« Poor El Camino | Main | Sudden Oak Deaths Rise »

October 23, 2017



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


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".


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.


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 If state and local tax exemption (e.g., property taxes) are rescinded- expect loud howling up and down the state.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?


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.


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.


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


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


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


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.


Gas tax starts today!

No on I.


“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.


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.


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


For what it's worth:

Daily Journal endorsements

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


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.


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



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

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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 [email protected] with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.