It is never too late for a good, economical idea, and getting rid of bottled water at City Hall is a good start. Of course, it does not compare to ethics reform, but it is in the right direction. If you want to see ridiculous ideas, compare the “bottled watergate” fuss to the simple concept presented straight-faced in the pages of the Mercury News by a development lobbyist who says that the building of a new city in the Coyote Valley will significantly reduce the effects of our carbon footprints.
I really thought that this was a masterstroke in political stupidity. Most lies have a smidgen of believability in them—a small kernel, at least. If, in fact, the construction of 25,000 new homes and a job base surrounding a pristine lake in the Coyote Valley is really going to reverse global warming, stop the loss of Antarctica and save the polar bear, then quickly, boys, let’s start the bulldozers rolling.
It is clear that the Coyote Valley cartel and their allies in the labor movement believe the old P.T. Barnum line that “no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” They think the citizens of San Jose are either dumb or asleep, and that the members of the San Jose City Council are malleable and corruptible. We can only hope that this is an incorrect and typically cynical point of view from those chosen few who feel this way because they purchased the votes and the fealty of that same council for nearly a decade or more.
But things have changed. There is a citizen’s group, as active as ever seen, that believes our city should be governed in the best interests of our neighborhoods and for the generations that follow. This is a feeling that is being shared at City Hall, more and more. And if some of this new realization begins with a move to stem the harm of plastics from bottled water, so be it.
Now they will have to try reason again. These polar bears are not going to eat the dog food.
Tom:
Too late. I ride through Coyote Valley every day. The bulldozers are already rolling and have been for quite some time. The heavy machinery is still in the Coyote Valley moving earth every day. Take a drive down Santa Teresa, towards Morgan Hill. After reaching the crest, look out at the bulldozers and other heavy equipment and how much they have already done. On the right side, the earth is sculpted for acres and acres. The cement has been laid. The creeks, which were stopped, are running again through nice new man made ditches. This is on the right side of the road. The left side is still under construction presumably with the same goal. Construction workers are there every day, and have been for over a year.
Coyote Valley is a done deal. They would not be spending the money to do these projects if it wasn’t.
What is being lost? Farmland. It happens in every city across the US. Where else is there to expand? Up, like in downtown. Not everyone wants to live in an overpriced highrise in a city. There is no place to expand except south. It is inevitable.
what will be, will be.
Tom does a good job of mocking the housing – global warming link. But he never bothered to go beyond mockery and present actual analysis.
The truth is that Coyote Valley is cooler and closer to jobs than the Central Valley. That means shorter commutes and less air conditioning, both of which are good for carbon dioxide emissions.
No one said builing in Coyote Valley will reverse carbon dioxide buildup. They said that building more homes in Santa Clara County will partly help slow global warming.
Compared to our current policy, that is true, whether or not Tom mocks it.
Just because you don’t like an argument doesn’t mean it is false.
And no, I’ve never taken a dime in cotnributions from developers.
I thought city hall employees paid for water coolers out of their own pockets by pooling their money.
Also, will developing Coyote Valley reduce the number of people driving in from Tracy, Salinas, and Pleasanton by 40,000? If so, it probably would reduce global warming. What say the planners, economists, and others who are smart enough to give us a good answer to that question?
Michael and Greg—look, the Coyote Valley developers, many of them fine people and good businessmen, were convinced they could “buy” an approval and an election in the past -they were wrong. I have told a few of them, and I say to you, that if they can show through reason, planning, and positive impact on city services their merits – I will support the housing, as I have supported, and still support, the job base there. The trick is: they still think they can get non-profits, labor, and others to support them minus the real answers. I have debated this issue for 30 yrs. and it is not about downtown highrises ( don’t be fooled by spin), it is about the services that we can support as a city. Thanks for the comment, TMcE
On this issue I agree wholeheart with Tom on this. Coyote will be it’s own city, if it get built out the way it appears.
We really need to slow down in regards to the urban sprawl.
Developing that area is a MASSIVE undertaking, and it won’t slow down anyone who is commuting from Salinas, or the Central Valley. Maybe it is inevitible that San Jose becomes another LA, but at least show some restraint and go slow at it.
Dear San Jose:
“These polar bears are not going to eat the dog food.” (That’s got to be the greatest line ever posted on this site!)
This “cult of green” is driving me crazy. Of course we have a problem, and of course we need to do something about it, but no one in government is doing anything serious about it. Sacramento could (tomorrow) pass legislation that would encourage people to switch to cars with higher gas mileage. (ie registration rates would be based on MPH rather than the price of the car. 2) As implied in today’s Mercury News, burning in fireplaces should be completely eliminated. 3) Sacramento could make all proceeds from solar and othet technologies, tax free for the next decade…the corporations would pounce.
I think that in some ways, this is all a big joke, watching all of the politicians and celebrities try and “out green each other.”
A final note…the San Jose Library (west valley branch) has a plaque for some “green award” that it won. But get this…you can’t shut off the individual table lamps!!! They’re either all on, or all off!! No kidding!
Pete Campbell
Tom—I think your quote is from Mencken not the circus guy. Anyway, the idea of building out Coyote to save trips to Patterson and points east is stupid for the reason that though Coyote is far from downtown it’s smack dab in the San Jose housing market. A 4BR3BA in Coyote would start at $7k or $800K. Housing is all anyone in SJ can think of. Dutch would be smiling. Farms don’t work there, and fruit stands are problematic. What kind of jobs would suddenly appear down there? Because there is neither a real plan, or any imagination available in San Jose, the developers, who do have a plan, albeit the same old one, will win this contest. As usual. Too far from downtown and the neighborhoods for a park, too late for an airport relocation, Coyote is just a sitting duck. Chuck needs to bite the bullet and hire someone internationally famous (not Meier) to give him some help with the problem. A gaggle of locals jabbering in a committee will not turn the trick—or the tide. George Green
It would be nice to think that any development in Coyote Valley will be done right and not simply become an extension of the urban sprawl that defines the identity of SJ. But as long as we have councils that are in bed with developers as has been the case since the 1950’s we can all count on Coyote Valley being a vast suburban wasteland of slapped-together McMansions and strip malls without a shred of cohesiveness.
What makes a real plan, George Green? This looks like a real plan to me:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley/
Tom-
You have debated the impact on city services, and only the impact on city services.
This is an extremely narrow view of the world. The housing shortage has huge impacts well beyond city hall.
It causes massive CO2 and fine particulate emissions from commuters, and high childhood asthma rates in the central valley. It places serious financial hardships on families who stay here and pay very high prices to rent a home. And it places serious stress on the families of the 200,000 people who commute in.
All of these are major facets of the housing/hobs/farmland debate. You can’t unilaterally decide to talk about nothing but finances of city services. That isn’t even close to the whole picture.
A couple weeks ago Pieluigi wrote there is almost $! billion dollars needed for one time repairs around the city. Last week the Mercury reported that bond money approved by the voters several years ago for a south valley police substation was instead going to be used for pet project fire stations. How can the city possibly expand even more south and provide good police services when the current police headquarters is basically in north San Jose? It currently takes patrol officers working in the southern division and driving in commute traffic up to an hour to get to their districts. Shouldn’t we try to follow examples of cities like Sunnyvale and Santa Clara and grow our business tax base? I am not an economist but doesn’t more housing put a strain on a city’s budget and infrastructure, as opposed to business which provides tax dollars to a city? I think our city leaders need to concentrate on the city and citizens we already have and not adding thousands of new houses citizens. As it is, there is new housing developments being squeezed all around the city. Drive along San Carlos and see the huge project going in where Lou’s Village was. There are many more projects like this within a mile perimeter of this. If developers are trying to sell Coyote Valley housing by telling us they are doing their part for global warming, I sure hope our city council does not buy into this.
Greg
When you call a cop late at night in Alum Rock or Evergreen or Berryessa and they don’t come, tell that frightened or endangered citizen about the “big picture.” This elitist and confusing nonsense about commuters and “smart growth” is a mask for a self- serving scam by a small group of developers. They do have pts. to make. Drop the spin, make some good pts., and talk about the reality of neighborhoods in SJ, largely poor and middle class that are being deprived of basic services. TMcE
#10
It is time for Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, Palo Alto, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, and Cupertino to each build 5000 units of low income housing.
It is not the responsibility of San Jose to provide housing for this area.
It is the responsibility of San Jose to stop buidling housing and start building high-tech campuses for Google, and others, to bring jobs to San Jose.
I agree with No More San Jose Housing (Comment #13). Why should San Jose be taxed to provide “affordable housing” for the gardners, janitors, house cleaners, day workers and other non-skilled laborers who work in San Jose’s surrounding silk stocking areas?
San Jose seeks to be a “destination city”. Well, it is already—most newcomers are immigrants from Third World countries who have neither the job skills or the education to survive here without taxpayer help. And of course, the labor union filled city bureauracies are more than willing to take our tax dollars to provide for “those in need”.
As someone once said, ” a government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.
I would not characterize citizens of San Jose as “either dumb or asleep.” Nor would I say all members of the San Jose City Council are “malleable and corruptible.” Perhaps, though, there is a split within both those groups, just as in society itself.
But let’s look at some current local issues and see how both the citizens and the officials partake:
The property, owned by the state of California, used to be called the Bay Area Research and Extension Center (BAREC). Citizens have questioned connections between politicians and developers, which they think have allowed a deal to be made without the input of the community. This deal was put through because of shady areas between policies and practices between the cities of Santa Clara, San Jose, the County of Santa Clara, the regents of the University of California State University and, of course, the private development sector.
MetCalf Energy Center was approved under the Gonzales administration in 2000, despite that Mayor’s opposition to Calpine. The deal was later approved by the California Energy Commission, which had the authority to override San Jose’s local zoning rules.
In 2005, Mayor Gonzales was notably censured by a Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury for offering secretly to pay garbage hauler Norcal for higher recycling-worker wages. He also persuaded the city council to pass a rate hike covering the cost, which of course is passed on to citizens.
In short, I think that to address these issues made by McEnery, it is not enough to only talk about ethics in San Jose City Hall, but all the other factors that govern our life, including county, state, federal and private. Perhaps, these factors are why we often win the battle, but then lose the war.
On another related topic, I think that Coyote valley should be looked at within San Jose’s entire urban plan (citywide); but, also consider the outcome to the larger County and our inter-city boundaries. I am often confused by our vision for our city and county and I am not quite sure that it has a clear plan, especially with past accusations of collusion and a quickly failing infrastructure. Is this real a plan for success or a design for disaster? Mayor Reed is trying to get us back on track, but perhaps we have to think even larger. Years from now, all this will be translated into a growing bureaucracy of city and county services, with people in diverse neighborhoods who, more and more, have disconnected themselves from one another. In fact, that probably is the reality already.
Is our paradigm caught somewhere between our same traditional suburban ideas and those of large, urbanized American cities? Is this what we as citizens chose? Is our finding ourselves on this track inevitable and beyond our grasp? Myself, I hope that San Jose and Santa Clara County recognizes its unique position and takes a more enlightened path towards leadership. We should not just assume and follow in the path of politics and business as usual. We really could make a better place to live.
Maybe I’m alone on this one but here goes. I for one am tired of SJ being the bedroom for Silicon valley and watching other cities grab the riches and looking down their noses at us for not being able to provide the kind of services that they enjoy.
The only problem I have with the BAREC site plans is that there are too few homes. Santa Clara has a jobs/housing imbalance that they need to address and I think about 4x the number of homes planned would make a very small down payment.
Now if SC wants SJ to pick up the burden for them, I’d suggest that they hand over some of their revenue positive industrial land to add to our tax base. Maybe we could then consider developing in Coyote.
And Greg, are you auditoning for Rich Robinson’s old job here as the outsider from a more tax wealthy neighbor, telling us how we have to manage our affairs while staying clear of the consequences. Stick to MV where you can have a positive effect. When the jobs/housing balance in SJ is the same as MV, come back and lecture us.
I grew up in San Jose and have always accepted that it is mainly sprawl. We do have some big corporate types who call us home…Cisco, eBay, Adobe etc. But Mountain View is hardly a place we can say “build it there.” To my knowledge they are basically built out, the Grant Road property being one of the last places to build. I also think its unrealistic to say we should make Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View etc build housing.
Developers are looking for large areas of virgin land to make money…that is what they do. As Tom points out, they use politics to grease the wheels. I have no doubt that happens as I’ve seen it first hand. But I don’t think San Jose can build a moat, pull up the bridge and say no more….its already here. Have you driven down Silver Creek or San Felipe Roads?
I agree that a good way to start paying for city services such as cops, roads, swimming pools, street cleaning etc is to can the 3% at 50 thing that Greg Perry talks about. Take a look at the city budget and see who much they pay in benefits/retirement. The city should change immediately to defined contribution not defined benefit.
Hi $$$$, #9, words, pictures don’t make a plan. If so, your succinct statement of THE plan is?? Exactly whose plan is it? The committees’? Housing doesn’t make a plan in and of itself. The lake is the ID and center and focus of the place? If so, why? How? If there is a plan, who knows about it? Is it a good plan? SJ downtown has been planned and planned and still there’s no plan. All of Stevens Creek Blvd has been planned. Check it out. The only plan there is Santana Row or way down, Cupertino City Center. We need to get to a plan that elicits “Wow!”. Coyote Valley is so far from San Jose it’s not really part of it; it’s just politics, not SJ territory. Let Morgan Hill figure it out. George Green
Tom-
The citizen who needs quick police response on Tuesday also needs to be able to afford an apartment Wednesday. These are both valid concerns, and neither is “nonsense” or “elitist”.
On basic services-
700K homes provide 7k per year in tax revenue. Of that, perhaps $1000 per year goes to the city for ongoing services. That isn’t bad, and I didn’t count any sales taxes from the residents’ local purchases. It is, all in all, close to paying for the cost of services.
One study placed the break even point at 660K. Homes above 660K are a net economic win. Homes less than 660K are a loss. (Simplistic, but good for a ballpark)
In addition, the developer can, and should, be required to pay one time fees to build parks, roads, sewers, and other infrastructure.
On top of that, cities have leverage in rezoning which can be used to extract additional concessions beyond those authorized by the Quimby Act. (Such as a stadium, to choose the obvious example)
All in all, new housing does a decent job of paying for itself.
The homes that don’t pay for themselves are the older ones that have pre-boom evaluations. Building more (or less) housing won’t change that a bit.
If you want to build basic services, the city can start by dropping some of the union nonsense. No 3% at 50. No Byzantine work rules. No labor peace agreements. That will do more good than killing housing production.
Ok. I’ve addressed city services. Market rate housing isn’t the huge catastrophe that is claimed. It’s a wash.
Now you can address what happens to poor renters when every city in the county drags their feet on housing. Rents go up, and good people get evicted.
#13-
I spent four years on the Mountain View city council trying to bring more housing to Mountain View.
To some extent, I agree with you.
But cutting housing in San Jose won’t make Palo Alto add homes. It will just hurt poor people countywide.
If you want the other cities to add homes, call your state assemblyman and your state senator. Ask them to pass a state mandate with a maximum jobs/housing ratio. Just don’t use San Jose’s poor as pawns.
“words, pictures don’t make a plan.”
uhhhhhhhh
1. a scheme or method of acting, doing, proceeding, making, etc., developed in advance
2. a design or scheme of arrangement
3. a specific project or definite purpose:
4. Also called plan view. a drawing made to scale to represent the top view or a horizontal section of a structure or a machine, as a floor layout of a building.
5. a representation of a thing drawn on a plane, as a map or diagram
6. (in perspective drawing) one of several planes in front of a represented object, and perpendicular to the line between the object and the eye.
7. a formal program for specified benefits, needs, etc.
George Green, language works to communicate ideas because words all have specific meanings. You can’t hope to communicate your ideas if you refuse to use words correctly. The Coyote Valley Specific Plan is most definitely a plan, in the sense in which the word “plan” is used in the English language.
You also can’t hope to communicate your ideas if you refuse to use correct grammar and syntax to organize these words.
WGD-
I don’t want RR’s old job, thanks.
But I don’t see the point in saying “new homes should go in his city, not mine.”
There are plenty of people in the smaller cities who argue that new housing clearly doesn’t belong in *their* city.
They usually succeed in blocking new homes in the smaller cities. Over time, you will probably succeed in blocking new homes in your city.
As a result, the new homes will go up in the Central Valley, which is about the stupidest place we could put them.
And TMcE will never write a word about that.
I am curious, given the comments of some of the bloggers.
I have read comments comparing San Jose to San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Austin (TX) and even a few cities within our own county.
How is San Jose’s vision being driven by our competition with these other, often larger, cities? Or is that not so? What does our role as the largest city and “seat” of the county play? What about our place in the Bay Area? Does our identification with Silicon Valley have a premise of its own? What are the typical and/or leading factors driving development in San Jose and what are the goals?
Sixty-eight percent of California’s population lives in its three largest metropolitan areas: Greater Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and the Riverside-San Bernardino Area.
California supposedly has eight of the top 50 US cities in terms of population. San Jose’s population stands at #10 with about 929,936 people. What is the difference of being #10 and some other number? Does this matter? How does population and demographics factor into our vision, from a local to a federal perspective.
Are these questions leading us to the right answers and issues; or, are there others that can be asked, giving us an alternate point of view?
Good work to all, I think the discussion has been good so far.
And with all this our City Council has time to debate a soccer stadium? Where are our priorities? No soccer stadium until basic city services are bought and paid for and assured.
1. Current construction in Coyote Valley is for a creek bypass only, and not for any buildings:
http://sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley/docs/CV_Construction_Update.pdf
2. Regarding housing and climate change, Coyote Valley is purposefully designed to attract new businesses and workers without providing sufficient housing. This means the surplus workers will have to commute from Central Valley, making traffic and emissions worse than they would have been without developing Coyote Valley.
Today was the last day for Plastic Bags in San Francisco!
S F Chronicle, front page, section D, “Bay Area section”. The article said,“attention shoppers: Plastic bags are going,going,gone”.
“The 180 million plastic bags city officials estimate are handed out in the city each year end up on city streets,clog storm drains, harm wildlife and contaminate and jam machines used in recycling, said Jack Macy of San Francisco”
“…and then there is the giant patch of plastic flating in the Pacific Ocean that scientists are monitoring, estimated to weigh 3 million tons and cover an area twice the size of Texas. The patch is about 1000 miles west of San Francisco”.
“…six months from now, pharmacy chains will also have to comply”, “Oakland passed a similar ban that goes into effect early next year and London and Paris have both followed San Francisco`s lead”…Enforcement in San Francisco begins December 1st.”…Mt. View and Berkley have passed a ban on plastics earlier”.
” The Chronicle says,“as usual, San Francisco does things better”.