Our blog has moved.

Thanks for visiting Protect San Jose on Blogspot. Our blog is now fully integrated with our website at ProtectSanJose.com, where we've also added technological upgrades that allow you to interact with us in exciting new ways. As such, we'll no longer be posting at this web address. We apologize for any inconvenience.

Check out the new and improved Protect San Jose today!

Beat Cop: "I know it when I see it"

Thanks for all the great questions. Keep 'em coming...

Mark:

When is something considered by the Police to be considered a civil matter, as opposed to a criminal one?

Beat Cop:

Mark, “I know it when I see it...”

That’s a line made famous by the U.S. Supreme Court when trying to define obscenity in the ‘60s. Well, trying to answer your question caused me to recall that famous line. How do we know if the situation put before us when we respond to a call is civil or criminal?

In short, we know it when we see it. In the world of police work, criminal law trumps civil law, and civil laws are many times hands-off for the police. We have well-trained dispatchers who can help you decipher the nature of your particular situation and let you know if the police can help. If there is still some uncertainty, please feel free to ask for an officer to respond.

Police departments can generally only enforce criminal laws. Sometimes a person will clearly violate a civil law and a citizen calls the police to take action. In a case like that, the police can assist by providing the appropriate court information but could not take action or force the issue.

One of the most common civil cases we come across are tenant-landlord issues. Local police departments do not handle most issues relating to evictions. The Sheriff’s department has a civil division that can assist with the eviction process and ultimately the physical eviction. It can be a long process, and we understand the frustration when you call the police for assistance and we can only point you in the right direction.

For more eviction information, contact the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department Civil Division at (408) 808-4800. The California Department of Consumer Affairs has a website with information, forms and explanations of laws. You can even request a free booklet explaining landlord tenant issues.

‘Til next time, proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop

What's up, Doc?

By Bobby Lopez

I just got back from vacation on Tuesday, and before I even got to the office, I saw this article in the Mercury News. In case you didn’t catch it, Dr. Rajiv Das, who advises San Jose’s Police and Fire Retirement Board on disability claims, has been accused by some of holding up the process.

As sometimes happens when there’s a controversial story involving police, a Mercury reporter, John Woolfolk, called me for a comment. The final story includes bits and pieces of all that I said, but it doesn’t accurately reflect my position.

First off, I have no personal problem with Dr. Das, and I have never referred to him as “Dr. No.” I have heard rumors that others refer to him that way, and that’s all I told Mr. Woolfolk.

My concern is that Dr. Das is overworked. As it says in the paper, Dr. Das also serves as a medical consultant to the pension board for civilian retirees and performs yearly physicals and driving and drug tests on city employees. That’s a lot of work, and it means Dr. Das reports to no less than three different governing bodies at City Hall. I doubt that he has a lot of free time.

Meanwhile, we have cops suffering from disabilities that keep them from doing the job they swore to do, the job they live to do. They’re forced to stay home with no income and wait for their claim to come through. Sometimes, this process can take six months or more. These are men and women with families to feed and bills to pay. They simply can’t afford to wait.

We have one member who’s been waiting on her claim for almost five months now. In that time, the medical insurance that covers her and her daughter has run out and her car has been repossessed. Adding insult to her injury, we found out the POA can’t assist her through our catastrophic emergency fund because of legal issues with workers’ compensation.

The City needs to reduce Dr. Das’ workload and get these claims processed more efficiently. Maybe that means hiring another physician to help Dr. Das. Maybe it means streamlining the claim process. Either way, we need a fair and equitable disability retirement system that supports our public safety employees who have sacrificed their bodies to keep us safe.

Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.

Special Public Safety Meeting

By Kathleen Flynn

Tonight, I will be attending yet another meeting at City Hall which will focus on public safety and policing. After the meeting, I will write a follow up story to post the details of what happened. I hope those of you who support our men and women in blue and who have been victims of crime will join me. For more information on the meeting, go to the City of San Jose website and see the announcement at the top of the home page.

The Mayor and City Council have spent years now listening to a small but vocal minority claiming that SJPD has been engaged in racial profiling, and unfairly targeting minorities. This group has put so much pressure on the Council that laws that were designed to protect us from unlawful behaviors like being drunk in public have been watered down so much so that I hate to see what comes next.

Unless and until more people start speaking up for victims of crime, supporting SJPD, and demanding the hiring of more officers, the real issues of lawlessness that face our city will never be addressed. Victims of crime will continue to fall by the wayside and remain without a voice.

Our under-staffed and over-worked police will continue to feel unappreciated, and our citizens will continue to be affected by increases in crime while criminals walk free. The small, vocal minority that fights so hard for the rights of law breakers will continue to garner all the attention and City resources while deflecting the need for change in their direction, and the hiring of more police officers will be put off for yet another year.

Please tell your friends and neighbors about tonight’s meeting and join me. Or email the Mayor and Council to offer your support of our excellent SJPD and speak out in favor of putting victims’ rights first.

Thank you!

Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.

Community Budget Participation: Educate Yourself

Part two of a multi-part series

By Ed Rast

Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.

Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.

I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.

If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.

California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”

As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:

• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;

• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;

• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;

• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and

• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.

If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government

In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.

San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:

• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;

• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;

• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;

• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue

• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and

• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.

If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.

As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.

This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.

In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.

For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.

One Small Step

A couple weeks back, we posted a column by Mary Klotzbach, Chair of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Public Policy Committee for California, in which she called for the passage of AB91, a state bill by Assemblyman Mike Feuer of Los Angeles. AB91 would create a five-year pilot program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare counties in which ignition interlock devices would be installed on vehicles owned or operated by first-time convicted drunk drivers. These devices force drivers to take a breathalyzer test before allowing them to start their cars.

AB91 passed both houses of the legislature, but before Sunday night, it was languishing on the Governor's desk as he threatened a political veto of nearly 700 bills before today's deadline to sign them into law. Late last night, the Governor's office announced he had signed at least 230 bills, including AB91. The pilot program will go into effect in January, 2010.

We'd like to thank MADD for their hard work and advocacy on behalf of this important policy that will keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. You can read more about AB91 and the hundreds of bills the Governor signed (and vetoed) in this article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Happy Columbus Day, and stay safe.

Open Forum Friday

Something on your mind? Let's hear it.

Beat Cop Responds

Thanks for all the great questions. Keep 'em coming...

Karen:

When should I call 911 vs 311?

Beat Cop:

Karen, you are not alone with this question. I get asked this all the time. The best advice I can give you is: if in doubt ,call 911. In many situations, a citizen might feel there is not an actual emergency, like a fist fight or theft occurring at a shopping center. The Police Department would like you to call 911 in cases of any crime in progress or any level of emergency.

Calling 911 with a preserved, low level of emergency is not going to prevent someone from getting through with a “real emergency”. Calling 911 early and getting the appropriate police or fire response can however, prevent a situation from escalating and becoming the “real emergency”. 311 can be used from home phones only and is available for calls like music complaints, parking violations and police questions.

911 calls using cell phones are slightly more complicated. (311 is not available on cell phones.) Recently, a 911 cell phone switching system has been implemented, routing your cell phone 911 call to the local police agency whose jurisdiction you are calling from. This system is not flawless and often will default to the California Highway Patrol. Getting connected to the CHP while in San Jose can happen when you are near a freeway but not on it or when the system is not sure where you are. If you are connected to the CHP, dispatchers will make the transfer back to San Jose Police.

A sure way to get San Jose Police from the start on a cell phone is by calling 277-8911. This number will connect you the same way as a 911 call made from your home. You may want to store this number in your phone and put it on speed dial.

Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop

Community Budget Participation

Part one of a multi-part series

By Ed Rast

Did you know that San Jose’s budget process for FY 2010-2011 will begin later this month rather than in January 2010 — as it normally would — because of numerous challenges, including a $90M deficit and proposed city service and staff reductions?

The typical budget process looks something like this:

• In January, the City conducts a telephone survey that randomly calls residents to asks them to rank their budget priorities and rate city services.

• Following a City presentation, neighborhood leaders this year were asked to review the Budget Office's prepared list of reductions and list those they preferred or offer their own cost or staff reductions which the staff would review to achieve a cost reduction target. We expect this step to be repeated in the next budget cycle.

• Community budget presentations are made in each council district and questions answered.

• In late spring, the Mayor and City Manager present their budget messages.

• The City Council conducts study sessions with staff presentations on departmental budgets.

• Councilmembers can recommend additional spending or reductions provided they also recommend changes in other areas to balance the budget. (By law, the City cannot operate without a balanced budget.)

• The City Council votes on the City Administration’s budget recommendations in June.

• The budget goes into effect on July 1st.

Many of this and next year’s strategies for combating San Jose’s chronic budget deficit were originally discussed and proposed in the January 2008 document, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit. This was a report by Management Partners, a national consulting firm specializing in local government with offices in San Jose and Cincinnati. (See Pdf pages 6-8 for cover letter and index. A Budget Process Review and Recommended Budget Principals are described on pdf pages 133-137.)

From the Management Partners report: “The development and adoption of the annual budget is the most important responsibility for the city administration and the most critical policy decision made each year by the Mayor and City Council. In San José the annual budget allocates $3.7 billion in resources to provide services to nearly one million residents. The budget process in San José has continued to evolve and be improved by the City staff, Mayor and City Council.”

As we have previously discussed, the disorganization of current city budget documents makes them very difficult to understand for the City Council, and taxpaying businesses and residents. It also prevents us from comparing our city services, taxes, fees, spending, and performance measurements to community conditions.

Beginning later this month, there will be many important public meetings on city policy and budgeting — mostly at City Hall. Most residents will not be aware of these meetings nor able to attend. Regardless, policy recommendations will be made that affect city service levels, budgets, department performance measurements and proposed staff and service reductions.

It is very important that you, your neighbors, and San Jose taxpaying businesses and residents do some homework in order to knowledgably participate in the community budget process. You can begin by reading and clearly understanding the Management Partners report that I linked to earlier in this article as this will be used as the primary basis for the City Administration’s proposed budget and staff reductions.

As a community, we can help prioritize spending in our City. We can tell our leaders what services should be fully funded, partially funded or not funded at all. We can help to develop or change city policies that affect future budget deficits. If we take the time to understand the complex budget process and communicate our concerns and recommendations to the City Council and City Administration, taxpaying business and residents can join together to make San Jose an even greater city with a high quality of life for everyone.

In upcoming articles, I’ll continue our discussion of community budget participation by referencing data to help you understand the budget and notifying you of important budget meetings.

Ask Ed Returns

Regular visitors to Protect San Jose know Ed Rast as a statistical guru, especially when it comes to public safety. In his regular Tuesday column, he's examined San Jose's exorbitant business taxes and fees, mismanaged budgeting priorities of City Administration, and our tendency to build more and more housing without bringing new jobs to the area.

A couple months ago, Ed opened up a dialogue with you, the reader, and he received some intriguing questions. Now, we're happy to open the floor again. This is your chance to Ask Ed.

Leave your questions in the comment space below, and stay safe.

Crime Doesn't Pay, But We Do

By Jim Cogan

The title of this blog is one of the mottos that we have used over the years. It speaks to the simplicity of the program and its power over crime. This was a quiet month for Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers. We have 14 current cases under investigation, but only one closed last month. The one that closed was a great example of how crime doesn’t pay, but we do.

We received a tip drugs were being sold out of a house in San José. Police set up surveillance at the home and witnessed the suspect leaving with an accomplice. The officers followed them and were able to stop them on a traffic violation. After they stopped the car, they observed the suspects tossing bags of what later turned out to be marijuana out of the car. Officers recovered approximately half a pound of marijuana valued at $1,000, drug paraphernalia, and $1,000 in cash. The suspects will face criminal charges and jail time while the tipster will receive a reward. Crime doesn’t pay, but we do.

At Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers, we are proud of our impressive record of success, but we are also proud of the exceptional work performed by the men and women of Santa Clara County’s law enforcement community. Every year, we recognize their service by hosting an awards dinner where every jurisdiction is offered the opportunity to nominate an officer or team of officers who have distinguished themselves in the line of duty. Over the years, we have recognized heroes who day in and day out put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe. We have honored law enforcement professionals who go the extra mile to get the job done, and it is our privilege to thank them for making us all a little safer.

This year’s awards dinner will be held on November 13th at San José’s Forth Street Summit Center. For more information, please call Councilmember Pete Constant’s office at (408) 535-4901. This is a great event that will show you why we live in one of the safest regions in the Country. Together we will thank the men and women who protect San José and all of Silicon Valley.

Jim Cogan is President of Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers.

For the Record

By Bobby Lopez

There’s a lot of talk going around about next year’s District Attorney race and what role the SJPOA will play in it. I’ve heard and read a lot of different things, so I want to take a second to clear the air about our endorsement process.

As a policy, the POA does not make early endorsements. We have a process we’ve used since I became President, and we plan to follow it for the June 2010 elections. There are times when we make exceptions for friends who have a proven track record of supporting public safety issues, and we reserve that right. But that is not the norm by any means.

We are also part of a Public Safety Coalition with San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 and the Association of Retired San Jose Police and Firefighters. From now on, our public safety organizations will work together when considering local endorsements. Once all three organizations have finished their own interview processes, we have the option to make a joint endorsement if we all agree on a candidate.

The endorsements of public safety organizations are important to any candidate because of the trust people place in us. Having our name on a mailer or a brochure carries a lot of weight with voters. I have made it a priority as President to ensure that our process is open and fair because I do not want to betray the people’s trust by making a decision without all the facts.

In coming months, we will extend an invitation to all viable candidates for the June 2010 elections to appear before us and request our endorsement. The current District Attorney will be welcome, as will any other candidate. She may win our endorsement, but only after a fair and thorough process.

Have a great weekend, and stay safe out there.

Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.

Beat Cop: A Dangerous Playground

We all are mindful of predators that may be lurking near a school or playground. However, the Internet is a place where our children are playing much more frequently, and it is becoming increasingly dangerous. Some studies show that one in seven children between the ages of 10 and 17 will be sexually solicited online. Hate groups use the Internet to recruit young, impressionable kids. Studies show that anywhere from 20-70% of online children have been victims of some form of cyber-bullying. Many recent juvenile acts of violence have been linked to a cultivation of hate and violence online.

Growing problems from cyber-bullying are showing up at our schools. Disputes originating at school are transferred online and are fueled by unsupervised public humiliation in the online world. Results of cyber-bullying can range from depression and poor academic performance to violence on campus and even suicide.

Some of the 64,000 sexual offender registrants in California that are child predators have turned to the Internet as a new playground to prey upon. Most parents of child victims solicited online did not even consider that there was a physical risk to their children being online. We, as beat cops, are seeing more and more cases of child victimization on the Internet. Many cases in which a child had been victimized online only got to that point after a long period of interaction between the predator and the child.

These cases could have been prevented with the use of some simple Internet safety tips, like placing computers centrally in the home and using available monitoring or filtering software. Most computers have built-in parental controls in their operating systems and Internet browsers with varying levels of control. Service providers like AOL also have parental controls.

Start by becoming familiar with these safety tools. Learn how to check your computer’s online browser history. Next, invest in “aftermarket” Internet content filters, blockers, and/or trackers. This simple type of software is available for sale online and at local electronic stores. Examples of some are Netnanny, kidsnet and Spector Pro. These programs can filter or block content on the web. Social networking sites — like MySpace — and chat rooms can be monitored, and total time online or on these sites can be limited. Content trackers like Spector Pro can log all the emails, web pages, chats, and MySpace activity on a computer in an easy-to-use program, giving you a quick overview of your child's Internet activity. Knowing what your child is doing online and who is interacting with them is the key to keeping them safe.

Next, you should become familiar with the dangers our children are exposed to online. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (www.missingkids.com) is the world’s leading organization and partner with law enforcement for the elimination of online sexual exploitation of children. NCMEC operates a phone and online system to report any form of child solicitation at 1-800-THELOST or www.cybertipline.com. Tips are forwarded to the appropriate federal, local, or task force law enforcement agency for investigation. NCMEC also offers free online safety training at www.netsmartz.org. Also available are a variety of learning games for children as well as resources, videos, free CD's and presentations for parents educators and law enforcement. There is even the opportunity for a local presentation to be made at your school or organization. If the whole online world is a mystery for you there is a parents’ resource to explain all this mumbo jumbo in plain English at www.netsmartz411.org. Online help as well as free phone advice is available.

Your San Jose Police Department is working hard to keep kids safe online. The San Jose Police Child Exploitation Detail is a member of the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program. The lives our kids lead online deserve the same amount of attention and protection we give them in the rest of their lives. Providing that protection will take some catching up for most parents out there, but the resources and help are available to you. Please take some time to consider what a dangerous playground the Internet can be and report any attempts of online solicitation of a child to the police.

Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop

Enough is Enough

By Kathleen Flynn

Often times in high-profile cases, the victim, their families, and friends get lost in the media hype of political campaigns and community groups with personal agendas. If you look at infamous cases like Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and DeShawn Campbell, you’d be hard pressed to figure out who the real victims are.

The problem as I see it starts when the media turns offenders, prosecutors, and police personnel into celebrities. It all becomes one big out-of-control circus that is soon joined by the political posturing of community leaders and groups and others with personal agendas. Groups campaigning against the death penalty, groups opposing law enforcement, community leaders screaming about racial discrimination take center stage, yet no one seems to notice the casualties that are being left behind in the dust on the field.

I remember reading about the shooting of Officer Jeffery Fontana. I felt heart broken for him, his family, and his friends. It wasn’t until the media started reporting stories that were bent on creating sympathy for DeShawn Campbell — along with my meeting of Officer Fontana’s mother, Sandy, at a vigil to honor victims of violent crimes — that I realized the true injustice that was occurring. The pain these families suffer at the hands of the media and all of the other players inspired me to give them a voice in this column. During that vigil, I listened to the heart wrenching re-victimization stories of victims and family members who not only suffered publicly at the hands of the sensationalistic media, but also at the hands of the very offices that are being paid to ensure justice for them or their lost loved ones.

Currently, we are seeing such a case play out in our local media instead of in the courtroom or in the voting booth where it belongs. Questions of ethical impropriety and early political campaigning are overshadowing the tragic murder of one of our very own much-loved community members. These outrageous behaviors being guised as “the public’s right to know,” are endangering not only the possible conviction of known criminals, but are also causing great pain to an innocent family that has lost a loved one in the commission of a violent crime.

Enough is enough. I am calling on the media, prosecutors, community groups, and law enforcement to end the political rhetoric and put the focus back where it belongs: on the victim and how we can use this tragedy to improve the safety of our communities and to support families that continue to suffer from the loss of a loved one.

Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.

A New Model

By Ed Rast

Did you know that California’s current 12.2% unemployment rate is the highest it’s been since World War II and that Santa Clara County’s 12% rate of unemployment is the highest among nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area?

In a column this past weekend in the San Francisco Chronicle, Michael Bernick, former Director of the California Employment Development Department (1999-2004) notes that, “Since 1970 state unemployment has soared near or over double digits several times, and each time the economy came back.”

In times of recession, the key assumption that both state and local governments have relied upon for decades is that there will be an economic recovery in less than a year (recessions in 1990-91 and 2001 both lasted less than 8 months) followed by significant growth in jobs and tax revenue.

Is the model of a brief economic downturn followed by recovery and significant growth a realistic assumption upon which to base our city budget and revenue forecasts? Let’s look at what leading economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and UCLA’s Anderson School are saying...

The current California economic downturn differs from recessions past in at least two major ways:

One is its severity. The 12.2 percent unemployment rate — affecting more than 2.3 million workers — is not the highest it’s been, but it does not cover the roughly 1.3 percent of workers who are discouraged or marginally-attached — more than 200,000 — or the roughly 5.8 percent — over 1 million — workers employed less than full time for economic reasons. Now we’re talking about roughly 19.3 percent of workers affected by the recession.

Second, this recession is across all sectors and occupations, unlike previous recessions that affected a few industries. Construction is biggest loser, down 140,000 jobs and 18.5 percent from last year and over 300,000 jobs since December 2006. Business and professional services, trade, transportation and utilities have also seen dramatic cutbacks. California lost 110.000 retail jobs in auto dealerships, electronics, apparel, real estate, and other areas. Many of these jobs are not coming back because Internet sales more than make up for the loss.

Outsourcing and new technologies are reducing the need for workers. The breakdown of the employer-employee relationship and enormous growth of independent contractors has accelerated changes in the California job market. For months, economists have said that unemployment will remain above 10% and not drop significantly until 2010 or even 2011.

It is difficult to predict employment numbers. When hiring begins again, the job structure will look different because of technology and globalization. Will there be enough jobs in the future of California, Silicon Valley and San Jose? Let’s see what the experts have to say:

Michael Bernick tell us that “A next wave of job creation, fueled by California’s entrepreneurial ethos, must be our hope as we try to survive the current turmoil.

English economist Arthur C. Pigon says, “The latest gloomy forecasts ignore an important lesson of history,” that the “deeper the slump, the zippier the recovery.”

Michael T. Darda, Chief Economist for MKM Partners posits: “The most important determinate of the strength of an economic recovery is the downturn that preceded it.”

The City of San Jose receives about 40% of its revenue from commercial and office activities, and about 20% from retail activities — which use less city services than they pay for in taxes and use less land than homes that use more services than their taxes provide. We have not grown our jobs and tax revenues in proportion to or ahead of our growing population, as most other cities in Santa Clara County have done since the start of the Silicon Valley tech boom, as my previous blogs have clearly shown.

“Doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result” has long been considered the definition of insanity. As it concerns job creation and growing the City’s tax revenues, this philosophy has allowed San Jose’s quality of life to slip below the levels provided by neighboring cities.

It is very difficult to accurately predict the future, especially the timing of a recovery in an uncertain world, and there are many influences on San Jose’s economy which we cannot control or change. However, we can control many city policies and processes that take longer than necessary, amend the high tax rates and fees that cause businesses to perceive San Jose as “unfriendly,” and improve how we compare to our main competitors: neighboring cities.

San Jose has an opportunity to take advantage of the coming economic recovery and build a strong base of jobs and tax revenue, but only if we change how we deal with nurturing startups, growing companies, and retaining companies.

We need to find out exactly why these businesses choose not to make their homes in San Jose. We must be honest with our residents about the many reasons we have lost thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue.

San Jose should be comparing its practices to what other local cities have been more successful at doing. We must make sure that public receives adequate value for the dollars they spend and hat they are involved in budget discussion and decisions rather than just City Administration and a few insiders who, after decades of effort, have not been able to produce the needed jobs and revenue results.

Stop the Subsidy of Drunk Driving

By Mary Klotzbach

Drunk driving kills heroes too. My son, Matt, was in his third year at the United States Naval Academy in 2001 and an honor student inline for flight, when he was killed by a multiple suspended drunk driver while home on leave. Matt was killed in Santa Clara County by a man with a blood alcohol content of 0.9.

Before you sympathize with me for the loss of my son, consider the fact that every Californian faces the threat of drunken driving every time they drive on our roadways.

According to new data from the U.S. Department of Transportation, California’s families are sharing the road with 310,971 drunk drivers with three or more DUI convictions, and of those, 44,210 with five or more convictions. In 2006 alone, drunk drivers killed 1,276 of our states citizens.

These numbers show that California’s law enforcement agencies are doing their job – finding and arresting drunk drivers. Unfortunately, the rest of the judicial system has failed to protect the public. Mandatory alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers would stop the revolving door of repeat offenders.

As a nurse in a large East Bay Trauma Center, a long time volunteer leader for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), and as a mother who lost her son to a drunk driver, I can say that no parent should have to lose their child to the criminal negligence of a drunk driver - especially when technology exists to prevent such tragedy.

Right now, California has the opportunity to make a real difference in this effort. AB 91 has successfully passed through the California State Assembly (77-0) and the California State Senate (34-4). We urge Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign AB 91 and allow hundreds of lives to be saved and millions of dollars saved the state. It is estimated twenty five percent of the average auto policy holder’s premium in California is due to DUI’s on our roadways. According to the Marian Institute the state of pays $12.4 billion annually for DUI crashes.

Proven technology to save lives currently exists, but is not being used. Alcohol ignition interlock devices prevent a vehicle from starting if a convicted offender demonstrates that they are violating probation by continuing to drink and drive. Interlocks are proven to save lives, yet very few California offenders get the device.

Installing interlocks on the vehicles of all drunk driving offenders has the potential to save hundreds of lives and at the same time give offenders the ability to drive and not endanger the public. If all states mandated interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, we could save up to 4,000 lives a year. The drunk driver pays for the entire cost of the device, not the taxpayers. Implementation of interlocks will help unclog the courts and the jails of California.

Some say that interlocks don’t work. They are wrong. I have had one on my car for the last ten months, twice the length of time a first time convicted offender would be required to have one installed on their vehicle. I have not had one malfunction. I have waited in the same shops as offenders to have my monthly and bi-monthly calibrations done and spoken to offenders who did not put the device on their vehicle voluntarily, but are keeping it on their vehicle voluntarily because what it has done for them. Interlocks are proven to be up to 90 percent effective in reducing recidivism while on vehicles. The real issue is not the effectiveness, but the use of interlocks – we need laws to make the interlocks mandatory for all convicted drunk drivers.

To prevent future drunk driving tragedies, Assembly Member Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) introduced legislation (AB 91) that would require a pilot study in four California counties; Los Angeles, Alameda, Sacramento, and Tulare, mandating alcohol ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers, including first time convictions. This bill has the potential to save hundreds of lives by reducing drunk driving in California. This bill is supported by a multitude of health care organizations, such as the American Nurses Association, Emergency Nurses Association, California Hospital Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, as well as a long list of law enforcement agencies, and insurance organizations. The opposition is the alcohol industry; American Beverage Institute, California DUI attorneys, and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Those facts speak volumes.

Some say that interlocks are too severe a punishment for those convicted of drunk driving. Compared to what my family lost on July 29, 2001 when a repeat DUI offender, arrested on at least two prior occasions, thought he had a right to drive after enjoying a few beers, an alcohol ignition interlock device is a fairly lenient sanction and is as much protection for him and his family as it would have been for mine. It allows offenders to keep their jobs, family, and ability to drive. They just can’t continue to violate the public trust by driving drunk.


Please visit www.madd.org to contact Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to let him know of your support for AB 91, a pilot study calling for mandatory ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers in four California counties.

Mary Klotzbach, RN BSN, is Chair of the MADD Public Policy Committee for California. She wrote this article for the Mercury News, but it was never published.

Another One Bites the Dust

Two weeks ago on this site, Officer James Gonzales voiced widespread concerns for the safety of nightlife in Downtown San Jose. He wrote about our city's 20th homicide of the year and the dangerous environment created by supporting certain types of entertainment downtown. Officer Gonzales recalled the Ambassador's Lounge, a now-defunct nightclub that was shut down over safety issues.

Sure enough, earlier this week, San Jose police revoked the license of another downtown nightclub. This time, the axe fell on the dance club Wet, which saw 49 calls for service over a five-month period earlier this year, most of them for violent offenses.

Obviously, this is a hot-button issue for all of our residents, particularly those living downtown. Now, you can tell us what you think needs to be done. Pretend you're on the City Council and let us know how you'd protect Downtown. We'll repost the best comments in a later blog.

Have a good weekend, and stay safe.

Ask Beat Cop

This feature worked out so well last time that we had to bring it back. If you’d like to submit a question, click here and fill out the form provided. Be sure to include your first name and email address. Beat Cop will respond to all of your questions and even blog some answers in the bi-weekly Beat Cop column.

The Big One

We received some news yesterday that we wanted to pass along. As you may know, Assembly Majority Leader Alberto Torrico is a candidate for California Attorney General in 2010. Assemblymember Torrico has long been a friend of SJPOA and received our wholehearted endorsement over the summer.

Now, he has been honored with the endorsement of PORAC, a statewide organization of public safety unions, of which SJPOA is a member. This is a huge step for Mr. Torrico's campaign. and it's clear from reading the email below — which he sent to supporters yesterday — that he appreciates the significance.

——

Dear Friend,

The 62,000-member strong Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) voted Saturday to endorse my campaign for Attorney General.

I’ve always made protecting the public my highest priority. Many of you know my brother is a veteran officer with the San Jose Police Department, so this powerful endorsement is more than a political victory. It is a very personal validation of years of work standing with law enforcement to make California safer.

PORAC President Ron Cottingham was very kind in his remarks:

“Alberto Torrico has made protecting the public his top priority. He is the best choice for California’s top law enforcement official.”

I want to personally thank the men and women of law enforcement for their confidence and for this endorsement.

This is just the most recent success for our campaign. We reported the strongest cash-on-hand position among Attorney General candidates in July. And we are back on the road today – spreading the word and gaining even greater momentum.

Please stay in touch as the campaign continues to grow. You can join me on Facebook, sign up on my website or follow me on my new Twitter account. And please help us maintain our strong financial position by making your donation here.

Respectfully,
Alberto Torrico

——

You can click here to read an article Mr. Torrico wrote for Protect San Jose back in June.

More Housing Won't Pay the Bills

By Ed Rast

Did you know that San Jose has over 53% of Santa Clara County’s population but only 40% of its jobs?

Don’t believe me? Have a look at these charts. Pay particular attention to the charts for population and jobs. You'll find that San Jose's percentage of Santa Clara County's population rises from 52.9% to 53.8% between 1990 and 2010 (projected). You'll also see that San Jose accounts for only 35.8% to 39.6% of jobs countywide over that same span.

Why are the ratio of jobs to employed residents and the jobs/housing balance important for having an adequate city budget?

From a City of San Jose document on population, jobs, and housing:

“Historically, San José has had a shortage of jobs compared to the number of employed residents living in the City, commonly referred to as a jobs/housing imbalance. A jobs/housing imbalance, especially when there is a relative deficit of jobs, can be problematic because it results in longer commutes as City residents travel to other locales for employment. This same imbalance can result in financial hardships for a city due to the costs associated with providing services to residential land uses in relation to revenue generated.”

Table 4.13-1 in this document provides an overview of the historic and projected number of households, jobs, employed residents, and population in San José. The data in Table 4.13-1 indicates that the City was having success in correcting the historic imbalance, but recent jobs data shows that we slipped back again, making our budget deficit worse, thus requiring a reduction in staff and city services

In the Mercury News from Wednesday, October 24 2007, Mayor Chuck Reed said, “Eliminating San Jose's status as Silicon Valley's bedroom and better balancing the growth of new jobs with new housing is the key to getting out of this structural budget deficit." I would tend to agree.

So, how are we doing at achieving the Mayor’s goal? Let’s have a look at the San Jose General Plan Update: Projections of Jobs, Population and Households For the City of San Jose (Table 3, Page 9). This update predicts San Jose will account for 44.2% of countywide jobs by 2040, but if you crunch the numbers here, you’ll find that ABAG has allocated San Jose slightly over half of the County’s projected job growth. That's a pretty rosy prediction given the current business environment in our city.

Homes, unless they are very expensive, do not generate enough city tax revenue to pay for the services they require to maintain, thus generating a budget deficit. This is unlike businesses, which generate more revenue that their services cost based on California public finance policy.

Population growth without the required jobs to pay for city services and infrastructure has an adverse affect on the general fund budget and San Jose’s ability to provide adequate city staff, services, and infrastructure to residents and businesses

San Jose receives back from the state about $11-12 cents of every property and sales tax dollar. Property taxes are about 21% and sales taxes range between 24-29% of the general fund budget, with imposed taxes from other cities, licenses, user, or service fees — mostly paid by businesses — plus revenue from state and federal governments making up the rest of general fund revenues.

Jobs-rich cities like Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Campbell and other Santa Clara County cities that have more jobs than employed residents have the excess business tax revenue to pay for services for their residents. Almost a decade of budget deficits and the highest cost of doing business in the county has discouraged business and job growth in San Jose. See my previous posts, “Cost of Doing Business” and "Just the Taxes, Ma'am" for additional information about jobs and taxes.

To ensure that the City’s fiscal condition is stable, predictable, and adequate in the long term to serve the proposed development without detrimental impact to services for the rest of the city.

San Jose should strongly consider setting: 1. jobs/housing triggers as proposed in Coyote Valley or other residential growth controls; and 2. a jobs-per-employed-resident target of 125 jobs rather than current 100, which has never been met.

Open Forum Friday

Pick a topic, any topic...

Beat Cop: The Sound of Safety

Recently, I spoke at a neighborhood gathering that was organized by residents to address some issues of violent crimes occurring near them. At the end of my presentation, I asked the neighbors if there were any concerns I had not addressed or any further questions that I could answer. A man in attendance asked, “Why is your helicopter so loud, and why does it always seem like it’s over my house making noise?”

I appreciated the question. Conversations like these are important between law enforcement and the citizens of San Jose who support us. I spoke with the man about the essential uses of our helicopter, its overwhelming capture rate, and the enormous blessing it is to our city that we have a skilled and dedicated Air Support Unit.

I further spoke with the group and told them that my fellow officers and I know that doing our job does sometimes cause inconveniences for the residents we protect. We realize that our lights and sirens can be loud and annoying; we also understand that it’s a sacrifice when you need to get somewhere and we need you to yield the roadway to us for emergency purposes. We know you don’t like your route changed during our traffic diversions. I also explained that on my days off I experience the same things you do.

When I was done, the man spoke again. He said, “I understand it now. I may not like it, but I understand it. It’s the sound of safety.”

Please pardon the noise...

Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop

Early Release

By Kathleen Flynn

I have grave concerns about media reports on the possibility of early prison releases and reducing criminal charges to save money. Our economy and jobless rate are resulting in increased crime and some questionable proposed budgetary fixes by both State and local governments. In a recent Mercury News editorial by District Attorney Dolores Carr and Dennis Graham, they express serious concerns about a proposal to reduce criminal charges from misdemeanors to felonies so that criminals can be sent to county jails instead of state prisons, thus saving the state millions of dollars. The results of this proposal would have devastating affects not only on public safety but on our already understaffed public safety and enforcement departments.

The San Jose Police Department currently has 1,352 officers to serve over a million citizens. In the year 2010, an estimated 40-50 officers will be retiring, taking with them approximately 2,000 combined years of experience, and will reduce our Police Department to a grim 1,312-1,302 officers. With budget constraints at the state level, a proposed raiding of city funds, and a seeming lack of willingness on the part of our City Council to hire the amount of officers we truly need to serve our community, I fear the situation is only going to go from bad to worse.

With the early release of prisoners and reduced criminal charges, we will be creating a monster of enormous proportions. Not only will the safety of our neighborhoods and police officers be jeopardized, but we also will be forced to contend with more highly-sophisticated criminals who will be using more efficient technologies to commit crimes in our community. Getting a job once you’re a felon is difficult, and this tends to lead them back to the profession they know best: crime, and the victimization of others.

Our parole, and probation departments are already understaffed, over-worked, and carrying huge caseloads. If these proposals go forth, keeping track of perpetrators will be nearly impossible. Our judges and courts will be even more overloaded with cases, and justice for victims will fall by the way side even more drastically than it does now.

According to Amy Cornell, Public Information Officer for the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, “With the poor economy already resulting in cutbacks in positions, the number of cases we see come through our office could increase at an overwhelming rate. Prisoners who are considered ‘low risk’ will be the ones released, but with the reduction and elimination of parole supervision, we could be seeing a massive spike in re-offenses. In essence, we are minimizing the severity of certain crimes by allowing criminals to go free. Criminals are being allowed to escape accountability and proper punishment for their crimes. This is a disservice to our community, and a serious threat to public safety.

“In addition, it is proposed that parolees would only be sent back to prison as a result of being convicted of a new offense, not for being in violation of parole conditions. Before, we might not file a new criminal case if the parolee was being sent back to prison anyway. Also, early releases to the county of commitment, i.e. Santa Clara County, will include more rehabilitation programs. The problem is that local governments are not getting any additional money to either provide those rehabilitation programs or to prosecute parolees for new offenses. The bottom line is that the proposals will balance the state budget on the backs of local government.”

If that isn’t enough to concern us all, a recent article by April Dembosky in the Mercury News discusses the seriousness of communicable diseases that will be brought into our communities by prisoners released into our communities. Health care provided in prisons is insufficient; so many prisoners will carry HIV, Hepatitis C, and Tuberculosis into our communities. With people going without health care, and many struggling to get or keep health care for themselves and their children, the added possibility of being exposed to highly contagious diseases being brought into our communities by criminals just to cut state costs is very alarming to me.

In writing this article, I urge readers to call or write the Governor, members of the State Legislature, the Mayor and City Council, even Senators and Congressmembers, asking them not to allow this travesty of justice. Thank you!

Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.

Return On Investment

By Ed Rast

Do you know what your taxes are being spent on and what city services or public benefits San Jose residents and businesses receive from them?

As we have discussed in “Just the Taxes Ma’am”, San Jose receives General Fund revenue of $663 per resident which is better than the average among 15 cities in Santa Clara County (5th) and the 12 largest cities in California (5th as well). Yet we continue to under-staff and under-fund essential city services including police, fire, and emergency medical services.

Budget documents prepared by San Jose city staff omit important revenue, staffing, and expenditure details. We frequently hear about city government spending in newspaper, television, or radio news, mostly as a result of a controversy, non-profit emergency funding, or critical City Auditor reports and Civil Grand Jury reports.

Most residents and businesses have little idea what their taxes are being spent on. But it’s not for lack of curiosity.

The lack of readily available and detailed city service spending and tax subsidy reporting makes it difficult for residents — not to mention the City Council — to understand where our taxes are being spent. This is particularly true for: 1) spending for services from non-profit, community-based organizations, school districts, or another government organization, or 2) corporations, developers and property owners receiving grants, economic development incentives or tax subsidies.

Here is a list of organizations receiving over $200,000 from the City of San Jose to provide a service in Fiscal Years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007. This is an incomplete list. We do not know how much support they received above $200,000, and we don’t know what specific service or services some of them provided as a public benefit to San Jose.

Here are two lists of organizations receiving grants from the City of San Jose in Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the first sorted alphabetically and the second by city service area and core services.

Now, read the two City Council policies on grants:

Council Policy 9-12 – Emergency Financial Assistance to Non-Profit Organizations

Council Policy 9-13 - Grants to Outside Entities

There are two questions you should be asking about these non-city services paid for with your taxes, and they’re multiple choice:

1. Who is receiving these services?
a) The general public
b) Individuals in need
c) Individuals, groups or companies that should be paying for these services
d) Residents and local businesses who pay city taxes

2. How should we classify these services?
1) Essential city services,
2) Services that the City should provide
3) Services we would like to provide if we did not have a budget deficit
4) Services that the City should not be providing

Do we know the answers? If not, why doesn’t the city administration make this information easily available and obtainable?

How can the Council and public make good policy, budget priorities, and spending decisions if we do not know where are our taxes are being spent, what tax subsidies are being provided and to whom, what services we receive, who is being provided outside services and what is the public benefit for our taxes spent?

Professional Respect

By Sgt. Jim Unland #2666

Although the emphasis of this blog is directed at public safety from a police perspective, we would be remiss if we did not give an occasional nod to the other half of public safety — firefighters. PBS recently re-aired a documentary on Santa Rosa firefighters. It was produced in 2002, but is still relevant today as I try to get my mind around the recent, continued, and concerted attacks on San Jose public safety personnel by the local newspaper, radio, and most disconcerting, my own employer.

Those who would try to capitalize on the current financial crunch by advocating a stripping away of many negotiated gains over the last twenty years seem to be under the impression that ours is a normal profession. It is not. Watch the attached portion from the documentary and you will easily see that police and fire fighters do a job no one else wants to do, or in most cases, is qualified to do.



Whether or not they would admit it, I would argue that those whom you see in the video will carry an emotional toll from their job well into their retirement. Public safety work is rewarding, but at the same time, the price one pays both physically and emotionally cannot be easily conveyed.

To San Jose firefighters: all indications are that the city, your employer, is going to try to undo twenty years of improved working conditions for your members. You have a fight on your hands. Please know that the members of the SJPOA, who know firsthand the work you do and the risks you take, stand with you. All professional rivalry aside, know that when one of our members is shot, stabbed, or seriously injured performing their job, we’re relieved and deeply appreciative when you arrive on scene. I just wish your employer valued you as much as we do.

Sgt. Jim Unland is a 21-year veteran of the SJPD and a member of the Board of Directors of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association.

Righting a Wrong: Update

By Sgt. Jim Unland #2666

Updating a story we passed along in a previous blog...

The San Jose Police Officers’ Association would like to thank 17-year-old Chris Coutinho and the other members of Boy Scout Troop 294 (South San Jose) for the work they did renovating the area around the sign at Jeffrey Fontana Park. This park was dedicated to the memory of San Jose Police Officer Jeffrey Fontana who was killed in the line of duty on October 28, 2001.

Over the course of several days, the scouts re-routed irrigation and laid new concrete in front of the sign to improve the curb appeal. Chris conceived this project as part of the process to earn the rank of Eagle Scout. He raised funds through donations from his Charter, San Jose Councilwoman Nancy Pyle, and the SJPOA.

Unfortunately, no good deed goes unpunished. On one of their workdays, someone stole a Hilti brand power hammer and drill bits from the job site. This piece of equipment had been loaned to the Troop, and the replacement cost was in the thousands of dollars. No one’s insurance covered the loss.

When we learned of the theft, the SJPOA established a victim’s assistance fund and, helped by stories in the local paper by Lisa M. Krieger, we received $1,800 in donations from concerned citizens. Hilti representatives Marcus Oden and Brian Comeau also stepped up to the plate. They heard about the theft and donated a replacement power hammer and several of the drill bits. They were also able to replace the remaining stolen items at a reduced cost.

With the money left over from donations, the SJPOA plans to fund other community projects performed by Troop 294, including continued maintenance and beautification at Jeffrey Fontana Park.

Sgt. Jim Unland is a 21-year veteran of the SJPD and a member of the Board of Directors of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association.

Protecting Downtown

By James Gonzales

Protecting San Jose has been a calling for my fellow officers and I. We all strive to make our city a better place for all our families. Protect San Jose’s Beat Cop has been asking citizens to pitch in and work with the police department to help make our streets safer. I think we need to ask a few other groups to join us and help protect San Jose.

This last weekend, in the McEnery Convention Center's parking lot, San Jose had it’s 20th homicide of the year. The violence following the Dub auto show and concert was somewhat predictable. Event performer and notorious rapper E-40 has a following that tends to bring his lyrics to life. Not so long ago, E-40 had his own nightclub on South 2nd Street in Downtown San Jose, the Ambassador’s Lounge. Nightly brawls at the club brought some attention to the problems with Downtown’s image and night life.

The final straw came in the form of a running gun battle following an E-40 performance that was like something out of an action movie. Countless bullets flew across streets and parking lots leaving three shot, and police action closed the club. Will history repeat itself?

San Jose has a new big box club called Wet, just a few steps away from the old Ambassador’s Lounge. We certainly see nightly brawls outside of this club, and a recent stabbing inside the club caused a temporary suspension of its entertainment permit and brought some press attention to the issue. The larger issue is changing the image of Downtown San Jose and making it a safer place.

Police can only respond to violence after if occurs. There are, however, groups who can help protect us before the violence happens. Downtown events in our parks, convention center, and other public facilities are managed by contracted organizations like Team San Jose and the Downtown Association. These tax-funded groups make the choices of who will entertain us in our Downtown. These choices affect the safety and image of our Downtown. We have responsible and profitable choices available to us. Attracting wildly successful hip-hop artists like Roots, whose lyrics don’t inspire hate, fear and violence would be a good first step. Not extending alcohol sales hours at park events is another.

Think of the byproducts of a poorly planned event: the police overtime needed to investigate a homicide or shooting — or stabbing — in a concert setting among thousands of people; the citizens in our other neighborhoods, left with only a handful of officers to ensure the safety of hundreds of thousands of people when the majority of resources are pulled Downtown for another major crime response; the officers’ safety when they have to respond to violent crimes in those neighborhoods with no back-up available.


The quick dollar made by booking fare whose image and message puts fear in our citizens is not enough to cover the cost of policing the incidents that erupt at nightclubs and bars afterwards. The Civic Auditorium on San Carlos Street has a beautiful new facelift and is now attracting new artists. Will some acts be reluctant to come into a downtown known for post-show gun battles? I think they might.

Downtown San Jose is a community and a place to bring our families for entertainment and culture. There is however, tremendous pressure to make Downtown profitable. New, towering, luxury condominiums are flying up all over, and hundreds of millions of redevelopment tax dollars are being invested there. Risks are being taken by both private and public entities. In order for our Downtown to succeed, a clear direction must be set by its operators.

The citizens of San Jose must tell our city leaders to make Downtown safety a priority. The City’s Redevelopment Agency and other policy agencies must make Downtown safety a priority in their planning. And groups like Team San Jose — who answer to the City — must hear this message loud and clear: protecting Downtown San Jose takes a cooperative effort by all involved.

With a clear direction and a positive image of Downtown, the people will come and the profits will follow.

James Gonzales is a San Jose Police Officer.

California Leads the Way

By Julianne Sylva

Since the late 1980's, the District Attorney has dedicated a team of professionals to locate and recover children who have been abducted by a parent or family member. This is a complicated area of the law as the district attorney may utilize either criminal or civil laws in family abduction cases.

While I cannot comment specifically on the case presented by Kathleen Flynn in last Wednesday’s blog on this site, I can give some general information about family abduction matters that might be helpful.

In California, a person may not withhold, conceal or abduct a child from another person who has a right of custody to the child. This is different than most states as California does not require that a custody order be violated. In California, both parents have an equal right of custody to the child, even without a court order.

California has been used as a model for other states in this regard. The national Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which has been adopted in 48 of 50 states, is based upon the California Civil Code sections that mandate that prosecutors locate and recover children taken in violation of a person's right to custody. What is so helpful about these civil code sections is that they provide the district attorney with additional tools other than prosecution in order to locate and recover children.

This is important because an arrest warrant may be served upon an abductor, but it will not get the child back to the left-behind parent or guardian. Alternatively, under the civil enforcement option, the prosecutor may get a protective custody warrant for the child and recover the child. Both parents or guardians then return to family court where the judge may resolve outstanding custody and visitation issues.

Another great tool provided to prosecutors is that we may facilitate communication between judges. For example, if one court issues an order regarding custody and a parent removes the child to another jurisdiction and gets another order without revealing that there was a prior order, there would be two conflicting orders. A judicial communication (a fancy term for getting the judges to talk on the record, in their respective courtrooms, with the parties present in their jurisdictions and the matter being conducted on speakerphone and taken down on the record) enables the judges to examine the case history and documents and make a determination as to which court order takes precedence.

I want to take this opportunity to remind you that there is no waiting period to report a missing child, despite what you may hear on television (Penal Code 14205). In fact, we ask that police take a missing person's report and enter the information into the Missing and Unidentified Person System (MUPS) any time a parent or guardian reports to the police that he or she does not know where the other parent and child are. This is because, even if the parent is with the other child and the parent takes the child from the other parent and withholds the child, if the other parent does not know where they are located, the child is considered "missing."

If a situation arises such as the case Kathleen describes in her blog, please contact the district attorney's office in the county where the left-behind parent lives. There are 58 counties in our fine state, and most DA offices have individuals trained to handle these cases.

Our District Attorney, Dolores Carr, created a special service for Santa Clara County residents who wish to report a visitation violation. Her office website now allows a parent to make a visitation violation report online without having to contact their local police agency. This not only frees up valuable police resources and time but also saves the reporting party from having to go to the police station to collect a copy of the report as the party can print the report out immediately at home.

Please be advised that, upon receipt of the online visitation report, the District Attorney's Office will not take further action on the reported violation, but the reporting party may use this report in any future family court filing.

If you have any questions, you may contact me directly at (408) 792-2523 or jsylva@da.sccgov.org. If you’d like our assistance on an abduction case, I ask that you please call our intake number at (408) 792-2921 during business hours.

Julianne Sylva is a Deputy District Attorney for Santa Clara County assigned to the DA’s Child Abduction Unit. She wrote this article in response to last week’s blog by Kathleen Flynn and the comments it generated.

A Rose By Any Other Name

By Sgt. Jim Unland #2666

When I say, “vegetable peeler,” what do you see in your mind’s eye? I’ll wait a moment while you get the image. OK, do you see what I see — a curved kitchen implement a few inches in length used for peeling carrots and potatoes? How about if I were to ask you what you picture when I say, “machete,” “sword,” or “dagger”? Each of these words has a distinct connotation and brings to mind a different image. When the average person communicates, he or she attempts to use precisely the words needed to convey a particular (and accurate) meaning to the intended recipient. Apparently, our local newspaper writers are more interested in conveying scandal than accurate meaning.

Several years ago when a San Jose police officer was confronted by a volatile woman holding a “bladed weapon,” he ordered her to put it down. When she refused, advanced on him and raised it over her head, the officer, fearing for his life, fired his pistol at her to protect the lives of those around him as well as himself. This “bladed weapon” was approximately 10 inches in length and resembled a meat cleaver. Reporters for the local newspaper continue to refer to this bladed weapon as a “vegetable peeler,” which the officer “mistook” as a cleaver. In fact, they did it again in Sunday’s edition, six years after the incident occurred. In reality, what they call a “vegetable peeler” is a cleaver-like implement with a peeler apparatus built into the blade area. To clear up any confusion, I’m including a picture of it here.

There is a very simple point on this matter which I believe has been overlooked all these years: it doesn’t matter what we call this thing. When Bich Cau Thi Tran made the fatal decision to ignore the officer’s demands, when she decided to advance on the officer with the item in question raised above her head in a menacing and threatening manner, it was no longer a kitchen utensil of any kind — it was an instrument of death. It became the sort of deadly weapon that could prevent that officer from ever seeing his loved ones again.

I was the supervisor on the scene that night. I realize I’m probably not the most objective person when it comes to this issue. But let me tell you something: to do our jobs effectively, we rely on people obeying lawful orders. If they don’t, people can die, and no one wants that outcome. If a police officer is confronted by a person holding a bladed tool and orders that person to drop it, they should drop it. That’s what any law-abiding citizen would do because they understand the consequences at stake.

Here’s a question that no one has ever bothered to ask: Why did Tran ignore the officer’s commands and go to a drawer in her kitchen to grab this bladed instrument when the police came to her house on a child endangerment call for service? Why this particular device? What was her intent? What sort of message could she have been trying to convey to the officers? I don’t know about you, but “compliance” and “cooperation” certainly aren’t what I’m thinking. There is no other logical conclusion that can be drawn other than her obvious intent to cause or threaten to cause physical harm to the responding officers.

I’m not sure why reporters for the local paper want their readers to have an image of a harmless kitchen utensil when it comes to this tragic event. Instead of the phrasing “an Asian vegetable peeler that the officer mistook as a cleaver” how about, “an Asian vegetable peeler that looks like a double bladed meat cleaver?” If I were cynical, I might think they were trying to disparage the police department or worse, suggest the most vile use of unnecessary force.

I’m not saying that San Jose police officers are perfect and never make mistakes. But I know this for a fact: not one of the men and women I’ve worked with for the past 21 years desires to take a human life. We got into this profession to protect life. And for the local paper to suggest, imply, or infer otherwise is the only miscarriage of justice to have occurred in this whole tragic episode.

Sgt. Jim Unland is a 21-year veteran of the SJPD and a member of the Board of Directors of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association.

Open Forum Friday

We hope you're looking forward to the long holiday weekend. Maybe you're already enjoying some time off before the end of summer. Either way, it's time once again to pass the reigns to you, the readers.

Let us know about activities and events happening in your neighborhood on Labor Day, or just tell us what's on your mind. The floor is yours...

Stay safe.

Beat Cop Responds

Looks like our experiment worked. Thanks for all the great questions. I tried to pick one to answer in this week’s blog, but in this first installment, I’ll respond to two of them...

George:

I am always impressed by the way SJ officers always seem to keep their uniforms pressed and neat. But this raises some questions: How much does one complete uniform cost? Do officers get a uniform allowance? Does it cover 100% of costs? Does the department require officers to have a minimum number of uniforms? And what happens if, during the course of a shift, a uniform gets messed up (blood, torn in a struggle, etc.)? Is the officer required to change uniforms so that he/she can look professional for the rest of the shift? Thanks for keeping us safe!

Beat Cop:

Thanks for the question(s) George.

A set of uniform pants and shirt costs about $300 dollars. That does not include boots, hat, tie, and nameplates, which together total about $250. Each officer is required to have a clean, military-pressed uniform for each day of work. Officers usually maintain three to four sets of uniforms. Some uniforms will be at the cleaners and others will be rotated for use on upcoming work days.

Officers are required to have a clean uniform ready to change into during a shift if it is exposed to blood, torn or soiled. Dry cleaning is the only way to get the uniforms looking the way they do. The cost of dry-cleaning pants and a shirt is about $6. Normal wear and tear gives a new uniform a lifespan of about a year.

A total of four sets of uniforms, boots, and dry cleaning for a year comes to a total of $2,050. The city provides a $675 uniform allowance to each officer and does not cover any dry cleaning costs. That leaves $1,375 out of pocket for each officer per year.

—

Kathleen:

I live near Houge Park in [City Council] District 9. Every night after 10 pm, there are teenagers at the playground drinking and smoking pot. I never see any police officers patrol there. Why not? Is it because you are short-staffed?

Beat Cop:

Most parks are “closed” after dusk per municipal code. Drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana or just being in a park after hours are all crimes. Whenever you see this type of activity, call 3-1-1 (non-emergency line) and report it. Officers will be dispatched if they are not responding to crimes in progress or crimes with greater priority.

If the activity is ongoing and you would like to request officers make patrol checks in your neighborhood, you can call 3-1-1 for that as well. The dispatcher can make up a patrol check request that will be routed to the officers that work the area and make the supervisors aware of the problem. Officers will generally make checks at parks in their beat when they have free patrol time.

For the purposes of policing, San Jose is divided into patrol divisions, districts, and finally individual beats. I cannot remember the last time every beat in the city was filled with an officer. The hours you are concerned about — after 10pm — tend to be the busiest times for calls for service. Depending on the time of night, your whole council district may only have 5-8 officers patrolling it. A large event or several small events commonly leave no officers free to patrol parks during these times.

The San Jose Police Department is undeniably short-staffed. It is possible that there are not officers assigned to the beat your park is in from time to time and officers must respond form neighboring beats and districts to calls for service in yours. The chronic lack of officers in a city the size of ours is a well-known problem that has been overlooked by our city administration. The city has consistently denied our Chief of Police’s request for an appropriate amount of officers to patrol the city.

Despite these shortfalls, SJPD takes pride in addressing all crime in our city. We ask that the public be patient form time to time as we address your problems with our current level of staffing. You can also help us help you. When reporting a crime, be as descriptive as possible. Write down license plates, clothing descriptions, and anything else that could help a responding officer locate the people responsible for the crime.

I will pass on your patrol request to the beat cop in your area and have an officer contact you for more information.

—

That’s all for now. If you have a question for Beat Cop, please fill out this online form, and we will try to answer each question individually and may use yours in upcoming blogs.

Check back next Thursday for a new Beat Cop column.

Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop

Gender Bias and the Judicial System

By Kathleen Flynn

Does the judicial system treat men differently than women when it comes to child custody and providing legal representation? A recent incident has made me wonder. My neighbor came home from work a month ago to find his live-in girl friend of three years gone. She had packed up all her things and left with their newborn son. He had no idea she was leaving. Being close to both of them and Godmother to their son, neither did I.

After trying to call her to no avail, he came to my door in tears asking me if I knew where she was. When she wouldn’t answer her cell phone for me, I advised him to call the Police. SJPD came out and tried calling her too but no luck. We suspected that she was at her mothers in Visalia. SJPD called the Visalia Police.

The Visalia Police finally reached the young woman who simply said, “I don’t want to live with him any more,” and the Visalia Police left it at that. SJPD let my neighbor know that it was now a civil matter, and after trying to console him a bit they left.

The next day, I made several calls and got advice on where to send him for legal assistance. Since he lost his job over this, he qualified for Legal Aid. He went down there but they refused to help him, citing not enough staff. An attorney I know who works in the Family Law Clinic had me send him to a free clinic in San Jose. After several hours wait, he had to fill out his own paperwork with very little guidance, take it down to the court, file it, and wait another ten days until the judge issued a court order.

I had him call the DA’s Office for help. Their office was very helpful and compassionate. The clerk had him come down immediately and fill out paperwork, so they could assist him. I asked the clerk why the Police didn’t put out an Amber Alert when the child was abducted. She said she didn’t know but that the mother could not leave the County with the infant without a court order. She advised that once the judge issued an order he was to bring it to them immediately so they could track her down and serve her.

Ten days later, the judge finally ordered the mother back to Santa Clara County and set a court date for September 18th. The judge knew the mother was unemployed, living with her mother — who is on drugs and on Welfare with three other children — and had abducted his child. Yet the judge refused to give him temporary custody, even though he lives with his fully-employed mother, and has the means and will to take care of his son. No visitation order before the court date was made either. The DA’s Office has spoken to the young woman to notify her that she must return immediately, but she has refused, so they are still working to locate her residence.

In the midst of all this, I have continually wondered: Would they have treated her the same way if the situation were reversed? Would Legal Aid, attorneys, authorities, the judge, and the judicial system have behaved with the same disinterest they have toward him? If he had taken the child, would they have asked her if she beat him, or beat her son, or cheated on him? I don’t believe anyone in authority would ask a woman those kinds of questions.

What do you think?

Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.

Cost of Doing Business

By Ed Rast

Did you know that San Jose, without sufficient jobs for its residents and lacking the tax revenue that would generate — has raised taxes and fees to the point that the cost of doing business in our city is prohibitive to recruiting new businesses.

As I noted last week, San Jose loses 50,069 working residents — or 5.6% of our residential population — during the day when they commute to jobs in other cites.

Businesses looking to startup, grow, or relocate review many factors when making a decision about where to locate their operations: availability of skilled workers and management, housing for those workers, access to transportation, city service levels, quality of life, customers, suppliers, the city’s public policies, time to approve permits. All of these factors contribute to the “cost of doing business” in a particular locale.

A 2008 survey by the Kosmont-Rose Institute ranks San Jose as a “High Cost of Doing Business” city based on city business, sales, property, electric and phone utility rates, and state corporate income taxes. Community data takes into account city population, FBI Crime in the United States rates, taxable retail store sales, and transportation and economic development Incentives to create a complete understanding of the business climate in a city.

The Kosmont-Rose Survey User Guide explains the methodology behind the rankings.

The Kosmont-Rose survey is widely used by corporations, real estate developers, community planners, and public officials. Business relocation specialists use it to compare cities, especially when trying to decide between desirable locations.

Economic development officials use it to target companies in high cost cities that might be relocation candidates as we have seen with relocation campaigns run by states like Texas, Arizona and Nevada. Many former San Jose companies have moved their jobs or expanded in other states

California’s corporate tax rates are among the ten highest in the nation per the Kosmont-Rose Index of Corporate Tax Rates by State.

This Santa Clara County Cost of Doing Business and Jobs Map shows the cost of doing business ranking and the number of jobs per 100 employed residents for cities in Santa Clara County. Here are the top seven cities in jobs per 100 employees and their cost of doing business:

Palo Alto : Average CODB; 254 jobs per 100 employed residents
Santa Clara: Low CODB; 218 jobs per 100
Milpitas – Very low CODB; 164 jobs per 100
Mountain View: Average CODB; 147 jobs
Cupertino – Average CODB; 147 jobs
Campbell – Low CODB; 109 jobs
San Jose – High CODB; 88 jobs

This South Bay Area Cost of Doing Business Map shows other cities color-coded by cost of doing business. Note that job growth in Northern California has come mostly in inland cities with lower costs of doing business.

A February 2009 survey by the Ticon Company entitled Tenant Improvement Permits and Fees shows that fees and plan check times for a 10,000 square-foot tenant improvement with a valuation of $300,000.00 range from $4352 to $9763 on average. San Jose’s fee for the same permit is $24,000.

A high cost of doing business, while not the only factor that determines where a business will locate, is many times a “deal breaker” in these decisions, especially when the debate is between desirable neighboring cities, a problem San Jose knows all too well in Silicon Valley.

California city government revenues can be significantly increased or decreased by business activity – through jobs and consumer sales taxes or increases in business tax and fee rates. The local cities with more jobs and retail stores per resident have higher revenues and a lower cost of doing business than San Jose.

However, instead of trimming back on non-essential services, San Jose’s city administration chose to increase tax and fee rates to balance the City budget.

See my blog from last week for comparisons of local city tax revenue and jobs.