San Jose could follow a similar playbooks other cities used in passing successful parks ballot measures to counter negative polling
San Jose could follow a similar playbooks other cities used in passing successful parks ballot measures to counter negative polling
Subscribe to continue reading this article.
Already subscribed? To log in, click here.
With San Jose already facing a substantial maintenance backlog and choppy fiscal waters, polling data shows that support for a tax or bond measure that would provide an infusion of new funds for city parks is lagging, prompting city leaders to consider altering their approach to persuade more residents to buy-in.
City officials explored placing a new parcel tax on the November ballot last year but ultimately withdrew it after a significant portion of the community felt financially squeezed and fears surfaced that the city’s revenue initiative would fail.
While recent polling showed a parcel tax or bond measure both hovering around the 50% mark — falling well below the two-thirds threshold needed — San Jose has not given up hope and may borrow from other cities’ successful playbooks to garner support on protecting some of its most treasured assets.
“Trust in government is an issue and that is obviously not improving as we all know. All you have to do is turn on the TV and watch your national politics,” Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services Director Jon Cicirelli said.
Despite the popularity of the city’s park system, a new report shows that San Jose’s per capita investment in maintenance ranks among the lowest in the state and cities of a similar size. The city’s parks staff is also 19% smaller than it was in 2002-2003, despite the park system’s acreage growing by 22%.
“It’s clear that the existing status quo when it comes to how we are funding our parks in the city of San Jose is not sustainable,” District 5 City Councilmember Peter Ortiz said. “It’s definitely not equitable, with a staggering $554.3 million in deferred maintenance and unfunded infrastructure needs.”
This year, San Jose set a $183 million total operating budget for its park system — which includes $65.4 million for maintenance and operations — that is funded by development impact fees, a portion of construction and conveyance taxes, the city’s general fund, gifts, grants and partnerships.
However, most of those funding sources have faced significant challenges recently, preventing San Jose from making inroads on its dilapidated parks.
For example, construction and conveyance taxes, generated by new construction permits and real estate transactions exceeding $100, have declined over the past few years due to inflation and high interest rates.
Over the past decade, the vast majority of development fees have been generated in District 3 — which includes downtown San Jose — and District 6, which includes neighborhoods stretching from Mineta International Airport down to Willow Glen. Due to restrictions, however, these funds cannot be spent in other parts of the city. Districts 3 and 6 generated $80.9 million and $53.4 million, respectively, over that period, while all other districts received between $1 million and $7.7 million.
Cicirelli also noted that a few city projects also have been “DOGE’d,” referencing the movement in the federal government to cancel funding in the name of waste, fraud or inefficiency.
He added that the city has compounded its issues by not updating its park fees since 2017, hence, providing a built-in discount for land value, and offering substantial fee reductions to developers.
In recent years, for example, the city has approved fee reductions for downtown high-rises, multi-family projects in North San Jose, and 50% discounts for projects that offer on-site recreation and affordable housing developments. Altogether, the combined fee discounts could rise to a 75% reduction.
Although most projects received an average cut of 20-30%, it has led some officials to believe the city needs greater equity, which would drive better buy-in.
“A great example of the status quo is, for example, cities giving developers breaks on fees that are intended to fund city infrastructure, while the needs of our everyday residents are pushed aside to say to residents that we will make the money back in the future that’s nothing more than trickle-down economics,” Ortiz said. “We saw what trickle-down economics did to our entire country, especially to the working class, which was absolutely nothing. And as a result, we have a park system that is expected to serve more people with far less money.”
Cicirelli stated that while the city plans to conduct additional polling in the fall and early 2026, it will also undertake a robust community engagement process to inform its approach and draw on the best aspects of successful parks campaigns launched in San Diego and Los Angeles County in the past decade.
San Diego, for example, created a “one city, one park” system that allowed it to bypass the development fee issue San Jose faces, enabling it to distribute funds better.
Cicirelli noted that Los Angeles County passed a successful measure in 2016, two years after one failed at the ballot box, by reaching out to residents in each district and explicitly telling them “what would change or be better if a ballot measure were passed.” He hoped it would improve the poll results because residents could then see the value of the proposal.
Meanwhile, advocates have voiced support for the city’s desire to improve its parks.
In noting that the city had not passed a similar revenue measure since 2000, advocates described the current funding system as “archaic, inequitable, and inadequate,” while touting the benefits of investment.
“Parks are important to the well-being of the community, but parks that are not maintained have the opposite effect,” park advocate Allie Victorine said. “Neighborhoods without parks do not have the same sense of community and health that other neighborhoods do.”