Yes, the City of Santa Clara has become “mature,” and many of our long-loved facilities are dealing with age. We are aware that no structure, highway or facility lasts forever. With your help and vote, your city council wants to update Santa Clara’s aging infrastructure.
It is a bit embarrassing that we have ignored maintenance past normal repair and replacement schedules. And frankly, it takes a city council with courage and commitment to ask voters to fund repair and replacement for these projects. It is not because the council has been spending unwisely. Needed infrastructure replacement and repairs go beyond the annual city budget.
That’s where residents can come in and pick up the slack to make our city the envy of the Bay Area.
You have probably driven around town and noticed many city buildings like City Hall, the fire stations, the library and parks and playgrounds. Many of these structures were built in the 1960s with bond money approved by residents.
In fact, the last bond measure that dealt with infrastructure items was passed by voters in 1959.
A lot has transpired in Santa Clara during those 70 years. It has now become apparent that councils over the last half-century neglected to plan for the future. We did not keep up with growth and increasing maintenance requirements.
The results are evident. Just one example is the International Swim Center at Central Park that is so old it should be called Methuselah’s pool.
Our major roads and streets are suffering from old age. They have reached the point where repairs are inadequate.
Okay, you get the point. So, how do we fix the problems and pay for repairs and rebuilding?
The most rational answer is to pass an infrastructure bond issue to restore our city. The city estimates it will take $600 million dollars to repair the streets, update the fire stations, replace the swim center and renovate a number of city properties. Even the pared down version approved by the city council Tuesday night is $400 million.
This is a lot of money and, yes, previous councils should have acted sooner, and yes, there is a pothole full of reasons no action has been taken till now.
However, this council is acting. And if you wish for your own property values to increase, you will want to support this infrastructure bond with vigor. It will be on the November ballot.
What a reasonable investment and insurance policy to insure the value of your property by investing in the health and quality of life in your community, your neighborhood and your city.
View Comments (3)
I politely disagree with the premise of Miles’ article. He believes that needed infrastructure is beyond the annual budget. I believe that the annual budget should 1. Provide for needed services. 2. Provide for maintenance of existing facilities. 3. Provide for replacement of existing facilities that have reached the end of their economic lives. and only when these are done should new facilities be considered. Unfortunately past Councils have been drawn to the “glory” of new facilities.
I would also note the disingenuous (ie exaggerations to the point of lies) statements associated with the proposed bond. The first item listed are old fire stations. Most fire stations, and the City has more per square mile than anywhere I know, in Santa Clara are not very old. I know this because I was responsible for building them. There are a few truly old ones but exaggerating the situation cuts into credibility.
Judging from recent Council action, I predict the priority for the bond will be: International Swim Center, then the few old fire stations, and finally use the remaining bond money to pay for regular maintenance so there will be extra funds available for Police and Fire salary raises.
I am surprised by your pro-tax, pro-borrowing, pro-inflation approval of this proposed multi-hundred-million-dollar tax-and-borrow bond measure because:
(1) Capital Bonds are meant for Capital Projects, NOT for deferred maintenance, service, and repairs; in other words, they are meant for NEW facilities (like the 1959 bonds paid for), NOT for repairing EXISTING facilities.
(2) If these proposed bonds pass, our City will have to come up with $12 to $16 million in NEW money each year just to pay the INTEREST on those bonds; that money could have been put into our City's Capital Expenditures Fund (which in recent years has only received an average of about $7 million a year).
(3) FUTURE generations of Santa Clarans should not have to pay for the repair expenses which PAST generations have failed to pay for; it's unprincipled, unfair, and a very harmful habit to start (look at our federal government and its $35 TRILLION debt).
(4) Such massive government borrowing pushes up interest rates and inflation making it even harder for young families to buy their first home, the American Dream. This proposal means that our city would be borrowing approximately $3,000 in new debt for each man, woman, and child in our city (or $12,000 for each family of four in our city).
(5) Just 20 years ago our city was able to build two beautiful new Libraries and a massive Police Headquarter out of current revenues, without any bonds, just as the federal government was able to build the Hoover Dam and the TVA without any bonds back in the 1930s. In other words, we did it before and we can do it again.
(6) The people of our city and state are tired of being over-taxed by: (a) a nearly 10 percent sales tax; (b) a state income tax top rate of 13 percent; (c) over $15,000 in property tax on a $1,500,000 new house; (d) ever-increasing user fees, energy prices, insurance premiums, etc.; (e) plus federal taxes. The voters barely passed Governor Newsom's latest bond measure by 51%.
(7) The most economical and principled way to resolve this matter is NOT by Borrowing and More Tax Hikes; but by SUBSTANTIALLY CUTTING OUR CURRENT EXPENDITURES so that we will have the money necessary to properly maintain and repair our infrastructure in a timely and responsible manner (as we use to do so well).
I'm glad the council is doing something about maintenance to fix the decrepitude resulting from the mismanagement by Gillmor and her cabal.
Given the state of affairs we probably need to have a bond to fix some critical items (the swim center and fire stations are not in that list), then fund other maintenance through operating budgets.
The other thing the council could do is push for increased housing density. More residents means more tax revenues, which if managed properly would exceed the cost of accommodating new residents.