Thanks for visiting Protect San Jose on Blogspot. Our blog is now fully integrated with our website at ProtectSanJose.com, where we've also added technological upgrades that allow you to interact with us in exciting new ways. As such, we'll no longer be posting at this web address. We apologize for any inconvenience.
Check out the new and improved Protect San Jose today!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Beat Cop: "I know it when I see it"
Thanks for all the great questions. Keep 'em coming...
Mark:
Beat Cop:
Mark, “I know it when I see it...”
That’s a line made famous by the U.S. Supreme Court when trying to define obscenity in the ‘60s. Well, trying to answer your question caused me to recall that famous line. How do we know if the situation put before us when we respond to a call is civil or criminal?
In short, we know it when we see it. In the world of police work, criminal law trumps civil law, and civil laws are many times hands-off for the police. We have well-trained dispatchers who can help you decipher the nature of your particular situation and let you know if the police can help. If there is still some uncertainty, please feel free to ask for an officer to respond.
Police departments can generally only enforce criminal laws. Sometimes a person will clearly violate a civil law and a citizen calls the police to take action. In a case like that, the police can assist by providing the appropriate court information but could not take action or force the issue.
One of the most common civil cases we come across are tenant-landlord issues. Local police departments do not handle most issues relating to evictions. The Sheriff’s department has a civil division that can assist with the eviction process and ultimately the physical eviction. It can be a long process, and we understand the frustration when you call the police for assistance and we can only point you in the right direction.
For more eviction information, contact the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department Civil Division at (408) 808-4800. The California Department of Consumer Affairs has a website with information, forms and explanations of laws. You can even request a free booklet explaining landlord tenant issues.
‘Til next time, proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Mark:
When is something considered by the Police to be considered a civil matter, as opposed to a criminal one?
Beat Cop:
Mark, “I know it when I see it...”
That’s a line made famous by the U.S. Supreme Court when trying to define obscenity in the ‘60s. Well, trying to answer your question caused me to recall that famous line. How do we know if the situation put before us when we respond to a call is civil or criminal?
In short, we know it when we see it. In the world of police work, criminal law trumps civil law, and civil laws are many times hands-off for the police. We have well-trained dispatchers who can help you decipher the nature of your particular situation and let you know if the police can help. If there is still some uncertainty, please feel free to ask for an officer to respond.
Police departments can generally only enforce criminal laws. Sometimes a person will clearly violate a civil law and a citizen calls the police to take action. In a case like that, the police can assist by providing the appropriate court information but could not take action or force the issue.
One of the most common civil cases we come across are tenant-landlord issues. Local police departments do not handle most issues relating to evictions. The Sheriff’s department has a civil division that can assist with the eviction process and ultimately the physical eviction. It can be a long process, and we understand the frustration when you call the police for assistance and we can only point you in the right direction.
For more eviction information, contact the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department Civil Division at (408) 808-4800. The California Department of Consumer Affairs has a website with information, forms and explanations of laws. You can even request a free booklet explaining landlord tenant issues.
‘Til next time, proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What's up, Doc?
By Bobby Lopez
I just got back from vacation on Tuesday, and before I even got to the office, I saw this article in the Mercury News. In case you didn’t catch it, Dr. Rajiv Das, who advises San Jose’s Police and Fire Retirement Board on disability claims, has been accused by some of holding up the process.
As sometimes happens when there’s a controversial story involving police, a Mercury reporter, John Woolfolk, called me for a comment. The final story includes bits and pieces of all that I said, but it doesn’t accurately reflect my position.
First off, I have no personal problem with Dr. Das, and I have never referred to him as “Dr. No.” I have heard rumors that others refer to him that way, and that’s all I told Mr. Woolfolk.
My concern is that Dr. Das is overworked. As it says in the paper, Dr. Das also serves as a medical consultant to the pension board for civilian retirees and performs yearly physicals and driving and drug tests on city employees. That’s a lot of work, and it means Dr. Das reports to no less than three different governing bodies at City Hall. I doubt that he has a lot of free time.
Meanwhile, we have cops suffering from disabilities that keep them from doing the job they swore to do, the job they live to do. They’re forced to stay home with no income and wait for their claim to come through. Sometimes, this process can take six months or more. These are men and women with families to feed and bills to pay. They simply can’t afford to wait.
We have one member who’s been waiting on her claim for almost five months now. In that time, the medical insurance that covers her and her daughter has run out and her car has been repossessed. Adding insult to her injury, we found out the POA can’t assist her through our catastrophic emergency fund because of legal issues with workers’ compensation.
The City needs to reduce Dr. Das’ workload and get these claims processed more efficiently. Maybe that means hiring another physician to help Dr. Das. Maybe it means streamlining the claim process. Either way, we need a fair and equitable disability retirement system that supports our public safety employees who have sacrificed their bodies to keep us safe.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
I just got back from vacation on Tuesday, and before I even got to the office, I saw this article in the Mercury News. In case you didn’t catch it, Dr. Rajiv Das, who advises San Jose’s Police and Fire Retirement Board on disability claims, has been accused by some of holding up the process.
As sometimes happens when there’s a controversial story involving police, a Mercury reporter, John Woolfolk, called me for a comment. The final story includes bits and pieces of all that I said, but it doesn’t accurately reflect my position.
First off, I have no personal problem with Dr. Das, and I have never referred to him as “Dr. No.” I have heard rumors that others refer to him that way, and that’s all I told Mr. Woolfolk.
My concern is that Dr. Das is overworked. As it says in the paper, Dr. Das also serves as a medical consultant to the pension board for civilian retirees and performs yearly physicals and driving and drug tests on city employees. That’s a lot of work, and it means Dr. Das reports to no less than three different governing bodies at City Hall. I doubt that he has a lot of free time.
Meanwhile, we have cops suffering from disabilities that keep them from doing the job they swore to do, the job they live to do. They’re forced to stay home with no income and wait for their claim to come through. Sometimes, this process can take six months or more. These are men and women with families to feed and bills to pay. They simply can’t afford to wait.
We have one member who’s been waiting on her claim for almost five months now. In that time, the medical insurance that covers her and her daughter has run out and her car has been repossessed. Adding insult to her injury, we found out the POA can’t assist her through our catastrophic emergency fund because of legal issues with workers’ compensation.
The City needs to reduce Dr. Das’ workload and get these claims processed more efficiently. Maybe that means hiring another physician to help Dr. Das. Maybe it means streamlining the claim process. Either way, we need a fair and equitable disability retirement system that supports our public safety employees who have sacrificed their bodies to keep us safe.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Special Public Safety Meeting
By Kathleen Flynn
Tonight, I will be attending yet another meeting at City Hall which will focus on public safety and policing. After the meeting, I will write a follow up story to post the details of what happened. I hope those of you who support our men and women in blue and who have been victims of crime will join me. For more information on the meeting, go to the City of San Jose website and see the announcement at the top of the home page.
The Mayor and City Council have spent years now listening to a small but vocal minority claiming that SJPD has been engaged in racial profiling, and unfairly targeting minorities. This group has put so much pressure on the Council that laws that were designed to protect us from unlawful behaviors like being drunk in public have been watered down so much so that I hate to see what comes next.
Unless and until more people start speaking up for victims of crime, supporting SJPD, and demanding the hiring of more officers, the real issues of lawlessness that face our city will never be addressed. Victims of crime will continue to fall by the wayside and remain without a voice.
Our under-staffed and over-worked police will continue to feel unappreciated, and our citizens will continue to be affected by increases in crime while criminals walk free. The small, vocal minority that fights so hard for the rights of law breakers will continue to garner all the attention and City resources while deflecting the need for change in their direction, and the hiring of more police officers will be put off for yet another year.
Please tell your friends and neighbors about tonight’s meeting and join me. Or email the Mayor and Council to offer your support of our excellent SJPD and speak out in favor of putting victims’ rights first.
Thank you!
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Tonight, I will be attending yet another meeting at City Hall which will focus on public safety and policing. After the meeting, I will write a follow up story to post the details of what happened. I hope those of you who support our men and women in blue and who have been victims of crime will join me. For more information on the meeting, go to the City of San Jose website and see the announcement at the top of the home page.
The Mayor and City Council have spent years now listening to a small but vocal minority claiming that SJPD has been engaged in racial profiling, and unfairly targeting minorities. This group has put so much pressure on the Council that laws that were designed to protect us from unlawful behaviors like being drunk in public have been watered down so much so that I hate to see what comes next.
Unless and until more people start speaking up for victims of crime, supporting SJPD, and demanding the hiring of more officers, the real issues of lawlessness that face our city will never be addressed. Victims of crime will continue to fall by the wayside and remain without a voice.
Our under-staffed and over-worked police will continue to feel unappreciated, and our citizens will continue to be affected by increases in crime while criminals walk free. The small, vocal minority that fights so hard for the rights of law breakers will continue to garner all the attention and City resources while deflecting the need for change in their direction, and the hiring of more police officers will be put off for yet another year.
Please tell your friends and neighbors about tonight’s meeting and join me. Or email the Mayor and Council to offer your support of our excellent SJPD and speak out in favor of putting victims’ rights first.
Thank you!
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Community Budget Participation: Educate Yourself
Part two of a multi-part series
By Ed Rast
Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.
Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.
I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.
If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.
California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:
• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;
• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;
• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;
• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and
• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.
If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government
In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.
San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:
• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;
• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;
• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;
• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue
• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and
• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.
If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.
As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.
This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.
In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.
For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.
By Ed Rast
Do you understand the actual condition of San Jose’s city facilities and service levels, where and why your tax dollars are being spent, and the City operating budget by department? It’s okay. Most people don’t. But that makes it difficult for them to participate in a community budget discussion.
Last week, I briefly discussed San Jose’s budget process and suggested that if you wanted to knowledgably participate in the coming community outreach that you should read the January 2008 report, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit, in which many of this and next year’s deficit reduction strategies are discussed.
I also pointed you to previous blogs of mine on Protect San Jose in which I discuss public safety conditions, under-staffing, and the city budget.
If you’ve done your homework, you’re already better informed than most of your friends and neighbors. But access to this knowledge isn’t a privilege for the select few. It’s granted to all of us by law.
California’s Public Records Act, part of the state constitution, provides “access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this state.”
As part of the budget process, the people of San Jose deserve access to more complete, understandable, and essential budget information that clearly shows:
• past actual budget spending, staffing and city service performance results;
• the current city facility, service, and performance measurement conditions, organized by responsible department;
• proposed city budget priorities, source of anticipated revenue, proposed revenue increases, and spending proposals organized by category, projects and public-private service partnerships and service grants;
• proposed actual staffing requirements and performance measurements to measure progress in meeting performance goals; and
• how each budget appropriation will or will not affect San Jose’s residents, businesses, and city government and how it will improve our community.
If everyone understood this basic budget language, City leaders and residents could engage in a proper, meaningful, and informed dialogue, which is essential to open, transparent, and accountable government
In recent years, the budget process has improved, and most residents believe that city staff who prepare the budget have good intentions, but it is not enough to be well-intentioned if most residents and even some councilmembers cannot clearly understand the City’s budget document.
San Jose’s budget looks good until you look closely look at the document itself. You find lots of confusing words and numbers that:
• summarize revenue, spending and staffing data but do not provide sufficient detail of actual vs. budgeted staffing and expenditures, common national performance measurement comparisons other cities use in their budgets;
• compare five year’s worth of budgeted staffing but do not compare that data to actual staffing by department;
• do not provide comparisons on a per-resident basis for 10 large local cities or the 12 largest California cities so city services provided for cities of differing populations can be compared to provide possible context or footnotes to explain unusual differences or variances;
• do not provide comparisons with local cites for a) development costs and b) cost of doing business, both of which affect business location, job retention, and city revenue
• lack detailed information by department and a summary listing a) tax spending for public-private partnerships that provide city services, b) non-city service spending to other governments, or c) grants or other tax subsidies, under-market rents and free services donated to non profits, developers, corporations and property owners with a stated public purpose; and
• are not organized as they are in budget documents of most other cities — where each department’s revenues and expenditures are broken down in a single section — but in four or more sections, with detailed information routinely available in other city budget documents is omitted.
If you don’t agree with the current city service and facilities conditions, city budget priorities, or cost and service comparisons, then you need to be prepared now, not next year, when many decisions will have been made — if they haven’t been made already.
As a community, we can direct the City Council and City Administration to publish more understandable budget information; improve and simplify the budget process; prioritize city spending into what should be fully funded, partially funded, and not funded; and develop or change city policies that could increase future budget deficits.
This week, your homework is to look closely at San Jose’s budget documents, particularly the 2009-2010 Operating Budget.
In coming weeks, I will continue to help by making additional budget recommendations, providing you with information to understand the budget, and notifying you of important budget meetings.
For example, at the City Council meeting on Tuesday, October 27th, there will be a staff presentation, discussion, and public comment on upcoming labor contract negotiations. I encourage all of our readers to attend and add their two cents to the discussion.
Monday, October 12, 2009
One Small Step
A couple weeks back, we posted a column by Mary Klotzbach, Chair of the Mothers Against Drunk Driving Public Policy Committee for California, in which she called for the passage of AB91, a state bill by Assemblyman Mike Feuer of Los Angeles. AB91 would create a five-year pilot program in Alameda, Los Angeles, Sacramento and Tulare counties in which ignition interlock devices would be installed on vehicles owned or operated by first-time convicted drunk drivers. These devices force drivers to take a breathalyzer test before allowing them to start their cars.
AB91 passed both houses of the legislature, but before Sunday night, it was languishing on the Governor's desk as he threatened a political veto of nearly 700 bills before today's deadline to sign them into law. Late last night, the Governor's office announced he had signed at least 230 bills, including AB91. The pilot program will go into effect in January, 2010.
We'd like to thank MADD for their hard work and advocacy on behalf of this important policy that will keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. You can read more about AB91 and the hundreds of bills the Governor signed (and vetoed) in this article from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Happy Columbus Day, and stay safe.
AB91 passed both houses of the legislature, but before Sunday night, it was languishing on the Governor's desk as he threatened a political veto of nearly 700 bills before today's deadline to sign them into law. Late last night, the Governor's office announced he had signed at least 230 bills, including AB91. The pilot program will go into effect in January, 2010.
We'd like to thank MADD for their hard work and advocacy on behalf of this important policy that will keep our streets and neighborhoods safe. You can read more about AB91 and the hundreds of bills the Governor signed (and vetoed) in this article from the San Francisco Chronicle.
Happy Columbus Day, and stay safe.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Beat Cop Responds
Thanks for all the great questions. Keep 'em coming...
Karen:
Karen, you are not alone with this question. I get asked this all the time. The best advice I can give you is: if in doubt ,call 911. In many situations, a citizen might feel there is not an actual emergency, like a fist fight or theft occurring at a shopping center. The Police Department would like you to call 911 in cases of any crime in progress or any level of emergency.
Calling 911 with a preserved, low level of emergency is not going to prevent someone from getting through with a “real emergency”. Calling 911 early and getting the appropriate police or fire response can however, prevent a situation from escalating and becoming the “real emergency”. 311 can be used from home phones only and is available for calls like music complaints, parking violations and police questions.
911 calls using cell phones are slightly more complicated. (311 is not available on cell phones.) Recently, a 911 cell phone switching system has been implemented, routing your cell phone 911 call to the local police agency whose jurisdiction you are calling from. This system is not flawless and often will default to the California Highway Patrol. Getting connected to the CHP while in San Jose can happen when you are near a freeway but not on it or when the system is not sure where you are. If you are connected to the CHP, dispatchers will make the transfer back to San Jose Police.
A sure way to get San Jose Police from the start on a cell phone is by calling 277-8911. This number will connect you the same way as a 911 call made from your home. You may want to store this number in your phone and put it on speed dial.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Karen:
When should I call 911 vs 311?Beat Cop:
Karen, you are not alone with this question. I get asked this all the time. The best advice I can give you is: if in doubt ,call 911. In many situations, a citizen might feel there is not an actual emergency, like a fist fight or theft occurring at a shopping center. The Police Department would like you to call 911 in cases of any crime in progress or any level of emergency.
Calling 911 with a preserved, low level of emergency is not going to prevent someone from getting through with a “real emergency”. Calling 911 early and getting the appropriate police or fire response can however, prevent a situation from escalating and becoming the “real emergency”. 311 can be used from home phones only and is available for calls like music complaints, parking violations and police questions.
911 calls using cell phones are slightly more complicated. (311 is not available on cell phones.) Recently, a 911 cell phone switching system has been implemented, routing your cell phone 911 call to the local police agency whose jurisdiction you are calling from. This system is not flawless and often will default to the California Highway Patrol. Getting connected to the CHP while in San Jose can happen when you are near a freeway but not on it or when the system is not sure where you are. If you are connected to the CHP, dispatchers will make the transfer back to San Jose Police.
A sure way to get San Jose Police from the start on a cell phone is by calling 277-8911. This number will connect you the same way as a 911 call made from your home. You may want to store this number in your phone and put it on speed dial.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Community Budget Participation
Part one of a multi-part series
By Ed Rast
Did you know that San Jose’s budget process for FY 2010-2011 will begin later this month rather than in January 2010 — as it normally would — because of numerous challenges, including a $90M deficit and proposed city service and staff reductions?
The typical budget process looks something like this:
• In January, the City conducts a telephone survey that randomly calls residents to asks them to rank their budget priorities and rate city services.
• Following a City presentation, neighborhood leaders this year were asked to review the Budget Office's prepared list of reductions and list those they preferred or offer their own cost or staff reductions which the staff would review to achieve a cost reduction target. We expect this step to be repeated in the next budget cycle.
• Community budget presentations are made in each council district and questions answered.
• In late spring, the Mayor and City Manager present their budget messages.
• The City Council conducts study sessions with staff presentations on departmental budgets.
• Councilmembers can recommend additional spending or reductions provided they also recommend changes in other areas to balance the budget. (By law, the City cannot operate without a balanced budget.)
• The City Council votes on the City Administration’s budget recommendations in June.
• The budget goes into effect on July 1st.
Many of this and next year’s strategies for combating San Jose’s chronic budget deficit were originally discussed and proposed in the January 2008 document, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit. This was a report by Management Partners, a national consulting firm specializing in local government with offices in San Jose and Cincinnati. (See Pdf pages 6-8 for cover letter and index. A Budget Process Review and Recommended Budget Principals are described on pdf pages 133-137.)
From the Management Partners report: “The development and adoption of the annual budget is the most important responsibility for the city administration and the most critical policy decision made each year by the Mayor and City Council. In San José the annual budget allocates $3.7 billion in resources to provide services to nearly one million residents. The budget process in San José has continued to evolve and be improved by the City staff, Mayor and City Council.”
As we have previously discussed, the disorganization of current city budget documents makes them very difficult to understand for the City Council, and taxpaying businesses and residents. It also prevents us from comparing our city services, taxes, fees, spending, and performance measurements to community conditions.
Beginning later this month, there will be many important public meetings on city policy and budgeting — mostly at City Hall. Most residents will not be aware of these meetings nor able to attend. Regardless, policy recommendations will be made that affect city service levels, budgets, department performance measurements and proposed staff and service reductions.
It is very important that you, your neighbors, and San Jose taxpaying businesses and residents do some homework in order to knowledgably participate in the community budget process. You can begin by reading and clearly understanding the Management Partners report that I linked to earlier in this article as this will be used as the primary basis for the City Administration’s proposed budget and staff reductions.
As a community, we can help prioritize spending in our City. We can tell our leaders what services should be fully funded, partially funded or not funded at all. We can help to develop or change city policies that affect future budget deficits. If we take the time to understand the complex budget process and communicate our concerns and recommendations to the City Council and City Administration, taxpaying business and residents can join together to make San Jose an even greater city with a high quality of life for everyone.
In upcoming articles, I’ll continue our discussion of community budget participation by referencing data to help you understand the budget and notifying you of important budget meetings.
By Ed Rast
Did you know that San Jose’s budget process for FY 2010-2011 will begin later this month rather than in January 2010 — as it normally would — because of numerous challenges, including a $90M deficit and proposed city service and staff reductions?
The typical budget process looks something like this:
• In January, the City conducts a telephone survey that randomly calls residents to asks them to rank their budget priorities and rate city services.
• Following a City presentation, neighborhood leaders this year were asked to review the Budget Office's prepared list of reductions and list those they preferred or offer their own cost or staff reductions which the staff would review to achieve a cost reduction target. We expect this step to be repeated in the next budget cycle.
• Community budget presentations are made in each council district and questions answered.
• In late spring, the Mayor and City Manager present their budget messages.
• The City Council conducts study sessions with staff presentations on departmental budgets.
• Councilmembers can recommend additional spending or reductions provided they also recommend changes in other areas to balance the budget. (By law, the City cannot operate without a balanced budget.)
• The City Council votes on the City Administration’s budget recommendations in June.
• The budget goes into effect on July 1st.
Many of this and next year’s strategies for combating San Jose’s chronic budget deficit were originally discussed and proposed in the January 2008 document, City of San Jose: Development of Strategies to Address the City’s General Fund Structural Budget Deficit. This was a report by Management Partners, a national consulting firm specializing in local government with offices in San Jose and Cincinnati. (See Pdf pages 6-8 for cover letter and index. A Budget Process Review and Recommended Budget Principals are described on pdf pages 133-137.)
From the Management Partners report: “The development and adoption of the annual budget is the most important responsibility for the city administration and the most critical policy decision made each year by the Mayor and City Council. In San José the annual budget allocates $3.7 billion in resources to provide services to nearly one million residents. The budget process in San José has continued to evolve and be improved by the City staff, Mayor and City Council.”
As we have previously discussed, the disorganization of current city budget documents makes them very difficult to understand for the City Council, and taxpaying businesses and residents. It also prevents us from comparing our city services, taxes, fees, spending, and performance measurements to community conditions.
Beginning later this month, there will be many important public meetings on city policy and budgeting — mostly at City Hall. Most residents will not be aware of these meetings nor able to attend. Regardless, policy recommendations will be made that affect city service levels, budgets, department performance measurements and proposed staff and service reductions.
It is very important that you, your neighbors, and San Jose taxpaying businesses and residents do some homework in order to knowledgably participate in the community budget process. You can begin by reading and clearly understanding the Management Partners report that I linked to earlier in this article as this will be used as the primary basis for the City Administration’s proposed budget and staff reductions.
As a community, we can help prioritize spending in our City. We can tell our leaders what services should be fully funded, partially funded or not funded at all. We can help to develop or change city policies that affect future budget deficits. If we take the time to understand the complex budget process and communicate our concerns and recommendations to the City Council and City Administration, taxpaying business and residents can join together to make San Jose an even greater city with a high quality of life for everyone.
In upcoming articles, I’ll continue our discussion of community budget participation by referencing data to help you understand the budget and notifying you of important budget meetings.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Ask Ed Returns
Regular visitors to Protect San Jose know Ed Rast as a statistical guru, especially when it comes to public safety. In his regular Tuesday column, he's examined San Jose's exorbitant business taxes and fees, mismanaged budgeting priorities of City Administration, and our tendency to build more and more housing without bringing new jobs to the area.
A couple months ago, Ed opened up a dialogue with you, the reader, and he received some intriguing questions. Now, we're happy to open the floor again. This is your chance to Ask Ed.
Leave your questions in the comment space below, and stay safe.
A couple months ago, Ed opened up a dialogue with you, the reader, and he received some intriguing questions. Now, we're happy to open the floor again. This is your chance to Ask Ed.
Leave your questions in the comment space below, and stay safe.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Crime Doesn't Pay, But We Do
By Jim Cogan
The title of this blog is one of the mottos that we have used over the years. It speaks to the simplicity of the program and its power over crime. This was a quiet month for Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers. We have 14 current cases under investigation, but only one closed last month. The one that closed was a great example of how crime doesn’t pay, but we do.
We received a tip drugs were being sold out of a house in San José. Police set up surveillance at the home and witnessed the suspect leaving with an accomplice. The officers followed them and were able to stop them on a traffic violation. After they stopped the car, they observed the suspects tossing bags of what later turned out to be marijuana out of the car. Officers recovered approximately half a pound of marijuana valued at $1,000, drug paraphernalia, and $1,000 in cash. The suspects will face criminal charges and jail time while the tipster will receive a reward. Crime doesn’t pay, but we do.
At Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers, we are proud of our impressive record of success, but we are also proud of the exceptional work performed by the men and women of Santa Clara County’s law enforcement community. Every year, we recognize their service by hosting an awards dinner where every jurisdiction is offered the opportunity to nominate an officer or team of officers who have distinguished themselves in the line of duty. Over the years, we have recognized heroes who day in and day out put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe. We have honored law enforcement professionals who go the extra mile to get the job done, and it is our privilege to thank them for making us all a little safer.
This year’s awards dinner will be held on November 13th at San José’s Forth Street Summit Center. For more information, please call Councilmember Pete Constant’s office at (408) 535-4901. This is a great event that will show you why we live in one of the safest regions in the Country. Together we will thank the men and women who protect San José and all of Silicon Valley.
Jim Cogan is President of Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers.
The title of this blog is one of the mottos that we have used over the years. It speaks to the simplicity of the program and its power over crime. This was a quiet month for Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers. We have 14 current cases under investigation, but only one closed last month. The one that closed was a great example of how crime doesn’t pay, but we do.
We received a tip drugs were being sold out of a house in San José. Police set up surveillance at the home and witnessed the suspect leaving with an accomplice. The officers followed them and were able to stop them on a traffic violation. After they stopped the car, they observed the suspects tossing bags of what later turned out to be marijuana out of the car. Officers recovered approximately half a pound of marijuana valued at $1,000, drug paraphernalia, and $1,000 in cash. The suspects will face criminal charges and jail time while the tipster will receive a reward. Crime doesn’t pay, but we do.
At Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers, we are proud of our impressive record of success, but we are also proud of the exceptional work performed by the men and women of Santa Clara County’s law enforcement community. Every year, we recognize their service by hosting an awards dinner where every jurisdiction is offered the opportunity to nominate an officer or team of officers who have distinguished themselves in the line of duty. Over the years, we have recognized heroes who day in and day out put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe. We have honored law enforcement professionals who go the extra mile to get the job done, and it is our privilege to thank them for making us all a little safer.
This year’s awards dinner will be held on November 13th at San José’s Forth Street Summit Center. For more information, please call Councilmember Pete Constant’s office at (408) 535-4901. This is a great event that will show you why we live in one of the safest regions in the Country. Together we will thank the men and women who protect San José and all of Silicon Valley.
Jim Cogan is President of Silicon Valley Crime Stoppers.
Friday, October 2, 2009
For the Record
By Bobby Lopez
There’s a lot of talk going around about next year’s District Attorney race and what role the SJPOA will play in it. I’ve heard and read a lot of different things, so I want to take a second to clear the air about our endorsement process.
As a policy, the POA does not make early endorsements. We have a process we’ve used since I became President, and we plan to follow it for the June 2010 elections. There are times when we make exceptions for friends who have a proven track record of supporting public safety issues, and we reserve that right. But that is not the norm by any means.
We are also part of a Public Safety Coalition with San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 and the Association of Retired San Jose Police and Firefighters. From now on, our public safety organizations will work together when considering local endorsements. Once all three organizations have finished their own interview processes, we have the option to make a joint endorsement if we all agree on a candidate.
The endorsements of public safety organizations are important to any candidate because of the trust people place in us. Having our name on a mailer or a brochure carries a lot of weight with voters. I have made it a priority as President to ensure that our process is open and fair because I do not want to betray the people’s trust by making a decision without all the facts.
In coming months, we will extend an invitation to all viable candidates for the June 2010 elections to appear before us and request our endorsement. The current District Attorney will be welcome, as will any other candidate. She may win our endorsement, but only after a fair and thorough process.
Have a great weekend, and stay safe out there.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
There’s a lot of talk going around about next year’s District Attorney race and what role the SJPOA will play in it. I’ve heard and read a lot of different things, so I want to take a second to clear the air about our endorsement process.
As a policy, the POA does not make early endorsements. We have a process we’ve used since I became President, and we plan to follow it for the June 2010 elections. There are times when we make exceptions for friends who have a proven track record of supporting public safety issues, and we reserve that right. But that is not the norm by any means.
We are also part of a Public Safety Coalition with San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 and the Association of Retired San Jose Police and Firefighters. From now on, our public safety organizations will work together when considering local endorsements. Once all three organizations have finished their own interview processes, we have the option to make a joint endorsement if we all agree on a candidate.
The endorsements of public safety organizations are important to any candidate because of the trust people place in us. Having our name on a mailer or a brochure carries a lot of weight with voters. I have made it a priority as President to ensure that our process is open and fair because I do not want to betray the people’s trust by making a decision without all the facts.
In coming months, we will extend an invitation to all viable candidates for the June 2010 elections to appear before us and request our endorsement. The current District Attorney will be welcome, as will any other candidate. She may win our endorsement, but only after a fair and thorough process.
Have a great weekend, and stay safe out there.
Bobby Lopez is President of the San Jose Police Officers' Association.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Beat Cop: A Dangerous Playground
We all are mindful of predators that may be lurking near a school or playground. However, the Internet is a place where our children are playing much more frequently, and it is becoming increasingly dangerous. Some studies show that one in seven children between the ages of 10 and 17 will be sexually solicited online. Hate groups use the Internet to recruit young, impressionable kids. Studies show that anywhere from 20-70% of online children have been victims of some form of cyber-bullying. Many recent juvenile acts of violence have been linked to a cultivation of hate and violence online.
Growing problems from cyber-bullying are showing up at our schools. Disputes originating at school are transferred online and are fueled by unsupervised public humiliation in the online world. Results of cyber-bullying can range from depression and poor academic performance to violence on campus and even suicide.
Some of the 64,000 sexual offender registrants in California that are child predators have turned to the Internet as a new playground to prey upon. Most parents of child victims solicited online did not even consider that there was a physical risk to their children being online. We, as beat cops, are seeing more and more cases of child victimization on the Internet. Many cases in which a child had been victimized online only got to that point after a long period of interaction between the predator and the child.
These cases could have been prevented with the use of some simple Internet safety tips, like placing computers centrally in the home and using available monitoring or filtering software. Most computers have built-in parental controls in their operating systems and Internet browsers with varying levels of control. Service providers like AOL also have parental controls.
Start by becoming familiar with these safety tools. Learn how to check your computer’s online browser history. Next, invest in “aftermarket” Internet content filters, blockers, and/or trackers. This simple type of software is available for sale online and at local electronic stores. Examples of some are Netnanny, kidsnet and Spector Pro. These programs can filter or block content on the web. Social networking sites — like MySpace — and chat rooms can be monitored, and total time online or on these sites can be limited. Content trackers like Spector Pro can log all the emails, web pages, chats, and MySpace activity on a computer in an easy-to-use program, giving you a quick overview of your child's Internet activity. Knowing what your child is doing online and who is interacting with them is the key to keeping them safe.
Next, you should become familiar with the dangers our children are exposed to online. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (www.missingkids.com) is the world’s leading organization and partner with law enforcement for the elimination of online sexual exploitation of children. NCMEC operates a phone and online system to report any form of child solicitation at 1-800-THELOST or www.cybertipline.com. Tips are forwarded to the appropriate federal, local, or task force law enforcement agency for investigation. NCMEC also offers free online safety training at www.netsmartz.org. Also available are a variety of learning games for children as well as resources, videos, free CD's and presentations for parents educators and law enforcement. There is even the opportunity for a local presentation to be made at your school or organization. If the whole online world is a mystery for you there is a parents’ resource to explain all this mumbo jumbo in plain English at www.netsmartz411.org. Online help as well as free phone advice is available.
Your San Jose Police Department is working hard to keep kids safe online. The San Jose Police Child Exploitation Detail is a member of the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program. The lives our kids lead online deserve the same amount of attention and protection we give them in the rest of their lives. Providing that protection will take some catching up for most parents out there, but the resources and help are available to you. Please take some time to consider what a dangerous playground the Internet can be and report any attempts of online solicitation of a child to the police.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Growing problems from cyber-bullying are showing up at our schools. Disputes originating at school are transferred online and are fueled by unsupervised public humiliation in the online world. Results of cyber-bullying can range from depression and poor academic performance to violence on campus and even suicide.
Some of the 64,000 sexual offender registrants in California that are child predators have turned to the Internet as a new playground to prey upon. Most parents of child victims solicited online did not even consider that there was a physical risk to their children being online. We, as beat cops, are seeing more and more cases of child victimization on the Internet. Many cases in which a child had been victimized online only got to that point after a long period of interaction between the predator and the child.
These cases could have been prevented with the use of some simple Internet safety tips, like placing computers centrally in the home and using available monitoring or filtering software. Most computers have built-in parental controls in their operating systems and Internet browsers with varying levels of control. Service providers like AOL also have parental controls.
Start by becoming familiar with these safety tools. Learn how to check your computer’s online browser history. Next, invest in “aftermarket” Internet content filters, blockers, and/or trackers. This simple type of software is available for sale online and at local electronic stores. Examples of some are Netnanny, kidsnet and Spector Pro. These programs can filter or block content on the web. Social networking sites — like MySpace — and chat rooms can be monitored, and total time online or on these sites can be limited. Content trackers like Spector Pro can log all the emails, web pages, chats, and MySpace activity on a computer in an easy-to-use program, giving you a quick overview of your child's Internet activity. Knowing what your child is doing online and who is interacting with them is the key to keeping them safe.
Next, you should become familiar with the dangers our children are exposed to online. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (www.missingkids.com) is the world’s leading organization and partner with law enforcement for the elimination of online sexual exploitation of children. NCMEC operates a phone and online system to report any form of child solicitation at 1-800-THELOST or www.cybertipline.com. Tips are forwarded to the appropriate federal, local, or task force law enforcement agency for investigation. NCMEC also offers free online safety training at www.netsmartz.org. Also available are a variety of learning games for children as well as resources, videos, free CD's and presentations for parents educators and law enforcement. There is even the opportunity for a local presentation to be made at your school or organization. If the whole online world is a mystery for you there is a parents’ resource to explain all this mumbo jumbo in plain English at www.netsmartz411.org. Online help as well as free phone advice is available.
Your San Jose Police Department is working hard to keep kids safe online. The San Jose Police Child Exploitation Detail is a member of the National Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program. The lives our kids lead online deserve the same amount of attention and protection we give them in the rest of their lives. Providing that protection will take some catching up for most parents out there, but the resources and help are available to you. Please take some time to consider what a dangerous playground the Internet can be and report any attempts of online solicitation of a child to the police.
Proudly serving you,
Your Beat Cop
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Enough is Enough
By Kathleen Flynn
Often times in high-profile cases, the victim, their families, and friends get lost in the media hype of political campaigns and community groups with personal agendas. If you look at infamous cases like Rodney King, O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, and DeShawn Campbell, you’d be hard pressed to figure out who the real victims are.
The problem as I see it starts when the media turns offenders, prosecutors, and police personnel into celebrities. It all becomes one big out-of-control circus that is soon joined by the political posturing of community leaders and groups and others with personal agendas. Groups campaigning against the death penalty, groups opposing law enforcement, community leaders screaming about racial discrimination take center stage, yet no one seems to notice the casualties that are being left behind in the dust on the field.
I remember reading about the shooting of Officer Jeffery Fontana. I felt heart broken for him, his family, and his friends. It wasn’t until the media started reporting stories that were bent on creating sympathy for DeShawn Campbell — along with my meeting of Officer Fontana’s mother, Sandy, at a vigil to honor victims of violent crimes — that I realized the true injustice that was occurring. The pain these families suffer at the hands of the media and all of the other players inspired me to give them a voice in this column. During that vigil, I listened to the heart wrenching re-victimization stories of victims and family members who not only suffered publicly at the hands of the sensationalistic media, but also at the hands of the very offices that are being paid to ensure justice for them or their lost loved ones.
Currently, we are seeing such a case play out in our local media instead of in the courtroom or in the voting booth where it belongs. Questions of ethical impropriety and early political campaigning are overshadowing the tragic murder of one of our very own much-loved community members. These outrageous behaviors being guised as “the public’s right to know,” are endangering not only the possible conviction of known criminals, but are also causing great pain to an innocent family that has lost a loved one in the commission of a violent crime.
Enough is enough. I am calling on the media, prosecutors, community groups, and law enforcement to end the political rhetoric and put the focus back where it belongs: on the victim and how we can use this tragedy to improve the safety of our communities and to support families that continue to suffer from the loss of a loved one.
Kathleen Flynn is a professional mediator and community activist.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
