The promise of 1 million jobs springing from California's high-speed rail project has turned out to be a mirage. The real number, when stripped of rail supporters' obfuscating statistic-speak, shrinks to about 60,000 jobs a year at most for the 22 years it would take to build the railroad.

That's one more reason to stop the project now. Gov. Jerry Brown needs to wake up and tell the Legislature not to approve the sale of bonds for the first segment in the Central Valley now set to begin construction in 2012.

When Brown took office a year ago, he realized the cost estimates for high-speed rail were delusional. He made some get-real appointments to the rail authority and asked for a realistic cost, which he got: $99 billion, more than double the amount that appeared in the 2008 ballot measure approved by voters. This number pushed us over the edge to oppose a transportation plan we originally supported. Yet Brown persisted in backing high-speed rail -- no doubt influenced, at least in part, by its job-stimulus potential.

Now that the number of jobs has deflated, it's critical to stop the project. Pushing ahead with the first segment will likely throw $5.5 billion of good money into a train to nowhere.

One million jobs was a strong selling point for a state with 11.3 percent unemployment, far higher than the national average. When rail supporters were confronted with the ballooning cost, they seized the jobs figure produced by project planners and economists as one reason to forge ahead.

Under scrutiny by staff writer Mike Rosenberg, however, the actual job number shrank dramatically.

The 1-million figure came from the project's technical studies. It actually was the number of "job years," a statistical term that counts years of work rather than actual jobs. One person working for five years adds up to five job years in this parlance.

Economic development professionals say this job estimating technique is common for planning documents, and that's fine, as long as it's accurately conveyed to the public. In the case of high-speed rail -- and perhaps other projects we'll be examining in the new year -- public reports omitted the "years" after "job," which of course is misleading. For most of us, five jobs means five people getting a paycheck, not one person working for five years at the same job.

Early next year, the Legislature will be asked to authorize a bond sale to pay for the Central Valley segment. It has the authority to say no if it finds the project doesn't deliver the benefits and costs promised to voters. This should be obvious to them and to Brown.

Building high-speed rail in California remains a visionary idea to provide efficient, clean-technology transportation connecting the state's north, center and south. As population grows through this century, building roads to accommodate it will cost more and pollute more than rail. But today, California is sinking under a budget deficit that could starve our schools and basic social services for years to come. A hard new reality has set in: we can't keep digging ourselves into an ever-deeper hole of debt. High-speed rail must wait for a better day.

Palo Alto

New Year's Eve Concert With James Welch: The Palo Alto organist is playing his annual show at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, 600 Colorado Ave. The show starts at 8 p.m. and tickets are $10. Welch is planning a Bach-themed set. For more information, call James at 650-856-9700 or click here.

The Patio @ Rudy's: For those seeking dance and drink, this local bar and nightclub is offering live DJs and a champagne toast at midnight. Formerly Bistro 412 and now under new ownership, the newly remodeled spot has two bars and two dance areas. Cover charge is $5. For more information, call (650) 322-2575.

Bay Area Singles Giant New Years Eve Dance Party: Don't have a date with whom to reign in the new year? Club Illusions and restaurant, 260 South California Avenue, is holding a massive singles event that includes food, game prizes and a live DJ playing hits from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. For more information call (650) 321-6464, or click here.

Tamarine: This renowned Vietnamese-fusion eatery is offering a $70 prix fixe menu and a limited a-la-carte menu in the its bar and communal area. For more information or to make reservations, call (650) 325-8500.

New Year's Eve Day Bach For Seniors: The Oshman Family Jewish Community Center, 3921 Fabian Way, is hosting an afternoon party for seniors starting at 11 a.m. Tickets are $13 in advance and $18 at the door and include buffet lunch, dancing and a 1:30 p.m. champagne toast. For more information, call 650-463-4953, or click here.

New Year's Run for a Healthy World: Not planning on a late night? Try this 5k run or 10k walk through the Palo Alto Baylands. No hills, tons of wildlife and spectacular scenery, the Baylands event starts and ends at the Palo Alto Baylands Athletic Center. For more information call (408) 978-0203, or click here. 

 

Mountain View

New Year's Eve Ball at Zen Lounge and Nightclub: A hotspot for dancing, music and drink, this nightclub has live DJs and a champagne toast at midnight. Larger parties can arrange bottle service at one of the venue's several tables. Advance tickets are $15, but will start at $25 the day of. For more information call (650)-969-4847, or click here.

 

Menlo Park

New Year's Eve Ball at the British Bankers Club: The BBC is hosting Russian-themed event this year, with a proper nine-course menu that includes a bottle of vodka, cognac or champagne, starting at 9:30 p.m. A cultural dance starring Snegurochka, the New Year Princess, starts at 11 p.m. Dinner is $99 and general admission is $25. Early guests will be greeted with a glass of complimentary champagne. For more information call (650) 327-8769 or (408) 757-4937 or click here.

Flea Street New Year's Dinner: This cozy, locally-owned restaurant is offering a $95 five-course dinner. An add-on $45 wine-pairing is offered too. Glimpse the menu here. For more information, call (650) 854-1226.

New Year at Noon: For younger folks with earlier bed times, Cheeky Monkey Toys, 640 Santa Cruz Avenue, is holding an arts and crafts event from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. It's free and even has a balloon drop at noon. For more information call (650) 463-4953, or click here.

MCLEAN, Va., Dec. 29, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC) today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®), showing average fixed mortgage rates finishing the year near their all-time historic lows helping to keep homebuyer affordability high. Averaging 3.95 percent, the 30-year fixed has been at or below 4.00 percent for the past nine consecutive weeks and only twice in 2011 did it average above 5.00 percent. 

News Facts 

• 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 3.95 percent with an average 0.7 point for the week ending December 29, 2011, up from last week when it averaged 3.91 percent. Last year at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged 4.86 percent.   
• 15-year FRM this week averaged 3.24 percent with an average 0.8 point, up from last week when it averaged 3.21 percent. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 4.20 percent.  
• 5-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) averaged 2.88 percent this week, with an average 0.6 point, up from last week when it averaged 2.85 percent. A year ago, the 5-year ARM averaged 3.77 percent. 

MCLEAN, Va., Dec. 22, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- Freddie Mac (OTC: FMCC) today released the results of its Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS®), showing average fixed mortgage rates at or near all-time record lows helping to keep homebuyer affordability high. The 30-year fixed averaged 3.91 percent for the week, a new all-time low, dropping below last week's 3.94 percent, the previous record low. The 15-year fixed matched last week's all-time record low at 3.21 percent. Adjustable rate products also hit new all-time lows in this week's survey.

News Facts

• 30-year fixed-rate mortgage (FRM) averaged 3.91 percent with an average 0.7 point for the week ending December 22, 2011, down from last week when it averaged 3.94 percent. Last year at this time, the 30-year FRM averaged 4.81 percent. 
• 15-year FRM this week averaged 3.21 percent with an average 0.8 point, matching last week when it averaged 3.21 percent. A year ago at this time, the 15-year FRM averaged 4.15 percent. 
• 5-year Treasury-indexed hybrid adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) averaged 2.85 percent this week, with an average 0.6 point, down from last week when it averaged 2.86 percent. A year ago, the 5-year ARM averaged 3.75 percent.

AT&T's proposal to install antennas on 19 utility poles throughout Palo Alto has received the green light from the city's planning department.

A week after the city's Architectural Review Board voted to support the company's controversial plan, the planning department sent AT&T a letter approving the installation of the equipment. The Dec. 16 letter from Current Planning Manager Amy French states that approval will become official in 14 days unless an appeal is filed.

The AT&T proposal is the first phase of a larger plan, which calls for about 80 antennas. The company has consistently maintained that the equipment is necessary to meet the heavy demand in the city. Many residents have opposed the proposal, arguing that AT&T's proposed equipment is unsightly and disruptive.

After hearing from both sides, the ARB voted 4-0 on Dec. 8 to approve the plan and added a long list conditions designed to minimize the visual impact of the new equipment. This includes planting trees to cover up the equipment and using colors that make the new antennas less conspicuous. AT&T had already agreed to change the design of the antennas, reducing the number of antennas on each pole from two to one.

The company will also be required to test the radio-frequency level and the decibel level of the new equipment to make sure they don't exceed city regulations.

Opponents of the plan have until the end of this month to appeal the approval. At the ARB meeting, several residents urged the board to reject the plan and called on the city to come up with a "master plan" for cell equipment throughout the city.

Ben Linder, who spoke at the meeting, said the city is "considering a tactical approach to what is actually a very strategic and long-term problem."

"I'm worried we'll end up with five carriers, each wanting 20 poles to cover the city of Palo Alto," Linder told the board.

If the approval is not appealed, the company will have a year to begin construction on the new installations.

In a dramatic reversal from its position three years ago, the Palo Alto City Council on Monday night (Dec. 19) adopted as the city's official position a call for termination of California's beleaguered high-speed-rail project.

With its 8-0 vote, the council took its most extreme stance to date against the project, which has been gradually galvanizing the community and disillusioning city officials since 2009. The new position, which the council voted to add to its guiding principles for high-speed rail, was prompted by the California High-Speed Rail Authority's recently released business plan, which showed the project's price tag more than doubling from what was presented to the voters three years ago. The project's completion date was also extended from 2020 to 2033.

The vote, while significant, is hardly surprising. The council had urged voters in 2008 to support high-speed rail but has gradually turned against the project as questions began to emerge about the rail line's design, ridership projections and funding plan. Last year, the council took a position of "no confidence" against the rail authority. It has also decided to join Menlo Park, Atherton and a coalition of nonprofit groups in a lawsuit that challenges the rail authority's environmental analysis.

The council's rail committee unanimously recommended earlier this month that the council go a step further and call for the project's termination, though members split over the exact wording the city should adopt to support this position. Committee Chair Larry Klein, who was absent Monday night, and Councilwoman Gail Price advocated for a short paragraph saying that the state should terminate the high-speed-rail project "since it's too expensive, has no credible funding plan, is based on deeply flawed and unreliable data." The paragraph also asserts that the project was brought before the voters in 2008 "on the basis of serious, material misrepresentations."

But the council on Monday chose a longer statement penned by Councilman Pat Burt and Councilwoman Nancy Shepherd. Though their statement, like Klein and Price's, called for the project's termination, it provides a fuller explanation for the city's opposition.

Shepherd said Monday that she still believes America needs high-speed rail. But she maintained that the project the council and city voters supported three years ago is no longer the one on the table.

In 2008, the rail authority had estimated that the cost for the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line would be less than $40 billion. The business plan that the rail authority released last month showed the price tag climb to $98.5 billion.

"This particular project as it's going right now is not what I voted for in 2008," Shepherd said. "At this point in time, it's important that our community understand that it's not the same project."

The position adopted by the council states that the city "believes that the High Speed Rail project should be terminated" and that the project in its current form "fundamentally contradicts the measure presented to the voters under Proposition 1A in 2008." That vote, the council's statement asserts, relied on "grossly understated construction costs," "understated fares and overstated ridership" and a requirement that the new system would be operating without a government subsidy.

"Since the revised HSR Business Plan and Funding Plans do not meet the projected ridership, fare, job creation, and other significant requirements, the City believes that the voters were not given accurate information during the 2008 election to make an informed decision on an HSR project for the state of California," the new guiding principle states.

Price argued, as she has at rail committee meetings, that when it comes to guiding principles, shorter is better.

"There will be ample opportunities now and in the future to provide supporting detail in letters, statements and reports to the High-Speed Rail Authority and state and federal legislators," Price said, adding that a shorter statement would give the city more flexibility.

But her colleagues all agreed that the city's position is dramatic enough to justify a fuller explanation. Mayor Sid Espinosa said he expected the statement to be even longer and called the Burt/Shepherd statement a good compromise that has "more gravitas" than the shorter version championed by Klein and Price. Councilman Greg Scharff agreed.

"Typically, simpler and shorter may have a lot of value to it, but in this case we are making a bold statement," Scharff said. "It is important that as soon as other people read this, they understand our reasoning behind it.

"It's really important to set forth what the reason is so that people understand it and not just say that it's Palo Alto making a declarative statement that we don't support it."

Price ultimately joined her colleagues in adopting the longer version.

The Monday vote illustrates the dramatic shift in the council's position toward the high-speed-rail project and underscores Palo Alto's status as the project's leading opponent. It came at a time when the project is facing a storm of scrutiny at both the state and federal levels.

Last week, several members of the U.S. Congress vehemently criticized the rail authority's funding plan, which relies largely on federal grants and on $11 billion in private investment. U.S. Rep. John Mica, R-Florida, who chairs the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, predicted that the project will be a disaster and said it is "imploding every day." He blasted the project for its cost overruns and questioned the rail authority's choice of a Central Valley segment as the line's starting point.

The Dec. 16 committee hearing also featured testimony from Elizabeth Alexis, co-founder of the Palo Alto group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design. The group was among the first to flag problems with the rail authority's ridership methodology and had over the past two years criticized the authority for faulty cost estimates and a lack of transparency. In her testimony at the hearing, Alexis described California's project as "fool's gold" and slammed the rail authority for relying too much on consultants and for low-balling previous cost estimates.

"Do we need high-speed rail in our state? Absolutely," Alexis told the committee. "But the train we're on is on the wrong track, it costs too much and it delivers too little."

Renters in San Jose beware: The San Jose metropolitan area apartment market is the tightest in the United States, according to a recent report by Marcus & Millichap Research Services    Marcus & Millichap Research Services Latest from The Business Journals San Jose apartment market is tightest in nationSan Antonio’s medical real estate market slow but steady, study shows Industrial sites showing signs of life Follow this company .

San Jose had a 3.1 percent vacancy with an average asking rent of $1,506 per month for the third quarter, the report said. By contrast, U.S. metros as a whole had a 5.6 percent vacancy with an average asking rent of $1,048 per month during the same period.

Marcus & Millichap predicts overall asking rents in San Jose will climb 5.4 percent to $1,525 a month by year's end compared with 2010, and to $1,615 in 2012.

In the South Bay alone, the report notes that there are 1,216 rental units under construction, with the largest project slated for delivery this year being the 374-unit Fairfield Cerano apartments in Milpitas.

About 290 units are expected to break ground in the Mountain View/Los Altos markets in the next nine months, accounting for the most planned projects that are slated to kick off in the next nine months in the region.

"Leasing activity continues to swell in step with rising employment, but more specifically from the immigration of newly employed tech workers, which has steadily bolstered net absorption over the past two years," the report said.

In Mountain View and Cupertino, class A apartment rents have climbed more than 5 percent so far this year.

Looking ahead, the report predicts the South Bay apartment market will only strengthen in the short term due to "outsized" home prices and renewed job creation.

Marcus & Millichap defines the San Jose metropolitan area as including Campbell, Los Gatos, Sunnyvale, San Jose, Cupertino, Saratoga, Mountain View, Los Altos and Santa Clara.