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.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, September 28, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 25, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
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.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
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
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
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, September 14, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 11, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, September 4, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
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:
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:
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
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
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
