Last week, Council dove into a study session about street paving. As you may have heard, San Jose came in last on a national survey on road conditions. This survey was done prior to the $12 million in federal stimulus money that was allocated to San Jose for road paving this summer.
San Jose’s cost to maintain roads is high due to our suburban sprawl. Total lane miles in San Jose is double that of San Francisco, which came in second for worst roads.
San Jose has 2,370 miles of road (60 feet wide) that would stretch from here to Detroit! (Could you imagine if we continued on the notion to build out Coyote Valley and increase our road network plus the sidewalks, sewers, street lights and signalized intersections?) Those 2,370 miles of road are split between 1,570 miles of neighborhood streets and 800 miles of major streets. State and federal grants for street paving (if you get them) typically only apply to the major streets and not the majority of neighborhood 25-mph streets where we live.
Staff presented us with the dilemma that as streets wear down they are more expensive to repair. For example, to “reseal” a street in good condition may cost $35K-$70K per mile, however if a street is in poor condition the price rises to $200K-$800K a mile. Complete rebuilding of a street is the most expensive at approximately $1.8 million per mile! So transportation engineers do their best to with the limited dollars to try and keep streets from falling into poor condition.
Some streets are being left behind since they are so expensive to repair. So, thus a trade off: Do we fix one mile of a terrible street or instead 10 miles of streets that are in fair condition? Well, if you live on those 10 miles of streets it is great; however those on the one mile of terrible street are left behind.
Inevitably, the decision to repair, rebuild, etc., always turns to money. The city has lowered it’s road repair budget at the same time as other department budgets were being trimmed. As the structural budget deficit took hold and the portion of the pie chart for road paving got smaller, other portions of the pie chart, such as pensions, got bigger. One proposal on how to pay for the deferred maintenance backlog (streets only) of $250 million (which may swell to $1 billion by 2020) was an annual parcel tax of approximately $300.
A comparison is that many households pay $480 a year for basic cable TV or $600 for high speed Internet, so paying $300 for streets each year would be just be considered another household expense. The other factoid cited in favor of a parcel tax was that the annual cost for car repair due to poor roads is $700 a year.
Of course this $300 parcel tax was preliminary, and other parcel taxes may arise based on different properties, or a Council decision to charge a big-box store more since their store generates many car trips. Cities alone do not have the ability to raise gas taxes so parcel taxes, sales taxes or utility taxes are the main ways to raise revenue for ongoing expenses. Gas taxes make those who drive on roads pay for them; however some of the biggest culprits for wear and tear on streets—buses, garbage vehicles and commercial delivery trucks—are exempt by state and federal law from paying a fee to cities for the damage they cause.
One of my questions at the study session was: “Since the city council policy exempts affordable housing from paying construction taxes which go towards road paving, how much money have we lost and/or could have had in the coffers for street paving from affordable housing?” Unfortunately, staff did not have the answer readily available. I am aware that the city has lost approximately $80-$90 million for our parks with a similar exemption for affordable housing developers. My back-of-the-envelope calculation is we have lost out on approximately $30 million that could have gone to road maintenance.
I think it is important that we know these things since a council policy has cost implications. If we raise your taxes for road repair but then make exemptions for something else, then maybe the tax should be called an affordable housing tax instead of tax for roads or parks.
Here is a link to the staff presentation on road repair. Click on Pavement Maintenance (Street Paving) Study Session Presentation-October 12, 2010
You’re on the right track Pierluigi. But I would suggest that the Housing Department be entirely dissolved and the City use the money saved to keep our roads in good condition.
We need good roads. We don’t need a housing department.
And enough with the parcel taxes.
Agreed – Housing is one of those fuzzy departments that everyone thinks they need, so we have city, county, state and federal departments. What do we need a city housing department for? If its affordable housing or something, do it with planning based ordinances that require a certain percentage or in-lieu fees for project approval.
“Housing is one of those fuzzy departments that everyone thinks they need…” Not nearly so fuzzy as The Office of Cultural Affairs.
Although I often disagree with Councilmember Oliverio, I do respect his outspokeness. He is not afraid to challenge to status quo and strive for what is right for the City. We need more councilmembers like Pierluigi.
A $300 parcel tax?! Before 2/3 of our voters pass a measure like that, amoebas will grow arms and drive speed boats.
What is it about San Jose that makes it so damn special vis a vis needing more and more revenue? Look around – Campbell, Santa Clara, Morgan Hill to name a few locales, aren’t screwing their citizenry.
It must be purely a matter of Council priorities, past and present. I doubt whether many residents have any interest in pouring billions more into the downtown black hole. Instead, find a way to free up RDA funding to fix our ailing roads citywide.
Great question. I think those smaller cities provide good basic city services. San Jose continues to squander millions and millions on feel good social engineering projects. The city has also for as long as I can remember thrown billions into downtown San Jose because it was eventually suppose to provide a great tax base for the rest of the city, which it has never done. I remember 25 years ago having to replace my sidewalk because my city planted tree destroyed it. I payed for every cent of it and the reason my city council member gave me was that the money from downtown would eventually take care of these things but for now money was being spent downtown.
*** As the structural budget deficit took hold and the portion of the pie chart for road paving got smaller, other portions of the pie chart, such as pensions, got bigger.
Please DO NOT blame the Hard working City Employees for the lack of roadway paving funds.
Look in the mirror at bad money management by the City Administrators and at your special interest groups like *Team San Jose* that come to the City with their hands out begging for millions of taxpayers dollars.
The City workers deserve to retire after serving us for many years.
The road problems have been around for more than 45 years and have continually been deferred even when there was a massive glut in funds in decades past as the roadway conditions declined dramatically.
I agree wholeheartedly. But, we must also look in the mirror. Our ballot initiative system has also lead to poor “ballot box budgeting.”
How about we make the city council part-time with a commensurate pay cut? Do we really need a full time council and mayor, when we already pay a city manager six figures to do the job? How many staffers do you have on your office payroll Mr. Oliverio? Do you really need a Chief of Staff?
Alum Rock,
Absolutely agree with you. City council staff is bloated. We do not need full time council members with huge benefits and a 7,000 car allowance. Surrounding cities do just fine with part time council, paying them a stipend.
Don’t stop there. What about those County Supervisors that spend their time banning happy meals? Or our super productive State Legislature or life term Congress?
The $700 monthly car allowance was reduced to $100 effective July 1, 2010.
Harry Mavrogenes-SJRDA Exec 2009=$271,000, 2008=$266,000, 2007=$259,000
Janet Kern –SJ RDA Exec 2009=$217,000, 2008=$92,000
David Baum-SJ RDA Exec 2009=$UNK, 2008=$233,000, 2007=$205,000
Abi Maghamfar-SJ RDA Exec 2009=$198,000
Debra Figone SJ City Manager 2009=$304,000
Mayor and council’s senior staff make more then they do? (I think)
I’m not so worried about the County Supps, since the board is both a legislative and executive body. The waste is far more evident and pronounced at the city level.
Abi was terminated, so that his $198k could be spread out to cover the increses for Mavrogenes, Kern (it must have been $192k in 2008, not $92k), and Baum.
So, how do the top dogs justify pay increases when the RDA budget has decreased dramatically and they have terminated almsot half their workforce?
Wouldn’t it save everyone a lot of time if you’d just write “me too, Chuck!” and use that for every column?
Although you add a numbingly-predictable anti-affordable housing spin to his numbingly-predictable anti-labor spiel…I guess that makes it fresh content. Carry on.
I don’t understand the reason why homeowners get the shaft with parcel taxes just because they own property. If the road is shared by all, then tax EVERYONE.
I realize it’s easier to pass parcel taxes since renters will vote for it. Let’s not go into the Prop 13 debate, because I’m objecting to non homeowners having a say in taxing homeowners.
I agree. It seems as if every election there is a parcel tax for some cause or another. Granted, they usually are worthwhile (keep schools running), but I am tired of being “nickel/dimed” to death. So, no more yes votes on parcel taxes.
Somebody on this blog wrote that apartment parcels should be taxed on the number of apartments on that parcel. Now it is one homeowner pays the same as 1000 apartments. Make these things more equitable and I will reconsider my NO vote on new parcel taxes.
James,
I’m a renter and I vote NO on taxing homeowners for things that we all should share in. I am angry that the City has blown tax money on junk and ignored their duty to us by postponing projects so long it costs a fortune, and for spending money they shouldn’t have.
Our City leaders aren’t being honest or accountable for why our streets, libraries, community centers, and roads have gotten so bad. They should be ashamed for re-writting history.
Absolutely. We shouldn’t be able to vote on someone else’s taxes.
” I don’t understand the reason why homeowners get the shaft with parcel taxes just because they own property. If the road is shared by all, then tax EVERYONE.”
And I don’t understand why we are getting increased vehicle license fees at the state level to pay for the state parks. All vehicle taxes/fees should be spent on road related issues. We probably have 30 million+ cars who will get taxed to pay for the million or two users of the parks. Let the state park fees rise for those who use them.
P.O., your title for the story is wrong. It should have been “Worst Roads, but Great Affordable Housing”. Please don’t blame it on the pension fund, especially when the city failed to add their share of money during the good years. Maybe all that money should have been spent on the roads instead of all the other “special” projects. It sounds like generous breaks for affordable housing is the problem, its not entirely the city workers and their pensions.
Wrong Title?,
Thanks for your comment. Your statement is not completely accurate on pension funding.
The City of San Jose has always made its contribution to the police and fire pension fund on the 8 to 3 ratio otherwise known as a 250% match of the employee contribution.
However in Fiscal Years 1996-97 and 1997-98, the City made contributions of 92 percent and 96 percent of the total ARC for the Federated Plan (non sworn employees) for the following reasons: (1) the City opted to phase in a recommended contribution rate increase and (2) the City
elected to defer funding for reciprocity benefit provided in 1994 as the actuaries were unable to adequately value the liability because a lack of reliable data.
The link below has a chart that shows the city pension funding history.
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/pdf/ScheduleofEmployerContributions.pdf
P.O.
Your statement about the city always paying the 250% into the retirement system is false. Yes the city did meet the requirements to fully fund the pensions. That was shown in your link. Good try at miss leading the public again. You are loosing credibility very fast, with the smoke and mirrors the mayor and city council are doing.
I know this from a city memorandum I read in the mid to late nineties on retirement contributions. The city was lowering their contribution and the officers contributions were going up. This was due to the good times and great returns. In simple math terms the city didn’t pay it’s 250% as you say they have paid. I contacted the POA about the memorandum and was advised that, the city had the liability of the pension and could adjust their contribution. The officers had to pay their required amounts.
So tell the whole truth not just a small piece of the whole picture.
If the city had put the remainder of the contributions into a retirement reserve account for the bad times we might not be in as bad of shape today.
San Jose does not have great affordable housing. We have a token number of projects and units that create the illusion that there is affordable housing. Most working poor are forced to devise their own solutions to the high price of housing (living in garages, doubling or trippling up in units, commuting from Gilroy or farther.) As always, the greatest beneficiary of this (like other social service program) are the poverty professionals who draw high wages while only addressing the issue in token ways.
The best thing we can do to make housing affordable is stop subsidizing it.
Street paving should be done at the market price and not prevailing wage which is significantly higher. Palo Alto does not require prevailing wage and has nice roads. Do not settle for less services when we could get more.
Bulls@#t…
To compare SJ to Palo Alto is ridiculous. PA is much smaller and has a much higher tax base. The reason PA doesn’t have a prevailing wage is because they can simply ignore lower income folks because they don’t live in the city.
It’s really easy to single out prevailing wage as the culprit, but the reality is far more complex. Prevailing wage ensures that trades people can continue to make a decent living. We have far too much race to the bottom in this country.
Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt and the majority of the Palo Alto city council would disagree with you.
They would disagree that they have a much higher per capita tax base?? Or that they can just use East PA for cheap labor without incurring any of the costs of having poor people in their own city?
I take it you are referring to prevailing wage.
I like I said, using PA as a comparison to SJ is laughable. The limousine liberals in PA have the best of both worlds. They can enjoy their high tax base and lack of poor. We in SJ can’t. Do we pay less and force more folks in to poverty and reliance on social services or do we pay good solid wages (fair days pay for a fair days work)and build a community of people who work??
San Jose should pave roads and not overpay people with prevailing wage.
What’s laughable is that, at a certain point, economy of scale ought to enter the picture. It doesn’t, though, because, as I understand it, P.A. is a far more business-friendly city than S.J.
Just to further piss off Alum(Granite)Rock…Palo Alto City Council rolled out second tier pensions in the 2008-2009 legislative session, changing the forumla from 2.7% at 55 to 2% at 60. They did this with a majority vote of the council after a couple of public hearings and it was done.
If you compare unfavorably, rather than find excuses why the comparisons aren’t appropriate…maybe take away what you can learn to improve your own operations. SJ State can learn from Stanford, but at times, Stanford can learn from SJ State. Just because the comparisons aren’t always self-esteem boosting doesn’t mean we can’t take an honest look around for better methods…
I only get pissed at tax time, I’m in the top bracket. But, I’m still a Dem because I understand that taxation is the price we pay for civilization. That being said, government waste really, really pisses me off. And, there is a lot of it. But prevailing wage is not waste, its a policy meant to protection working class jobs for the race to the bottom. Why not just use illegals to pave the streets, it would be cheaper…
Blair, I’m not some out of touch loony, angry liberal, I’m a pro-blue collar/working class dem. I made it out of the East Side, because I got a good and free public school education. And, I like granite, I have some great counter tops made from the stuff.
As for the two-tier pension system, it’s a bad precedent. And, I’m all for looking at other cities for solutions, but we must also acknowledge the inherent differences in SJ vs. PA.
Unfortunately, we live in a era of race to the bottom in U.S. Since major corporations, with the help of both political parties in Washington have screwed their workers and stripped them of most of their protections and compensation, now people are after civil servants. What many of you posting on her don’t realize is that civil service is not some cushey job.
Here is a personal example. A good friend of mine was an ivy league tax attorney for a prestigious law firm in NY that helped large corps and rich individuals create complex off-shore tax dodges. One day, shortly after his first child was born, he quit and went to work at the IRS tracking down the vary same tax cheats he had been helping. At the firm he was making 350k+ with fully paid insurance and all that jazz. Today he makes 110K, pays a boat load for his “government” health care (which by the way is just blue cross/blue shield), has no pension (fed pensions where done away with in 1984 for non-military folks, fyi). The hours remain about the same. And, the R’s and Tea Party folks are constantly attacking his “overpaid” government job. And by the way, he has already paid the U.S. tax payer for his salary at least a hundred fold by discovering some really big cheats.
As a nation we are sliding backwards.
No, not literally true. Just a figure of speech. By “the same tax cheats” I meant just big corps, not specifically the same clients. He’s not violating attorney client privilege or any other part of the code of conduct.
‘he quit and went to work at the IRS tracking down the vary same tax cheats he had been helping.’
I certainly hope that was not literally true—that he went after the “very same tax cheats” that he had represented. That would be a HUGE ethical violation.
P.O.
You know I agree with you often BUT this looks like history re-written to mislead. I think you have it wrong and are once again scapegoating Unions for the failure of our City leaders. I do annual maintenance on my car so I DO NOT have to pay for huge costly repairs due to neglect. I take my cats and dog to the Vet for annual check ups to prevent huge Vet bills for illnesses that could have been caught early.
This City has spent and wasted millions of dollars on a City Hall we don’t need, and doesn’t even house all our departments as promised, golf courses that cost millions, you guys bought office furniture for City Hall, even though you are paing for storage rentals for warehouses FULL of used perfectly good furniture already, you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for crappy phone systems that you kept paying MORE for even though they weren’t working, and dumped MILLIONS into failed DT projects, etc.
In good financial times, instead of putting money into maintenance of streets, libraries, community centers, etc. money was spent on the FAILED Grand Prix, funding FAILED non profits, they continually postponed repairing community centers, building libraries, fixing streets, repairing Fire Houses etc. Because City Leaders postponed these projects, they NOW cost three to four times more than if they did it when it should have been done.
And let us not forget, YOU Guys Okayed City contracts!
Why are you shifting the blame for Council’s poor choices on spending habits and decisions, and Okaying contracts onto Unions? Take responsibility for your bad spending habits and stop shifting the blame so you can pass measures V and W falsely!!!!
“Why are you shifting the blame…” Jeez, finally an easy one. Because taking accountability would underscore the cozy relationships between Our Elected Leaders, their well-paid department heads and staff, and the organizations they supposedly oversee and/or serve—including, and most certainly NOT limited to labor, the Chamber, the Downtown Association, nonprofits… It’s much easier to demonize and blame city workers for accepting the offers made to them, than to step up and admit you, or your possible future employer, were wrong.
Kathleen Flynn,
Thanks for the comments and as always thank you for penning your comments with your real name on this blog for years :+)
Undoubtedly I believe most governments, business and individuals make spending decisions that are wasteful at some point or after time regretted. Difference is the amount of money and that government funds come from taxes. You raise many good examples about city of SJ spending and most were prior to my tenure like new city hall, furniture, cisco/nortel phone deal, golf courses and grand prix. However I would point out that Mayor Chuck Reed voted against the new city hall and the grand prix.
Since I have been on Council I voted against $1.6 million for Golf Nets, rallied against a software purchase and instead went with a hosted solution that helped the city save $1.475 million in cost avoidance, voted to sell the Hayes Mansion for Senior assisted living to pay of all the debt, voted for bankruptcy for Mexican Heritage Plaza, etc…
Inevitably I think no elected official will satisfy all constituents or interest groups but we hope they are fiscally prudent most of the time. When it comes to pensions the simple fact is we tried it but it does not work in the long term with a guaranteed rate of return and a 250% match. It may work with a lower guaranteed rate of return and/or a lower employer match.
See you soon.
P.O.
You are correct about these things being before your time, and about how YOU voted, but these expenses still exist. Why? Because you are out voted most of the time when you try to stop it.
Chuck Reed was the lone vote all along too, and that went against him when he ran for Mayor.
I’d like to see these things change now. I don’t agree with you guys spending a million bucks on a ballot measure when I believe you could have negotiated with Police and Fire first. I think this measure was rushed and that not enough thought was put into it.
Secondly, Police did give you what you asked for and have NEVER bypassed negotiations and asked for arbitration. The City is guilty of that…Not the Unions.
Pier,
Please knock if off with expecting everyone to use their full name. In the first place, many times we have absolutely no way to prove who someone is, even if they are using an ostensibly full name. One can easy make up a last name, or worse yet, use someone else’s first and last name. Secondly, there are plenty of people, who for whatever personal reasons, do not wish to give their full name. That is really none of your business and does not make their point any more or less valid. KGO, one of the countries most successful talk radio stations, insists on callers not using last names because of security issues.
Unless it is a policy of San Jose Inside, please stop putting the ridiculous ??? next to a commentator’s first name. What makes your action that much more silly is that you only do this with someone you disagree with. You sometimes seem like a very petty, pompous, insecure and vindictive type of person.
Tom?,
I respectfully disagree. Many have strong opinions on this blog and they should feel comfortable being associated with their comments. I especially appreciate the emails I get from individuals about my blog offline. My Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio Facebook page allows me to dialogue with people and I really enjoy knowing that is an actual person versus an interest group making statements. Similar that if I am at the grocery store and I speak with a resident about policy issues it is a more genuine discussion. The web has allowed for much faster disemination of information and for individuals to connect regardless of geography yet also allows for individuals or groups to hide from often hateful statements world wide not just SJI.
Pier,
“Many have strong opinions on this blog and they should feel comfortable being associated with their comments.” Pier, what someone should or should not feel comfortable with is not up to you to decide. They could have a very valid reason, which you have no idea about, as to why they do not want to post their last name. For you to put a question mark next to their name is, in my opinion, very unprofessional, especially in light of the fact you only do this with those who disagree with you. I really think if you are going to write a column, you should consider leaving out the silly question marks next to a poster’s name.
P.O., one thing you are neglecting to point out is the issue of competition – especially within public safety. Currently, there are many cities which offer wage/benefit packages which are superior to those offered by San Jose. One of the reasons why pay and benefits are what they are for public safety is that they are necessary to prevent premature attrition and to be competitive with other cities. This is very simple market economics which seems to be conveniently ignored by those who would seek to demonize San Jose’s public safety organizations for their pay/benefit packages – including the Mayor and the Council. Additionally, if San Jose adopts pay/benefit packages such as those in the private sector (such as a 401k instead of the current retirement program) I believe there would be devastating consequences. Please consider the following as you contemplate the Measure V and W issues:
1. Other agencies offer better wage/benefit packages i.e. Palo Alto
2. The candidate pool for new public safety employees is diminishing. There are fewer qualified candidates available.
3. As various agencies have to replace retirees and employees who make lateral transfers, competition to attract candidates from other agencies will (and has) become an increasingly prevalent packages.
4. A retirement program like a 401k will make lateral movement among agencies as prevalent as in the private sector, depriving agencies of a priceless stock in trade – stability and relations between officer/firefighters and the community.n
5. Lateral movement amongst agencies similar to that of the private sector would deprive agencies of one of their most precious resources: trust. Trust is built with time and shared experience and would be far harder to build with private-sector like movement.
Trust me, diminishing wages and benefits are the last thing the city should want for public safety. This last contract has already driven a handful of police officers from San Jose to Palo Alto, where both wages and benefits are far better.
” Additionally, if San Jose adopts pay/benefit packages such as those in the private sector (such as a 401k instead of the current retirement program) I believe there would be devastating consequences.”
So, what’s good enough for us poor private sector schmucks would be devastating for the public sector trough feeders? Hhhmm.
JMC,
Please refer to the five points I make. One of the mistakes which the City Council and many of public safety’s detractors make is to behave as though public safety kind of job as any other in the private sector and to act/speak in accordance with that erroneous belief. I believe that the five points I make above support my assertion.
However, let me add to the argument by adding this point: Many officers here would jump on the chance to convert our pension system into a 401k and to retire on that and Social Security, and the reason is simple. Many officers here in San Jose would use that portability to leave San Jose for agencies with simiar programs. In fact, for those officers who don’t have a significant investment of years with San Jose, they could probably justfiy going to another agency with a PERS retirement system (or similar) and taking their 401k with them.
After the way San Jose City Council ramrodded Measures V and W onto November’s ballot, the level of distrust that public safety has for the City Council and the City Manager is such that, with a private sector-type retirement, the city would probably start hemorrhaging police officers and firefighters to agencies whose city leadership hasn’t lost the trust of their employees, as San Jose’s has.
> After the way San Jose City Council ramrodded Measures V and W onto November’s ballot, the level of distrust that public safety has for the City Council and the City Manager is such that, with a private sector-type retirement, the city would probably start hemorrhaging police officers and firefighters to agencies whose city leadership hasn’t lost the trust of their employees, as San Jose’s has.
David:
The people of San Jose have many, many things to worry about.
This is NOT one of them.
The number of applications for every opening in the police or fire departments is overwhelming.
There is no shortage of people willing to take police or fire jobs in San Jose for a lot less in pay and benefits than the current incumbents are receiving.
Stop reading the union newletters and find out what’s going on in the real Obama economy.
Have a look at what happened last night. This is what I and others get paid for. This is why we have a good retirement. Without it, there is not one of your constituents that would have stood there toe to toe. They would have ran off crying like little girls. This is why you pay me and every other officer. To stand between your family and this piece of excrement.
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_16395730
So, our “City’s Finest” are doing it only for the retirement package. OK. Got it. :-(
L.P.
Thanks for grossly oversimplifying the issue. Of course it’s not ‘only for the retirement package’. But taking away the retirement package would almost certainly be a deal-breaker for most of is – if for no other reason than that the retirement package is what enables us to provide for our family if we should be killed in the line of duty,as could very easily have happened in the above-mentioned incident.
Core services decline as council priorities reflect political motivations over “bread and butter city services”. Getting elect to a legislative body like the city council is a big deal, especially for the candidate who now wants to make their mark, build something, change something, add a program, amend some contracts or what not. They also want to please powerful constituencies – like organized labor – who’s influence in elections trumps that of the silent masses of ordinary residents.
Paving the roads, operating parks and libraries – people want this, expect it and only really get riled up when it suddenly goes to pot. The slow decay of road maintenance meant that people just got used to lousy service in this area, so it wasn’t a dramatic plunge that spurred calls to council members.
That said, I’m actually a fan of dedicated revenue streams when said funds are used to get the job done. A tax increment or parcel tax that goes to roads (and only roads) would be worth a vote, but a trickle, not a flood of money seems wiser considering past practices (lack of trust in the people who find ways to redirect the funds or play shell games where they cut existing general fund contributions because of the funds from something like a benefit assessment district.)
A dedicated special tax would be a fix for the problem that reflects failure of elected political leaders to properly align finances with basic priorities. Sad, but perhaps needed.
I’d also suggest looking around at neighboring cities – Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Campbell, Saratoga, Los Gatos, even the county government. I suspect they are all shorting their street maintenance and share an similar problem. Aha! We have a collective problem that we could work on and address collectively!
How about a South Bay Regional Road Works Agency (keep it far away from VTA please, we know their record on overhead and performance issues.) Share capital equipment, technical skills and even work crews. Spin off each cities road works department to this regional agency and get some economies of scale. Get a cost per mile of paving down and the capabilities to do more year round with pooled equipment, talent and experience. Set benchmarks for the cities to repair so many miles of street per quarter and year, then get it done.
On a related note, how about competition among public agencies. Who runs the best agency in the county in terms of productivity and performance? Who has the worst? Lets create positive competition and share from “best practices” while learning together from failed practices. Regionalism means we don’t have to destructively compete in planning issues over stupid big box retail or corporate headquarters but can instead think outside the box and get our act together when it comes to building and maintaining a high quality community.
Have they spiked the Kool-aid at City Hall? We don’t have great roads but we have great pensions???
Since you said it, Mr. Oliverio, let’s see you back it up with some evidence. Our streets have been deteriorating for the entire decade of Chuck Reed’s service as mayor and council member, so I’m sure that Mr. Reed—that most enthusiastic of scapegoaters—can provide you with the budget records showing the transfer of road repair dollars to the pension fund. Oh, and while he’s digging through his records, maybe Mayor Belt-tightener can share his voting record on previous salary and pension issues.
The bottom line is that in the San Jose has envisioned by our present leaders, if the citizens want safe streets, smooth pavement, trimmed trees, and reliable police protection, let them drive around our new ballpark.
We should also ask Chuck how big his personal office staff is at the city? Why do we need a city manager and a full-time Mayor? Mr. Oliverio, how big is council office staff?
How about the cost of all his trips out to DC? He never travels alone, he has at least one SJPD officer accompany him.
Mr.Oliverio is only telling the truth and in my opinion is way too polite. Pensions will be bankrupting cities nationwide. In the meantime our neighborhoods deteriorate since more money goes to pensions then to road paving and cities increase fees on small business since it is a “fee” and not a tax. Read all about it at http://www.pensiontsunami.com/
Here is a great link to a long list of ridiculous things our city council has spent money on recently, such as over 320,000 on new hybrid cars and millions on misc consulting fees.
http://www.stopsjwaste.com/wasteful-spending/
Great link! Let’s add a full time council to the list. Why do we have a council, mayor, and a city manager?? Fine, keep the Mayor and Council, but git rid of the redundant city manager.
Mr. Oliverio,
It may suit well your politically motivated needs to continue to portray the City as the innocent victim of employee greed, but please understand that to those who’ve put emotion aside and examined the evidence the responsibility for the current mess in the police and fire retirement system can be seen as almost wholly belonging to the City.
I checked the link you posted above and found it typically deceptive, for while it does establish the City’s seventeen year track record of paying it’s contribution in full, the real story is not in the figures provided, but the one figure never mentioned—the one most pertinent to the issue at hand. For the sake of clarity I offer the following example.
Imagine a homeowner, one whose faulty porch led to the crippling of a letter carrier, trying to convince a judge that his mortgage company should be responsible for the paying the judgement awarded, and supporting his contention with a record demonstrating his seventeen year track record of paying his mortgage in full—never mentioning that it was he himself who allowed his home insurance policy expire. That’s in effect what you’ve done with your misleading link, Mr. Oliverio, as you have—ONCE AGAIN, neglected to acknowledge the City’s failure to ever address its very real liability under the provisions of the pension plan.
From its inception the pension plan acknowledged an obvious risk—that being a subpar return on the fund’s investment, and assigned the responsibility for the risk to the City (in exchange for a prosperity-related benefit). This risk was very much akin to the risk confronting the homebuyer—that of the rare disaster, a risk the responsible homeowner addresses by paying his insurance premium.
I would ask you for a link showing the City’s record of responsibly addressing this risk but I know such a record doesn’t exist. The City has never addressed this risk, not through insurance or a separate fund, choosing instead to cross its fingers and pray for prosperity (at least until the term of the current administration).
Well, the pension fund’s porch has collapsed and look at how you and Mayor Reed have reacted, choosing not an objective and fair investigation into the issue, but opting for a campaign of demonization.
I would guess that over the decades not more than a handful of our police and fire fighters ever had a clue of their employer’s risky practices, making all the more disgraceful your efforts, as well as those of Mayor Reed, to paint these people who put their lives on the line as repulsively greedy and recklessly irresponsible. You have caused real harm, all without offering any real solutions.
And you honestly consider yourself a reformer?
Mr./Mrs. BS,
The data I provided about the city funding the pensions is accurate. This question comes up again and again. We discussed this question at the public meetings being held on pensions and that are attended by labor union reps and residents and the notion was refuted. You should come to the next one Nov 3, at 6:30 PM…..I will save you a seat.
Was this response generated by a human or is it the work of a computer program, set to stay-on-message? I ask because the first sentence, defending the accuracy of the linked data, addressed a non-issue: I did not dispute its accuracy, I challenged your elevating its relevance to the current situation at the expense of the true problem, that of the City’s inexcusable failure to fund its liability.
As for the suggestion that I attend a meeting, I ask: why should I go to a meeting to ask a question that you have repeatedly refused to answer here? THIS IS THE FORUM OF YOUR CHOOSING. To require me to disrupt my schedule and attend a meeting, where I might hope that you would respond to a question that arose from an exchange you initiated here, is arrogant, insulting, and quite revealing about how you view yourself in relation to us mere citizens.
Why ask politicans to help spend your hard earned money? They are not money saver. Keep the government minimum and learn to do the task yourself. San Jose and Santa Clara has been asking for parcel tax here and there. I cannot believe my property tax this year. It is 20% more than last year. And the tax rate is 20% more than Sunnyvale! Do we even getting a better living environment than Sunnyvale? No. What is the difference, a small city vs a huge city with blotted everything.
I don’t believe those cost quoted for street repair is a true figure. Get a bid with no union workers, I am sure you can cut the cost to 1/5 of the current. Even current price has a huge variation. Here is also another plot, if you don’t fix the street, the cost of your car repair will be $700 more. Who did the study for this? What kind street is consider bad? I don’t trust these numbers, it seems to favort more tax to pay for road repair. People are already paying too much for cable tv and high speed internet, why pay for road repair which should be covered by our regular tax already? When the governement spend every penny of your tax dollar, they want more? When does that end? With all the recent tax increase, do you get a better government or worse? Ask the government to live in its means!
nice “show me the benefit” comment on new taxes.
Did PO say that it cost $1.2MM to build 1 mile of road? I think China builds High Speed Rail for less than that!
Here is an easy methodology for determining if San Jose is getting its money’s worth for what it spends on road services. I have actually worked through this process so if it astounds you, please inform the Great Oz(s) at 5th/Santa Clara.
First: Take a pothole. An average pothole on an average residential street. Pothole specs upon request.
Go to OSH – buy a 50# bag of asphalt. It will cost approx $8. Take it home, put in wheelbarrow along w/ broom, small shovel and heavy metal stamper (a pole w/ metal smasher on the end).
Locate pothole to be filled. Sweep out dirt, toss in appropriate amount of asphalt, pack down asphalt. Move on to next pothole.
Or – – – – –
Call the city and please note that each (*) indicates an employee task or one part of the expense involved. Someone* will refer you to the proper department and when reached that person* will take a report* which will be passed on and reviewed* by a supervisor* who in turn will relay it to the Street department* who will schedule a Work Order* which will initiate first an inspection review* which will have to be authorized* and then a team (could be more than one person)* will go to the site of the pothole* and prepare a report* which will generate another work order* for a city street repair crew to be schedualed* to undertake the repair process which will necessiate no fewer than a crew of 5 (inc supervision) and minimum of two vehicles and fill* abovementioned pothole. This crew will no doubt pass numerous other potholes in route to the designated pothole but will avoid those until further work orders.
This second pothole filling methodology does entail a greater workforce but (and this I was told by Head of Transportation) they are “professional.”
I don’t know the exact number of personnel it takes to fill a pothole but they must be professionals as I am certain that they are all well paid, rec good benefits and can add a lot to their retirement funds w/ each pothole.
When the good citizens have to cough up over $1BB for $500MM City Hall that should have cost no more than $300MM – it is safe to assume that the cost of getting our potholes swept out, filled in and packed will be a bit on the brutish side.
The city demands that property owners plant trees in the park strips for our “Green Image” and then has the root balls to make the citizenry pay for any tree damage to the sidewalk.
If the council has the cutzpa to even think about a parcel tax for street repair – then the next step would be to go truly green and recycle that tall cheesy aluminum box down there on Santa Clara Street.
If anyone is old enough on this blog…? You may remember that up until about 25 years ago the City Council was *all voluntary* after being voted in to office they got a $250 a year allowance for extra’s. I agree with AlumRock,Wrongtitle and Kathleen mostly… I also agree with the rest of you too.
P.O. Your heart is in the right place, but don’t muddy the water with nonsense deflection dribble as so many on council do.
You guys use a lot of big words that really don’t mean anything in the end. They are used to try and confuse the less educated, making them think you answered their question, but really didn’t because you were double talking them, *like I’m doing right now* This is also known a “Jive Talkin”. In the words of Mr.T, I Pity the Fool who does that to any constituent. It IS your job to make sure you please us all. That’s why your in office.
I would like to see the Voluntary status and $250 a year come back into play. That means Council Members would have to get real jobs… As I remember an old Council friend of mine Joe Colla had a real job… He was a Pharmacist for many years. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Old Frank
Those, like myself, who believe that City pensions and benefits are too high did not suddenly develop this belief when the economy turned south. A guaranteed six figure income after retirement was way too much in 2004- and we said so then- and it’s way too much now. It wasn’t fair to taxpayers then and it isn’t fair to taxpayers now.
Who is to blame? I don’t blame the workers for simply taking what they’re offered. I blame the City leaders whom we taxpayers entrusted to get us a good deal for our hard earned dollars but instead betrayed that trust by blowing it on an unneeded City Hall, the Hayes Mansion, golf courses, AND…. unneccessarily generous pay and benefits for City workers- the bulk of whom have jobs in “public safety”.
Pierluigi is not “demonizing” or “scapegoating” the unions. He’s just trying to get a fair shake for his constituents.
Dear Mr. Oliverio,
You, your fellow city council members, and the mayor, have done virtually nothing to bring more business to San Jose and expand the tax base. You have continued on with ridiculous social programs and other pet projects.
Also, please let us know if you are carrying Mr. Reed’s jock strap as usual and endorsing Larry Pegram? I am very curious about your position, seeing that Mr. Pegram is both anti-gay and anti-marijuana.
King Tut?,
I agree with the President of the Police Union that police is more important then the Healthy Neighborhood Venture Fund (HNVF) which is an example of a social program. Only Pete Constant and I have voted against this in the past.
The city does not create jobs however there has been some success in recruitment and retaining companies:
http://www.sjredevelopment.org/PressRoom/BrocadeRelease090910.pdf
http://www.sjredevelopment.org/PressRoom/BaxanoRelease082510.pdf
Plus Atheros moving their headquarters from Sunnyvale to San Jose which is 1,458 employees world wide and I would guess at least 500 employees are in SJ. Several solar start-ups like Solopower, Stion and Nanosolar.
This is why I wrote my memo on the upcoming RDA budget and how to spend the limited RDA dollars we have:
http://www.sjredevelopment.org/Finance/FY20102011/BD4EconomicDevelopment.pdf
As far as my endorsements in the current city council races I am not endorsing anyone.
I thought I had posted something yesterday morning, but I guess like what the City leaders do, it was deleted or ignored because it may not have gone with the with the moderator and P.O.‘s personal protocols. But it was well within the posting policy.
Old Frank
John Galt,
Were it the case that Mr. Oliverio was just trying to get a “fair shake” for his constituents his approach to this issue—assuming he possesses the cognitive ability, would have been one of thorough, objective analysis, rather than obfuscation and finger-pointing. From the start, his treatment of this very serious issue has been so empty-headed and alarmist as to be all but indistinguishable from that of our local news reporters. While I agree with you regarding six-figure retirement benefits—as well as your continued defense of the taxpayers’ interests, where I disagree is in your apparent agreement Mr. Oliverio’s simplistic analysis and his inane approach to reform (through ballot measures).
Nothing will improve, not in the current system or in any second, third, or even forth tier scheme, until our elected and appointed leaders acknowledge the true cause of our current problems, that being the City’s failure to responsibly address the risk it assumed as guarantor of fund growth projections. This was a risk it assumed from the start, and had it been addressed then, when obligations were modest, contributions huge, and growth potential enormous, or even later, when the booming tech economy created the fund surpluses that led to the leap in pension benefits of the past decade, there would be no crisis today.
I have made this point several times on this blog, often in direct response to Mr. Oliverio’s posts on the subject, yet, to date, the councilman has not once responded or even acknowledged that there was more to this issue than greedy cops and firefighters. Instead, he speculates about reform proposals, such as a dollar-for-dollar 401k, that are so out of proportion and absurd as to expose him as someone who hasn’t a clue about the complex and very serious challenges involved in staffing a police department. Getting competent cops using such bargain basement enticements is not possible, but to suggest it is goes far in appeasing the angry and resentful element of the voting public. In exchange for his cheap politics we’ve achieved nothing but infuriating the cops and firefighters already struggling with understaffing.
None of this was necessary. We needed (and deserved) a professional approach to the pension issue, but Mr. Oliverio preferred to come in like a gunslinger, shooting from the hip and making a big racket, all the while being damn careful not to point his gun at City Hall, where the real outlaws are holed up.
Actually a 401k type retirement plan sounds like a great idea, not “out of proportion” and “absurd”.
Joe,
Your comment loses its intended significance for the simple reason that what I called absurd was the notion of a “dollar-for-dollar” 401k, a distinction that you ignored for reasons I can only guess at. However, if it is the case that you believe a dollar-for-dollar pension system is a viable solution, then I would ask you on what you base that conclusion? Is it some actual knowledge of prevailing or historic compensation standards, or is it, as is apparently the case with Mr. Oliverio, an idea that merely sounds good, like dollar-a-gallon gas?
Police pensions evolved as one part of a comprehensive approach to elevating the field to a profession, one with much-needed training and performance standards, and one that offers the incentives (job and financial security) necessary to keep the ever-present forces of corruption at bay. Anyone who thinks that honest, competent law enforcement, especially in these times of politically compromised hiring and promotion, can be bought for a dollar-to-dollar pension promise is clueless as to the history of policing, not to mention human nature.
Good point. Police compensation most also be viewed with a mind to fighting corruption. Show me a department with low pay and benefits, I’ll show you a lot of corruption… New Orleans certainly comes to mind.
Your notion that pensions are necessary to attract “competent” personnel is ridiculous. Many professions attract quality people, none of which offer pensions. And don’t tell me this profession is different, or nobler than any other.
So would you cut military pensions? Since no profession is nobler than another.
FYI. Military personal are among the only Feds who can still get a “true” pension these days. In 1984, Congress, a democratic controlled one at that, moved the federal new hires to a defined contribution plan, TSP, basically a 401k.
The voters will speak this November.
“The voters will speak…”
and they will do so without Mr. Oliverio, the author of the pension measure, ever demonstrating the integrity to address the true weakness in the pension structure, or admit the actual cause for much of the current problem.
If that’s the reckless way you like to use you vote, have it. You’re certain to have lots of company.
BSM,
I haven’t always agreed with you, but I truly appreciate your logical approach and your commitment to trying to obtain some intellectual honesty on the topic. In particular, I thank you for the following: “Instead, he speculates about reform proposals, such as a dollar-for-dollar 401k, that are so out of proportion and absurd as to expose him as someone who hasn’t a clue about the complex and very serious challenges involved in staffing a police department. Getting competent cops using such bargain basement enticements is not possible, but to suggest it is goes far in appeasing the angry and resentful element of the voting public. In exchange for his cheap politics we’ve achieved nothing but infuriating the cops and firefighters already struggling with understaffing.
None of this was necessary. We needed (and deserved) a professional approach to the pension issue, but Mr. Oliverio preferred to come in like a gunslinger, shooting from the hip and making a big racket, all the while being damn careful not to point his gun at City Hall, where the real outlaws are holed up.”
I truly appreciate the logic and reason you bring to so many of the posts on SJI.
Can someone please tell me (or provide a list) of the “worst streets” in San Jose.
I drive the streets of southeast San Jose all the time (Senter Rd, Capitol Expwy, Aborn, White, etc.) and find them to be in good position.
Not saying that bad roads in San Jose don’t exist, but let’s see the evidence people before bashing everything from pensions to ballparks.
The reality is that the “Worst Roads” designation dealt primarily with San Jose freeways and state highways, which are outside the realm of city finances.
Since the report, 101 through San Jose has been nicely repaved, which was third-world status prior to the improvements.
BS Monitor:
Thank you for providing a complete and honest assessment of the issue. Like many on this board, I suspect Mr. Oliverio chooses not to engage you much like a local JC football team chooses not to scrimmage the SF 49ers. His approach intentionally lacks depth, moves quickly, and avoids a careful study of commitments made by the CSJ. The citizens and public safety of SJ deserve better than this.
BS Monitor,
Nobody respects your opinion more than I do and nobody appreciates a good analogy as much as I do but like everything else it can be examined from more than one perspective.
From my point of view Pierluigi is the insurance auditor who has payed a visit to the house in question, taken a quick glance at the porch (the pension program), was appalled by the shoddy construction that had led to the injury of the letter carrier, and has now given the homeowner (the City) notice that his insurance policy will be cancelled unless the porch is torn down and replaced with a solid, self supporting structure. The insurance company (the taxpayers) will make good on it’s duty to pay the exorbitant claim of the letter carrier but is unwilling to continue to cover the risk of future letter carriers who climb onto such a hazardous and rickety structure.
John Galt,
Believe me, I can understand being “appalled” by the enormity of the immediate problem, but the trouble with the “quick glance” approach to problem solving is that it typically creates more problems, and that is what I am convinced Mr. Oliverio will do with his knee-jerk measure.
As I’ve explained previously, the structural weakness in the pension plan was the assumption that each and every city administration would accept its contractual and moral responsibility to protect the plan (and the public) from the effects of a sudden and severe downturn in the financial sector. That faulty assumption (one that possibly could not have been predicted by the plan’s creators—city leaders of a time when fiscal responsibility was accepted as a mandate), if allowed to go unrecognized, is all but guaranteed to be inserted, like a time bomb, into whatever second-tier solution might be produced by Mr. Oliverio’s schoolgirl approach to problem-solving.
Remember, the solution he promised was a plan that would augment responsible negotiations with the fiscal expertise of an “actuarial,” neglecting to acknowledge, or perhaps even unaware, that the plan has always relied on actuarial expertise. The weakness has never been a lack of objective expertise, and since it is impossible to guarantee (or even define) responsible negotiations, the sum total of what Mr. Oliverio has thus far offered has been hot air.
The question I’d like answered by the councilman or the mayor is this: Is there any evidence that in past negotiations the City has shared with either the actuarial or the employee bargaining group the state of its ability to meet its contractual obligation? In other words, is there a shred of truth to the now widespread belief that our pension woes are due to the irresponsible demands of employees, or have they, along with the actuarial and the public, had no choice but to negotiate in the dark with a City playing fast and loose with fate?
What city leaders are today proposing as reform is, in reality, the right to expand the darkness, and protect itself from the light of arbitration. This is the same City that tried, decades ago, to get its mitts on some of the riches of the fund, hoping to solve its day-to-day problems by dipping into the employee’s piggy bank. Had they succeeded then, the pension fund shortages would have been so severe as to have bankrupted San Jose with the first dip in the economy, back in the days when Chuck Reed was still approving labor contracts.
> In other words, is there a shred of truth to the now widespread belief that our pension woes are due to the irresponsible demands of employees, or have they, along with the actuarial and the public, had no choice but to negotiate in the dark with a City playing fast and loose with fate?
I think you are hinting at what is an inherent problem of electoral democracy:
every politician or defacto policician sitting accross the bargaining table from the public employees union undoubtedly believed in the back of their minds that by the time the payments came due for their generous and unsustainable promises, they would have long since been promoted by grateful voters to a more magnificent and dignified office, and their crazy promises would be a problem for some other poor sap.
Any politician NOT making generous and unsustainable promises is denied the political support of the employees unions and will never make it to that next more magnificent and dignified office.
In a system that allows powerful public employee unions to “collectively bargain” with elected politicians (thank you Jerry Brown), politicians are faced with the dilemma of “lie (about financial reality) or die”.
The politicians occupying today’s magnificant and dignifed offices are undoubtely those who lied at yesterday’s bargaining table.
Let me see if I can synopsize what you are saying there BS Monitor. Two families live side by side. Both breadwinners work for the same company in the identical profession, with the same title, and who receive the same compensation. For a period of years their company experiences an unexpected surge in business and profits soar. The company decides to reward their hard working employees with dividend checks paid out monthly over those following good years. The Smith family takes those dividend checks and pays off one of their car loans. Then when the checks keep coming, they pay off their credit cards and then begin banking the checks knowing that sooner or later the hard earned rewards might very well cease.
The Jones family takes their dividend checks and immediately goes out and buys a boat. As the checks continue to roll in they decide to take their kids to a wellness center and have them attend self-esteem courses coupled with yoga classes. Finally the Jones starts giving frequent parties inviting people that they hope to develop a friendship with by lavishing fine wines, expensive foods, and a newly redecorated home on them.
Finally the day comes when there is an unexpected downturn in the economy and the company profits plummet. Not only to the dividend checks stop, but both the Smith and the Jones family take significant pay cuts. The Smith family rides out the economic storm, the Jones family starts beating their kids.
I think anybody can guess which family represents the City of San Jose.
” however if a street is in poor condition the price rises to $200K-$800K a mile. Complete rebuilding of a street is the most expensive at approximately $1.8 million per mile! So transportation engineers do their best to with the limited dollars to try and keep streets from falling into poor condition.”
So, has anyone in the city/county/state examined why it costs so much to build roads? Couldn’t be the work rules that result in half the guys on the job standing around watching the new hires doing the grunt work, could it? Multiple pieces of very expensive equipment idle for great portions of the day while “Juan” hand digs with a shovel.
Nobody moves fast during a road build, and many people don’t move at all for much of the “work”day. Did you ever watch a public construction project for four hours or so? It’s a symphony of inefficiency, a study in how to hire too many people to do the work, so that there’s lots of idle time for much of the crew.
JMO,
You and I both know that a large part of the cost results from holding those shovels in the upright position. I believe it was you, sometime back, who suggested that we instead buy shovels that stand up by themselves.
BS Monitor took over 20 paragraphs to make one point; politicians guaranteed returns to pension funds, never addressed that risk, and the taxpayers are now on the hook.
Examples: “an obvious risk- a subpar return”…“the City’s failure to address the risk it assumed as guarantor of fund growth projections.”…“the risk of a severe downturn was never addressed”…and on and on.
There was also the notion that unions “negotiate in the dark” and didn’t know if the City had the “ability to meet its contractual obligation”. Guess what, the City’s representatives didn’t know either. Do you think anyone knows what the City’s financial position will be in 30 years? 20 years? 10 years? Don’t you think it’s a little suspicious to promise benefits that have to be paid by generations not even born yet?
Right or wrong, the promises made can’t be kept, it’s impossible, it’s a fact. The promises have grown too large, the costs too much for our ever-shrinking taxpayers to bear. One side is arguing details (actuarial numbers, returns, risks, guarantees, retirement ages, etc.). The other side is arguing the difference between collective, subsidized and guaranteed retirement packages for public employees versus what the rest of us manage in our own lives.
The dot.com bubble burst.
The housing bubble burst.
Nothing like the unholy alliance of criminal/incompetent democrat politicians and union thugs getting together for their mutual benefit and screwing the taxpayer into the ground.
The pension bubble will burst or else the municipalities will go bankrupt.
Blood, turnip, et al
I agree, he’s coward and will be shallow if he does respond to you.
Joe Average,
Good job of counting… now maybe you can tally up how many times my “one point” has been addressed by Mr. Oliverio. The good news is you can do it without tying up your fingers.
You stated that the City’s negotiators didn’t know about the unfunded risk. How do you know that, and if you really do, then maybe you can identify just who in the City administration knew of it? So far, no one has stepped forward.
You say, “Right or wrong, the promises made can’t be kept, it’s impossible, it’s a fact.” Thanks for being the first person to get part of my point: no, the promises can’t be kept. Now, how about trying to get the second part of my point, that being that without addressing the first point our so-called reformers will certainly repeat it? In other words, the key to true pension reform is a system that restricts the City’s options (just as the current system has always restricted those of the employees). All parties to the reformed agreement must be locked in to their obligations (something I guarantee that our political leaders—always protective of their slush funds, will desperately try to avoid).
At least we’re finding some common ground.
No one knows the unfunded risk, that’s the point. Any person who presumes to know is dangerous, or a crook.
Your second point, how do we not repeat the mistake? It’s simple, stop making/accepting promises. Eliminate pensions. Pay what is required to retain quality “public servants”. When they save enough, retire.
Joe Average,
I love your simpleton approach, “When they save enough, retire.” That approach is laughable. Good luck finding qualified professionals with your “give a damn” approach to retirement. The Bay Area is obviously one of the most expensive places to live in the country. I am glad that while our politicians may be alot of things, they are not willing to cut off their noses to spite their face. And, thank God that you do not represent “Joe Average” either.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_16389852
This is ridiculous. This money should be put towards paying off the future payouts that are non funded. The entitlement society built on taxpayers.
> At issue is an unusual “supplemental retiree benefit reserve” payment that gives retired city workers a 13th check on top of their monthly pension payment in years when investment returns exceed expectations.
This is absolutely, totally nuts!!
So, in good years, retirees benefit from the upside of a good investment portfolio, but in bad years the city and the taxpayers eat the losses.
The government geniuses negotiating this kind of juice for retired employees are purely and simply crooks.
There is absolutely no justifiable benefit to the city, to current employees, to taxpayers, or to the citizens of San Jose for these payments.
It’s just a matter of the insiders being able to get away with it.
Democrat fearmongers since Franklin D. Roosevelt have shreiked against investing Social Security funds in the stock market because “retirement shouldn’t be a casino”. Yet, here are the same big government leeches sucking up THEIR stock market profits, but enjoying protection from stock market losses.
If God had listened to me, He would have arranged that every liberal hypocrite would at least suffer jock itch, or constipation, or something.
> So, in good years, retirees benefit from the upside of a good investment portfolio, but in bad years the city and the taxpayers eat the losses.
> The government geniuses negotiating this kind of juice for retired employees are purely and simply crooks.
Hmmmm. Where have we heard of this kind of trickeration before?
I know! I know!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy
After learning of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s asonishing virtuosity as a cattle future’s trader, “wise guys” explained the miracle of the loaves and fishes:
some kindly cattle futures broker gave Hillary a little “help”; he “arranged” the trades so that those contracts that made money were assigned to Hillary’s account, and those that lost money were assigned to the account of J. Sucker Dumbclod.
Some prissy moralists thought that what Hillary and the kindly broker did might have been naughty.
it’s like taking away the GI Bill after a war veteran has served their country and were promised that they would get it after they did their time in combat. Politicians like Reed and Council are really screwed up.
It seems that none of these people have EVER worked for a living, mowed a lawn, washed a car or anything that entails getting your hands dirty to survive, they had other servants do do that for them.
Soooo…. Retiree’s in their eyes don’t deserve anything more / extra for faithfully serving the citizens of San Jose for decades because Reed says so.
> it’s like taking away the GI Bill after a war veteran has served their country and were promised that they would get it after they did their time in combat.
Ummm. No.
It’s more like stealing from the taxpayers.
Retirees were never promised at the start of their career a “bonus check” it was passed by union elected city council in 2001. Public employees have much better benefits than our military.
This insistence by Pierluigi that commenters not use pseudonyms demonstrates a real lack of understanding of the deliberative process. (Ever heard of the Federalist Papers, Pier?) What difference does it make if a commenter might be a member of an interest group? Pierluigi should be considering the arguments and comments objectively on their own merits- not on what he suspects is the motivation behind them.
And another thing. Though I happen to agree with him on the issue of runaway employee pensions, I have genuine misgivings about his committment to REPRESENT his constituents when he insists that they attend council meetings before he will consider their opinions. Isn’t the whole point of having a reprentative form of government to relieve the entire citizenry of having to physically be involved in every single governmental decision?
J.G. I suspect that neither P.O. nor any of the rest of the City Council has read the Federalist Papers, or John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government or any of the other amazing scholarly works which informed the Founders as they deliberated on laying the framework of governance for this great nation of ours. And, I’d wager dollars to donuts taht Debra Figone wasn’t exposed to those great works as she was working on her B.A. in French or her M.A. in Public Adminsitration.
John,
Not insisting on names just a preference.
On your other point yes we have a representative democracy so not everyone must attend meetings. However my point was that if I share data from the meeting that I attend to residents and an anonymous entity disagrees with the data or wants to dispute the author of the data like the City Auditor, Retirement Board, Director of Finance,etc.. then an individual has a right to come the public meeting and question/comment. My goal is to let people know we have meetings to increase the attendance from residents rather then people who are paid to attend. Just yesterday at the public safety finance committee we had a paid lobbyist that urged the committee that 2nd Tier pensions are a bad idea and instead remain with the status quo on pensions.
> This insistence by Pierluigi that commenters not use pseudonyms demonstrates a real lack of understanding of the deliberative process. (Ever heard of the Federalist Papers, Pier?) What difference does it make if a commenter might be a member of an interest group? Pierluigi should be considering the arguments and comments objectively on their own merits- not on what he suspects is the motivation behind them.
Exactly so.
Also exactly the reason we have a secret ballot for elections, a practice which the unionists would dearly love to do away with.
It is very common in the Age of Obama for people to be punished for saying, writing, or thinking things that the ruling class doesn’t like.
The ruling class has become so open and brazen about squashing people they don’t like that they now have no hesitation about doing it in public.
Ask Juan Williams how things work over at NPR (National Propaganda Radio).
Eliminate the loophole of exempting affordable housing from paying fees for road maintenance. After you fix this and the pensions then ask me to pay more in taxes for roads.