When you come right down to it, $2.6 billion is a lot of money no matter how you cut it (except in Bush’s illegal Iraq war where it would last a mere 10 days). That’s the amount of the new fiscal year’s budget approved by the city council on Tuesday, not without disagreement from some members. LeZotte and Reed voted against accepting the mayor’s budget message, LeZotte and Cortese voted against the overall budget, and LeZotte, Reed and Cortese voted against extending the telephone line charges to fund 911 responders.
One of the glaring issues in the new budget is the amount of money that has to be raised every year for the foreseeable future to pay the debt on the new City Hall—$25 million—while reducing the $35 million deficit the city has racked up. In order to make these payments, income-producing city departments are being asked to increase their contributions to the city treasury. This means increases in garbage, water and sewer rates, and higher fees for building permits and other services. The new rates were approved unanimously, except LeZotte voted against increasing garbage fees. We will be paying for City Hall for a long time—$475 million is still owed—so there is little hope that the rates will do anything but continue to rise in the coming years.
There is some good news in the budget as well. Ten additional police officers are to be hired and $13 million was allocated for 118 parks projects in the city. I would like to have seen an increase in funds to arts and culture, but that seems to be holding steady for the time being.
One other contentious issue that was discussed on Tuesday is the mayor’s proposal to ban “moonlighting” by serving council members. By a 6 to 4 margin, it was decided that a ballot measure will be prepared for November to address the issue. I am sure we will hear a lot more about it, but it seems to me this is something that requires public debate. As long as conflicts of interest are avoided, I don’t see why council members cannot continue their usual work in some capacity if they are making a valuable contribution to the community, say as a teacher, or if they run a business that is not publicly funded in any way or a beneficiary of public policy.
$2.6 billion is the kind of money that carries a heavy responsibility. There have been way too many shortfalls, backroom deals and screw-ups in the past few years. The Norcal scandal is about to be definitively addressed by the grand jury and that should tell us a lot about how our money has been used and, perhaps, abused. Let’s just hope that the new mayor’s administration will handle our tax dollars in a more responsible manner than the current one.
Jack, I love your “In order to make these payments, income-producing city departments are being asked to increase their contributions to the city treasury. This means increases in garbage, water and sewer rates, and higher fees for building permits and other services.”
Paying for services rendered is a good capitalistic thing. Paying higher “fees” to a government that also has a tax base is a sham. That’s the same logic that had a small part of the Bay Area’s population, those who cross the Bay Bridge, pay for all of the Bay Area’s highways.
Because the elected government of SJ screwed up, the citizens, and especially the developers and home builders and others forced to ask for city “services” have to pay for it. I guess you haven’t tried to get a building permit lately…
Voters tell politicians and people like you over and over their taxes are too high and vote down tax increases. So what happens? “Fees” are raised by the corupt council members. Then the few council members who vote no are derided.
Good news for the tax and spend folks is I would drop dead to read or hear that government revenue is down and the government is reducing spending to match the lack ot revenue. Instead I read about “income-producing city departments” fees will go up.
I’m going to go to my boss and explain how I bought a new house I couldn’t afford and he has to increase my wages to make up for. Yeah, that’s what I’ll do…
Dexter #1
I think we may actually agree on the issues you bring up. The new City Hall was a boondoggle from start to finish. And it doesn’t matter what you call the city’s “income-producing departments,” the fact is our rates are going up to pay off the City Hall debt (mortgage), not to give us better services, and that’s wrong.
What? Our taxes, … er fees, are going up to cover yet another Gang of 11 debacle?
Stop the presses!!
Consider…
The Washington Generals are San Jose’s elected officials.
The Harlem Globetrotters are the special interests.
At the beginning of the game, the Washington Generals come out and look like a real basketball team, they run some plays, keep the score close for a while, but in the end it’s always 120-58 in favor of the Globetrotters.
Something always seems to happen in the huddle or at half-time in the locker room.
The end result?
The fans get increased season ticket prices.
And those fans (citizens) who, despite loss after loss after loss to the Globetrotters, continue to demand:
– a baseball team
– BART
– a shiney new downtown,
– etc.
are the same folks who think that next time it will be different, that next time the Generals are sure to win.
Jack, in the last paragragh did you mean $2.6 billion not million? Either way it is a lot of money.
I just heard Ron G. has been indicted, an arrest warrent was issued and he was booked.
has anyone else heard anything? The Merc has nothing on line.
San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and budget aide Joe Guerra arrested—nice headline. While nobody is pleased about this, it is nice to see that eventually what goes around comes around. Maybe all you apologists for the NorCal deal and all of the other crap that has taken place here for the past 7 years, will realize that the Gonzales-Chavez reign of terror has to come to an end.
Gonzales just continues to sully the name of San Jose. He will be remembered only for stinking up the place and intimidating people.
Will all the new fees, does anybody still claim the new city hall is saving money?
What I don’t understand is how we paid so much ($384 million) for a new city hall that is only 100,000 square feet or so larger than the old city hall [1]. In terms a new capacity, we appear to have purchased very little for such a high price tag.
[1]
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/2006/05/07/news/local/14523081.htm
Ronny G and his Hit Man are in Jail! They will be traded on the “jail house” market for Cigarettes in no time!
Posted on Thu, Jun. 22, 2006
San Jose mayor, budget aide arrested
By Deborah Lohse and Sean Webby
Mercury News
San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales and his top budget aide Joe Guerra were arrested and released by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s department this morning, according to Deputy Sheriff Serg Palanov.
Although the grounds for arrest were not immediately known, it came amid a civil grand jury investigation related to the two men’s behind-the-scenes actions from 2000 to 2005 to help Norcal Waste Systems get an $11.25 million contract amendment after it underbid the labor component of its winning bid to collect trash for 155,000 San Jose residents.
Allen Ruby, a lawyer for Gonzales, did not immediately return a call for comment. Alan Lagod, an attorney for Guerra, said he had no comment at this time. David Vossbrink, a spokesman for Mayor Gonzales, did not return calls or pages.
Since January, a Santa Clara County grand jury and the County District Attorney’s Office have reviewed piles of subpoenaed documents and interviewed witnesses. The grand jury’s one-year term ends next week, so a report from that panel is expected to land soon.
It was not immediately clear what the arrest will mean for the conduct of business at City Hall. A criminal charge does not have an immediate impact on an elected official. “You’re innocent until proven guilty,’’ said City Attorney Richard Doyle.
The contract scandal has already led to the mayor’s censure by his council colleagues for having misled them in 2003 about the reasons for a garbage rate increase.
Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez typically handles business in the mayor’s absence. Under San Jose’s charter, any council office including the mayor’s is considered vacant if the officeholder is “convicted of a felony or of any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties.’‘
Under the charter, the council has the power to remove people from office, but the affected person has due-process rights to be heard in a hearing before such an action can be taken, said councilman and lawyer Chuck Reed, who investigated the city’s rules on such matters during the censure proceedings for Gonzales and former Councilman Terry Gregory.
Check back to http://www.mercurynews.com for developments in this breaking story
Jack, I’m not sure we agree. Declaring the “fee” increases a fact is not consoling. Hearing Gonzo and his ilk being arrested makes me feel better however it doesn’t solve the economic problem.
BTW – My boss just got back to me and told me he really wanted to give me a raise but said not at this time and I should BUDGET accordingly.
Does it occur to anyone the city government needs to BUDGET to pay for the Nuclear Containment Building aka City Hall without raising taxes/fees? I know this is an extremely radical notion for government in liberal environs. But the notion deserves some consideration – not a simple dismissal…
What are you talking about Jimmy – I am pleased about it! It is always good to see those who have been so abusive of power to maybe face some consequences. The chickens are coming home to roost!
Is Ron flipping San Jose the bird in this photo?
If so, I guess San Jose got the last laugh!
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/norcal/14878781.htm
#4 Yes, $2.6 billion. Thanks.
I don’t know what the DA has for evidence, but I’m shocked that anyone was indicted.
I’ve been one of Ron’s biggest critics and while I viewed him as wrong-headed, on some policies and poorly advised on a political level (after Jude Barry left). I never considered him corrupt.
Does anybody know what the indictment says? Other than a vague conspiracy charge, I can’t imagine what else could be there.
There are six charges—according to the Mayor’s press release.
Very Nixon-ian, “He broke no laws.”
By the way, is the standard of an elected official to “break no laws”?
http://www.sjmayor.org/event_library/new_website/Press/DAjune1406.pdf
Wow Cindy is calling for Ron resignation..how fast can she run to distance herself from her mentor.
DA does what City Council would not – if Gonzales was in any other top 20 US city nothing would have happened it would have been business as sleaze usual. All the City Council members should be ashamed of their low group ethics, professional politician “go along to get along” attitudes, and their lack of action even when the facts were obvious
Shows the many problems with (1) Strong Mayor form of government which all result in abuse, bad public policy and spending decisions and potential corruption and (2) electing career professional ” musical chair ” politicians to City Council who play musical chairs with elected offices
Time to elect non politicians who can state they have no intent run for more political offices but want to go back to their non political jobs – Sure kills Ron charter amendment for Mayor / Council members to not have any outside income which translates to ” only career or want to be career politicans or rich people can run for office ” since most regular people can not live on the city salaries or drop their career for 4 – 8 years
We need to revoke or revise Measure J ( what do you say Tom since it was your ideas to have a Strong Mayor ) which gives San Jose a Strong Mayor rather than a balanced City Council – City Manager and gives Mayor not City Council control of who is City Manager, budget and Council, Commission and VTA appointments
Rich – How about perjury for starters?
So when do we get to read the report?
It sure is a sad day for San Jose. However, it is a step in the right direction for an open public process. What frustrates me is that it took so long. Just think of how different the results of the primary election might have been. Even go further back in time, what took the rest of the council so long to speak out? Back in 2000 the Merc. and the planning commission were speaking out against the Gonzo regime, stating that he was trying to turn the review process into a rubber stamp machine. The directors of planning, public works, the city manager, the city attorney, the director of the RDA, planning commissioners and other stong department managers chose to leave, rather than take part in the way Gonzo conducted business. The likes of Gonzo and Co. have bullied commissioners, city staff, and some weak council members for the past seven years.
In the weeks to come I am sure we will learn the answers to questions like: why did some council members vote to end the investigation on both Norcal and Cisco, did Del B. or other city employees play any part in this scandal and where does labor fit into all of this? We the citizens of San Jose will be paying for the Gonzo administration for years to come, with both our tax dollars and our trust.
As we look for whom to blame in this mess, I hope we all start with looking in the mirror. We need to ask ourselves, what did I do to stop what has been going on the past seven years?
19 – You got that right. This mayor destroyed the Planning Commission and turned it into the weak, compliant body it is today. He didn’t want dissent anywhere in the city—not on the Commission, not from Department heads, and certainly not from the Council.
Although Gonzales deserves the major portion of blame, the city council also is more than deserving as well. They allowed Gonzo to get away with what he was doing. They knew of his micro-managing, his bullying tactics, his arrogance and vindictiveness, and they did not stop it. They approved his choice of a gutless city manager (Borgsdorf) and did nothing when for all intents and purposes the mayor took over the role of the city manager.
Every council member who sat on their hands and kept their mouths shut during this should be ashamed—and they certainly shouldn’t be rewarded for their inaction by being mayor.
We will recover from the Gonzales and Chavez years but it will take a long, long time. It will take a long time to recover financially and probably even longer to recover the lost trust that now lays shattered in pieces on the ground.
Cindy is toast. Nothing she can say or do at this point will put enough distance between her and her longtime friend and mentor. And, we still don’t know the truth about her involvement in the NorCal deal. Will she tell the truth or will she wait for the other shoe to drop and jump up and down like she is doing with Gonzales because she had no choice?
The scorecard is:
Borgsdorf – gone
Gonzo – all but gone
Cindy – you’re next
With those three gone and several councilmembers, we have a chance to not be the Capital of Embarrassment in the Bay Area.
The chickens have come home to roost… let the taxes and fees begin. Because of the shiny new City Hall, SJ citizenry will be paying off the debt for decades to come. And all because our Mayor and City Council had an inferiority complex regarding our “there’s no there there downtown.”
As for RonGon being indicted, think just how scary this could be. If Cindy assumes the balance of his term, she becomes the incumbent in November’s runoff election. Does anybody want four more years of the Gonzo/Cindy machine?!?!