City Hall Diary
I survived another late night city council meeting. This one was the last of the 2006-2007 fiscal year. The meeting began at 1:30 p.m. but did not end until 11:30 p.m. I am not quite sure if having a ten hour meeting allows for the time needed to go over important items like Coyote Valley, a hazardous waste facility, and Evergreen, among others. Members of the community come to the city council meetings and have to wait for hours just to be heard for one or two minutes regarding their particular issue. And, of course, we had a smorgasbord of last-minute issues that either couldn’t wait until August, or were not planned appropriately to come up at an earlier meeting date.
Here are a few important issues with my opinions.
Surplus city owned property
In an attempt to acquire revenue, the Public Works Department brought forth a proposal to auction off various parcels of city owned land. A few of those parcels were identified by community leaders in my district for possible parks. I removed this proposal from the consent calendar and asked that it to be deferred to October. As we know, land is a precious commodity; once we sell, it is gone forever. If the city is serious about saving money, then I think the city should do a better job of managing its everyday expenses—not sell land that will only increase in value.
Coyote Valley
As I have mentioned before, I am not supportive of developing or planning for Coyote Valley at this time. Currently, there are many reasons why this development would be harmful for San Jose, such as the lack of tax base, depletion of city services, sprawl, and depleting open space. The question I have is: Is the city being disingenuous with allowing the planning to continue? For example, if the city as a whole does not want to develop Coyote now, then we should stop planning. Some of our best planners are working on this project which takes them away from other infill developments that deserve expertise.
Evergreen
The discussion of Evergreen reminded me of a mathematics class: a complex formula of merging both Mayor Reed’s and Vice Mayor Cortese’s memos together with a few amendments. In the end, we had something to move forward with and will review each proposed development case by case.
$2 million nets for the Los Lagos Golf course
After spending over $100, 000 on a consultant, it was determined that the city owned golf course, Las Lagos, needed new netting at a cost of $2 million to keep the golf balls from going in the street. Yes, $2 million for nets. The golf course was “supposed” to be profitable. Instead, the city has spent $24 million on the golf course already since it was opened approximately a decade ago. Las Lagos has operated at a loss every year—absolutely no profit.
Las Lagos sits on 200 acres of city owned property. One might think that the investment of $24 million on a golf course isn’t working and the city should cease spending money on it. Perhaps we could use the 200 acres for organized play. I believe that San Jose should open a similar business like Twin Creeks in Sunnyvale, which offers organized fee-based team sports for both men and women. Twin Creeks is a private company that makes money offering organized play to our residents.
I am confused as to why a city government would continue spending millions on a golf course. Decisions like these keep me up at night. Rancho Del Pueblo, which is another city owned golf course, has also operated at a loss since it opened.
Hazardous waste site at Las Plumas
After looking at six other sites, the City of San Jose decided to place its hazardous waste site at Las Plumas. This facility will serve the city well. Residents will be able to drop off paint, batteries, aerosol cans, etc. We don’t want residents throwing these items into the ground or gutter. I must share that the city is feeling the ramifications of the poorly made decisions of converting industrial land to housing. Fewer and fewer options for industrial uses in San Jose are available. Another example was the difficulty of finding industrial land for CWS, the new garbage hauler in San Jose. As Mayor Reed, a few other council members and I have stated, we need to stop the conversion of industrial land.
For the month of July (during the council recess) I will be working at my private sector job. I think it is important that I continue my profession so that I don’t lose perspective of the “real world.”
Why does San Jose spend hundreds of millions $$$ taxes to subsidize ” nice to have” activities or events like golf courses, arts, theaters, museums when we do not have enough money to pay for basic city services ?
Why are ” nice to have ” activities or events not self supporting fees ? Time to raise city fees and have reduced fees for low income residents
Why do we have 3 city golf courses?
San Jose Municipal Golf Course
Los Lagos Golf Course
Rancho del Pueblo Golf Course
when there are 10 public courses with 10 miles, over 20 public golf courses within 20 miles and 64 public courses within 50 miles
http://www.magicyellow.com/category/Golf_Courses_Public/San_Jose_CA.html
A few more very recognizable local pubic courses
San Jose – Cinnabar Hills Golf Club
San Jose – Cypress Greens Golf Course
Santa Clara Golf and Tennis Club
Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course
Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course
$2 million for new nets for a golf course?? That would pay for over 20 new police officers for a year. If the course does not collect the fees to support itself, close it. There are plenty of other golf courses to chose from. This is a no-brainer in my opinion. There is no socially redeeming reason the city should pour money into a golf course. What is more important, keeping a library open for children to access, or buying new nets for a golf course for the relatively few people that use it?
Golf courses use a huge amount of space for the amount of activity that goes on there. Given the dire shortage of parks in SJ, let’s turn the golf courses into ordinary parks. There would be enough room for more space-effficient sports facilities like basketball courts plus open space for people to have picnics or let their kids run around on the grass. Maybe even a skateboard park or dog area.
Disclosure: my car was hit by an errant golf ball that escaped from a city-owned golf course due to poor netting.
Thank you for this post. I am so disgusted at the Council spending money on things that are luxury or profit for a select few and the city residents are getting almost nothing in service -even at 28% more than a year before.
Some streets in my area (dist. 10) are worse than off-road but only the Grand Prix area is what ALL our streets were 20 years ago.
Blowing money on golf nets ,gift shops in the Fairmont , moving SELF-SUPPORTING restaurants out for ones that can’t cut it, and giving 2.9 million in rent to a GERMAN private trust (Trader Joe) so that the downtown crowd can buy their brie is disgusting.
I don’t know any resident who doesn’t want streets, library hours, clean and updated parks before GOLF and GIFT SHOPS etc.
Can we do an initiative to line by line dump these luxury items? We can’t trust the council as a whole to think clearly about pet projects. I think the residents would have no problem in voting NO on this junk.
My favorite item in the 2007-8 budget is shoving the ENTIRE COST of sidewalk repair including liability (that is your equity dear)on the homeowners. The city planted bad trees and now we have to pay for the cost. So the money can buy a GOLF net. (What is that net made of anyway? Special fibers that collect campaign donations?)
Sell it to Lew Wolf…
Hey Everyone,
Quit bagging on golf courses. Where do you think the city will put the extra crap made at city hall without fertilizing golf cources.
By the way, the grand prix should add a golf cart race division.
Most of the blame lies with the mayor. Chuck Reed has ignored the swimming pools, community centers, libraries and pools for the last sixteen years, in the six months he has been mayor.
Where is fiscal responsibility and public benefit when senior staff recommends and Council pays tens millions and gives sweet heart below market rent city property lease deals to insiders?
Gosh folks, isn’t it clear that most Council Members have an inferiority complex, fostered largely by Gonzo and his team. If you take all the expensive goodies away from them, they’ll have to get professional counseling.
Crisis Watch, I believe you’re correct – were the City Taxpayers given a shot to vote on goodies or basic services, goodies would be gone, gone, gone!
Greg, Council’s 2007 / 2008 tax waste, giveaways and voting record will be published prior to 2008 elections, so voters can again hold Council accountable as 2007 election did with Grand Prix giveaway and lobbyist deals
Council reelection – Chu, Oliverio, Pyle
Supervisor election – Campos, Cortese, Chavez
Would the facilities make money as just driving ranges? I know people who use the range at Los Lagos because it’s open at night, but they don’t golf there so much. I agree that the bleeding should be stopped, but let’s first see how far we must go to do that.
PO hits nails every Monday. I hope that doesn’t mean he’s in lots of trouble with The Thoughtless Ones. How did all this golf course waste happen?? History, please. And where is the rest of the City Council on the money-losing golf courses—and the 2 milion dollar nets? A few more of these wasteful and obvious boondoggles and there goes the deficit. If the golf courses can happen, one can just imagine what else is out there—that only Pierluigi seems to be able to notice. The recent pay raise for dept. heads, perhaps, with no mention of their performance evaluations ???, or the regular evaluations of their employees. A very large can of worms, but you won’t read a word about it in the Murky. George Green
Just give these failing city venues to Team San Jose and Dan Fenton he’ll turn them around to help make a profit and run them to the ground. Oh wait, the City has already done that with the Convention Center and it seems that everything he touches fails unless he has help from the city and our tax dollars. Grand Jury findings say that too! We could have many more productive city offices if the politicians would stop doing thier friends favors. Take note Pierluigi, there is a lesson to be learned.
Here’s the line up for Channel 26 this fall.
10:00 am. Channel 26 – San Jose’s Funniest Budget Line Items
Where the emcee cajoles the audience to “lock in their votes” on the most ridiculous budget items.
11:00 am. Channel 26 – Wheel of San Jose Fortune
Each week, 3 local lobbyists spin the fabulous prize wheel and solve word puzzles of ‘lobbyist friendly’ CH personnel.
I just want to understand this, these golf courses lose money every year,
What do you guys think that’s going to change that from happening every single year from here on out ? really I don’t get it can’t we just stop the bleeding?
Hopefully for two million dollars they are at least porpoise and dolphin friendly nets.
#14: Los Lagos History (compiled through SJ Merc):
Original cost estimate to the city was $12.4 million in 1997, but in September 2001 the cost had ballooned to $25.3 million.
Throughout the project, Council Member Shirakawa assured his colleagues that the project was pretty much on budget and the golf course would “pay for itself”.
Original green fees were projected to be $27, but opened at $42.
From Barry Witt in 2002:
“City officials rushed just about every major decision on this course through the city council, repeatedly adding items late to council agendas and ensuring there would be minimum time for public scrutiny. That includes this week’s (March, 2002) council action, for which the report was released at 6:30 p.m. on March 13, leaving three business days for public review of a 15-year contract. And I’ll remember how CourseCo in 2000 suddenly started showering council candidates with campaign contributions, finding multiple subsidiaries to distribute a series of $250 campaign contributions in compliance with city contribution limits.”
Pierluigi you are “hitting the nails on the head.” Now, what do we do about the waste? If the council can’t take the appropriate action then I think it is up to the voters. Ask the voters about the golf courses. Ask the voters if planning should be stopped in Coyote Valley.
New Civil Grand Jury should look at no accountability tax millions deals given to out of town developers, corporations and sports – Walnut Creek – Story / King RDA shopping center, Los Angles / Westwood – Soccer Stadium, Petaluma – 2 SJ public Golf Courses, Cupertino, Los Angles – Evergreen homes, Saratoga, Scottsdale, AZ, Orange County, Beverly Hills – Coyote Valley homes
Why do out of towner’s know the way to “easy money San Jose” ? – Council asks few questions before giving millions taxes, fee credits, no public accountability, low community requirements and little citizen involvement unlike other more demanding cities
What if say, 975,00 people PRETENDED they were really from LA with San Francisco consultants (gotta have San Francisco consultants) and asked for our (oops their) tax dollars to be spent on us (oops them)?
When my homeowner group asks for a few grand for a beautification project that will be there -doing 100% of what it should do the money is meted out like the last $5 in Pop’s wallet but money down these out of town rabbit holes – no problem. Here take $3 million- just in case….
And does anybody not think Hollywood bookkeeping is used in ALL these not making money deals that grow so easy in the Valley of the Hearts and Taxpayers Wallets Delight?
PO: How is the $2million for the netting divided between material and labor? There is NO WAY a few hundred yards of netting can cost as much as a mile of street pavement or 2 miles of freeway sound wall. The labor must be the main component—public employees? Re-bid the job. The golf course is an asset.
Second choice—the range is hokey anyway, so just close it, sell the land the range is on, or turn it into something else, and keep the golf course open.
How much $$ did the course lose? Analyze the budget and make appropriate cuts; then raise the green fees $5.00.
Re waste site—Donde esta Las Plumas?
#18: cost overruns are par for the course on any CSJ or RDA project; e.g., The Tom McE Convention Center, its new tent, the library, The Taj Gonzal, The Trolley (oops, light rail), The Fallon House…and the list goes on. Of course, none in recent memory compares to THE BAY BRIDGE.
But it needn’t be so. After the quake in La La Land, their freeway was rebuilt under budget and on time. Yet 18 years after Loma Prieta, they’re still screwing around with the Bay Bridge.
Is it something in the air here that leads to delay, waste, and cost overruns? Who do we think we are, the Defense Dept.?