While San Francisco commands more headlines for its exorbitant rental prices, San Jose has struggled to meet affordable housing goals of its own.

San Jose may weaken an ordinance that guarantees a living wage to anyone working for a private tenant of a city-owned property. The 16-year-old living wage policy requires commercial and other private tenants on city leases to pay above the minimum wage, at least $15.78 an hour with benefits or $17.03 without. Other items on Tuesday’s City Council agenda include changes to the city’s cardroom ordinance, an audit of employee travel expenses and a six-figure contract for new art and light displays.

San Jose will start looking for ways to pay for body-worn cameras on police officers, which Independent Police Auditor LaDoris Cordell says will lessen citizen complaints and keep officers accountable for the way they conduct themselves in the field. That and more at this week’s Rules and Open Government Committee meeting.

Councilman Ash Kalra wants to deliver San Jose from the evils of gas-powered leaf blowers. Also on the Rules and Open Government Committee agenda for Wednesday is a plea from senior citizens for the city to protect older affordable homes, like mobile home parks.

San Jose Councilman Ash Kalra says the city’s got some explaining to do about its police stats gaffe. In a memo to the Rules and Open Government Committee, which meets Wednesday, Kalra calls for a hearing in front of the City Council about why a change was made in calculating gang stats, and why the numbers were misrepresented to the public.

Two minutes shy of deadline to place it on the Nov. 19 City Council agenda, Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio logged a request for the city to revisit the discussion about where to place a softball complex paid for by the remaining balance of a $228 million pool of bond funds. That and more at Wednesday’s Rules and Open Government Committee.

Great news. San Jose’s elected leaders had a total blast on their “Sister City” trip to Dublin, Ireland. In addition to a bunch of meetings, which appear to have had nothing to do with city business, goodwill was spread and Guinness hats were purchased. And in a true show of solidarity with the Dubliners, some of San Jose’s councilmembers even came back with a case of the common cold! Fly called around to find out what San Jose officials learned during their time in Dublin—at an anticipated cost of $20,000; although one Irish writer called our estimate low—and we’re happy to report nothing substantial.

Dave Cortese made a long-expected announcement Wednesday that he will run for mayor of San Jose in 2014. The District 3 county supervisor, who made an unsuccessful run in 2006 while serving as a San Jose councilmember, plans to file papers with the Registrar of Voters on Wednesday afternoon.

The Emerald Isle is calling. Ten San Jose officials will fly this week to Dublin, Ireland, for the bi-annual “Sister City” trip, which is basically a pub crawl disguised as a city-sponsored economic development junket. Among the lucky 10 are four councilmembers (Xavier Campos, Rose Herrera, Ash Kalra and Johnny Khamis); three department heads (budget director Jennifer Maguire; Joe Hedges, of economic development; and environmental services’ Kerrie Romanow); two council chiefs of staff (Shane Patrick Connolly, for Khamis; and Mary Anne Groen, for Herrera); and one soon-to-retire city manager, Debra Figone. If that seems like overkill, well, it is.

After Russia imposed a number of draconian anti-gay laws over the summer, LGBT advocacy groups asked U.S. leaders to sever sister-city ties with any Russian towns. San Jose fielded some of those requests, but councilmembers Xavier Campos, Ash Kalra and Pete Constant say the city’s in a better position to use that international relationship with Ekaterinburg to open up a meaningful dialogue instead. The trio said as much in a memo to the Rules and Open Government Committee, which will meet Wednesday.

Hyperbole is the crudest way to make a point. It’s also the easiest way to lose an audience. But there’s a desperate talking point in local political circles going unchallenged. No longer.

For the last several months, a fight with multi-million dollar implications has quietly been waged over fire safety requirements in San Jose’s tallest buildings. The clash—featuring a tangled array of alliances between elected officials, developers, lobbyists, a monopolistic breathing device manufacturer, a union spurned and an ambivalent fire department—will come to a head Thursday afternoon, when the Public Safety, Finance & Strategic Support Committee meets to discuss the city’s tri-annual review of its fire and building codes.

Everyone loves applause—especially politicians. Yet leadership in difficult times often requires making decisions that don’t draw applause. It means having the independence to stand up for everybody, not just the loudest voices or the most powerful groups. When leaders have the independence to tell those groups what they don’t want to hear, it threatens the status quo. And threatened people yell. So, let’s take a breath, hit the “pause” button on the yelling, and start where we all agree. First, San Jose needs more police officers.

Last week, Mayor Chuck Reed and Councilmember Sam Liccardo submitted a proposal to bolster our public safety capacity by focusing on San Jose’s inability to retain police officers. The gist of the Reed-Liccardo proposal was to hire 200 police officers by restoring wages by 10 percent within the next four years. On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable idea. However, because this proposal was more about timely politics than about meaningful policy, I could not support the plan.

Regulating alcohol sales, electric car plug-ins and cannabis clubs are among the city’s top priorities this coming year, according to a memo up for discussion at Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Other items on the meeting agenda include a development deal that could land the city a new park and an audit that finds the monitoring of consultants needs to be much improved.

The San Jose Environmental Innovation Center (EIC) has been in the news a lot recently, due to the fact that it is $1.6 million over budget and six months behind schedule. This project was always risky, as it utilized complicated tax credits that expose the general fund—the guarantor of the project—to future risk. So, being in the position to avoid future financial risk, why would I support yet another project such as the EIC, which could imperil our general fund? When this issue came to the council, I voted “no” several times, where was I often the only “no” vote. When there is a single dissenting vote, this automatically means that any substitute motion would die for a lack of a second. This is true in all cases.