San Jose Finishes Third Behind SF and Oakland
The SF Chronicle recently published a compilation of facts and figures relative to the Bay Area’s three largest cities. The simple data provides a picture of where we are, and perhaps, where we are going.
(Keep in mind, that the numbers cited for San Francisco are much higher because San Francisco is both a city and a county).
OAKLAND
Population 411,000
General Fund Budget $502 million
Employees 4,401
SAN FRANCISCO
Population 809,000
General Fund Budget $6 billion
Employees 27,884
SAN JOSE
Population 974,000
General Fund Budget $1 billion
Employees 6,992
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Population 1.8 million
Budget $4.187 billion
It’s interesting to note that if you combine the San Jose city budget with the Santa Clara County budget ($1 billion + $4.18 billion = $5.18 billion) you still far short of San Francisco’s budget (city + county) figure of $6 billion!
San Jose has twice the population that Oakland does, yet San Jose has far fewer city workers (on a per capita basis) than does the City of Oakland. If one concludes that having more city employees (per capita) translates to higher levels of service delivery, then San Jose finishes a distant third to San Francisco and Oakland.
Have you been to Oakland lately? Does that look like a city with a “higher level of service delivery” than San Jose?
It is possible to conclude that San Jose is more efficient in the use of its workforce than Oakland.
Or not.
I suspect that having more city employees (per capita) translates to higher levels of government waste. I see no correlation between number of government employees and service delivery.
General fund budget divided by population:
Oakland $1221 per inhabitant
San Jose $1027 per inhabitant
How many employees does Santa Clara County have?
#1 & 2:
I’m not ready to trade San Jose for Oakland. For me, these numbers raise the questions: Why doesn’t San Jose have more bucks, and why are Oakland and SF such “basket cases” given their resources and ratios?
Pete Campbell
#2. Sigh. People who see no good what-so-ever in government and government employees deserve their fondest wishes to come true: no government and no government services. I know, I know, that is what you want. If only wishes could come true for you, but they won’t and so it is easy, too easy, to say you want something that will not come about, while at the same time you benefit from the very thing you criticise: defense, roads, laws, parks, police….perhaps this is too large to grasp for the narrow minded.
# 5 Pot:
Given that this is a local politics blog, one can put aside the “defense” category you listed since no city under discussion in this topic has an established military.
As to the other “benefits” you listed, perhaps people would be less pessimistic about the size and waste of their government if said government provided a well-equipped and fully staffed police force that can adequately enforce laws, sufficently maintained their roads and established parks that are regularly open for public enjoyment and free of trash and grafitti. Can you say that the City of San Jose provides all of these services to its citizens in an efficent and adequate manner?
Government does indeed provide a neccessary service to its citizens, but to suggest that anyone who believes there is such a thing as government waste is narrow minded seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
So we bitch and bitch about ineffective uses of city funds, but then we look at outside numbers and assume those aren’t also wasted dollars?
#5, don’t put words in my mouth. I never said I’m against defense, roads, laws, parks or police. I did say that there’s no direct relation between amount of money thrown at the problem and the quality of service we receive. If that were true, NY, with its huge state and local government and high taxes, would be paradise. Instead, people are bailing out of that state because the tax burden is too high.
Pete-
What are the numbers when you include RDA funds?
Also, do the cities have different definitions of what services are provided in the “General Fund”? If SF includes either MUNI or health care, it’s not much of a comparison.
Similarly, does Oakland have higher per capita spending because of they have a larger poor population? How much of this is a difference in State or Federal funds correctly aimed to help those who really need them?
My guess re: the higher number of city workers in Oakland is that they have many more cops trying to get the number of shootings and murders down. An exercise in futility. I don’t feel safe ANYWHERE in Oakland anymore. I used to work there, ride BART from Fremont to 19th street and walk to my office, and during the winter I’d be walking to the BART station in the dark after work. You couldn’t pay me enough to be caught on the streets of Oakland any time of day anymore.
Greg Perry on #7 & #8,
Two very good points that should be considered!
San Jose is a highly educated, high tecnology area, Oakland is quite different. Oakland is a Port City with a high population of blue collar workers, mainly longshoremen and warehousman, trucking and shipping.Oakland and Alameda County cities have differant demographics.
San Francisco is a “rich” city with Jobs and sales tax revenues. San Jose is a “poor” city when you look at the revenue the city generates for a city of it`s size.
Mark,
Remember our City Leaders, insiders, and politicians all were pushing for San Jose to build BART from San Jose to the east bay cities.They want us to send our high tec residents to the east bay to work in blue colar jobs…some even went on to say,” bring those east bay blur colar workers to San Jose to work in high tec jobs. remember we have a shortage of jobs in San Jose, for every 100 people in san Jose we only have 70 jobs. Go figure! Consider the crime rate on BART and the crime rate in BART parking lots on the east bay, averaging 49 parking lot crimes per day.