Scheller House at SJS and St. James Park as we know it. This is just the short list. Mr. Green I have lived in San Jose all of my life and am not aware of what you have contributed to this great City. Would you please compare your accomplishment to those “History Folks” .
Folks, every major project ever undertaken started with a “vision.”
The true test of the quality of the vision is whether or not people will band together to join in the vision and bring it to fruition.
Prior to 1982, the only thing I thought about when riding the bus down Santa Clara Street near the Guadalupe River was “We Are The Dealin’est!” But, some people had a “vision” and were able to bring about an arena that very few people can deny has been a significant long-term asset to San Jose and the surrounding communities.
Some visions go well. Others (Pavilion, Sobrato Building, GonzoDome) do not.
But we are ill-served as a community if we reject out of hand any proposed project just because it does not have attached to it an itemized price tag. I would have to imagine that whatever money was paid for construction of the San Jose Arena has been recouped by the city, possibly even multiple times throughout the years.
Could the Guadalupe River be turned into a California version of San Antonio’s RiverWalk? Has anyone ever dared to ask?
A new replica of the old light tower? It’s been proposed numerous times, but what’s the benefit besides a big, ole light in downtown that will be obscured from sight for 60% of the city by most of the buildings down there?
If a project is worthy, I believe it will find the money.
We just have to ensure that it’s worthy, and not just another Quetzlcoatl waiting to happen.
In the Merc today: Wolf wants to have industrial land rezoned to residential. Didn’t someone here a few weeks ago say that we should trust Mr. Wolf to come up with a good way to fund the stadium? Sure lets rezone land that contributes to our tax base to land that takes away from it so he can line his pockets with money. He is the some guy that cost the tax payers an extra $13,000,000 to move the Montgomery Hotel so he could get RDA funding for his Fairmont Hotel. I hope the city thinks outside the box on the IBM property. Lowes has lost three times in the courts on trying to demolish the IBM#25 building. Word has it that Lowes’ lawyers have found a way to get around the letter of the law, (not the spirit) and are still pressuring council to demolish the National Landmark Building, along with 365 trees (156 are ordinance trees). Why not come up with a creative solution where everyone gets what they want. If they move the Lowes’ project where Wolf wants to build and make it a mixed use project, Lowes on the first floor and Wolf’s housing above, then we would save IBM#25 as a community center and the trees for a park. We get housing, a park with mature trees, a National Landmark Community Center, and some tax base to support the project. All involved would have to check their ego’s at the door to make it work. “IF” they cared about what is best for SJ they would make it happen.
#34 “Sure, let’s rezone land that contributes to our tax base to land that takes away from it so he can line his pockets with money.”
The land that Lew Wolff is eyeing off 85 is currently a huge plot of weeds and overgrowth. Last time I checked, weeds and overgrowth weren’t contributing to our tax base. C’MON PEOPLE! Let’s stop trying to create controversy where there isn’t any! Besides, how many office parks across SJ have “Space for Lease” signs gracing their facades? To many if you ask me. In closing big “IF,” the land that Lew wants probably would remain a realm of weeds if not for his housing plans.
34 – It’s thinking like yours that could cause San Jose to get a reputation of respecting its past while planning for its future. You have a good idea. Any chance the decision-makers would actually get this creative and let Lowes know who is in charge here in SJ?
Re: 32
I disagree here, Anthony. I believe that the Altamont route is the way to go, especially for us here in San Jose.
(Much more info, including maps, available at http://arch21.org )
1. The Altamont corridor is more populated (higher ridership), more developed, and less environmentally sensitive than the comparatively pristine Pacheco corridor.
2. It is a faster, more direct route to Stockton and Sacramento. A big advantage for San Jose interests traveling to the Capitol to help keep the pork flowing.
3. It can serve SJC airport directly, right at the Terminal A parking garage.
4. It would allow a high speed version of the ACE commuter train, connecting housing-rich areas of the Central Valley with the South Bay. Stops could be built at SJC, North First and Trimble, Great Mall, Fremont (connect to BART), Livermore (ditto) and Tracy.
5. And most selfishly: Who here wants to board a LA-bound train at San Jose Diridon and find that all the good seats have already been taken by people from SF and the Peninsula? Who in San Jose will enjoy LA-SF express trains whisking through town without stopping, and miles and miles of elevated structures along Monterey Blvd? Being on the trunk line (with the Pacheco route) isn’t all wine and roses.
Those who favor the Pacheco route point out that the Altamont route would put San Jose on its own line which splits from the line serving San Francisco. They claim this is a negative against Altamont, when it is actually a positive. San Jose can and should aspire to be its own final destination in Northern California, rather than being perceived as Just Another Stop On The Way To SF.
Imagine hearing in LA Union Station: “Train XXX to San Jose now boarding Track YY.” Regular advertisements for San Jose disguised as station announcements, subtly reinforcing the idea that San Jose is an Important Place. The Altamont route will make San Jose its own destination and give us seat selection we, ahem, deserve, while minimizing high speed train operating impacts to our city.
Every time the city rezones industrial land for housing, we go deeper in debt. Although the land may be vacant at the moment, when the time comes for industrial development it will be too late if there is housing already built. It is short sighted planning that has put us into the hole we’re in now. Converting this land is like giving us a shovel and telling us to keep digging. If you like the budget deficit we have now you’ll just love it when it increases due to our rezoning industrial land for housing.
So let’s understand what the impact of Wolff’s conversion of industrial land to housing means
1) 1500 homes that do not pay for city services they require in a city already underfunding parks, pools and services
2) 3000 more cars on 101 or 85 to jobs in North San Jose or other cities since we have few jobs in South San Jose and other cities have jobs for our residents
3) more land lost to future job growth near excess homes
4) Part of land is zoned for needed retail shopping next to 101 / 85 and we lose 25% retail sales taxes to other cities since we lack retail stores near housing
Have Wollf build housing in North San Jose or downtown near excess jobs rather than add 3000 cars to commute across city to jobs
Nobody listened, when I warned the SNI’s last month that the Wolfe was at the door looking to rezone industrial land to residential at the expense of our community!!! Did you folks really think the Wolfe was going to magnanimously fork over $80M for a stadium with no strings attached? Where are the Big Soccer and Big Thunder posters now?
Edenvale SNI do we really need “the Wolfe” to build another 3,000 housing units and convert prime potential employment generating land when District 2 residents have already allowed over 300 acres of potential employment generating land to be rezoned by Hitachi Global GST and Signature Properties to residential so they could build 3,000 housing units? Wake up!!! 6,000 housing units is what entire cities like Sunnyvale and Santa Clara have to build for the next decade just to keep up with their own housing demand. Doesn’t anyone care that Oak Grove School District Elementary and Middle Schools have portable temporary class rooms on every campus and 40-yr old buildings that need to be remodeled? Where do you think the kids from these developments are going to go to school? How many of you remember that Eastside Union High School District is still facing a budget crisis? Remember these school districts needed the residents 2-years ago to pass bonds just to keep up with the current demand to remodel their aging campuses? Hitachi GST made over $300M with the help of the Morley-Hunter PR Group when its 300 acres was rezoned and then exported jobs to China where it built a brand new hard drive manufacturing plant that could have built in San Jose.
San Jose needs to keep this land as industrial zoning so we can keep the minimal number of existing employers we have. At this current time, Sony is planning to close its campus in North San Jose. It is seeking to rezone that campus to industrial so the Irvine Company can build several thousand apartment units. The Office of Economic Derrangement has signaled to Sony that it will support this request for rezoning as long as Sony agrees to relocate their Headquarters somewhere else in San Jose. Parcels like the I-Starr parcel that the Wolfe is eyeing need to be kept as industrial so companies like Sony can stay in San Jose.
Edenvale SNI and District 2 residents, start organizing now!!! Call the planning department and get on the official mailing lists for any applications filed for his property. File public records request with the City Clerk for any related documents or e-mails regarding this proposal. Start talking to your neighbors about a circulating a formal referendum petition opposing any proposed rezoning or general plan amendment to residential as the Murky News reports that Paul Krutko and OED support for the I-Starr Property. Additionally, remember that Forest Williams is termed out in 2008 and that this an opporunity to elect a real Council Member who will work to protect the quality of life of District 2 residents and save our employment lands.
#37,
Mr. Sock,
Thanks for the kind response regarding future high-speed rail. I would agree with your position regarding Altamont if not for the following: San Jose currently suffers from poor southern access with our two-lane farm road known as the Pacheco Pass highway. The Pacheco Pass route for Bay Area HSR would give San Jose/Santa Clara County residents a much needed alternative to the “Blood Alley” that is Hwy 152. If someone here could tell me that a limited access freeway is in the making between Gilroy/101 and Los Banos/I-5, I will gladly join the Altamont camp. You do make good points Mr. Sock, but the big question remains…will HSR ever get built (or put on the 08 ballot)?
Lastly, regarding the VTA’s financial turmoil: Make the BART extension to SJ/SC and Caltrain improvements from PA to Gilroy the PRIORITY for 2000 Measure A funds! For now, postpone (or eliminate) all future light-rail extensions (substitute proposed lines with enhanced bus service if necessary). Also review every current bus line and eliminate routes that are underserved or not used period; to many times I have seen VTA buses, especially after 6pm and on weekends, driving around with 1,2…even 0 passengers on-board. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money!
#41,
I’m glad that you recognize the merits of High Speed Rail over the Altamont route. But Hwy 152 is a problem that needs to be dealt with separately from HSR. Unimproved, 152 will still be a congested, dangerous road that’s the only option for most people driving on it, even if HSR is built right next to it. There are no guarantees in life, but pro-highway widening interests have a good record, and should be able to deliver a wider 152, especially with the Mercury News and Mr. Roadshow setting a steady drumbeat.
On the other hand, HSR is in a more politically precarious position, and will have to spend wisely even if the oft-delayed bond passes. HSR needs the higher population density of the Altamont corridor to be successful. Building HSR is not just about enabling long-distance trips to Southern Cal, it’s about enhancing a rail network to make it more useful for shorter local trips too, including commuter service. That’s the way these projects are planned in the rest of the world.
For those keeping score at home:
Stations served only by Pacheco route: Los Banos, Gilroy
Stations served only by Altamont route: Modesto, Tracy, Livermore, Fremont, San Jose Airport
SJ-Sac via Pacheco: 252 mi.
SJ-Sac via Altamont: 134 mi.
Oh yeah, the SJ-Fremont segment of HSR via Altamont would make BART to SJ largely redundant! I guess that’s a big reason why the Pacheco route is popular among SJ interests. Time to kill the BART beast now, because building it will multiply VTA’s ongoing financial disaster manifold. Remember, VTA is in big trouble already and they’re hardly begun spending the real money on BART. Once construction commences, and after completion, a financial black hole will start sucking serious money from taxpayers, while bus and light rail falls into a spiral of fare hikes, service cuts, and ridership loss similar to VTA’s post-dotcom hangover. It happened to SamTrans with BART to SFO, and now their “divorce” is almost final.
Why BART is NOT answer to Santa Clara County’s transit problems and will cause either massive tax increases or massive reductions in existing bus and rail or both
1) BART is most costly custom rail system to build and operate in US with different track width ( about 1 foot wider ) that can not physically connect to other light rail systems like VTA Light Rail, High Speed rail etc so requires passengers to get off and go across platform to other rail system cars
ALL transit experts and transit advocates except VTA Board politicians see this as stupid and very costly to build a custom built rail system rather use standard cars that can physically connect to other systems.
2) VTA consultant s stated VTA mismanaged VTA’s projects and have over $3 billion underfunded for existing operations. Transit advocates estimate that VTA will be short another $ 4-8 billion in construction ( $ 10-12 billion total over $ current 4-6 billion due to VTA unrecognized cost increases ) plus $100 million year additional unfunded operating costs if proposed BART is built
3) BART will not solve inside Santa Clara County transit availability and connect people to where to go – jobs, shopping , airport etc without $5-8 billion in additional costs for Light rail to connect to homes and jobs
Where is this money coming from to pay for construction costs ( BART $10-12 billion ) and VTA unfunded $100 million year in BART increased operations costs for a system that does not go to jobs, shopping or airport and is rated as worst transit operators in US?
#40 Asian Voter
I am a District 2 resident and am in full agreement with you on this issue. One more issue to raise is how this conversion fits into the Coyote Valley scheme. Converting this land without thinking of the long-term impacts undermines what the community should try to do in Coyote Valley. Preserve Industrial land as a first priority!
To allow it just for a soccer stadium is short-sighted. The reality is that the conversion would not be part of an intelligent plan. Rather, it would be a HUGE pay off to a developer to build a soccer stadium. We are better off using City money to build the stadium while maintaining the D2 land in question as industrial and retail. The long term tax benefits would more than pay for a stadium if we developed an intelligent plan.
When it comes to development, I think the City should start to exercise patience rather than spontaneous excitement over opportunities that tap our resources and make our city less liveable.
#35 A.D.
Lowes and Wolf want to demolish our natural and historic resources, put a drain on our tax base, increase smog and traffic and you say I am “trying to create controversy where there isn’t any”? I would hate to see what it takes for you to consider something to be a controversy. 36, 38, 39, and 40, well said! I am glad to see that San Jose citizens are smart enough to see that we have a real problem here. I hope our City leaders understand the issuse as well as you!
#35 Anthony D.
You say “the land Lew wants probably would remain a realm of weeds if not for his housing.”
If this land is soooo undesirable, then would you please explain why other developers, at the IBM site, are spending millions on demolishing the buildings and putting up non-residential projects. People like you keep telling our City leaders that San Jose land is worthless so people like Wolf can get rich at our expense. Get a clue, it is time that we all start to respect the value of our land, environment, heritage and neighborhoods.
#46,
“please explain why other developers, at the IBM site, are spending millions demolishing the buildings and putting up non-residential projects.” HUHH!? You might want to do a little more research, BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL WILL BE GOING IN AT THE OLD IBM SITE! In the form of mixed-use development; townhomes, condos, ground-floor retail, big box. Lew Wolff’s proposal could augment what is already being developed. With the site sandwiched between light-rail and Caltrain, this could be transit oriented development at its best; I don’t believe we’re talking tract homes here. Someone here said it best in an earlier post…San Jose is a city of nearly a million people, so let’s start acting like it! By the way, I love San Jose more!
#47 Mr. Dominguez
In your post on #35, you state “If the land that Lew (Are you on a first name basis?) wants probabaly would remain a realm of weeds if not for his housing plans.” But then in #47 you state that the land is desirable for residential,mixed use retail and big box, and is ideally located between light rail and Caltrans. Make up your mind, is it an undesireable weed patch that only Mr. Wolf would want, or is it ideal for big box or mixed use. If it is the latter, then why are you disputing the idea of #34 that combines Lows’ project and the Wolf’s project? What is your point? Why wouldn’t you want to save trees, a national landmark buiding and keep demolished building materials out of our landfills? A mixed use development between Lowes and Wolf that would minimize the residential drain on SJ’s tax base? Do you love San Jose, or do you love making a quick buck off of them at the expense of the neighborhoods?
Tom said: “the main presenter was Connie Martinez of the Children’s Discovery Museum. The finances were unspoken, but the vision was impressive. It is a wonderful look at what might be.”
The Murky News reported:“When Councilwoman Madison Nguyen asked about financing all of the ideas presented by the group, there was a brief silence, with members of 1stACT quickly turning heads to see who would answer the question. ‘We didn’t come forward with a financial plan,’ said Connie Martinez, one of the founders of 1stACT. ‘We came forward with a vision.’”
Well isn’t that just too precious, and too typical of our artists and not-for-profit types!!
Grandiose schemes and plans for using other people’s money, to which artists in particular have seemed to believe for millenia they have a god-given right to use.
Our parks and roads suck, bloated school district offices with useless administrators suck up big bucks with no results trickling down to the students, we have huge unfunded liabilities for pensions and perpetual health care for retired government types, and the visionary Ms. Martinez didn’t even consider financing.
Dream on, lady. We need basic city services before we splurge on wonderful, visionary, desirable, but out of our range of affordability, stuff. Come back again when you do have a financing plan, and most of it should be coming from the private sector.
#48,
Is it “Just the Facts” or “Just trying to confuse the hell out of everyone?” Listen carefully…the plot of land that Lew Wolff wants to develop in South San Jose is currently a plot of weeds/former ochard. Go a little bit northwest towards Cottle Road, and Hitachi is developing the former IBM site as mixed-use; townhomes, condos, retail, big box (Lowes), small scale industrial. All I’m saying is that Lew Wolff’s proposal would most likely be in the likes of what’s already going on next door…smart transit oriented development, with an enjoyable soccer/football stadium to boot. Yes, I love San Jose, and I want this city to be the best that it could possibly be.
Sorry, Sock #42, but commuter service is not High speed rail, it is LOW speed rail.
BART is commuter service. Every train stops at every station. No high speed there, either.
When I think HSR, I think TGV in France. Stations are a long way apart; which is the only way to keep it HIGH speed.
#48
FYI, Hitachi is not developing the proposed Lowes’ site. The land still belongs to IBM. Lowes wants to demolish a City, State and National Landmark along with 385 trees to put up a Super Big Box. My question is, do you support #45’s recommenda to combine Wolf’s and Lowes projects in order to reduce Lowes’ negative impact on historic and natural resources, and Wolf’s negative impact on the tax base? If not Why?
Re #51 “Sorry but commuter service is not High speed rail, it is LOW speed rail”:
You really have to get out more! Or just read a book. Or just surf the web.
Pretty much EVERY high speed line in the world is built with “commuter” service an integral part of it. It would be insane
to spend massive amounts of money on expensive infrastructure and then leave it idle 80% of the time (4 long-distance international/long-distance train demand an hour, 20 trains/hour line capacity.)
How is it that the UK has spent £250 million buying
commuter trains to run on its new high speed line into London?
How is it that far more regional (ie commuter) trains
than long-distance internaitonal trains will run on the
new high speed line into Amsterdam?
How is it that commuter service started up last December
on Germany’s newest high speed line?
How is it that at least eight different services other than
Madrid-Barcelona intercity expresses are set to operate
on the new high speed line into Barcelona?
How is it that the wildly sucessful Madrid-Cuidad Real
commuter trains run lmixed in with the wildly successful
Madrid-Sevilla high speed line on the same tracks?
Now I guess it’s possible that San Jose has a monopoly on
transportation planning expertise, and that everybody
else in the world should be attending to the sages at
the Mineta Institute, SJ City Hall and the SVLG, but I’d put
my money on everybody else in the world getting it
and on our local friends being the ignoramuses, as
demonstrated by their unrelieved record of failure.
(VTA light rail anyone? BART to Santa Clara?)
It’s really sad: this could and should be a huge win
for everybody, and in particular a massive win for
San Jose, but instead provincial paranoia, incredible
levels of technical ignorance, and pure stupidity are
sinking a state-wide plan for rail so that a single
BART tunnel gets dug under Santa Clara street.
#52,
Enough about the “City, State, and National Landmark”! Building 25 is an old dilapidated engineering building. I live in the area, have most all of my life, and could care less about it! Sure some historical engineering took place in the old place. Engineers drove on the old roads, but we still tear them up for improved new ones! I love the Hayes Mansion, and think it was great to preserve it. But come on! Building 25 is not significant enough in itself, and I beg to differ that it has some architectural significance. If you think its worth keeping, buy the dilapidated building with your own money! A revitalized Cottle Road area will greatly benefit MY neighborhood!