San Jose Inside

What if someone held an election and one side didn’t show up? Well, that is happening in the ill-advised pension reform campaign called Measure B. While proponents are raising money to pay for the Mayor’s under-employed—yet now overpaid—political consultant, organized opposition to the measure has evaporated. The reason is simple and economical.

The surprise hit was launched recently, with mailers attacking Herrera’s ethics, character and integrity. Problem is, the accusations all relate to two decade-old personal and business matters that have nothing to do with her record and performance as a public officeholder. Voters elected Herrera with knowledge of her failed and tangled business affairs, so that’s water under the bridge.

San Jose-bred Pierluigi Oliverio works tirelessly for his constituents and is fully immersed in his district’s business. While sometimes too idealistic for his own good, his independence and intelligence make him a strong asset on the dais. Willing to speak his mind even when it has a political cost is rare in local politics, where compromise and backscratching can sometimes lead to lowest common denominator policy making.

U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren led the effort to create the Department of Corrections when she was a county supervisor in 1988. The move took the jails away from a sheriff who didn’t manage his budget well and saved the county millions by replacing expensive sworn sheriff’s deputies with correctional officers. Two years ago, the County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to return to greater oversight by the office of Sheriff Laurie Smith. She’s better at managing a budget and the move eliminated redundant management overhead. An influx in inmates created greater security threats as well, requiring trained law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, the cost-saving measure—estimated at $5 million already by County Executive Jeff Smith—might not have been legal, according to a lawsuit filed by San Jose attorney James McManis. A “yes” vote on Measure A is the equivalent of approving something everyone already agreed is a good idea.

These measures come down to how much people want to pay in property taxes, and what kind of education they want to provide future generations. There’s no denying that the state budget continues to cripple K-12, community colleges and California’s two public university systems with funding cuts. By approving Measure C, which would result in approving up to $350 million in bonds, voters will give students at the West Valley-Mission Community College District a first-rate, two-year education without the first-class price of the UC and Cal State systems. Measure E plans to bond $95 million in MIlpitas, and Measure G (Mountain View—Whisman School District) and Measure H (Cuprtino Union School District) would approve up to $198 million and $220 million in bonds, respectively. Considering siphoning of property taxes by Redevelopment Agencies is no longer allowed and tech titans Google and Apple are located in those last two cities, they should have no trouble paying off the bonds in the future.

Election season brings about some odd transfers of money when it comes to political contributions, and maybe no stranger transaction took place last year than the $4,000 the San Jose/Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee (ChamberPAC) returned to the Santa Clara Valley Water District in August. According to standards set by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission, a public entity is forbidden from contributing to any PAC, while the IRS says schools and charities risk losing their tax exemptions if they give money to PACs that support political candidates—which the ChamberPAC certainly does.

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg: I humbly write to you today as one elected trustee of the Santa Clara County Board of Education. Yes, I know this is one extraordinary week in your life, and the time to read this blog is most likely very limited. However, I thought I would attempt to connect with you anyway. Please forgive the brazen request I’m about to make, but we need your generosity here and now.

Despite the city’s stated commitment to sunshine and open government, city officials and proponents of a proposal to permanently close a block of South First Street concealed critical documents from affected parties for a year—until the eve of a council vote. Promoters of the “pavement to plaza” conversion say a $500,000 grant from ArtPlace requires the street’s full closure. San Jose will contribute $98,000 in park and economic development funds, under the plan, which goes to the City Council at today’s 1:30pm meeting.

Mayor Chuck Reed and Councilmember Sam Liccardo authored a memo last week that would give high-rise builders in downtown San Jose new incentives to start constructing towers before the end of next year. At its meeting Tuesday, the City Council will discuss the incentives as well as last week’s budget hearings, restricting payday lending offices, targeting parents who let their teenagers throw parties with alcohol, and a potential park expansion that could alter the view from San Jose Inside’s office.

Some people have called the fact that San Jose will have 9 million dollars more than anticipated a “surplus.” Having this money will allow the city to avoid layoffs and add funding for libraries, as well as anti-gang programs this coming fiscal year. The mayor has called it a 1-percent cushion, because this money came about from last year’s budget action of layoffs and across-the-board pay cuts for all employees. Having enough money to provide some services does not equate to a “surplus” or a “cushion,” in my opinion.

Internal polling numbers show Measure B passing in next month’s election with more than 60 percent of the vote, according to sources at City Hall. For that reason, it seems that unions and labor-oriented Political Action Committees (PAC) plan to fight the “pension modification” measure after it passes in court. But on the flip side, the committee “San Jose Fiscal Reforms, Mayor Reed, Chamber PAC and IMPAC Proponents” shot out of the fundraising gates in the first three months of the year, hauling in more than $200,000 in contributions—$202,275 to be exact.

Sheriff Laurie Smith withdrew her endorsement of Rose Herrera this week. It was not an easy decision, but it was made as a result of evidence presented to Smith of substantive fraud perpetrated by Herrera in the past. As the chief law enforcement officer of Santa Clara County, Smith believes it would set a bad precedent to support anybody who committed a felony, even if they were not convicted.

Less than a month until the June 5 primary, labor unions fired off several accusations Tuesday that Councilmember Rose Herrera lied to voters during her 2008 campaign and may have even committed perjury in the mid-1990s. Herrera responded by calling the unions “bullies” using “misrepresentations and lies.”