Some have romanticized the decline of St. James Park, but the fall from Eden appears far from recent.  Historian Clyde Arbuckle recounts that even 80 years ago, the proximity of homeless in St. James Park supported the workings of justice in the facing courthouse, as “court bailiffs collared park loafers and bums for immediate jury duty across the street.”   I can still recall my own 5-year-old eyes seeing the horror on my mom’s face when she found me and my sister talking to strangers at St. James Park in the 1970’s, after we escaped from her view on the courthouse lawn.  Last month’s Downtown Dimensionrecites a familiar complaint, by Dennis Hickey, asserting that the Park had been “abandoned” in the prior decade to San Jose’s “street people”—except that Dennis uttered the statement 15 years ago, in 1997.

Nonetheless, given the Park’s prominence in our both Downtown consciousness and our own conscience, it must become our priority for urban revitalization.  In recent months, we’ve worked with the community to see how we can revive the park by suppressing criminality, addressing homelessness, and injecting more family-friendly activity into the park.  Many folks are pitching in, facilitated by Fred Buzo and Ragan Henninger on our team, and by the San José Downtown Association:

·         With the District Attorney’s Office, our police are implementing a program to ensure that all drug arrestees receive a “stay away” condition in their term of probation, making them subject to arrest for  returning to the park;

·         This summer, Ky Le will spearhead a pilot project with the Santa Clara County’s Mental Health Services Agency and our own Housing Department this summer to move 15 chronically homeless from the park into alcohol and drug rehab and stable housing;

·         the Very Rev. David Bird provided office space at the Trinity Cathedral for homeless outreach through the Downtown Streets Team, while Destination:Home works with several partners to identify the high-risk homeless for services targeted to facilitate a transition to self-sufficiency;

Beyond these efforts, we need to make the Park a place of activity again.  Many members of the community have rolled up their sleeves to plan and host events designed to re-introduce residents to St. James Park, e.g.:

·         on a sunny Easter Sunday, Ginny Thomas, Tina Morrill and Janis Gemignani expanded on the great tradition ofFirstUnitarianChurch’s Easter Egg Hunt, welcoming hundreds of kids and parents;

·         Dana and Barbara Grover suggested that neighbors join them for a walk in the park on a Saturday morning; three dozen of us joined in, armed with coffee, garbage bags, and graffiti kits;

·         Mauricio Astacio applied for CAP grant funding to support some of the neighborhood events described below.

These are just a few examples.   Now, how can you get involved?  Join us!  

·         The next meeting of the Friends of St. James Park will occur on May 17th @ 6:30pm.

·         Bring your neighbors and friends to support I Am San José as they launch the Park’s first Food Truck Fiesta on Sunday, May 27th,  from 12pm to 5 pm;

·         The St. James Neighborhood Association will host a free ice cream social at the park in May, please check back for more details.

·         KidSportzUSA will host a 5k run/walk to prevent obesity at the San Jose Athletic Club/St. James Park on Saturday, June 9th at 9 a.m.

·         Bring your pillow and jammies, and join us at the Movie Night in the Park on Thursday, June 14, 2012 at 9 p.m. co-hosted by the St. James Neighborhood Association, San Jose Downtown Association and my office.

·         Put on your shades and welcome the return of the successful Mountain Blues Festival on July 14th , co-hosted by the San José Downtown Association;

·         Volunteer in service of the kids at the Third Street Community Center, which offers adult-supervised play in St. James Park for kids in its educational programs.

·         When you see groups feeding large numbers of homeless people in the park, please provide the well-intentioned organizers of those events with the ATTACHED DOCUMENT which describes the illegality of feeding people in San José parks, and identifies partner agencies nearby, like the Salvation Army or Innvision, that will gladly accept their assistance in serving the poor.

·         Email Ragan.Henninger@sanjoseca.gov and let her know you want to be included in future planning and activities!

Resuscitating St. James Park won’t happen overnight.  We all need to work together in the coming months and years, through what may be only halting progress.  Urban revival is the work of a generation, but work worthy of the future of San José.

What’s the fuss about?  On April 3, 2012, the Council voted to accept bids from various private-sector applicants to develop on the 44 acres on the Airport’sWest Side.    In the weeks leading up to and since that vote, rumors and conspiracy theories multiplied.   For those less interested in rumors than facts, a thorough description of the issues can be found in a very readable powerpoint presentation (or in a less readable report and supplemental report that Airport staff presented to Council).  I encourage anyone with an interest in the issue to review these and other publicly-available documents, and to come to their own conclusions.

Airport Traffic and Noise, and the Curfew

It’s important to recognize what the Council did not do on April 3^rd: the Council did not take any action to increase levels of air traffic or noise, nor to weaken the curfew.    Rather, the Council approved a minimum set of development minimum standards for any potential business seeking to lease a portion of the Airport’s West Side.   Prior to the Council’s decision, I drafted a specific set of directions to require that any new lessees comply by the same rules under the curfew, that the Airport staff increase their reporting of curfew intrusions and violations to the public, and that the City work with BAAQMD to explore better air quality monitoring in nearby neighborhoods.   The Council approved every one of my proposed requirements.

The Council did consider various options for development on the West Side, and chose to adopt an open-ended approach: accepting proposals from any qualifying bidder, regardless of their business or operation, with a goal of maximizing private-sector jobs and City revenue.  The ultimate decision about who or what will occupy those 44 acres will await the completion of the bidding process.

Long-Planned Expansion at the Airport

Whatever the Council decides to do, it’s critical that we view it within its historic context.  Over the last two decades, our councils have repeatedly voted to support expansion of aviation operations to maximize the economic and fiscal value of underutilized land near the Airport.  In 1997, the Council approved an Airport Master Plan and its accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that contemplated large increases in commercial air traffic along with the attendant changes in noise and emissions.

That Master Plan has undergone repeated revision, and in the most recent addendum, approved by the Council in 2010, reflects a substantially less ambitious Plan.  As you can see from pp. 13-14 of that document,  planned operations for 2027 reflected 20% less air traffic than had been previously planned for a date (2010) seventeen (17)  years earlier.    The number of general aviation (GA) flights in the current Plan at full build-out of theWest Side property would result in 42% less air traffic than the level that was environmentally cleared by the 1997 EIR.  In other words, the scale of the Airport’s planned growth has shrunken dramatically, and the law does not require any additional environmental clearance if we reduce the proposed impacts.   Here, the anticipated noise impacts (discussed at pp. 14-19 of the report)  and particulate emissions appear greatly diminished by the smaller Plan, as well as the airlines’ decisions to supplant their loudest and oldest commercial jets (e.g., the Boeing 727, MD-80’s) with newer models.

What and Who Will Operate on Those 44 Acres?

As the Council considers the potential uses of 44 acres of land on theWest Sideof the Airport, it remains subject to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) restrictions that the parcels support an aviation purpose.  In other words, the FAA won’t allow a shopping mall or a park at that location.

The City has explored the installation of an additional fixed base operator (FBO), a term used to describe a business that provides aviation-related services such as fueling, tie-down and hangar services, aircraft rental, maintenance, and flight instruction.  There is already one full-service FBO at the Airport operating on an approximately 22 acre land lease, two limited service FBOs, and one corporate hangar facility.   The addition of another FBO can enable the Airport to utilize vacant land to generate millions in revenue for both the Airport and the City, as well as jobs.   The only existing full-service FBO, Atlantic Aviation, understandably opposes the idea of adding competition to the airfield, but it’s certainly not the City’s job to shield businesses from competition.

“Plan First”?

A dispute has arisen over whether the City should await any development plans until the FAA’s determination over whether it may shut down one of its antiquated General Aviation runways.  Some have urged that the Airport should “plan first,” before considering potential bidders on the 44 acres, in the hope that we’ll have a clearer picture of development opportunities with the resolution of the runway’s uncertain status.

Yet the  FAA’s decision will likely take several years, and the Airport has done nothing except “plan” for the last two decades.  Financial concerns, and the need for more Airport revenues, have become increasingly urgent.   Bond agencies recently reduced their ratings for Airport debt, expressing concern about the impact of the faltering airline industry on the Airport’s ability to pay its bills.  Potential bidders have clearly told us that they need not await the FAA’s multi-year  decision-making to resolve.    The Airport staff, moreover, insist that they can readily incorporate any additional acreage resulting from a shuttered runway in any future expansion plans.  We have studied the options on this site for over three years—it’s clearly time to act.

As we so so in the coming months, the public will have an opportunity to weigh in, and any decision by the Council will occur at an advertised and public hearing of Council.  We’ll let you know as more information as that date approaches, but in  the meantime, please email me, at sam.liccardo@sanjoseca.gov, or call (408) 535-4903 if you have any questions or concerns.

Undeterred, Guardino demonstrated the determination that would make him legendary.  He decided to launch what the Mercury News would call a “desperation shot” by asking the Valley Transportation Authority to do what the County Board would not do.  The VTA board agreed; the campaign was underway.

That summer day, I talked with Guardino and Barry about how I might become involved in that 2000 “Measure A” campaign.   I decided to quit my job at a law firm to work on the effort, because I wanted to become part of something truly transformational.  Living on North 5th Street, I knew that connecting Downtown San José with BART could revitalize the city’s core like nothing else, bringing businesses into storefronts and bustling activity to the sidewalks.

Despite my lack of political experience, Guardino and Barry hired me to bring a Measure A “road show” to local neighborhood groups, community organizations,  colleges, and just about anyone else who would listen.  I participated in debates, and was interviewed on radio shows.  I learned more than a few things about political campaigns by working alongside savvy and hard-working veterans like Guardino, Barry, and Erik Schoennauer, and the experience helped propel my interest in public service.

The 2000 Measure A would require approval of the sales tax increase by two-thirds of the electorate, and it succeeded with over 70% support.   On election night, people filled San Fernando Street outside the celebratory party at Gordon Biersch, and all of Downtown seemed on the verge of a reawakening.

Or so it seemed.  Within months, the dot-com bubble burst. Over 200,000 jobs left the Valley, and with them, jobless families.  Sales tax revenue plummeted by a third.

As VTA assessed the wreckage from that recession on BART, it became apparent that projected revenues would no longer pay for BART’s capital and operating costs.  In 2004, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) gave BART a “not recommended” rating, deflating any hopes of getting critical federal funding for the project.

In 2006, VTA staff, led by newly appointed General Manager Michael Burns and project head Carolyn Gonot, went back to the drawing board, seeking to find a way to enable the BART project to quality for federal funds.

I returned to the picture in 2007, having just won a campaign to become District 3’s councilmember, during which I made bringing BART to San José a key priority.   I joined the VTA Board in 2007.  I learned that federal officials insisted that VTA would need to find another local source of money to pay to operate the BART system.   After the plunge of tax revenues in 2001, would our voters ever support a second tax?

Guardino believed we would.  In 2008, just as we entered yet another recession– the worst downturn since the 1930’s—Guardino and his small but hard-working team at SVLG got to work.   They conducted a series of polls that revealed that they would fall several percentage points short of the 66 .66% required to pass a measure to pay for BART’s operating expenses.   Political pundits argued that voters would never support additional taxes amid a recession.

Despite the polls and pundits, and with many key political figures declining to support the effort, Guardino gathered a small group of advisors in the summer of 2008, and he decided to make a run at it.  I played a support role, primarily by raising money for the campaign, and occasionally stumping at community meetings, or debating the measure on radio stations like NPR.

As Election Day neared that November, the polling numbers turned worse.  Defeat seemed likely, but Guardino never stopped pushing.  Early returns showed the 2008 measure failing by a small margin, but with several thousand ballots remaining to be counted.  We all went to bed that night believing that we’d lost narrowly.

Fortunately, Barack Obama’s presence on that ballot boosted voter turnout, increasing our chances.  In the ensuing weeks, as the registrar continued counting, the totals crept upward by a few hundred votes each week.  Astoundingly, by the final count, the measure had secured a two-thirds majority…but by less than one eighth of one percent (0.12%) of the vote!   Our taxpayers had again stepped up, and spoke with their votes and their wallets.

Now we needed to secure the final piece: federal support.  When I became the Board Chair of VTA in 2010, I travelled to Washington, D.C. with Guardino, Mayor Chuck Reed, and several SVLG company executives to advocate for BART funding in meetings with U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood and FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff.  Those efforts by Guardino, and with a legislative push by Congressional leaders like by Zoe Lofgren and Mike Honda, secured an announcement last year that the FTA would, at last, fund $900 million of the project.

On April 12, 2012, we’ll celebrate the ground-breaking of the construction of the BART extension to San José, in the part of my District near the future Berryessa station.   The next day, we’ll roll up our sleeves again, and push for ways to bring BART all the way through Downtown to Santa Clara.

Whether by demonstrating the power of Carl Guardino’s persistence, or that of our Valley’s voters, BART teaches us all an important lesson in determination in building a great community.

You couldn’t have stayed 15 minutes at the launch event without bumping into an inspiring, creative San Josean ….I managed to see Giant Creative’s Chris Esparza and 1st Act’s Brendan Rawson, the masterminds behind such worthy endeavors as the KraftBrew festival, Left Coast Live, and The Garage; Pinger’s innovative and uber-smart CEO, Greg Woock; Dan Vado, the proprietor of the delightfully quirky SLG Art Boutiki on South Market Street, and Rev.  Jon Talbert, the minster at Westgate Church who has spearheaded Beautiful Day,  inspiring thousands of volunteers to roll up their sleeves and work in San Jose’s neighborhoods, parks, and (yes) freeways.   Bring it on!

Last year, Mayor Chuck Reed also repeatedly warned that although City staff estimated that the City’s retirement costs could reach $400 million by fiscal year 2015, the price tag could balloon to $650 million, depending on the accuracy of several assumptions underlying the “official” projection.

I don’t know how Mayor Reed arrived at the figure of $650 million, as opposed to say, $500 million, or even $700 million.  I do know that the warnings about a “worst-case scenario” of  $650 million in 2015-16 retirement costs have about as much to do with the City’s actual decision-making as my Stanley Cup prognostications had to do with any decisions that the Sharks’ coaches might have made.

That is, the Mayor, Council, the City staff, and the City negotiators routinely rely upon the official estimates calculated by the Retirement Board’s actuary and staff to make our budgetary and policy decisions, not on “what if’s.”   Nonetheless, in the presence of any media reporter willing to listen, several union leaders last week publicly urged an investigation of Mayor Reed and Retirement Department officials for allegedly offering an unduly pessimistic “worst case scenario” projection of $650 million.

What’s really happening here?

Every year, the actuaries employed by the City’s independent retirement boards assess the financial condition of the retirement funds, to determine how much of the City’s General Fund revenue will be required to cover the City’s annual obligation to those retirement funds.   Those numbers fluctuate with various economic and demographic factors, but for a decade, they’d fluctuated in only one direction: up.   A decade ago, retirement contributions from the City’s General Fund amounted to $73 million, and since that time, they’ve more than tripled to $246 million today.  More than any other factor—indeed, more even than our recession-induced revenue shortfalls—our rapidly rising pension and retiree health bill has caused painful cuts to our workforce and city services.   We’ve slashed programs, lost 2,000 employees, and the 5,400 remaining employees have absorbed large pay cuts.

What will the City’s payment for retirement costs in 2015? Nobody knows.   The actuaries craft estimates based on reasonable assumptions, but like every assumption, reality varies by a little, or by a lot.  So, the estimates change annually, with the shifting economic and demographic winds.

With last year’s cost-cutting, we expect next week’s update of the actuaries’ projection for 2015 retirement costs will (for the first time) drop lower than the recent estimate of $432 million in 2015.  Next year, if Retirement Boards correct several assumptions that appear unduly optimistic –such as assumed investment returns, which will decline as the funds move toward a more conservative asset mix–subsequent cost estimates will likely rise.  You get the picture—the numbers are far from fixed.

What do all of these predictions about future years’ retirement costs have to do with the Council’s budgetary decisions?  Nothing.  The Council’s decision to impose layoffs?  Zero.  The Council’s proposals to seek pay concessions from our labor unions?  Zilch.

Why?  The City makes annual budgetary decisions based on the current year’s actual payments to cover its retirement fund obligations, not based on any future years’ projections.  In other words, last year, the only relevant number for balancing the FY11-12 budget was the roughly $245 million check that we actually cut to pay the City’s retirement costs for that year.  Any future year’s projection has no impact on whether the City balances its books this year.

What of the various plans for long-term pension reform?  Shouldn’t any ballot initiative focus on future years’ costs?   Yes.   Yet as the hyperlinked documents demonstrate, the problem identified in the City Manager’s 2011 Fiscal Reform Plan that formed the basis of our pension proposals focused on a $400 million target in FY2015-16, not $650 million.  So too, in various iterations of the pending ballot initiative, as it was modified through the course of labor negotiations in June,  September,  and December , and in all of the offers that the City proposed at the negotiating table over the last eight months.  So too, in the report forming the basis of the Council’s decision to decline seeking a declaration of fiscal emergency in December.  In each case, the City unequivocally relied on—and sought to target– the much lower official projections for 2015 retirement costs.

Of course, those opposed to the Council’s pension reform proposals have seized on this $650 million “straw man,” publicly urging the City drop the initiative heading to the ballot in June.   Some media outlets have taken the bait, giving the public only sound-bite-sized views of the facts.  More sophisticated media commentators have responded more warily;  one has called the union allegations “thin gruel.”  Fortunately, the residents of San Jose will be able to decide for themselves in June, and can decide whether the gruel is any thicker than the guacamole served during the NHL playoffs.

Good to see the best rise to the top!