In the wake of some of the worst land use decisions in the history of our valley, we are faced with a real dilemma: do we use our General Plan as a guide to budgetary decisions and building a better city or do we take the expedient route of rationalization and profit? As they elect a new leader in France, I am reminded of the legendary, but never-spoken line of a doomed queen, “Let them eat cake.” Well, for too long we have been given such cavalier and foolish judgment in our land use decisions. The demands of the few—the privileged class of political insiders—has predominated over the needs of our citizens.
If we are to continue the willy-nilly creation of housing, the depletion of our industrial tax base, and an implicit erosion of our basic services, then there will be a date in the not-to-distant future when our services and the look of our city parks and community centers will resemble other municipal basket cases across the country. We are on that road and it is not paved with good intentions.
It does not have to be our future.
The General Plan update must be revised with an eye on the next generation, not the next rezoning or fundraiser. There must be strong and forceful citizen leaders. In the eighties, listening to our citizens, we did it right. Instead of tinkering and constantly revisiting large and small amendments to satisfy developers, we concentrated on it once a year only. Then we acted on it as a tool for sound growth and good budgeting. Leadership at the top, with the mayor in the vanguard, must exert itself. The opposition is formidable, allied with many powerful groups, and primed for a battle and a gigantic payday.
Strong planning and economic expertise must predominate. Certain neighborhood leaders must forego their coziness with the homebuilding lobby and their erstwhile allies in labor and their factotums in the engineering and lobbyist class, and vote the future of our neighborhoods, if not their consciences.
The three-times-yearly changes and equivocations on the General Plan on all matters must cease. The plan must be adopted once a year, and the rest of the year spent on implementing the many good goals within it. Time is not on our side any longer. No more must the top echelon of the Planning and Public Works Department concentrate on sprawl and instant gratification for the few while neglecting the long-term needs of the many. There will soon be no cake and no bread to support our services. The industrial tax base must be protected, beginning with the Evergreen 300 acres and the Northern Coyote Valley. Infill must be emphasized, not merely mouthed, and our neighborhood services have to be enhanced, not diminished.
This is a time for courage and sound judgment in our city. It must begin at City Hall, but it cannot end there.
“Leadership at the top, with the mayor in the vanguard, must exert itself.”
I don’t see this coming.
I don’t see Mayor Reed as a leader of any agenda. I haven’t seen him at the forefront of any growth-type initiative. He’s so focused on the “Reed Reforms” (which still haven’t made any difference in the operation of City Hall to my eyes) that he hasn’t yet looked outside the walls of Taj Ma-Ron to see the rest of the city. Instead, he’s just throwing his hands up and is letting market forces rule. That’s a recipe for chaos.
Don’t expect any “progress” in this city based on general plan for another 4 years.
Rar-Raw!
I agree with RIP, Reed is as spineless as the rest of the bunch. Sam and Pierluigi, the two promising newcomers, are only two votes. We need more new blood with some brains and conviction before we’ll see any changes in behaviors on the Council.
As for infill first, I’m generally in favor of it but within reason. The project that was approved on Los Gatos Almaden will lower the quality of life in that neighborhood and should have been scaled back. There is another project pending behind the central YMCA involving a land swap and cramming 4 homes where currently only one older and architecturally significant one (which will be saved) stands. This will further pollute that neighborhood with more contrived De Mattei Mc Mansions on postage stamp lots. This type of infill does not improve the quality of life or atmosphere of a neighborhood. It seems the current Council knows nothing about balance and only sees dollar signs when approached by any developer. The trouble is, those dollars are in your pockets and mine, paying more to subsidize city services that residential development can’t cover on its own.
Why do our leaders make so many bad land use decisions? Answer: there is no metric by which to judge their work.
San Jose needs a state of the city dashboard, updated in real time. This dashboard would include:
1) Jobs per 100 residents
2) Per capita sales tax revenue
3) Police officers per 1000 residents
4) Average fire department response time to emergencies in minutes
5) Percentage of hours libraries and community centers are open between 9:00 AM – 9:00 PM 7 days per week.
6) Average processing time for building permits
7) Average response time to customer service requests
8) Number of outstanding street repair problems
9) Number of park maintaince works per park
I am sure we can find more key measurements to assess how well the city is providing the most basic services. We should then take a snapshot of the index when a new mayor comes into office and watch over time if he is making any improvements.
This index should be displayed prominently on the city’s web site and on a large monitor in the lobby of city hall for all to see the state of the city.
Dear Tom:
“Neighborhood services have to be enhanced, not diminished.” Well said, but I don’t think that that will ever happen given the present composition of the council. Reed is still outnumbered.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the only way to restore the city would be for the citizens of San Jose to pass a ballot initiative that would prohibit the council from spending any public money until funding for minimum city service levels was realized. In other words, we could dictate (in real numbers and percentages) what share of the general fund city departments should receive. Example: we could order that 95% of the general fund must be used on public safety, parks, libraries, and streets. When/if minimum service levels are achieved, the city council can look for creative ways to spend the surplus. If we put the city’s budget process on “auto-pilot,” there would no longer be any room for the councilmembers to make costly gambles and mistakes!
Pete Campbell
Very good post. Some areas we should consider in land use and the future development of San Jose are to start transforming San Jose into a walkable city. Plan for density around transit, Balance the Land Use/Transportation equation and advance homes for every income. Every upzoning should carry with it an obligation to provide, preferably through on-site units but at least via monetary contribution, units for the poor and middle class.
Among others; offer basic design standards, in which the goal would be eliminate the sea of stucco boxes, blank walls, street-front parking lots and other inhospitable streetscapes
Locate jobs near housing; Produce green buildings; Nurture planning leadership and get development project input early.
I like Pete’s idea. It worked for the airport where they wouldn’t allow expansion until traffic issues were sufficiently mitigated. Same principle. Power to the people!
I am very impressed with Pete Campbell’s idea, and I do publicly endorse Hon Lien as the best candidate for District 4. Can someone tell her I am defending her on these blogs?
Nice, self-congratulatory post, Tom, but didn’t your boy Gary Schoennaeur (can never spell that right) go over to “The Dark Side”, with his son Eric?
I agree with your basic premise—micro tinkering with the General Plan is a very bad idea. That sort of makes it an UN general plan, doesn’t it?
Asian Voter is in the lifeboat, and wants to admit no-one else.
Mark T #5: as long as land is so expensive here and people want to remain inside the area of service and not move to Morgan Hill or Hollister, you can expect “more contrived De Mattei Mc Mansions on postage stamp lots. “
The Evergreen proposal would exacerbate an already intolerable traffic condition; but the level of service policy was abandoned long ago. On the other hand, would any of the current homeowners want industrial uses built right in the middle of their homes? I doubt it.
Check out where they are. If you keep those Evergreen parcels zoned industrial and someone actually proposes an industrial use for them, the stampede of NIMBYS to the Taj Gonzal protesting industrial uses so near their homes will crush all in its path.
So, lets build a golf course there. A big park would be nicer, but it would be overgrown and weed infested in no time given the parks and wreck record of achievement. At least a golf course is private, and they’ll keep it looking good.
Tom, aren’t you with the Chuck Reed administration? He must be double-crossing you right before your eyes. You backed him up during the election, and now, you’re working with him. What’s going on here? I sense hypocracy. You, two, must be on different directions. You favor controlled and balanced growth while Chuck favors more widespread growth, especially housing on industrial land.
10—I’d feel better about Lien if she could actually read and understand what is being said on this blog, instead of someone having to tell her what you are saying.
Other than being inexperienced and having difficulty with financial matters, she sounds ideal for this city.
#7 puts forth a noble idea, but I can’t get behind it. Budget set-asides like that don’t allow the budgeting process the flexibility it may need. This is why the state has so many so called budget crises. So many ballot measures mandate spending levels on budget items that legislators are hamstrung when the question of balancing the budget comes along. We as an electorate, then, need to remain vigilant to assure that our elected officials know what we demand as priority business and hold their feet to the fire for it.
Tom-
I don’t make as much money as high tech guys. If there is a housing shortage, they will outbid me and I will be forced out of town.
If we rezone the way you want, where do you think people like me should live?
Tom- I applaud your piece today. The only thing I would add is that the City need to refocus and put a primary emphasis on preserving and enhancing the quality of life of existing residents and neighborhoods. The litmus test for any future proposed general plan amendments should be “how does this proposal benefit San Jose and the immediate residents quality of life?”
Steve (#5), you are so right on! Performance based metrics are a reality in private enterprise. Should one ever see metrics on the performance of a Government entity, they’re likely to be 95% “soft,” feel good metrics, e.g., celebrate diversity, be the best city in the state, blah, blah, blah.
As for rezoning of commercial, industrial and R&D parcels, why not implement a Mello-Roos tax to cover the shortfall of revenue necessary to support the new housing? Many cities in the Central Valley have done so with success.
“The demands of the few—the privileged class of political insiders—has predominated over the needs of our citizens. ” – Tom McEnery
JMO- I never said I wanted to exclude anyone.
I’m just sick of our Planning Commission and City Council approving General Plan Amendments for projects without ever having to explain to the public a rationale of why the project should be approved, what the benefits of the project are to the City, or even acknowleding how the project is anticipated to impact nearby residents.
Asian # 17, you said @ #1: “The litmus test for any future proposed general plan amendments should be “how does this proposal benefit San Jose and the immediate residents quality of life?” “
Sounds like you want to exclude folks to me. Perhaps an unintended choice of words.
The parks situation is a disaster. I went by Cahill Park today which is nothing but grass, ground cover,no trees and they have managed to foul that up. A fence around the whole grass area! I thought maybe we had a toxic situation there so I asked the residents of the condo’s that border it. Nope, they told me, they (the city)were trying to fix some low spots, made it worse, and left about 3 weeks ago. I think that department needs to be by itself, no neighborhood services, give that to someone else. These parks are in deplorable condition.