May 3, 2007

Halfway point

Councilmember Nancy Pyle assesses her accomplishments and the challenges
she still faces as she passes the halfway-point of her term in office

By Ali Abdollahi
Staff Writer

Councilmember Nancy Pyle sat down recently with Times Media reporter Ali Abdollahi and Executive Editor Julie Davis Berry to discuss her first two years in office, and what lays ahead in the coming years. Pyle’s chief of staff Lee Wilcox was also present during the meeting.

Ali Abdollahi: You took quite a journey, starting in the mid-1990s, working toward being elected to the City Council in 2004. After two years in office, was it worth it?

Nancy Pyle: Absolutely!

AA: Is serving on the Council what you expected?

NP: It’s more than what I expected. There’s even more of an opportunity to make a difference than I thought there would be. There’s a lot that needs to be done, like projects and future thinking and that type of thing. But also, a lot of fixing needs to be done.

District 10 Councilmember Nancy Pyle in her office at the San Jose City Hall.

This job allows you to do some big-picture thinking. What could we do? Because we don’t have to always do things the same way, and if there’s a better way to do it, and a way that avoids some of the hassles that we keep hitting our head against, that has allowed me to think more expansively.

AA: How would you compare working under Ron Gonzales to working under Mayor Chuck Reed?

NP: I like working with Mayor Reed very much, because Chuck is very deliberate, very thorough, and I’ve found him to be very kind and considerate. I think he assesses everyone on the Council, he recognizes talent. He double-checks things, he doesn’t assume and then make a mistake, and I really, really like that. I feel very positive about where we’re going.

AA: What was it like working with Mayor Gonzales during the last years of his administration?

NP: No matter where the problem came from, it came, and there was a cloud over city hall for the two years that I was here under (the Gonzales) administration. I don’t think that Mayor Gonzales was ever mal-intended, but we were all being painted with the same brush, and I think sometimes that makes you feel a little less enthusiastic about what you’re doing.

Once that went, there was a sense of relief that I can’t quite describe. There was a sense of, “OK, we’re past that, and now we’re starting a brand new leadership.” And one of the first things I did was go talk to Mayor Reed, I think even before the election was over, to let him know that no matter what happened, I was ready to roll up my sleeves and go to work for whoever the winner was.

AA: How has your role changed on the City Council?

NP: Because I’m the chair of the economic development committee, that all by itself makes for a huge change. You become more a part of the big picture of what’s happening in San Jose. It’s a lot more responsibility, and more respect, because what we do on that committee is going to make a big difference in the future of San Jose.

For example, we’re woefully behind in this city in reference to sales tax. We’re dead last per capita in the entire county. One of my goals is to get that sales tax amount raised, because that’s where the money is going to have to come from for extra police officers and all the things that will make this a high-quality-of-life city.

Lee Wilcox: And part of the reason we’re last in sales tax is because we’ve spent the last 10 years building housing and not thinking about our retail strategy. And while we’ve been doing that, cities like Campbell and Santa Clara have built retail right on the border. So we’ve been trying to redo the city’s retail policy with Councilmember Pyle’s leadership and, at the same time, use our newsletter and go to forums to let people know that it’s important that you shop at the Safeway down the street if you want additional cops and better streets. It does make a difference to shop where you live.

AA: Over the past couple of years, you’ve worked closely with County Supervisor Don Gage on expediting joint projects, and recently you completed the sports fields project at Leland High School with San Jose Unified School Board Trustee Leslie Reynolds. Is that part of a concerted effort on your part to improve the workings of the city of San Jose with other governing bodies?

LW: We’ve made a very big point of meeting with Supervisor Gage regularly, as well as the school board and the water district. Because, no matter what the problem is, they call us first.

NP: We definitely make an effort to stay in touch with those other groups. One of the perks is that these other groups help you to solve you’re problems. If they know you’re looking for something, they start looking. They act as the additional eyes and ears that you need.

AA: What has been your relationship with the South Bay Labor Council?

NP: I have a good relationship with the labor council. One of my goals is to get the Chamber of Commerce and the unions working together. I think it’s a far more effective use of everyone’s time if they’re not at each other’s throats. The passing of the cost-benefit analysis was kind of the beginning of that. Part of the reason that labor was happy about that was because Lee and I went out to address their concerns and let them know that they would have input in the process, but that we were going ahead with it.

AA: Are you planning to run for office again?

NP: Yes. It only took a couple of years to realize that I need at least eight years to get this job done. I know how long it takes now to do things.

AA: You have been one of the leading voices to maintain public services even during the current economic hardships in San Jose. How do you plan to keep library and park services available while addressing the budget shortfall?

NP: There again is economic development, and going after as much revenue as you can. And something is working, because in the last four months, we heard that it would be a $20 million deficit, and now it’s down to $16 million. There are indicators out there that it’s doing better. I’m not going to be naively optimistic, though, because we need to keep working.

And again, as you reach higher levels of government, you see that we’ve been doing these things in this way. We have to explore ways to do things more efficiently, so that we can cut costs, and not cut people or jobs, because that’s the key to keeping these services available.

AA: What are your impressions as you work through the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Coyote Valley Development?

LW: We’re currently sifting through the 4,000-page document, to detail the impacts and some possible mitigation to those. We want to be able to educate everyone, and not just look at the transportation impact, but also the noise impact and the water impact. But, obviously, the traffic impact is the biggest issue for us.

NP: The most delicate thing is trying to strike a balance between the jobs and the housing. You have to have the jobs first, in the form of a contract. Now if you get the contract, with stiff penalties if there’s no follow through, then you can begin to make preliminary plans for housing. If you get the jobs without housing, then the workers will get themselves housed in South County. Conversely, if you get the housing first, then they’ll get their jobs in South County, so you have to set up both at the same time.

AA: How are you approaching the proposed Valley Transportation Authority site near Capitol Expressway and Highway 87?

NP: First, we have to get a new traffic count. I think the grade they gave the intersection there is a “C” or a “B,” and it’s really more like an “F.” And VTA wants to change the parking lot there to mixed housing, without ever going to the community or to us. I was furious. And this is a common thing with VTA, apparently. They don’t go to the council member whose district would be affected. They just go ahead like we don’t exist, but I think they’re thinking of changing the way they do that. So there are a few things we need to address there, but I believe that would bring 187 (housing) units.

AA: You have been closely involved in the pursuit of more sports fields. What is your opinion of the sports fields’ feasibility study?

LW: The community sports fields’ feasibility study is a wonderful thing. We have a general plan that addresses traffic, growth and land use issues, and a “green print” that addresses parks, and our green print and our general plan mention sports fields twice. And we have, in District 10 alone, 8,000 or 9,000 kids that play sports. So this will be the first comprehensive plan that any city in California has to deal with sports fields. As part of this, the groups have already started to look at any parcels that are over three acres.

NP: Whatever we look at, we’re going to test internally before we go public with it (such as we did with the McKean Road Sports Complex idea.) I was out at Graystone Elementary the other day. They now have over 800 kids in that school. The school was designed for 400. So what are they going to do to solve that?

Every board member of San Jose Unified (School District) knows that these schools are burgeoning. The high schools as well. Leland is way over capacity, and so is Bret Harte. So, ultimately, they will have to start using that land (on McKean Road). Because if we don’t provide more schools, people who are going to be thinking about buying here will go elsewhere. So that will decrease real estate values, and the whole domino effect is quite obvious. So there is clearly a problem there that must be resolved.