Comments on: Budgeting Parks in Difficult Times

By: Wise Growth is dead

Wise Growth is dead — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:09:07 +0000

Hey Dale ” Mr Wise Growth ” Warner sounds like you are in the dark by yourself again and no one will follow your Wise Growth after Mayor Reed has ignoring it for 10 years

By: Wise Growth vs Smart Growth

Wise Growth vs Smart Growth — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:18:42 +0000

A fundamental problem underlying all the park and open space issues is the procedural atrocity known as Smart Growth. We could institute Wise Growth procedures to our great benefit:

http://www.saveopenspaces.com/

By: 10 MHz Days

10 MHz Days — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:20:35 +0000

Maintenance issues aside, the restoration of Pellier Park is going to be paid for by Barry Swenson, not out of Parks funding, as per the agreement made several years ago when Swenson was allowed to rip out the park facilities and use the park as a parking lot for construction equipment.

The Guadalupe Trail down to Willow Street is mostly a closed, paved street already. It could use a ramp at the southern end and a crosswalk signal to connect it safely to the Hwy. 87 bike path.

If you can’t think of what to do with the money, you should acquire unused railroad right-of-way which is ideally suited to bike trails. Right now the city is just letting anybody build over it without regard to its value as a transportation corridor.

By: Park Foundation Info

Park Foundation Info — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:14:01 +0000

San Jose Parks Foundation We are moving forward! The board of Trustees has held its first meeting, the agreement with the City is nearly completed and we anticipate a significant public launch (with Membership Campaign) in late February. James Reber Founding Executive Director, San Jose Park Foundation

Contact information for San Jose Parks Foundation San Jose Parks Foundation P.O. Box 53841 San Jose, California 95153 408.893.7275 (or 893-PARK)

http://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Jose-Parks-Foundation/147261368687

http://www.sjparks.org/trails/documents/2009_08_30_Mercury.pdf

By: Sam Liccardo

Sam Liccardo — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:53:38 +0000

Decade of Park Mismanagement, I’ll decline to speak to many of those issues because they were decided before I took office. I’ll be the first to say that the Tamien situation has left the community and me very frustrated, but to be fair to the developer, he did pay his required fee—the City and VTA simply directed it to a parking garage rather than a park. Since I’ve taken office I’ve spent many hours with all of the parties to rectify the mess, and I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to finalize a deal within a few weeks that will provide the Tamien community with a park, a school, and a stable (non-City) funding source to maintain the park in good condition for decades to come. As for many of the issues you highlight, keep in mind that you’re talking about sources that would result in shortfalls in the City’s capital funds, but it’s not capital-restricted funds that are the real problem. We’ve got money to build parks. The real problem is the lack of (unrestricted) ongoing operating and maintenance dollars.

By: Sam Liccardo

Sam Liccardo — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 01:42:51 +0000

In reply to Steve0.

Sure, SteveO—
The “other ideas” certainly aren’t original, but like the Mayor, I’ve been pushing for substantial cuts in employee compensation to maintain services and jobs (that’s why I advocated for cuts in councilmember salaries last year, in the hope that we’d be setting an example), and a two-tier system of retirement benefits to reduce our costs going forward.
I also voted with the Mayor in the minority we were confronted with a more convoluted “competition policy” a few months ago that would make it even more difficult for us to employ alternative service delivery methods to achieve cost-savings. Quite honestly, we often lose those votes, and we’ll lose others, until the entire Council appreciates the depth of the frustration that our residents feel with the loss of crucial services.
In the meantime, though, we’ve got to be as creative as possible. Councilmember Oliverio and I will be releasing a memo this week detailing an opportunity for the City to negotiate with a developer over a contribution to maintain a park within the developer’s standard park fee, which will relieve a small strain on the General Fund.
Our Parks Foundation has finally launched, and will be leveraging private contributions to improve our parks citywide.
I’ll keep pushing those ideas and others in the months ahead.
Sam

By: Decade of City Park Mismanagement

Decade of City Park Mismanagement — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 06:31:03 +0000

What is not being said in Decades of City Park Mismanagement

Yes, city can not use Quimby park impact fees for maintenance. State law’s intent was to finance park, trails and open space land acquisitions from developer fees building residential units

San Jose created park problems by not adequately funding park maintenance and staff for last 10-15 years

City government promised 8 years ago to set up needed private Parks Foundation which was finally done in 2009, missing out on millions in private park contributions for land and maintenance during boom years

City lost 15-20 Childrens Parks from Kaboom worth $3-5 million over last 8 years because of bumbling bureaucracy

City wasting millions taxes on unnecessary developer tax payment credits and subsidies during largest and more profitable residential boom in history while developers project profits were 35-50%

City government exempted developers from paying $75 million in park fees from 2002 to 2006 further increasing their profits

City government exempted affordable housing from paying any park fees while adding new low income residents who heavily use parks making limited city parks more crowded

City government park fund mismanagement required $1 million dollars to be given back to developers because city did not buy required parkland in 5 years

Redevelopment funds can be used for park operating and land purchases as other city’s do, to improve blighted neighborhoods like Tamiem area and downtown but was not

City cut deal with politically connected Tamiem developer who was already paying 30-50% reduced park impact fees after credits for private parkland to defer building park until after 2nd tower was build which is years away if ever

By: Steve0

Steve0 — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:14:38 +0000

“Among the many paradoxes…” Is there really a paradox why San Jose cannot provide the most basic services? According to Mr. Reed the cause is very simple: the average cost per employee has gone up by 64% over the last 9 years while revenues have gone up by only 18%.

In addition the council has created a convoluted set of outsourcing rules that effectively prevents services from being done by anybody other than city employees.

Do you have any ideas other than layoffs for solving the budget crisis?