No on "I"

The voting rubber is about to hit the election road as the heft of the flyers in my mailbox can attest.  Two weeks from tomorrow is Election Day, but the absentee voting causes the candidates and issues advocates to be ahead of the fixed date.  I've given the Measure I tax proposal some thought and have come to a different conclusion than many of my friends (and my wife).   I do believe before one comes out against something one should be able to state the supporters' point of view, so as I understand it these are the main points:

• It's a tiny tax of a quarter of a percent
• Our sales tax rate is lower than some neighboring cities
• It will be mostly paid by non-Burlingamers shopping here
• We need the money for streets, policing and other General Fund expenses hence the tree, the streetlight and officer's cap on the lawn signs
• We can borrow against expected proceeds to accelerate stuff we want

First I'll stipulate that taxes that stay local to where they are raised are better than the other kind.  The leaky sieves that are the County and Sacramento are a crying shame.  It is a tiny tax increase, but nonetheless it's going in the wrong direction after numerous other taxes (direct and indirect) passed like:  the gas tax, the Prop 55 income tax on incomes above $250K, bond measures, Cap and Trade, the impending Caltrain tax, bridge toll increases and the distinct possibility that state and local tax deductions on Federal returns could be killed.

If our sales taxes are lower than our neighbors, I say "Good" especially since we have a nice slug of high-value sales happening on Auto Row.  Why aren't we advertising THAT instead of trying to erase the advantage?  And the fact that out-of-towners also shop here doesn't obviate the desire to "Shop Local" for B'gamers.  Why push more people to on-line?

Then there is the "We need the money" argument.  In the big picture, we are a pretty fiscally solvent city.  We also have a building boom happening.  While residential costs us money (even at B'game prices), commercial contributes and big commercial like we are seeing now should contribute big.  Have we looked at increasing the business license fee/tax?  It was traditionally $100 regardless of whether you were a donut shop or Virgin America!  And a new Top Golf money machine is due out on the Bayfront.  To top it all off, the street that is most in need of repair is El Camino and this tax won't help that since it is the State's responsibility.

I'm not too worried about accountability for the funds should "I" pass.  And if the revenue stream exists, borrowing against it will seldom be better timed than now.  I do worry that a big chunk of new money might cause the new Rec Center to be over-designed, but again it's the principle not the implementation.  Getting nickel'ed and dime'd to death appears to be a California specialty and we should not just play along.  No on "I".

Comments

[Becca]

Thank you Joe, well said and I completely agree with your thinking.

[JF]

I was afraid I was the only guy who felt this way. Glad to know common sense people are among us. People who ask "why" and "how".

[BMW]

Only need to ask how much in funding is “carried over” from year to year. Look at the City’s last adopted budget and see how much in capital funding that was set aside didn’t get spent and has to be carried over to the next year.

The money is there. Just needs to be managed better and with some level of accountability.

Easy No.

[Bobby]

Californians are approaching breaking point on taxes. If state and local tax exemption (e.g., property taxes) are rescinded- expect loud howling up and down the state.

This Measure I does not help. It will be that grain of sand that causes the tax sand hill to collapse.

Also, how do we know that Measure I funds won't be used to cover city pension shortfalls?

[Cassandra]

The reason I distrust how the money will be spent is because when I receive a phone call from someone asking my opinion about the school or tax measures the questions are phrased in such a way that they assume I’m going to vote yes on the new taxes or bonds.

One time I started laughing at the interviewer’s questions and an interviewer laughed back because my responses were always “I don’t want any more taxes.” And he would just keep asking the questions until they can figure out what the best way was for the proposal for the tax or bond to be phrased to garnish enough votes to pass.

As one person who suspected such pollster manipulation said during a person-to-person Community Information meeting: “This isn’t an information meeting, it’s crowd control.”

Those people who are taking the polls as consultants will be hired again if the tax or bond measure passes. Everybody seems to be on board the taxpayer gravy train.

No on measure I.

[resident]

This one only needs 50% instead of 2/3rds so spread da word.

[Martin Eisner]

The things this Measure proposes to improve are what makes this a Great City and differentiates us from our other area cities. As the website states so eloquently;

Voting Yes on Measure I will support essential city services in Burlingame, such as:

​Repairing potholes and maintaining city streets and sidewalks

Enhancing neighborhood police patrols and crime prevention programs

Improving safe routes to school

Providing adequate, safe park and recreation facilities and programs for youth, teens and seniors

The Fiscally Responsible Choice for a Better Burlingame

​By law, all funds from Measure I must stay in Burlingame; nothing can be taken by the state or federal governments

Measure I can’t be used for city administrator salaries

Independent citizens’ oversight, mandatory financial audits and yearly reports to the community ensure all funds are spent as promised

Measure I makes certain that Burlingame’s visitors pay their fair share for their impact on our roads

Now is the time to protect and maintain our quality of life and keep Burlingame safe and desirable.

I vote conservative in most cases and I think this is good for our City.

[Joe]

Martin, while I appreciate your cut-and-paste comment, I addressed every point you pasted in the original post but you failed to address any of the points I made. If you want to play here you need to up your game.

We have a bunch of new revenue sources coming on line that will undoubtedly degrade our quality of life (traffic, parking, loss of views, more ugly garbage and recycling bins perpetually on the street -- HELLO Philz and Starbucks). I gave a number of ideas and you failed to address any of them.

[Cathy Baylock]

Dang, I have to keep an eye on my husband night and day! Here is the ballot argument in favor which I have signed! https://www.burlingame.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=14493

[Cassandra]

Gas tax starts on Monday... nickels and dimes!

[Cassandra]

12 cents a gallon... $2.40 every fill up...

[beenhere4ever]

Glad to know the Baylock Family has one brain in the house. Cathy Baylock seems to be logical and Joe; well Joe is just Joe.

[Bruce Dickinson]

Guys, listen, what is Bruce Dickinson missing? The city of Burlingame is talking about a $40+ million dollar Rec center, a new city hall, giving up parking lots to help developers such as the on-going old Post Office project/saga. We are talking about aggregate value of $70-$80 million-plus dollars. Seriously, should not these very expensive items be scrutinized even before we deal with raising revenues from already highly taxed individuals? I get the whole pension and post retirement benefit problem, but the best way to solve this is to be ultra conservative in future spending and relentlessly attack costs.

Approving a tax increase, no matter how its "earmarked" the funds are, is a tacit approval that the city's budget and spending priorities are a-OK. The General fund and bond sales can afford a $15-$20 million dollar Rec Center instead of a $40 million dollar Rec center with a lot more left over to improve roads, parks, schools etc.

Once this technology and housing bubble pops--and it will--just like every other economic cycle, the City is going to be in deep doo-doo if ya know what I mean?!?

Being highly levered to hotel/travel, technology stocks, and real estate sales means you have to have the cost structure to withstand revenue volatility. Look at the state of California as a prime example of what NOT to do in running a budget. Burlingame is learning the worst from the worst.

NO on "I" !!

[Just Joe]

Pretty logical, Bruce.

[Frank Everly]

Maybe you ostriches should get your head out of the sand.

Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars are robbed from Burlingame coffers through the continued support of these types of things:

Food Trucks-Revenue from restaurants

Farmers Markets-Revenue from grocery stores

School Boards supporting Amazon

Chamber who constantly supporting outside companies on their website.

It has become a joke to watch this city support so many outside businesses rather than our local business.

And you wonder why nobody supports your Bonds and Measures. They just don't feel like covering for your dumb decisions.

[Cassandra]

Gas tax starts today!

No on I.

[BMW]

“Improving safe routes to school” - what does that even mean? For whom?

This implies that there are already “safe routes” to school now. We just need to “improve” them. How? The money will be used how?

This bullet wasn’t among the original three written up for this measure. It looks like a desperate last minute word salad addition to add “safe” and “School” to the measure talking points because some staffer know those score well with 94010. Desperately bad.

[Cassandra]

Like The Simpson character that always cries out during an argument: “Won’t someone think of the children?!”

No on I.

[Georgia Bulldog]

Last several years Burlingame has:

Created terrible traffic congestion
Generated massively louder noise levels
Increased home crimes
Done zero for affordable housing
Spent millions of dollars for ineffective projects
Raised taxes and created enormous debt
Supported everyone but our local businesses
Produced average educational system

Hmmmm.........and you want what? Try studying Foster City and learn from them.

[resident]

Great list except you missed that doing anything more than zero for affordable housing makes all your other things WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joe]

For what it's worth:

Daily Journal endorsements

Burlingame Measure I, quarter-cent sales tax for city improvements — YES

[Laura]

On the gas tax, I heard someone speaking earlier this week that said with the new current gas tax bills, by 2020, we in the Bay Area will paying $1.58 per gallon in gas tax. That's State and Federal taxes. That's $23.70 in taxes on a 15 gallon fill up. Diesel would be more. We are at $.76/.78 right now. Sorry, can't remember exactly, as I was in shock over the $1.58, but thought he said that the increase to the $1.58, was to help pay for the HSR.

[Joe]

The concerted, expensive campaign to increase the B'game sales tax has succeeded:

YES 62.91% * 2,419
NO 37.09% 1,426

More than a third of voters disagree with the increase, but it needed half opposed to be defeated. If this were an earmarked measure, it would have failed to get two-thirds, but the neat trick of not earmarking it succeeded.

[Cathy Baylock]

Yass!

[Ian]

Ha - YES gets almost twice as many votes as NO, but structuring it so that counts as a win is a "neat trick"!