The question of raising taxes came up for discussion during a special study session regarding deferred maintenance and infrastructure backlog within the city of San Jose. The city needs at least $915 million in one-time funding and an additional $45 million for ongoing funding needs if we want to catch up with our projects.
You may be asking yourself how the city came to these numbers and why the city allowed our backlog to become so poor and what exactly is the best method to pay for so many projects?
One-time funding examples would be opening the Ryland Pool again, completely rebuilding streets like Newhall and Mackey, replacing 40-year-old equipment at the water pollution control plant, replacing and moving the old IT infrastructure from the old to the new City Hall so we could move forward in selling old City Hall.
Ongoing funding would include basic street paving, replacing city vehicles with clean-fuel vehicles, park maintenance, etc. Some say if we don’t act now, we face the possibility of the these costs increasing in the future, which will only mean that the taxpayers of San Jose will be paying more. For example, we need $600,000 to replace roofing components on city buildings. If you don’t fix a leaky roof then you have water damage which would cost more to fix.
Here are some numbers for you about San Jose Infrastructure:
517 miles of roads in poor condition;
681 miles of roads overdue for maintenance;
110 miles of damaged curbs and gutters;
$5.8 million annually to fully fund sidewalk repairs.
The city council may be looking to ask the voters if they are willing to pay more with the options including a parcel tax, sales tax, or raising construction and conveyance taxes. The most likely would be a parcel tax for property owners.
I am not sure that voters support tax increases without trusting that government will use the money as it was intended, so I am curious to know what your thoughts are.
Are you willing to pay more in taxes?
How much more would you be willing to pay per year?
Would you be more inclined to pay if the benefits were promised to be delivered in a specific area or district surrounding your home?
If not, what would you do differently than the city does today?
I think increased taxes comes down to a question of trust, trusting the right things will be done with the tax dollars. Making sure the money isn`t used for another project of less importance to the taxpayers.
All we`ve heard is the City and the County is broke. Then just last week the County found $39 million to purchase a city block downtown for BART extension.
I`m all for BART coming to San Jose but only after more pressing infrastructure items are completed first.
Many fear if new specific taxes are approved that then the city and County will suddenly again find other money in the city budget for special interest projects. This is where ,“trust” comes into the picture.
I believe taxpayers want to trust this new administration but because of the past they lack the trust.
I will continue to oppose and vote no on all tax increases until the government demonstrates that it spends the money it currently collects wisely. Sadly, this is currently not the case.
The question is backwards. It is the primary responsibility of Government to build, maintain, and protect a shared infrastructure for the common good of its citizens. These infrastructure requirements should be funded first, and if money is left over then Government can fund other, non-essential services—or it can ask the people if they’d like a tax hike to pay for non-essential service X, Y, and Z. It should not be an option to let a city die a sclerotic death from ignoring its most basic needs.
Civics 101 lesson: before voting on any sales tax or bond measure, ask yourself whether or not you know who represents you at every level of government, from your City Councilmember, to your County Supervisor, to who represents you on the VTA Board, all the way up to Governor Schwarzenegger.
If the answer to any of these questions is NO, you need to educate yourself on who represents you and to hold them accountable to how your tax money is spent.
It’s been well documented here on how much San Jose has wasted money on everything from (third-rate) auto racing to its new City Hall. At last Thursday’s VTA Board meeting, the Board approved purchase of a block of land in downtown to support construction equipment for the BART project. The $39 million spent could have been better spent on having more officers enforce fares on its light rail system.
Even Santa Clara County itself is considering a 1/2-cent sales tax next year, in addition to VTA’s 1/8-cent sales tax measure.
Any agency with zero record of fiscal responsibility does not deserve to have one penny of your tax dollars. As a people we need to stop taking the California way out of solving problems thru sales taxes or bond measures. We need to do a better job of holding elected officials at all levels accountable.
To answer Councilmember Oliverio’s question: were I a San Jose resident, a city sales tax vote would get my automatic NO.
Imagine, if we all lived closer to the city center instead of Evergreen, Almaden, Alviso…we’d have fewer streets to repair because we’d all be using the same ones. Funny how a free stadium becomes an issue but sprawl never crossed people as a huge stress on funds via new streets, sidewalks, gutters, etc. I guess all that wear and tear comes from a few VTA buses transporting people around, right? No, it’s all the SUV moms. Appropriate tax dollars from city hall outward. Then the sprawlers are feeling the burden of taxes harder than the rest.
The most likely would be a parcel tax for property owners.
I can appreciate the need for additional revenue for the city. However, as a home-owner I am getting tired of being the first choice for new tax revenue. Everytime a government entity (City, County, School District, etc.) needs money a parcel tax is their solution.
Enough already. It is time to start being a bit more equitable in taxing the population.
I personally won’t support any new taxes unless there is progress on retirement reforms. Also, more outsourcing of public services. Benefits should be brought down to the level that is common among public school teachers and the cost of doing business should approximate that in the private sector. Otherwise, I feel like private sector workers are being asked to pay our taxes to provide benefits that we never see.
Explain to me why that is a good idea.
I absolutely can’t trust the Council to apply my tax dollars as intended. They have thrown away tax revenues on lawsuits, consultation fee rip-offs and money pits like the MHP. Until we get rid of the rest of the Gonzo-aligned members of the council there is no telling how stupidly tax dollars will continue to be squandered.
Good post Councilman,
Of the $915mil, what’s the rough percent labor, material, other? Of the $45mil, what’s the mix here?
Would the increased tax revenue go toward increasing the wage and benefits for the existing level or add labor to deliver on the needed projects? Or what mix of both? Or is this a relavant question? And how do tax payers of San Jose feel about this issue?
If tax payers of San Jose were to set conditions on how the $915 plus $45 mil were to be spent; what might those conditions be and could the SJCC be held to them?
What’s the impact of such a question on future of the City’s financial health? On the need to increase taxes? And can this be explained in a way that 90% of us can easily understand? Or is it something that we should be concerned about? Or is it too hot to talk about?
There are many reasons for distrusting the system at City Hall which is entrusted with spending public moneys. Not least is the horrendous cost for the money borrowed to design, build, and furnish the new City Hall, a luxury by anyone’s definition. For less than 20% of the cost we could have had a re-fitted City Hall on North First along with an office tower to handle staff overload.
And now the recently-disclosed history of City Hall’s shifting of funds internally, robbing this or that fund of its legal interest payments, has removed every last stitch of credibility from any promise by City Hall. At least, however, we park activists now understand why the parks department took over 24 months after 2005 to do its “audit” and has till now still failed to account for the whereabouts of the interest due on that fund. In fact, we still don’t have an “audit,” all we have is a vaguely-worded “reconcilition” of park funds.
City Hall has to do a lot better with financial management and reporting than it has done to date for voters to pass a parcel tax on promises of City Hall.
Voters will NOT support ANY tax increases since we DO NOT TRUST city government and redevelopment to use our tax money as intended for city services, not more waste, lawsuit damages, insider giveaways justified as “public good” when taxes go to insiders
Grand Prix / Sports team tax giveaways
Tropicana lawsuit and Story Road shopping center taxes
County Fairground / North San Jose lawsuit
Many corporate tax giveaways
Most developer tax giveaways
Most economic development projects
Mismanaged non profit bailouts
+ many other examples wasted taxes
Council spends our city and redevelopment taxes on non essential services, insider and political payback tax giveaways and economic development projects than do not produce jobs or tax revenues promised with little payback to city while making insiders wealthy
Are you willing to pay more in taxes? – Hell NO, don’t trust City Council / RDA to properly spend current taxes on needed city services and infrastructure or fulfill ANY promises made because many past broken promises and lies to public
One of my old friends once said, “don’t trust Civil Service employees, it is almost impossible to fire them when they screw up!”
The whole thing is a matter of TRUST. We just can’t trust the City with money. Posts by 1,3,4,7,8, and 10 are right to the point.
One more point to add is the retirement overpayment to the civil service employees compared to those of us on Social Security. Why are they not on FICA? Sure would save a lot.
Why not end the Renewal agency and transfer that money to the general fund to do the necessary repairs?
How many deputy assistant managers for cultural affairs and other non-essential positions that should be eliminated until we get the $$ to fund the basics—public safety and infrastructure construction and maintenance?
The State steal gas tax $$ for non-road purposes; so I have litttle doubt that when push comes to shove, the mayor and council will divert new taxes even if they are strictly earmarked for a particular purpose.
R U getting the message, P.O.? Please encourage the mayor and all other members of the council to read every post in response to your question.
Last week I asked you to provide me with a way to access the entire city budget online, since the city’s website does not appear to have a link. Please respond.
Great post: Thank you for starting a conversation, P.O.
I’m inclined to agree with the foregoing commenters on the trust issue and am personally opposed to property tax increases, parcel taxes, etc.
I do, however, support increased sales (quarter percent) and gas taxes (up to fifty cents per gallon). I support the sales taxes because everyone shops at stores, so the tax isn’t being borne by only one group (i.e. property owners or workers.) As for the gas taxes: Judging by all the people out driving their Hummers and Escalades, gas clearly doesn’t cost enough to discourage people from driving. Furthermore, those heavy vehicles on the road “drive” the maintenance backlog higher as they roll along busting up the asphalt.
Before any talk of increased taxes, though, the public really needs better accounting of where city monies come from and what they are spent on.
What is the right role of city government? How well is it doing in that role? Cut the extra-curricular activities that belong to other levels of government and get down to business.
And by the way, BART to SJ is an essential piece of infrastructure that is 20+ years overdue.
Bravo to the many thoughtful comments that precede mine…
Why would the people of San Jose be receptive to any sort of tax increase when they carry the knowledge that taxpayer money has been wasted and mismanaged by their city government for the past decade? The San Jose city government cannot deliver even the most basic of city services. It is indeed ironic, that the projected city deficit figure ($25 million) is very close to the estimated annual debt service of the new city hall complex that was built too small to house city workers.
It’s SO simple…stop spending the public trust on non-essential programs and projects. Public money should not go to underwrite private risk. Don’t be fooled, there’s plenty of money to run the city, we’re just not allowed access to it.
Pete Campbell
The crumbling asphalt is not the taxpayer’s fault but the asses’ fault in city government.
It’s not in rhyme, but George Berlin’s comment is exactly right. It really is NOT the taxpayers’ fault that the budget and infrastructure are a mess, but the taxpayer gets to “correct” the constant and predictible mistakes of the bureaucrats. My personal dealings with the so-called Transportation Dept, from the flunkies to the Jeffe have been the worst—arrogant and incompetent, ESPECIALLY when dealing with a taxpayer/property owner—scumbag property owner from their point of view. Just reviewing and auditing city employee efforts once in 25 years would eliminate millions in waste. When Cindy and Ron ran the show the citizens’ city employees were at their disposal, and I’ll bet they were long before that.
As for PO’s question about willingness to pay taxes, being a long time San Jose property owner, but not a resident, I can’t even vote for the council member in my district, let alone the mayor. I’m taxed and taxed, without any representation whatsoever. There are thousands like me in the city. The problem could be easily fixed by the Registrar of Voters: I could have a ballot for issues and cadidates for my residence district, and a special ballot for taxes and mayor and council member for my downtown property. It would only take a doable change in state law. I spoke to Sam and Chuck about the problem; Sam was interested, but not that much. So my answer to PO’s question of the day is—I DON’T HAVE ANY SAY IN HOW THE THOUSANDS I PAY IN TAXES TO SAN JOSE ARE SPENT. My many tenants get to vote for a benefit or two or three for themselves that I get to pay for, costing them nothing at all. PO’s question should be directed at them: are you willing to vote for improvements that cost you nothing? Part of the reason the city is in such a state is because their answer is always “YES!” George Green
Well said everyone. I agree with most all of you on this. I Do Not TRUST that money has/will be spent wisely.
I personally would not support any tax you requested. I really think the Mayor, and City Council need to take a real hard look at how it is running its OWN house first. There are way too many six figured management positions that could be cut, too many feel good programs that need to be cut during tough times, too many tax breaks to special interest groups, too many consultation fees being paid for things City employees are qualified to do themselves (the list goes on) before you should ask us to bail you out again.
When I do my budget every month, if I have an unexpected expense, I don’t run out and borrow money, or run up my credit card, or look for an easy way out. I cut back! I look for bargains when I have to have car repairs, I have a back up savings account for expensive Vet bills, I don’t go to the movies, or out to eat, or drive to Half Moon Bay for an outing, until after my necessities are paid off. I don’t let my tires get bald, or go without regular car maintenance, or take forever to pay off credit cards. I save when times are good, to be ready for the bad times. Why can’t you guys at City Hall get that concept? May be instead of having an office filled with overpaid auditors, you should hire a few single Moms, or women who know how to budget beans and rice, instead of steak and potatoes every week.
I have never understood why parcel taxes are ALWAYS the first tax you think about passing. I am a renter, and I think passing costs on to homeowner’s every time there is a need for more money is just plain wrong. I want to someday own my own home, but when I see how my friends struggle with high mortgage payments, maintenance, up keep, and property taxes, I am not so sure I want to own a home. It seems unfair to hit up homeowners every time you guys need a bail out.
John S. Leyba in San Jose writes that “BART to SJ is an essential piece of infrastructure that is 20+ years overdue.” Why then, so so many public transit advocates object? After all public transit advocates like to see more money spent on transit, right? Well maybe not.
Read the VTA Rider’s Union’s BART page:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/bartsjx/
And their repost of blog VTA Watch’s analysis here:
http://www.vtaridersunion.org/bartsjx/fantasyvsrealityaug2006.html
the VTA watch blog contains some useful analysis of the BART/SJ project:
http://vtawatch.blogspot.com/
Another transit advocacy group, Bay Rail Alliance, questions BART-to-SJ ridership projections:
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/bart_san_josesanta_clara_county
Finally, you should read pages 19-20 of the paper here:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa602.pdf
How much of an increase in parcel tax? Is there a way to guarantee that the tax for the one time expenditure ($915 mil) will stop once that money is spent?
Before any of that happens, I want to see a wholesale cutback of consultants. There is no one central place in the city that monitors these expenditures and they are out of control. It is appalling how much the city spends a month in consultants.
Also, there are way too many people in “management” . It is common to have many more managers than administrative people in any given department. Every one in city hall that is above an administrative assistant/staff tech is “management”. They get an extra weeks vacation(“personal leave”) and “executive leave”(a week or more of vacation). It’s crazy! Not including the above benefits there is probably a $30-$50 thousand annual gap between the avg. admin/staff tech and the next highest level.
Keep it up Councilmember, you are doing a wonderful job!
Speaking of what the hell is our money going to besides what it should be going for:
Council Member Oliverio, this is a small part of an article I copied from today’s paper,
“A San Jose woman and her 6-year-old son were killed Sunday night as they walked home from a birthday party.
The two were crossing Fourth Street mid-block between Hedding Street and Younger Avenue block in the dark when they were struck by a silver 2007 PT Cruiser, traveling south on Fourth Street at an unknown speed, according to the San Jose Police Department.
The woman and child have been identified as Dalila “Sonia” Araujo, 43, and Angel Jesus Hernandez-Araujo, 6, according to the Santa Clara County coroner’s office.”
I really think that speeders, and the LACK OF Traffic Enforcement Officers is something you guys need to address. I went to the D9 Traffic Calming meeting, and I don’t feel that this issue is being handled with the urgency it requires. How many more people have to be hit, injured, or killed, and how much more property damage must happen before the Mayor, and you Council Members make this your number one priority?
I might add that if the mindset at CH wasn’t about being Silicon Valley’s bedroom, to the point of re-zoning commercial parcels (the stadium-for-subdivision deal is a good example) to residential, there would be more business tax revenue coming in.
I also agree with Pete Campbell that the money is there to run the city but it’s being divirted or earmarked for non-infrastructure endeavors, such as millions in redevelopment funds being thrown at getting a tennant into the Sobrato building. What are my tax dollars doing bailing out an obscenely weathly individual whose timing was off?
#1 – VTA bought the land in Downtown SJ for a BART station, not the County. They are different municipalities. Actually the County opposed the BART extension measure in 2000.
#19 Transit advocates who understand good transit policy and use transit everyday are opposed because we know BART be paid by county taxpayers while VTA wastes tax billions and uses up all transit taxes, will not improve county wide transit while making it easier for tech companies to transfer jobs and employees to lower cost East Bay
Has greedy Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO’s or downtown developers ever done anything to benefit you or community without first make millions or billions for themselves?
PO:
The San Jose City Council, including you, need to get your heads out of the sand. Back to the number one responsibility of your job, prioritizing. You set the priority of where the money that is collected is spent. It’s time to shuffle your priorities. There are critical items and not so critical items. Tighten up the purse strings for a few years. Scrutinize each and every expense as critical or not critical. No $4 million for a Grand Prix. It was NOT CRITICAL (no matter what Tom McE thinks) to spend, what was it $10 million, to put a nice TV and sound system into the arena. That could have waited until better times, no matter how much they told you they needed it now. Suck it up buddy. Make the tough decisions. There is so much waste that could be directed to areas that need it. Look at the people in city government. Downsize. Have each department head and manager find a way to cut an unneeded position (and yes, there are many unneeded positions). Get the idea. I spent numerous years working as an auditor. Get a few good auditors on staff with real power and they would make up their salaries in about 2 days and start saving millions in no time at all. There is no excuse for the way the city is currently run and it’s fiscal irresponsibility. Rather than make the tough decisions, maybe fire some people, turn the organization into a (excuse the phrase) lean, mean fighting machine, just raise taxes. Take the easy way that does not require a tough decision or two or 50.
You don’t have to tell anybody who rides or walks in San Jose that streets and sidewalks are a mess. We have weeds growing IN the street due to large cracks in the surface. Much of this damage is due to allowing the cable companies to dig up the streets and then not requiring them to properly repair the street.
I certainly would not support a new tax. We pay extraordinary taxes already and do not receive the basic city services. Why should we assume that by giving you more money you will provide the basics and more?
It is unfortunate for the newbies on the Council, but as long as there are holdovers from the Gonzales reign of terror there will be no trust of our local elected officials.
Show us you are serious and can deliver the basics and then we’ll consider paying more in taxes. Otherwise, it’s fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I won’t get fooled again!
K. Flynn #18 hit it on the head:”…you should hire a few single Moms, or women who know how to budget beans and rice, instead of steak and potatoes every week.”
It’s not real money to you government types. As the late Everett Dirksen once quipped:” a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about serious money”
P.O.: R U getting the message here? Are your colleauges getting it??
Cut the feel good stuff,overpaid managers, public employees administering such nice stuff when we can afford it as public art set-asides. There is so much bullshit in the budget that can be cut in order to get our infrastructure right and provide more public safety personnel.
Forty years ago my Dad, a STAUNCH labor guy/union member, said that civil service is a good idea that went wrong. He advocated firing 50% of all public employees by lining them up and canning every other person, and telling the remainder that they had to put in 30 hours per week of ACTUAL WORK (as opposed to their habit of wasting several hours/day and using it to justify their existence instead of actually providing a service to the public) or they too would be canned.
Most public employees I know personally constantly talk about how overworked they are; yet when they describe to me how they spend their days, I realize it’s mostly spent sucking off the public tit/justifying their existence. And those that do work, spend most of their time getting in the way of businesses/entrepeneurs with silly rules and regulations that are enforced arbitrarily and inconsistently.
P.O. and other members of the council, and the mayor—we are fed up to our eyeballs with government ineffciency, bloated bureaucracies, do-nothing government employees…especially at management levels. These clowns push paper upstream and downstream, yet add no value.
And even when the problems are documented over and over again, all you people do is study it, or even worse, hire consultants to do the analysis the staff is unable or unwilling to do.
What’s the name of that group Dan Fenton heads that runs the Convention Center and other venues at a loss year after year…and they just ask for more time and money to stab at it until they get it right?? Would private industry put up with that? Ask Merrill Lynch’s canned CEO. And all the well-meaning but completely clueless non-profits that want the taxpayers to bail out their complete lack of knowledge or understanding of how to run a business. Or the G I Forum that ran up huge debts to the city for public safety costs to put down the annual Cinco de Mayo riots.
This country was founded on “No taxation without representation”. It’s time for another Boston Tea Party.
Until the budget reflects fiscal reality and appropriate priorities, I will vote NO on every proposed tax increase, and urge everyone I know to do the same.
27 – We obviously know very different public employees. The ones I know work 40+ hours and they work hard. They are dedicated public servants and serve the public extremely well. They work nights and weekends when necessary and the bring work home when necessary.
Your constant broad-brush bashing of all public employees is tiresome and inaccurate. Are there some employees who aren’t pulling their weight? Sure there probably are some but they are not reflective of the general work force. But you want it both ways—you want all the services but you don’t want the employees who provide those services.
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be always trying to deliver services in the most cost efficient manner, but trashing the public employees to make your point only dilutes the effectiveness of your argument.
I know you have an example or two but that hardly proves that all the rest of the thousands of public employees are deadbeats.
Bring a little reality to your argument and some of us might pay attention. Continue as you are and we’ll just pay little attention to your distorted rantings.
Pierluigi, you knew this was going to be flame bait, didn’t you? Of COURSE no one wants to pay more taxes. For anything.
I agree with Willow Glen Dad that public employees’ retirement and other benefits must be brought in line before proposing to raise taxes. And don’t even THINK of subsidizing a soccer stadium when there are roads to be repaired!
ROADS ROADS ROADS
You’d think that’s all that San Jose had by reading this blog. Why don’t you people start walking? Feet don’t tear apart sidewalks and that saves repair dollars. If you didn’t live out in the sticks, there’d be less road to repair, too.
“Subsidize a soccer stadium?” Learn the facts before you bitter jackasses type something online. If anything should be used for industrial purposes, it’s the Mitchell Block. BART will put that to waste for a decade though.
And besides, there are no companies to fill these imaginary industrial facilities! A bunch of dimwits think that the I-Star property could be generating a billion dollars for SJ tomorrow but it’s just not happening. The damn Sobrato building is STILL not occupied.
Meanwhile, a stadium (which can amazingly be used for events beyond soccer!) will be city-owned and generate dollars just the same. In addition, it will bring in shops and likely a hotel which will (you guessed it) generate more dollars! That’s dollars plus dollars!
You can keep hating what the Mercury News tells you to because you’re too busy driving your Hummer to soccer practice (while missing the irony), but you’ll still be clueless rubes.
Maybe San Jose can get into the business of nightclub development.
#28, you must be talking about Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio. That guy is everywhere I turn in D6!
Compare his schedule with the other “public employees”, particularly the weekends here:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/council.html
I agree with you #28, we get our money’s worth out of public employee Oliverio.
Pierluigi, you are so funny! Why is it always the new guys that volunteer to take the shots?
The new guys that have it so figured out that that is that. Mercury News today on RDA and City Council, more back room deals downtown!
When I hear some guy screaming “Sunshine, Sunshine, I have seen the light”, it’s because he is still on the darkside. I got a feeling we’re in for another cold and silent Winter, Pierluigi.
The last administration took us for knuckleheads. They got away with it.
Somebody give Sam and Peirluigi a briefing on the last 8 years under pretty much the last Administration which is still in office!
Don’t fix us we’re not the ones that are broken.
Gonzo had 8 years to stuff he’s own support group into the politics of our City. Now that the wheels have come off, you want us to fix you? Clean up your house ,then come and ask us these silly questions!
D.O.A.
Homeowner… you are spot on. Most city employees, wage or salaried give 110% and are proud of what they do whether they be PD, Fire, Parks, garbage, staff or support. No question.
However, this is the real world of budgets, balance sheets, and survival. Cities, counties, states and corporations have to survive and provide for their market as well as their employees. In good times or bad, it’s a balancing act.
In the private sector we had had to forego wage, salary advances and staffing to weather difficult times. When the economy improved and we were able to deliver the best product or value we all shared in the return. It seemed natural. It seemed to be the American way, win, loose or draw, and we accepted it.
For those in the public sector it may feel the same. Working for San Jose or Santa Clara may be much like working for a struggling competitor vs. working for a techno darling. The bottom line is simple, when management has a well thought out plan and the team is behind it, the odds are everyone will benefit; management, customers, employees and staff.
Question is. . . how will San Jose deal with this reality?
#28 – you are right to recognize the contributions of government employees who provide needed services. The problem is that too many positions are filled with administrators who are expendible since they neither provide direct service nor head up a department. These middle managers get promotions and the big bucks as a reward for seniority. Think of how much more efficient city government would be if we eliminated these non-productive positions in exchange for more police officers and other critical workers. Could it be that these “managers” have the clout of the unions behind them and can’t be removed?
All the folks who KNOW city employees are putting in 110%—FOR A FACT—just slide on by the FACT that these employees have astonish-
ingly great benefits and unbelievable retirement, AND, no systematic evaluation of their efforts, nor any planned. No plan for an ombudsman or any other strategy for soliciting and acting on citizen complaints. If they are doing their job and then some I’d think they’d want everyone to know. They don’t. As for Senor Bales’ eagerness to pay taxes, and conviction that not yet paying enough is what’s wrong with govt., teachers salaries, for 9 months “work”, again, uneval-uated, in Calif., is among the top in the nation though their students are near the bottom. And everywhere you look, there’s new school construction going on, as scores drop like a stone. San Jose City College has been building on Moorpark for years—and having trouble with its accreditation. Check out Moreland’s new corporation yard on Campbell Ave., etc. How about Wilcox near $500k for just getting lost. Whose taxes paid for that?
Musicians are blessed. One sour note and they get the hook. The rest of the orchestra plays its heart out w/o the untalented. No hooks available for public employees’ poor performance—just “one more chance”. (Whatever happened to that 2 million dollar golf course net that PO found out about? Update?) George Green
Pierluigi, Excellent blog today. Excellent discussion.
If you’re serious about fiscal responsibility, the first thing I would recommend would be to replace the “Capitol of Silicon Valley” banner behind the dais with a banner that reads “It’s the budget stupid!”.
PS. How much are the taxpayers going to get tagged for to fund Chuck’s feel good green ‘vision’?
PLO,
When I read the S J Merc, they tell us our gov`t officials tell them that BART to San Jose will cost us $4.9billion dollars and they can pay for the BART extension with a 1/2% sales tax increase, they make it sound easy.
OK, You say we need a $1billion dollars to bring our infrastructure up to date, this amount would be 20% of the $4.9 Billion needed for BART. Why not go to the tax payers and ask for a sales tax increase to fix our infrastructure “first”, get it done, establish a success story, then come back and ask for BART money.
I have a difficult time beliving BART to S J can be built for just $4.9 billion, and just for a 1/2% sales tax increase too.
If you go back to the year 2000, the San Francisco Chronicle and BART people put the cost at $6billion,“in 2000”. Since then we`ve had two eartquakes, and after the Loma Prieta EQ the S F Chronicle told us the new “siesmic fixes for BART in San Francisco costs over $1.1billion. Costs for construction have gone up since 2000, the San Jose portion is to be tuneled in, unlike the San Francisco portion that was done by digging from the road down. The San Jose tunneling will be a lot more expensive than S F`s.
All this said, the $4.9billion cost estimate in the Merc sounds very low in 2007 dollars plus the siesmic and tuneling additional costs plus an injustment for inflation. How about the actual construction date, 2015, think costs will go up by then too.
You see this is the problem, creditability or trust of our public officials cost figures. Why not just tell it like it is, be honest with the tax payers. “Sunshine”, this is a good time for the new city council to set the record straight, everyone is watching.
Do the right thing.
Mr Bales,
The last time I saw a Money mag evaluation of the relative tax rates between states, California was #4. With an income tax rate that gets to 9.3% really fast and a sales tax north of 8%, it is hard to argue that we are undertaxed. I suppose some folks would be proud to be #1 on the tax list but I’m not one of them.
As for the prison/schools question, I always think of it this way. They always say it is more expensive to send someone to prison than to Harvard. To this I say: “lets send them to Harvard.” The know-it-alls there are always telling us they know what to do about all of out social ills. I say: “have at it.”
I think City employees are getting a bum rap here. Many of them work very hard, and pay out a lot on retirement, and medical. I’ve spoken to many, in varying departments that are frustrated, and hurt by the rules, and processes that don’t allow them to help citizens the way they want to. I hear them talk about being ignored if they try to improve things, and see their frustration. Cut em a break guys.
It is the higher ups, middle managers, and so many City Managers, that just attend meeting, after meeting, about meetings, about meetings, that result in doing NOTHING, that need to go.
Feel good projects and programs need to go in times of defect too. Prioritizing is the key here.
if only it were constitutional to tax only property not owned by residents of the city.
#25 wrote:“Get a few good auditors on staff.” We had them; but now the office has been completely demoralized by a person who wanted to leave the office anyway…and now has. Jerry Silva’s team, by ALL ACCOUNTS saved the city many dollars for each dollar his office cost.
Now the other part of the request, auditors “with real power” is a horse of a different color. Neither the politicians nor the bureaucrats ever willingly cede power. So, the auditor can only recommend.
#38 :To determine whether or not BART is likely to be brought in within budget/on time, one ned look no further than the budget/timeline debacle called the Bay Bridge.
#28: yess we do know very different public employees.
Have you ever sat and watched a city road crew, or a parks and rec crew “work”? If they moved any slower, they’d go back in time.
Have you tried to get a 600 square foot remodel through planning & building depts. in less than A YEAR?
Have you called for assistance to a city dept. and been transferred a couple of times and then get cut off?
Have you tried to wade through the bureaucracy to get anything DONE @ city hall?
And others here have hit upon another major problem—middle managers who seem to manage nothing or no-one, but keep getting raises just because time has passed.
Ever tried to get the barking dog ordinance enforced?
“What Can Be Measured Can Be Improved”
This is a common refrain in the operational management field and I believe it is equally true in financial matters. Without knowing how our government entities rank and compare with other benchmark entities, we will never know if we are spending our money wisely.
Wouldn’t it be great if there was a fiscal scorecard that could give us a grade on how we’re doing?
Couldn’t we use this scorecard to determine if additional investment was necessary?
If one does not exist, could we find an organization willing to create an UNBIASED assessment of how we’re doing?
Wouldn’t every (nation-wide) entity benefit from such a system?
In this particular court of public opinion, it seems pretty clear: don’t ask for more of our money until AFTER you’ve shown you can spend it wisely.
Here’s a clue: Make the small stuff your NUMBER ONE priority. Take care of that, then come back and ask us again.
This is a disappointing conversation, and yet one that was easily predicted. The assertion that taxes are being raised at will is silly in a state that once maintained the finest school system and now struggles to emerge from the bottom five. The university system was once the unparalleled leader and now is being discussed as being privatized. No one builds more prisons and fewer schools that we do, and even that statistic is old news as we don’t build much of anything anymore.
From the era of Prop 13 forward, California has spent all of its legislative muscle on finding the means to cut, strip, pare, and eviscerate. Where are the new ideas? Where are the initiatives to move ahead rather than reduce slipping too fast?
I don’t know in a one-day blog if Pierre’s items are the topics on which we should raise taxes, but I find it absurd to read that in 30+ years there are no new needs in this state that merit increasing taxes. Why is that so appalling a sentiment to suggest? Wouldn’t a working school system generate more money in the end that our current practice? Money is often not the answer, but perpetually undercapitalized programs will always deliver inferior results creating the kind of whimpering that is going on here today. If you never fund it properly, you will get the government you paid for.
If you buy the $10 TV on the corner and find it doesn’t work, you were the fool, not the salesman.
#47 Meanwhile we should connect BART and The Light Rail in Milpitas/Fremont area soon.
We should consider express Light Rail Service to BART from San Jose.
We should get realistic with the true costs to bring BART to San Jose. Add costs for “siesmic” upgrades, add costs for tunneling which is very different than how San Francisco built Bart. We should build in all new costs you mentioned, like cost of material and labor increases. We should factor in cost of living increases. In addition add in increases that would add on for construction if built in 2015 or later.
Also bring the S J Merc up to date with true 2008 costs so they can give the taxpayers a more realistic cost figure.
We also need to examine the traffic problems we are heading for along the I-280 coridor once the present high density development is compleeted and occupied.
Every one is talking about bringing BART to downtown SJ to help reduce the east bay comute, no one is discussing solutions to the northern commute from S J north on the west bay, I-280 and U S 101.
Grid lock is not going to make us attractive to convincing new firms to move here and present companies to expand here.
There is a lot to think about.
At the end of the day, BART can never be RAPID, since every train stops at every station. More poor planning
At the end of the day, jet airliners can never be RAPID, since every jet stops at every on its itinerary. More poor planning
At the end of the day, the private automobile can never be RAPID, since every trip stops at every traffic light, stop sign, traffic jam, weird thing on the side of the road that makes other people rubberneck, and construction site. More poor planning
#38 Richard point that BART costs are grossly underestimated – cost of steel, cement , copper wire etc have all gone up a lot
Optimistic BART supporters who will personally benefit financially are not being honest about increased costs and are using under estimated 2000 costs and over estimated passenger trips and revenue costs to get voter approval
VTA Board in written contract with BART has agreed to pay for all the BART Santa Clara County construction and operating costs which includes any bad estimates, over budget construction and to make up any inflated / poor passenger revenue shortfalls plus a percentage of BART total system costs both operating costs and future $6 billion BART system wide
BART or Federal Transportation people will tell you they are amazed how dumb VTA Board (made up of no accountability local city elected officials ) was to agree to total Santa Clara County BART financial responsibility agreement
Recent VTA consultant report VTA also has $3 billion of unpaid operating costs for current VTA system which is 3rd worst transit system in US
Knowledgable transits expert have stated VTA needs voters to approve new 3/4 – 1 cent sales tax increase for existing VTA operating costs
1-2 cent sales sales tax increase will be needed if BART construction / operating costs go billions higher than 2000 estimates making California move from #4 to #1 highest tax state
ANYTHING is more RAPID than the VTA trolley system.
#50—been on the IRT inManhattan? A local line. An express line separate & apart that stops only every 4-7 local stops. Bad example the plane, moroner. You don’t think nonstop SFO to JFK is rapid?
#51—I’ll race you on your BART vs. me on the freeway any day of the week.
What would make BART rapid? Would there have to be an Irish express between your doorstep and a whiskey distillery?
As it is, BART goes from Fremont to the Embarcadero station in 45 minutes. You can’t beat that.
Why do Silicon Valley company CEO’s want BART to / from Santa Clara County ? So they can expand Silicon Valley to cheaper Alameda County / Contra Costa county / San Joaquin jobs and housing
Silicon Valley exported jobs to other states, then Asia, then San Francisco now to East Bay / Central Valley
Santa Clara County taxpayers will pay $$ billions to export our and children’s future – jobs, growth, taxes and housing out of expensive, congested Santa Clara County
Enjoy BART commute to your and children’s future Silicon Valley East Bay / Central Valley jobs / housing while Santa Clara County pays 9 1/2 -10 cents sales tax
#53 JMO,
So why are we going to spend somewhere between $9billion or more on BART to San Jose. If it has no value to our residents as a Rapid Transit system, there must be another reason to bring it downtown.
To satisfy our pro BART group, lets add a express Light Rail from downtown S J to BART Fremont`s station. Then let BART people solve the problem with an express train to…
All we would have to do is build the extension from Milpitas to Fremont. This would be a lot cheeper and with the savings we could fix our roads.
“Bank of America Building is choice for BART station”…Stephen Baxter reporter Willow Glen Weekly.
Stephen says,” Forging that path, the City Council on October 16th selected the Bank of America building on First and Santa Clara Streets as it`s prefered site for Bay Area Rapid Transit station”.
“The VTA estimates it would cost about $50million to make the building eartquake-safe. Nevertheless, the City Council chose it instead of the Western Dental building”’
” Nora Campos City Councilwoman said one has presence, and the other one is there”.
“Hans Larson, the City`s deputy Director of Transportation, said part of the building`s appeal is that it needs a seismic retrofit anyway,,,”.
The VTA is developing a $4,7billion plan to extend BART from Warm Springs to Milpitas, Santa Clara and San Jose… construction can begin in 2009 and be compleeted by 2015”.
“BART planners say a downtown San Jose station would be one of the systems most frequently used stations”.
# 11,15,53,54,56 and others in the same beliefs, I guess the City has “spoken”. I don`t know how thet intend to finance the BART extension but…?
#20 was far ahead of the game, quote;…“by the way BART to San Jose is an essential piece of infrastructure that is 20 plus years overdue”.
The problem I have with what #20 says is only one of the only major costs in our lives that has gone down besides interest rate is the cost to build the BART extension to San Jose. The S F Chronicle put the cost of this project in the year 2000 at $6billion plus interest. Today The Willow Glen Weekly Reporer and the San Jose Merc put the cost at $4.7billion.
To really understand the savings, you have to understand that we had the Loma Prieta earthquake which made it necessary for the city of San Francisco $1,1billion to Siesmis retrofit San Francisco`s part of Bart. San Jose would have to add the same additional cost to it`s $6billion figure.
San Jose has to add the cost of tunneling BART from Warm Springs to San Jose, a compromise made by the city by BART`s opponents.Add that cost to the $6billion.San Francisco did not tunnel.
How about adding the cost to retro fit the VTA estimate to retro fit thr B of A building. $50million.
The cost increases for labor and materials since 2000, and the cost of living increases. Add that to the $6billion.
Add all those figures on to the $6billion dollar 2000 estimate and we can see what a bargin the $4.7billion price tag will be.
I guess it`s time to Build BART to San Jose,…SUCH A DEAL.
Didn`t the Federal Gov`t say something about VTA`s management and financial problems…the same people are telling us how much it`s going to build BART.
#58 …corection asking price $15million.
EMPORIS.COM…Bank of Italy Building, San Jose.
EMPORIS indexes buildings, quote:” owners Stephen and Judy Lin put the building (Bof A) up on the market in March 2004 with an asking price $15billion. Retro fit costs estimate by VTA, $50 million plus the cost to purchase the building…is it going to be sold? Who`s going to pay for the remodel?
Didn`t someone recieve $250thousand in redevelopment funds from our city for this building,,,what happened to that money?
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal Opinion – October 5, 2007
Extending BART to San Jose will do nothing to relieve the region’s traffic congestion. The environmental impact report (EIR) predicts it will take only two-thirds of one percent of cars off of freeways during peak hours.
During rush hour, says the EIS, I-280, I-680, I-880, U.S. 101 and SR 87 will carry an average of 10,000 cars per hour. BART will take an average of less than 60 of those cars per hour off the freeways.
BART is an idea whose time is long past. After the core BART system was completed in the 1970s, UC Berkeley planning professor Michael Webber concluded it was a dismal failure. “High capital costs( about 475 percent of forecast) are being compounded by low patronage (50 percent of forecast),” said Webber.
Despite these problems, Webber feared BART would be “the first of a series of multi-billion dollar mistakes scattered from one end of the continent to the other.” Sure enough, new rail lines in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami and of course San Jose have resulted in similar disasters.
To the extent that BART worked at all, it was only because of San Francisco’s dense job core. San Jose does not have such a dense concentration of jobs, so it is entirely unsuited for rail transit.
BART’s biggest drawback is the serious financial damage it does to other transit systems in the region. Constrained budgets for Muni, AC Transit and other systems have led to a decline in the region’s total transit ridership since 1984.
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2007/10/08/editorial4.html
PO: I admire you trying to get a civic discussion here. It’s too bad it isn’t very civil. Too many people seem to equate “blog” with “rant”.
But I do agree with this majority; we’re not getting our money’s worth on the property taxes, sales taxes, business tax, state income tax, and on and on. I’d like to see more responsibility before I am willing to hand over any more.
Here’s another fact to consider: I hired a part-time worker a few years ago for my machine shop and found out after a few months that he was on the clock in the City’s Public Works dept. the whole time he was working for me. He also offered me all kinds of “freebies” he was stealing regularly from City warehouses. Of course I got rid of him.
Unfortunately, we San Joseans didn’t, because he is still a city employee. And he’s not alone in his ethics.
Wouldn’t it be great if we figured out a way to clear out the underperforming or outright crooked City employees? I bet we’d save tens of millions per year right there.