Gotta love the business journal....has some of the best material out there...
Chinese in Ireland...oh the luck of the IRISH!
read on
Eli Segall
Reporter - Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Email
San Jose city officials could get some help in their efforts to lure Chinese companies to the South Bay.
The source? Ireland.
The capital city of Dublin recently established a sister city affiliation with China’s capital, Beijing, and it "sees opportunity to bring San Jose into this relationship," Kim Walesh, San Jose’s director of economic development, said in a memorandum on Tuesday.
San Jose officials discussed this and other topics early last month, when a 16-member San Jose-Dublin Sister City delegation visited Dublin Oct. 6-10.
“San Jose could benefit from having high-level contacts in Beijing, since we are interested in Chinese companies coming to San Jose to serve the U.S. market,” Walesh said in the memo.
Walesh — along with other city officials and various South Bay executives — has participated in a consortium known as the “Silicon Valley-China Business Connect.” Group members started meeting more than a year ago, with the goal of luring Chinese technology companies to enter or expand in the region.
Members include accounting firm Deloitte, business lender Silicon Valley Bank , real estate brokerage Colliers International , and law firm O’Melveny & Myers LLP.
Walesh did not reference the consortium in her memo.
She did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.
As of early September, consortium members had not finalized how they would actually operate. However, they have said they do not plan to open a permanent office in China.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
San Jose's updated general plan emphasizes 'smart growth,' healthier communities
Gotta like the cities new plans for "smart growth"
the tag line kinda works for what is ailing our nation....
Jobs before housing. People before cars.
San Jose as usual seems to be on the cusp of how the nation should be planning for the future....
Maybe Mayor Chuck Reed GETS IT !!!
I am encouraged to see this kind of smart planning and am very behind it.
Healthier populations less reliant on cars....Music to my ears =)
I think the city is planning well, read on:
Jobs before housing. People before cars.
After 51 task force meetings, seven community workshops and 125 "outreach sessions" stretching over four years, San Jose's Planning Department will cross the finish line at Tuesday's City Council meeting with that message when it delivers a blueprint of what San Jose will look and feel like in the decades to come.
Called Envision San Jose 2040, the city's fourth general plan since the mid-1970s is the community's land-use constitution. The report lays out a long-term vision for the amount, type and phasing of development needed to meet the city's social, economic and environmental goals.
While it's true that many of the participants agreed the final product took too long to achieve, with few exceptions they seem satisfied with the outcome that emphasizes two major themes: moving San Jose away from its "bedroom community" and "Los Angeles of the north" legacy by increasing its employment and tax base; and designing the kinds of neighborhoods that create healthier populations less reliant on cars.
"Think about how you lived 30 years ago and how you live today and what has changed," Planning Director Joe Horwedel said. "Now, think about 30 years from now and how you'll live, how your kids will live and what you would like to work better."
For many, he said, it's not having to drive as much. Horwedel and other planners envision "urban villages" closer to where San Jose residents live that
Advertisement
offer a variety of ways to live, work, shop and play all at one location.
The one-stop lifestyle isn't going to happen tomorrow, Horwedel said. But these and other key concepts are part of what the 2040 general plan is aiming for in the coming three decades.
With about a million residents, San Jose is the 10th-largest U.S. city -- and the third-largest in California. So the scope of its planning challenges is complicated.
The cash-strapped city, for example, has tried before to stop converting its valuable remaining industrial land -- where it could locate businesses that provide both jobs and taxes -- for housing. But powerful housing developers and lobbyists have pressured many City Council members to ignore that objective.
This plan, said City Councilman and task force member Pierluigi Oliverio, "is stating loud and clear that we have a budget crisis, and we need to manage land use differently."
The updated general plan, expected to be voted on by the council Tuesday night, does that by seeking to preserve land for jobs; develop only within existing municipal street, sewer and utility areas; and build taller, denser housing mixed with retail and office space -- all of which generates more taxes to pay for city services such as police protection and libraries.
"It will take political will to implement the plan and stay true to the principles that are in the plan,'' said Assistant Planning Director Laurel Prevetti, adding that she has "confidence in our elected officials."
Among the goals the plan suggests over the next three decades within the city's 180 squares miles are:
Adding as many as 470,000 new jobs and 120,000 new housing units.
Emphasizing growth in the downtown, North San Jose and "urban villages" along current and future transit lines such as BART, high-speed rail and dedicated bus lanes.
Rethinking the design of major streets to encourage more biking and walking.
Equally important to many is what won't be developed: Both mid-Coyote Valley and South Almaden Valley are off-limits to development through 2040. (South Coyote Valley remains protected as a greenbelt.)
"In the past, San Jose had a tendency to grow by sprawling out onto the farm lands," said Michele Beasley of the Greenbelt Alliance. "That's why the general plan says we should basically accommodate growth through infill development" that promotes new housing, jobs and retail around transit corridors.
Another big objective: reducing car miles traveled by 40 percent over the next three decades -- not only through the addition of at least 70 urban villages, but also by adding miles of trails and bike paths.
"For over a half-century, San Jose's development patterns have built a city for cars, and our sprawl and auto-dependence reflects those choices," said City Councilman Sam Liccardo, who along with former Councilwoman Shirley Lewis co-chaired the 33-member task force of community leaders appointed by the council. "We've got a vision to transform this to a city designed for people rather than for cars, and we'll measure our success by the vibrancy and usage of our sidewalks, bike lanes and transit corridors."
Developers and builders, however, aren't as thrilled with the plan's outcome, which will affect their ability to build as many large and lucrative housing tracts. Instead, the emphasis will be on more -- and taller -- apartments and condos, with some townhomes and single-family homes.
Task force member Erik Schoennauer, a land-use consultant whose father was a city planning director, signed off on the plan, albeit reluctantly. Though he admires its progressive themes, he's concerned about how private property owners and developers "can invest in the city." The plan, he said, "makes it more difficult to determine how to do that."
Developer Michael Van Every, another member of the task force, was more blunt.
"They have eliminated quite a few jobs by limiting housing," said the senior vice president at Republic Urban Properties. "You can't put artificial caps on housing and somehow decide that jobs are more important, when jobs and housing are synchronous."
Both Horwedel and Prevetti acknowledge that the new plan does change a builder or developer's world.
But that, they say, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Said Horwedel: "This plan was very much about San Jose being in control of our future rather than a developer in the past deciding what was in their best interest in flipping property to housing."
the tag line kinda works for what is ailing our nation....
Jobs before housing. People before cars.
San Jose as usual seems to be on the cusp of how the nation should be planning for the future....
Maybe Mayor Chuck Reed GETS IT !!!
I am encouraged to see this kind of smart planning and am very behind it.
Healthier populations less reliant on cars....Music to my ears =)
I think the city is planning well, read on:
Jobs before housing. People before cars.
After 51 task force meetings, seven community workshops and 125 "outreach sessions" stretching over four years, San Jose's Planning Department will cross the finish line at Tuesday's City Council meeting with that message when it delivers a blueprint of what San Jose will look and feel like in the decades to come.
Called Envision San Jose 2040, the city's fourth general plan since the mid-1970s is the community's land-use constitution. The report lays out a long-term vision for the amount, type and phasing of development needed to meet the city's social, economic and environmental goals.
While it's true that many of the participants agreed the final product took too long to achieve, with few exceptions they seem satisfied with the outcome that emphasizes two major themes: moving San Jose away from its "bedroom community" and "Los Angeles of the north" legacy by increasing its employment and tax base; and designing the kinds of neighborhoods that create healthier populations less reliant on cars.
"Think about how you lived 30 years ago and how you live today and what has changed," Planning Director Joe Horwedel said. "Now, think about 30 years from now and how you'll live, how your kids will live and what you would like to work better."
For many, he said, it's not having to drive as much. Horwedel and other planners envision "urban villages" closer to where San Jose residents live that
Advertisement
offer a variety of ways to live, work, shop and play all at one location.
The one-stop lifestyle isn't going to happen tomorrow, Horwedel said. But these and other key concepts are part of what the 2040 general plan is aiming for in the coming three decades.
With about a million residents, San Jose is the 10th-largest U.S. city -- and the third-largest in California. So the scope of its planning challenges is complicated.
The cash-strapped city, for example, has tried before to stop converting its valuable remaining industrial land -- where it could locate businesses that provide both jobs and taxes -- for housing. But powerful housing developers and lobbyists have pressured many City Council members to ignore that objective.
This plan, said City Councilman and task force member Pierluigi Oliverio, "is stating loud and clear that we have a budget crisis, and we need to manage land use differently."
The updated general plan, expected to be voted on by the council Tuesday night, does that by seeking to preserve land for jobs; develop only within existing municipal street, sewer and utility areas; and build taller, denser housing mixed with retail and office space -- all of which generates more taxes to pay for city services such as police protection and libraries.
"It will take political will to implement the plan and stay true to the principles that are in the plan,'' said Assistant Planning Director Laurel Prevetti, adding that she has "confidence in our elected officials."
Among the goals the plan suggests over the next three decades within the city's 180 squares miles are:
Adding as many as 470,000 new jobs and 120,000 new housing units.
Emphasizing growth in the downtown, North San Jose and "urban villages" along current and future transit lines such as BART, high-speed rail and dedicated bus lanes.
Rethinking the design of major streets to encourage more biking and walking.
Equally important to many is what won't be developed: Both mid-Coyote Valley and South Almaden Valley are off-limits to development through 2040. (South Coyote Valley remains protected as a greenbelt.)
"In the past, San Jose had a tendency to grow by sprawling out onto the farm lands," said Michele Beasley of the Greenbelt Alliance. "That's why the general plan says we should basically accommodate growth through infill development" that promotes new housing, jobs and retail around transit corridors.
Another big objective: reducing car miles traveled by 40 percent over the next three decades -- not only through the addition of at least 70 urban villages, but also by adding miles of trails and bike paths.
"For over a half-century, San Jose's development patterns have built a city for cars, and our sprawl and auto-dependence reflects those choices," said City Councilman Sam Liccardo, who along with former Councilwoman Shirley Lewis co-chaired the 33-member task force of community leaders appointed by the council. "We've got a vision to transform this to a city designed for people rather than for cars, and we'll measure our success by the vibrancy and usage of our sidewalks, bike lanes and transit corridors."
Developers and builders, however, aren't as thrilled with the plan's outcome, which will affect their ability to build as many large and lucrative housing tracts. Instead, the emphasis will be on more -- and taller -- apartments and condos, with some townhomes and single-family homes.
Task force member Erik Schoennauer, a land-use consultant whose father was a city planning director, signed off on the plan, albeit reluctantly. Though he admires its progressive themes, he's concerned about how private property owners and developers "can invest in the city." The plan, he said, "makes it more difficult to determine how to do that."
Developer Michael Van Every, another member of the task force, was more blunt.
"They have eliminated quite a few jobs by limiting housing," said the senior vice president at Republic Urban Properties. "You can't put artificial caps on housing and somehow decide that jobs are more important, when jobs and housing are synchronous."
Both Horwedel and Prevetti acknowledge that the new plan does change a builder or developer's world.
But that, they say, isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Said Horwedel: "This plan was very much about San Jose being in control of our future rather than a developer in the past deciding what was in their best interest in flipping property to housing."
San Jose presents land deal for A's ballpark
Well I like what I am hearing recently....Looks like San Jose may be home to the San Jose As soon as well as the Santa Clara 49ers....I think residents/homeowners can smile about this and see some value added to their homes! We would welcome 2 new professional sports franchises to the SOUTH BAY, at least this realtor would! I would think it should only help home values in the area.
I personally have been a backer of this effort:
http://baseballsanjose.com/
The Oakland As can do a Silicon Valley Relocation at any time it suits them as far as I am concerned!
The city of San Jose has released plans to allow the A's an option to purchase six parcels of land, about 5 acres in all, for a downtown stadium - and at a reduced rate.
Mayor Chuck Reed suggested Thursday that this arrangement is one more piece of the puzzle to convince Major League Baseball that an A's ballpark in San Jose is a viable proposition and that it could proceed with few impediments if approved.
"This option allows Lew Wolff one more thing to tell the commissioner that has been done," Reed said, "and that San Jose is still able to move forward."
Wolff, the A's co-owner, said that the option to buy downtown land, located near the Diridon Caltrain station, was not tied to any requests by Major League Baseball, but it does help dot some i's.
"It's just a piece of getting it done, if we are fortunate enough to get it done," Wolff said. "But Major League Baseball had nothing to do with this. We're in no different position than we were before."
The final purchase price, were the A's to exercise the option, would be $6.98 million. The city paid $25.1 million for the proposed ballpark site, including relocation costs, and the value of the entire site, according to an appraisal conducted last September, would be $13.97 million if the area were to be developed for "highest and best use."
Reed said that the city's offer to the A's is below the market value because the team still would have to spend $400 million to $500 million to build a stadium. In addition, Reed said, the option stipulates that the land would go to the A's only to build a stadium. In other words, the team couldn't snap up cheap land to put up an office tower or condos instead of a ballpark.
"It's a favorable price based on the fact that it's restricted to a baseball park," Reed said. "What San Jose is getting out of it is that we're taking land that is generating almost nothing and we'll be generating revenues."
If the proposal is passed by the San Jose City Council on Nov. 8, the A's would have the right to pay $50,000 for a two-year option to purchase the land, plus a $25,000 option for a third year. The A's owners will not buy the site outright, however, unless Major League Baseball decides to grant the team the right to move to San Jose, which is considered part of the Giants' territory.
The sale and ballpark also must be approved by San Jose voters, possibly in the June election. MLB, which has dragged out its decision on any potential A's stadium for nearly three years, has promised to help fund a special election, if one is required.
Simply buying land is no assurance of anything. The A's owners already have purchased a large quantity of land for one failed stadium endeavor, 143 acres in Fremont. The team still owns that property, according to Wolff, and is seeking to sell it.
There are three remaining privately-owned parcels needed to complete the San Jose site, but Reed said he does not believe the city would use eminent domain to acquire them. "We think we'll arrive at a reasonable price," he said. "It's a real-estate deal."
It is unlikely baseball owners would consider the A's stadium at their meetings in Milwaukee next month because the Dodgers' ownership situation is expected to dominate the agenda. Meetings scheduled for January might be more likely.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/27/SPEJ1LNAPJ.DTL#ixzz1cUzLEDQ0
I personally have been a backer of this effort:
http://baseballsanjose.com/
The Oakland As can do a Silicon Valley Relocation at any time it suits them as far as I am concerned!
The city of San Jose has released plans to allow the A's an option to purchase six parcels of land, about 5 acres in all, for a downtown stadium - and at a reduced rate.
Mayor Chuck Reed suggested Thursday that this arrangement is one more piece of the puzzle to convince Major League Baseball that an A's ballpark in San Jose is a viable proposition and that it could proceed with few impediments if approved.
"This option allows Lew Wolff one more thing to tell the commissioner that has been done," Reed said, "and that San Jose is still able to move forward."
Wolff, the A's co-owner, said that the option to buy downtown land, located near the Diridon Caltrain station, was not tied to any requests by Major League Baseball, but it does help dot some i's.
"It's just a piece of getting it done, if we are fortunate enough to get it done," Wolff said. "But Major League Baseball had nothing to do with this. We're in no different position than we were before."
The final purchase price, were the A's to exercise the option, would be $6.98 million. The city paid $25.1 million for the proposed ballpark site, including relocation costs, and the value of the entire site, according to an appraisal conducted last September, would be $13.97 million if the area were to be developed for "highest and best use."
Reed said that the city's offer to the A's is below the market value because the team still would have to spend $400 million to $500 million to build a stadium. In addition, Reed said, the option stipulates that the land would go to the A's only to build a stadium. In other words, the team couldn't snap up cheap land to put up an office tower or condos instead of a ballpark.
"It's a favorable price based on the fact that it's restricted to a baseball park," Reed said. "What San Jose is getting out of it is that we're taking land that is generating almost nothing and we'll be generating revenues."
If the proposal is passed by the San Jose City Council on Nov. 8, the A's would have the right to pay $50,000 for a two-year option to purchase the land, plus a $25,000 option for a third year. The A's owners will not buy the site outright, however, unless Major League Baseball decides to grant the team the right to move to San Jose, which is considered part of the Giants' territory.
The sale and ballpark also must be approved by San Jose voters, possibly in the June election. MLB, which has dragged out its decision on any potential A's stadium for nearly three years, has promised to help fund a special election, if one is required.
Simply buying land is no assurance of anything. The A's owners already have purchased a large quantity of land for one failed stadium endeavor, 143 acres in Fremont. The team still owns that property, according to Wolff, and is seeking to sell it.
There are three remaining privately-owned parcels needed to complete the San Jose site, but Reed said he does not believe the city would use eminent domain to acquire them. "We think we'll arrive at a reasonable price," he said. "It's a real-estate deal."
It is unlikely baseball owners would consider the A's stadium at their meetings in Milwaukee next month because the Dodgers' ownership situation is expected to dominate the agenda. Meetings scheduled for January might be more likely.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/27/SPEJ1LNAPJ.DTL#ixzz1cUzLEDQ0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)