I have been reading about the Evergreen development issue over the past week with mounting alarm. Here we go again, with the tail wagging the dog. The developers are trying to call the shots, demanding an immediate decision, and many on the council are going along. The issue was supposed to come to a vote next Tuesday but I have learned this morning that it has been delayed one week to December 12. What’s the hurry? It doesn’t take much imagination to answer that one.
The plan for nearly 5,000 new homes needs to be considered in all the finest detail. By a rough but reasonable estimation, we are talking about 15,000 to 20,000 new residents in the area and nearly 10,000 additional automobiles on the already crowded streets. If you plunked those people down in the middle of the Central Valley, you would have a major urban area. Think about the jobs, infrastructure and services necessary to accommodate a city of that size. That’s what needs to be in place in Evergreen before the new residents arrive, and how it’s going to be paid for and how much it’s going to cost the taxpayers and impact the district and entire city have to be clear before the plan is approved. If all the questions can’t be answered satisfactorily, then the plan should be turned down.
From what we are reading in the Mercury News and hearing from Evergreen Councilmember Dave Cortese, Mayor-elect Chuck Reed and the departments in City Hall responsible for evaluating the project, we are a long way from having all the facts. Cortese has prudently called for a delay in the consideration until such time as the council has all the information necessary to make an informed decision, and he is being supported by Reed, Pyle and Chirco. Yet, some members want to press ahead; Nora Campos has stated that she is willing to vote on the issue based on the “concept,” and Madison Nguyen seems to agree. It’s also well worth noting that more than 300 acres of the total of 500 was designated for job-creating industrial use in the 1980s and is now being converted to residential use because of the greed of the developers. This is looking more and more like a sellout.
The land owners’ lobbyists are using the strategy that if their clients’ plans are not approved by the council before the end of the year, then their coalition of developers could be “fractured” and the whole deal could go down the tubes. Well, so what? I say call that bluff. If not these developers, then others will come along with a plan that will be acceptable. There is no hurry; the land isn’t going to be sucked up by a tornado and taken to Oz.
However, given the history of some on this council and the lame-duck mayor and vice mayor, I smell a rat. Is some backroom deal in the works? Isn’t this how we got stuck with Norcal and the Grand Prix? And shouldn’t the newly elected council and mayor be the ones to make this decision when the time comes? They are the ones that will have to deal with it long after our current mayor and vice mayor end up wherever it is they are going next.
Share some of that concern for the huge conversion of employment lands to residential lands along North First. There are 8,000 new residential units under consideration there, with massive loss of employment lands.
In light of the recent report on the police department situation, how can the council even consider going forward with this project? Given our growth since 1998, we have not kept up proportionally with additional police staff; we currently have four burgulary detectives for the entire city. Pass this and we’ll be know for the Fastest Growing Unsafe City in America.
If I recall correctly, wasn’t gonzo’s TV relection ad paid for by the developers?
Good article, nice to agree with you for once.
If the council pushes blindly ahead on this decision, it will be yet another legacy of the failed GonzalesChavez administration. Planning decisions should be made based on what it best for the city, NOT on what is best for developers and the councilmembers they give money to.
Campos probably screamed because the more houses built mean the more jobs for her husband’s union cronies. And for them, the sooner the better. The only information they need is how many temporary jobs will there be for workers who don’t even live in San Jose.
Write your councilmember and demand they delay this decision until ALL of the information is available.
#3,
North First makes somewhat more sense. Transportation is there and the plan is for mixed-use higher density housing. Evergreen is just more 1950’s style suburban sprawl.
When is RDA going to get a clue and throw money at Alviso? It is just a twilight zone melting into the marsh. It is near jobs, freeways (237, 101, 880), parks, transit (ACE train), land is cheap and with names like Hope Street, Gold Street, Liberty Street you can’t go wrong.
As a former resident of the evergreen area, the one major drawback for me on living there is the freeway access to that area. The two huge problems are freeway access at 101/capitol expressway & yerba buena & tully and also at 680/capitol expressway. Unless the proposed development addresses this traffic nightmare, then all other traffic improvements and park additions within evergreen are meaningless.
If only the developers or council members intent on approving this development had to deal with this freeway access everyday, then they will know how most of the evergreen residents feel. If only they should be forced to live there if they approve this development.
I live in Nora Campos’ district now and I pray that someone worthy will elect to run once her term expires.
Wasn’t Campos part of the group that went after Cortese and pulled the rug out from under him relating to this whole plan? Now she’s trying to push this thing through. She’s demonstrating that she’s Gonzo’s top lapdog and should be the next one to go after and eradicate from the Council. She is bad news for this town and we can only hope that when the new Council takes shape in January that she is in the minority.
You are right on with this Jack. This plan should not go forward without tons more discussion.
For years I have been reading that San Jose suffers from a jobs/housing imbalance. In other words, it is a bedroom community for jobs located in other cities.
If this is true, and if it has been true for years, then why is San Jose even considering more housing in any part of the city? Let’s get the jobs/housing ratio into balance, and then start incrementally adding housing along with jobs.
Also, it is time to start building low-income housing in Saratoga, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, etc. Each of these cities need to add 5000 to 10,000 low income units. Why is San Jose supposed to be supplying housing for the world’s poor?
The rush to decide being pushed by the “coalition” of developers is fueled by the fact that they understand they’re more likely to prevail with this council and mayor than the new one in January.
I don’t know exactly where this pocket of land is in Evergreen, but I do know that the streets there are already past capacity. I play golf with frinds who live @ The Villages on some Saturday mornings. Getting from Capital Expressway @ 101 to The Villages, and then back again in the p.m. is a nightmare. So much traffic that you sit through 2 and sometimes 3 signal cycles. The only way to clear traffic up there is to double deck the main arteries.
Back to the NIMBYS.
I’ve opposed developments and I’ve supported them—depending on their benefit to the community. That is basis for making a a timely decision.
Traffic is always the biggest boogeyman. Even when you can prove that traffic will be improved through technology and road improvements, some people will still oppose good projects. It’s amazing how many people opine on traffic who have never read a traffic study or simply don’t believe them when the do see the facts.
One thing people don’t understand is that developers have huge “carrying costs” for land. Moreover, the bureaucrats, elected officials and community activists have no respect for their time or money.
Yes, if their project is approved they may make millions. They may also spend millions on project that are never approved. With risk comes reward and failure.
The NIMBY tactic of wait, more information is needed, backroom deals are being made, politicians are being bought is nonsense.
If the Evergreen Plan isn’t good for the community vote it down and let the developers cut their losses. If it’s a good plan approve it in a timely manner.
But bleeding developers month after month with bureaucratic delays, mindless community meetings and more studies costs them significant capital.
So if you oppose the project vote it down. If you like it vote it up.
Just stop the delays.
Oh no. I just agreed with something Richard Robinson wrote.
RR is back.
Much of what he says is true, but it ignores the politics of the issue. It ain’t just NIMBY. Another 30-60 days won’t hurt anyone that much
Bluefox-
The numbers I’ve seen are that San Jose has similar numbers of jobs and housing. (Technically, similar numbers of jobs and employed residents.)
They aren’t being anyone’s bedroom community. Nor are they a pure business center. So far, they mostly provide for their own housing needs.
That’s a good thing. I wish other cities in the region would do the same.
Greg
Dear San Jose:
Logic would dictate that the Evergreen vote should be delayed for another month or two to get the additional information that staff requires, and to let the newly elected city represnetatives make the decision. But logic and the best interests of the people of San Jose are not what drives policy-making in San Jose. The “machine” needs to have this vote taken before the new council meets in January. Let’s hope the Mercury News Editorial Board and all of their columnists go after this big time. Let’s look at every council member’s motivation to vote in great detail.
Look, what matters here is seeing that the stakeholders get rewarded/paid back. San Jose belongs to them, not the people, at least until Jan 9th.
Pete Campbell
Yeah, why the rush? I thought there was already too much inventory and that housing starts were down because of it. So what’s everybody’s hurry? They’re not going to start building if they know they can’t sell the homes anyway. This is clearly another case of certain bad apples on the Council having their own agenda that’s not being shared with the public.
Hopefully we’ll only be dealing with this kind of atmosphere at CH for another month.
The Evergreen Plan needs more time! The developers have once again changed their plans at the last minute. It frosts me that the Council discards the professional staff’s opinion like last week’s trash. Since when did they become “experts” in land use planning? There are only 2, perhaps 3, people on the Council even remotely qualified to have an informed opinion on land use. The rest should just shut up.
The traffic plan that was conducted is a joke! There is no money or improvements planned for the freeway/arterial interchanges. These outdated “clover leaf” designs need to be modernized BEFORE anymore residential development goes into Evergreen.
The land designated as the “Industrial Reserve” should stay just that! What happens when the economy does rebound and all of the available land is housing? What will drive our economy then, tourism???
I truly hope someone is able to muster 6 votes to delay this decision until all the facts are analyzed.
JMO,
Developers have already spent $4.5 million on the planning process alone. I’m assuming that does not include carrying costs for the land.
Assuming the carrying costs are low, let’s say $2,500 per acre per month (obviously the cost would vary, depending on how many owners, number of parcels, and option price of the land).
So 542 acres would have a carrying cost of around $1.35 million a month.
Under this conservative scenerio, two months would cost them about $2.6 million.
Too bad for them, eh?
Yeah, good to have RR back—I think. If I understand him correctly, he is advocating an up or down vote regardless of whether or not the Council has sufficient information on which to base their vote. Isn’t that why we are in the mess we are in now? If councilmembers had asked questions and demanded complete information on a variety of issues over the past few years, we would have a much different city now—in fact, Cindy might even be mayor. Instead, we had (and still have) a council made up mostly of stooges who are pawns for labor and developers who never met a bad project they didn’t like. Sure they should be as efficient as possible but not at the expense of complete information—which they do not have on this project. Sorry Rich, but I would prefer a council that makes an informed decision based on facts instead of a misinformed one based on lobbyists and campaign contributions.
Richard
Are you serious or just in the dark ? ” backroom deals are being made, politicians are being bought is nonsense. ” – does not past political smell test when you look at who is pushing vote on incomplete Evergreen plan – last political paybacks by discredited City Council majority
Be Truthful – Most Evergreen delays were caused by City Council majority playing politics against Cortese to benefit themselves, increase political contributions, and contributor friends profits by increasing homes and reducing developer paid improvements
Jobs/housing ratio is way out of balance in South San Jose causing massive traffic and pollution problems and Evergreen housing should be cut back to 2500 or not approved
We can have both thousands of construction jobs and new homes if we build in North San Jose which has most jobs, fewest homes and lowest density of any San Jose developed area
North San Jose’s 1-2 story suburban campuses can be rebuilt with 6-15 story office buildings and high density mixed use residential and retail reducing car commuting and adding new taxes to pay for new city services not like Evergreen will drain millions from city budget
What happened all environment groups opposing more Highway 101 suburban sprawl that we heard so much about during recent election?
Hard to believe do not know environment damage from 5000 Evergreen ranchland homes with 10,000 cars on traffic jammed Highway 101 to Silicon Valley jobs
So what happened ? Cut another Coyote payoff or Silicon Valley political deal?
#14 Greg,
You might be right, but a quick Google search on “san jose job housing imbalance” turned up some hits, and I included some quotes below. The first one is recent since it is dated 3/8/06, while the second one was done in 2003. I doubt if many jobs have been created in the last 3 years to change the jobs/housing ratio.
“One of the purposes of the strategy is to improve San Jose’s jobs/housing balance and maximize the City’s ability to provide adequate urban services to its residents. The proposed General Plan amendment is inconsistent with the Economic Development Major Strategy as well as the Goals and Policies of the General Plan as stated below:
The Economic Development Major Strategy states that the City (San Jose) has continually provided the bulk of the County’s housing, particularly, its lower cost affordable housing, but it has lagged behind the rest of the County in terms of job growth. This development pattern has contributed to the County-wide traffic congestion conditions and has deprived the City of an adequate tax base for providing desired service levels, because residential development by itself cannot generate sufficient revenues to pay for the services it requires.”
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/hearings/2006/pc/reports/2006-03-08/GP05-01-01SR.pdf
“For San Jose the issue is raising the job-housing ratio from its current 0.8 jobs for every household, he says. He would prefer to see a job-housing ratio of between one and two jobs per household.”
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2003/03/31/story1.html
You can really tell where Richard Robinson is coming from. He’s crying about developers losing money. That’s really a shame. I’m wondering how much thought and emotion he puts into the workings of his home town Cupertino. I think developing Alviso would be a great idea! I’m sure if deveopers actually went there and began developing there wouldn’t be anymore flooding problems and then maybe the Santos Family would see a return on their investment of property there.
Hold on folks. Shouldn’t we have a little consideration for the Developer’s interests here? After all the money they so civic mindedly gave to ‘further the Democratic process’, you now want to slow-roll or cut off the one chance we have to repay their kindness?
As for having enough information, using good judgment or making an intelligent decision; when has that been a factor? If we can’t have a Starbucks in City Hall, we can at least carpet South Valley with 5,000 more homes. Right?
Sarcasm aside. . .
Ron… Cindy… Campos… etc. The election is over. You surly got the message. Now behave yourselves. Here’s a chance to get it right. Be patient. Get all the facts. Discuss it openly and before the people; and do what is surly best for all. Use the process and make a decision that you will be proud of for years to come. Do the people’s business as though you respect the people… as though you have a modicum of respect for the democratic process as it’s taught to our children.
Richard
You do not know facts or are not truthful
Most Evergreen delays were caused by developers complaining to Council majority that Cortese’s orginal Evergreen plan decreased homes while retaining developer paid improvements. Council majority then politically damaged Cortese and reorganized Evergreen Plan to increase homes and reduce developer paid improvements which improved developer profits while developer made more Council majority political contributions
Discredited Council majority wants to vote on incomplete Evergreen plan as last back room political payback deal
Jobs/housing ratio is way out of balance in South San Jose causing massive traffic and pollution problems and Evergreen housing should be cut back to 2500 or not approved
Thousands of construction jobs and new homes can be built in North San Jose which has most jobs, fewest homes and lowest San Jose developed area density
North San Jose’s 1-2 story suburban campuses should be rebuilt with 6-15 story office buildings and high density mixed use residential and retail reducing car commuting New taxes will pay for new city services while Evergreen will drain millions from city budget
Jack, I totally agree with you. This issue should be put aside until the new mayor is seated so that he can lead this discussion with his vision for the city. This area already has more growth than needed. There are plenty of developable pockets on the valley floor in the central part of the city. This is the same as the pressure to develope Coyote Valley. Already a major developer has his signs up in that area. Where will it end?
I don’t always agree with issues you bring up Jack but you are right on target with this one. This is local, this is San Jose and this affects our future. I’m sure there are those who will be very emotional about disagreeing with me.
I heard Campos screamed at the Planning Director yesterday at Council over this. Why is she so freaked about this being deferred? She is on Council for 4 more years isn’t she? I’ve never been a fan of hers but yelling at staff. Get a grip honey. I don’t think this will go over well under Mayor Reed!
#18 Richard Robinson:
Yes, too bad for them. They bought land or bought options on land that is not approved for the purpose they spent their money on. The are speculating (a better term would be gambling) that they could push through changes that would result in them making enough profit to cover their purchase or carrying costs. It is no ones fault but their own. Now, with their bought and paid for mayoral candidate losing her election, they have to scramble because they may actually lose money. God forbid, gamblers losing money.
#31 “Guess political consulting is not panning out. What? Are you gunning for career as a developer lobbyist? “
I had the exact same thought. A little cash coming your way Rich to make inane arguments as to why developers who speculated on land deserve a vote on their plans before details are fleshed out?
I heard Dave Cortese say (oh, that’s right, you didn’t support him) that agreements aren’t done for the improvements that have been promised. Why rush, other than to push something through w/o adequate time for council and public to review plans. Sounds like the San Jose Grand Prix strategy all over again. Chavez certainly has that down pat.
You must be kidding? They don’t have enough information?
This process has taken three years!
What else do they need to know? You can study any land deal to death.
My point is there is quite enough information to vote up or down on this project.
You have at least two new members of the Council who have not “studied” the plan coming on in January. I suppose we should hold it up until they’ve been fully brought up to speed.
Then again, what about the new District 6 representative taking Ken Yeager’s place. Ken will be gone after the meeting on December 12, should we not wait for his replacement?
Oh yeah and what about a replacement for District 4, we should wait until Chuck’s no nothing replacement gets on the Council.
This is the City Council that studied the matter and understands the issues. Getting the “new” Council up to speed makes no sense at all.
If David Cortese is against the deal, then he can lead the charge against it.
Making the developers wait until there is a new regime in place, so they can change the rules after three years of work is just wrong.
The applicants are seeking a decision from the group of people who have been involved with the issue for three years. They deserve to have a vote from elected officials who actually understand the history of the issues involved.
Give them an up or down vote from a knowledgeable Council that understands and has been involved with these issues for three years.
It’s that simple.
This group sees conspiracy everywhere, no wonder government doesn’t work.
For the record, I have no pecuniary interest in the Evergreen debate.
As for the need for housing, the number one priority of all our high tech businesses is the need for more housing.
The folks on this board don’t want housing. Understood. Make your case and let the Council vote.
Or is it that you don’t have a case and wish to kill the project through attrition?
Five thousand homes is a drop in the bucket in terms on the Valley’s need.
NIMBY power has grown in Cupertino, Sunnyvale, Campbell, Los Altos Hills, Los Altos and Palo Alto, due to the same illogical arguments of no public input and backroom deals.
Three years is long enough for any process. If it’s a bad deal vote it down. But give the applicants a fair hearing in a timely manner with an informed council.
Changing the jury at the end of a trial is never a good idea.
Staff is as much to blame as the developers. As a Task Force memberf I can say that the task force asked many times for the numbers from the developers but got no where with them. They held to their number of 5200 homes until last Tuesday when they anounced the change from 5200 to 4700 homes. Why weren’t they negotiating with the Task Force? Why the sudden change? When I joined the Task Force we were told that the developers contribution would pay for most of the amenities. No were being told that if we can get 2 or 3 that would probably be it. Last Tuesday staff made the comment that the first money’s would be spend on transportation improvement then and only then the balance would be used for the amenities. So in other words, if the money is all spend on transportation the community will not get any amenities but the developers will get to build the homes and pocket the money. At this point I wish I could take my vote back and instead vote for no growth. The only reason Chavez, Campos and Williams are so anxious to get this voted on is to pay back the developers who are worried that the new council will not be as sympathetic to their cause. This whole process was a joke from the start. Staff made no attempt to get everyone to come to a concensous. The plans were brought forward at the last couple of meetings with no time to try to get a concensous among the members of the Task Force. Then the Task Force gets insulted by the Planning Dept when they totally ignored the Task Forces plan, which received the most votes from the Task Force members, and instead moved forward the Staff’s and the developers plan. Sounds like the whole thing was rigged from the start.
Gee, Rich, you are very good at ignoring what is actually said here. People are not against housing. They are against half-baked, incomplete, unfinished (seeing the thread here?) plans for housing. We don’t want the council voting on a plan that is not ready for prime time yet. You don’t seem to care if the deal is complete or not, we do. You don’t seem to care if Evergreen chokes to death on traffic congestion, we do. You don’t seem to care if this plan is tainted by developer influence and benefits only developers and not the community at-large, we do. I could go on but maybe, just maybe, you will understand. I’d like to think you actually do understand and just like lobbing your pro-development nonsense into the mix to get a reaction.
#22 Bluefox-
I don’t know where Gonzo gets that number. ABAG lists San Jose as having 1.55 jobs per home, not 0.8.
http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/interregional/pdf/projections/IRP_Projections-Santa_Clara_County.pdf
The first quote is partly right, in that San Jose is not as jobs heavy as Santa Clara or Palo Alto. That isn’t because San Jose is low. It’s because Santa Clara and Palo Alto are way way too high.
The “jobs housing” reference in the biz journal article was actually John Sobrato about having too many jobs, and not enough homes. (hence the reference to “overbuilt commercial market.)
” The huge jobs-housing imbalance is what has caused these terrible commutes, and the overbuilt nature of the commercial market is what’s causing the push for conversions. ”
#33
The point I was making is that San Jose isn’t anyone’s bedroom community. Net, they neither export nor import workers, which is fair.
As such, you can’t blame poor services on the jobs/housing balance. San Jose’s ratio of one job per worker is average for the state, and plenty of cities provide better services with fewer jobs.
It is true that other cities seek more revenue by chasing jobs and stiffing housing. But they do so at the expense of residents of other cities.
When Santa Clara has a huge jobs surplus, it means some city in the Central Valley has to provide the homes. Those residents have poorer services, long commutes, and high air pollution.
The residents of Santa Clara only see a small part of the benefits. Most of it goes to union contracts and, to a lesser extent, 49ers subsidies.
Are you really comfortable seeking better trash pickup if the cost is that someone else has a 2 hour commute and never sees his kids?
Posted by Richard Robinson (w/ translation)
Give them an up or down vote from a knowledgeable Council that understands << that it’s payback time>> and has been involved with these << Developers>> for three years.
It’s that simple. It’s payback. Let it be. It’s the way it works.
As Cindy said at one point in the campaign, “Sometimes this business is a little messy and hard to understand.”
By the way Richard, why does Evergreen need 5,000 more homes? Are there people living in their cars down there waiting to move in? Are there 5,000 families tired of living in the down town area and chomping at the bit for a long slow commute?
What’s up with the rush to pour cement and pound nails? Are you looking for a career change… construction maybe? While we’re on the subject, ya think they use union labor and care about the Cindy’s Labor Policy?
If you think home building is a sustainable industry that provides long term stable employment, check out the area east of Sacramento. Some homes have now been on the market for over a year and they’re still building. Much of the labor that built them and smarter developers have moved on to greener pastures (ooops, Evergreen maybe?).
If you cared as much about bringing sound viable business to this town as you seem to about making it one huge bedroom community, I might jump on your bandwagon. Until then a little balance, common sense and fiscal responsibility might be in order.
Just a thought.
Gee Rich…
Guess political consulting is not panning out. What? Are you gunning for career as a developer lobbyist?
Yeah developers deserve a quick decision, but the citizens of San Jose of which you are not deserve the right decision.
Facts aside, it is easy to see how the votes are stacked and it is not good for San Jose. We have more faith in the incoming administration’s ability to make the right decision, given that they will be at the beginning of their political careers, not the end.
Defer it for a month so we all are not left with a legacy we don’t deserve.
somebody please tell me how Nora Campos: got elected? I mean this woman is scary dumb and you have her trying to understand whats going on out there. please explain?
RR: as you may know from reading prior posts of mine, I am personally very pro-development and pro-developer, as a general rule. But rushing to judgment on this issue, particularly with traffic already so abysmal in Evergreen, makes no sense at all; except that the developers are quite clear that the new council is less likely to approve this than the current council with a number of lame ducks.
I seem to recall that the “Cortese Task Force” got ambushed by Gonzo and Campos. That surely cost a lot of time, and changed the direction/focus. The process is cumbersome and time-consuming by nature; but there is a strong need to get it right. If a few new councilmembers need to get up to speed, perhaps they should take an Evelyn Wood course and jump on it right now, even before they’re sworn in.
No way should the council act on this now; and if it does approve the proposal, the new council should revisit it early.
It’s a great plan, a fabulous plan, it’s the best plan we’ve ever had.
Keep the plan *exactly* as is.
Just one minor change.
Use non-union workers to build the homes.
eh tu million solar homes?
What would the developers “carrying costs” be if you factor in the money they contributed to Compos, Chavez and Gonzales? The only reason they do not want to wait a month is they want a return on their investment in these polititions.
I’m pleased to see Evergreen development get the attention it deserves and hope any decision can be delayed until after the first of the year.
If the 5,000+ homes planned are built, the developer’s traffic reports say that traffic delays will more than double at some key intersections on Capitol Expressway. While there are plans to use developer funding to improve the freeway interchanges at 101/Capitol, Tully and Yerba Buena, were is the traffic going to go?
101, 280 and 680 North are all over capacity during the morning commute so Caltrans will not relax the metering which backs up traffic entering the freeway and affects non-freeway traffic. If cars can get off the freeway to Evergreen faster in the evening they will face long delays to get through already jammed intersections where no additional width is going to be added. In fact, the 4th (commuter lane) on Capitol Expressway will be removed if light rail is built from Capitol Ave to Eastridge as planned.
# 36 Richard…. you said, “The folks on this board don’t want housing. Understood. Make your case and let the Council vote. “
Voters made their case November 7th. 60% to 40%. They’ve had enough.
And Cindy, Ron, Nora and Forrest don’t care. Now’s their chance to stick it in the eye of the voters.
Face it Richard. They don’t play well.
By the way, considering the pressure to push this through before January 1 with all it’s muddy history and such; I’m left to wonder…
Cindy, Nora, Forrest, Ron…..
Are you folks worried about loosing your Developer furnished beach house… you legal defense fund, or has some labor zealot off his meds threatened to blow your kneecaps off if this isn’t passed?
Cindy…. it’s ok to answer, “I don’t recall.”
I don’t get it.
It’s not your land.
It’s not your capital.
It’s not your debt service.
It’s not that you’re dieing to move down there or sit in the 101 traffic for hours.
It’s not that increased traffic proplems would enhanse you love for a “Green” San Jose.
It’s not that you are looking forward to 5000 new homes, sluggish home sales and soft job growth lowing you property values.
So one has to wonder….. what’s in it for you guys?
Evergreen… 5000 new homes.
Isn’t that a non sequitur?
#29 Greg,
Thanks for the info. I love this kind of stuff.
Apparently, San Jose is the bedroom community for Silicon Valley since its jobs/household ratio is 1.55 while Santa Clara is 3.53, Sunnyvale is 2.37, Mountain View is 2.41, Palo Alto is 4.12, Milpitas is 2.93, and Cupertino is 2.49.
http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/interregional/pdf/projections/IRP_Projections-Santa_Clara_County.pdf
Once San Jose reaches 2.50 then maybe we can start thinking about adding more housing in San Jose. How about moving Google and Yahoo to San Jose while Mountain View and Santa Clara each add 5000 housing units? That would be a good start to righting the imbalance.
Of course, I am being slightly facetious. On one hand, I think we should start looking at this region as a single entity instead of as a collection of little fiefdoms. However, as a past resident of Mountain View, Cupertino, Santa Clara, and a current resident of San Jose, I see, on a daily basis, the effects of to little tax revenue for to many people.
So, until something happens to bring more jobs and/or tax revenue to San Jose, I do not see how San Jose can be expected to provide any more housing for this region.
So one has to wonder.. what’s in it for you guys?
Labor Politicians receive
– Developer campaign contributions and Labor volunteers and contributions for future political campaigns
– Lobbyist and after political office jobs
Labor receives
Construction jobs and member dues for future political campaigns
Developers receive greater profits from
Labor Politicians support for more Evergreen homes and less developer paid improvements and millions in city paid Evergreen improvements for labor political contributions and labor jobs
San Jose residents receive
more traffic, more pollution, less city services and worst city envirnoment
Greg
Please look at actual jobs numbers –
San Jose is very low in net jobs per employed residents – 93 per 100 which does not reflect non San Jose residents traveling to San Jose jobs / San Jose residents to other cities jobs all adding to traffic / pollution
San Jose is Silicon Valley’s housing provider while most other cites are badly deficient in housing but have more jobs and retail sales taxes that pay for better city services
Santa Clara County Jobs per Employed Resident for the Cities of Santa Clara County and other Select California Cities, 2005 – Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2005
Jobs Employed Jobs
Residents Emp R
County Total 903,840 734,000 1.23
Palo Alto* 99,350 31,990 3.11
Santa Clara* 110,030 49,500 2.22
Milpitas* 50,980 26,490 1.92
Mountain View* 57,130 35,220 1.62
Cupertino* 32,320 21,930 1.47
Los Gatos* 20,260 14,190 1.43
Campbell* 23,340 18,740 1.25
Sunnyvale* 74,560 61,430 1.21
Gilroy* 22,430 20,740 1.08
Los Altos* 11,030 11,620 0.95
San Jose* 375,750 401,970 0.93
Morgan Hill* 14,520 16,620 0.87
Santa Clara County has 123 jobs for every 100 employed residents while San Jose has 93 jobs per 100 employed residents
San Jose provides most of housing both in numbers and percentage for Silicon Valley employers and has one of the lowest jobs per employed residents which with 20-25% retail sales dollars lost to other local cites results in lowest tax revenue of 5 largest California cities $254 per resident and most local cities
Low tax revenues result in low city staffing level ( 7 city staff per 1000 residents vs California average 9 city employees per 1000 residents ) and reduced city services
Richard is not ignoring what is said here – he is working for his politician / developer campaign contributor employers to spin or misstating the facts, ignoring what happened, and accomplish their political, development and profit goals
It is his paid client communications job
Look at his developer / politician client list
http://erwgroup.com/clients.htm
And communication services he provides his developer and politician clients
http://erwgroup.com/services.htm
Do you NOW get that what he is doing is using San Jose Inside with his many posts to do client communications ?
#11. Rich: Yep, no need for the council to worry about making an informed decision. If they don’t slam it through NOW the developers will pull out and the land might NEVER be developed.
While we’re at it let’s have the council vote on the next Grand Prix and garbage contract. It’s not like they really NEED all the information.
Didn’t you guys learn anything in November?
Reed’s best decision will be to take Williams, Campos off the rules committee. The current members are Chavez, Campos, Chirco, Williams. The new membership should be Corteze, Constant, Liccardo, Chirco. Put Williams & Campos on All Children Achieve Committee.
Termed-out official seeks lifetime benefits
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16007674.htm
Anybody up for providing lifetime benefits for Linda LeZotte, Ron Gonzalez, and the gang?
Unbelievable.
Me thinks the spotlight on city hall needs to be turned up extra bright for the duration of the remaining term.
I don’t know exactly where in Evergreen these houses are supposed to go, but they had better come equiped with helicoptors.
I teed off today (Saturday) @ 6:55 a.m. @ The Villages. At10:15 a.m. I was traveling back down San Felipe. It took me two complete cycles to get through The Aborn-San Felipe Intersection It then took ten minutes and two cycles to get through Aborn-Capitol Expressway. I got stuck at the red light on Capitol and Nieman for one cycle. Then Three cycles to clear Silver Creek Valley Road on Capitol!!!
And someone wants to add 5,000 more homes and their cars to this mess? If it’s this bad Saturday mid-morning, what must it be like during weekday commute hours?
#48,
How do council members get assigned to committees? If they are appointed by the Mayor then that would appear unethical, since it allows the Mayor to stack the deck.
Is there a Reed Reform to make sure that this does not happen?
Let’s hope one of the first things Reed does is change the committee names so they actually sound like governmental committees instead of the current Gonzo influenced foolish names they have.
#53,
San Jose has had the jobs/housing imbalance long before Cindy Chavez, or any other of the current council members, were ever elected.
Ed Rast brought up another interesting point in the data he posted. San Jose’s low tax revenues from business and sales tax result in low city staffing level ( 7 city staff per 1000 residents vs California average 9 city employees per 1000 residents ) and reduced city services.
Cindy, Nora, Forrest and Ron etc., … and oh yes and Richard,
You folks fiercely support parody compensation and staffing for San Jose’s Police, Fire and Garbage workers. Why not support such parody when it comes to revenue /1000 residents and funding of other infrastructure and services by supporting the jobs/homes master plan? Is it not important to you?
Your efforts to override the master plan and push through 4,800 more home in Evergreen suggest that you don’t give a GD about the City, the Staff, infrastructure or residents of San Jose.
Again, it leads people to wonder: what’s in it for you?
And Cindy; since reading your Grand Jury testimony and noticing your little memory problem, it’s ok to answer; “I don’t recall.”
#53 Blue Fox
So that means we should not care about such balance and it’s impact on the quality of life and support for us who live here? I think not.
jmoc….
re: And someone wants to add 5,000 more homes and their cars to this mess? If it’s this bad Saturday mid-morning, what must it be like during weekday commute hours?
JM… don’t ask the SJI. Ask Cindy, Nora, Forrest, Ron, etc.
And if you don’t this isn’t personal; it’s your gas, your time, your frustration and your blood pressure at stake.
San Jose might have had jobs/housing imbalance before Gonzo/Chavez, but the imbalance has certainly accelerated under this administration. Take a look at the Midtown area. Virtually all the industrial land i.e. old canning factories and some new office buildings has been or is in the process of being converted to thousands of housing units. Infill with high density housing along transit lines is infinitely better than the disaster that is being proposed for Evergreen, but industrial land conversion is a city wide epidemic.
#51 Bluefox said:
“How do council members get assigned to committees?”
Per Council Rules of Order –
Page 11, Rule 9, Letter D: the mayor shall appoint the members of each committee from amoung the members of the city council.
Bluefox said:
“Is there a Reed Reform to make sure that this does not happen?” Not directly address in his 34 reforhttp://www.chuckreed.com/reforms/reforms.html
Ed, Bluefox-
None of those numbers suggest San Jose has an imbalance. The state average is 1.00 , and San Jose is 0.93 . This is not a serious imbalance.
What the numbers show is that Santa Clara, Milpitas, Palo Alto, and Mountain View are all seriously imbalanced. (eg: 1.62 versus 1.00)
Nor would correcting San Jose’s “imbalance” solve your services problem. Adding 7% more jobs and 7% more use tax is not going to make or break the city budget. It certainly won’t provide the funds to increase staff by 28% from 7 to 9 per 1000.
Is it true that Campos brother is the Chair of the Planning Commission?
61 – He is on the Planning Commission. Don’t know if he currently the chair. No conflict here, is there?
Yes, I believe Nora Campos’ brother, Xavier Campos is on the SJ Planning Commission….not sure if he is the Chair. He has been on the commission since June 2002…which was 6 months after Nora was first elected to the council.
Anyone know what her husband’s union affiliation is?
63 – Her husband, Neil Struthers, is CEO of the Santa Clara and Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council. Oddly enough, Nora rarely finds that she has a conflict of interest when she votes.
Compos’ – per city charter:
ARTICLE IX: OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
SECTION 907. Nepotism.
The Council shall not appoint to a salaried position under the City government any person who, at the time of his appointment, is related by blood or marriage, within the second degree, to any member of such Council; nor shall the City Manager or any other appointing authority appoint to any salaried position under City government any person who, at the time of his appointment, is related by blood or marriage, within the second degree, to such appointing authority.
Nothing in the city charter disallows this relationship. The planning commission is an unpaid position. Frankly, Xavier is being groomed for district 5 when Nora is termed out 12/31/10.
Greg #46 Ed Rast
I was starting to feel uncomfortable and a bit embarrassed about being so rough and mean to Cindy and her little group of rubber stamps . . . that is until you posted data that confirms what I’ve always thought. I don’t feel so bad now. Thanks.
If some Council Members are not going to listen to the voters, the hard working City Staff and those more thoughtful council members, then in my mind they well deserve the rough and mean verbal treatment tossed their way.
If they or their family or dear friends don’t like it: tough. Get over it or get them to shape up.
The Planning Commission does receive a monthly stipend. Even if there is nothing that disallows the relationship, the perception is a bad one and one of the Campos’ should have enough sense to understand this.
Speaking of Mr. Neil Struthers (i.e., the husband of Nora Campos)…
Besides being CEO of South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council, Struthers sits on the executive board of the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council. So do two of the Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building Trades Council’s six trustees, for a total of three South Bay seats out of the 20.
The South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council is known for its political activity in local elections. So is’nt that sweet for Nora and Xavier Campos?
.
#51: So then, you believe it’s unethical for Nancy Pelosi to stack the deck, right?
#55: Let’s have “parody” in homes too—build up Evergreen and we can be a “parody” of L.A.
#57 says; “JM… don’t ask the SJI. Ask Cindy, Nora, Forrest, Ron, etc. ” Well, Cindy won’t be able to recall, Nora and Forrest never knew, and Ron doesn’t care.
I doubt Nora would know a conflict of interest if it bit her, but the City Attorney should. There needs to be a mechanism to advise councilmembers and the mayor if there is a conflict from which they do not recuse themselves.
#68,
Did Nancy Pelosi run for office touting the “Pelosi Reforms” to reduce the power of the speaker? If not, then what is your point?
Will Chuck expose his hypocrisy by appointing commission members, or will he let the council decide who becomes a commission member?
This will be one of Chuck’s litmus tests as to whether he is serious about reducing the power of the mayor, or just doing a lip service dance to get elected.
The full council appoints commission members, although the mayor can influence the results. Certainly Gonzales bullied his way around the commission appointment process—just look at the Planning Commission. Gonzo didn’t want a commission that would ask any tough questions—kind of like his former city manager. Reed needs to insure there is an open process for commission selection and that people are selected based on qualifications and not on who they know or who they are related to.
#70,
Yes, exactly. Qualifications first and foremost for appointees, along with council approval. If the qualifications are not there then the appointee should at least express a desire, and give a rational reason why they want to be on a commission. Of course, all documentation and discussion needs to be a public record.
If anything comes out of Chuck’s “reform” I would like to see everything related to any council meeting be posted on the web, and stay there for as long as San Jose has a government.
At this time the San Jose web-site removes documents that it feels are no longer relevant. However, anything related to the city is always relevant.
For example, the link I had to the First Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Coyote Valley Research Park no longer exists. When I asked San Jose web-site why is was gone, the response was they removed it since the subject was no longer current, and they needed room on their server.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/planning/sjplan/eir/CVFirstAmendment/firstAmendmentContents.htm
However, Coyote Valley is still an ongoing discussion and all documentation regarding it, and any other city subject, should be available for the public via the web. Server storage is not that expensive, and can easily be budgeted each year.
JMOC… re: ” There needs to be a mechanism to advise councilmembers and the mayor if there is a conflict from which they do not recuse themselves. “
Since biting them might not work, how about a high voltage shock mechanism wired to their voting button such that it becomes charged whenever they are about to vote on an issue they shouldn’t.
Wouldn’t that be fun to watch? I might raise the rating on their Tuesday night show. Kind of remake of that old TV show, “Truth or Consequences”
#71 said: “When I asked San Jose web-site why is [the First Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Coyote Valley Research Park] was gone, the response was they removed it since the subject was no longer current, and they needed room on their server.
This town once called itself The Capital of Silicon Valley” (before being #10 was more important to the Gonzo)and it has a server with such a small capacity that it needs to delete important stuff???!!!
Is that what we get for busting the Cisco contract for the City Hall stuff?
Jesus Bloody Christ, we don’t have enough storage capacity for important documents???!!!
If that is an accurate statement, versus some lazy city-employee bureaucrat not wanting to help out a taxpayer, then we are in SERIOUS trouble here folks.
Who can we call to find out if the city’s server capacity is so small that deletion of important stuff is a daily task?
DD#72: One would like to think (hope?) that people elected to govern at any level would have the ethics to recuse themselves when there was even the APPEARANCE of impropriety. But there I am in The Ivory Tower again.
It is so sad and discomforting that so many of the people we elect to govern us are such sleazeballs.
We can’t even get a coffee shop in The Taj Gonzal because Cindy, Nora, and who knows who else are so beholden to organized labor that they scare away the biggest coffee shop chain on the entire planet with their “labor peace” nonsense. It ain’t labor peace; it’s pay the tribute to the union bosses, who keep drawing a paycheck when the rank and file goes out on strike and get squat.
If Starbuck’s employees wanted to “organize”, and pay union bosses a bunch of dues which would go into the dues-collectors’ pockets and provide little or nothing to the rank and file, then they would do so.
Meanwhile, how much productivity goes out the window when the city hall workers walk a few blocks to get their java fix instead of having an on-site place to get it?
Well, Blue Fox #69, she did much more than that. She, and every other Democrat, ran on a platform of ending the corruption and cronyism endemic to Congress in general and the Republican Party in particular.
jmoc #74
The way you discribe Cindy and Nora, and the way they threaten Council and bully the people under the flag of “LABOR PEACE” sounds much like the behavior of Moqtada al-Sadr and his approach to influencing policy and political control in Iraq.
Jack Van Zandt
On page 26 of the Council’s agenda for Dec. 12th it appears is recommending approval or tentatively approval of the development of 4000 plus homes in the Evergreen area.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/121206/121206a.pdf
Do I understand this correctly?
Does this mean it’s a slam dunk go ahead?
What do you expect will happen and why?
#77 David D.
You ask the key question of the moment: Is this a done deal? According to my sources, it is not and the council can delay consideration until a later date. However, a council majority could decide to consider and approve the plan. I guess it will come down to which side has the most firepower on the 12th. Even if the lame ducks and others in the pockets of the developers manage to scrape up a majority vote, I think that there are many legal moves that can be used to delay, change or stop the process. It seems clear that those council members supporting immediate approval of the plan do not have the best interests of the citizens in mind.
Thanks Jack. I’ll keep my fingers crossed for a prudent thoughtful process.
Hi Folks, We’re planning on moving to
the evergreen area so we can live in a decent
sized house in a good school district. We’re
currently in palo alto which has good schools
but awful housing costs. However, I’ve heard
that the schools are overcrowded already.
How is the council planning to address
this issue? I’m flabbergasted that they can
even consider this without additional schools.
I hope they are taking schools into
consideration.
Ashok Srinivasan