Last year, I wrote about a parcel of land that was converted from commercial zoning to residential by my council colleagues … some of whom are “friendly” with a certain lobbyist. Many believe this parcel was converted as a “quid pro quo” so AT&T would sell their land for a potential baseball stadium. I opposed this rezoning since I wanted to retain all of the land for jobs, thus a better tax base to pay for city services.

Robert Braunstein, a TV sports broadcaster and candidate for District 10’s City Council seat, returned a $500 contribution from Brian Bumb this week, after San Jose Inside notified his campaign that Bumb and his company, Bumb & Associates, hold a management stake in Bay 101 Casino. According to ethics provisions listed in Title 12.06 (Municipal Campaign and Officeholder Contributions) under the city’s code of ordinances, candidates for elected office are not allowed to accept money from San Jose’s card rooms, as well as anyone in a management role in those businesses or their spouses.

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.

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.

The now “famous” deadlocked 5-to-5 vote last week, regarding whether or not to move forward with a second-tier retirement system for new employees, was fascinating to watch but extremely disappointing in the end. I believe it was a lost opportunity for labor to not embrace a second tier. If the unions would have embraced a second tier, it would have taken pressure off if the first tier, but that opportunity is now gone. 

Put on your budget caps, because the study sessions start in earnest next week. The first in a series of budget meetings and public hearings takes place Wednesday, with final adoption of budget for the next fiscal year scheduled for Tuesday, June 19. Currently, the city projects a $9 million surplus for 2012-13, about one percent of total expenditures. But some city employees could still lose their jobs as staff continues to look at increasing efficiency. Overall, City Manager Debra Figone said the city will add a net 70 positions.

Steve Kline is an attorney who is currently running for a City Council seat in District 6. He wrote this column for San Jose Inside.—Editor

San Jose has failed its neighborhoods and citizens by inadequately delivering the essential city services for which the taxpayers have dearly paid in tough economic times. Overall, the city has a $2.8 billion budget. The budget is comprised of multiple funds, many of which the city has created to fund special interests and projects. Then, there is the battleground called the General Fund, which is only about 33 percent of the total budget. What the council hath created, the council can change. That fund should be more important than the special interests.

A lot of people in charge will say—whether they believe it or not—that they are only as good as their staff. It’s difficult to tell for State Assemblymember Nora Campos (D-San Jose), because almost all of her staff has been replaced. In fact, no elected official in the entire state Legislature has experienced a higher turnover of staff since the beginning of 2011 than Campos.

Are San Jose’s graffiti clean up crews padding the stats to make more money? That’s the question our favorite investigative crew over at NBC is asking. Last June, the city laid off employees and outsourced its graffiti abatement program in an attempt to cut down on expenses to the General Fund. Graffiti Protective Coatings (GPC), a Los Angeles-based private contractor, signed a five-year contract with the city worth $3.1 million. But only nine months into that contract, GPC told the city that it has already exceeded its yearly quota.

I predict going forward that groups sponsoring ballot initiatives will be a constant part of the political landscape in San Jose, similar to the outside funding of planning department ordinances by third parties to move forward on regulations. The minimum wage initiative recently gathered and submitted the required signatures last week, and action will be taken at the May 22 City Council meeting. A library initiative is also in the process of gathering signatures for a November election.

Dysfunction within the Gay Pride Celebration Committee of San Jose could put the city’s annual LGBT Pride parade in jeopardy, according to a report published Thursday by the Bay Area Reporter. Meanwhile, a key issue in the fight for the District 6 City Council seat revolves around the fate of the Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center. Incumbent Pierluigi Oliverio put out a memo the same day as the report asking that the city-owned property be listed as the last sold by the successor agency of the now-defunct Redevelopment Agency.