City Hall Diary
During my first month in office, I have attended various community meetings. The residents at these meetings continue to share that they want their parks maintained, swimming pools opened, traffic calming measures funded, historic neighborhoods preserved, bike lanes installed, trails completed and the list goes on. Most, if not all, of these needs require money. Streets don’t pave themselves and speed bumps to calm traffic don’t just bubble up from the street.
For a city of its size, San Jose is the “biggest city” that receives the least from its sales tax revenue base. Part of the sales tax problem is that San Jose has made poor land use decisions regarding the location of retail centers. For example, Campbell and Milpitas built retail centers on the periphery of San Jose; therefore, their sales tax revenue increased because San Jose residents went there to shop. San Jose needs to take advantage of its borders and make land use decisions that generate tax revenue.
This brings me to the discussion of IBM’s land on which one of its former buildings—Building 25—has sat vacant for the past twelve years.
On May 1st, I voted to allow Lowe’s to develop a store on the IBM site. This vote will result in the demolition of Building 25. I acknowledge and recognize the building was constructed in 1956 and that it was occupied by IBM employees. (An important historical fact is that the invention of the “hard drive” occurred in downtown San Jose at 99 Notre Dame Ave., not in South San Jose.)
The building has been dormant since 1995. In fact, for the past twelve years, no one spoke up for preserving Building 25. Only when Lowe’s had a proposal on the table did the discussion of “historic value” enter the picture in an attempt to save the building. However, two other IBM buildings across the street at the Hitachi site have been preserved.
Placing retail in South San Jose is a smart decision; it retains the sales tax in San Jose and stops the sales tax dollars from bleeding to the south. Lowe’s also provides incentive to residents of Morgan Hill and other cities to the south to shop in San Jose. Lowe’s will be an anchor store providing a foundation for other retail to locate there.
My goal is to preserve our historic neighborhoods where people actually live. Communities like Willow Glen, Buena Vista and Shasta-Hanchett, among others, deserve to have their neighborhood characters preserved.
At the council meeting on May 1st, I proposed to put a portion of the $450,000-$500,000 of sales tax revenue generated from Lowe’s into initiatives that promote conservation districts in our historic neighborhoods. The cost to fund an audit of a conservation district in San Jose is roughly $25,000. Conservation districts offer some protection for our historic neighborhoods, like Palm Haven in Willow Glen and Naglee Park downtown.
If we are serious about preserving our historic neighborhoods, then we need to put money towards establishing those conservation districts now. That is why I support a portion of the sales tax revenue generated from Lowe’s to fund conservation districts for our established historic neighborhoods.
We should be using sales tax and all other tax revenue, on basic services that government should be providing.
Why has the city proposed to increase the Sewer Service and Use Charge and the Storm Sewer Service Charge while continuing to waste money on non-essential items such as the Mexican Heritage Plaza, the “Aquatics Master Plan”, the Grand Prix and the San Jose Repertory Theater?
The city needs to pay for essential services with the money it has before raising our rates. I urge our elected officials to be more considerate when deciding how to spend the taxpayer’s money. Stop wasting money you have on frills and then soaking the taxpayers for necessary expenditures.
IBM building 25, an example of drab 1950s modernist architecture, does not need to be saved. Use the money to repair our sewer system.
Why do we need to steal sales tax revenue from our friends in Morgan Hill?
A couple of dozen phots of building 25 and the people who work there could be put on display @ The Tech Museum. Let’s leave it at that.
We have several hundred MILLION dollars worth of street repair and resurfacing to accomplish, and the latest budget calls for less than ten million this budget year.
We cannot afford a lot of the frils that would be nice for residents and visitors alike when we have such a huge funding gap for basic infrastructure. ALL levels of government need to start living within their means.
Don’t fire or freeze cops, firefighters, parks & wreck employees. Instead fire or freeze highly paid managers who manage 3-5 people, multiple deputy and assistant city managers, etc,; hire self starters who can work with little or no daily management oversight and fire the highly paid paper pushers.
Every single city job should receive close scrutiny with repsect to productivity, value added, and performance based salary increases only, not just time-in-grade raises. Take on the unions who keep featherbedding the public employee rolls. Hire only people who realize they are in the public SERVICE, not people who spend half their days avoiding doing their jobs.
I was speaking to a new downtown business owner recently who told me that due to city employee inactivity, laziness, and contradictory requirements from different inspectors his business opened nine months later than it should have. Meanwhile, he’s paying rent and struggling to survive. This has to stop.
Civil Service and unions were needed to solve serious problems back in the day. Now they ARE THE PROBLEM. They need to get real, or get gone.
#3, because if we dont, they will steal the revenue from us! its get or get got in this game buddy…..time to wake up…..making money is cutthroat…
Pierluigi Oliverio makes a good and proper case why the Lowes development is a good move for the City of San Jose. However, earmarking specific sales tax funds for individual projects doesn’t appear to make for an efficient budgeting process within the City.
My thoughts.
Pierluigi:
Phaedra was quoted by IA in the Murky News saying your plan re Rose Garden was a “rookie mistake”. Hurumph. Perhaps she is making a veteran’s blunder. People are tired of civil service and union contracts shielding lazy government employees (“government workers” is largely an oxymoron) from being written up and terminated if necessary.
Look at Harding Park Golf Course in SF. They spent millions fixing it up for the American Express Challenge Golf Tournament 18 months ago, which featured a sudden death duel betwen Tiger and Long John Daly. The course was pristine. I played it a while back. It’s a mess. The city “workers” don’t work, and the place has gone to hell, and their contract prohibits the City from doing anything about it. I watched three guys for a while, lopping off one branch every five minutes from some trees, and standing around talking the rest of the time. When I finished my round, they still hadn’t finished pruning a dozen small staked trees!! THREE GUYS!! ALL DAY!! Little work done.
But there’s hope. France’s newly elected President wants to loosen France’s labor laws, which basically dictate that no Frenchman really has to work very hard at all, ever. He pledged “to give greater value to work, to authority, to respect, to merit.” HHmm, merit, what’s that sayeth Phaedra? A rookie mistake for the new president?
So, let’s start a movement to send Phaedra to France to fight the evil new President who champions merit in the workplace.
A friend of mine who works for the city once told me that the city’s problem isn’t a lack of money, but a lack of smart management.
San Jose is a city that can’t even afford to pay to keep its streets maintained! The people of San Jose must insist on better levels of service and insist that the government stop spending money on non-vital things like a new scoreboard for the Sharks and another BIG bailout for the Mexican heritage Plaza, etc, etc.
Hey…someone told me that the city no longer sprays the sewers to prevent cockroaches from flourishing! (Can’t afford it!)
Pete Campbell
Our neighboring cities Morgan Hill, Campbell, Milpitas, Santa Clara as well as Palo Alto, Gilroy and Los Gatos has for years as part of their land use planning and city tax revenue strategy built excessive retail stores and attracted excessive jobs to increase their city tax revenues to pay for their basic city services as property taxes as percentage of local taxes decreased
Property taxes statewide are only 7.1 % of California city taxes revenues while paying for education, state government and county government services which is widely misunderstood by taxpayers
San Jose has for decades not had sufficient retail stores or local jobs. We lose 20% of our sales taxes and 10-15% workers to other local cities which are major tax revenue losses and reduced taxes to pay for basic city services.
San Jose lacks sufficient retail in both north and south San Jose for our residents, San Jose has only 92 jobs for every 100 employed residents while the other 48% of Santa Clara County ( local cities) have 155 jobs per 100 employed residents
Every San Jose resident who shops or has to work in other local cities since we lack jobs contributes to our tax revenue shortfall and lower city service levels
Morgan Hill and Gilroy are planning new or larger shopping centers for South San Jose and future Coyote Valley residents to shop and work which contributes to more San Jose sales taxes lost to Morgan Hill and Gilroy
San Jose has improving jobs from 78 jobs in 1990 to 98 jobs in 2000 per 100 employed residents but have now slipped backwards to 92 jobs and have reduced retail sales loss to 20% due to Council decsisons
Past Council’s have also made many questionable land use and policies decisions affecting employment and retail stores.
San Jose has not like other local cities highly prioritized job or retail store creation to increase San Jose city tax revenues but has added housing for our residents who work in other cities since these cities restrict housing development
Since 2004, Council has converting 9% of employment land to homes with 6% more proposed (Coyote Valley, Evergreen, Flea Market ) costing San Jose millions in future tax revenues and requiring higher basic city service costs for which we lack adequate tax revenues so Council reduced services and city staff
This is a complex topic but solvable over many years if the entire community 1) recognizes we have a serious problem with only 92 jobs per 100 employed, lose 20% sales tax revenues which is not enough to pay for basic city services 2) have $3 billion in San Jose employee health plan, sewer plant and street repair obligations not in our budget deficit calculations and 3) we start to quickly improve fiscal health of San Jose by controlling costs, investing in technology to improve city staff productivity, increasing San Jose local jobs and tax revenues which pay for city services and doing more comprehensive cost benefit tax spending analysis to getting a better and more assured return on all city and redevelopment taxes spent outside city government on economic development, or other public tax subsidies for both a) increased San Jose city taxes b) increased local San Jose jobs and c) increased our resident’s and businesses incomes which improve our economy
Mt. Oliverio shows his ignorance about preservation, but he is not alone. A majority of this city council is ignorant about preservation, as are most of the folks who express opinions about it on this blog.
He expresses concern that Building 25 was vacant for many years before anyone spoke up to save it. Given the many historic buildings in SJ that have already fallen, there is little opportunity to focus on a building until it is threatened with demolition. His argument rings hollow in this regard.
As for his proposal to take sales tax revenue to pay for conservation districts, it is an interesting approach. But, why should sales tax go to this cause? If the city and Lowe’s are so committed to preservation, why shouldn’t Lowe’s have to pay for this as part of the mitigation for destroying a historic resource?
And how about the suggestion from #4 to put up a few photos of the destroyed building. That is about the worst possible form of mitigation for destroying a historic structure. It’s an insult to our history.
The councilman’s goal to preserve neighborhoods is admirable although he doesn’t say how will pay for that to occur. His proposal will hardly generate the necessary dollars to do the job correctly. And his lack of interest in preserving other historic structures that may not be in a neighborhood just shows his overall lack of understanding preservation.
It is sad that San Jose leaders show such little regard for our historic buildings and such little understanding of their value. Other communities use their history as an asset but San Jose views it as a liability. Too bad. Someday, if it is not already too late, San Jose will grow up and appreciate what is left of our historic buildings—hopefully before they are all destroyed.
Phaedra’s quote by IA in the Murky News came off a bit insulting and threatening; more like a public spanking. And then to suggest that if the new Councilman doesn’t lick her boots and toe the mark, she won’t let him sit on the Council for a second term.
Hmmm. If he continues to speak for the people of District 6 as he has, and we reelect him, will Phaedra spank us too and take away our voting rights?
Is she a registered lobbyist?
Does she live in District 6?
Did she arrange to clean up the Rose Garden Park so fast?
Can she spell the word B U D G E T ?
#10, nobody has yet to explain exactly why building #25 should be preserved. According to Pierluigi Oliverio, the hard drive was not invented there, and so what if it was? Do we preserve every outhouse just because George Washington once took a dump there?
Historic preservation is about saving good architecture. Grand Central Terminal comes to mind. In fact, New York’s ground breaking landmarks preservation laws came about because of the destruction of Penn Station in the early 1960s.
But not every old building needs to be saved. The post-WW2 period in particular was a time of lots of bad architecture. It was constructed in 1956 and occupied by IBM employees. Big deal. Time to move on. If the preservation movement expends too much political capital on saving mediocrity, people will become numb to the concept and the next time a worthy building is slated for demolition nobody will care. It’s better to pick your battles and let the mediocre stuff go.
#6, Amen.
No earmarking of taxes, please.
Spend the money on real priorities. Tax revenue is fungible! Tax bad things that you want to discourage and customary activities to raise revenue. (Property taxes for state/local govt, income taxes for the feds, trade tariffs, etc). End of story.
When I buy a pencil at Office Depot, the sales tax is not earmarked for the schools. All this earmark talk just gives current and future politicians excuses for not setting rationale, defensible budget priorities: “Sorry, I was locked in by the earmarks!”
Simplify, simplify, simplify.
More directly to the topic at hand: Building #25 is doomed. If the people of this Valley had wanted to save it, they should have done so years ago when creativity (loft housing? a small-business incubator, a small college/university?) would have stood a chance, not just now because a big-box company wants to bulldoze and replace.
The follow-on question is, how many ugly tilt-ups will we be defending in 25 years all over the Valley? (i.e. this is where so-and-so invented xyz component, this was X company’s first office, etc…?) Clearly, old Victorians in need of TLC have a place in History San Jose at Kelley Park, but what to do with the ugly, industrial, concrete and foam-ceiling tile behemoths all around us?
D6 really does not care what Phaedra, Pat, Carl. Tom or other special interest groups say or that they want more city taxes since they are serve serving and costs residents basic city services
We care about Pierluigi’s actions to improve district and San Jose, his votes, and how he works to get votes for important D6 and city services ( not more Council’s well known political CYA 10-1 votes )
Pierluigi’s actions and votes over time will show us who he really is, what he cares about, if he votes for or against D6 issues and if we should vote to reelected him
“My goal is to preserve our historic neighborhoods where people actually live. Communities like Willow Glen, Buena Vista and Shasta-Hanchett, among others, deserve to have their neighborhood characters preserved.”
This is a hard doctrine for those of us in North San Jose. We have many historic places, the last cherry orchard, the last walnut orchard, three beautiful creeks, Alviso, the Independence High neighborhood, the North Valley neighborhood, and other fine areas.
Just how is one to justify preserving the character of Willow Glen, Buena Vista, and Shasta-Hanchett while throwing our North San Jose neighborhoods to the wolves?
Hold on there! There are a lot of “historic neighborhoods where people actually live” in North San Jose.
Nice try morganhillbandit.
And a bit more clearer thinking than Ed in #9. Ed alleges a concerted land use planning and city tax revenue strategy from our smaller neighbors, but where’s the beef?
Morgan Hill is a poor man’s suburb with no significant industry or big retailers. Hard to believe that any big box retailer would locate on Cochrane Road to capture some hypothetical market in Coyote Valley or draw Blossom Valley residents down 101. And in Gilroy there is likewise little industry, and Lowe’s, along with the outlets, are more focused on drawing buyers from Salinas Valley than from up north.
Campbell had to scramble to incorporate in the 1950s to fend off the San Jose growth machine. No industry to speak of. Pruneyard is nice but has had so so success. You might say that Fry’s (was) stealing tax revenues from San Jose, but then, in the real world, it is John Fry that is the one who knows how to smell money, and he locates appropriately.
Milpitas has been quite successful with the Great Mall and McCarthy Ranch. What do you expect from them after having San Jose jam all that industrial zoning in the Rincon down their throats (and the sewage treatment plant down their noses).
Los Gatos? There is a nice Trader Joe’s and some auto lots along Los Gatos Blvd.???
Netflix.
Santa Clara has no major retail near San Jose, other than a toe in Valley Fair for cars to run over. They have lots of active industrial land, like Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. San Jose planners have moaned for years about those jobs to the west, but the reality of this arrangement has more to do with our rich captains of the high tech industry not wanting to commute too far from their hillside castles. Seriously Ed, do you believe there was collusion with planners in those cities to stick it to San Jose.
A couple of weeks ago we were talking about children’s money allowances and how they should spend the allowances wisely. Fast forward to adult families and how they must live within their income resources or close to it. If they exceed their means most of the time it results in dire consequences. Maybe bankruptcy is the ultimate result. Follow this reasoning to city, county, state and federal government. The “allowances” in these cases
are named “budgets”. We must learn to live within our budgets. There are several large cities that have had to declare bankruptcy.
San Jose must start making intelligent choices because raising taxes and issuing bonds cannot go on forever.
It’s great to read the comments of all the preservation experts on this blog who don’t let facts get in their way. Having an opinion is fine but it holds more weight when you have facts to back up that opinion. Most of you ignore the facts.
Saving Building 25 is not just PACSJ’s idea. It is bolstered by the building’s status as determined by state and federal guidelines that PACSJ has nothing to do with. Saving the building is also supported by the city’s Historic Landmarks Commission, the Planning Commission, AND, the Planning Department. If you believe the Council knows more about land use and preservation than their professional planning staff, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Oh yeah, there is one more body that also has supported saving Building 25—the Court.
So, I would suggest you do your homework and learn about preservation before pontificating about something you don’t understand. Just an opinion.
#4 JMO Your post is right on. There are various ways to preserve the historic importance of Bldg 25 and the State Environmental Laws do no mandate the retention of every structure that a local historic “lobbying” group like PAC SJ thinks should be preserved.
The CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) only requires the City to conduct an analysis and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that discloses potential impacts to historic structures by a project. One important fact is that CEQA allows the City Council to certify the validity of the EIR even if it documents a potential impact to a historic struture AND adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for Social or Economic Benefits that outweigh impacts noted and findings for approval of the project.
It is my belief after visiting Bldg 25 that the City should allow the requested demolition and just require the developer to create a state of the art informational/interpetive display documenting the “historic significance” of the building and its past use and have it incorporated into the new bldg.
That would provide more benefit to the public because it would actually provide a realistic means for educating SJ residents about the important things that occured on the IBM campus and the architect. The developer would be required to pay for the interpretive dispay as a mitigaion measure. Without this project moving forward, the only thing the City and PAC SJ is a vacant building with no ability to educate the public about this “historic bldg”. Does PAC SJ intend to buy this property and create a museum out of the Bldg 25 if Lowes doesn’t get its approval?
Well guess what, even that proposed use would require a CEQA review to determine the “impacts” of converting the building from its present use to another.
#12 HJ said it best…“Historic preservation is about saving good architecture.” Dowtowns Bank of America building equates to good architecture. A hi-tech tilt-up from 1956 (in which the hard drive was NOT invented) isn’t good architecture and should not be saved…enough said!
Addendum to my post #16:
Ed Rast’s numbers about comparative jobs per employed resident within San Jose is probably correct. However, the slant the City’s Office of Economic Development is spinning on sales tax revenue has a number of mirrors creating smoke that isn’t really there. A significant amount of San Jose resident income is spent outside the city limits – because that’s where a lot of people work. Building more retail in San Jose isn’t going to lure them to shop in San Jose if the convenience of shopping at noon or on the way home picks the money out of their pocketbook.
The numbers are also skewed because the average person outside of San Jose has a significantly higher amount of disposal income than the average San Jose resident. One Lamborghini sold in Los Gatos is the equivalent of about 5,000 Wal-Mart trips. When someone in Los Altos buys a Plasma TV, they get the 52” Sony Bravia XBR 1920×1080, not the Maxent 42” plasma from Costco. The way you get more sales tax revenue in San Jose is to have residents that have more money to spend.
Lowe’s has been dragging its feet on entering the San Jose market because it’s too risky. With strong established competition from Home Depot and OSH, and a high cost per square foot for land and high construction costs, the bean counters in North Carolina have had cold feet. At this point, the only two sites they have targeted are Cottle Rd. (with easy access from Evergreen), and North San Jose where they can compete for Milpitas residents that has a hard-to-access Home Depot at the Great Mall. Lowe’s on the East side or downtown – no way. Lowe’s in Almaden Valley – nowhere to put it. Lowe’s in Willow Glen or Rosegarden – all the big sites have housing projects. Lowe’s on Hyway 9 – Home Depot beat them to the only big enough site.
OED keeps throwing out this 20% of unrealized retail sales that can be captured by bringing in big box retail. What they are really saying, is that the City’s police and fire pension programs can saved by getting the (lower and middle class) to fork over their VISA/Mastercards and buy more for the greater good of the community.
Phaedra and many city leaders are out of touch with who is really getting the short end of the stick here.
Perhaps P.O. is on to something. Most likely not enough of us are questioning this bureaucratic stagnate political pond that provides us status-quo services. We`re all just too damn busy trying to survive in this rat race. Yeah… P.O is only a rookie councilman throwing pebbles at the pond, but at least we have someone willing to throw something.
In the dog-eat-dog world of Silicon Valley start-ups, there is no such thing as “job descriptions” or “over-time” and 40 hours is the number hours you worked last weekend to get the product ready for the trade show. Employees are expected to roll up their sleeves to make things happen, regardless of which department you work in. Let the weeds overgrow your prized parks, and you lose you investors, your job, and maybe your personal savings too.
Yeah… maybe, just maybe, if you are really lucky, and one of the early ones that burned out your family and your savings, your start-up just might pay out after 10 years. But the overwhelming majority of start-ups fail.
The way I see it, it is time for city workers and union leaders to quit whining about pay, private contractors, Starbucks at CH and show us taxpayers a little respect. After all, we`re the workforce, the investors, the inventors, the dreamers that drives this economic engine that make the city jobs possible and we`re providing “life-time” benefits too!
Enough of the no budget excuses for park maintenance, for pools, for library hours, not in my job description, not in my contract! Let`s see the city department heads, the managers, the 9-5ers volunteer at the libraries on weekend and evenings. Let`s see them pulling weeds, pruning roses, mowing lawns at our parks. Let`s see the police and fire staff pulling down $150K+ per year volunteer as lifeguards at our city and high school pools this summer. Serve the community that pays your check and show us you care.
Perhaps I`m dreaming to ever think that San Jose could ever operate like a start-up. But someone needs to throw a stone in the pond, because San Jose is not providing the services we paid for and certainly not the capital of Silicon Valley.
Learn from the past #10: governments, businesses, people that continue to spend what they don’t have go under. That’s what I learned from the past. If you think building 25 is so great, get off this blog, go out and raise some $$ and buy it.
Let’s see—building 25 or paved streets, clean parks, well-staffed libraries, good health care. HHHmm, what should I choose? I just can’t decide.
Ignorant #25—public art is governed by local and state rules, too. That’s why we get a lot of crappy public art—literally in the case of downtown SJ.
Unions have work rules, which should really be called avoid work rules.
I care little for your argument #25. We can’t afford decent roads, keep up our parks, and other important stuff for chrissakes, so we don’t need some rule-worshipping dilettante telling us to forgo a wad of tax money to save a building that fits into some dumb rule concocted by rulemakers like #25 who want us to pay for their passion.
Stop blogging, go raise some bucks and buy it if you think it’s so great. As for me, I prefer roads that don’t resemble driving over railroad ties, and parks that are clean and inviting.
John Michael is right on with his postings as is Pierluigi. If you want to see the hard drive history, then visit the court building at 99 Notre Dam and see the plaques and photograph display. This is REALLY the birthplace of the hard drive. We need the tax base. Let ‘em build the store and many others.
Okay let us summarize…
1. No earmarks, for the aforementioned reasons.
2. Bldg 25 was very important to many people for many years, but I wonder what the Lester Brothers think about the so-called historical aspect of this? The revenue was more important than the fruit trees back then and now the revenue is more important than those memories… Obla De, Obla Da….
3. 1956 was a very good year; I’m a ‘56 model myself… And a student of history, but not yet an object of history, thank you very much and neither is this building… There might be 3 significant tilt ups in the whole valley, but if I am not mistaken Ray Handley has torn down or remodeled all 3 and if the truth be told there was more Silicon Valley history in that old coffee shop at Ellis and 101… The next thing ya know we will be lamenting the loss of the historic architecture of Rancho Rinky Dink to the remodelers, after all they were built by Henry J. Kaiser and they were old… An excellent example of ticky tacky, a great California tradition in the post WWII boom, they were recently incorporated into Cupertino and may be that city’s oldest housing stock. San Jose has it own Kaiser Homes neighborhood, near King and Story…
4. Conservation Districts? Sounds like full employment for consultants… Another study to justify what we want to do anyway! And such a bargain too… I cannot speak for the more radical of my neighbors, but as a Naglee Park homeowner I can say with all due respect… GO AWAY! Just what we need, a Conservation District to preserve a neighborhood that the City has declared blighted, but has the highest real estate values of any downtown neighborhood. Maybe you didn’t hear about SNI? And how popular it was here in the Park… Sam knows about it… Next time you guys get thirsty you could ask him… Or I could direct to you to the CCA where you will find all manner of input on the subject, some “G” rated, some not…
Okay buddy… I gave you a warm-up on the roses, I’m partial to roses, all old deadheads are partial to roses… And the Tall Buildings in the Park deal was… Well I spoke my piece, but that was strike one… And I’m gonna award a ball on this pitch, ‘cause I don’t think you really meant to swing at it… So the count is 1-1…
I hope you keep swingin’, and that we see you next Monday… From the looks of the front page of the very Murky News the schedule seems to pick up over the next few months…
All kidding aside, there really are some large issues that will either be decided or moved forward significantly in the next few months… It is time to find out what your Big Picture really looks like, because like it or not what setting priorities really means is determining winners and losers, and as you learn quickly in politics, it is hard to be both.
Dallas112263
Why does San Jose always lose in court and taxpayers have to pay millions?
Where is accountability for bad legal advice, bad political decisions, interest group pressure that costs us needed city services
Does anyone know who was responsible or benefited?
Tropicana – developer and RDA,
County Fairgrounds – Downtown Business Ass. and Chamber
Fox Markovitz and ?,
Jose Theater and ?,
Montgomery Hotel and Lew Wollf ?
San Jose loses in court because of stubborn elected officials. Time and time again the City Council has been warned that they were violating the law and they ignore those warnings. This is what happens when decisions are driven by politics and $$ instead of sound judgment. Welcome to our San Jose.
#24 (Dallas): You can stop railing against a conservation district for your neighborhood, Naglee Park, because it is already a conservation district, and has been for some time—predating the current ordinance, which nominally requires expensive survey work as a predicate to designation of a neighborhood as a conservation district. Perhaps Naglee Park’s longtime conservation district status explains, in part, why (as you say) it has the highest property values in the downtown.
Every downtown neighborhood —and many in Pierluigi’s District 6 (besides the desireable Palm Haven and Shasta Hanchett, which are also already conservation districts) deserve the same designation and protection, as well.
Here’s a thought: why doesn’t the city council simply waive the survey requirement for all of it’s older neighborhoods and simply declare each of them conservation districts? We could save a lot of money (avoid consultants) and do a great service for BOTH neighborhoods and the business climate of San Jose. Because, believe-it-or-not, historic preservation is good business.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that our City leaders have a very poor record when it comes to winning in the courts. They lost to the Tropicana owners, the County at the Fairgrounds, the Fox Markovitz, the Jose Theater and the Montgomery Hotel. If I were a betting person, I would lay my money down on PAC SJ. Our City has become the “Punching Bag of the Courthouse”. In all of these cases, our city leaders failed to lead. They failed to listen to the people and failed to look for a creative solution. If the council had sent a clear message to Lowes three years ago that they needed to adjust their plans to respect our heritage, they would either have walked and we would have had a new project on the site or they would have adjusted their plans the way they did in Boston. Either way, we would be better off than we are today.
#25 opined: “If the council had sent a clear message to Lowes three years ago that they needed to adjust their plans to respect our heritage…” It may be your heritage, but it sure ain’t mine.
29—Since you seem to continually rail against any form of preservation, just what is your heritage? And just because something may not be “your heritage” doesn’t mean it isn’t important to others. The world doesn’t revolve around you or me. Can’t we be respectful and realize there are things in this world that are important to others—even if they aren’t important to you?
Respect.
#28 – Don, good thought, but wouldn’t that make it even more difficult to get things done in any neighborhood? Anyone at any time could cry “historic” and bring the business of new business to a screeching halt, no?
#31 (RIPavilion): In response to your question, I do not think neighborhood conservation districts will bring “new business to a screeching halt.”
Your question may result from an ambiguity in my previous post. Conservation districts typically involve residential areas, so they do not necessarily impose new red tape on small businesses in, for example, neighborhood business districts (NBDs). Nonetheless, residential conservation districts are good for business within NBDs—and for the city as a whole—because ensuring an attractive surrounding neighborhood, with charming historical character, inevitably lures customers to nearby businesses.
The vitality of the Los Gatos shopping district or Lincoln Ave. in Willow Glen, for example, is (in my mind at least) a direct result of the surrounding well-maintained vintage residences. That doesn’t mean all our neighborhoods need to ape upscale Los Gatos. My Northside neighborhood, for instance, is predominately working class Latino, and Casa Vicky, a well-known and well-patronized Mexican eatery down the street from me benefits (I believe) from the Northside’s old world neighborhood ambiance in a way it would not if were in a strip mall adjacent to a row of stuccoed new residential development. Indeed, Casa Vicky is located in an adapted vintage home.
Yet, without a conservation district designation, my neighborhood’s character is under perpetual siege from the “re-muddling” of Victorian and Craftsman homes (often by absentee slum lords or folks looking to flip the properties). The unsympathetic desecretion of these beautiful homes—often the equal of any in Los Gatos—literally screams-out blight and discourages investment. Thus, if we want to ensure the survival of businesses like Casa Vicky and encourage other neighborhood-friendly businesses, we should concern ourselves with preserving (and indeed restoring) the character of our older neighborhoods.
33 – Yes. The new sales tax revenue that a Lowe’s would generate is considerably less than what the city would have you believe. A large amount of the $$ will simply be shifted from the other stores you mention.
There is already an OSH on that road and
a Home Depot on Almaden/85. Can putting
one more store increase sales tax? I’m sure people
are not driving to Morgan Hill to do their home
improvement shopping. Wouldn’t the money
just be taken from these stores and given to
Lowe’s.
Pierluigi needs to take the time to talk to preservationist, so he can better understand the issues.
Don #28,
Conservation districts are a good idea, but you assume too much. A conservation district, as you know, only gives a neighborhood an additional layer of review before alterations are made. You assume that council leaders will understand and respect the designation. WRONG! They just voted to demolish a City, State and National Landmark (IBM #25). Under this present administration, it would only be a waste of money to give any building historic designation. In fact it may be like putting a bulls eye on a building for a wrecking
Mr. Oliveiro,
I am saddened that you have decided to substitute your judgement for the judgement of professional historic consultants. Their evaluation back in 2003 identified IBM Building 25 as highly historic – 118 points out of 147, when 70 is enough to be a landmark – even leaving out any consideration whatsoever of the invention of the flying head disk drive at the site. PAC does not maintain that the disk drive concept was invented there.
You say that “for the past twelve years, no-one spoke up for preserving Building 25”. Till the historic evaluation was done in 2003, no-one had really examined the building for historic significance. It lies behind a security gate and further layers of fencing, in a disused corner of the IBM campus, so who would have been likely to speak up for it during that time? The historic evaluation was part of Lowe’s purchase of an option on the site, so of course people only got involved after Lowe’s did: it was this analysis that made their involvement possible.
You say that you aim “to preserve our historic neighborhoods where people actually live.” I guess that this means that no commercial property like the De Anza Hotel or the California Theatre, or industrial site like the Del Monte plant, should be preserved under your direction. I don’t agree.
Hugh: you describe IBM building 25 as “drab 1950s modernist architecture”. You may not like mid-century modern, but that doesn’t make it non-historic. Fifty years ago, people were tearing down those drab old Victorians at a furious pace.
I agree with many of the posters that the City wastes money on frivolous things. While I lived in San Jose, it spent hundreds of thousands on the Grand Prix, on the ice rink under the palms and on many other things that are here and gone in a moment. However, PAC never suggested that the site should not be reused, only that it was feasible to reuse it without demolition. Truthfully, there is no reason why Building 25 couldn’t work as a home for the retail ancillary to a smaller Lowe’s store, and the City would be none the poorer for it.
David,
You say that “nobody has yet to explain exactly why building #25 should be preserved.” The primary significance identified in the historic report was not about the flying head disk drive. It was the architecture of the building and its grounds, which was highly innovative at the time. The architect, John Bolles, was a well-known modernist architect, and there isn’t much of his stuff left – really just this and Candlestick Park. Last, and most importantly, it should be preserved because it’s feasible to do so, as two California courts, the City Historical Commission, the City Planning Commission, planning staff and PAC have all agreed. Like Mr. Oliveiro, you make the mistake of confusing the fact that you don’t like mid-century modern architecture with the idea that it’s not significant. Trust me, there are millions of people who like this stuff a lot.
What we did at PAC while I was their ED, and I think this was right to do, was to base our advocacy on the evaluations of third-party historic consultants hired by other people. If those consultants determine something to be historic, then they’ll advocate for it. IBM Building 25 scored off the charts. How else would you have them do it? Appoint you to an Architectural Good Taste Committee and have you determine what to try and save?
Channel 26 Watcher,
You say that “the State Environmental Laws do no mandate the retention of every structure that a local historic “lobbying” group like PAC SJ thinks should be preserved”. No, but if something is eligible for the National Register, like this is, then they do take note. Lowe’s tried to make the argument you make in court. They lost. Twice.
The fact is that CEQA is not simply procedural. It contains a substantive mandate that prevents the destruction of a historic resource if feasible alternatives exist. Merely talking about potential sales tax revenue from the project is not sufficient under the law. You have to implement all feasible mitigations, and only then can you proceed to a Statement of Overriding Considerations. It’s feasible to save this building, so an SOC can’t override and order its demolition. Like I say, this is not just PAC’s former ED speaking: this is two California courts.
PAC never has and never will intend a museum to be created out of this property. We proposed its reuse as ancillary retail. PAC’s record shows that it wants historic buildings to be reused and made active: it has never, ever created a museum out of an old building.
Last, PAC has an annual budget of around $150,000. Where do you think it would get the money to buy 20 acres in South San Jose? The moon? The “just buy the site” argument would have condemned 98% of all of the US’s historic buildings to destruction by now.