Prior to Mayor Reed, the City of San Jose would amend the General Plan (GP) approximately seven to twelve times a year; which equates to about once every month, give or take. During this time, about 1,200 acres of industrial land were converted to residential housing. As a result, the City lost 1,200 acres of land that could have been home to jobs. A sizable percentage of the 1,200 acres was in my district.
Since 2007, the City hears GP changes twice a year. With the adoption of the conversion policy (which provides a process for land zoning conversion) the council hears far fewer amendments regarding changing industrial zoning to residential.
Last Tuesday, the council had the Fall GP Hearing. This meeting continued past midnight and covered a litany of land use situations, some of which are listed below:
• Transit oriented development on the periphery of Downtown.
This item moved forward with unanimous support.
• Revitalization of two strip malls with the addition of housing in Evergreen and another on Hillsdale Ave.
Both these items moved forward with unanimous support.
• Infill development of 35 executive homes next to Silver Creek.
This item moved forward with unanimous support.
• Church locating in an industrial area.
This issue was approved with a 9-2 vote, with Vice Mayor Chirco and myself voting against it. (I voted against it because it does not conform to our GP and ends up creating a domino effect of converting the adjacent industrial parcels over time.)
Most of these items will be back before the Council one more time during the zoning process for the final details like architecture, lot sizes, height, parking, etc…
Scroll down and select the meeting to view. The agenda for that specific meeting will come up and you can jump to that particular agenda item to hear what was said.
San Jose Council actions speak louder than any words
1) Council year after year gives dozens of exceptions to General Plan and zoning for residential development while other cities go after jobs which pay for needed city services and limit housing
2) Council year after year raises taxes on businesses higher and higher than other cities and is SURPRISED San Jose has less and less jobs and businesses and more traffic jams as residents drive to other cities for jobs
3) Council year after year gives 10’s millions taxes to non profits, developers and corporations while basic services are reduced or not done
4) City Staff year after year makes getting city approves most difficult in SCC
5) Council year after year gives city staff high salaries, benefits and retirement for below average financial management and 10 years of budget deficits
6) Council year after year builds more affordable housing which makes budget deficit worst
Council names change but year after year stupidity and mis-management continues
RIGHT ON!!!
While the public is allowed access to past council meetings and other commissions/committee meetings, we are not allowed to view the discussions on salary/benefits for City employees.
This is a shame since so much of the City General Fund is spent on on salary/benefits.(2/3 of the fund I believe? Correct me if I’m wrong) I personally would like to hear the discussion since 1) My taxes go into the General Fund and 2) I may like to contribute ideas that may not have been considered in response to some of the tough choices our Mayor/Council/bargaining units have to discuss.
It’s my understanding that the fire union was asked a while back to make the discussion public but they refused. I wish they would reconsider since the reality is we are all in this together. I sincerely do not believe anyone wants to create an unliveable situation for any City employee. Residents simply cannot bear more service cuts and raising taxes will only get ua so far.
Tina
Let’s follow the Obama administration model. They just had a hearing on government openness and sunshine, which naturally was closed to the public and reporters. Aren’t politicians great?
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5joOOsTVD57lFwm_InpZY_nRbg4KQD9CE3SEG0
“Transit oriented development on the periphery of Downtown”
Is this the 150 foot development at Sunol and San Carlos? If so, I question the “transit oriented” nature of this development. It’s next to a light rail line where there is basically zero chance of the VTA installing a new light rail stop.
There are no safe ways to walk or bicycle to the two nearest light rail stops at Race St or Diridon station from this development.
“There are no safe ways to walk or bicycle to the two nearest light rail stops at Race St or Diridon station from this development.”
Oh, please! NO SAFE WAYS?? Are you saying the exisitring city streets are unsafe? If yes, what makes them unsafe? People have used those streets for decades, and this is the first that I’ve heard that they are unsafe. Please enlighten me. How has this important public safety information been suppressed for so long?
Try walking from Sunol to Race St after dark and tell me you feel safe.
Bicycling the roads in this area involves taking your life in your own hands. There are no bicycle lanes, the roads are mostly narrow with cars parked on both sides.
I maintain my statement: there are no safe paths from this development to either light rail station.
San Jose has too many people already. No more rezoning to residential please.
Also, the last thing we need to be doing is attracting more people who are looking for a handout, and by definition, that is exactly what “affordable housing” does.
Let the market decide the cost of real estate.
Can we also allow the market to decide how much housing to build? (How much land to zone for each use and how densely people are allowed to build.) Supply is part of the market, after all.
“Let the market decide” doesn’t work very well when the government sets production quotas.
As I said, quit converting non-residential to residential. And quit filling pockets in medium density areas with high-density housing.
Zone responsibly, which includes considering the interests of existing owners. Let the market work.
Firefighters offered to have public labor negotiations
Opinion: San Jose should negotiate all contracts in public
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13839099?nclick_check=1
The problem with this proposal is that it does not go far enough. Let’s open all the city’s contract negotiations to the public.
Union leaders are happy to negotiate with the city publicly as long as the rules apply to all the city’s business dealings. A massive infusion of sunlight into all the city’s secret negotiations, backroom deals and closed-door confabs would go a long way toward cauterizing the wounds responsible for the hemorrhaging of our municipal treasury.
But it’s never enough. Today there are 11 percent fewer total public employees than in the
year 2000. Yet our budget ills persist.
Why doesn’t the City Council demand that city contracts with developers, lawyers, consultants and others be renegotiated as well? And it should all be done in public. Why, just last year, the city manager and other council appointees spent over $50 million in discretionary expenditures with little to no disclosure of the negotiations involved in those transactions.
Let’s make it easy for the public by posting the amount and work scope for every one of those transactions on the city’s Web site. I’m sure many are meritorious, but the point remains: The city should welcome the same scrutiny Oliverio wishes to impose on labor negotiations.
Unions are not afraid of conducting our business in public. We are democratic organizations that answer to our members, and we’re proud of our role in providing high-quality city services to our fellow San Joseans. But we won’t be singled out, either.
Maybe Oliverio has a point regarding the veracity of what city bureaucrats tell them about labor negotiations. But don’t stop there. The City Council would benefit from “sunshine” in all negotiations that involve public money.
We are tired of those who would make us the scapegoat for the city’s budget problems when so much of what San Jose does with public money beyond paying employee salaries and benefits is done in secret.
We are happy to stand in the sunlight of public scrutiny because we are confident our case will win public support. We doubt that others who contract with the city share that confidence.
RANDY SEKANY is president of San Jose Fire Fighters, IAFF Local 230. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.
If the Fire Union (or Police Union for that matter) truly was willing to negotiate in public without other conditions or requirements then good for them for being a leader. Unfortunately, it appears there are conditions and requirements.
Sometimes it takes one leader to be willing to be the pioneer and pave the way for others to follow even though it may be the difficult, unpopular thing to do. It would be cool if the Fire Dept. would be that leader for other unions to emulate. After all, Fire and Police are heroes in many children’s eyes and can also set a very good example for us adults too.
I hope this type of leadership happens soon. I think we need to be able to afford more police and fire personnel, but right now I don’t think we can afford them. (And FYI, I am a firefighter’s daughter and have great respect for them and the police department in case anyone was wondering.)
My .02
Tina
Then the Fire Union will start with an act of good faith and allow their binding arbitration meetings to be open to the public? This is related to Tina’s comment above.
“Today there are 11 percent fewer total public employees than in the
year 2000.” MY GOD!! Someone who knows the difference between “less” and “fewer”.
“We are tired of those who would make us the scapegoat for the city’s budget problems when so much of what San Jose does with public money beyond paying employee salaries and benefits is done in secret.”
Well, since payroll costs eat up over two-thirds of the operating budget, that is the logical first place to start. Working on saving money out of one-third of the budget is not nearly so effective as working on how to save money out of two-thirds of the budget.
Editorial: San Jose arbitration proceedings should be public:
http://www.mercurynews.com/editorials/ci_13954452
Bet Fire Union will oppose this as well?
Randy,
You are so right-on! Principles should apply to all, not just a select few.
Anyone know what was Council’s or city staff response to Fire Fighters union offer to open up labor negotiations?
Mayor Reed’s open government leadership and principals should apply to all city contracts not just labor.
Are we seeing proof of city double standard and Council political hypocrisy?
Fire Union can NOT open up negotiations to public Without Council / city staff agreement – has not – will not happen – ever
City staff with Council help – hides budget spending, insiders tax giveaways, faking no layoff – staff cuts, crying budget poor while raising your taxes / city fees
Why is the city of San Jose annexing thousands of low income, run down areas of the county, when it can’t afford to take care of the current situation? Why is the city approving thousands of new housing units to be built when it can’t afford to take care of the current situation. Where do the extra police officers come from to take care of the thousands of new residents, when it hasn’t added an additional position in the past 13 years and needs to cut millions of dollars from it’s budget. Why isn’t our city focused on cutting regulations and fees that have chased big business from San Jose and encouraging them to return to San Jose, rather than relocating in our neighboring cities?
> Why is the city of San Jose annexing thousands of low income, run down areas of the county, when it can’t afford to take care of the current situation?
Good question.
> Why isn’t our city focused on cutting regulations and fees that have chased big business from San Jose and encouraging them to return to San Jose, rather than relocating in our neighboring cities?
Good question number two.
In the current economic and political environment, it is hard to imagine ANY big business locating in or expanding in San Jose.
The ONLY growth business is government, which requires $240,000 in capital to “create a job”. And every $240,000 the government sucks out of taxpayers or the credit market represents TWO jobs that are destroyed or not created in the private sector.
I think the future of San Jose will see half the work force working for the government, making PowerPoint presentations on economic development, and the other half of the work force will be unemployed and listening to Obama speeches on hope and change.
At least we can boast to our neighboring cities that we have a ban on plastic grocery bags. That should make ‘em jealous.