City Hall Diary
Whew—just before midnight, we passed the budget!
After many long budget hearings, staff presentations, public testimony and robbing Peter to pay Paul, we have a “balanced” budget.
The City of San Jose cannot borrow funds like the federal government. Therefore, we must balance our books every year. We do have bonds to pay for our capital projects such as new libraries, fire stations and parks; but for the most part, we have to make sure we have funds that match expenses—which is one of the most difficult jobs of a city government.
As hard as it was this year to find funding for much needed projects and to make an attempt to be fair to all people, it will be an even harder task next year to meet the same expectations.
I believe that the city needs to spend money prudently. We should not convert industrial land that will create revenue for the city and not be “lawsuit happy.” The city had to pay over $30 million to settle just two lawsuits. One was to take land away from a small business owner (Tropicana), and the other was to sue the county because we had an issue about who could build an outside theater. Now, neither the city nor county have an amphitheater. What the city council could have paid for with the $30+ million we wasted on lawsuits.
The budget process is tough, even for folks like me who consider themselves penny savers. For example, I supported allocating $257,000 to EHC for their homeless center rather than funding the “insourcing” of the graveyard shift janitors at $1.2 million a year. There are some that argue that bringing janitors on as fulltime employees is a better use of money than providing for the homeless, but I disagree.
I requested that EHC put their financials on their website. As I have mentioned before, any non-profit group receiving over $100,000 from the city should have their audited financials posted on their public facing website. They agreed. To compare, I supported $257,000 to assist 125 homeless people rather than spend $1.2 million a year for 25 janitors, who are already employed with a living wage and medical benefits, to become city employees.
At the end of the final budget hearing, my request to put aside almost $1 million to help fund public/private partnerships for park maintenance was accepted by the city council. I felt a sense of camaraderie at that moment and I was honored that my fellow council members supported this request. It is an allocation that if used innovatively and appropriately, could be put to good use for all parks in San Jose.
Other choices and questions that we will have to make in the future include funding for “green” (LEED certified) buildings. Are we willing to spend more on one building even though that may mean we sacrifice a new library for another San Jose neighborhood?
What ideas and thoughts do you have regarding the budget?
Council should use existing pension and healthcare spouse benefit sharing principals to arrive at fair solution for both retirees and taxpayers which does not add new retirement healthcare costs to San Jose’s city budget deficit
1) Most retirement pension plans including San Jose’s allow retirees to elect to share retirement benefits with their spouse Retiree’s pension is reduced by actuarially calculating amount based on spouse age Cost to city remains same but pension benefits are shared and spouse receives pension after retiree’s death
http://sjretirement.com/PF/FAQ/FAQ.asp#3
2) San Jose medical and dental retirement benefits are 100% paid based on lowest cost city plan If retiree chooses higher cost plan then retiree pays difference between lowest and selected higher cost plan which is deducted from monthly pension payment
3) Apply same retirement spouse sharing benefit principal to retiree’s and spouse shared healthcare plan
a) Retiree should pay any increased cost above lowest cost medical plan for either retiree or retiree plus spouse healthcare plan costs which would be deduced from monthly pension payment
b) Actuarially calculate and reduce pension payment amount by cost of spouse’s future medical plan based on spouse age as is now done with retirement plan
4) Retiree and spouse will get 2 benefits – (1) ability to have lower cost city purchased healthcare plan for spouse compared to market rate individual costs and (2) after retiree’s death continuation in both pension and health care plans if retiree elects to share retirement benefits
San Jose can solve both retiree’s widow / widower’s after death healthcare needs and does not increase budget costs or having to further reduce already very low city services to taxpayers
If the city council and mayor are so financially prudent, how can you justify giving yourself a 20% pay raise, doubling your car allowanance, and giving the mayor a $20,000 a year raise as well to pay for his health and insurance benefits in the face of a budget crisis? Did the city council feel another sense of camaraderie at this moment too? Can your staffers be “outsourced” to offset your pay raises? And to answer your question regarding “green buildings” I say “no” if it means not building a library.
So how many libraries do we need, Dave? Last I checked, San Jose was looking to get people downtown. There’s also a HUGE library there. Put it together.
Stop acting like San Jose is ten little towns when it’s one large city.
With all the success that Adobe has had with green building, why are you suggesting that for the city to build green, it must sacrafice a library? Sounds like the city needs to apply a few lessons from the private sector.
Pierluigi:
I understand that the city has 111 different “funds.” At a recent neighborhood meeting, Pete Constant called for a review of all of these funds , suggesting that some of the funds mandated by city ordinances or policies might need to be re-examined. In other words, go to the voters and ask them to re-examine the priorities.
Second, why not take a look at using RDA funds to pay for some of the maintenance backlog. Few people know that you can use RDA money to repave streets if the street is in an RDA zone. The RDA was set up to eliminate blight…it has become its own franchise.
Third: If we’re going to mortgage our future for the present (Wolff’s entitlements) let’s at least spend it on ourselves. Put it to a vote of the people this November…do we want the $80 million in entitlements to go to a soccer stadium, or the rebuilding of our declining city?
Pete Campbell
p.s. If part of the “sell job” for the soccer stadium on Coleman is that it will double as a concert venue that will generate cash, we all need to pause. (You can’t have a concert venue next to an airport!!!)
Dear Mr Tool-of-the-Merc Campbell,
If Wolff’s stadium required a vote, it would get one. Stop acting like you’re being cheated. I know you’re a firm believer in “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything,” but some of us like to move forward in the world.
P.S. The sky isn’t falling.
S I M P L Y A M A Z I N G ! ! !
In eight years Ron Gonzales single-handedly created the world capital of technology and innovation.
In six months Chuck Reed and Gerald Silva nuke it all and turn us into Playboy Mansion North, world capital of hopelessness and despair.
Maybe the next election cycle we’ll get it right.
A late-night reveler kicked an officer in the face as the officer attempted to arrest two other men for fighting outside a bar in downtown San Jose early Sunday morning, police reported today.
An officer assigned to work at Tres Gringos, near the intersection of Second and San Fernando streets, attempted to stop a fight between two people just around closing time, about 1:30 a.m., police said.
The two were going to be arrested on suspicion of fighting and being drunk in public. As the officer began arresting the pair, a third man jumped out of the crowd gathered in front of the bar.
The third man allegedly kicked the officer in the face.
All three suspects – Mathew Rosales, 26, of San Jose, Victor Valenzuela, 27, San Jose and Stephen Roger Rosales, 27, of Washington state – were taken into custody, officer Jermaine Thomas said.
The officer was treated at the hospital and released. A second officer was also treated for a bruised hand following the incident.
#5 – The reasons building one library to higher green standards may result in the loss of another library are twofold.
1) Building a library comes from capital expenditures, in this case the Library Bond, which has a finite amount of money. While operating expenses may be saved in the long term, making it a wise investment, once the capital money is gone, no more libraries can be built.
2) Much of the expense being discussed here is not to build to green standards, but to meet stringent requirements so that the buildings can be certified as “silver” or “gold” LEED.
Pierluigi said: “To compare, I supported $257,000 to assist 125 homeless people rather than spend $1.2 million a year for 25 janitors, who are already employed with a living wage and medical benefits, to become city employees.” It’s difficult to evaluate that choice while not knowing what the cost of those janitors is under private contract. But at those numbers, janitors earn an average of $48k/year.
The Mayor and City Council deserve a raise. They make less than most paid city staff, and work longer hours! They are on duty 24/7! Private time? What private time!
The City needs to find a way to have raises done the same way the County Board of Supervisors do. The BOS get a raise automatically when Judges do. The Mayor and Council should not have to vote in their own pay raises. That’s unfair.
Tough budget choices this year. Lots of good programs needing help. The EHC deserved the money they got. I understand they provide fantastic services to homeless people. They help them get back on their feet, and become self sufficent. BRAVO for voting them the money they so desperately need! We’re all just one pay check a way from the street, so just remember,” but for the grace of God go I.”
Green buildings may cost more to construct, but they save more in the long run. Our planet is in deep trouble. If we don’t start taking better care of it, you won’t need to worry about a library or anything else!
Without disagreeing that making budget decisions can be brutal, I would like to suggest that the council adopt a “basic services measure” for use when confronted by dilemmas such as “investing” in green buildings versus “funding” a neighborhood library. It would work something like this:
The BS Measure would consist of a status report on basic city services (public safety, libraries, streets, etc.) detailing fiscal need and assigning a funding priority for each project. The BS Measure would be referenced whenever the council is confronted by a budget item that is desirable and/or popular, but not a basic service. This would afford the council the opportunity, using the example of “green” buildings, to accurately frame their personal/political desires against a backdrop of actual city need.
Now, recognizing that clarity is most persuasive when accompanied by consequence, in those cases where the council votes to fund a particular item over an existing need a report would be prepared identifying: the top ten unmet needs, the council members who voted to ignore them, and where the funds were instead spent. This report would be made public and posted on a permanent and prominent internet page (I would suggest the creation of a council voting record link on the city’s main page). An entry would read something like this:
8/07: Despite listed deficiencies in basic services, the council voted 8 to 3 to instead to spend $800,000 on a statue to honor the nesting falcon family that recently brought much-needed national attention to San Jose and its new city hall. Voting in favor were: blank, blank, blank, , , ; voting against were: blank, blank. blank. (Each council member would have the opportunity to provide a link to a personal page to explain their particular vote.)
Using such a mechanism council members would have the opportunity to establish a permanent public record that would accurately depict their political priorities (be it to providing basic services, jumping onto popular bandwagons, run-of-the-mill pandering, etc.) and offer each a layer of protection against the distortions of future opponents. With such information at our fingertips, we voters could make clear whether what we want is responsible stewardship or grand political gestures. I would hope that having access to such information would transform the huge numbers of voters who value basic city services into a voting block capable of exerting the power and influence now exclusively in the hands of lobbyists and special interest groups.
#10
Green buildings, as you pointed out and Adobe has demonstrated, reduce operating expenses. So, by the city not building green buildings, they are conscientiously increasing a future operating expense, which places the burden of finding operating money on future City Councils, which translates to higher fees/taxes for the residents.
Sounds like the city needs to figure out a different business model. Perhaps, the city could leverage operating dollars to build more green buildings? Other cities like Portland and Seattle have figured it out…why can’t San Jose?
To your second point: Wouldn’t certifying at the higher levels mean that the city builds even more energy efficient and water efficient buildings, thus further reducing operating expenses?
#9- Thanks for the heads up. I guess the Independent Police Auditor will try to find a way to make that incident the Officer’s fault. I mean we all know that it’s always the Police who are at fault when drunken trouble makers get their dumb butts arrested! Especially with names like :
Mathew Rosales, 26, of San Jose, Victor Valenzuela, 27, San Jose and Stephen Roger Rosales, 27, of Washington state, they must be innocent right! Yeah right….
#8
Please be fair! Gonzo needed the esteemed partnership of “The Father of the Internet” Al Gore, to bring the reality as you see it to light. I’ve heard of rose colored glasses, but your virtual alternative reality glasses are something else!
Dear #7 (Nam Turk):
I completely agree…“the sky isn’t falling.” But what is falling is the standard of living in this valley, due, in part, to governments at every level mismanaging and misspending the public trust. San Jose has a backlog list of some 300 miles, and at a cost of $300,000/mile, it will take many decades before the streets are fixed. I want the city rebuilt first, then you can do whatever you want with what’s left!
“…Some of us like to move forward in the world,” you wrote. Again, I agree, but I don’t place funding a soccer stadium (something that can be done with private capital) a priority over repairing the streets, improving the parks, and keeping the community centers open (particularly those that provide free lunches for seniors).
Pete campbell
17: My point about the stadium was that it’s not an either/or situation. Lew Wolff is building a stadium with his money. The city can’t say to him, “repair our streets.” I don’t see why we have to shoot down people taking chances on our city. How smalltown and backwards is that?
#8 – Seems like you have a bias against our current Mayor, Chuck Reed. You seem to forget that the Cisco Scandal, and the Norcal scandal, and the indictment of Council Member Terry Gregory came under the term of former Mayor Ron Gonzales. Here’s a thought – Maybe the incident in the City Auditor’s office has nothing to do with Mayor Chuck Reed, and instead is the act of individuals in the City Auditor’s office.
18 – Wolff isn’t exactly proposing to build the stadium with his money. He wants to get industrial land rezoned for residential so he can build housing.
Who do you think will pay for all the city services that would be needed for new homes on land that previously planned for industrial use? It won’t be Wolff, it will be you and me, and it will be at the expense of other vital city services such as street repair, community centers, etc.
Wolff is not taking any “chance” on our city. He either gets what he wants or he walks.
In my opinion the city libraries come way before green buildings on the priority list. Kids need to be able to access neighborhood libraries, and the hours have already been significantly reduced. For the price of one “green building” the city could buy a few compact fluorescent lightbulbs for every city household which would have an immediate energy savings. The city could also do an immediate energy audit of every building they currently have. They could replace every incandescent light bulb with flourescents, put lights on timers so they are not going when not needed, and adjust air conditioning to a higher temperature. The city could also build the south city police substation that was funded years ago and never built, so that millions of gallons of gasoline would be saved by patrol cars who currently have to drive hundreds of thousands of extra miles to get from the current police station clear to the south side of San Jose. You could also fund field trips for every student in San Jose to the Tech Museum, where they have a great display on why we should save energy as well as ways to save energy. To Kathleen #12, I agree the city council and mayor may deserve a raise, but now is not the right time if they are leading by example. I’m sure there are few public or private employees who feel they do not deserve a raise, but our city council is basically the city board of directors, and should forego a raise in a financially bad time, especially since they were well aware of the salary when they ran for office. It appears hypocritical to speak of outsourcing jobs while increasing your own pay. Just my opinion.
20: This relates back to my point about being manipulated by the Merc. Is the population of the city never going to grow? Will all housing cease to be produced? This case gets hounded because of its ties to the stadium deal. This industrial land means little when there’s tons of space in north San Jose and still vacancy in existing buildings. The city is going to continue to allow housing no matter what, so why not get an athletic facility out of the deal? If we had this opportunity for all the crap in Evergreen, we could house every team in California. I know that the city needs tax revenue more than it needs a drain, but more housing is an inevitability so it’s stupid to fight just because someone wants to sell newspapers.
#19 – In all honesty, I forgot about Cisco, Norcal and Gregory. Also, you make a good point about the City Auditor’s Office. You seem like a smart lady. I feel like a jerk living in a fantasy world. I feel like an idiot, out of touch with reality.
Dennis minus Todd
Is giving police and fire retiree spouse’s free medical another labor done deal?
So everyone is OK with closing your library or community center to pay for retiree’s spouses medical coverage ?
Why should city taxpayers pay for retirees spouse coverage costs like everyone else does if they want more family health coverage?
#21- Dave, you make a good point on the raise issue, but I must say that there will never be a good time for raises in this current budget crisis. The main point for me is that asking someone to vote on their own raise is backwards to me. It really needs to be done in a way that doesn’t put them on the spot. Automatic cost of living raises or something like that needs to be considered, and someone or some guideline, other than the Mayor or Council, needs to control it.
Nam Turk,
What’s so damned important about San Jose growing and growing and growing?!
I’ll have to hazard a guess here -you must have an artesian well behind your house to supply you with the the most precious liquid on the face of the Earth, while the rest of us will remain parched.
Perhaps, too, you have your own supply of fresh air, unadulterated with the smog that increased population will bring.
And what about the required infrastructure… roads, police, fire, libraries and schools? How do you propose that we pay all of that? Will the Tooth Fairy lend us an assist?
Pierre the music hall proposed by the county would have been indoor not outdoor.
The city and county need to start working together instead of continually pulling the rug ouit from under the each other. that is something you could work on.
Mr. Howe, I never said I wanted it to grow. I merely stated that such was inevitable.
Jack (or anyone else at the controls), can you let us know if Kathleen and Dave are the same person?
#30 Novice
No.
#22 Nam turk
I agree with most of your posts on this site. However, I do not agree that since increased housing is inevitable, the industrial conversion in regards to the soccer deal is inconsequential. The I-Star property in question was specifically designed in the general plan to provide the commercial and light indiustrial to serve the thousands of units coming in at the Hitachi site. By converting the I-Star site to residential, letting Wolf make 100’s of millions in the process, is not good planning. Smart growth prepares for the inevitable but also creates a livable environment. High density is coming in next door to the I-Star site. A couple thousand more units would certainly be detrimental to the long term fiscal health of the city.
To Mr. Howe’s concerns about water and air…
People will live somewhere. They can live in the Central Valley, or they can live here.
Every home in the Central Valley uses more water than a home here. Every commuter from the Central Valley produces more smog than a person who lives here. ( They drive further and burn more gas.)
If you really mean what you say about water supplies and clean air, then start beating the drum for more housing in Silly Valley and less housing out by Stockton.
If you just want a reason to oppose growth, then leave air and water out of it. No growth here means more sprawl somewhere else, and that is much worse for the environment.
I gotta agree with PC #17—first things first.
And we need to eliminate all these special purpose funds, (like separate one-purpose public checking accounts). I called into Mayor Reed’s show last night on KLIV to ask why we are rehiring a deputy Director of Cultural Affairs @ $152k/year when our roads suck (well, I didn’t say suck on the air). He responded (which I already knew) that funding for that job comes from the TOT, so you can’t really spend it on roads.
But that’s just the problem—too many special funds for limited purposes. So, since we have this special fund we must spend it on special fund related stuff only (and use it all or lose it, I suppose); which means that even though our roads suck, we can’t use that $152k to repave one-half mile of road (like say Alma between DMV & Bird, which has been a wreck since the original construction of Highway 87).
So if the DEPUTY Director of Cultural Affairs makes $152k/year, what does the Director make? How many Deputies are there? How many $$$ does this opffice consume? Are they the ones that brought us Quetzalcoatl? If so, fire them all.
This town can no longer afford special interest funds when we need more cops, more firefighters, and decent infrasturcture.
#24—it’s worse than that. They want us to give medical and dental coverage to spouses who were not the spouse of the retiree while that person was on the job!
Lord knows that the spouse of a cop or a firefighter goes through a lot of helll while his/her spouse is on the job. They never know when there’ll be that knock on the door.
But the new post-retirement spouse never went through those hard times, so why should he/she get ANYTHING from the taxpayers? Let his/her spouse pay the tab like the rest of us do.
Kathleeen #25: it may seem counterintuitive, but I do want to put them on the spot. It’ll be way too easy to reward incompetence (Think Yahoo) if they get a pass on making the decision. I want them to be forced to explain why they gave themselves raises when they asked for concessions from the rank and file. If some outside formula determines it, they can just beg off if they get a raise for lousy work.
#33: You are entitled to your opinion opposing the soccer stadium, but please get your facts right. Lew Wolff is not projected to make “100’s of millions” from the process of converting the I-Star site zoning from industrial to residential. Nor are “a couple thousand more units” of housing proposed for the site. (Of course it’s hard to blame you for your ignorance, since the Mercury News refuses to properly cover the story.)
The estimate is that the re-zoning of the I-Star site will provide $80 million in value, ALL of which Mr. Wolff will re-invest in San Jose, together with $20 million or more of his own money, by building near the airport a $100 million soccer stadium, which the city will own and which he will lease from the city for fair market value and maintain on his own dime, thus reducing the city’s land carrying costs. If the stadium costs over-run, Mr. Wolff, who has guaranteed to pick up the extra costs, will simply invest even more of his own money in San Jose. Mr. Wolff and his partner will also be investing in a hotel, office and retail complex around the stadium, creating additional economic benefit to the city.
Reports are that there would be a MAXIMUM of 1500 proposed housing units at the I-Star site, not a couple thousand. At four-persons- per-unit (highly unlikely), that’s AT MOST 6,000 new residents in a city of nearly one million. And the traffic impacts would be mitigated by fees from the residential developer (who, by the way, would not be Mr. Wolff).
Meanwhile, the industrial land at the I-Star site would be reclaimed by allowing increased densities of development on the adjacent industrial properties, so that there would be NO NET LOSS OF INDUSTRIAL LAND WHATSOEVER.
Meanwhile, also, because Mr. Wolff will be investing in a new soccer stadium, San Jose will gets its professional soccer team, the Earthquakes, back, perhaps in time for the 2008 season, thereby bringing joy to thousands (even if you don’t happen to be one of those celebrating). Additionally, there will be an ANNUAL economic impact to San Jose of conservatively $75 million (i.e., a lot more than the grand prix) according to a Visitor Projection Report prepared by Soccer Silicon Valley (my group) using formulas provided by the San Jose Convention & Visitors Bureau. (If you want a copy, go ask the Mercury News; they’ve been sitting on it.)
Thus, the economic benefit to San Jose of a soccer stadium is “extraordinary” within the meaning of the express exception to the policy against conversion of industrial land. And that’s not just my opinion—it’s also the opinion of a UNANIMOUS city council, of all political stripes, which voted last week in complete SUNSHINE to pursue negotations with Mr. Wolff on the deal.
The naysaying on this blog only underscores Mr. Wolff’s retort to the Chamber of Commerce last August that, if they put a cure for cancer before the electorate in this city, it would be voted down.
Oops. I meant my post #36 to respond to #32 (smart growth?).
#36 Mr. Gagliardi:
Frankly, I don’t care one way or the other what happens on the issue of Mr. Wolff getting the property re-zoned or a soccer stadium built. I prefer golf myself. But, don’t try to spin this as Mr. Wolff spending $100 million or so out of his pocket and getting nothing in return. He did not get where he is by just giving away his money. Of course we are not privy to the numbers within the numbers. But you can be sure he is motivated and it is not just because he likes soccer.
Also, $75 million a year impact of a soccer team. Sounds like you are using the same accountants the Grand Prix uses, only they are now taking steroids. Where was that $75 million a year the last time the Earthquakes were here. Oh yeah, it would have been $75 million a year if they had a new stadium. If you build it they will come.
You wonder why people are skeptical when numbers are thrown out and around but no truthful backup information is provided. Perhaps because it is easy to throw up numbers these days since no one will be held accountable when the house of cards falls.
Pierluigi,
Just a thought although I know my numbers are not completely accurate. If there are 260,000 households in San Jose, and the city was to buy half these households 4-5 compact flourescent light bulbs this would cost the city about $1.3 million at $2 per bulb. If each of the 130,000 households saved $25 a month on their PG&E bill this would be an extra $39 million dollars per year in the pockets of San Jose residents rather than sending it to PG&E stockholders. Financially this seems like a grea investment for the city rather than putting millions in one city owned “green building” and it would environmentally have a substantial impact on air pollution. Like I said, I know my numbers are off as I just did a rough guestimate but I think it may be worth looking into. Thanks
In response to #38, I have just a couple of things to add. First, I have to qualify my comments. I lived in San Jose for a long time and I will forever consider it to be my “home”.
The city has long had a history of enabling developers to get rich. Lew Wolff is no exception. If the city had been more agressive in making deals with developers who would invest some portion of their profits back into city facilities, is it not likely that the city would be a better place? Unfortunately, most of these guys have been quite happy (with the city’s blessing) to spend their money elsewhere.
Yes, Lew Wolff stands to make some money. So what? A developer who doesn’t make money isn’t doing a very good job. This proposal has elements that do benefit the citizens of San Jose, as well as those (like myself) who like to visit and spend some of my money there. The problem is not this deal….the problem is the lack of similar deals in the past.
#38 (Michael Schwerin): I never said Lew Wolff was spending $100 million out of his own pocket or that he was getting nothing in return. Go back and re-read: Of a $100 million stadium, he is spending $20 million out of pocket with the other $80 million earned from re-zoning land. That’s called ingenuity to avoid a public subsidy, which should be applauded rather than derided. And so what if Mr. Wolff ultimately hopes to make money from building a soccer stadium—more power to him. That’s the American way; everyone benefits and the economy grows larger. Mr. Wolff’s profit motive is irrelevant to whether the deal is good for San Jose.
Which leads to SSV’s projections that San Jose would reap $75 million per year in economic benefit. The report is fully annotated with truthful information to back it up from legitimate public sources. Numbers are not being “thrown around”; the data took months to assemble and verify, and the Mercury News has had those numbers for months but has not reported them because they undercut its efforts to create a controversy where there shouldn’t be one.
As for where those dollars were when the previous incarnation of the Earthquakes were here, the short answer is that the difference between a Depression-era WPA wreck of a Spartan Stadium and a brand-new soccer epicenter run by professionals is akin to the difference between the Cow Palace and the HP Pavilion. (And that’s not a knock on either Spartan or the Cow Palace, both of which I love; it’s just dollars-and-cents.)
Oh, and if you think there was simply no economic benefit to San Jose from the previous Earthquakes franchise being here, you’re absolutely wrong. My guess (and I admit this is a guess) is that the prior team—although a pale imitation of what is to come—was nonetheless still a larger economic generator than the grand prix. Just because you didn’t read about it in the Mercury News didn’t mean it wasn’t putting money in the city coffers.
Democracy is sustained by public skepticism about spending public taxes in San Jose’s back room, hide information from public, dishonest special interest political culture
Mr. Wolff’s retort to the Chamber of Commerce last August that, if they put a cure for cancer before the electorate in this city, it would be voted down has some truth to it, due to wide spread deserved public skepticism about Council and Wolff who has received taxpayers millions
Public does not believe that we can trust or believe Council or city government senior managers based on past dishonest, no public accountability, inflated economic impacts, and understated costs for special interest or political self serving tax spending without carefully checking all facts
If CSJ is so proud of building “Green” Buildings why are there still no trees around City Hall? Don’t give us the crap about it being on a garage, I can show you gardens built on garages. There’s a building on it isn’t there?
San Jose talks “green buildings” but where are
shade trees that drop leaves in winter, solar panels, environmentally sensitive site, building planning, building orientation and management, recycled or sustainable building materials, air movement fans and venting, paper usage reduction, grey water recycling, car pooling, transit use, electric vehicles or other sustainable “green building’’ practices
We should not be surprised since old City Hall sits empty, old building are demolished, green buildings take longer than regular buildings per Mercury article today and ” smart growth” ” transit orientated development” and “efficient public transit to destinations public wants to go” and ” redevelopment ” are policy words not practiced in San Jose unless used to justify spending and policies that benefit politicians or special interests not public
Kathleen,
I agree that some outside entity needs to decide on the council raises. Even in the best of financial times it raises eyebrows, but in a budget crisis situation the perception is much worse.
I think it would be a great investment for the city to buy us all a few flourescent lightbulbs for our homes. I changed all mine last year to flourescents and it reduced my energy use over 50%. I think this would have such a bigger bang for the buck than one green building, and the impact could be almost immediate. It could also save the average household hundreds of dollars per year to be spent in our local area generating sales tax revenue rather than giving it to PG&E.
#46 (Michael Schwerin): The zoning change is not worth $200 million, it’s estimated worth is $80 million. And the issue is a red herring because whatever the exact value, Lew Wolff has pledged to put EVERY PENNY of the increased value of the I-Star property from the re-zoning into the soccer stadium, which the City of San Jose will own, and which will generate economic benefit to the city.
Any profit Lew Wolff ultimately realizes from the soccer stadium comes from operating the team and and the venue, and not one penny from the re-zoning. Of course, his ability to extract a profit is enhanced because his costs are reduced in not having to pay full price for a stadium, which would otherwise arguably make the investment too risky in the short term.
Thus, the correct way of describing the economic impact of the re-zoning is that the city is extracting economic value from its right to re-zone property so as to purchase itself a stadium and all the economic benefits that entails. And, as mentioned, the re-zoning is virtually cost-free to the city because the city will replenish the industrial land through zoning changes to allow increased densities on adjacent industrial land.
There is simply no “grotesque private profit at public expense” as you suggest.
All this was all discussed in public at last week’s city council meeting, a discussion which the Mercury News failed to properly cover. As mentioned, every single councilperson got it and endorsed the idea as a good one for the city based on the precepts I’ve outlined.
As for the link to SSV’s visitor projection report, look here: http://www.soccersiliconvalley.com/pdf/Visitor_Projection_Report.pdf.
Don,
With all the SUNSHINE, have you heard how Mr. Wolff is going to avoid paying taxes on the gains from the zoning conversion. The Merc says the deal falls apart if Mr. Wolff has to pay taxes to Uncle Sam.
Don,
If the zoning change on the I-Star property can buy San Jose a soccer stadium, why doesn’t the city of San Jose monetize all zoning changes? Owners of industrial land will receive immediate permission to build housing if they promise to pay the city a large percentage of the change in value of the land.
The city would use the money for swimming pools, community centers, roads, libraries etc… The only question is why the city of San Jose waited so long to tap this “cost-free” vein of gold?
Mr. Gagliardi:
Thank you for posting the link. Despite the fact the link does not work directly, I was able to find the report. After a few minutes of lightly examing the first 15 pages of the report, the flaws start appearing.
First, an estimate of 17,000 per game for Earthquakes games despite the fact that they averaged just slightly over 10,400 their last three years in San Jose and have never averaged 17,000 in all the years report.
Second, stating that the economic impact per attendee is $91.92 has to be a serious issue. If this is the price of a ticket, parking and concessions per person per game, it is not going to be a very family friendly event. Almost $400 for a family of 4 to attend a soccer game. This may also include the cost of gas getting to and from the game, since technically one has to buy the gas and it does have an economic impact. But seriously, if I get a ticket, come to the game, buy parking and buy hot day and drink, it should not cost me $91.92 and I don’t see much other economic impact than what I spend.
This from less than 5 minutes of examining the report. Give me an hour and I guess I could write a book on how this report is skewed to make it say what you want it to say. Thus demonstrates the numbers within the numbers. You know as well as I do you can use truthful, real statistics to make then say whatever you want them to say.
But it is a nice picture of you and Mr. Wolff holding up a shirt.
#48: Yeah, it would be nice if other developers reinvested their earnings from re-zonings. But the city didn’t come up with the idea; Lew Wolff did.
#49 (Michael Schwerin): You can quibble about the minutiae all you like (which is not to say I agree with your numbers, because they are wrong), but you’re missing the forest for the trees. Even if you were to take a hatchet and chop SSV’s estimates in half, that still leaves nearly $40 million in annual economic impact, which is as I’ve said is more than the grand prix, and which is a benefit VASTLY in excess of the cost to the city.
Don G & Mike S: Save me the reading. Were the negative economic impacts of the gridlock that would be caused at an already bad intersection (Cottle & 85) and the increased cost of city services to the new residential development deducted by the survey folks? There’s also the negative impact of the Wollf/Hunter/Storm retail/hotel development on Coleman near the stadium to consider.Or are these surveys just a one way street accentuating the positive and ignoring the negative?
#51 (John O’Connor): SSV’s visitor projection report is not intended as a sort of environmental impact report (EIR), nor is it site specific.
Mr. Gagliardi:
Yes, Mr. Wolff is spending $100 million out of his pocket. You said it yourself, $80 million from money “earned.” The zoning change puts that $80 million in his pocket.
I am not against a businessman earning a profit. I love to earn a profit. I am not even against Mr. Wolff earning a good profit. Grotesque personal profits at public expense is what I am against. I am also against mis-information that implies someone is so generous. For all we know, Mr. Wolf is making $200 million off of this zoning change and will gladly trade $100 million of it to get that. Wouldn’t you or anyone else? Numbers within the numbers. We don’t know the full story and we never will. If that zoning change is worth $200 million, shouldn’t the taxpayers get $150 to $175 million of it?
As far as the $75 million per year, why don’t you post the report or give us a link so we can look at it. If the Mercury News does not want to publish it, perhaps there are some serious flaws or other issues with it. I can only speculate since I have not seen it. Obviously SSV has something at stake here and you would not say your own report is flawed. Let us peruse it at our leisure. Posting a link here is as good or better than having it discussed in a paragraph in the Mercury News.
Whether the deal is profitable for San Jose is another question. For who? The taxpayers and the City as a whole? Or for the politicians and developers involved in the process. Maybe your report will shed some light.
Finally, you again talk about if you build it they will come. But this is soccer we are talking about. I played soccer on my high school team so I am not anti-soccer in any way. But from a realistic standpoint, soccer is never going to have the status it has in Europe, Mexico or Latin America. The sport is just not that popular here.
I will tell you my beliefs. I believe that professional sports teams are profit making entities. I believe they should financially support themselves without any public benefit whatsoever. That includes buying their own land, building their own stadiums, running their own stadiums and paying their own players. Why should the public have to use millions of public dollars so players can make millions of dollars and owners can make earn millions of dollars. It does not make sense.
#53 (Michael Schwerin): Last post, because I find your trifling over minutiae tedious. As I’ve said, you are missing the forest for the trees.
You think SSV’s numbers are “garbage.” Fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but you still get the facts wrong.
Your numbers in post #49 are wrong, as follows: Earthquakes attendance over the team’s final three seasons, 2003 – 2005, was NOT “slightly over 10,400”, as you state. Instead, per Wikpedia, attendance was better than 12,100 on average over those three seasons, and over 13,000 for the entire life of the MLS franchise from 1996 through 2005.
Also, SSV is not estimating attendance at Earthquakes games in a brand new soccer stadium at 17,000 fans, as you state. Go back and re-read: we project 15,000 fans per game, or only about or 60 percent capacity of a brand new 25,000-seat stadium.
So, SSV’s projected jump in attendance from the old Quakes, with disinterested management playing in a dilapidated stadium under threat of moving to Houston, compared with a new team with proven professional management (the Oakland A’s ownership playing in a shiny new stadium) is not a jump from 10,400 to 17,000, as you suggest, but only from 12,000 or 13,000 (depending on the range of prior years you use) to 15,000. Your careless use of numbers misrepresents the facts and misrepresents the SSV report.
You can quibble with SSV’s projection of 15,000 average attendance (which, by definition, is a prediction of the future), but it appears reasonable and conservative to me. Consider, by analogy, that the Sharks regularly drew less than capacity in their two seasons in the Cow Palace but immediately drew much larger sell-out crowds in the brand-new San Jose Arena. Yes, the analogy is less than perfect, but it is instructive.
Further, as you know from looking at the SSV report, Quakes games will only be component of the economic impact derived from the stadium. Many other activities—including women’s and international soccer games—will occur there, spinning off economic benefit to the city.
Finally, as for your reference to the $92 per game in economic impact, that number is not SSV’s, as our notes make clear, but was provided to us as part of the formula used by the San Jose Convention & Visitors Bureau—a reputable source. I cannot say offhand how SJCVB derived it, but it represented the best metric available—not “garbage” as you suggest, nor simply throwing numbers around.
#53 You say “How could my numbers be wrong? They came from your report”. Then you say the report has “an estimate of 17,000 per game for Earthquakes games”.
However, the spreadsheet that follows the introduction shows a “One Game attendance figure” as being 15,000.
You go on to say, “You know as well as I do you can use truthful, real statistics to make then say whatever you want them to say.” and “they averaged just slightly over 10,400 their last three years in San Jose”. I think you may have derived this figure from Slide 23 in Appendix 2, but as far as I can tell by following the footnotes to the appendices, you appear to be using only the three worst years in the club’s history (2001-2003). The team played, and its attendance grew, in 2004 and 2005.
You also write, “stating that the economic impact per attendee is $91.92 has to be a serious issue. If this is the price of a ticket, parking and concessions per person per game, it is not going to be a very family friendly event.” However, an economic impact number is larger than a ticket price is. The footnotes indicate that that figure came from The San Jose Visitor Study Appendix 25. In the Executive Summary of that document it says that an economic impact figure is a combination of direct, indirect, and induced impacts on the economy.
Finally, you write ” Double the un-substantiated numbers used in the first place and then cut them in half and still use unsubstantiated numbers…Half of a pile of garbage is still garbage.”. In the Introduction the main sources for the report are given as information from the San Jose Visitor’s Report and the San Jose Sports Facility Task Force. In the notes it is stated that OED in partnership with the SJCVB is working to develop new calculations, but for now it advises using the current data. The notes state that the Soccer Silicon Valley Visitor Projection report “can be refined in the future as better tools and data become known to us”. I think it is fair to to say that even if one disagrees with the reports or their conclusions, or thinks the numbers should be divided by two or by four or whatever, they are far from being garbage and would still support the case that soccer will benefit the community and not just Lew Wolff.
Mr. Gagliardi:
How could my numbers be wrong? They came from your report.
I give you this exchange as a great example of how spin groups such as yours approach their issues. Double the un-substantiated numbers used in the first place and then cut them in half and still use unsubstantiated numbers to say what a great deal we are getting even if the numbers are cut in half. Half of a pile of garbage is still garbage.
Gagliardi & Schwerin: sure is a lot of heat and bluster over a team that couldn’t fill up puny Spartan Stadium.
Move along, Douglas!