7 responses to “Local 2006 Bond Measures”

1. Anonymous

   October 4, 2006

   We oppose Burlingame’s Measure H on the November 7th ballot. While we do support the measure’s goal of improving Burlingame’s flood infrastructure, we have serious concerns about the details of the $44 million bond.

   First, the ultimate tax liability for Burlingame property owners is uncertain. The bond would be issued in four tranches over time. If interest rates rise, homeowners may pay more than what the city has projected

   Second, Measure H property tax would place an unfair burden on newer Burlingame homeowners. The proposed tax is based on assessed property value, not market value, and thus endorses Proposition 13. Based on data from the Burlingame Public Works Department, MLS and Government Financial Strategies, we estimate:

   New homeowners comprise 13% of all homeowners, but will be paying 31% of the total tax to be paid from all homeowners.

   Over 80% of new homeowners will be paying between 2-7 times more than the average homeowner.

   The average homeowner will pay $3,776 over the next 31 years for Measure H, while the average NEW homeowner will pay $11,243!

   Since all citizens reap the same flood infrastructure benefit, regardless of when they purchased their property, we would support a parcel tax or more equitable alternative for this initiative. The City Council should go back to the drawing board and explore other financing methods that offer more certainty and fairness to Burlingame taxpayers.

   Respectfully submitted,

   Lorne Abramson, CFA, CFP
   Daniel Glatt, MD
   Lawrence Lustig, MD
   Richard Voon
   http://WWW.AGAINSTMEASUREH.COM

2. Anonymous

   October 5, 2006

   THE WORD IS SPREADING!
   See front page article in today’s print edition of the Burlingame Daily News! Click here
   http://www.againstmeasureh.com/news

3. Anonymous

   October 5, 2006

   For those who can’t access the link in the prior post, here’s the text from today’s story in the Burlingame Daily News:

   Thursday Oct 5

   Group embittered by flood bond

   Recent homeowners call levying of Measure H unfair

   By Kristina Peterson

   After enjoying seemingly unchallenged support, Burlingame’s flood bond measure on the November ballot is facing its first opposition from a group of young property owners unhappy with its financing structure.

   “We are not anti-tax, nor are we against flood infrastructure improvements, but we do have serious concerns about the financial details of the bond measure,” said Lorne Abramson, one of the creators of the Web site, http://www.againstmeasureh.com.

   If approved by two-thirds of voters in November, Measure H would authorize the city to sell $44 million in bonds to fund projects that would strengthen the pipes, levees, pumps and catch basins of the city’s 75-year-old flood infrastructure. In addition, $7 million would go toward making several public buildings seismically safe and handicap-accessible.

   Property owners would pay for the bonds depending on the assessed value of their homes, at an average rate of $32 per year for each $100,000 of assessed value for 30 years.

   “Properties are assessed when they are purchased or major improvements are made, so for most properties, the current assessed value is far below market value,” a city pamphlet on the measure states.

   But for those who recently bought their homes, the assessed value is much higher than that for someone who moved in decades ago — the crux of the new war being waged between longtime and relatively new residents.

   “This places an unfair burden on new Burlingame homeowners,” Abramson said.

   Defining a “new homeowner” as someone who moved to the city within the last three years, he pointed out that while this group only represents 13 percent of the city’s population, it will pay 31 percent of the bond’s tax.

   Richard Voon, who moved to Burlingame in September 2005, agreed that the assessed value of one’s home is not the best way to determine how much residents should pay.

   “The average homeowner in Burlingame will pay $122 per year for a total of $3,776, while the average person who’s bought a home here in the past three years will pay $363 per year, for a total of $11,243,” said Voon.

   Syed Murtuza, Burlingame’s assistant director of public works, said that while “no tax can ever be fair to all people,” the structure of Measure H “benefits the maximum number of people.”

   Both sides agree that 90 percent of residents will pay less under Measure H than if a flat parcel tax were issued in which every property owner paid $339.24 per year.

   At Tuesday’s City Council meeting, longtime resident Charles Voltz said that he was initially upset over his relatively higher property taxes when he moved into town 20 years ago, but in time changed his mind.

   “There were many amenities there that I had not paid for that were already there … As a newcomer, I was a free rider,” Voltz said.

   Abramson countered that “from another demographics perspective,” the current prices of Burlingame homes “reflect paying for those amenities.”

   E-mail Kristina Peterson at kpeterson@dailynewsgroup.com.

4. Anonymous

   October 5, 2006

   Hi Brad – Please bear in mind our opposition is not just about Prop. 13/assessed property value taxation. As stated on our website, http://www.againstmeasureh.com, we do have an ADDITIONAL concern that impacts ALL Burlingame tax payers, regardless of when they purchased their homes.

   Specifically, the city of Burlingame is providing tax cost projections for the next 30+ years — but these are ultimately still estimates of what Measure H will cost residents over that period. As detailed in the city’s official Tax Rate Statement and Impartial Analysis of Measure H (which appears in the ballot and on the city’s website), there are various unknown factors that impact the ultimate taxpayer cost. This is, in part, because the $44 million bond is to be issued in four installments over time. For instance, if interest rates rise (or if the city’s credit rating deteriorates), homeowners may pay more than what the city has projected. Indeed, per the city’s official statements in the ballot, the bond interest rate could ultimately be as high as 12%. Given Burlingame residents would be responsible for paying back the principal and interest payments on this $44MM series of financing, they are the ones ultimately assuming the interest rate risk and uncertainty.
   Thursday, October 5, 2006 @ 13:04

5. AgainstMeasureH

   October 6, 2006

   According to city officials with whom we’ve spoken, there are apparently SEVERAL different financing alternatives available for flood infrastructure improvements. These alternatives are NOT limited to just an assessed value property tax (the current proposal) OR flat parcel taxes. OTHER alternatives may include a Mello-Roos tax, a general utility tax or a dedicated utility tax.

   We believe all citizens reap the same flood infrastructure benefit, regardless of when they purchased their property. The City Council should go back to the drawing board and explore other financing methods that offer more certainty and fairness to Burlingame taxpayers.

6. AgainstMeasureH

   October 7, 2006

   It is important to note: Parcel taxes do NOT necessarily have to be flat taxes. Apparently, a municipality can levy different parcel rates depending on type of property (residential, single family, multi family, commercial). You can also charge commercial parcel taxes based on square footage. Obviously, there are MORE THAN JUST 2 ALTERATIVES OUT THERE (assessed value Prop 13, or flat parcel tax). For instance, here is something Oakland did (note they charged the commercial property owners by square footage): http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/alm/meas/Q/

7. Anonymous

   October 11, 2006

   Three out of four major political parties in San Mateo County have officially endorsed “NO” on Burlingame Measure H (the other major party has issued no official endorsement). Please see our website: http://www.againstmeasureh.com