The vote on the convention center has been covered extensively, but a resident I spoke to asked me to please share my view on San Jose Inside. As we know, the Council vote was unanimous in supporting the renovation and expansion.  Although I cannot speak for my colleagues, I would say there were four major constituencies who advocated for the renovation and expansion of the convention center.

By now, the Commissioner of Baseball, Bud Selig, could have, and many say, should have, made a decision as to whether or not the A’s should be permitted to move to San Jose.  The A’s ownership group wants to make the move, and San Jose city officials have been working to assemble the land for a new stadium.  What’s the hang up?

I know you care deeply about the success of our nation’s educational systems and the student clients they serve. You and your boss advocate for an education system that is second to none. Early childhood education can be the great equalizer between poor and wealthy families. The $21,495,317 that Santa Clara County receives in federal funding for Early Head Start and Head Start saves the taxpayer at least four times that much, if Head Start did not exist.

The 2010 Census data came out and the good news, from my perspective, is the population of San Jose is not one million people but instead 945,942. However, I am told there is under-counting as some residents do not want to be counted. Our population growth rate has slowed to 5.7 percent as opposed to 37 percent in the 1970’s. The average people per household city wide is 3.14, however the average number of people per household in District 5 is 4.5.

The mayor on libraries and community centers vs. SJPD’s retirement benefits, the problems with contracting out city services, the grounding of the police chopper, and the importance of citizen involvement.

UPDATED 2:30pm Vice Mayor Madison Nguyen and Councilmembers Rose Herrera, Sam Liccardo and Pete Constant proposed today shutting down 90 percent of the marijuana businesses in San Jose. The City’s Rules Committee will hear the proposal tomorrow, March 9. If approved, the ordinance will be sent to the City Council on March 29, 2011.

By Mark Ruffing
In our new world of upside-down mortgages, the building of the new City Hall—and now the resulting debt service to pay for it—has become the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. Individual City departments are expected to pay approximately $1.1 million per year toward the debt service for the new City Hall. That’s $1.1 million per floor, multiplied by 18 floors at the City Tower, and additional floors at the City Hall Wing. Meanwhile, the old City Hall lays vacant.

Sometimes I feel I am living in the Twilight Zone. Is it strictly science fiction to think the common school curriculum supported by leaders in education, business and labor will help raise student achievement across the grades? Perhaps yes.

During my first four years on the San José City Council, I have been lobbied and visited by many who hope to influence the decisions that I make as a councilmember. There seems to be an endless line of special interests that form to ensure that I know their concerns. This is particularly so during budget negotiations when everyone thinks that the cuts are necessary, but that their project, program or need is the exception to the rule.

After much discussion at the City Council meeting last week the Council voted in favor of having city staff study performance as a criteria when it comes to employee layoffs. The review will determine if the City should include job performance when considering layoffs, or keep the current system in place, which is based solely on seniority.

I remember when a few civic leaders pushed to have the convention center in downtown San Jose named after former mayor Tom McEnery, even though he was still alive (and still is). Then came a train station that had to have the name of another still-living public figure, Rod Diridon. What came next? The San Jose International Airport’s name wasn’t good enough, so these same civic leaders (who like their own names on other buildings in surrounding communities) pushed to have our then quaint airport named after Norman Y. Mineta. Certainly a fine and honest man, and also very much alive.

Last week, San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown offered stark comments and opinions on the subject of runaway public employee compensation and pensions.  In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Reed suggested that the “seeds” of the problem were planted almost 30 years ago.

What is going down in Wisconsin with the teacher’s union is a Category 5 hurricane. In order for us to really “win the future” we must be smart and collaborative. We cannot declare war on public employee unions and think our future would be brighter. It will not.

In past blogs I have expressed my concern about the cost to our city of too much housing. Specifically, housing that does not pay its own share of revenue. One example I have pointed out—and constantly been the lone vote against—is affordable housing.

In what has become an annual refrain, we again sit at a crossroads of bad choices about cutting services and jobs, far worse even than last year. In June, we will slash many crucial services and lay off hundreds of city employees—as many as one out of every five—to resolve a budget deficit that will likely exceed $120 million. Demonizing our hard-working employees does not amount to much of an answer. After all, employees fairly bargained for these benefits.

The task remains for elected officials today to show renewed courage and fiscal sense. That requires a more difficult conversation, one about whether and how to cut retirement benefits that our current employees and retirees have long relied upon. While constitutional protections make it difficult, if not impossible, to do so through traditional mechanisms of collective bargaining, we need to work with our unions to find a new bargain with our employees: one which is both fair and sustainable.