Last week, the council had public hearings regarding the upcoming 2009-2010 Redevelopment budget. Mayor Reed ensured that the public had both a day and night session to attend, allowing more people to participate. In addition, tonight (Nov. 16) at 6pm the mayor is hosting an additional public meeting at City Hall to garner feedback on the RDA budget.
During last week’s public hearings, the usual lobbyists—those who are paid to speak at council meetings on behalf of special interests—attended and spoke. The lobbyists have also been known to orchestrate the other speakers, giving them colored stickers to wear and scripts to read from.
Others spoke on what the RDA money should be spent on, which happened to be items that might affect their own future employment. For example, people who work for an affordable housing developer will speak to the need for RDA money to be spent on affordable housing.
This past October, I held a meeting in the District I represent (on a Saturday) to talk only about the RDA and the upcoming budget decisions. At my meeting, there was nearly unanimous support for spending the limited RDA funds on economic development. Unfortunately, the council is not hearing this at the public hearings at City Hall since most residents are busy with work, family or seeking a job.
Therefore, I have prepared a web survey for San Jose residents to fill out online. This survey is much shorter then my May 2009 General Fund budget survey, but does require that each question be answered and may be only taken once. I will share the results here on San Jose Inside.
The link is here: Redevelopment Agency Budget Survey.
The impression I’m gleaning from these few paragraphs is that you are conscious of the fact that special interests are OVERrepresented while the general public interest is UNDERrepresented. You understand that this does not mean that you are mandated to base decisions on this disproportion.
I honor you for that.
It seems that Government at the local level, is not very responsive to the interests of any persons or group unless they physically show up at Council meetings. We’re even lectured that we should not expect our voices to be heard unless we care enough to attend and speak for 60 seconds. We’re not required to fly to Washington D.C. and testify before Senate Committees before we’re paid attention to- at least not officially. So why is it that conveying our message through our local Council Representative is not considered to carry any weight? I thought that was the whole idea behind “representative” governance.
My theory is that most people want to be liked and they want to please others, and there’s a strong tendency for Council members, when it’s time to cast a vote, to want to please the people who are physically there in the room with them.
I believe that a wise representative is one who recognizes the fact that his job is to do what’s in the best interest of the public as a whole, and that this is not necessarily equivalent to the aggregate of all the special interests. He not only recognizes it but has the courage to follow through on it.
So I think this survey is a good idea and I thank you for it and I’ll fill it out right now.
Your theory that votes are based upon a desire to please those in front of them crumbles when you realize that the public meeting and comment time is scheduled AFTER the councilmembers have pretty much decided how they will vote. The public comment time is a sop they throw to us mere mortals. Just look at the bored expressions of the councilmembers, or the fact that they are speaking to each other while citizens are addressing them, and some of them actually leave the room when we lowly citizens are speaking to them.
Mr. Mouch has already made their decision for them
Question 1;
Have you stopped beating your wife?
YES ___
NO ___
Sorry but that’s what the questions seemed like. Started to fill out the survey but gave up. I guess I have a fundamental philosophical objection to the concept of RDA. It seems to be 100% geared toward SPECIAL interests. Not good.
Couple of points here:
(1) I was one of the people who spoke in favor of not putting the entire burden of the state’s raid the RdA’s budget on affordable housing. I am indeed “paid [a non-profit salary] to speak at council meetings on behalf of special interests.” That “special interest” is the interest of the poorest people in Silicon Valley in safe and affordable housing. I will always be proud to speak on behalf of these folks, who are often working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet and can’t make it to meetings like this.
BTW, were the convention center boosters that testified volunteers?
2. The so-called “survey” you are conducting is, in fact, a classic “push poll,” as the question re affordable housing makes clear:
“The Redevelopment Agency has spent $774 million on housing making San Jose the number one provider of affordable housing in the state of California by financing 18,000 units of affordable housing while neighboring cities do next to nothing for affordable housing. With so much given to affordable housing and so many people in need of jobs, should the RDA borrow money from affordable housing reserves this year, as allowed by state law, to be spent instead on economic development to help create jobs?”
So, shockingly, you will likely get results heavily skewed toward the viewpoint you favor.
I am blown away that we spent that much on affordable housing while other cities do so little. Lean times mean we need to make the most of our money. I grew up Michigan and found that social policy conflicts with taxpayer wallets. Keep your eye on the ball Pierluigi and that ball is economic development.
“Kirkland” raises an important point…that “we” spend so much on affordable housing while other cities do little. Always thought that affordable housing function should be shifted to the County government. Each city would pay their fair share and host their fair share.
the questions at the end that asked us to rate 1 through whatever our priorities begged the question. In many cases, none of the choices were a priority at all. Yet, if you didn’t check the boxes, the survey sent you back to rank the choices. It’s the choices that are the problem. Many of us would choose to fund NONE of them. You asked us to rank things that many of us have no interest in whatever. There should have been a “none of the above” choice for us to make.
I agree with JM – I cheerfully responded to all questions until asked to rate our priorities. The first survey you sent (which I thought was a terrifice idea)allowed people to opt out answering some questions which led to lopsided statistics, but you can always include an alternative like “no preference” or “skip”.
A “Push Poll” is not a Legitimate Survey
A so-called “push survey ” is an insidious form of political community survey trying to show community support for a predetermined desired result, disguised as a community or political poll. Pushing the results of a survey to a predetermined desired result by how the questions are asked ( Have you stopped beating your wife ? Yes or No ) , limited answer choices, the survey introduction or the leaving out important information in question introduction ( RDA funds by law can only be spent in RDA area ).
“Push surveys” are not surveys at all, but rather unethical political predetermined results surveys—disguised as research that aim to show support for predetermined desired survey results but a) omitting other more popular alternatives, b) asking the same question multiple times so politician can pick the desired survey results using known unpopular options so the desired unpopular survey option are selected, and c) they want have desired survey outcomes to support their desired political course of action normally in support of campaign contributors or projects the community opposes, rather than fairly measure the community opinions.
This misuse of the survey method exploits the trust people have in surveys, research organizations and violates the AAPOR Code of Professional Ethics and Practices.
http://www.aapor.org/AAPOR_Code.htm
Son, you don’t know what a push poll it. I invented them. My first one when like this “How would you feel if you learned that Tom Turnipseed was a member of the NAACP?” This was in 1980 in South Carolina, Son. When Turnipseed complained about it, I just said “I’m not going to respond to that guy. What do you expect from someone who was hooked up to jumper cables?” You see, Turnipseed had undergone shock therapy as a teen to battle depression.
This ain’t no push poll.
Many polls today provide a small amount of information about the topic being asked, though usually are provided several answers, strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, strongly disagree.
They are fair questions. Do you support art in public buildings? Do you support 1 million $ of public art inside a new jail facility. Is there a problem adding the jail part? Do not leave the impact of the answer and the significance of the question out.
The AAPOR, though nobel in cause, merely exists to take your membership fees. A miniscule number of professional pollsters and researchers actually belong (we could say not statistically significant), and usually just those starting out so they can get their membership card – it’s like the “union bug” when pitching to a company doing a poll for the first time. And those that don’t belong, oh the scoundrels, are not working from a moral “Code”.
By the way, I felt really bad what I did to Turnipseed, and later apologized to him. I am now resting in peace.
Lame poll….self fulfilling answers to fit the desired results
I found the survey to be brutally honest.
Facts are pretty simple that affordable housing is not economic development but rather a drain since they are exempted from paying fees and taxes. This SNI program sounds like it has done nice things but ends up building a sense of entitlement.
Then why was PO the only city council member to just vote against a developers plan to build 88 detached houses rather than high density housing at the site of the Flea Market?
http://www.mercurynews.com/valley/ci_13780751
Looks like Vice Mayor Chirco (my councilwoman) voted it against it as well.
Affordable housing and quality neighborhoods for prospective employees are significant factors that companies must consider when deciding whether or not to locate here, because they directly impact the ability to attract and retain quality workers. Investment in housing and the SNIs IS economic development, every bit as much as the other RDA projects. The idea that “social policy” conflicts with “taxpayer dollars” is a nineteenth century concept, based on the idea that the best way to grow the economy is to starve the poor until they are ready to work for slave wages. I like to think that we in Silicon Valley have moved beyond that in 2009.
Then why are large employers like Google, Intuit, Symantec, Boston Scientific, Siemens in Mtn View which is more expensive then San Jose?
Why is Oracle and Electronic Arts in Redwood City which is more expensive then San Jose?
Why is HP, Tibco, SAP,VMware, Agilent, Varian, Tesla, Facebook in Palo Alto which is more expensive then San Jose?
Why is Sun Micro, Tyco, Alza in Menlo Park which is more expensive then San Jose?
Why is Silicon Valley Leadership Group, that represents executives of many if not most of the companies you mention, one of the Valley’s most consistent supporters of affordable housing programs? I guess they don’t understand anything about economic development.
I am not sure who Silicon Valley Leadership Group is or how many people they actually employ however I do recognize companies like Google, HP, Oracle etc…
What percentage of Silicon Valley Leadership Group live in San Jose? Are these leaders in favor of affordable housing in their neighborhoods and cities ? From what I understand San Jose takes on a disproportionate amount of the affordable housing.
I think it’s time to abolish the RDA. It was established to rehab center city; and now it is building “affordable housing” and improving neighborhoods, granting funds to certain groups (mainly gov’t. employees) to buy homes, etc. The agency is not within the spirit of the takings clause (5th Amendment to the Constitution) for one thing. I.e. gov’t. should take over private property only for a public use; and baseball stadiums are NOT a public use. The RDA bombed with the Paseo de San Antonio shops; and certainly the convention center is certainly not a clear financial bonanza for the city’s coffers. Has the city ever recouped all the money spent on that ugly building? I doubt it.
San Jose likes to boast that it’s the capital of Silicon Valley. Well, if that’s so, then private businesses would be beating a path to the city’s door to invest here; but, alas, they won’t unless taxpayers subsidize them.
As for “affordable housing” let the surrounding cities start building their share. The people who have affordable housing generally tend to be tax consumers rather than tax providers.
I am concerned that the RDA survey created by Mr.
Oliverio still sees the light of day. In a conversation with me, Mr. Oliverio stated that the survey is not scientific. Yet, he persists in using the results. This is not the behavior I expect of my elected representative. I am disheartened and quite disappointed.
When politicians or city staff use polls
– without all reasonable choices to include none of the above,
– leave out important information,
– admit survey is non scientific – has errors or bad results but tell Mayor the survey says “people want”
– by their many statement show they have already made up their minds
– are using community survey to obviously ” get the opinion of the public ” to support their campaign supporters and political friends benefit
We need ask – Do they represent us and public good or special interests who will finance their political campaigns and future political career for increased profits or benefits?
Too bad Richard Dawson from the old Family Feud show isn’t still alive to announce the results, “Survey says…..”
If only Pierluigi would let the labor union write his surveys or blogs then would it be perfect?