Who Really Has a Vested Interest in Burlingame?

An article in a local newspaper dated May 31, 2003 reported that Burlingame Mayor Mike Coffey, who doesn't own property in town, is endorsing a measure on the ballot that would increase property taxes...? Now that election time is around the corner, it seems fitting to again bring out in the open the fact that Coffey does NOT own property in Burlingame, the town where he is running for City Council. It is relevant that Coffey endorsed a measure for which he would not have to pay any tax, and when this was pointed out in an interview, Coffey was reported to have ended the interview.? As a non property owner in Burlingame, he DOESN'T support the schools like the rest of us do.
It is also important to note that Coffey does, however, own property in Tampa, Florida, which he purchased SINCE he has been on the Council.
So the real question remains....Does Coffey want to be re-elected because his heart lies in Burlingame, even though he doesn't own any property here, or does he want to be re-elected, and put in just one more year to get lifetime medical benefits, and jet off to Tampa, where he spends most of his time anyway.
Think hard about vested interest in our city when you vote. Being a homeowner in the city where you are running for office says a lot about how much of an interest you have in that city.
I say go to Tampa and try a run for Council there.

- Written by sue fuller

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!