|
The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of San Jose/Santa Clara in partnership with the San Jose Mercury News and asked of all candidates for this office.
See below for questions on
Growth,
Mayor vs. Manager,
Public Safety,
City Finances
Click on a name for candidate information. See also more information about this contest.
|
1. There are proposals to add 30,000 houses and more office space in North San Jose, thousands more homes in Evergreen and to build a new community in the Coyote Valley. There has been no in-depth study of how these plans will affect one another or services throughout the city. Should San Jose complete a thorough, public review of its general plan for growth before approving any more major development plans? Silicon Valley needs more housing, but San Jose needs more jobs to strengthen its tax base. How would you balance those conflicting pressures?
|
Answer from Timothy K. Fitzgerald:
San Jose must take care of its own back yard first. Further development of Affluent Housing is not only unproductive to the City's needs, the urbal spawral is irresponsible and unintelligent in light of transportation and economic growth issues
Answer from John Michael Candeias:
San Jose should complete a thorough review before any plans of development. We should do what New York has done and build skyskrapers.
Answer from Dave Cortese:
Yes, we need a thorough review of the general plan, including public input. It's long overdue. To balance the job/housing dilemma, I support building high density housing in downtown San Jose and along transit corridors. With more residents living downtown, the City will be able to attract the small businesses and franchises that typically support a neighborhood. This in turn will strengthen our tax base.
Answer from Chuck Reed:
The North San Jose Development Plan is the best example of smart growth. We have plans for approximately 25 million square feet of new industrial space and 25,000 new housing units. I have been a leader in promoting smart growth in both the community and on the city council. I started this planning effort and have taken a leadership role to ensure its success.
We need to finish the North San Jose Development Plan to support the driving industries in San Jose. When we can get the driving industries to stay here and expand their businesses here, they will create the jobs and that will bring back city revenues.
Answer from Michael Mulcahy:
I have a plan that would promote a vibrant downtown and livable neighborhoods by putting a priority on infill development. As mayor, I will conduct an "infill audit" to find appropriate development sites downtown and along transit corridors. My vision for smart planning will help keep San Jose the Bay Area's most livable city while promoting our economy and our rich cultural life.
As for the general plan, I will implement a strategy to complete its thorough update within 24 months.
Please see my detailed plan for smart growth by clicking here.
Answer from David Pandori:
I want a city that is better, not just bigger. Yes, we absolutely need a Citizen's review of the General Plan before approving any major changes in the development of San Jose. We know from the EIR done for North San Jose that there are considerable impacts that are not possible to mitigate, specifically in traffic. A summit meeting of affected Cities must be convened to negotiate development criteria, environmental impacts and mitigations so that we don't have mutual destruction of the economic base of the region. Increasing housing densities is the easy answer,a thoughtful and analytic approach to what kind of housing, affordable for whom , and where it should be, all have to be part of the General Plan review.
|
2. San Jose has a council/manager form of government. Over the past few years the balance of power has shifted toward the mayor and there are some elected officials who support this stronger role for the mayor. Should San Jose move to a strong-mayor form of government or have a strong professional administrator? What kind of city manager will you look for?
|
Answer from Dave Cortese:
San Jose needs a strong mayor to provide leadership and vision, but we also need a strong city manager to implement that vision by professionally administering the daily operations of the city. I will select a city manager who is independent and who recognizes all of his or her powers under the city charter. The city council should not micro-manage the city.
Answer from John Michael Candeias:
I prefer a strong-mayor form of government with checks and balances.
Answer from Chuck Reed:
San Jose needs a city manager to be a professional administrator to run the day-to-day operations of the city. The mayor needs to be a leader, a collaborator and a coach. Under the current city charter, the mayor shouldn't be a dictator or the boss. The mayor and the council set the course for the City, and turn it over to the manager and the professional staff for implementation.
Answer from David Pandori:
I believe in a strong Mayor and a strong City Manager; one to be the leader in policy and vision and the other to be the leader in professional administration and quality city services. I will seek a secure proven professional City Manager with experience in delivering a high quality level of services to citizens. One that has exhibited judgement and ethical behavior in working with elected officials and one that is not loath to speak out when necessary for the good of the City.
Answer from Timothy K. Fitzgerald:
San Jose is the only major City in the United States still requiring leadership from a 'city manager.' The time is long past, given the expamles of McEnery, Hammer, and Gonzales, to give the Mayor a major role in leadership, authority and accoutablity in the City's Politics.
Answer from Michael Mulcahy:
My experience in both the business sector and the non-profit world has taught me that the greatest skill of a leader is to hire and motivate a great team of people. Unfortunately, I don't think the current crop of politicians share this basic smart leadership insight. The politicians and the professional city managers have stumbled over each other as a result. Every single branch of government has a vital role, and we need to make sure they are performing in those roles.
One of the strengths of our system is that we have a professional city manager. The mayor should work to support that, not undermine it. Our system of district elections for council members is also a strength, but not if we see it as a mini-mayor system. We have a basically sound system of government, but we need to make sure everyone is doing his or her own job, not trying to figure out how to do somebody else's.
|
3. Safety often includes services such as homework centers and code enforcement for neighborhoods, but the city budget now being prepared could cut much needed services. If there is no other source of funds to maintain safety-related centers and gang prevention, would you consider reducing the funds going to support the police and fire departments? Can the growing costs of police and for pensions be covered without depleting funds for other community service in the future?
|
Answer from Chuck Reed:
The city can maintain its police and fire departments without cutting other city services if city funds are spent more wisely. I voted against the $4 million race car subsidy for that reason. I also voted against the new $499-million city hall and proposed alternatives that would have saved $150 million. This would have meant millions less per year depleted from the general fund which could have been used for neighborhood services.
Answer from Timothy K. Fitzgerald:
The City has been run by 'boot jack law' with the Cheif of Police acting like the Sheriff of Dodge City for far too long. The needless waste in double duty of Police surveilance and the human waste from heedless police proceedure requires a hard look at the blank check given public safety in future budgets.
Answer from Michael Mulcahy:
The only long-term solution to solving our perennial budget problems is to grow our economy so tax revenue increases.
In my experience, savings can more often be found by finding inefficiencies than by cutting jobs and services. I will find new ways to use staff more effectively, reengineer administrative tasks, and establish a complete line-item budget for the council's review and adoption.
I would also require a more efficient system to keep track of what needs repair to make more informed judgments about the allocation of scarce public resources. I will create a competitive environment for the delivery of city services by challenging our city departments to deliver services more cost effectively. And I will work to attract and retain businesses that will help us grow our economy, with a priority on businesses that generate high-wage jobs.
Answer from David Pandori:
I agree that after school programs and code enforcement are part of the safety related services we should fund. I cannot promise that these laudable programs are untouchable, but they would not be preferred choices for cuts. Since police and fire are the most essential services the budget consequences have to be carefully evaluated and most likely other services will suffer first. Unless our economic health rebounds, the choices are limited and the cuts will hurt.
Answer from Dave Cortese:
I don't support cutting into essential fire and police services to maintain safety-related centers and gang prevention. We need to increase revenues by attracting more businesses to San Jose and we simply need to make wiser budget decisions. A prime example is the $4 million subsidy that the city council majority approved for the Grand Prix race. Although I enjoy the race, I voted against it because orporations should have sponsored the lion's share of the race, not the City's general fund, which supports city services like homework centers.
Answer from John Michael Candeias:
I would only consider reducing funds if the public overwhelmingly supports such consideration. Growing costs can easily be covered if salaries for politicians is decreased.
|
4. Money to maintain and operate the city’s public facilities such as parks and libraries is in shorter and shorter supply. So while new or expanded community centers have been proposed previously, the city is looking at closing or privatizing up to 30 existing centers it cannot afford to operate. Should the city re-examine its plans to add parks and other public facilities? Are there services the city could cut to find money for these highly valued ones?
|
Answer from David Pandori:
There is nothing more galling to residents than to build facilities only to close them due to lack of operating funds. But, the future can anticipate better economic times and creating new parks is absolutely in that future.
We can cut lower priority services to provide more funding for parks and libraries. The budget for the mayor and the city council has increased 31.6% in the last two years ($5,965,000 to $7,854,000). I would roll-back spending for the mayor and city council offices back to the 2001-2002 levels, which will save $1.8 million.
The budget for the city manager's office has increased 40% in the last two years ($6,168,000 to $8,645,000). I would roll-back spending for the city manager's office to 2001-2002 levels, which will save about $2.5 million.
The budget for the city attorney's office has increased 11% over the last two years ($10,442683 to $11,694,252). I would roll-back spending for the city attorney's office to 2001-2002 levels and reduce litigation expenses, which will save about $1.3 million.
We can also increase revenue by attracting more businesses and jobs to San Jose. In looking at new growth, we have to be aware that bad planning is bad for business as well as residents, and if we are to attract new business we have to do it right so they come and stay. It is with economic growth we will afford our amenities.
Answer from Michael Mulcahy:
I would address these issues by closing the debt and balancing the budget. As an outsider, I am not beholden to any particular special interest. I am ready to go in and find creative solutions to balancing the budget. I will find new ways to use staff more effectively, reengineer administrative tasks, and establish a complete line-item budget for the council's review and adoption. I will create a competitive environment for the delivery of city services by challenging our city departments to deliver services more cost effectively.
Most of all, I will balance the city budget by growing the city's economy. As I said before, I completely reject the false dichotomy between cutting police and closing libraries claimed by so many politicians. In my experience, savings can more often be found by finding inefficiencies than by cutting jobs and services.
Although the budget gap is smaller than originally projected, the ongoing problem remains. And the mayor needs to understand that the only long-term solution is to apply sound business principles and to create more effective delivery of services. These proven solutions will grow our economy to expand revenue. And, we must be very careful not to spend one-time funds on ongoing programs.
Answer from John Michael Candeias:
The city should re-examine plans for new projects as long as it considers closing current centers. There may or may not be services the city can cut to find money for highly valued services.
Answer from Dave Cortese:
The city of San Jose has experienced years of budget shortfalls since the dotcom bust, and cutting services year after year feels like robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need to shift our focus.
First, we need to make sure that we are running our departments as efficiently as possible and cutting waste wherever possible. Second, we need to pursue innovative private/public partnerships to help maintain and operate our parks rather than not adding parks.
Third, we need to attract more businesses to San Jose to increase our revenues. To achieve that goal, we must improve the convenience and accessability of doing business with the City, support a local preference policy for San Jose businesses, and streamline the permit process. I also support a permit holiday that would give entrepreneurs a 120-day window to bypass the usual permit fees and pay just a nominal application fee.
Answer from Timothy K. Fitzgerald:
We can not continue to promote stadiums, parks and trails to enrich the lives of some, at the expense and harm existing City services. The time has come to review City goals and strageies in a 25 year vision statement - setting priorities and objectives for controled growth in San Jose for the next century.
Answer from Chuck Reed:
Before cutting services, the City needs to find partners to help maintain and operate our parks and public facilities. The city also needs to fix its revenue problems. The key to bringing back the lost revenue from when the boom went bust is getting the jobs back that we lost. We have to make San Jose the best place in the world for entrepreneurs from anywhere in the world to start and grow a business so that we get back the jobs and revenues we lost in the bust so we can fund city services. To accomplish that the city government must first do three things:
- Do no harm with new taxes, regulations or eminent domain.
- Get out of the way so businesses can start and grow easily.
- Do its job in delivering services and infrastructure.
Responses to questions asked of each candidate
are reproduced as submitted to the League.
Candidates' responses are not edited or corrected by the League.
The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.
| 
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
