The debate over the San Jose Flea Market is a microcosm of our city and society as a whole. One side represents an “out with the old, in with the new” mentality that can be good for the city. The other side offers a realistic criticism of our inability to preserve anything that could be deemed historical or part of the fabric of our culture. Though I do see merit on both sides of the argument, I support the development of the land around the flea market and think it could be a great thing for our city.
I have lived in San Jose my entire life and never once have I set foot on the flea market grounds. I am not self centered enough to think that just because I don’t use something that it should be obsolete, but I would venture to guess that the flea market that so many people remember from the past is far from that of today.
It’s important to take note that many people, especially immigrants and those trying to survive in the Bay Area on low incomes, see the flea market as their livelihood. Having a place to sell their produce or items is beyond important to them. I think that the people making the decision on the development of the land understand this. They must consider the flea market vendors and make sure that there will be a new suitable place for them to sell their goods if a change is made. If they have an alternative, than it will make the move sting less.
Let’s face it, this land needs a change and our city is about development. More importantly, creating new homes is such a huge priority that we cannot allow a land space this large to remain undeveloped. We just can’t. And, yes, money usually wins out over everything. I am not saying that the developers or the people behind this project are greedy, but if you were sitting on a plot of land as large as the flea market, wouldn’t you build on it?
Developing the flea market land is inevitable as we continue to provide our city with new housing, offices and schools. It seems like a positive to me except for one caveat: the density of housing, office parks and schools is and will be based on the idea that BART will become reality. Are we really ready to bank on that just yet?
Though we would have liked to have preserved the orchards and the large open spaces of our past, in our world and in our city, it just isn’t feasible. And, remember, as with the Convention Center, the Arena and other major projects, homes have to be bulldozed, and small businesses relocated or closed. Some people do end up getting the short end of the stick. It is unfortunate but it’s the reality. It’s up to the city to be thoughtful and make it as painless as possible for those most directly affected. I think this current administration gets it, but, as always, time will tell.
Meaning no disrespect to Single Gal, her avoidance of the overwhelming problem of conversion of employment lands to residential lands renders her argument somewhat invalid. If no account is taken of the fact that residents need local jobs, or of the fact that residences do not pay enough taxes to support the city services homes use, then we have a serious lack in understanding sound city planning and municipal finance. Trading employment lands for residential lands has a legitimate economic boundary, and San Jose has passed the point at which it can ignore the negative trade-offs when conversion from employment lands to residential lands occurs.
For more on this, go to this link for a summary of the story told us in North San Jose at a community meeting:
http://missioncitylantern.blogspot.com/2007/03/from-our-flea-market-roving-reporter-be.html
Another note to consider in both the North First and Flea Market developments is that in each instance through remarks and illustrations, the planning department contemplates new, if small, downtowns for those areas. How do the downtown development fans who comment regularly on this blog in favor of downtown development so readily accept these diversions of resources from downtown to these new small downtowns?
Singal Gal writes:
“I have lived in San Jose my entire life and never once have I set foot on the flea market grounds.”
So why are you writing about something you no nothing about?
Go visit the flea market. Then make comments.
You have never visited the flea market?! I’m glad you are so gracious to “venture a guess,” but the flea market is as good as it was when I went there as a kid. We all try to find something to create an identity for San Jose. Well, the flea market is truly one of a kind and is better known in other parts of the state and country then any other place we have, and that includes the “Shark tank.”
It is interesting that when we talk about a marketplace that brings in such diversity, SG is all for bulldozing it over for development. The only thing I agreed with SG’s comments is that the density should not be dependent on BART until it is more of a certainty. In fact, I don’t think any development should occur until BART is on the way. That will allow people from all over the region to enjoy the flea market until the last possible moment. If BART doesn’t come, then there is no rationalization to build high density housing that is outside of the downtown core and not on a transportation corridor.
Dale # 1 said:“Trading employment lands for residential lands has a legitimate economic boundary, and San Jose has passed the point at which it can ignore the negative trade-offs when conversion from employment lands to residential lands occurs.”
Nice in theory, Dale, but how much in tax revenue do you think the flea market generates? It’s a nice place to buy someone’s castoffs, or goods recently stolen from your house and mine. And I’m just so sure that everyone reports every dime they make to appropriate taxing authorities.
Keeping land zoned as industrial is also great in theory, but manufacturing cannot survi ve in this high land value area. That leaves retail, commercial, office, with retail generating the most revenue, I’d assume. Another mall, perhaps?
Most of the employees working in these employmant lands live elsewhere, as well, since they cannot afford to live here.
Spray #2—One doesn’t have to have vistited a place to know a lot about it.
To Dale –
Infill housing uses SIGNIFICANTLY less resources than new housing. The strains on existing services aside from schools are negligible, even for extremely large infill developments. A special tax can be placed on the developer or new homeowners in infill areas to pay for expanded schools.
Or we could do what we really should do to fix California – repeal nasty Prop 13.
Single Gal—Thoughtful blog, but you overlook one important point: MAKE WHATEVER THE FLEA MARKET LAND BECOMES AT LEAST INTERESTING, not just more “good feelin’” mixed use residential. Have an architectural competition to make the place a destination. If retail were a strong component it would mitigate the employment problem. As for hurting downtown’s emergence as a destination, it doesn’t have to. The problem with downtown is that it remains a blank slate. There’s no plan for developing a Chicago/San Fran—even San Diego or San Antonio commercial center. Build more housing is all you hear from City Hall, though it means downtown SJ residents have to drive to the Design District in SF for terrific furniture for their loft or whatever. Tiempo, the great Italian-design store on 17th St. now has a big ad in the San Jose Sunday Homes mag. (And the neighborhood around the store, once really funky, is loaded with unique and interesting and liveable condos and apartments. Nothing like it in San Jose, and it goes on for blocks.) San Jose needs to get just a little of the confidence that “The City” just throws away. George Green
The Flea Market—just in my opinion—isn’t even worth visiting anymore so why should S.G. start now? It used to be a huge, eclectic and interesting garage sale atmosphere but now it’s predominantly new merchandise of questionable quality along with the grocer-rejected-produce area that many of the patrons and merchants S.G. has described have come to rely on.
Here’s what I want to know: All this talk of residential development on the current Flea Market site mentions the future BART line, which is hardly a done deal. Is the Bumb family bent on developing this parcel regardless of what happens with BART? If so, then let’s see some discussion about how this would happen even if BART doesn’t. Even with BART involved, not everybody who would live there would be taking BART exclusively. What sort of measures will be taken to mitigate the huge increase in automobile traffic that such a development will place on the surrounding area? This is an issue where the city has generally allowed the developers to skate. Santana Row and the various expansions of Valley Fair are good examples where traffic problems were not adequately addressed, if at all. The Bumbs are already rich and stand to become fabulously so from any project that goes forward. They need to be held accountable for significant traffic improvements associated with any development.
Also, we all know that residential development doesn’t provide the tax revenue that commercial does. This is such a huge parcel that it seems the city would be shooting itself in the foot if it went 100% residential with it. We need a mix there, and I’m not talking some mini-mall convenience type arrangement, but instead a decent sized commercial or R&D type operation that provides jobs and increased tax revenue. It seems that something like this would provide a good transition from the commercial/industrial zone west of this area to the residential that already exists to the east.
Just put the flea market, the stadium and the housing on the empty fairgrounds land (read: Santa Clara County land). Then we’re all happy. The money saved on serving the new homes can go towards the BART extension we don’t need. Since that’ll be in place, we can hijack the Warriors and all their east bay fans can ride the new line we bought for them to see our new team. It’s all so simple, right?
Also, check out the flea market before writing on it. It’s a great place.
#1&2
You hit the nail on the head.
SG
I am an active historic preservationist, yet have not heard any talk about any buildings “deemed historic” on the site. If you know what you are talking about, will you please tell us more about these historic resources.
Let’s put the Flea Market on the fairgrounds. The flea market attendance is stated in the Mercury News as 40,000 per week. If you figure two to three people per car, that would mean 10,000 to 20,000 cars per week added to the Tully Exit, McLaughlin Corridor, Tully Road and Monterey Road. I’m sure the residents who fight the traffic nightmare in this area are anxiously waiting for this to happen. Keep it where it is or put it somewhere else besides the fair grounds. We have enough traffic issues in this area without adding the flea market into the picture.
The Flea Market is a business. The owners have decided to close the business and sell the land. That is a business decision. They have no obligation to provide San Jose with a flea market.
On the other hand, the Fairgrounds is on Santa Clara County land. Santa Clara County does not have an obligation to provide a flea market to the residents of Santa Clara County.
Since the Bumb’s are making $250 million dollars by selling the Flea Market land then if they wish to have another flea market they can BUY land and build another flea market.
How about the BAREC land in Santa Clara that residents do not want developed for housing? That would make a good location since it is right next to Valley Fair and Santana Row. The shoppers from these areas could cross mingle.
I recommend that the flea market be moved to downtown San Jose and make downtown the best in the whole world. They should have flea market stalls set up on the streets every weekend. The downtown location is a perfect match for this type of business. You feel like a kid in a strange vibrant downtown when you have a flea market there. I love those produce section.
Has anyone seen a traffic impact study from the city? Not that I totally would trust the results; I swear onetime saw white out on one when the San Jose Medical Clinic land on 17th near Santa Clara was up for grabs.
SG, I’ve never been either, let me know if you want to go check it out sometime. I seriously would like to experience it before it’s history, and it will be. I do feel empathy for people who do need this outlet, seems to be like another Tropicana, in some ways.
I recommend turning the entire Coyote Valley into a huge flea market.
Sounds like SJI’s ” change in our city” ” by people who value San Jose ” does not mean to improve San Jose if Single Gal’s comment below represents SJI’s opinion about industrial to residential conversions and the blog comments about people who are struggling and use Flea Market, then San Jose is in real trouble
SG – “Let’s face it, this land needs a change and our city is about development. More importantly, creating new homes is such a huge priority that we cannot allow a land space this large to remain undeveloped. We just can’t. ”
Actually, every square inch of open space or farmland left in California should be converted into a Flea Market! Think of the jobs!
Now that the city council has agreed to let the Bumbs find the best use for their land investment (and correctly I think) let’s get focused on a new site for the Flea Market, which I agree is a city treasure and a beautiful counterpoint to Santana Row (anyone every notice how our two more successful pedestrian-oriented retail areas are privately owned and the RDA never touched ‘em? Just wondering). Anyways, the only downside of the FM was its noncentral location. I say see if FAA will let us use the southern tip of the empty Guadalupe Gardens park off Coleman. Close to freeways, close to downtown, and using up neglected downtown space. Failing that, why not in the unused land next to History Park that Lew Woolf isn’t going to develop now for a stadium?
One point unmentioned so far (housing price inflation & deflation) has a great deal of import for the so-called demand for housing. Many finance experts are predicting the collapse of the home market value, ie, the bursting of the ludicrous increases in cost of this asset. For a look at the latest thinking on this point, go here:
http://www.counterpunch.com/whitney04242007.html
The title of the article is “Housing Bubble Boondoggle” and it is very interesting.
As it apparently did to “Change in our City,” this line of SG’s jumped off the page at me:
“More importantly, creating new homes is such a huge priority that we cannot allow a land space this large to remain undeveloped.”
Why is the creation of new homes such a priority? Is it because demand exists? If we assume that demand is the driving force then we have to examine whether, in this city, demand should trump all other considerations.
Question: Is responding to the demand for homes more important than restoring core services to the public?
Yes, if you are a home buyer, home builder, realtor, or employer hoping to keep the labor surplus high enough to keep wages low.
Yes, if you are a politician desperate to take credit for something in a city that provides dwindling services and is routinely bested by its smaller neighbors.
No, if you are a resident of the city and believe that your needs come first. Needs like paved streets, well-maintained parks, and safe streets.
I am simply incapable of understanding why, given the state of the city budget, we should even consider any zoning change that will bring in more residents. The existence of residential scarcity is no reason for the government to insert itself and save the local market from that which best governs it: market forces. Should the day come when there is not a single house for sale here, then we will know that it’s time to tell buyers to up their price or look elsewhere. Believe me, that’s what realtors tell their clients in Los Altos.
With the disproportionate percentage of jobs located outside the city limits, why should San Jose seek to expand its role as the home base and service provider for the region’s workforce? Personally, I get no great satisfaction knowing that Santa Clara and Sunnyvale enrich their city coffers by taxing a workforce whose needs for schools and parks and other services are billed to my city.
Commercial lands should, absent truly unique circumstances, continue to be reserved for their tax-generating potential—even if that potential is decades from realization. We owe that tax-generating potential to those who will, in the future, try to do right by this city.
To Dale –
Yes, there are problems in the housing market, just not here. The inner Bay Area (of which San Jose is a part) has been built out for twenty years. The number of jobs in the inner Bay Area has doubled during that time. That is the reason for explosive growth in the outer Bay Area (Solano County, outer Contra Costa County, Morgan Hill and Gilroy, Tracy and the rest of the Central Valley), as well as the most significant reason for the incredible increase in housing prices here.
Check the stats on all of the “exotic” mortgages that became the norm in other parts of the country – the levels of those mortgages used here is significantly lower here, even though in theory they should have been higher (higher prices equals more people needing exotic mortgages). The reason? Incredible pent-up demand.
The Bay Area has created more jobs per capita in the last twenty years than we can ever hope to house in the inner Bay Area without massive infill development. Because that massive infill development will never happen due to NIMBYs, housing prices will continue to accelerate upwards. In twenty more years, we’ll have people driving to San Jose each day from Fresno.
Anybody expecting housing prices to come down in the inner Bay Area anytime soon will be sorely dissappointed.
Hey JM O’C
Do you know how much tax $ is generated by the Flea Market? I bet the Bumms don’t want the public to know.
Has anything been stolen from your house lately? If something was stolen, it’s just as likely to show up on EBAY
Do you know how many Flea Market vendors live out of town?
People that have never visited the Flea Market don’t understand it’s historical and cultural value. Unlike most Americans who are in love with the air-conditioned shopping mall, a large number of immigrants from all over the world enjoy taking a Sunday morning or afternoon stroll out in the open air with the sounds of music, people talking, the aromas of fresh fruits and vegetables along with cooked food as they search for whatever their hearts desire enjoying each others company; just like home!
Many have tried to package it; few can replicate it.
Market forces created the Flea Market; maybe our city council should try that same formula in downtown SJ before creating more mini downtowns
In fact, to many of them, it’s as close as they’ll get to being home without flying across borders, or around the world.
#19. Rose Garden Dad: I think you may have stumbled onto the solution: Move the Flea Market to Santana Row!
Think of the benefits:
Instead of a faux international market SR could have the real thing.
People who can’t afford the designer merchandise could go outside and buy the knockoff at a deep discount.
Best of all Single Gal might finally visit the Flea Market and thus become a “Real” San Josean.
San Jose Inside needs to have series of future Blog discussions about what makes good common sense for Santa Clara County wide jobs / residential development, public transit and budget policies since our elected politicians who are praying to get out of office before hels accountable or a miracle saves them can not seem to discuss our Lose, Lose , Lose situations
Does it make any sense to
1) Convert industrial land to residential development like Flea Market which loses jobs, decreases future city tax revenues while not generating enough taxes to pay to pay for current and future required residential development increases in city service costs when we are $33 billion so would say billions more in un-funded city obligations ignored in city budget shortages
2) Have an excessively restrictive urban growth boundaries that was planned to gradually expanded city controlled growth into county for controlled and planned future residential growth which has not occurred raising Santa Clara home prices to highest in US as supply is restricted and demand increases
3) Low home affordability results in excessive residential growth in San Jose and other counties for other city jobs which increases Northern California traffic congestion and air pollution to some worst in US because we have poor public transit to get to the jobs
4) Highest cost BART transit is not solution when governments faces billions and decades of budget crisis VTA has $3 billion in un-funded operating costs plus BART billions more in un-funded operating costs which if BART taxes are raised again will result in more jobs losses and higher residential costs. BART the Lose, Lose, Lose transit solution
4) BART will not benefit local average taxpayer but only politicians, Silicon Valley businesses not paying for BART or union construction company jobs
5) Add more housing development restrictions or development costs makes affording houses and traffic congestion from distant low cost housing areas worst. San Jose will soon be LA North with worst environmental disasters as we transfer pollution to highways and to Central Valley
6) 1 /2 Santa Clara County is not building their fair share of county housing since these extreme NIMBY cities highly restrict reasonable development even near transit stations and major highways and have 2 -3 times jobs as houses making San Jose and areas outside Santa Clara County worst
Dale Checker – ” The Bay Area has created more jobs per capita in the last twenty years than we can ever hope to house ”
Except in San Jose where due to bad Council planning and policies we are short jobs not enough for every resident to work in San Jose so we drive to other city jobs
Finfan –
You bring up some very very good points. I think that is a whole other problem that needs to be addressed…..
#24 – You make a good point, but as has been said before the correct thing to do is to work on making those other cities in the area build more housing, not make San Jose as restrictive as they are.
We all have a stake in not paving over the entire Central Valley.
I agree with comment #2. Also, thank you to Councilman Oliverio for being the only councilmember to vote against the General Plan amendment that paved the way for this development
The rest of the Council tried to duck responsibility by saying the decision was already made in 2002—to which my response is, if you think it was the wrong decision, don’t make it worse by increasing the profitability of kicking out the flea market even more, and think about repealing that 2002 decision. But if you think it was the right decision, then say so. Don’t pretend it’s out of your hands.
I watched the Council Meeting last night. It was very sad to see the flea market vendors begging the Council not to let the flea market close so they could keep their jobs. Typical of the Bumbs to mislead vendors into thinking their need to get rid of the flea market, so they could make millions, was some how the fault of the city.
It was great to see Sam Liccardo set the record straight by asking Joe Horwedel, head of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement, to verify that, regardless of how the Council voted, that the property was the Bumbs to do what they want with. Joe made it clear that if the Bumbs wanted to bull doze it, sell it, or build on it, there was nothing the city could do about it. Bravo!
It’s time these vendors start holding the Bumbs responsible for their job loss. The Bumbs have finanically benefited off the backs of these poor vendors for decades. If the Bumbs really wanted to preserve the culture, history, and jobs of the flea market, and its vendors, they are rich enough to purchase another huge plot of land and do so. I wish they’d stop acting like they care. They don’t. My Mom always said,” If you want to see if someone means what they say, don’t listen to what someone says, look at what they do.”
The city could allow flea market vendors to sell goods at community centers, youth centers, and in open plots of lands on the weekends, or as someone else suggested, close down downtown, and hold the flea market there. The money they charge the vendors for a space, could be used to fix pools, fix streets, hire more Police etc. But doing something like that would require compassion. Something I see is sorely lacking in our society today~
30: It’s nice to know that you’re bringing facts to shoot down others’ claims.
#31 – Um, duh. I’d be building a flea market. Obviously the way to really increase BART ridership and spur the economy is to build as many flea markets as possible.
Right now my colleagues and I are negotiating the buyout and demolition of six skyscrapers in downtown San Francisco to plop a new flea market there. According to the other posters, that’s where the dough is these days.
#28
The book shows that the flea market is a dynamic part of our community …
Its called fiction for a reason.
In 1994 my husband and I bought our very first house in North San Jose near the corner of Lundy and Murphy.
The only time there was congestion was during rush hour commutes. On weekends it was nice and quiet. We have three major freeways in our vicinity; 101,880 and 680.
If we wanted to venture out we have quite a few restaurants right around the corner. Valley Fair Mall, The great mall, Mcarthy Ranch, Downtown and work are all within 10 minutes of my house. I love it!
Just within the last five years they have been building a lot of new homes around the area. At Old Oakland and Brokaw they will be building new condos and stores and now at the Berryessa Flea Market.
I have to say that I have mixed emotions about the whole thing. It’s kind of exciting, but at the same time, I’m dreading all the traffic that is going to come this way. There are certain places in San Jose that I just hate going because the traffic and the amount of people around is so horrendous. I don’t want my neighborhood to be that way. But the way things look, I don’t have a choice.
#29, Sam Liccardo did not “set the record straight”, he ducked the issue. Cities have the power to regulate land use. An owner can’t do anything he wants with a property—he can only do what the city permits as a use for that property in its General Plan and zoning ordinance.
The city passed an amendment to its General Plan in 2002 that increased the number of allowable land uses on the flea market land. This was a necessary step in paving the way for the mixed-use development proposed there. The city has the power to repeal that amendment if it’s shown to be out of public purpose rather than discriminatory against a particular owner. There’s a clear public purpose in preserving a source of jobs, history, and cultural gathering place such as the flea market.
The city also had power on Tuesday. The city compounded its mistake on Tuesday by passing an amendment making even more land (albeit not land on which the stalls are located) available for the mixed-use development. This made the proposed development even more profitable. This made the kicking out of the flea market even more likely.
It’s fine to blame the Bumb family, and I do, but the city is not powerless and should not pretend to be so. Also, I genuinely believe the Bumbs are looking to acquire land because they are greedy and would want the continued source of income from the flea market—but where is there such land in San Jose available other than “greenfield” land that would just contribute to sprawl? The county fairgrounds, the only place I can think of, is being pooh-poohed by the county.
#33—comparing San Francisco to Berryessa is apples and oranges and you know it.
But, still, notice that San Francisco has the Ferry Building and farmers market near Embarcadero BART, which is how the flea market could be marketed to the people who don’t already appreciate it if the owner wasn’t already determined to move it or kill it.
To All Flea Market Supporters,
If you want the Flea Market so bad then buy Bumbs land for $250 million dollars and keep the Flea Market open.
Quit telling everyone that it is the responsibility of San Jose to keep the Flea Market open. Quit telling everyone that it is the responsibility of Santa Clara County taxpayers to provide land on the Fairgrounds for the Flea Market.
Let the market decide if the Flea Market is needed.
34 – I share your concerns. That’s why I left that area. It gets worse everyday with housing placed in inappropriate locations. And, just wait until Costco opens down the street. Think you’ve got traffic now—you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Since you have no Council representation at the moment you can’t really complain to anyone but make it an issue with the two candidates running for Council. What are they going to do to keep the area from further deterioration? Are they going to support relaxed traffic Level of Service or will they work to preserve some quality of life for the current residents?? I
If things continue as they are, then that area will nothing but
traffic and overcrowded stores. Good luck.
37 got it right. It’s oh so easy for all ya’ll to tell someone else what they can do with their land. It doesn’t cost you a dime. But it’s THEIR land, not yours. So if you’re so all fired up about having a flea market, go buy some land and open one. Otherwise, please just put a sock in it.
#35- I agree with some of what you said, but not all of it. Liccardo did not duck the issue, he made it clear that no matter what vote the Council took, that it would not stop the Bumbs from getting that land sold. Hence the term, “land owners.”
JMO noted in another column that progress is going to happen whether we like it or not. It is sad to think we’ll loose so much to greedy developers, the need for new city revenues, etc. The flea market vendors are not the only ones who will suffer. Current home and business owners, wild life, air and water quaility, and so many other people and things will suffer.
I think we have to ask ourselves at what point does progress need to be sacrificed, so that we can live a decent life that isn’t always mandated by profit seeking business people? To what extent are we going to allow money and big business to control and manipulate our lives?
Oliverio has done nothing on the Council, but push to replace people’s jobs for higher technology. I don’t hear anyone objecting to that! How many of you are sick of calling the city or any where else just to get a recording? Or try to park in a garage that is controled by a machine that doesn’t work half the time? Or going into a grocery store to see “self check outs,” that take jobs from people?
Preserving history, culture, parks, neighborhoods? I think those are terms that are becoming just that, history!
39, I think the whole point is that the flea market should be on public land. It’s hardly profitable for any one person but beneficial to many. In that sense, it’s the same as a freeway.
#39—The value of the land is being inflated by a planned government action, building of a BART line. Even if it doesn’t eventually happen, it’s already inflated the land value. This is not a case of the market at work at all.
#40—I’m not convinced that the Bumb family would be selling if the city hadn’t been bending over backwards, including this past Tuesday, to keep amending the General Plan to accommodate them and to accommodate the rules for attracting BART. The family has been making money off the flea market.
#41—The flea market is actually profitable. The problem is just that the possibility of attracting Berryessa BART has made another use even more profitable, and thus has made the land too expensive for anyone to purchase who would want to just keep it a flea market.
#42 Jim Fung –
In the end and at the end of the day, it is up to the BUMBs to decide what they want to do with their land. As CM Liccardo pointed out, they could bulldoze the Flea Market if they wanted, without permission of the City. BART has been persued for years, by not just the City, but the County Board of Supervisors, VTA, and other Cities as a way to reduce traffic to SF and other Bay Area locations. You cannot blame The Bumb’s choice to build housing on this site on BART, or the City. It was their choice. As was their choice to rally the Flea Market Vendors, and blame this whole thing on the City, without telling them this project was initiated by them.
I get your point about the Flea Market having value to San Jose; City Government can’t force the Bumbs to keep that land as a Flea Market.
If I had 120 vacant acres in San Jose, and BART said there would be a station there in the future that would provide easy transit connection to the East Bay, and I was asked to suggest a use that would generate ridership beyond expectations, would generate on-going sales tax revenue for the City, as well as providing a large number of jobs in the non hi-tech sectors, what would I suggest?
Anybody ever read The Kite Runner? It’s one of those New York Times bestsellers you see everyone reading on your plane. The author is local and in it the SJ Flea Market was an integral part of the newly arrived Afghan expat community. Former army generals and rich businessmen ended up running those stalls. The book shows that the flea market is a dynamic part of our community and must be maintained ragardless where it ends up being.
44 – Still in San Jose—more to the south. Not a whole lot better there but at least it is mostly already built and not much much space left to cram more houses into.
Here’s some items for you to consider:
1) The Flea Market does make considerable money for the landowners from the leases and concession sales, but JMO is correct the sales tax is not being enforced by the vendors at the point of sale. I do have to correct some folks on a couple of points. The vast majority of goods are not stolen or retail rejects. Sometimes I go there to find one of a kind items like parts for older equipment or tools that cannot be found in chain or big box stores because corporate America doesn’t believe they are profitable enough to stock on a regular basis. The produce is fresh but it is also a shame that people who haven’t been exposed to much international culture or cuisine can’t recognize all the various fruits, vegetables, and baked goods sold on produce row. Additionally, the flea market serves both SJ minority residents and acts as a regional draw from the North Bay to Livermore and Monterey.
2) The Flea Market’s main clients (from my many visits there) are approx. 50-60% hispanic, 20-30% asian, and the remainder made up of other races and nationalities. It is not the typicial middle america profile that is shopping at the SJ flea market. Most of the people working and shopping there appear to earn well below the County median income of $105k. By my estimation from just appearances, most are likely to be considered Extremely Low Income—making <$30k annually. Very often the folks shopping there are looking for bargins to streach this meager income or maybe for something that traditional mainstream retailers won’t stock because they classify the item as a niche product or deem it too low volume in terms of sales(e.g. Cactus ears, Asian greens, custom saw blades). It does not surprise me that very few of the posters on this blog have ever even been there.
3) The County Fairgrounds is a viable location for a flea market. Do you folks remember what typically used to happen at fairs? Markets to sell goods, livestock, and produce-ring a bell with anyone? How come all the “Valley of Hearts Delights” & pine for the agricultural heritage of the valley disappearing folks are all of a sudden quiet? Where are the “Master Gardeners” and rabid “Urban Agriculture to save modern America from E-coli produce contamination” supporters? Have you folks seen the fresh produce at the Flea Market’s Produce Alley that has been grown in SC County small farms and residential back yard plots. Is it the color of the patrons that keep you from supporting them? If the proposal was to eliminate the more upscale and lighter skinned De Anza College Flea Market (which is held on the 1st Saturday of each month BTW) would you be attending Council meetings and writing Op Ed pieces for the Murcky News?
4) The County has continually bemoaned the fact that the attendance at the annual fair except for last year has on average been dropping. If the County leased out spaces for a flea market on the weekends, it could guarantee that it would get the word out about its annual fair to a “captive audience” every weekend by just erecting a couple of signs at the entrance gate. Since the current flea market is a regional draw this would be very effective free marketing every weekend. Additionally, if the fair coincided with a flea market weekend, people like SG could take an opportunity to learn what the other half of San Jose is like. You have been to the County Fair—right SG???
5) The County has claimed it is looking for a guaranteed income stream from development on the fairgrounds site to help bolster the County revenues. If the County developed the site for an improved flea market it woud guarantee itself the perpetual income stream that it covets, require sales tax to be collected by vendors (which would also boost County sales tax revenues), allow the County to require vendors to obtain a Business License (which would boost County business license revenues), create & preserve the jobs and livelihood of many lower skilled individuals, and preserve part of the valley minority heritage. The current flea market is open every week from Wednesday to Sunday. Isn’t that better than a concert hall that may only be used for 100 days a year if we’re lucky and get a good promoter that isn’t part of the current monopolies like ClearChannel.
6) Why is Blanca Alvarado opposed to the Flea Market locating on the Fair Grounds? Isn’t this the same Blanca who once (graced?)the halls of SJ City Hall and told us that if she were eleced to the Board of Sup’s that she’d be looking out for constituents, many of whom are the very same folks that will be severly impacted by the flea market closure? I guess memories of promises, slogans and cultural ties fade with higher elected office. Maybe we should have elected someone who promised to “lookafter their constituents well-being and quality of life” rather than looking out to avoid the past voters when they came knocking on the door to the Board of Supervisor’s offices.
7) Here’s another tid-bit: Good Ole Greenline Gary and his son are representing the land owner of the flea market site. Judging by their actions I guess the American Planning Association principle to “Strive to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of disadvantaged groups and persons” goes out the window when a deep pocket client waives a big fat success fee at you.
8) How come Paul “Support What SJ Minority Businesses?” Krutko and the Office Irresponsible Development aren’t taking an active role to try and cut a deal with Don Gage and the County Sup’s to move the flea market to the fairgrounds? Does Lou Wolfe now want his Earthquake Stadium there in exchange for his requested residential zoning on the I-star parcel?
38- I guess my only two options are move or run all my errands at 10 a.m. Also, good thing I work the 3rd watch.
Just out of curiosity, where did you move too?
Bridget #40 criticizes “profit seeking business people”. So now profit is evil? Move to Sweden, Bridget; where the lowest tax rate is 55%, and the highest 90%. Government will care for you from cradle to grave. The government runs all liquor sales, and shuts it of from 9:00 p.m. Friday until Monday, so no drunken louts in dowtown Stockholm playing loud music. And as for so-called “greedy developers”, unless you live in a log cabin on Walden Pond, your home was undoubetedly built by developers, who GASP! made a profit.
#47- My JMO, you seem pretty emotionally charged over this column. What gives? You are usually a gentleman, a voice of reason, very balanced, fair, and informative.
As luck would have it, I’m only being exploted by my landlord. I’m a renter, and after reading what the city, and developers are doing to neighborhoods, and home owners, I think I’ll stay one!
The point of my last post was merely to point out that we are losing much of what I value most like history, beauty, open space, community input, wild life, neighborhoods that reflect community etc.
Greed has been around long before I was, but it seems to be at the fore front of everything these days. It takes more money to do everything, and the cost is little or no time for friends, family, or loved ones.
Money isn’t important to me past paying my monthly bills, and an occassional dinner out, or a good movie, concert, or play. I’d much rather explore a good mountain top, enjoy the view, and weather permitting, take a nice hike on a wooded trail.
Sweeden huh? You know I had an ESL student from there. She told me that they have a strict limit on how many immigrants they let into their country. Hey, I just may consider a move there! I hear the Alps are beautiful~
Greedy is a very emotionally charged word, Bridget. And profit is not a four letter word. Using words like “greedy developers” is hardly the voice of reason, Bridget.
Some people scoff at Undeveloped Nations, but then turn around and insult developers as greedy. Your apartment was undoubtedly built by a developer, Bridget. Without developers, many of us might live in lean-tos or tents. I couldn’t build a house from scratch. Could you?
When you’re next killing some time, check out a geography book from the library and locate the Alps. Hint: don’t look in Sweden.
#49- I know the Alps aren’t in Sweden JMO, but greedy isn’t an emotionally charged word for some either. Undevelped nations, whether I can build a house or not, nor who built my apartment is the point either.
Homeowners, communities, landowners a like, should have input in what happens to and around them. Profits are fine as long as there isn’t gouging!
It seems to me that if we are going to invest in our city, it may as well be a place we like to live in.
Or may be we should take your suggestion and just move somewhere else. If we do that, instead of standing up for what we believe in, then where on the map do you think we should flee to when every city is doing the same thing?
Not to the Alps in Sweden, but rather to Switzerland! May be to the North Pole? Nope, the ice is too busy melting a way from global warming! That’s right! And we all know that making money, greed, and progress has nothing at all to do with that…..
Wow Single Gal.
I live in Chico Califora and was borned and raised in San Jose. I travel to San Jose just so I can go to the flea market!!
You should educate yourself before you slam the proposal to shut this place down.
You’re crazy!! Go to the flea market, buy some churros, get some corn, but some great finds.
The Flea market is a great market place especially if you love shopping in open-air markets.
I know nothing else in the world like the Flea Market in SJ.
I hope they keep it.
I live in the neighborhood adjacent to the flea market and let me tell you. I will throw a party once that place is shut down. My garage has been robbed twice in broad daylight (usually on Saturday afternoons – same time flea market is open) and my mailbox has been stolen from a number of times. Also the traffic congestion on weekends is a total mess!! The flea market may bring bargains for some but with that comes crime and headaches for the ones that live around it.