At a recent session of my community office hours at the East Carnegie Library, Northside community leader Erik Thacker raised an important question to me and roughly two dozen neighbors gathered there.    “What can we do?,” Erik asked.    Emphasizing that hundreds of kids are lost to street crime and gangs every year in San Jose, Erik sought to find out how he could participate in a solution that would divert kids from the “default” to a life of education, opportunity, and achievement.

I watched various neighbors think about Erik’s question, and people started to jump in.  Many accurately observed that our severely understaffed police department needs resources, an issue about which we’re all keenly aware– I’ve recently proposed a stop-gap measure to address the declining numbers of officers in our ranks.   But people roundly acknowledge that placing an officer on every street corner can’t stop youth violence, if kids simply don’t have positive alternatives.

Predictably, I gave a familiar “pitch” – encouraging anyone willing to give an hour of their time each week to tutor a child to join our “1,000 Hearts for 1,000 Minds” effort to participate with any of our great non-profit partners, like Boys and Girls Club, Reading Partners, and Third Street Community Center.  Why tutoring, I was asked?  Ample studies show that one-on-one tutoring can have the most direct impact on a child’s ability to learn, stay in school, and achieve, and plenty of kids need a positive adult role model.

Then Paul Murphy, a parent and advocate for youth sports and education, spoke up.   He invited us to see what Bill Kleidon, and his son, George Kleidon, had done to form a free sports league, the  Northside Youth Sports League. Recognizing that many of our families can’t afford to participate in a sports league, and watching the elimination of City-sponsored leagues from budget cuts, Bill and George took action.  They  hosted fundraising events, gathered several fellow San Jose High alums to volunteer as coaches and refs, and started a flag football league at Watson Park in the fall of 2012 with 120 kids.   They’ve now moved on to basketball season, and another 180 kids are enjoying a free opportunity to learn the sport, build friendships, improve their health, and find an positive outlet for their energy.

A couple of Saturdays later, I dropped by Watson Park , so that I could see for myself.    The sight was impressive:  Bill and George had the often-quiet park full of kids and parents, many of whom participate as coaches and refs.   Girls and boys play together—a very compelling approach to sports, particularly with younger kids.   For many parents, it presented a rare the opportunity to meet other parents from their child’s school, to talk about their families and their neighborhoods—a great   recipe for community-building.  Since this time, the Mercury News’ Joe Rodriguez published a well-deserved profile of the extraordinary work in last weekend’s paper.

What can we do?  As Scott Kneis says, “if you see something growing that you like, water it.”  We can help support the Bill’s and George’s effort by volunteering our time with the kids, or by helping financially to buy equipment and t-shirts.    If you’re willing to help in any way, please reach out to Bill Kleidon at  bkalumniassociation@yahoo.com; contributions will be funneled through the San Jose High Alumni Association (Tax ID #20-8458652) .  Bill and the San Jose High alumni are also hosting their 6th Annual Golf Tournament on May 11th to support the Sports League, and there are still spaces available.

What else can we do?   There are many great organizations working to positive pathways for our kids – Project Cornerstone, the Silicon Valley Education Foundation,  CCPY, to name a few.   We can crowd-source a solution to youth violence in our communities –  but it will take all hands on deck, and yours will be a valuable addition.

So, let’s start by taking a deep breath.   Here’s a recap of recent events:

• A week ago, as I explained at length on this blog, I pushed to delay  a vote on the execution of a contract with Signature Flight Support (“Signature”), a fixed base operator, for development of the West Side of the Airport, to allow for more public vetting and discussion regarding controversial aspects of the contract.

• Two days ago, Councilmember Chu and I co-signed  a proposal that to ask for a public hearing to increase the fines for curfew violations.   That matter will be heard first by the Rules Committee on Wednesday, April 24^th, at 2 pm in City Hall Room 118, before it moves forward to committee or full council.

• Last night, by a 10-1 vote, the Council supported my motion to authorize the staff to sign a contract with Signature, a move that will bring many jobs, a $82 milliion investment, and over $3.3 million in annual revenue to your City and its airport.  You can see that hearing on the city website by clicking this link.

• Under that deal, Signature will comply with the same curfew ordinance restrictions as every other operator, and every airline,  at the airport. 

• The City will have the same tools –limited as they are—to enforce that curfew against Signature, Google, and any of their tenants: fines, and if that doesn’t work, a lawsuit to evict.  We have employed both of those tools in the past, but as I have repeatedly acknowledged, federal law and the FAA constrain our ability to enforce those restrictions against operators of planes that emit less than 89 decibels (dB) of noise.   Undoubtedly, some of Signature’s tenants will operate some such planes, just as the other current occupants of the West Side of the Airport operate some planes that emit less than 89 dB.

What will be the Impact of Additional Flights Over Our Neighborhoods?

As I noted, the City failed to adequately and timely distribute information,  but a  very late memorandum emerged from Airport staff to provide some helpful factual context.   Before that memo was released, a Mercury News story had already broadcast alarming numbers, which many believe suggested that this Signature lease would result in 5,000 more flights annually during curfew hours.   Item 5 of the staff memorandum demonstrates why that conclusion is incorrect.

Some factual context is helpful here.   I encourage folks who are interested to examine the purported source of this data, a 2009 Aviation Demand Forecast study, which has been publicly available on the Airport website (www.flysanjose.com) since 2010, along with many other related studies.   You can also watch the video of the discussion of this issue from last night’s council meeting about these issues (council questions and discussion begin at 3:43 into the video).   Here’s the skinny:

• General Aviation  (“GA” –referring to corporate jets and small aircraft, as contrasted with commercial airlines) flights at the West Side of the Airport (that’s where we’re allowing development), has dropped dramatically since 2002, from over 78,618 flights  that year to 55,246 flights by 2008.  (see chart on p. 38)

• Those GA flights have continued to drop since 2008, by the way; as the April 16^th staff memorandum reveals, we had only 31,300 “operations” (i.e., flights) in 2012, well below the projected traffic from the 2009 study.   We are now operating at less than half the GA  flight traffic levels of a decade ago.

• Under the 2009 Aviation Demand Forecast study, GA flights are projected to increase to 73,200 by 2027.  That projected number is still less than the number of operations (76,618) we had a decade ago.   For that and many other reasons, the aggregate noise impact contour of the Airport is likely to shrink, NOT increase.

• That study assumes that we build out all 100 acres of the West Side for GA aviation use.  Signature is only building out 29% of that total, or about 29 acres.   Accordingly, their operations will be responsible for only a fraction of the future growth projected by that 2009 study.

• Admittedly, future growth will involve larger corporate jets and fewer small turboprop planes.   But by basing the planes in San Jose (“local operations”), rather than having those same planes based in other airports like Hayward or Stockton (“itinerant operations”), we’ll be dramatically reducing the number of “ferrying” flights. 

• What do I mean?   Those “itinerant” or “ferrying” trips involve a single plane that will fly in to San Jose  to pick up a corporate customer, fly out, fly in to drop her off in San Jose, and fly back to Hayward or Stockton.   That’s four flights (or “operations”) for a single trip.   By stationing those same planes in San Jose (“local operations”), we need only two flights for the same trip: flying out, and flying back.  Also, keep in mind: we’re able to collect property taxes, fuel flowage fees, and other revenues when those planes are stationed in San Jose, NOT when they’re in Hayward or Stockton.

• Those itinerant flights come to San Jose because Silicon Valley customers are here, not in Stockton or Hayward.  Regardless of whether Signature adds more planes to the San Jose Airport or not, those itinerant flights will drive 100% of the growth of air traffic at the airport.  That fact is reflected in the last four columns of that chart on page. 38 of the 2009 study; there is ZERO growth in flights among “local GA operations,” despite the fact that airport-based aircraft re projected to grow to 209 planes in 209 (from 123 today).  All of the growth is in “itinerant GA operations”—the planes “ferrying” in from other airports.

• In other words, General Aviation flights traffic is projected to grow here because the demand will grow here in Silicon Valley—regardless of whether Signature decides to base 0 planes , 20 planes, or 100 planes in San Jose.   Indeed, we hope that Signature’s tenants will base many aircraft here, because we only receive revenues from property taxes, fuel flowage fees, and the like when those aircraft are based here, not in Hayward or Stockton.

• It was those 2009 growth projections that provided the basis for the numbers cited repeatedly by concerned residents and the media, but they have far less to do with Signature’s and Google’s intentions to base aircraft here, and far more to do with the inevitable growth of demand for itinerant flights.

Can We Just Cut More At the Airport, Rather than Growing Our Way out Of Our Financial Problems? 

Finally, a suggestion has repeatedly made that the Airport would do better by foregoing the minimally-guaranteed $3.3 million in annual revenues from this deal by simply cutting costs somewhere else.

Like most simplistic solutions, it’s wrong.   Its adherents may not appreciate the severe extent of cost –cutting measures we’ve already enacted at the Airport: laying off over 58% of the staff, contracting out janitorial and other services, and cutting employee salaries (by 14%) and benefits.    We’ve cut to the bone, and we’ve been told repeatedly that we cannot operate safely by cutting any more.

My colleague, Councilmember Oliverio has repeatedly asserted that we could simply save $9 million by outsourcing police and fire.  Putting aside the debate about the safety or prudence of doing so, Oliverio is relying on an outdated source (from 2010) that does not account for the cuts we’ve already made in those areas.  A more recent 2011 city audit report reveal s that actual savings from public safety outsourcing would amount to about $0.70 per emplaned passenger, or less than $2.8 milliion.  Worse, we’d still need to spend money on supplemental fire services, so the savings would likely be far less.

These decisions are difficult to be sure, but like all complex problems in large cities, they don’t get solved with flippant or simplistic solutions.   I hope that we collectively recognize the need to balance important competing concerns here, and to continue to engage in a dialogue about how best to protect the quality of life in our communities.  In the meantime, I look forward to your advocacy at the Rules Committee meeting next week for higher curfew fines.

Public Hearing

There will be a hearing this Tuesday, April 16^th, at the evening council session (which begins at 7 pm, with most matters commencing around 7:30 pm) to discuss the impact of any new agreements with Signature Flight Support—a provider of services for corporate jets and other general aviation– on the curfew.

Although the Signature contract came before Council for approval Tuesday, proposed changes in the contractual language relating to curfew compliance left some people confused and concerned.   Over the objections of some of my colleagues, I pushed to have this language vetted by deferring any final decision on the contract until the following week.

At that hearing, I expect to support the execution of a contract with the winning bidder, Signature Flight Support (“Signature”).   I also expect that the contract will ensure continued enforcement of the curfew restrictions contained in our Municipal Code.   Signature has never sought to change the curfew, or to avoid fines for violating it.   This development will create hundreds of jobs in San Jose, and generate well over $3 million in revenue to the City and Airport.

Nonetheless, I deferred the matter because I believe it’s critical that we publicly vet eleventh-hour changes on issues of intense interest for many of our residents, rather than stoking concerns about whether City Hall is cutting “back-room deals” to weaken the curfew.

The Curfew

So here are some facts:

The Municipal Code provides that the City may fine and take other action against airlines and other businesses that operate planes emitting noise exceeding 89 decibels between the hours of 11:30 pm and 6:30 am.

San Jose is one of only nine cities in the United States with a curfew restricting flight operations at its airport.  We’ve had to litigate to protect it from legal challenge, in part because the FAA has clearly disfavored curfews at many other major airports, and has effectively eliminated some local curfew ordinances.  Nonetheless, in the City of San Jose, we’ve stood by it, and protected it.

Curfews and Contracts

On the West side of the Airport, we have operators of smaller planes (we refer to this as “General Aviation”) that are bound by language in their contracts that requires them to abide by the curfew.  It also provides for the potential termination of their leases if they violate the curfew (we’re the only airport in the United States with such strong lease provisions).   Typically, we impose fines on violators, but where an offender appears particularly egregious, we have taken more forceful legal action to terminate a lease.    For simplicity, I’ll refer to that curfew language the “West Side” version.

On the East side of the Airport, we have large commercial airlines that operate under leases with the Airport.   Those leases last came up for a Council vote on their renewal in March of 2007.  When Airport staff similarly sought to insert language into those airline
leases to require compliance, we heard widespread objections from Citizens Against Airport Pollution (CAAP), which had publicly urged residents to stand against what they viewed an attempt to “weaken” curfew protections.   Those allegations left many people at City Hall scratching their heads, and Airport staff attempted to explain the issue in public meetings and memoranda.    Recognizing the importance of the confidence of residents in City Hall’s commitment in the curfew,  I proposed in a March 2007 memorandum to take the curfew language out of the lease, and simply require all airlines to abide by the restrictions in the Municipal Code.  That motion prevailed at Council.   For simplicity, I’ll refer to that curfew language in the airline contracts as the “default” curfew language.

West Side Development and Contract Negotiations

When we announced our plans to expand the Airport’s West Side for additional corporate jet activity, many residents again became concerned in late 2011 and early 2012, asserting that doing so would somehow undermine the curfew.   (A thorough description of the West Side development 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).  To address those public concerns, in March of 2012, I drafted a memorandum specifically urging that we maintain the “West Side” curfew-related language in any new lease.  The Council approved that change on April 3, 2012.

Unfortunately, when the City issued a “Request for Proposals” (the document that sets out the minimum requirements for any contract bid) to potential bidders in the summer of 2012, the curfew issue was unintentionally omitted.   Signature was informed of the need to include this language when City negotiators only recently raised it.  Objections arose when key partners of Signature’s—including Google’s affiliate, Blue City Holdings—balked, expressing understandable concern that after investing tens of millions of dollars in building offices and terminals, they could be summarily and arbitrarily terminated for a single curfew violation.

Ultimately, the impasse was resolved in recent days with a suggestion that we simply revert to the same “default” language governing the commercial airlines contracts.    That is, Signature would be bound by the Muni Code curfew restrictions, and pay fines for any violation, just like any airline.  On Friday of last week, I agreed to support that change.

Given the sensitivity of the curfew issue in our communities, I expected that there would be a public vetting of the language prior to any signature.  A staff report describing the issue emerged Monday, the day before our Council vote,  the timing of which obviously did not provide the public with a fair opportunity to digest the information or respond.  Accordingly, when the item came up for a council vote, I made a motion to identify Signature as the winning bidder, but to stall any execution of the contract until we could vet the changes in the curfew language publicly next week.

Effect of the Language Change

In my view, the change of contractual language has no significant impact on our enforcement of the curfew.  We can continue to impose fines for planes emitting more than 89 decibels that are violating the curfew, relying on our Muncipal Code.  On the other hand, we never had the authority to impose fines for planes emitting less than 89 decibels anyway, and nothing changes in that regard.  With repeated violations, we can still seek to terminate a contract and sue for unfair business practices or nuisance, as we have in the past, regardless of whether the contract provides that authority (as it does for other General Aviation tenants) or California law does so.

Under the proposed “default” language, Signature Air will be bound by the same terms as the airlines.  Other West Side tenants, however,  have “me too” provisions in their contracts, which provide that if any other tenants have curfew language different than theirs, they will all be bound by the new language.  Accordingly, companies like Atlantic Aviation and AvBase will have curfew terms that revert to the “default” language in their own leases, so their contracts will also resemble the airlines in that regard.  Again, that outcome was acceptable to CAAP and other community groups in 2007, so little reason exists why today should be any different.

Environmental Impact Reports and Noise

Don’t we need to conduct an Environmental Impact Report to assess the impact of development on noise?   Yes, but we’ve already done so.

Over the last two decades, San Jose 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 the most recent addendum, approved by Council in 2010, reflects a less ambitious growth trajectory than planned by Council in 1997.   Revised 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 the West 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 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.

I look forward to discussing all of these issues at Tuesday’s public hearing.  In the meantime, feel free to email me with your thoughts at Sam.Liccardo@sanjoseca.gov, or our senior policy analyst, Fred Buzo, at Fred.Buzo@sanjoseca.gov.

Nearly every civic official in San José agrees that promoting a stronger local economy is our highest priority.  Regardless of our political perspectives, we all understand that supporting vibrant small businesses and high-wage jobs are key to putting our friends and neighbors back to work. To the extent there is a debate, it is not about what we should do – it is about how we should do it. Which is why the event I participated in last week is worth discussing.

Together with the local non-profits San José Made, Next Space and other community groups, we took two empty storefronts on 2^nd Street and turned them into a vibrant economic center. It functioned as a co-working space during the day with great local coffee and free wi-fi, and at night transformed to host local small businesses selling their goods. We called it StartUp San José.

The event showed that we can revitalize our economy one street – and one vacant storefront – at a time. It also underlined why the small business incentive package currently pending before the City Council is so important. The idea is simple – where landlords of long-vacant, street-facing parcels are willing to reduce their asking lease rates, City Hall should waive permit fees for new businesses seeking to get up and running, and expedite the process. Improving our local economy is a team effort, and if both landlords and the City can compromise, we can make real progress for San José.

Match vibrant startups with empty storefronts and what do you get? You get jobs, you get rid of unattractive nuisances and you start to attract more pedestrian traffic, which helps all the other businesses in the area thrive.

You get more reasons for people to spend their money here in San José rather than going to another city. And we know from numerous studies and our own experiences that bustling businesses put more “eyes on the street,” increasing safety and causing crime to fall.

But the tremendous success of StartUp San José showed something else. It showed what happens when government acts as a partner with local businesses, local innovators and local residents to jump start economic activity.

There is a tendency at City Hall to think we might have all the answers and need to drive most of the solutions ourselves. Certainly there are many great ideas at City Hall and many activities where government must be the driver.

But there are many other times when local government should invest more strategically in order to unlock the multiplying power of private, non-profit and other government investments.

That’s what we did with StartUp San José. It costs almost nothing, just the small business fee we waived and the time it takes to change regulations to give local businesses with empty storefronts more incentive to rent to local businesses that can create local jobs and increase local revenue.

What this small investment of time brought is the proof that vibrant local small businesses can thrive. And when they do, they multiply our small investment with new jobs, new opportunities and new tax revenues that come, not by asking people to pay more, but by increasing the number of people paying.

Events like StartUp San José also showed something else. They show just how powerful the spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship is here in San José.

How do you believe we can StartUp San José?  Please respond to the call to action, and share your ideas boost our local economy at StartUpSanJose@gmail.com.

Fortunately, there’s evidence of the converse effect as well.  The arrival of Roy’s Station on a then-struggling Jackson Street a few years has led a renaissance in Japantown, soon followed by the Ukelele Source music shop, and Biscuits’ pet store.  Now, nearly all of the vacancy has been filled.

Turning on the lights in just a couple of shops on a block can inject new life to a neighborhood, bringing foot traffic, jobs, vibrancy, and even reducing crime.

In an effort to leverage the multiplier effects of active storefronts, I’m working with Councilmembers Rose Herrera and Xavier Campos to launch “Startup San José,” an effort to clear the barriers for entrepreneurs to fill vacant storefronts throughout the city.

The idea is simple: where landlords of long-vacant, street-facing parcels are willing to reduce their asking lease rates, City Hall should waive permit fees for new businesses seeking to get up and running, and expedite the process.

On March 21st and 22nd, we’ll fill a couple of empty storefronts in Downtown with entrepreneurs from local organizations like San Jose Made and Hackers and Founders.   Please join our celebration on Friday, March 22nd, where you can drop by after work at the Legacy Civic Towers (75 E. Santa Clara, corner of East Santa Clara Street and 2nd) to shop for locally-made crafts, and enjoy entertainment, drinks, and food trucks.   We’ll kick off the celebration at 5:30 pm, and will continue well into the evening.

In the meantime, you’ll see more ways that we’re finding to support San José’s small businesses—from a new website to facilitate permits, to the launch of free “wickedly fast” outdoor wi-fi throughout the Downtown,  to a “tax amnesty” to help small businesses to pay their delinquent fees, to new “curb cafés” that will expand restaurants into the streets, so patrons can enjoy our unbeatable weather.

If you want to get involved, or just offer your good ideas, then email me at startupsanjose@gmail.com.

I often hear that our residents tell us that they seek walkable, safe, and vibrant neighborhoods.  They know that enhancing the level of visible pedestrian activity in our “main streets,” neighborhood business districts, and Downtown boosts the quality of life in surrounding neighborhoods.

Increasingly, though, we’re learning about how another important group of people who value those spaces: the entrepreneurs, innovators, and high-skilled workers we need to keep our Valley economy growing.  That is, creating a strong economy requires creating a “sense of place,” that difficult-to-quantify assemblage of urban elements—retail shops, flower-adorned paseos, street performers, murals, or charming cafés—that make pedestrians want to linger, rather than merely to pass-through.

Curb Cafés

Last month, many of you saw news accounts of our most recent effort to enliven our public spaces, in the form of a pilot project to launch “Curb Cafés” in San José.   By extending the sidewalks into the streets, adjacent businesses—restaurants, cafes, bike shops, or bookstores—can create dynamic spaces that both draw customers out into sunshine, and enliven the streetscape for passers-by.  Public Works official Harry Freitas has worked with several small business owners to establish guidelines for helping neighborhood businesses pay to expand sidewalk frontage and then use the new outdoor space to expand their businesses and enliven the street scene.  We’ll focus on five neighborhood businesses during the pilot project, but if the program works as we think it will, we will expand it thereafter.

With this kind of urban innovation, everybody wins. The business owners get an expanded space that attracts customers.  Taxpayers get an amenity paid for entirely by the local businesses, while the city gets new tax revenue from expanded sales.  And city residents and visitors get a more vibrant—and safer—street scene.

More “Eyes on the Street” = a Safer San José

Why “safer”? From the sidewalk café of Paris to the funky “parklets” of San Francisco, data shows that allowing businesses to “program” some street space improves safety of those streets.  We know this from our own experience.   We feel more comfortable walking on streets with many other people outside.  Getting people out on the sidewalk launches a virtuous cycle, creating a safer, more attractive pedestrian environment that will draw others out as well.

A Broader Approach

This effort comprises just part of a broader, multi-partner effort to “retrofit” San José from a suburban sprawl to enhance our nascent urban villages.  Our partners at 1^st Act have led the way, with the steady reinvention of South First Street with new murals, public art, planters and sidewalk extensions, and a plaza space at the Parque de los Pobladores.   The region’s leading voice of urbanism, SPUR, recently opened a San José office, and they’re renewing a push for better architecture and urban design.  An effort managed by the San Jose Downtown Association has boosted the Downtown streetscape with more murals, flower planters, and art boxes.

City Hall is doing its part as well.  We’ve loosened restrictions on street vendors, eased regulations on retail signage for neighborhood businesses, and liberalized zoning constraints on new tenants in storefront spaces.  With the help of our Department of Transportation, we’re removing lanes to calm traffic where neighborhoods appear overrun by high-speed, three-lane thoroughfares, such as 3^rd and 4^th Streets, making for a safer and more pedestrian-friendly environment.

In the coming weeks, we’ll see eye-catching LED-illuminated designs filling daunting passageways, such as where Arena-and-Diridon-bound pedestrians pass beneath the barren 87 overpass.

A café is just a café. But as we can see from the impacts of Roy’s Station, Philz, or Caffe Frascati, a café can provide the jolt that a street or neighborhood needs to spark its revival.

If you want to learn more about the idea or how to create a Curb Café for your business, email me at sam.liccardo@sanjoseca.gov.   I’ll keep you in the loop.

• Making College a Reality for Students in Poverty

This month, we announced the launch of a unique high school near the Five Wounds Church on East Santa Clara Street, offering an innovative approach to giving struggling students a clear path to college and work opportunities beyond.   Cristo Rey San Jose High will open in the Fall of 2014, as a result of an extensive outreach and fundraising effort led by businesspeople John A. Sobrato, B.J. Cassin, and Dan MCallin,  as part of a Founders Circle in which I was honored to play a role.  By opening its doors to underachieving students from low-income families, Cristo Rey will offer an intensive college prep curriculum with a twist:  every student works with a local employer for five days a month.  The company helps to foot the bill for the tuition, and the students gain critical “soft skills” that will help them excel in a professional office environment.  The Cristo Rey model attracted national media attention after it launched in Chicago, sending every graduating student—most from Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods– to a four-year college.   Special thanks to the generosity of many great employers like Wells Fargo, HP, Focus Bank, and the Valley Medical Center, who will be taking several kids under thei r wings, and to Khanh Bui for leading the technical team that secured the charter.  The Jesuit school will be open to students of all faiths, and we will notify local families as enrollment opens next year.

• Wickedly Fast WiFi

Although the official launch is a couple weeks away, San José’s Downtown denizens can already enjoy free access to the fastest outdoor wi-fi in America.  If you’ve brought your tablet or laptop to enjoy, say, a coffee at Café Frascati, a sandwich at la Lune Sucre, or a stroll in Cesar Chavez Park, you can jump online by locating the network named  “WickedlyFastwifi.”   Special thanks to our partners, SmartWAVE Technologies and Ruckus Wireless,  and the city’s IT director, Vijay Sammeta, for creating a a unique public-private partnership to make Downtown a place supportive of creativity and innovation.

• Thousands of Crazed Santas Invade Downtown

To raise funds to keep the “Downtown for the Holidays” events thriving, I partnered with the CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group,  Carl Guardino, to launch the “Santa Run Silicon Valley” this year.   We sought to keep the event small and manageable—to no more than 2,000 entrants—in its inaugural year, and to encourage every runner to wear a red-and-white Santa hat, beard, and costume.   The demand exceeded all expectations.   By the time of the December 16^th start, we had a spectacle of over 2,700 running-shoe –clad Santas flooding Downtown streets, all in pursuit of a ZipCar “chase car” bearing our local “Grinch,” County Assessor Larry Stone.   A machine induced-snowfall and milk-and-cookies greeted the running Santas at the finish line.  This fun and family-friendly event raised over $80,000 to support “Downtown Ice” and “Christmas in the Park.”   Look for SVLG to grow the Santa Run quickly in the coming years, as we seek to break the world-record for the most running Santas (11,000) by 2014!

• Jobs Are Coming

The announcement of the move of FICO’s headquarters from Minneapolis to San Jose, boosting its 90 employees already working Downtown, bolsters evidence of a long-awaited economic resurgence.   Coming on the heels of recent arrivals Move.com, Malwarebytes, and Oracle, Downtown now boasts over 80 tech companies.   Over 115 employers have taken advantage of a Downtown parking incentive program that I spearheaded in 2010 offering reduced rate parking in city garages for employees of companies signing a lease in a Downtown office.

• The End of the NHL Lockout

With the imminent revival of the Sharks’ seaons at HP Arena in late January, we look forward to seeing hordes of hockey fans return Downtown restaurants, pubs, and hotels.  Many Downtown businesses will feel a timely boost to the typically-slow winter season, and lots of employees in those venues can breathe easier.

Looking Ahead

With very real public safety concerns, budgetary challenges, and economic uncertainty ahead of us, we should take a breath, and appreciate the good news that’s emerging in San José– with much to build upon in 2013.  We’ll begin construction on three new parks in our district’s neighborhoods, we’ll see a surge in new development on blighted parcels, and ongoing transit improvements with the continued construction of BART, a new Bus Rapid Transit line, and Light Rail speed improvements.  I look forward to continuing to work to bring positive changes to San José.

Why? Silicon Valley is overwhelmingly suburban.  Increasingly, talented software designers, entrepreneurs, engineers, and other young professionals choose cities over suburbs.  The more dense, vibrant, and hip, the better.   Even if “Generation Yers” could afford to live in Valley suburbs–and they can’t– they won’t.  They increasingly choose to live in San Francisco, Manhattan, or Austin, chasing more diverse social offerings, or an edgier cultural scene.

Where goes the talent, so go the companies.  Consider the many young stars in the social media constellation –such as Twitter, Yelp, FourSquare, Zynga, and Groupon—that have launched urban headquarters.  Others, like Pinterest or Pulse, moved from the burbs into San Francisco to creep closer to their employees.   The dependence of Silicon Valley companies on that urban-based workforce appears on full display in every jammed southbound CalTrain car each morning, and on the dozens of buses deployed by Google, Apple, Yahoo!, Cisco, and Genentech to transport 5,000 San Francisco residents to suburban campuses.

Here’s the real problem: when transporting talent becomes too difficult, Valley companies simply grow elsewhere.  As Facebook launched its Manhattan engineering office in 2011, an executive told the media, “We are looking for the smartest folks, the best place by a large margin was New York.”  Ouch.

This trend–a talented workforce increasingly seeking urban environs—will continue long into the future. Why?   They’ll need affordable places to live.  Every year, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s survey reveals that housing costs for employees present the greatest obstacle to companies’ growth here.   Residents will increasingly find that affordability in a smaller home, because their household size will shrink: while 50% of new Bay Area households had children in the 1970’s, only 20% will in the next decade.   Amid sclerotic lending markets, they’ll find it more affordable to rent rather than own in the coming decades—as many as 84% of new Bay Area households, according to the Urban Land Institute.

Finally, transportation costs will dictate where they live.   As gas and electricity prices consistently outpace inflation by several multiples, transportation costs will increasingly factor into household location decisions.   Those transportation costs–already exceeding 20% of the incomes of the average Bay Area household—will drive more people to transit, and to choose housing close to jobs.

In the face of these trends, the Valley vitally needs an urban option—a place with transit infrastructure, high-density housing, and the capacity to grow.

Fortunately, we already have that place, as Baumannn points out in his editorial: Downtown San José .

What, then, are we doing to make it so?

After a difficult recession, a new momentum in Downtown has emerged, manifesting itself in public infrastructure projects and in private investment:

• An expanded and modernized McEnery Convention Center will complete construction in September, and a restored Civic Auditorium has opened to live music fans and rave reviews.
• This month, we’ll launch the fastest outdoor wi-fi  service in North America throughout the Downtown, as part of a public-private partnership with Ruckus and SmartWave Technologies.
• After I pushed fee reductions through Council, two residential high-rise towers will begin construction next year, after a half-decade hiatus, and hundreds more mid-rise units will follow.
• A new soccer stadium has broken ground nearby, and, we all expect, a major league baseball stadium will soon follow.
• BART construction to San José has begun, as will bus-rapid-transit connections to BART from Downtown, and the electrification of CalTrain will commence construction next year.
• In the coming weeks, we’ll see dozens of ZipCar car-sharing signs pop up along Downtown streets, and bike-sharing stations services as well.
• An already-popular San Pedro Square Market has helped to sustain nighttime activity for Downtown dwellers during the Sharks lockout, while they enjoy more live music venues and new retail amenities, like a climbing gym, another grocery store, and music equipment store .
• Over 100 employers have signed new leases or renewed leases by taking advantage of a parking incentive program that I spearheaded two years ago.
• Large employers like Oracle and PWC have expanded their presence Downtown, while new smaller tenants—most recently Move, Inc. and Malwarebytes—have joined the over 70 tech companies already in the Downtown.

Of course, we’ve still got a long way to go.

With a renewed focus, though, we’ll get there.  As we evaluate competing demands for resources and attention, too often debates devolve into turf battles about “Downtown versus the Neighborhoods.”    As the entire Valley’s future will increasingly depend on our success in creating a vibrant urban center, we’ll recognize this as a false choice.   Let’s make it happen Downtown.

Fortunately, as Freud famously remarked, “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”  Occasionally we do see ballot measures that really do fix problems with common-sense, long-overdue solutions.   For these, we can happily check the “yes” box on the ballot, and spend our time scratching our heads over the rest.

I offer a few of the lower-hanging fruit:

• Measure B – Leave the “Sidewalk Surfing” to the Beach Boys:  If you share my concern about seeing your home under several feet of water when Anderson Dam breaches in the next earthquake, you’ll have no problem approving this one.   Putting all of the politics aside—and we all agree that the SCVWD could use less politics– even the Water District’s most vocal critics agree on the need for the flood protection and water supply projects supported by this measure.   We sit at a crossroads in our efforts to confront our growing water supply needs, and this is a time to invest.   We’ll see no increase in tax rates from this measure, since it merely extends the existing charge to property owners, set to expire in 2016.

• Proposition  35 – Add Tools to Combat Sex Trafficking and Exploitation:  Promoted heavily by former Facebook CIO Chris Kelly, Proposition 35 increases prison terms for human traffickers, and requires convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders.   It also requires all sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts–a tool that I would have loved to have had in my prior career, as a former Deputy DA prosecuting internet crimes against children.  

• Proposition 36—Reform “Three Strikes”:  While the “Three Strikes” Law has fiercely divided advocates, there appears little question that the measure could use some reform around the edges.  Currently, a defendant can face a life sentence on a new felony conviction if he has suffered convictions for two previous serious or violent felonies.   Proposition 36 would ensure that the defendant’s most recent conviction must also be a serious or violent felony to be subjected to a life sentence under the Three Strikes Law.  As a former criminal prosecutor, I join our Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen in calling for the law’s long-overdue reform.

• Proposition  39 – Let’s Stop Chasing Companies into Other States: While any measure with the word “taxes” in it will give voters a queasy feeling, Silicon Valley residents have plenty reason to support Prop 39, which counters the inequitably favorable tax treatment exploited by out-of-state companies.   Championed by State Senator Kevin DeLeon, the measure would require those out-of-state companies to use the same method for calculating state taxes (the “single sales factor”) as California companies.   It commits $550 million of the additional revenue toward energy efficiency projects in schools and public buildings, and at least $200 million more to our schools annually.

Whew…now, those are the “easy” ones…good luck with the rest!