« Further Fun Financial Facts | Main | There you go again, Jerry »

October 30, 2003

Comments

PAT

Your point is well taken about Coffey, but owning property is a privelage many Burlingame residents are not afforded, and their hearts are still in the right place. The many renters who are domiciled in Burlingame, and have been for many years, are as big of a part of the community as any homeowner.

Gerald

I believe more than half the residents of Burlingame are renters.

Still, Ms. Fuller's points make for interesting conversation and certainly food for thought (if anybody's hungry).

***

sue

Yes, you are correct in that approximately 51% of Burlingame residents are renters, but you miss the point. We, the homeowners, are responsible for footing the school tax. Coffey certainly had nothing to lose by promoting higher taxes. Guess this is just a case of, "Do as I say, NOT do as I do."

Jenn

That may well be, but how many of those 51% actually do own property elsewhere, where they spend much of their time. I wonder about somebody making decisions for our town, who may disappear in a couple of years. This is the same concern I have with developers who move out of the neighborhoods they disturb.

PAT

I think you are making a fine point... but again with respect to renters, what you are saying is simply not true. Property owners offset costs, including the school tax, by rent adjustments (you know, rent hikes). Furthermore, although all residents directly or indirectly pay a higher tax, the benefit to the homeowner is seen in higher or stable property values based on the quality of the schools (Through improvements financed by the school tax.). In addition, your assumption that just because someone rents property somewhere they must not, or likely do not, own property somewhere else is an unfounded generalization. The better argument would be that a councilperson spends the majority of their time in another place; irrespective of where they do or do not own property. I do not want to appear to be defending "Mayor Mike", but just because he owns property in Florida does not mean that he has no interest in Burlingame. Finally, I do not see this as a real issue. Personally, I would not vote for Mayor Mike because of his recordbecause I dont agree with his politicsbecause he does not engender what I see as positive representation for Burlingame With this in mind it does not matter where he owns property, what color his hair is, or how many hot dogs he can eat in one sitting.

Jenn

Absolutely, point well taken.

Dewy Cheatham

Does anyone find it ironic that a person who calls himself a commercial realtor doesn't own any property in Burlingame!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to editor@burlingamevoice.com with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.