Here is this week’s opportunity for our bloggers to discuss whatever they like in an open forum.
25 Comments
Looks like Mr. Woolfolk at the Mercury News was in a petty mood when he wrote today’s article “Union, San Jose at odds over police pay” [1]
Mr. Woolfolk uses quotes from Mr. Lopez’s recent posting here on SJI. Unfortunately Mr. Woolfolk only attributes the quotes to “a prominent political blog”. He does not mention SJI or provide a link to Mr. Lopez’s posting.
3 – Why not? She’s the independent auditor for the city, not the county. Two different jurisdictions. I’d be concerned if she endorsed in a city council race but not in a supervisor’s race.
I can remember back in the Hammer Days, neighbors (I was one) complaining about her full build-out plan for the airport, viewing it as excessive, unrealistic, and disasaterous for n’hood quality of life (air and noise pollution). Hammer/Labor/Big Business ploughed ahead anyways with full build-out scenario. I must confess that I haven’t fully kept up with developments, and wondered if people could set me (and this group) straight on the following questions:
* Is it true that the airport had to pull back from the full build-out If so, what are the expected projections for usage?
* The airport used to have this chart that showed how the ‘noise footprint’ of the airport would decrease over time due to newer planes, quieter planes, more fuel-efficient planes, etc. Has the nosie footprint been updated? Did this reduction occur?
* How are the luxury high rise condos downtown dealing with the airport nosie issue? I can’t imagine it’s not a concern for the builders and potential buyers. Do other cities have housing so close to the flight path? Are new building techniques somehow better at noise control?
These thoughts prompted by a trip downtown to the 01 Festival and—while loving 01—being floored at how noisy the planes were at night and realizing anew how poorly placed the airport is, vis a vis downtown and its neighborhoods.
I realize it costs mucho beyond words to build a new airport, just wondering if people who follow this closely could update us.
Although both the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle have largely ignored the impact of water availability on new developments, the New York Times on June 7 came up with an analysis of the impact of a California law which says in part:
“The 2001 state water law, which took effect in 2002, requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years’ worth of water before local water authorities can sign off on them. With the recent problems, more and more local governments are unable to simply approve projects….
“While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a statewide scale….
“As the denied building permits indicate, the lack of sufficient water sources could become a serious threat to economic development in California, where the population in 2020 is projected to reach roughly 45 million people, economists say, from its current 38 million. In the end, as water becomes increasingly scarce, its price will have to rise, bringing with it a host of economic consequences, the economists said.”
And, of course, the NYT’s low opinion of critics of over-development came through loud and clear, too:
“Interest groups that oppose development have found that raising water issues is among the many bats in their bags available to beat back projects they find distasteful.”
OK, I understand that Ms. Clinton needs an opportunity to cope with loosing to Barak Obama, but by ‘suspending’ her campaign instead of doing the right thing and conceding, she is setting the stage for the delegates and voters she controls to bolt and either not vote, or vote for McCain, as many of them have stated they are going to do. In my opinion, she is not throwing her full support behind Barak Obama by doing this, but rather, holding him hostage, and blackmailing him to get what she wants. She is creating a division in the Democratic Party, and setting the stage for the very thing she says she wants to avoid – McCain winning the election, and 4 more years of McCain/Bush policies. If the Democrats loose in November, she is to blame.
#3 – Oliver – “Why not? She’s the independent auditor for the city, not the county. Two different jurisdictions. I’d be concerned if she endorsed in a city council race but not in a supervisor’s race.”
I disagree. Council Appointees, Directors, City Staff, are supposed to remain neutral. It may not be a violation of city law for her to endorse candidates, but it is unethical for her to endorse a candidate who has a history of being anti-police. In addition, neutrality is vital to an auditor. How can the Mayor and Council rely on her objective and professional opinion of how the police are conducting themselves when she is aligning herself with an anti-police candidate for office?
#8-Rookie Jr., I asked a question that I thought and still think is appropriate. Your response to my question was not.
Having said that, not everyone agrees with the perception that Ms. Attard should be endorsing anyone who has made it publicly known that they are not supportive of SJPD, and that has participated in efforts to discredit the Police in public forums. Ethically, I find it a conflict of interest and shows a real lack of good professional judgment on her part.
Every once and a while I see posts on here by Willow Glen residents complaining about how the Tamien Station development doesn’t include retail. Yet a couple years back, these same residents have killed proposals for new retail just two blocks away.
#12 – Oliver – Respectfully, you missed my point. She should not be endorsing anyone. As an auditor, she should be relying on her “neutrality” as the basis for the objective recommendations that she is making. If she is out there making endorsements and supporting candidates, that cuts into her credibility as an auditor.
As to your question, I cite her presence at, and assistance in organizing the anti-police forums that have occured over her term in office. Also, at these forums, she requests assistance from the audience at the forums to write letters to the Council and support her request for more authority over the police. These are not the actions of someone who is neutral. I respect your opinion on this topic; It is my strong belief, based on my experience, that she is not acting in a manner that reflects neutrality.
13 – Nice deflection. I understand your point about neutrality, and it has some merit. Why then would you diminish your point by taking a swipe at a candidate by claiming he was an “anti-police candidate” without backing it up? Kind of close to libel, isn’t it?
Here’s your chance to gain valuable insight and education and be part of networking conversations to prepare and strengthen our community’s ability to respond to an emergency or disaster event.
DATE: Tuesday, June 24, 2008
TIME: 10 am to 1 pm
LOCATION: Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley
Conference Room 107
1922 The Alameda, San Jose 95126
#14-Oliver,
With all due respect to your question, I don’t know if you have ever attended a forum on Police profiling etc. or not but, both Christian and I have. In the past three years, we have attended many forums and meetings on the topic of Police profiling, and racial discrimination in the juvenile, and adult judicial system.
In these forums in which the IPA and her endorsed candidate attended, we heard enough to know exactly where this gentleman stands on SJPD. His stand on the Police in San Jose, the DA’s Office, and the way he feels our judicial system is supposedly unfairly treating immigrants most certainly comes across as very anti-establishment, and anti-Police.
He can believe what he wants and I am not disputing that, I just find his behavior questionable given that he is, after all, the Director of Office of Human Relations. An office by the way that is supposed to collaborate with, and build ties in our community with all entities, including law enforcement agencies.
To get back to my original point by asking the question in the first place:
Since Attard is supposed to remain independent and neutral in her position as an “Independent Police Auditor,” I would be just as disappointed in her if she endorsed the head of the Police Officer’s Association. I would find it just as questionable, and unethical.
To further illustrate my concerns about her questionable behaviors, in two of the forums I went to last year, I was very surprised to see the IPA lobbying the community to come to the Special Council Meeting and ask the Mayor and Council to support her request for additional power as IPA, and to request a change to the City’s Charter. She even distributed sheets of paper with the time, date, and location of the meeting on it. I think that goes far beyond anything I’ve ever seen when it comes to supposedly being seen as independent or neutral.
In response to your questions about the current status of Mineta San Jose International Airport, here’s an update.
The current project under construction at the airport is based on the plan approved by the City Council in fall 2005 that reduced the scope of the project to be in alignment with what can be supported by projections of airline activity and the airlines’ willingness to pay for it. The budget for the scaled-back project was approximately $1.5 billion three years ago, compared with the estimated $4.5 billion that would have been necessary to achieve the full build-out under the 1997 Master Plan. (Since the airport is a self-supporting enterprise based on aviation-related revenues, no local tax money is used for its operations or construction, and the airport pays the City of San Jose for support services such as police, fire, and public works staff.)
In addition, the project was split into two phases. Phase 1, now under way, is a comprehensive modernization that includes upgrading Terminal A, a new rental car and parking garage, a new Terminal B with its North Concourse, and improved roadways, which are all on schedule to be completed by the end of 2010. Phase 1 actually is not an expansion (though there will be much more space for passenger comfort and convenience), and in fact we will end up with 28 gates instead of the 31 gates we started with; the new gates will be more efficient and able to serve multiple airlines. Phase 1 is budgeted at approximately $1.3 billion, which also reflects the increase in the size of the rental car garage in response to the rental car companies asking and paying for a larger garage. For construction updates, go to http://www.sjc.org/improvement/updates.html.
Phase 2 will be the expansion of the airport to add 12 more gates to the maximum of 40 allowed under the Master Plan and its environmental impact report. This phase will not begin until airline activity at SJC increases to specific trigger points for either increased passenger traffic or increased number of flights. Because of current uncertainty in the aviation industry due to the steep increase in fuel prices over the past year, it is likely that either trigger point might be several years away before work could begin on Phase 2.
In regard to your question about the noise footprint around the airport, it has indeed shrunk in recent years because of newer quieter aircraft, and we anticipate that it will shrink further in the future. Information about airport noise and contour maps can be found at the airport’s website at http://www.sjc.org/community/noise.html. Standards for design and materials for the construction of homes in downtown high-rises and office buildings do take noise including aviation into account, although these homes are outside of the airport’s noise contour for acoustical treatment.
SJC’s acoustical treatment program (ACT) is considered one of the most progressive in the country for providing a successful reduction in noise for nearby residents. Of the 50 largest airports in the United States, only 27 currently have active acoustical treatment programs. Nearly 2500 homes within the FAA-approved noise contour near our airport have been treated with acoustical windows, doors, and new heating and ventilation systems at a cost of approximately $140 million. Each property that is eligible for acoustical treatment receives about $35,000 worth of improvements.
Although with the passage of the decades, San Jose’s airport now is close to neighborhoods and downtown, that also makes it very convenient to Silicon Valley residents and businesses, as well as for people coming to town for conventions and business meetings. When the airport first opened for operations nearly 60 years ago, when San Jose had a population of less than 100,000, it was then a long way from downtown. Today, it’s a selling point that the airport is only a few minutes from our convention center or the headquarters of global tech firms.
David Vossbrink, Communications Director
Mineta San José International Airport
The notion that the SJPD cannot be subject to criticism is slightly off-base. Those who recall the Willow Glen White Gang back in 1999 are well aware that police officers let this gang fester until it exploded into a bomb attack on a Superior Court Judge’s house.
We have a Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force in San Jose which has adopted an anti-gang three point program: suppression, intervention, and prevention. However, because of a tactic by elements in the highest reaches of city government, white gangs are not deemed subject to this three point program. White supremists have cultivated a tactic that simply re-names white gangs as “hate groups” and, as easily as that, this has meant that white gangs are not gangs. Whenever you hear someone say that white gangs are not gangs to be suppressed, intervented, or prevented, know that you are talking with a white supremist who wants to extend the festering process until it explodes.
I’m a neighbor who lives adjascent and slightly south of the airport and would like to offer a different point of view on the noise issue (specifically the question was ‘did the reduction occur?’). Let me preface it by saying I don’t have a bunch of fancy studies or noise contour maps. What I have is a single family, detached home that I live in. (This includes sleeping, studying, entertaining, etc.)
The short answer is NO, the noise has not been reduced. I’ve heard that newer aircraft have the technology to offer quieter planes, and that sounds great to me, where do we sign up? But the airlines who don’t (and won’t) upgrade and continue to use their old jets still contribute to a significant noise level. (I guess this is how they can offer cheap(er) fares.)
Noise is especially bad when planes take off southbound. It seems this has increased quite a bit, it used to predominately be when it was raining/windy. Now, it’s windy, cloudy, sunny and windy, cloudy and windy, or when SF airport changes direction of their planes.
Noise is also bad when they’re working on a runway and have to move their approach ~600 feet east (like they’re doing now!). I believe this is temporary, but it’s still loud.
And while I have your ear, I have to mention how truly awful it is when the planes are “running rich” which means the noxious smell of airplane fumes permeate the air.
To be fair, I have to say that the airport director, Mr. Sherry and his staff have been very accommodating in coming to our neighborhood meeting(s), responding to questions and concerns. But, it goes to show you that one’s perspective is truly based on where one stands (or in this case, lives).
1. The airport modernization project is making long-needed and much anticipated improvements to the SJC terminal area that will be much more comfortable for passengers to use and much more efficient for airlines to operate in – jet bridges means no more walks across the tarmac in the rain; faster security check-in and better baggage handling; convenient rental car center and better roads; and more and better shops and restaurants.
Although we will have three fewer gates when Terminal B and the North Concourse are placed in full service in mid-2010, all our new ticket counters and gates will operate in a “shared-use” system that enables them all to be available to all airlines. Thus we’ll have much more flexibility to use all the new facilities, which in turn means we can operate efficiently with fewer gates than before, making the modernization less costly. We do anticipate increased revenues from rental car activity and new concessions, which will help pay for the new airport project and operations over the long run.
2. When the Master Plan was approved in 1997, airport traffic was increasing rapidly and we actually were running uncomfortably beyond design capacity during the dot.com boom and pre-9/11 period, as local travelers in the late 1990s can recall. After 2000, traffic fell because of several unpredictable factors – the dot.com bust hit Silicon Valley hard, the ensuing recession persisted longer here, 9/11 affected aviation in general, and American Airlines greatly reduced its presence at SJC. Other airlines picked up business to take the place of American, notably Southwest Airlines, and traffic has leveled off over the past seven years.
Because of the flat traffic, however, the carriers operating at SJC agreed to a two-phase improvement project so that we would not build more airport capacity until it was warranted by growth. No growth, no Phase 2. Over the decades, the airline industry certainly has been cyclical, but you can’t make plans for major public works investments based on either the peaks or the troughs – airports need to plan for the long term because of the decades-long lead time for planning, building, and paying for needed facilities.
3. Airports across the country have neighbors, and noise therefore is a common issue among them, especially as urban development everywhere encroaches upon airports. SJC has taken the issue of noise far more seriously than many airports, which accounts for the long-term investments we’ve made in nearby neighborhoods to provide acoustical treatment. The FAA recognizes that airports should be good neighbors and authorizes federal dollars to help them in that direction; SJC has been more aggressive and successful than most to obtain federal funding for this purpose.
Acoustical treatment resources are not unlimited, however, which is why they can be used only within the FAA-approved noise contour. Neighbors on the other side of the line, no matter what standard you might use to draw it, probably won’t be satisfied. Most airports have noise abatement information on their websites. You mentioned Burbank and San Diego, for example. Here’s Burbank (Bob Hope Airport) http://www.burbankairport.com/part161/index.html, and here is San Diego’s http://www.san.org/airport_authority/environmental_affairs/airport_noise/faqs.asp.
4. The 65 CNEL contour (that’s Community Noise Exposure Level in airport-speak and refers to the line on the map where airport noise is measured above or below 65 decibels) runs west of downtown in a narrow strip between the convention center and the Arena. New downtown high-rise buildings are east of the contour. Here’s the current contour map: http://www.sjc.org/community/maps/4q07.pdf. The contour line doesn’t preclude construction within it, but it does mean new buildings need to include design and materials to deal with noise.
David Vossbrink, Communications Director
Mineta San Jose International Airport
Thanks David V for the nicely written response on airport issues. And thanks for the links,they’re helpful. A couple of quick extra questions:
* Re: Phase I: am I reading this right: $1.3B and no capacity improvement? Or perhaps capacity/revenue improvement is coming from rental car garage etc.?
*Re: scaled back plan and Master Plan. If the Master Plan is still based on projected usage analysis that is turning out to be overly optimistic (exactly, I might add, what neighbors said back in Hammer era) when will the Master Plan be updated to reflect more realistic market conditions? It seems odd that we have a Master Plan based on projections that have been proven inaccurate.
* Re: Noise Abatement. While I applaud the Airport’s efforts to make neighbors’ homes quieter, you must admit that the scope of the effort is probably a stronger testament to the scope of the problem than anything else. The fact that Mineta rates highly in its Noise Abatement program tells me that it has a bigger noise problem than other airports due to its location. Is there some type of industry analysis re: urban airports and noise that compares Mineta to others, say Burbank and Sandy Eggo, in similar situations.
* Re:downtown housing. If i read the Noise Contour Map correctly alot of new high rise housing Downtown is taking place within the 65CNEL contour. And alot of downtown is either within the contour or on the edges of it. Is the new housing getting some sort of variance to build w/in 65CNEL?
RH has become a storage destination for private Aircraft.Another “Mothball Fleet”.Why is everyone complaining about “take off and landings”? The cost of Air Plane Fuel has gone out of sight.Few can afford to fly their aircraft.Convert this “Black Hole” to a Profit Center for the City.Stop complaining, the time has come to close it.
You have made a good point regarding the cost of Avgas. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of activity at Reid-Hillview is recreational in nature. In economic terms, this recreational activity has an elastic demand. That is, as the cost goes up, the demand goes down. People spend their discretionary income on more important matters.
A major purpose of RHV is the training of foreign student pilots, primarily Japanese. Even this is decreasing now. Domestic use of RHV is only by a very few residents of Santa Clara County. As of 6/7/08, there are 3,365 total pilots in SCC. [1] This includes airline pilots, blimp pilots, student pilots, etc. Obviously, only a percentage of this group will use RHV.
As a revenue source for the county, the entire airport system has not been very productive. In 2005, during the RHV Master Plan process, the supervisors inquired as to exactly what the county got from the airports. It turns out that all three county airports (RHV, South County, Palo Alto) together contribute the grand total of $250,000 to the general fund. [2]
RHV sits on 180 acres of prime county land at the intersection of 101 and 280/680. This is the gateway to the Bay area. By developing this land in an intelligent manner the county could increase its tax revenue by tens of millions, if not hundred of millions of dollars. [3]
My information comes from a flight instructor. He says if it wasn`t for students from India, he would be out of work.Air fuel is going to go up again next year.Times have changed since 2005.
This 180 acres should be put to a better use for our times.
Looks like Mr. Woolfolk at the Mercury News was in a petty mood when he wrote today’s article “Union, San Jose at odds over police pay” [1]
Mr. Woolfolk uses quotes from Mr. Lopez’s recent posting here on SJI. Unfortunately Mr. Woolfolk only attributes the quotes to “a prominent political blog”. He does not mention SJI or provide a link to Mr. Lopez’s posting.
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9511470
Why would the “Independent” Police Auditor endorse a candidate for County Board of Supervisor?
http://www.hobbsforsupervisor.com/endorsements.html
3 – Why not? She’s the independent auditor for the city, not the county. Two different jurisdictions. I’d be concerned if she endorsed in a city council race but not in a supervisor’s race.
I can remember back in the Hammer Days, neighbors (I was one) complaining about her full build-out plan for the airport, viewing it as excessive, unrealistic, and disasaterous for n’hood quality of life (air and noise pollution). Hammer/Labor/Big Business ploughed ahead anyways with full build-out scenario. I must confess that I haven’t fully kept up with developments, and wondered if people could set me (and this group) straight on the following questions:
* Is it true that the airport had to pull back from the full build-out If so, what are the expected projections for usage?
* The airport used to have this chart that showed how the ‘noise footprint’ of the airport would decrease over time due to newer planes, quieter planes, more fuel-efficient planes, etc. Has the nosie footprint been updated? Did this reduction occur?
* How are the luxury high rise condos downtown dealing with the airport nosie issue? I can’t imagine it’s not a concern for the builders and potential buyers. Do other cities have housing so close to the flight path? Are new building techniques somehow better at noise control?
These thoughts prompted by a trip downtown to the 01 Festival and—while loving 01—being floored at how noisy the planes were at night and realizing anew how poorly placed the airport is, vis a vis downtown and its neighborhoods.
I realize it costs mucho beyond words to build a new airport, just wondering if people who follow this closely could update us.
Although both the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle have largely ignored the impact of water availability on new developments, the New York Times on June 7 came up with an analysis of the impact of a California law which says in part:
“The 2001 state water law, which took effect in 2002, requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years’ worth of water before local water authorities can sign off on them. With the recent problems, more and more local governments are unable to simply approve projects….
“While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a statewide scale….
“As the denied building permits indicate, the lack of sufficient water sources could become a serious threat to economic development in California, where the population in 2020 is projected to reach roughly 45 million people, economists say, from its current 38 million. In the end, as water becomes increasingly scarce, its price will have to rise, bringing with it a host of economic consequences, the economists said.”
And, of course, the NYT’s low opinion of critics of over-development came through loud and clear, too:
“Interest groups that oppose development have found that raising water issues is among the many bats in their bags available to beat back projects they find distasteful.”
To read the entire article, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/07drought.html?_r=1&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
OK, I understand that Ms. Clinton needs an opportunity to cope with loosing to Barak Obama, but by ‘suspending’ her campaign instead of doing the right thing and conceding, she is setting the stage for the delegates and voters she controls to bolt and either not vote, or vote for McCain, as many of them have stated they are going to do. In my opinion, she is not throwing her full support behind Barak Obama by doing this, but rather, holding him hostage, and blackmailing him to get what she wants. She is creating a division in the Democratic Party, and setting the stage for the very thing she says she wants to avoid – McCain winning the election, and 4 more years of McCain/Bush policies. If the Democrats loose in November, she is to blame.
#3 – Oliver – “Why not? She’s the independent auditor for the city, not the county. Two different jurisdictions. I’d be concerned if she endorsed in a city council race but not in a supervisor’s race.”
I disagree. Council Appointees, Directors, City Staff, are supposed to remain neutral. It may not be a violation of city law for her to endorse candidates, but it is unethical for her to endorse a candidate who has a history of being anti-police. In addition, neutrality is vital to an auditor. How can the Mayor and Council rely on her objective and professional opinion of how the police are conducting themselves when she is aligning herself with an anti-police candidate for office?
#2- Barbard Attard is endorsing him not as the IPA, only as herself.
Stop playing dumb!
#8-Rookie Jr., I asked a question that I thought and still think is appropriate. Your response to my question was not.
Having said that, not everyone agrees with the perception that Ms. Attard should be endorsing anyone who has made it publicly known that they are not supportive of SJPD, and that has participated in efforts to discredit the Police in public forums. Ethically, I find it a conflict of interest and shows a real lack of good professional judgment on her part.
Every once and a while I see posts on here by Willow Glen residents complaining about how the Tamien Station development doesn’t include retail. Yet a couple years back, these same residents have killed proposals for new retail just two blocks away.
7 – Of course you can document this candidate’s “history of being anti-police”? Let’s see it, please.
#12 – Oliver – Respectfully, you missed my point. She should not be endorsing anyone. As an auditor, she should be relying on her “neutrality” as the basis for the objective recommendations that she is making. If she is out there making endorsements and supporting candidates, that cuts into her credibility as an auditor.
As to your question, I cite her presence at, and assistance in organizing the anti-police forums that have occured over her term in office. Also, at these forums, she requests assistance from the audience at the forums to write letters to the Council and support her request for more authority over the police. These are not the actions of someone who is neutral. I respect your opinion on this topic; It is my strong belief, based on my experience, that she is not acting in a manner that reflects neutrality.
13 – Nice deflection. I understand your point about neutrality, and it has some merit. Why then would you diminish your point by taking a swipe at a candidate by claiming he was an “anti-police candidate” without backing it up? Kind of close to libel, isn’t it?
If any one is interested:
Here’s your chance to gain valuable insight and education and be part of networking conversations to prepare and strengthen our community’s ability to respond to an emergency or disaster event.
DATE: Tuesday, June 24, 2008
TIME: 10 am to 1 pm
LOCATION: Volunteer Center of Silicon Valley
Conference Room 107
1922 The Alameda, San Jose 95126
REGISTER: http://cadreworkshop608.eventbrite.com
Or by phone to CADRE at 408-247-1126
#14-Oliver,
With all due respect to your question, I don’t know if you have ever attended a forum on Police profiling etc. or not but, both Christian and I have. In the past three years, we have attended many forums and meetings on the topic of Police profiling, and racial discrimination in the juvenile, and adult judicial system.
In these forums in which the IPA and her endorsed candidate attended, we heard enough to know exactly where this gentleman stands on SJPD. His stand on the Police in San Jose, the DA’s Office, and the way he feels our judicial system is supposedly unfairly treating immigrants most certainly comes across as very anti-establishment, and anti-Police.
He can believe what he wants and I am not disputing that, I just find his behavior questionable given that he is, after all, the Director of Office of Human Relations. An office by the way that is supposed to collaborate with, and build ties in our community with all entities, including law enforcement agencies.
To get back to my original point by asking the question in the first place:
Since Attard is supposed to remain independent and neutral in her position as an “Independent Police Auditor,” I would be just as disappointed in her if she endorsed the head of the Police Officer’s Association. I would find it just as questionable, and unethical.
To further illustrate my concerns about her questionable behaviors, in two of the forums I went to last year, I was very surprised to see the IPA lobbying the community to come to the Special Council Meeting and ask the Mayor and Council to support her request for additional power as IPA, and to request a change to the City’s Charter. She even distributed sheets of paper with the time, date, and location of the meeting on it. I think that goes far beyond anything I’ve ever seen when it comes to supposedly being seen as independent or neutral.
In response to your questions about the current status of Mineta San Jose International Airport, here’s an update.
The current project under construction at the airport is based on the plan approved by the City Council in fall 2005 that reduced the scope of the project to be in alignment with what can be supported by projections of airline activity and the airlines’ willingness to pay for it. The budget for the scaled-back project was approximately $1.5 billion three years ago, compared with the estimated $4.5 billion that would have been necessary to achieve the full build-out under the 1997 Master Plan. (Since the airport is a self-supporting enterprise based on aviation-related revenues, no local tax money is used for its operations or construction, and the airport pays the City of San Jose for support services such as police, fire, and public works staff.)
In addition, the project was split into two phases. Phase 1, now under way, is a comprehensive modernization that includes upgrading Terminal A, a new rental car and parking garage, a new Terminal B with its North Concourse, and improved roadways, which are all on schedule to be completed by the end of 2010. Phase 1 actually is not an expansion (though there will be much more space for passenger comfort and convenience), and in fact we will end up with 28 gates instead of the 31 gates we started with; the new gates will be more efficient and able to serve multiple airlines. Phase 1 is budgeted at approximately $1.3 billion, which also reflects the increase in the size of the rental car garage in response to the rental car companies asking and paying for a larger garage. For construction updates, go to http://www.sjc.org/improvement/updates.html.
Phase 2 will be the expansion of the airport to add 12 more gates to the maximum of 40 allowed under the Master Plan and its environmental impact report. This phase will not begin until airline activity at SJC increases to specific trigger points for either increased passenger traffic or increased number of flights. Because of current uncertainty in the aviation industry due to the steep increase in fuel prices over the past year, it is likely that either trigger point might be several years away before work could begin on Phase 2.
In regard to your question about the noise footprint around the airport, it has indeed shrunk in recent years because of newer quieter aircraft, and we anticipate that it will shrink further in the future. Information about airport noise and contour maps can be found at the airport’s website at http://www.sjc.org/community/noise.html. Standards for design and materials for the construction of homes in downtown high-rises and office buildings do take noise including aviation into account, although these homes are outside of the airport’s noise contour for acoustical treatment.
SJC’s acoustical treatment program (ACT) is considered one of the most progressive in the country for providing a successful reduction in noise for nearby residents. Of the 50 largest airports in the United States, only 27 currently have active acoustical treatment programs. Nearly 2500 homes within the FAA-approved noise contour near our airport have been treated with acoustical windows, doors, and new heating and ventilation systems at a cost of approximately $140 million. Each property that is eligible for acoustical treatment receives about $35,000 worth of improvements.
Although with the passage of the decades, San Jose’s airport now is close to neighborhoods and downtown, that also makes it very convenient to Silicon Valley residents and businesses, as well as for people coming to town for conventions and business meetings. When the airport first opened for operations nearly 60 years ago, when San Jose had a population of less than 100,000, it was then a long way from downtown. Today, it’s a selling point that the airport is only a few minutes from our convention center or the headquarters of global tech firms.
David Vossbrink, Communications Director
Mineta San José International Airport
The notion that the SJPD cannot be subject to criticism is slightly off-base. Those who recall the Willow Glen White Gang back in 1999 are well aware that police officers let this gang fester until it exploded into a bomb attack on a Superior Court Judge’s house.
We have a Mayor’s Gang Prevention Task Force in San Jose which has adopted an anti-gang three point program: suppression, intervention, and prevention. However, because of a tactic by elements in the highest reaches of city government, white gangs are not deemed subject to this three point program. White supremists have cultivated a tactic that simply re-names white gangs as “hate groups” and, as easily as that, this has meant that white gangs are not gangs. Whenever you hear someone say that white gangs are not gangs to be suppressed, intervented, or prevented, know that you are talking with a white supremist who wants to extend the festering process until it explodes.
#4
I’m a neighbor who lives adjascent and slightly south of the airport and would like to offer a different point of view on the noise issue (specifically the question was ‘did the reduction occur?’). Let me preface it by saying I don’t have a bunch of fancy studies or noise contour maps. What I have is a single family, detached home that I live in. (This includes sleeping, studying, entertaining, etc.)
The short answer is NO, the noise has not been reduced. I’ve heard that newer aircraft have the technology to offer quieter planes, and that sounds great to me, where do we sign up? But the airlines who don’t (and won’t) upgrade and continue to use their old jets still contribute to a significant noise level. (I guess this is how they can offer cheap(er) fares.)
Noise is especially bad when planes take off southbound. It seems this has increased quite a bit, it used to predominately be when it was raining/windy. Now, it’s windy, cloudy, sunny and windy, cloudy and windy, or when SF airport changes direction of their planes.
Noise is also bad when they’re working on a runway and have to move their approach ~600 feet east (like they’re doing now!). I believe this is temporary, but it’s still loud.
And while I have your ear, I have to mention how truly awful it is when the planes are “running rich” which means the noxious smell of airplane fumes permeate the air.
To be fair, I have to say that the airport director, Mr. Sherry and his staff have been very accommodating in coming to our neighborhood meeting(s), responding to questions and concerns. But, it goes to show you that one’s perspective is truly based on where one stands (or in this case, lives).
#19: Some quick answers to your quick questions.
1. The airport modernization project is making long-needed and much anticipated improvements to the SJC terminal area that will be much more comfortable for passengers to use and much more efficient for airlines to operate in – jet bridges means no more walks across the tarmac in the rain; faster security check-in and better baggage handling; convenient rental car center and better roads; and more and better shops and restaurants.
Although we will have three fewer gates when Terminal B and the North Concourse are placed in full service in mid-2010, all our new ticket counters and gates will operate in a “shared-use” system that enables them all to be available to all airlines. Thus we’ll have much more flexibility to use all the new facilities, which in turn means we can operate efficiently with fewer gates than before, making the modernization less costly. We do anticipate increased revenues from rental car activity and new concessions, which will help pay for the new airport project and operations over the long run.
2. When the Master Plan was approved in 1997, airport traffic was increasing rapidly and we actually were running uncomfortably beyond design capacity during the dot.com boom and pre-9/11 period, as local travelers in the late 1990s can recall. After 2000, traffic fell because of several unpredictable factors – the dot.com bust hit Silicon Valley hard, the ensuing recession persisted longer here, 9/11 affected aviation in general, and American Airlines greatly reduced its presence at SJC. Other airlines picked up business to take the place of American, notably Southwest Airlines, and traffic has leveled off over the past seven years.
Because of the flat traffic, however, the carriers operating at SJC agreed to a two-phase improvement project so that we would not build more airport capacity until it was warranted by growth. No growth, no Phase 2. Over the decades, the airline industry certainly has been cyclical, but you can’t make plans for major public works investments based on either the peaks or the troughs – airports need to plan for the long term because of the decades-long lead time for planning, building, and paying for needed facilities.
3. Airports across the country have neighbors, and noise therefore is a common issue among them, especially as urban development everywhere encroaches upon airports. SJC has taken the issue of noise far more seriously than many airports, which accounts for the long-term investments we’ve made in nearby neighborhoods to provide acoustical treatment. The FAA recognizes that airports should be good neighbors and authorizes federal dollars to help them in that direction; SJC has been more aggressive and successful than most to obtain federal funding for this purpose.
Acoustical treatment resources are not unlimited, however, which is why they can be used only within the FAA-approved noise contour. Neighbors on the other side of the line, no matter what standard you might use to draw it, probably won’t be satisfied. Most airports have noise abatement information on their websites. You mentioned Burbank and San Diego, for example. Here’s Burbank (Bob Hope Airport) http://www.burbankairport.com/part161/index.html, and here is San Diego’s http://www.san.org/airport_authority/environmental_affairs/airport_noise/faqs.asp.
4. The 65 CNEL contour (that’s Community Noise Exposure Level in airport-speak and refers to the line on the map where airport noise is measured above or below 65 decibels) runs west of downtown in a narrow strip between the convention center and the Arena. New downtown high-rise buildings are east of the contour. Here’s the current contour map: http://www.sjc.org/community/maps/4q07.pdf. The contour line doesn’t preclude construction within it, but it does mean new buildings need to include design and materials to deal with noise.
David Vossbrink, Communications Director
Mineta San Jose International Airport
Thanks David V for the nicely written response on airport issues. And thanks for the links,they’re helpful. A couple of quick extra questions:
* Re: Phase I: am I reading this right: $1.3B and no capacity improvement? Or perhaps capacity/revenue improvement is coming from rental car garage etc.?
*Re: scaled back plan and Master Plan. If the Master Plan is still based on projected usage analysis that is turning out to be overly optimistic (exactly, I might add, what neighbors said back in Hammer era) when will the Master Plan be updated to reflect more realistic market conditions? It seems odd that we have a Master Plan based on projections that have been proven inaccurate.
* Re: Noise Abatement. While I applaud the Airport’s efforts to make neighbors’ homes quieter, you must admit that the scope of the effort is probably a stronger testament to the scope of the problem than anything else. The fact that Mineta rates highly in its Noise Abatement program tells me that it has a bigger noise problem than other airports due to its location. Is there some type of industry analysis re: urban airports and noise that compares Mineta to others, say Burbank and Sandy Eggo, in similar situations.
* Re:downtown housing. If i read the Noise Contour Map correctly alot of new high rise housing Downtown is taking place within the 65CNEL contour. And alot of downtown is either within the contour or on the edges of it. Is the new housing getting some sort of variance to build w/in 65CNEL?
thanks again for thoughtful reply.
Close Ried Hillview!
RH has become a storage destination for private Aircraft.Another “Mothball Fleet”.Why is everyone complaining about “take off and landings”? The cost of Air Plane Fuel has gone out of sight.Few can afford to fly their aircraft.Convert this “Black Hole” to a Profit Center for the City.Stop complaining, the time has come to close it.
#21
You have made a good point regarding the cost of Avgas. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of activity at Reid-Hillview is recreational in nature. In economic terms, this recreational activity has an elastic demand. That is, as the cost goes up, the demand goes down. People spend their discretionary income on more important matters.
A major purpose of RHV is the training of foreign student pilots, primarily Japanese. Even this is decreasing now. Domestic use of RHV is only by a very few residents of Santa Clara County. As of 6/7/08, there are 3,365 total pilots in SCC. [1] This includes airline pilots, blimp pilots, student pilots, etc. Obviously, only a percentage of this group will use RHV.
As a revenue source for the county, the entire airport system has not been very productive. In 2005, during the RHV Master Plan process, the supervisors inquired as to exactly what the county got from the airports. It turns out that all three county airports (RHV, South County, Palo Alto) together contribute the grand total of $250,000 to the general fund. [2]
RHV sits on 180 acres of prime county land at the intersection of 101 and 280/680. This is the gateway to the Bay area. By developing this land in an intelligent manner the county could increase its tax revenue by tens of millions, if not hundred of millions of dollars. [3]
See http://www.reidhillview.com for additional RHV data.
[1] http://registry.faa.gov/activeairmen/PILOT_DETAIL_WP.htm#WP15-SAN JOSE
[2] http://www.reidhillview.com/bae_data.pdf
[3] http://www.reidhillview.com/RHV_brochure.pdf
My information comes from a flight instructor. He says if it wasn`t for students from India, he would be out of work.Air fuel is going to go up again next year.Times have changed since 2005.
This 180 acres should be put to a better use for our times.
Jack,
What’s with allowing the spam?
Kathleen #24
Sorry. It was put on by mistake. It’s gone now.