San Jose
Change to the Living Wage Policy
Picking up right where they left off at the end of 2013, the San Jose City Council is bringing back a proposed change to the City’s Living Wage Policy. In a memo, City staff writes that clarifications to the City’s living wage policy would eliminate ambiguities or inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of the policy. In turn, staff believes that this will facilitate leasing of the City’s limited number of retail spaces to tenants. Staff argues that requiring payment of living wage for tenants would price out existing or new retail tenants and would mean the City would likely convert the spaces to office uses at a loss to the downtown community.
Also in the staff memo are two alternatives, which get a pro/con review that’s tipped towards the con side. Per staff:
Alternative 1: Require a living wage for all leases.
Staff lists higher wages for private workers in City buildings in the pro column without going into why those higher wages are needed. The con? Spaces may remain vacant or convert to non-retail use. In conclusion, staff believes that the higher wages for private workers isn’t enough of a benefit to outweigh the public costs of the spaces remaining vacant or being used for non-retail uses.
Alternative 2: City Subsidize Living Wage Requirement.
On the pro side, the employees would get living wage and the City could make sure that its retail spaces were full. On the con side, the annual cost of the subsidy, in forgone revenue or direct payment to the retailers to subsidize workers, is too high to justify workers earning a living wage.
Sounds a little bit like staff was throwing some straw men into the arguments for requiring living wage to be paid on City property. First, in Alternative 1 there is no mention of the cost of paying people below living wage. Staff summarily dismisses the net benefits of paying people a livable wage by prioritizing filling retail space on city property to benefit the downtown community. Great — let’s pay people a low wage so people have more retail options. In alternative 2, staff forgets to mention that many of the people working in retail jobs are living below the poverty level and drawing public benefits. We already are subsidizing their existence. But instead of doing it through taxpayer funded social welfare programs, we can have the retailers (who often make large profits) pay the full cost of their employees. As with the last time this came before council, it’s a step backwards when the City should be stepping up.
When: Thursday, January 28
Where: San Jose City Council
Agenda: http://sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/25781
Milpitas
Waterview Plaza
Woah, the proposed Waterview Plaza in Milpitas is going to be huge. Literally. The proposed 2 million square foot proposed development is going to include a massive 1.6 million square feet of office space, 54,000 square feet for a Central Plaza, and 175,000 square feet for a water park. Other highlights include a museum, a cultural center and an amphitheater.
The project is put together by Cal Poly in coordination with the City’s planning department for the two areas located on California Circle and Main Street (at Serra Way). Staff may use the outcome of this process as pre-planning background and analysis to assist in future master planning for the areas.
Kudos to the students from Cal Poly who took the Regional Planning Department’s Community Design Lab during Fall Quarter of 2013. Who else would include a water park the size of 180 football fields? All joking aside, this is a massive undertaking for Milpitas and they get high marks for incorporating students in practical applications of higher learning.
When: January 21, 2014
Where: Milpitas City Council
Agenda: http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/council/2014/012114/agenda.pdf
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments