The Burlingame Voice

California Budget Woes....Woe is Us

There are two highly capable people outside of the state government that act as watchdogs on where our tax dollars are going.  One is David Crane from Govern For California.  The other is Dan Walters at Calmatters.org.  They are both yelling from the mountain top about the fiscal pit they see below.  Here is a bit of Walters' piece from last week:

While Gov. Gavin Newsom gallivants around the country as a campaign surrogate for President Joe Biden – and to burnish his own national image – the state budget he proposed just six weeks ago is falling apart at the seams.  Last week, his Department of Finance indirectly acknowledged the budget’s problems, reporting that through January revenues were running $5.9 billion behind the new budget’s assumption for the current fiscal year.  On Tuesday, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, which advises the Legislature, increased its estimate of the budget’s deficit, which Newsom had originally pegged at $38 billion, to an eye-popping $73 billion after toting up Newsom’s proposals and decreasing its revenue estimate.

When he unveiled his 2024-25 budget in January, Newsom proposed a series of fiscal maneuvers to close the gap, very few of which were actual spending reductions.  He tapped the state’s emergency reserve and dug deeply into the bag of tools that the state has historically used to paper over deficits, including spending deferrals, loans from special funds and accounting tricks, such as a maneuver involving school aid.

The other watchdog, David Crane, quoted Joe Mathews from Zocala Public Square who zeroed in on the last maneuver a couple weeks ago saying:

These $10 billion-plus in deferrals don’t include education, which Newsom and legislative Democrats have claimed their budget doesn’t cut. But here, the administration is playing a more deceptive game. The state’s non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that California is actually reducing spending on schools and community colleges by $15.2 billion, relative to the budget enacted in June 2023.

The way the state does this is too long and complicated to fully explain here—it involves the convoluted three-part Prop. 98 funding formula. But the short version is that Newsom is charging $9 billion in reductions to the 2022-23 school year and redefining these cuts as a reset of the funding baseline. There are several more billion in school cuts that appear in the budget without any explanation of how they might be achieved.

That's sort of like backdating a check and asking the recipient to still not cash it for a month while simultaneously saying you didn't really owe the money in the first place.  Except it's a really big check and it really was money owed.  You really have to wonder about Newsom's priorities.  David Crane can probably talk for an hour on the things we are spending Big Money on that don't involve legal California residents getting services.  Or services that are so poorly managed as to be embarrassing.  Mathews and Crane have been having this debate for a long time:

Why is the budget so out of whack? For years, I’ve conducted a long-distance argument about this topic with David Crane, a former UC regent and state teachers pension fund board member who has founded a political organization, Govern for California, to elect more state lawmakers willing to make tough, public-spirited decisions. Sometimes our debate takes place through former state legislator Ted Lempert’s UC Berkeley class on California government, where we both have been guest lecturers.

Crane argues that California governance fails because we need people in government who have the courage to take on the state’s powerful labor and corporate lobbies. 

I argue the problem is structural—that California’s misbegotten governing system and broken state constitution keep pushing the budget out of balance.

But in this particular budget season, I must concede that Crane has the better side of the argument. California is not in a recession. The governor and the state legislature’s Democratic supermajority have the money and the power to make hard choices now. By deferring so much, they will make it even harder to balance the budget in the future, and push more costs onto the next generation of Californians.

That's Mathews taking the long view, but I tend to believe we will not have to wait for the next generation to feel the pain.  Rocky (Sly Stallone) was this week's new ex-California resident having bought a big house in Florida.  He's not going to be the last .1 percenter to jump ship.  Happy Election Day!

B'game: Now and Then

There was a great turnout yesterday for the quarterly B'game Historical Society meeting.  It was a beautiful Spring-like day which helped.  About 90-100 people were treated to a 145-photo montage carefully arranged in a Now-Then sequence to show how our little burg has changed over the years.  Some "Then" photos went back to c. 1911.  Society president Jen Pfaff went all in to get "Now" photos from the same angle and distance as the historical editions and the effort paid off.

My photo of the meeting below doesn't do the scene justice, but you can just make out the crowd gathered for a parade in 1953 when LIFE magazine came to B'game.  Many of the photos shown yesterday will appear on the Society website (technical issues are being resolved).  In the meantime, here's Jen and the LIFE piece.

City Council: Ricardo Ortiz steps down. Now what?

B'game does not see a lot of mid-term resignations by city council members.  Mike Coffey and Jerry Deal did it, but those are the only ones I can recall.  Back then things were simpler.  We didn't have 80% voter suppression driven by the threat of a lawsuit from some lawyer from Malibu who we bent over for and went to district elections.  But before we get to that, here is Ricardo's statement as posted to his Facebook account:

Yesterday,I gave Mayor Colson my resignation letter. After 10 years as a member of our City Council, I have decided that with changes at work, it has become too difficult to fully serve the citizens of District 1 and the City at large.

 

It has been an honor serving all these years and I thank the citizens of Burlingame for trusting me. In these ten years, I have served as Mayor twice and had many regional leadership positions including Chair of the SFO Community Roundtable, Chair of the Central County Fire Board, Vice Chair of C/CAG. I have served on multiple sub-committees of which the Community Center and Broadway Grade Separation stand out.

 

This has been a very important part of my life and I am going to miss it. Mostly, I’m going to miss all the wonderful people I have worked with in Burlingame and beyond. I am proud to have served with an exceptional group of Council Members many of whom I consider my friends. Our City staff has been a big highlight. They are true gems and we are very fortunate to have their smarts and dedication. I can’t say enough about our department heads and their cordial working relationship. This is due to our strong leadership in our extraordinary City Manager. Lisa Goldman is not only brilliant, she has a keen sense of the politics involved in her job.

 

I have formed strong relationships with many of my counterparts throughout the County. I have many friends from Daly City to East Palo Alto and I will cherish the time we’ve spent together.  I will always look back at these ten years with pride in what we accomplished and nostalgia for the many relationships I’ve built. Thank you all for a great ride. Now it’s someone else’s turn.

 

Being a council member is a big responsibility so when someone realizes they can't do what they know it takes to be a full contributor; due to whatever else they have on their plate, it's the responsible thing to step down.  I thank Ricardo for his service and his honesty.  The Big Question stems from his last sentence:  Now it’s someone else’s turn.

 

Back in the day, pre-Shenkman, when we all elected every council member; the pool of appointees was the Whole City.  What to do now?  Special elections are crazy expensive and take a lot of time to queue up and execute.  Appointing a fill-out-the-term person, like John Root back in the day, is more expedient.  But should that person have reside in District 1?  Maybe we should ask Shenkman since he seems to call the shots all over California.  Just kidding.  Should the council put out a draft notice to District 1?  Hey buddy, wanna be on the city council?  What if no one volunteers?  Or worse, maybe the sole volunteer is.......ugh!    Maybe the seat would be less warm if the appointee was not from District 1 so they could not run in the next regular election?  Would Shenkman be OK with that?  All of this would have been easier if our Big Electeds (looking at Mullin, Becker, Papan, the County Supes, et al) had done something about the stupid law when he first started mailing threats to cities, school districts, fire districts and the dog catchers' electorates.

 

But here we are.  Uncharted waters.  Are they deep or too shallow for safe sailing?

Backhaus: Sweet introduction

According to the show of hands local realtor Raziel Ungar asked for at Friday's hosted event at Backhaus, I am one of the last people to clue into our newest bakery.  That's probably because most people are having lunch around the time I am finishing breakfast and from what I hear, Backhaus can be sold out by then.  Raziel is one of the most active realtors in town and loves to bring his clients together for events like movies and pie giveaways.  His latest event brought about 100 people to Backhaus for a talk and tasting with co-owner Anne Moser.

Anne gave us the story of how she and her husband Robert started baking at home, then moved to Kitchentown, onward to the B'game Farmer's Market and the CSM market, then to a space on 3rd Ave in San Mateo and now to a larger, more flexible space here at 261 California Dr.  The space was our first movie theater, George Roy's Photoplay that opened in 1913, according to Russ Cohen's article in this quarter's Burlingame Historical Society newsletter.

After extensive, and I mean really extensive, Q&A that Anne handled with ease, Raziel asked for a show of hands as to who had bought bread and pastries from Backhaus at each step of the journey.  When he finally asked for a show of hands as to who was a first-timer on Friday, I was in the tiny minority that raised their hands.  Raziel is a big supporter of Copenhagen as well and his annual pie event at Thanksgiving is a B'game tradition.  Baking sounds like an arduous task since each day starts at 3am so that the goods are ready for the 7:30 opening.  After tasting the Country Bread at the event, I may have to get up early to snag some.  Here's Raziel and Anne making the pitch.

EV charging ahead with preferred parking spots at Walgreens

The news is all pointing to a deceleration in EV sales as car companies' losses per EV pile up and consumers start to really question the benefits of going electric.  People who don't worry about the high initial costs or the lengthy payback (some estimates put it at 7 years) have bought their EVs already.  We are now approaching the trough of adoption while waiting for cheaper versions, longer range and more charging stations.  These trends haven't stopped B'game from going full speed ahead with 16 new charger spaces downtown.  The latest swap of fully public spaces to preferred parking for EVs in need of a boost is coming to the public lot (K) between Walgreen's and Safeway.  This is a busy lot for much of the day and early dining evening.  Per the Daily Journal piece

The City Council authorized the city manager to proceed with negotiations on a contract for Tesla to rent the parking lot space from Burlingame, although councilmembers said they’d like to see details on lease and fee rates as well as plans for signs that would delineate the chargers as usable for all electric vehicles.  Tesla has said they will pay a monthly rent of $6,000, and everything will be free to the city, including installation.

Let's go easy with the F-word (i.e. "free").  It's only "free" if $6K per month covers the lost revenue of the 19 spaces lost.  That's about $315 per month or about a dollar a day per space.  My math says these new charger spaces are far from "free".  

After Beach inquired about the leasing agreement and rental cost, Tesla Supercharger Project Developer Caitlyn Hanner said the company would require a 10-year lease minimum but could provide a rent increase of up to 3% a year.   Installation of the Tesla superchargers would create a loss of three parking spots.

Ten years with a very modest rent escalator is quite a deal.  There are about 57 spaces in Lot K now.  Three will be taken for the e-infrastructure, so about 30 percent of the lot is planned to be preferred parking for EVs.  As the DJ article notes, several council members are Tesla owners and others own other brands which these new superchargers will accommodate.  Did we just witness a conflict of interest that should have caused recusals on the vote?   Just kidding.  But it would have made a great April Fool's Day post.

Maybe the time has come to require chargers to also pay for the parking.  EVs already skirt the gas tax and they inflict more wear and tear on our roads than gas cars due to their higher weight.  I will tag the "Friends with benefits" category as well since this looks like a sweet deal for a few people and the car companies.

2023: Our Year in Crime

Each year we take a look back at the prior year's crime rate and look for trends. The trend for 2023 would have to be "More of the same" as most categories are in-line with the monthly averages for the prior three years.

The notable reduction is in catalytic converter thefts. That reduction can probably be attributed to some national crackdown on the resale market and to B'game putting in some traffic cameras which are particularly effective in the middle of the night when there is little other traffic and the thefts generally happen.

Monthly Average                 2020     2021     2022     2023

Residential Burglaries             2         2         3             2

Vehicle Burglaries                 20       25        24           23

Thefts from Unlocked Vehicles 14     8          5             6

Commercial Burglaries           6         5          5            4

Construction site theft           1         1         1             2

Package thefts                       4         2         2             4

Catalytic Converter Theft       6         9        11            4

Robberies                              2         2         1             1

Stolen Vehicles                      9         7         8             8

Vandalism                             13     13         13             11

Like last year, my main observation is that traffic enforcement is the place I would add resources to BPD. I'm also pretty sure a lot of package theft goes unreported just based on the neighborhood events listings in the Ring camera app. Other than that, 276 vehicle burglaries per year is still too many.  Also, looking at the Crimegraphics daily arrest records, DUIs continue at a pretty high pace.

BART: Bay Area Rapidly Toppling

We don't spend much time talking about BART since it stops in Millbrae (except for some train car storage in B'game) and isn't likely to ever expand south down the Peninsula.  But watching the South Bay expansion plans topple over due to climbing costs is instructive.  As the Merc notes:

The extension would create six miles of new track — including a subterranean tunnel underneath San Jose — looping BART service from the north part of the city to downtown and then up to Santa Clara at its Caltrain terminal.

South Bay residents shocked by last fall’s price jump for the San Jose BART extension — from $9.1 billion to $12.2 billion — may need to brace themselves again.

In a turn of events that could have major consequences for an extension already struggling with exploding prices and timeline delays, an independent assessment set to be released this month from federal officials may peg the project’s cost even higher than the agency’s $12.2 billion estimate, the Valley Transportation Authority’s chief megaproject officer told The Mercury News in an exclusive interview this week.

In October, VTA announced its most recent cost jump and an expected completion date of 2036 — a decade later than originally expected. The announcement sparked the VTA Board to create an oversight committee investigating issues facing the project.

You know things are bad when a governing body creates an "oversight committee" to shield themselves from criticism for not doing the job they were elected or selected to do themselves.  And then there is this common refrain:

The report states, “Due to frequent turnover and vacancies in key (BART San Jose extension) positions, (the Project Management Oversight Contractor) is concerned about the lack of succession planning and inadequate transition periods in dealing with attrition and turnover.”

All of this uncertainty and cost explosion is over just six miles of track!  Just imagine what the real numbers for High-Cost Rail are if anyone from Newsom on down were actually paying attention.  It can boondoggle the mind.