Do you remember getting an allowance as a kid? I do and it wasn’t very much, so I had to learn to manage my money very carefully. My chores were visible to my parents and they judged me on my performance. They could clearly see if I was not performing up to par. In addition, my parents would oversee how I spent my money. They wanted to make sure I was not wasting it and that I spent it prudently.
This past week, at the April 17 city council meeting, my fellow councilmembers and I heard from the Mexican Heritage Corporation (MHC). As you may know, the MHC is suffering from severe financial trouble and they are looking for the city to assist them from their own short fall.
MHC is not alone. Within the past two weeks, Economic and Social Opportunities (ESO) closed its doors, and it was just within the past six months that The Rep was given $1 million to keep its doors open. I haven’t even mentioned the Northside Community Center for which its president bought computers for personal use. Unfortunately, these stories are not isolated incidents and the people who suffer are not the folks running the non-profits—their salaries have been paid—but those who depend on the service the non-profits provide.
The City of San Jose has got to do a better job in making non-profit agencies fiscally accountable. Therefore, I support the idea that non-profits who receive over $100,000 from the City of San Jose should be required to publish their audited financials and balance sheets on their websites on a quarterly basis.
To be fair, non-profits are required by the State of California to publish an IRS Form 990 on http://www.guidestar.org. However, there are a few hiccups in retrieving the financial information:
1). A resident must actually know that GuideStar exists
2). A resident must enter personal information to access the database that could be considered an infringement upon personal privacy.
3). Pertinent financial information requires a $1,500 annual subscription. This is an accessibility problem.
4) The IRS form 990 for MHC is available; however, it is not an audited statement and is dated from June 2005, making it 22 months old.
At the past city council meeting, the executive director of MHC assured me that MHC’s financials were online. She misspoke. MHC has a City of San Jose operating grant form on their website—not a signed balance sheet. I spoke to our city auditor regarding this issue. He stated that he could not work judiciously with financial information that was over 22 months old.
Residents have a right to know how government is spending their money—this includes the agencies that government allocates money to. Therefore, I continue to stand by my belief that non-profits who receive over $100,000 from the City of San Jose should be required to publish their financial statements online on a quarterly basis. Perhaps if the city had access to non-profit financials, we could have helped groups in difficulty sooner.
Non-profits serve fragile communities that otherwise would go without. The people who rely on non-profits deserve fiscal accountability from those who are managing the non-profits they depend on.
Amen. Well put.
But why not have all the financials in one spot, on the City’s website? Surely there cannot be that many non-profits who receive over $100,000 from the City of San Jose.
Would you also agree that all businesses be it nonprofit, small private businesses, corporations, high tech, developers, etc who have subsidies over $100k also be required to post quarterly financials. For example, Bea Systems, Fairmont Hotel and others have recieved a much greater subsidy from the City than any of our local nonprofits combined will ever receive. If you are calling for sunshine ..Please be consistent for all city subsidies and while your at it CIty of San Jose should post their financial informatiohn on line as well.
This proposal on the face seems intriguing but there is really much more to the story here. This would a full emplolyment act for local accounting firms.
Signed
Sunshine Annie
I can’t really add much. You nailed this one. I also agree with #3 in that it should be published on the city’s website, so that people don’t have to be told of another agency which handles such information. That would be some sunshine, for sure.
Pierluigi,
Thank you for discussing this very Sunshine important issue that some do not understand why it is impotrtant and strongly supporting improved city and public review of where over $100 million per year of our public taxes are being spent. 460-500 or possibly more non profits and community groups receive $200,000 or more per year from San Jose city government with the exact total amount of taxes spent either not known or not disclosed .
Another related very important Sunshine accountability issue is that San Jose’s city budget does not provide line item summaries across departments by category so the City Council or public can see a total listing fund expenditures like grants or other the tax funds given to non city government groups – 1) non profits or community groups, 2) economic development funds to corporations or developers or 3) non city governments – county, agencies or districts for services.
San Jose has many excellent non profits and community groups that provide outstanding and cost effective services to both people in need and desired community services and San Jose provides tax funds to assist them which is in city and public’s best interest.
Public has a right to know where our taxes are being spent and to expect that the non profit or community group Board’s fulfill their legally required oversight responsibilities which many of the non profits Board who have financial problems do not seen to have done or if done then
San Jose’s grant or tax request reporting requirements are either 1) inadequate to give the city early notice of non profit financial difficulties 2) they are not being followed or 3) city staff is not reviewing or understanding the required reports It is probably a combination of all 3
It is important to have clear well defined easily understandable reasonable disclosures using existing current public records information that is or should be furnished to the city and easily accessible and understandably by the public – 1) IRS form 990, and 2) San Jose’s grant or other applications for public funds which should include either financial reports or information and be available on line at the groups web site.
If the public records information does not provide sufficient information for city or public then city should work with non profits to develop what additional public records information is needed and include those requirement in the grant or request application so that it becomes a normal and predicable part of the non profits and city grant administrative process
Standardize all city grant or requests for public taxes to make it easier to for non profits to administer and the public to understand
San Jose’s city web site should 1) provide an annual summary listing of all non profits and community groups that receive public taxes ) with a link to their web site making it easy for the public to review where our taxes are being spent.
If we have questions then we can 1) easily go to non profits or community groups web site for additional information or 2) go to the annual Council Committee or Commission public meeting that has review responsibility for the grants or requests for tax funds
It is very important that San Jose in the proper and responsible effort to address what is obvious problems as to obtain better review of where our taxes are being spent 1) not interfere with non profit Board oversight responsibilities, 2) not add unreasonable restrictions, burdensome or invasive reporting requirements, or 3) violate IRS non profit regulations about government control or oversight of non profits Review is appropriate but control is not
Asking for better disclosure of where are our taxes are being spent will be a benefit to everyone involved since 1) the well managed excellent non profits and community groups will receive recognition for the excellent services to the community and possibly more city or other grant funding, 2) those non profits with problems or lacking Board oversight will have an incentive to improve or will lose funds 3) non profit Board oversight should improve 4) City Council , Council Committee and Commissions and public will be given increased assurance their taxes are being spend properly and 5) we all will have improved accountability without burdensome requirements or interfering with the non profit Board oversight responsibilities
A Sunshine Reform Task Force committee will be meeting this afternoon with city managers, staff, non profit and community group representatives to develop and make additional recommendations on how to improve city and public review of where our taxes are being spent without being unreasonably burdensome or interfering with non profits Board oversight responsibilities.
Pierluigi,
Accountability between San Jose City Council and Non profits is a good idea, but it should go both ways. Over the past several years, a little non-profit by the name of Preservation Action Council of San Jose has held our City leaders accountable to the law. They have advised the Council when they were straying outside the law and sued them when they voted to break the law. Over the past 15 years, in every case the Courts have ruled in favor of PAC SJ. The Councils failure to listen to PAC’s expert advice has cost tax-payers millions of dollars. Recently the courts have twice ruled that this administration’s attempt to demolish a City, State and National Landmark was illegal. That landmark is the IBM Building#25.
The San Jose Planning Dept. and the Planning Commission have changed their position on the project and now advise Council to save the historic resource. The vote goes to council on May 1st. I have been told that some Council members, along with the Mayor, will not support saving the building. This is despite the fact that it would be illegal to demolish the historic building. Had Council listened to the non-profit’s legal advice three years ago, we could have enjoyed the tax revenue from an other project on the site. The City has also had to pay their’s and the non-profit’s legal fees. How do you feel we should make those Council members accountable, who knowingly vote to break the law.
Pierluigi—
Most nonprofits believe in accountability and provide huge quantities of accountability information to the City of San Jose already. I hope you’re looking at whether the City has the staff capacity and competence to review all the accountability data they already collect. The County’s Civil Grand Jury has criticized the City for their lack of oversight of nonprofits. If you want to require more from nonprofits, I hope you also require more from City staff.
Also, I’ve heard ESO is still open, and was it ever proven that the Northside executive director bought computers for personal use? It would help your credibility if you checked your facts first.
I hope your goal is to work as a partner with the nonprofit sector, not as an adversary. Criticism and suggestions are welcome, but please spend time learning about nonprofits too.
Dear Pierluigi:
I appreciate your efforts to bring accountability to the city government.
I wonder if we can have a system where one can call their council office (or post a note online) to report an code enforcement issue or something else that needs the city’s attention. Why does code enforcement have to open a file for everything? (A file that stays on the shelf for months). Why can’t the city send someone out to take care of the situation immediately?
I come back to my suggestion that the council assign two crews to every council district for 60 days, solely to take care of some of the neglected maintenance and spruce up the parks, take down illegal signage, etc. I see tons of stuff in my area that could easily be addresses in two weeks!!
Pete Campbell
The issue of transparency is well and good and mandated by law covering the pubic benefit sector. It is the public’s business and they are fully entitled to know about how these organizations function.
The original posting contains some mis-information regarding the assertion that audited quarterly statements should be posted. No one, including the City of San Jose, produces quarterly audited statements. Audits are an annual process and take time to finalize. 22 months is timely in posting of audited statements and this is true of every corporation in America. Even quarterly SEC filings are not fully audited documents.
What is being asserted here is that the City was left in the dark as to the status of MHC and other groups. That is a misstatement of fact. Perhaps there was a criminal misconduct in Northside’s case and there the data may have been hidden to protect criminal intent, but that is so far the exception that to lump others together in this way is irresponsible.
MHC has had a difficult operating model from the day the City built it. That has been well documented in City filings for years. Its situation has been fully debated in public several times; in fact it had been brought before the City Council over the past year on several occasions. They were on the agenda for Council review when the Rep’s difficulties came forward and the MHC issue was tabled to examine the Rep further. Having been on the agenda, there would have been back-up material available at that time.
Public benefit corporations serve functions that are vital to the health of the community. As such their stability is of equally vital importance to the community and its civic leaders, but to imply malfeasance on the part of public benefit leadership is misplaced. Transparency is important, but due diligence goes far beyond asking for a posting of financials, it goes to reading and evaluating them when presented. If we seek accountability, then we must make sure that we take the time to examine the records that are available to us.
If you ask the Auditor, “is 22-month old data accurate enough?” he might say “no,” but if you ask “had he seen more recent data?” I think you would have gotten a different answer.
PO—Another terrific Monday SJI blog. More Big A: accountability. You will take a lot of crap for insisting on it, but HANG IN THERE. I hope you’ll provide updates on how far the $80K+ for the Rose Garden goes. Love the Murky’s headline: “Union Boss Gets Slap in the Face…” How about the slap in the face the taxpayers and citizens get every day they visit ANY SJ park? Park money budgeted, but if there’s NOT ENOUGH, the dough just sits there. Only a union member can pull a weed—and taxpaying residents are not allowed to help: taking bread from the mouths of the union members. Also the “Accountability both ways” Anonymity bragging about the $$$ the
historic preservation folks “save” with infallible advice about old boards and peeling paint being precious, and the “treasure” of
IBM’s architecturally inferior Bldg.25, is at least arrogant, but essentially wrong. His group has cost San Jose millions dragging old junk around the streets to put on vacant lots that could be put to far better economic and architectural use. Check out the 3rd and William St. Extravaganza—and moving the Montgomery a few feet at a cost of millions.
Please. Sure woul like to see that groups income and expense ledger. Lots of money for sympathetic City Council members there somewhere. George Green
The City should consider the same philosphy you propose for non-profits. Accountability, transparency, and living within your means.
Pierluigi & Ed #6: Let’s shine some sun on The Grand Prix subsidy first, and demand to know how much, IF ANY, actually went to Cancer Research. We’ve been shined on enough; let’s get some answers or withdraw the $$.
George #11 said:“Only a union member can pull a weed.” Only partly true, George. No non-union member can pull a weed. But I’ve watched the Park & Wreck guys @ St. James Park—in a 10 minute span one guy pulled one weed and spent the rest of the time talking to his partner, who was supposed to be picking up trash. The 2 just stood there and shot the breeze. The union weed-puller apparently has to pull only 6 weeds an hour under the union work rules, and who knows what the trash picker-upper’s quota is.
Can them all and outsource it. Do you need and H1B to pull weeds, or can we just pick up a few guys at the Home Depot closest to each park and let them do it all for a tenth of what the union layabouts charge?
I think the Council should first review what is available before beginning a new process. This council person is new and probably not well informed about the current monitoring system. Providing oversight by city staff is an answer but an expensive one. The job of program monitors is to review and monitor the expenditures it is funding.
Perhaps the council could conduct a post mortum on the agencies in question. What did they all have in common? One glaring commonality is that the city knew each was in trouble before the situation became so entangle.
Let’s look at other thoughtful opportunities to strengthen what we have rather than using a knee jerk reaction.
One whay to accomplish this might be to review the current systems and agencies’ relationships to the city. They may be surprized by what already exists.
As far as the MHC is concerned, #14, we already have an analysis of the problem from the City Auditor. Although he suggested a follow-up by an outside consultant (Ugh, more $$ down the rathole of administration & process, instead of for execution) I’d bet he did that just to maintain perceived independence and not toot his own horn.
But just as we didn’t need two expensive follow-up investigations after the Civil Grand Jury lambasted The Gonzo and his minions, we don’t need to pay for a full-blown re-hash of what the City Auditor has already done. After all, that’s why we pay him and his staff, and that’s why he is independent. His reports usually suggest changes and improvements, so let’s have the council look to the man and his staff that they pay handsomely to investigate, audit, and advise.
As to your comment:“Providing oversight by city staff is an answer but an expensive one. “, Right on! So much of public agency work is moribund process and oversight. If a charity wasted as much $$ on process, oversight, and administration as public entities do, we’d all be advised not to donate to them since so little $$ would end up doing the charitable work.
On that note, how much $$ did the Canary Fund actually donate from the proceeds of the subsidized Grand Prix? Can we get Mr. Silva on that, since the Fund has apparantly declined to disclose that number…if indeed there was ever a donation?
After all of the architectural history that has been lost in this town, I was amazed and disturbed to read the anti-preservation remarks by Mr. Green. My suggestion to him would be to relocate to Las Vegas, where they have a very workable system of not planning anything for the ages and where no building is protected from the ballistics crew. It’s a formula that works fine for a plastic and ever-changing place like Vegas, and I do love Vegas, but it’s entirely the wrong approach for your average U.S. city. Clearly Mr. Green wants San Jose to lose all that’s left of its soul. It’s comforting to know his woefully outdated opinions are not shared by the majority of SJ citizens. Remarks like his trigger visions of the Dana Carvey’s old Saturday Night Live “angry old man” character: “. . . they tore down all the old buildings that gave this town a personality and we LIKED it!”
George (#11),
Gosh, what’s worse, “… dragging old junk around the streets to put on vacant lots…” or spending a cool half billion on the new City Hall?
I don’t think you can lay blame to the historic preservation folks without multiplying it one hundred fold when it comes to our elected officials wasting money.
Pierluigi,
Excellent idea! We should expect fiscal responsibility where City funds are made available to these entities. Audited income and cash flow statements and balance sheets should be disclosed on a quarterly basis. For ease of access, I’d suggest that links be provided on San Jose’s homepage.
Too, I wonder if City agency statements could be made available, particularly information regarding sources and uses of funds.
Pierluigi, thanks for the great information. It really helps the average citizen know more about how the government works. I’d like to invite you to see the same thinking in action at our new website, http://www.sanjoserevealed.com.
Pierluigi,
If the non-profits taking money from the city cannot provide the financial statements, I would like to see the groups post their monthly board meeting minutes on the web.
Every group should have a treasurer who gives a monthly report that is recorded accurately in the minutes. This might give us a head’s up to future financial trouble with very little effort. If the group does later run into trouble and asks the city for a handout, we could go back and review the minutes to see if the dire financial situation was ever discussed by the board. (If not, sorry no more city money)
As a side benefit, we could see how many of the board members actually attend the meetings and what they are doing for the organization. Based on the fund raising record of the MHC board, it appears the MHC’s board does very little.
Posting meeting minutes on the web should be a requirement for any future grants from the city.
#10
Yes, SEC filings are fully audited documents.
Yes, 22 months is a timely posting of audited statements.
Yes, audits are an annual process in corporate America.
Given such, these are some of the reasons public entities are often restricted from investing in private equities and typically held to a higher level of fiduciary responsibility.
That said, public agencies repeatedly invest in projects, ventures and programs with equal or less financial oversight or scrutiny than is typically found in the private sector; and it does not have to be that way.
If a public support donation to provide a safety net to a worth while social need or venture is the right thing to do; then it should be done with at least the same vigilance, fiscal responsibility and oversight as is typical of Blue Chip private sector companies.
Would it not seem that failure to do so would constitute failure to live up to or responsibly fullfil the public trust?
Greg—I couldn’t agree more about bureaucrats being more adept at wasting tax $$ than any other miscreants. The CH is a contemptible waste, and crappy design to boot. My complaint with the “historical preservationists” is their moral superiority and hypocrisy about “saving tax dollars”—and having no influence on city gummint. They OWN the Council. The waste they lay on the treasury is huge; their taste and “vision” is abominable. Somebody needs to point out that Carl Rove could learn from them.
As for the intense reaction to Pierluigi’s idea that accountability for tax dollars for non-
profits should be widely available (though far too complex for even the smart taxpayer to follow), auditing is only one way of measuring the effectiveness of non-profits—or city depts.
When a 16 person board, as with the MHC, is only capable of raising $4K in a year, that tells you lots. That they are broke, tells you what you need to know. ANY amount they get will be spent; just kids with parents who keep giving out coins and bills. A non-audit evaluation, with consequences, is in the realm of accountability. A chart of who uses the MHC, and who doesn’t, who gets paid and for how much and for what, in a list, would work.
We have to get past the John Vasconcellos “Everyone is doing a great job” song and dance—that demands that anyone who IS doing a great job gets fired or harassed til they quit for making everyone else look bad. Sick, sick, sick. George Green
Steve #18: I’d say the only longer siesta than the MHC Board’s was Rip Van Winkle’s.
Toss them all as a condition of further funding by the taxpayers.
George Green #11 and #20,
It is quite clear that you don’t have a clue about historic preservation in San Jose. You say that preservationists cost the city millions of dollars by forcing the city to move the Montgomery Hotel a few feet. If you knew what you were talking about, you would have known that historic preservationists wanted to keep the Montgomery Hotel in it’s original location. That way we wouldn’t have to spend millions of dollars to move it. The move resulted in the demolition of the historic ballroom, basement and first floor. It is always the first choice of preservationists to keep historic buildings on their historic sites. Millions of dollars were wasted because Susan Hammer and Council didn’t listen to historic preservationists. Instead the Council entered into a deal with Lew Wolff, behind closed doors. Their deal was to pay Wolff $1,000,000 if they voted to keep the historic building on its site. The idea of moving the building came from Mayor Ron G’s attempt to fix a bad agreement by the previous administration. The present President of PAC SJ was the chair of the Planning Commission at the time. He voted against moving the hotel. He and an other planning commissioner, who now sit on PAC’s Board, voted to save the building on its original site. You then say preservationists “own City Council”. Get a clue, if City Council listened to their voice of reason, PAC wouldn’t have to keep taking them in court. It is clear, that given PAC SJ’S undefeated record in court, the only reason why a Moyor or Council person would not listen to PAC’s expert advice, is because they are either as misinformed as you or some developer with lots of money “owns them”.
Just the Facts Guy—You’ve got way too many facts. Fact is, the Fairmont is a better use of the site than the Montgomery. The place should have been demolished, and would have been if not for you preservationists. Lost the ballroom! OH NO!!!! Irreplaceable!!!??? The preservationsts are too gimpy to be dancing with the stars, I think. Bottom line, it’s a fact that you “just the facts” folks, however the arm wrestling went, are directly responsible for moving that sucker down the street for MILLIONS (that could have gove into paying for your next NIMBY lawsuit over preserving some decaying “artsyfact”). How about doing something about keeping up all those old houses you’ve dumped at the History Park—AND increasing the attendance by hustling some demographic or the other. Downtown is nowheresville because no old building can be touched w/o a lawsuit; that’s a proud history. How about mentioning the millions you got the Council to spend on having an SF architectural firm evaluate every single house in town for being a “structure of merit”? I’ll bet you know exactly what that cost the SJ taxpayers. At least enough to maintain the roses at the Rose Garden, and keep the pools open besides. George Green
As someone who has led non-profit
organizations and continues to work as a non-profit consultant, I don’t know of a single non-profit organization that opposes accountability for its spending. In fact, our non-profit organizations are already being held to an accounting standard that exceeds the standards being applied to our own city council.
Non-profit corporations don’t produce audited financial statements on a quarterly basis – neither does government or industry. As such, the proposal calls for an organizational accounting that is unreasonable and won’t really contribute anything towards helping the city assess the health of its contracting organizations.
Mr. Oliverio should probably know that non-profit organizations receiving monies from the city of San Jose are already required to produce an annual independent financial audit detailing the prior fiscal year’s expenditures. In addition, nearly every government funder – including most non-governmental agencies and foundations – require an organization to complete an annual independent financial audit. In order to receive payment for services rendered, most government funders also expect completion of monthly or quarterly expenditure forms clearly documenting every budgeted expenditure associated with the funded program.
I would like the city to assume more of a partnership role with its contracting organizations – less blaming and more legitimate oversight that will build the capacity of our non-profit community. Reasonable accountability shouldn’t be whimsical – it should be fully transparent to residents and designed to aide the organization charged with providing cost-effective programs and services for our city’s residents.
Interestingly, where can you find an online quarterly report showing the expenditures of Councilmember Oliverio’s office account? Perhaps Mr. Oliverio ought to hold his own office – and the offices of his council colleagues – to the same standards of accountability he is asking of our non-profit organizations.
23 – Wow, you just won’t let the facts and your ignorance stop you from ranting will you? Most folks will stop spewing misinformation when they have been corrected with factual information, but not you. You just keep on going.
Not that you are interested in the facts, but for others who read this may be—many preservationists wanted the Fairmont to incorporate the Montgomery into their design. The Fairmont refused and the City let them get away with it. Studies, designs, and costs were presented that showed this could be a win for everybody—but the Fairmont refused. The only folks responsible for the millions it cost to move the Montgomery are the Fairmont and Mayor Gonzales and the City Council who would not require the Fairmont to save the Montgomery as part of their annex.
You, obviously, have no appreciation or understanding for the historic buildings of San Jose, or, apparently anywhere else. Many people around the world do have an appreciation of the importance of history to their community and know it is good for business (i.e. revenue to the city). People travel to stay in the many Historic Hotels of America because they are restored jewels and they speak volumes about the history of a community. They also bring in revenue.
I realize that no amount of facts will cause to take the time to learn. I also realize that you are entitled to your opinion even if you don’t know what you are talking about.
I would suggest you do a little reading, talk to folks in the preservation community here and around the country. You might change your mind or you might still not understand the importance of historic preservation. Either way it would reflect better on you if you at least based your opinion on fact rather than emotion.
Clark—Once again you are right on target ! Showing a great understanding of the issues and the governmental process. Are you willing to tutor own new councilperson ?
I have noticed his theme in a barrage of posts this month. Lots of problems for which we need to find solutions—and he has them all. The arts,downtown development,nonprofits,the pools and the parks. Hot button issues to many residents. Also have noticed that his office has conducted and he has held rallies in the parks
for some of the ideas. Who would disagree with these goals-accountability,responsibility,cost savings. As you point out-nonprofits are already held accountable by many levels of government not tp mention the ultimate accountablity—the actual $ contributors.
This is a huge SMOKESCREEN for diverting our attention from the real problem. The accountability and effectiveness of our leaders.
It is hard to quibble with these issues PO brings up but there has been nothing from him addressing the real problems-budget overruns,retirement funding,benefits and salaries gone wild,lack of city services we get these boutique issues.
Sounds good-feels good but get into the real issues and as you suggest,lets start wtih his and the other council offices. Why not set standards for your own operation rather than attacking the for-and-not-for profit entites, many who have worked tirelessly and honestly for decades to improve life in this city.
Our vision is blurry but keep watching.
Unremarkable Ray—How and why could the old Montgomery be incorporated into the Fairmont? Stupid idea, unless you know nothing about structure and aesthetics—and business. You’re so busy with “facts” that you can’t read, let alone understand, any view opposed to your religion—save old boards at ANY cost. The Montgomery wouldn’t have been moved for millions if you folks weren’t so into wasting tax money on lawsuits. Gonzo could have just offed it. Way back when, I had an ice cream in the hotel at Wright’s Station, after getting off the train from SF. Wonderful memory. But it’s a memory. You guys want to make the memory permanent and tangible. What would Jean Paul Sartre say about that? The consequence for San Jose for you people having your way all the time is that San Jose downtown has disappeared into the past. I hope I’m not the only person opposed to your really expensive hobby. George Green
#27 – Ray makes a lot more sense than you do. Your ability to place all old buildings into one category shows a complete lack of understanding about how historic structures are rated.
Since you refuse to educate yourself before launching your tirades, I can tell you that nobody is trying to save EVERY old building. People do try and save the buildings that receive the highest ratings based on a standardized system that is used nationwide. That means that you and I don’t decide what should or shouldn’t be saved but an unbiased rating system is applied and that determines the ranking of a particular structure. You’ll be pleased to know that old buildings that don’t make the grade generally end up demolished. Buildings that do make the grade often get demolished or have to be fought for.
Anyway, that’s just a little bit of information for you so now you can launch another tirade.
Just be thankful George, that a similar rating system isn’t applied to older people—some of us might not make the grade.
Elder (Oldest?)—There are 26 wonderful old houses at the History Park. 6 of them have sponsors. Sometimes volunteers. The other 20 just sit there, unvisited, moldering, unweeded. Moved to “safety” at great public expense. Who has analyzed the objectivity of the architectural “grading system”? Boy. At last a somebody more infallible than the Pope. And they get to bill the City for lots of money to check out every building, including ones even the homeless would consider faulty. Where can I find the objective evaluation of IBM Bldg.25? The historic preservation folks are not just in San Jose; they’re even in SF—but kept at arms length. The real point of “historic preservation” is to S-T-O-P growth. What an illusion!! Like it or not, here comes the future. Stop that. The only rational strategy is to control change with reason and imagination, not memories and delusions. George Green
Well said #25 Ray and #27 Elder.
#20, #23, #27, George Green, I guess you don’t like to bother yourself with accurate facts, but for those who like the truth, let me respond to your statement about the Montgomery Hotel. Lew Wolff said that the Montgomery Hotel was worthless and could not be used as a Botique Hotel or incorporated into the entrance to his Fairmont Annex project. Since that time, we have seen that Wolff and others were wrong on both counts. If you take the time to do your homework, you will find that the Montgomery Hotel has continually maintained a higher occupancy rate than the Fairmont Annex. After the Montgomery was moved, Wolff submitted an RFP to try to run the Montgomery. Either Wolff changed his mind about the viability of the Montgomery or he was looking for an other hand out. Thankfully, the RDA saw through him.
#27 George,Geoge George,
Why is it that I get the feeling that your grasp of facts is equal to that of George Bush and your measure of aesthetics is equal to that of Boy George?
#29 George
Once again you lack the facts. If you look into the costs associated with moving the old buildings to San Jose’s History Park, you will find that in most cases, the City didn’t pay a dime for the move. It is also clear that you haven’t been listening to what other preservationists have been telling you. The policy of moving historic buildings to museums, in an attempt to save them, is almost as outdated as your views on urban renewal. Historic Buildings should stay in their historic locations. Can you name a single building, in the past five years, that PAC SJ has requested to be moved. And by the way, there are not “26 old wonderful houses at the History Park”. But then again, why start getting you facts right now.
SJ also needs to review and have full pubic disclosures and full public audits of all it’s affordable housing developer non-profits. This includes the make up of their Boards of Directors and reporting all the other associated Boards, Public Commissions, Agencies, non-profits, PAC’s and advocacy or lobbying groups they serve on and compensation received from these board. A full public audit needs to be done on a certain non-profit that has amongst its Board of Directors members of a certain labor lobbying organization that also has served on the SJ Sunshine Taskforce.
One rock that desparately needs to be turned over is the special compensation received by certain Executive Directors of non-profit affordable housing developers under specific housing project limited liability corporations or partnership agreements on top of their regular pay.
Another is the way, these organizations are co-mingling funds from required project specific accounts to general operating accounts of the non-profit or to its development arm.
George # 20 said: “My complaint with the “historical preservationists” is their moral superiority and hypocrisy…” Right on, George!!!”
I prefer Gil Hernandez’s (The Village Blacksmith’s) approach. He’s on the Sempervirens Board, as I recall. They find forests to be saved. But they don’t sue. They raise $$ and buy the forest. The PAC crowd of holier-than-thous could learn much from Sempervirens.
But JTF # 22 is also correct. PAC has been able to exploit the bonehead moves of the SJ City Council to win victories they never would have won had the council acted properly under the law.
Elder #28: I suspect the people who generated the rating system for old buildings of which you speak are of the same ilk as those who generated the rating system for the abysmal public art we have had foisted upon us.
My priorites for government spending remain public safety first, physical infrastructure second. When the money runs out, that’s all we get; just like @ home, when the $$ runs out, we cut back.
Saving important historical structures is a laudable goal; but the decision as to what structures are important is open to interpretation, despite the vaunted rating system. At the end of the day, when we don’t have enough $$, we go back to basics. If these buildings are important to you, raise $$ and buy them, instead of raising $$ for lawyers to sue to make me and all the other tax payers buy them FOR YOU.
Lets take a look into another so called “Non-Profit… Team San Jose, Why are they still around sucking tax $$$$$$$‘s from the City of San Jose? Mr. Oliverio, as a new “Rookie” Councilman beware of getting into contracts with private not for profit groups. I have to say you must have been smoking “crack” and I mean plumbers crack to come up with that Rose Garden contractor idea. What are you thinking??? It appears that you need to mature a little more and move out of your parents house before you make anymore mistakes.
On another note, Andrew Bales; You need a real job, it’s not becoming of a large man such as yourself to be kissing as much ass as you do. Actually it’s embarassing to watch. The fine organization that you are associated with is being run to the ground by all you money grubbers. I’m sad to say that I am a ticket holder and a supporter, I really regret wasting my money on the Arts in San Jose.
34 and others – It is staggering the amount of education that still needs to be done for some folks to understand the importance of preservation to a community. As always, money is part of the problem, but a bigger problem is ignorance. Just look at the what the Mayor is saying about Building 25—we should demolish it and put up a plaque. What a strong endorsement for preserving our history for current and future generations.
Each time we destroy one of our historic buildings we lose a little bit of our collective soul. At the rate we are going, San Jose will have no soul left before long. Communities that have endorsed historic preservation become destinations where people visit and SPEND money. There is revenue in preservation but our Mayor and some members of the Council still don’t get it.
You can sit back and watch the demolition or you can do something about it besides sniping at those who are trying to save what is left of our history.
Sorry, Elder, but you and the other sanctimonious preservers of what YOU like are just pickpockets.
I spend my money on my passions, and don’t expect help from you, your elitist holier-than-thou crowd, or the Gubmint. So don’t expect me to give up my tax $$ to you just ‘cuz you can pontificate on what’s good for the community, while spending someone else’s money.
Sempervirens does it right—they have a goal, they raise private $$ to reach that goal. I suggest that if everyone agreed with your ideas of what’s worth saving, you could raise the requisite dough. But since you can’t raise the requisite dough, you dip into tax $$ that needs to go to public safety and infrastructure. The budget can’t do it all, and victrious lawsuits won’t change that simple fact.
Yeah, right, I’m sure there are tens of thousands clamoring to spend $$ to get a peek at Building #25. What happened in the building is remarkable; but the building ITSELF is quite unremarkable. The throngs are just awaiting tomorrow’s council decision so they can jump on planes to see Building #25.
It’s not historic preservation (WHEN WARRANTED) to which I object. It’s your chosen funding method—my tax $$. I have other priorities for that dough, especially when it is short supply.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!!!!
Eddie Garcia, chairman of the BOD of MHC editorialized in the Murky News that full funding of the MHP is an ENTITLEMENT!! He didn’t use that word, but the words he used added up to the same when he said: “…the contract betwen the city and MHP provides for an annual contribution that is just a fraction of the actual operating costs…the city has a responsibility to provide an appropriate level of operational investment.”
Eddie, I suggest you and your entire board raise at least $100k per year EACH, or step down.