We San Joseans are a schizophrenic bunch. We’re all for economic development, but we consistently complain about noise generated by the airplanes, traffic, and sporting events that come with it. We’re pro-environment, but we’ll drive our Hummers to shop in Campbell or Milpitas, so we can have plastic bags to pick up our dog droppings. We’re pro-innovation, but we do very little to attract the startups and R&D projects that form the backbone of our region, and we add insult to injury by embracing the misnomer “Capital of Silicon Valley.”

The city’s General Fund is not legally obligated to pay an airport expense or debt service payments.However, the City Council has discretion over the allocation of general fund monies in general, and may approve an allocation of General Fund monies for airport expenditures. This includes payment of debt service. The allocation of general fund resources to the airport would be a policy decision by the City Council, not a legal obligation.

A student-organized push to raise the minimum wage in San Jose looks like it has a chance to make its way on the ballot. Roughly 35,000 signatures were reportedly submitted Wednesday by a group led by San Jose State students. Those signatures will need to be verified by the county Registrar of Voters. For now, the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce is taking a wait-and-see approach to the initiative.

The city’s fight over pension reform and dwindling reserves resulted in San Jose’s credit being downgraded by Moody’s Investment Service in New York. The impact, according to City Manager Debra Figone at Tuesday’s City Council meeting, will be a cost of $350,000 to the city.

Despite having a reputation for sprawl, rent in San Jose increased at a higher rate than anywhere else in the nation, according to a city memo distributed Tuesday. A 3-percent increase is the highest allowable under the city’s ordinance, and many of the people targeted by recent rent hikes include mobilehome owners who rent land for their homes.

San Jose State University’s Tower Foundation calls itself an “auxiliary organization dedicated solely to philanthropy,” according to its website. A report by Cal Watchdog published Thursday suggests the foundation broke federal law by not reporting generous payments to university officials.

Dear Larry: We need to talk. It started a few years back, when Lew Wolff got it in his head that Oakland wasn’t the best home for the ballclub he’d recently purchased. The A’s play in a rundown stadium in a decrepit area of town in front of a dwindling—albeit loud and loyal—fanbase. The organization’s limited revenue stream prevents it from building a consistent winner and essentially makes them a ward of the league. Enter San Jose.

A judge ruled in favor of attorneys representing city workers Monday to hold an expedited hearing on April 3 about the language of Measure B, the pension and benefits reform ballot measure. The ruling comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed Friday in California Superior Court that claims the ballot question violates the Election Code because it does not contain impartial and non-argumentative language, as the law requires.

The public relations war we’ve all been waiting for is finally here. In a recent article, New York Daily News columnist Bill Madden suggested that MLB was unlikely to grant the Oakland A’s permission to move to San Jose. Baseball officials responded by saying no decision had been made. Then the A’s and San Francisco Giants sparred with competing statements about who had rights to the South Bay territory.

Why are there so few John Sobratos? In one of the richest areas of the world, there is a dearth of giving among the wealthiest in our midst. Many of the social problems we currently suffer could be alleviated by smart programs and a relatively small commitment from the people who have benefited the most from American opportunity.

Last Friday, Joint Venture Silicon Valley (JVSV) hosted its annual State of the Valley. I was one of the 1,000 people in attendance at the convention center. JVSV started in 1993, during a recession, to promote economic growth through public-private partnerships. Several interesting demographic statistics were pointed out during the presentation.

San Jose made a play for a satellite office with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), submitting a proposal with the help of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group. Included in the application are letters from Mayor Chuck Reed and Silicon Valley business execs stating their case to David Kappos, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property with the USPTO.

As you may have heard, last month the California Supreme Court terminated all Redevelopment Agencies (RDA) in California. As a result, they will be dissolved by Feb. 1, 2012. The first step is for each RDA to form a “Successor Agency.” This agency will enforce any and all obligations and agreements that are currently in place.

A day before New Year’s Eve, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters validated the necessary amount of signatures for a referendum to go forward on the City Council’s medical marijuana ordinance. While some city officials were offering tough talk in the final months of the year, statements by Mayor Chuck Reed on Tuesday seem to suggest a softened stance that would allow for a compromise rather than the referendum going to voters.

As the year winds down, you can almost hear the collective sigh coming from City Hall. Or maybe that’s an echoing whoosh from councilmembers, the mayor, city manager and their staffs, who hightailed it for the holidays. Either way, 2011 was a tumultuous year, fierce in the manner civic actors clashed over pension reform, public safety, pot, a potential ballpark, ballot measures, pay cuts, occupations of city property and other issues of varying degrees of importance.

A ruling Thursday by the California Supreme Court is more or less the nail in the coffin for the San Jose Redevelopment Agency. It’s also a critical victory for Gov. Jerry Brown, whose budget has been under scrutiny for major shortfalls compared to rosy projections regarding revenue. The state’s high court decided $1.7 billion can be legally taken from RDAs across the state, and the ruling also denies agencies the ability to “pay to play” by giving money over to the state to remain in existence.