7 responses to “Who Really Has a Vested Interest in Burlingame?”

1. PAT

   October 30, 2003

   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.

2. Gerald

   October 30, 2003

   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).

   ***

3. sue

   October 31, 2003

   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.”

4. Jenn

   October 31, 2003

   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.

5. PAT

   October 31, 2003

   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 record…because I don’t agree with his politics…because 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….

6. Jenn

   October 31, 2003

   Absolutely, point well taken.

7. Dewy Cheatham

   November 3, 2003

   Does anyone find it ironic that a person who calls himself a commercial realtor doesn’t own any property in Burlingame!