The Burlingame Voice

The CA exodus is real, so why do we need SB 10?

There are plenty of people who foolishly believe we can build our way out of the so-called "housing crisis".  Dense development hasn't caused lower housing costs anywhere in the world--in fact, many of the densest locations are also the costliest.  And when the other quality of life components and job prospects are as good as the Bay Area, one would have to be extra foolish to try to out-build the demand and further diminish the quality of life.  But Sacramento has foisted SB 9 and SB 10 on us anyway.  Most of them couldn't get through Econ 101, but that is where we are at.

The Burlingame City Council will discuss what to do about SB 10 tomorrow night.  The Staff Report is super thin on SB 10:

SB 10. California Senate Bill (SB) 10 allows (but does not require) local agencies to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 dwelling units on any parcel if the parcel is within a transit-rich area or urban infill site. (Ed:  pretty much all of B'game).

The General Plan Update has already provided a range of multiunit residential and mixed use land use districts with a wide range of residential densities, and the Zoning Ordinance Update underway will provide refined development standards for the corresponding zoning districts.

Staff requests direction from the City Council on whether to pursue zoning allowed by SB 10.  Whereas SB 9-compliant zoning is required, municipalities may choose to adopt (or not adopt) SB 10-compliant zoning.

And the report claims that neither SB 9 or SB 10 will have any fiscal impact!  It might be time to double-check the thinking on that since residential property taxes never cover the cost of providing city services--never mind the costs to the school district that is pretty much out of real estate.

But let's look a little deeper courtesy of last Sunday's Mercury News piece with the sub-head "In an area noted for its booming economy, stunning weather and natural beauty, a majority feel their quality of life is in decline".  The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and the Bay Area News Group commissioned a survey by Embold Research to dig into this and it's not pretty.

In a foreboding breakthrough, for the first time since the poll began posing the question in 2018 a solid majority -- 56% -- said they expect to leave the Bay Area in the next few years...a similar majority said the region is headed in the wrong direction.  In the survey of 1,610 registered voters, 71% said the Bay Area's quality of life has declined in the last five years.

Two problems topped the list of increased concern being "serious or very serious"?  Drought (+41%) and Water Supply (+32%).  I'm glad to know I'm not alone on this.  The cost of housing was still the highest overall at 92% but only up 6%.  What if even half of the half of people that are considering leaving do so?  Even if it is only 10% that would be significant.   B'game has a huge amount of new housing already approved, in design and "in-the-dirt".  Maybe we should see how that all plays out?  I hope the council's direction to staff on SB 10 is a brisk, clear "forgetaboutit" so they can get back to ensuring our public safety, water supply, small business vitality, economic health and quality of life.

SMUSHD: Suspensions to Proceed, Appeals Likely

Voice readers have had plenty of background on the issues surrounding staff misconduct since two prior Voice threads have followed this issue closely here and before that here.  Actual letters went out on Monday reinforcing the earlier decision to suspend as reported in the Daily Journal today 

The teaching credentials of three San Mateo Union High School District administrators are still in limbo after the governing board responsible for determining the fate of their case declined to reconsider its decision to suspend the officials. 

Dr. Kevin Skelly, district superintendent; Dr. Kirk Black, deputy superintendent of Human Resources and Student Services; and Pamela Duszynski, Mills High School principal; face suspensions of their education credentials due to mismanagement claims brought by a Mills High School teacher.  The Committee on Credentials, the investigative arm of the state’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing, recommended suspensions of 120 days for Duszynski, 30 days for Skelly and 14 days for Black.

The officials lobbied the governing body to reconsider the recommendations but were sent letters Monday informing them the COC’s decisions would be upheld. Formal suspensions have not been approved at this point, leaving each administrator still credentialed.  

Robert Griffin, president of the San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees, reacted to the news in an email statement, sharing disappointment the committee’s chose not to reconsider “its initial erroneous decision.”  The officials still have the opportunity to appeal the suspensions which will be decided through the Attorney General’s Office.

Click through on the DJ link above to read the rest of the story and if you feel like reading up on the disciplinary process from the Commission on Teacher Credentialing it can be found here.  I don't have any special insight on this, but I do wonder if an appeal to the Attorney General might not be the trigger that takes this from an investigation of one series of incidents at Mills to a broader review of SMUSHD events there and elsewhere?  In my experience, which is quite substantial, there is always a "be careful what you ask for" component to personnel issues.

Dividing Up the County...Again

Thanks to some hack lawyer from Malibu we are embarking on an expensive and pointless experiment to divide up the City Council and the San Mateo Unified high school district into geographic fiefdoms.  That's what the arcane state law that most think cannot be argued says; so be it.  The San Mateo County Supes are already district-based as befits a big sprawling region like the County of about 750,000 residents. With a new census about to be completed, the district lines need to be updated.  Here is the DJ reporting on the criteria for the 11 people who will work on the redistricting:

“Diversity and inclusion — those are guiding principles here in San Mateo County and those qualities are what we are looking for on this extremely important Commission,” David Canepa, president of the Board of Supervisors, said in a press release.  All applications will be forwarded to a committee formed by and composed of local chapter members of the League of Women Voters.

I can't imagine who thought the LWV was a good screening body for this job.  Their last half dozen debate moderation efforts in B'game city council elections were...underwhelming.  Some years the representative could barely read the questions properly.  The old saw about preferring the first hundred names (sometimes 2,000 names) in the Boston phone book, or in this case, the Burlingame phone book applies.

But there is more

The selection process will prioritize applicants associated with good government, civil rights, civic engagement and community groups or organizations that are active in the county, including those active in language minority communities, with the goal of forming a commission with membership that is geographically diverse and consistent with the county’s emphasis on valuing diversity, equity and inclusion, according to the county.

I'm all for good government (if the LWV and the Supes have stated criteria that one can assess for that) and geographic diversity (duh, that's the point), but what of the rest of the word soup?  How about the ability to parse the past voting data numerically?  Does an applicant know mean from median?  Can they assess the strengths and weaknesses of the census data?  I was required to fill out the Big Census Questionnaire this year and as a former market research professional I can tell you its format was sub-standard against industry norms.

Bottom Line:  The current district lines probably won't change much and it won't make much difference in who wins each seat, but the PR spin still grates on my ears.  When it comes time to do the City Council districts and the SMUSHD districts, I hope the League of Women Voters are relegated to the sidelines.    

BIS: What's Up With That?

A newcomer to B'game and to the Voice has asked a question that has a long history of being asked in town.  Rather than have everyone scroll through the comments on this January post about the BSD Board to see the question, here is a fresh post that readers can weigh in on.  Let's start with the question from Caitlin

I have 3 kids, bought a house in Burlingame a little over a year ago as I understood the public schools are excellent.

I recently started hearing that the Elementary schools and the high school are great (minus the Principal issues from a few years ago), however lots of people have mixed feelings about BIS. Didn't hear anything specific but am told BIS is the ugly duckling of the district?

Can anyone share why BIS might be considered the Ugly Duckling?

My experiences at BIS with two kids were mixed, but it was so long ago that I hesitate to weigh in on the 2021 outlook.  My second thought was much along the lines of HMB's quick response on the other post to Caitlin's question--nobody likes middle school or "junior high school" as it was called in Massachusetts in the '70s.  Not the kids, not the parents, probably not the teachers or administrators, but they do their best.  HMB noted

Because it's middle school. Kids from all over are thrown into one school, and hormones are raging, and these are tricky years for kids anyway. And the parent cliques ALSO have to find a new pecking order once they are thrown together. So parents and kids all come in kind of a mess and by the time everyone figures it out and settles down they are off to high school. It's just the nature of the beast.

Perhaps there is more to it than the age/rage mixture.  Let's ask the community.  We have certainly poured a notable amount of money into the facilities like this new wing built five years ago so it ain't the campus.  What say you current and recent parents?

Zoom Public Meetings: Pros & More Cons

I connected the dots this week between a headline and article in my hometown newspaper in Massachusetts and a letter to the editor in the DJ.  The connection is a continuation of a link I've mentioned before about how public meetings (i.e. city council, school board, planning, etc) are changed by the "Zoom ethos".  I've seen some council comments that might not have happened if there were 20 or 30 people in chambers staring at the council members.  The hometown headline read The writing's on the screen: Municipal meetings via Zoom might be here to stay.   In some contexts that sentence construction is ominous and this might be one of them.  Here are a couple of snippets:

Jane Doe likes to be able to “pop in” to a town government meeting remotely on her computer.  She’ll typically view discussion about the agenda item she finds of interest, possibly add a comment and then pop out of the meeting and get on with her evening.  “It’s like a whole new paradigm — a whole new world,” she said. “And a lot of it has been absolutely fabulous. I think there is a democratizing element in some ways. More people can access the meetings, and they don’t have to rearrange their whole lives to go there in person.”

Bearing in mind that this is a place with less tech savvy than the Peninsula where the video of the meetings isn't typically on cable TV or Granicus for review later.  But now the downsides

“Maintaining a civil discourse can be a bit more challenging,” the town manager e said. “I think, in the remote setting, there is a reduction in social inhibitions that leads people to speak more freely.  We have a lot more people participating, but in some cases, the meeting format is new to them. And you lose a lot of the personal connection — there are people we’ve been engaging with who none of us have ever met in person. In a way, we’ve lost the sense that we all live in the same town together."

Cue the letter from a San Mateo resident

I read the 4/1 article, “San Mateo Begins Housing Discussion” with interest and amazement. It described a “discussion” I would have liked to attend. Wait a minute! I did participate in Let’s Talk Housing’s online meeting. My experience was not even close to what the article described. Everyone lost 20 minutes due to technical problems. Many who registered were unable to log in. We also lost an essential poll of attendees. Residents? Workers here? Property owners? It might have supported my observation that many attendees did not live here.  It became clear that this was like a written “open mike.” People began posting random ideas, suggestions, beliefs, on the “chat” feature, even as the presentations were going on.  At two points, some of those ideas (often out of context) were pulled into “word clouds” of what people cared about — with zero sense of the writers’ intent.

One of the moderators finally pulled down the chat because the 180 degree back and forth was getting so out of hand.  The city should view this meeting’s results to be as questionable as residents who attended know them to be. If this is supposed to be what a productive workshop and discussion of housing looks like, we might as well stop right now.

I spent more than a decade of my professional career refining the way to have video-conferenced meetings with in-person and remote attendees, some well-known, others like clients that were identified but perhaps not well-known to other attendees and all tech savvy.  Cisco WebEx pre-dates Zoom by years and still renders a good viewing experience.  It is not easy even when the bulk of the people mostly share a similar community, time zone and language.  Don't get me started on the global version of this challenge.  It's clear the cities, the county, the school boards and various agencies and commissions will need some ground rules.  I think you will eventually see "chat" disabled in favor of typed questions and comments to the admin, pre-registration with a verified identity and even town of residence required (hear that Delta, Coke and the MLB?) and a return to in-person meetings with preference given to those that appear live when time runs short.  Can't happen soon enough.   

Dividing Up the High School Board

An activist lawyer out of Malibu is causing all sorts of disruption to a multitude of city councils--to no useful end, in my opinion, and perhaps even to the detriment of residents' representation.  That seems to be the consensus among the people I have spoken to in town.  We discussed it last year here.  Now the "trend" is moving towards the high school boards of trustees.  The Daily Journal notes:

Acknowledging the legal challenges associated with defending the status quo, school board President Robert Griffin said it appears as if the shift to district elections is inevitable.  “It seems to be the direction that everyone is going,” he said. “And we are going to abide by the law. We have to.”

As it stands, candidates who receive the most votes in a districtwide election are awarded seats on the school board. Under the by-district system, officials would approve an electoral map dividing the districts into wards, where candidates must live and seek support from voters within those borders.

Critics of the by-district system often claim it promotes balkanization and encourages elected officials to only defend the interest of their constituency, rather than the entire community.

In some ways I think this district approach makes more sense for a sprawling multi-city school district even if all of the negatives are still present.  It's just plain stupid in a city of 28,000 people.  As one commenter noted on the city council post, this seems like a consultant and attorney full-employment move.  Where are the state legislators who can do something about the state election law?  Too busy with saving the globe and being woke?

BSD: Between a Rock and Classroom Hard Place

For once I don't have a dog in this fight, but from what I am hearing and reading on the School post here, there are strong feelings on both sides of the issue of when to reopen in-person learning at the Burlingame Elementary Schools.  One can only imagine the concern over months and months of video classes for young kids and the absence of school sports, band, plays, speech and language help, etc.  The goodly number of kids at my nearby park (Pershing) daily after school hours is not nearly as many as there are kids in the neighborhood.

Here are excerpts from the latest message from the BSD Board of Trustees:

The recent and sudden changes made by the state which forced our school district to remain in distance learning have been frustrating for all of us. We know that it has been challenging for parents to explain to our youngest learners why, once again, they will not be going to school...San Mateo County is made up of 24 school districts, of which only 3 are open for some in-person learning, with the remaining districts at various stages of reopening plans and waivers. Burlingame School District is next in line for live instruction, with an approved reopening safety plan and approved waiver already in place....If it is safe for one district to conduct in-person education with an approved plan, then it should be safe for all districts with an approved plan.

The state hasn't been exactly helpful in this regard although a comment from Guido (apparently a teacher) on the post linked above does note:

Time to pause and not do anything stupid, I guess they think we are lazy and that's why we should be back in class. I would be teaching with a mask on and the kids in front of screens under the current conditions and probably the "Red" tier. Can't share materials, etc. By the way, the State didn't change the the rules, they clarified them for stupid administrators who can't read and are trying to force the issue for some reason.

Data might help here--or not; but the San Mateo County website provides some here.  As of yesterday, kids age 9 and below have accounted for 2,167 cases out of almost 34,000 (about 6.5%) so it's small but not insignificant.  The 34,000 total is about 4.4% of the county population.  The question is really "What are the trade-offs?"  Are the risks (well known and real) of not reopening worse than the risk of doing so?  Answering that question is what school board elections are all about, but we have to agree this was completely unexpected and not discussed as there were no debates the last time around.  I'm guessing that might change next time.

Exodus - Part 2 Elon Musk Departs

Back in July we asked "how big? and how long?" would be the exodus from the Bay Area?  We got one more view of just how big today when the Wall Street Journal reported that Elon Musk said at a WSJ CEO Summit council this week he has moved to Texas.

Taking up residence in Texas comes with personal benefits for Mr. Musk: The state doesn’t collect state income or capital-gains tax for individuals. The auto executive qualified this year for billions of dollars in stock-option compensation as part of a pay-package agreement, making him the second-richest person in the world.

During the spring, when Mr. Musk was sparring over coronavirus shelter-in-place orders that shut his factory near San Francisco, California Gov. Gavin Newsom told CNBC he was “not worried about Elon leaving any time soon” and the state was committed to the car maker’s success. “We may not be the cheapest place to do business but we are the best place to do business,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said.

California’s taxes underlie many of the complaints. Its personal income tax tops out at 13.3% for amounts over $1 million a year, the highest in the nation. Capital gains are taxed at a similar rate.

In a separate piece this week, the WSJ also highlighted how mid-tier cities are gaining population at the expense of SF and NYC

For every person who moved to the Bay Area from Austin between April and October, 2.9 people moved in the other direction, according to an analysis from LinkedIn. That is a 39% increase from a year earlier.

Perhaps the Gavinor could make a phone call, apologize and get back Musk's tens of millions of dollars in annual California taxes.  He would also have to call the CEOs of HP Enterprise, Palantir and dozens of start-ups and sports stars.  But as the Journal noted "Many who call the Bay Area home have expressed relief at the departure of tech professionals who have been blamed for driving up the cost of living and congesting the freeways."  When I was an analyst, we called that a "going out of business strategy".  Nobody is less pleased with the over-development of the Peninsula than me, but if we are to fund the good stuff (schools, social services, infrastructure, pensions) and the bad stuff Newsom wants (high-cost rail, costly green policies, giveaways) then he might want to pick up the phone and start calling. 

SMUHSD: Kaufman and Land

For B'gamers the long ballot is short on local issues.  Unlike Millbrae, San Mateo and H'borough, we do not have a city council race, nor do we have any local measures like Y and R in San Mateo.  We do have a race for two seats on the San Mateo United High School District where incumbent Greg Land and two newcomers are running.  Land is well-known in town, has incumbency and has the school administrator credentials that make him a knowledgeable insider.  From where I sit, the race is between Ligia Andrade Zuniga and Neal Kaufman.

Having watched some video from their campaign websites and a good bit of the candidates' forum found here, I found this a pretty easy choice.  Kaufman has a broad perspective and broad experience.  His statement emphasizes his financial background including as Chair of the Citizens' Committee that advocated for the school bond measure that raised $385 million and as a finance professional (his day job).  This is a big district and financial controls can always use improvement.  He also hits right on the need for a school re-opening plan.  Today's Daily Post noted a poll showing distance-learning for kids has recently lost 22% of support among parents.  This is a hot button issue and needs attention--i.e. more pressure than the existing Board has exerted.

We have a number of Voice posts over the last several years about alleged misconduct by BHS school staff and District staff.  I won't get into it here, you can click on the Schools category to the right and read the history--if you have a couple of hours.  Bottom Line:  I think the next new Trustee has to have broad, more hands-on background like I see from Kaufman.  Just one man's opinion, but an informed one. 

Good Thing Our Town is Named Burlingame

From everything we know now, Anson Burlingame has an exceptional reputation even by 2020's slippery standards.  We noted much of his story here when his bust was unveiled in the library and here when we described how Burlingame, Kansas came to be.  But if we are to listen to the revisionist social justice warriors from SF, our elementary schools need to be changed--lots of them.  It's not clear if the SJWs have spent much time on old Ben Franklin who might be iffy, but Washington, Lincoln, Hoover, McKinley and Roosevelt have to go!  Good thing we don't have a Feinstein Elementary because it too would have to go.

I do wonder who will be the first B'game based SJW to broach the subject and how long it will take.  We have a bit of a breather after SF Mayor London Breed called the idea "offensive" yesterday.  Not the idea of changing, just the idea of changing in the middle of the pandemic.  I give it til the end of the year here in B'game.  So much for the idea of "teachable moments".  Better to cancel than educate.