The tumult and the shouting have ceased, the fools and conmen have departed (well, at least some of them), and now it is time to do the people’s work. A new General Plan Committee has been established, consisting of 37 good and true citizens. Unlike the Coyote Planning group which had all the independent thought of the shills at Bay 101, this one has hope. Although there are very many development interests on it, and few genuine neighborhood advocates in the tradition of former Councilmember Nancy Ianni, I have high hopes for it. The development advocates will not have the mayor’s thumb on the scale; they will not have the unbridled arrogance of the past regime. This will be a fair, “let the facts determine the outcome” group.
This is all that anyone can ask for.
As always, leadership will be the key. The mayor will provide much of it. The people spoke clearly in the last election. The two co-chairs, the energetic and thoughtful Sam Liccardo and former Councilmember Shirley Lewis, will provide sound and fair direction. David Pandori, assistant DA, urban planner, and a strong third-place finisher in the last mayor’s election, will play a critical role. This is not a group of leaders that can be bought or coerced. They can be reasoned with. Such virtues will provide great solace to the people of San Jose and send a chill into those who wish to buy elections and politicians.
Time, for once, is an ally. There will be no push from the elected leaders to do the bidding of a cartel of selfish interests. Tough, strong and fair will be hallmark of this effort—and it is high time.
Tom: I was away when the commission was appointed. Could you list the names for us, or provide a link? Thanks.
At first blush I have to agree with PGP2—37 people sounds like the U.N. Everyone will have an agenda. Let’s hope we don’t get the proverbial “camel”.
Brian Grayson, not “Native”, not anonymous, huffing for PAC, Perpetual Actionable Committee, experts on all matters pertaining to preserving SJ’s past in crystal amber, whose total cost for lawsuits against the city and county is proudly proclaimed, though never totalled in its enormous amount? Wow!
Not on the Coyote Com? Amazing! But, I thought Coyote was a clean slate, with the only historical structure anywhere in Coyote being Ken Saso’s fruit stand. I’ll bet PAC has a LONG list of absolutely precious fralling-down farmhouses or even Ohlone mud huts, in Coyote. Certainly leaving out PAC is an oversight on Chuck’s part. Anyway, the Neighborhoods will be well represented to slow things in Coyote down to a crawl. What’s really needed on this committee is someone from far away with great vision, someone who has made a marvel out of ag land surrounded by development. Won’t happen. Same old folks who have made San Jose what it isn’t will hold sway once again. George Green
Green daily riles against PAC-SJ, downtown neighborhoods and individuals some of which I have meet an seem ok for something that happened in downtown
Can Green, Grayson or some insider give us details so we can have some factual context about validity of Green’s upset comments – true , false or just someone who lost development argument
Watch for charges and counter charges between City Auditor and City Attorney over city audit of San Jose Finance Authority issued bonds and debt and Finance Department
See #10 – June 11, 2007
http://sanjoseinside.com/sji/blog/entries/changes_to_our_citys_investment_policy_for_or_against/
We need to complete the Finance Department audit It is a common sign of financial problems when the group to be audited does not want an audit since they are hiding problems. Did REP, Mexican Hertage, Northside Community Center, Grand Prix etc have or want audits?
Gonzo did not disclose billions in future city obligations which Reed disclosed SaN Jose owes
City Council don’t want to discuss hundred million in wasted city spending ( the list is very long), corporate / developer tax subsidies, doesn’t want real cost / benefit analysis of tax subsidies like Soccer Stadium, Grand Prix or millions taxes given to mismanaged non profits
It would Not be a surprise to find more creative accounting, more scandals and fiscal irresponsibility in Finance Department
Strong Insider Hint Look very closely at San Jose Finance Authority – what San Jose owes and where money want ”
5 – Here’s a link to the names of the Task Force:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/clerk/Agenda/080707/080707_04.04.pdf
7 – It’s difficult to respond to George since his comments usually contain very little fact. He is certainly entitled to his opinion but he tends not to be too interested in basing that opinion on fact. There have been lawsuits because the city was in violation of the law and the courts upheld that opinion. Litigation is used as an absolute last resort so is used very sparingly.
As has been said here many times by others, PAC does not determine what is or is not historic. There are very specific requirements that a structure must meet to qualify as historic.
I don’t know how to respond to his comments about Coyote since I’m not sure what his point is.
Maybe this helps a little. Perhaps others with more expertise will share their thoughts on this.
Thanks for the link, Brian #9.
Tom, as an insider must know all of them. I, as an outsider, recognize only a minority of the names, and wonder about the relevant input of many based upon the organizations listed as their affiliation.
The “Bible Way Chrisitan Center” guy, Pastor Dace???? And his expertise in land use planning would be what???? Perhaps he has some, I don’t know, and I mean no insult to him; but the affiliations of many folks listed gives no bright insight into their expertise in land use planning.
What, no Muslim or Jewish representation?
Perhaps Tom McE or Mr. Grayson could enlighten us regarding the qualifications (other than political connectedness) of each of these appointees for the particular, and very important, task at hand.
Thanks.
10 – John, I’ll let Tom give the lowdown on each of those who were selected—better yet would be to have the Mayor provide us with his reasoning behind his selections.
As for the rep from Bible Way Christian Center, I don’t know him or his qualifications. I do know that church locations have become an issue within the city because many of the mega-churches want to locate in industrial areas. This creates potential issues with existing industrial uses and therefore becomes something that the GP Task Force will have to deal with. I am guessing that is the reason there is a church rep on the panel so that he can present the view from the church perspective.
John Michael – I know some but not all of these reps. Many rep. organizations, labor, chamber, etc. and 10 are District Reps. The former councilmembers appointed, who served in the days before the great “sell out” and giveaways of the last 10 years, should be helpful. Remember 1400 ac. were changed from indus./tax base to housing/service demand ( hundreds of millions were made ) in those 10 yrs. and the city has reaped a savage harvest. These forces still have their lobbyists and shills and councilmembers who do not seem to know the consequences of what they have done. I hope for better. TMcE
Tom,
That’s good news, a fair and balanced committee is all that we can expect. Quality of life in our Valley of Heart’s Delight has greatly eroded in the last five decades, much of the reason is badly planned development.
I fear that a couple of more jumbo residential projects may push us beyond the point of recovery. Tens of thousands of new homes in Coyote Valley or North San Jose will certainly place impossible demands on our infrastructure.
My prime concerns are the availability of water and clean air. As it is presently, a couple of years of below normal precipitation will undoubtedly force water rationing to an unreasonable level. Too, our air quality will further erode and result in a much higher number of spare-the-air days per year.
I continue to campaign for growth controls which recognize these two parameters. I believe that large development projects must be accompanied by a Mello-Roos type assessment sufficient to pay for whatever is required to bring additional water to the valley and to maintain our air quality.
As a well respected and insightful leader, I hope that you can carry this message forward to those on the General Planning Committee. I thank you in advance for whatever you can do to maintain and improve our beautiful and most special valley.
Converting Industrial land to Residential land is worth $1-2 million more per acre after Council approves conversion while city loses billions in future job and sales taxes and has to pay billions in city services since homes do not generate enough taxes to pay for required services
Council when then approved converted 1400 acres gave developers $1 to $2.8 billion or more
San Jose should have gotten millions in community improvements for each conversion as other California cities which is authorized under state law when converting land uses
During the race, ESPN-2 ran City of San Jose advertising spots in which our fair city was touted as a great place to live. Unless I misinterpreted these, isn’t this a continuation of the campaign to lure the “best and brightest” to San Jose started under Mayor Gonzales. Although this is not a new concept in San Jose (“The Valley of Heart’s Delight” was, after all, an early pro-growth marketing slogan by the Chamber to draw new residents from the East Coast), it seems to run counter to the concerns towards fiscal restraint of the current administration, in which job growth – not residential development, is considered the panacea to resolving unfunded infrastructure needs. Is it even on the table that the General Plan Committee would look this horse in the mouth?
37 members on the General Plan Committee are about 17 too many.
Here in Santa Cruz we had the Regional Transportation Commission”s 77 members Transportation Funding Task Force. It was a disaster!
Just too many people ivolved. A few took over by calling motion after motion, issues were never fully discussed. Some options were tabled into oblivion. The final plan was to be by 2/3 majority, but the Funding task force kind of faded into the sunset.
PGP2 of Santa Cruz
This will be a fair, “let the facts determine the outcome” group.
Not to sound cynical, but I really hope that is true. For whatever reason, it seems that in politics the facts are usually considered irrelevant.
For the most part you are correct. The people selected for the Task Force comprise a much more balanced group than the Coyote Task Force. Unfortunately, the Mayor allowed a glaring omission by not including anyone from the historic preservation community,
Representatives from two of the three relevant city commissions, Planning and the Parks and Recreation Commissions were selected, but no one from the Historic Landmarks Commission was placed on the panel.
It appears to be a deliberate action which is unfortunate. The city has spent millions of unnecessary dollars over the years because they did not include the historic preservation community early in the process of many land use decisions. Now, when there is an opportunity to have the preservation community at the table at the beginning of the process, they refuse to do so.
I hope this is not a preview of things to come from this process, but it does not get it off to a very good start.
Tom: I understand there are 10 district reps. My point was, other than their being politically connected in their home district, what are their qualifications?
Dick Santos on General Plan Update is SCV Water Board Director so is best qualified to lead GP discussion on water issues and address needs
Most GP Update people have multiple experiences that could contribute to developing balanced GP update to guide San Jose’s future if they are willing to work for public good rather than working for special interest good as we have many times seen in San Jose’s recent past
Many in community have expressed concerns that recent election has traded one group of special interest insiders for another group of special interest insiders
The GP update will clearly tell community if the current administration is actually working for public good or not and if their claims of reform are true or political talk
#17 JMOC:
The District 3 representative, Lisa Jensen, and the District 8 rep, Jim Zito, are both sitting planning commissioners. A third planning commissioner, Matt Kamkar, is also on the task force as the commission’s rep. Seems to me they are all qualified, virtually by definition, to deal with the general plan update.
Several of the other reps to the task force are sitting or former city councilpeople, including, I’m informed, the District 6 rep, Nancy Ianni. Surely, they are likewise all “qualified” to deal with a general plan update, even if you disagree with their politics.
There may be some weak links on this task force (I don’t recognize every name), but it strikes me in its totality as a pretty distinguished group which, by the way, includes a number of folks who I know to be predisposed to take historic preservation issues seriously, even if they are not card-carrying members of PAC*SJ.
When I was told that somebody posted on SJI with an assertion that there was a “deliberate” exclusion of members of the preservation community or Historic Landmarks Commission, I decided to log on to correct the record.
Judy Stabile, a former councilmember and resident in my district, is also a current member of the Historic Landmarks Commission. I’m proud serve on the panel with someone of Judy’s caliber.
#13, yes, there was a great giveaway amounting to billions in lost revenues and infrastructure improvements.
I continue to argue for a Mello-Roos type tax on residential dwellings, a levy that would pay for those improvements That sort of tax, so successfully used in Central Valley communities, provides for and sustains improvements necessary to pay for the added residential dwellings.
And what’s the biggest deficiency created by more homes… WATER, of course! I truly hope that Tom McE carries that banner forward in his discussions with the General Planning Committee members, and others in his circle of acquaintances.
Don #19: Thanks for the 4-1-1. Many of the names on the list are unknown to me, so I was wondering.
Though I do not know all the players on the panel, I do see some highly qualified individuals. It may not be perfect, but if any future openings are filled with individuals like Brian Grayson and /or Don Gagliardi it could become the dream team.
Jim Z. – you have it right. It is a good group and leadership is there. I hope that they have the courage to address the fundamental problems in our city’s land use, i.e., too many homes and not enough tax base, and throw off the yoke of the monied developers that have virtually controlled our planning and land use for a decade. TMcE
I know several of these people, and I agree that it seems a solid and distinguished group, and one that is overall well informed about historic preservation.
As for Coyote Valley – I think we looked at it at PAC*SJ and there was very little there that was historic. That’s why PAC*SJ really wasn’t deeply involved in discussions over Coyote Valley during my tenure as executive director.
Alex – if the old Coyote Plan w. all the new homes – or is the new one – got approved, SJ would be so strapped for $$ that we wouldn’t be able to preserve a paper clip. Thank God, and Chuck Reed, and the citizens,that the CoyoteDome Scandal was not implemented. TMcE
While Alex (#25) served PACSJ and San Jose well during his tenure here, he has been gone for quite awhile and his comments regarding Coyote do not reflect the current view of PACSJ.
PACSJ expressed its concerns in 6 pages of comments on the DEIR and can be viewed online:
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/coyotevalley/EIR/DEIR/DEIR_Comments/Organizations & Companies/06-25-07_Preservation-Action-Council-of-San-Jose.pdf
The comments detail numerous historic and cultural resources in Coyote Valley. These comments, along with an unprecedented amount of other comments from individuals, groups, and organizations, were among the reasons the city will recirculate the DEIR again in the hopes of producing a more complete and accurate document.
My apologies for my out-of-date knowledge, Brian!
I defer to you on that, Tom: you’re much more knowledgeable about the matter than me. I was simply saying that, whether a good or a bad idea, it wouldn’t have been rational for PAC*SJ to get involved in a project that did not involve an immediate threat to actual historic buildings.
So, how’s your 20/20 hindsight? No new Cisco jobs ( 80% of Cisco net job growth outside San Jose) no new companies in Santa Cruz county and the only work available in Salinas is for the Nortenos. Housing more affordable than ever in Watsonville and Prunedale. San Juan Bautista dying on the vine, with nothing left but antique shops.
Oh, well, you can always plant some more prune orchards.