70 responses to “What constitutes a “Hit Piece””

1. Anonymous

   January 7, 2007

   Jennifer, you know I am not missing the point. I am saying that if there is a need for a new tree in front of the Library, I am happy to be part of the solution. Nobody is being asked to step in this time – only the Library Board and Mrs. Hamilton who voluntarily want to help after “the process” of the Beautification (5:1), the Library Board (4:1), Council (3:2) and staff believe that an old tree should be removed.

2. Anonymous

   January 7, 2007

   I think the issue here is, do we need a new tree in front of the Library? It is my position, we do not need a new tree. there are alternatives available to save the tree, which would be cheater than removing the existing tree.

   We cannot forget, the arguments set forth the remove the tree have been anything but accurate.

   City Government NEEDS to be transparent and the elected officials need need to be held accountable for their actions, lack of action, or words. This is what we did with the last Council, held the elected officials accountable for making arguments out of whole cloth.

3. Anonymous

   January 7, 2007

   If there is confusion between the Library Board and the Library Foundation, please clarify. There is a link on this blog to what seems to be a “foundation”. It seems new as it only lists board members and not too much else. Fiona when you mentioned a “generous donation”, I asked in what amount and the reply was that you did not know. I wonder who does know? It seems an easy answer from either the “foundation” or parks and rec. The Library Board said they would be willing to consider a donation based on cost numbers from Randy S. I asked how much because getting the larger tree will certainly set a precedent for all the other trees that may be doomed and their eventual replacements. We may need more donors to get those larger trees to match the Easton tree replacement! I would hope that would be part of a “reforestation plan”. Anyhow, it’s not really the point.

   But, it would be nice to know more about the “foundation” and their contribution. Also, what is the cost difference for the tree the city would normally put in vs. an upgrade?

   thanks for any clarification.

4. Anonymous

   January 8, 2007

   I do not know much about the Library Board of Trustees other than meeting a few of the dedicated members who are chosen by the City Council. (click here and here for list of board members).

   The Library is supported by the City of Burlingame from their general fund budget. The Library Board of Trustees is an advisory board, authorized by the State of California in the California Education Code. Board members advise the City Librarian on community and library issues and act as an advocacy board on behalf of the support of the Library. Members of the Board of Trustees are appointed by the City Council for 3 year terms and may be reappointed.

   The Library Foundation is a fundraising arm of our library system and the ones I have attended (Birthday Bash Fundraiser and their Fundraiser Book sales twice a year) are very worthwhile fundraisers for the library. You can read more about the Foundation on their website, etc. (click here and here). According to their brochure (available at the Library) as of September 2003, the Foundation has contributed over $400,000 toward library programs and enhancements including extended patron hours, outreach programs for children and adults and renovations to the Easton Branch.

   The Burlingame Library Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the highest level of service, programming, and infrastructure at the Burlingame Public Library. The Foundation’s fund raising efforts are supported through contributions from individuals and small businesses in the community

   The Board of Trustees and the Burlingame Library Foundation are both separate entities with one very important goal in mind – our two beautiful libraries.

5. Anonymous

   January 8, 2007

   Thanks, Fiona!

6. Anonymous

   January 8, 2007

   Here is some important clarification from Library Administration this morning:

   The Board of Trustees have offered monies for a bigger tree.

7. Anonymous

   January 8, 2007

   So, we have two donations now, and how much are they? The city would normally put in a 15 gallon tree. Is the upgrade to a 24 or 36″ box?

   Now that I understand that these are two separate entities and have viewed the websites, I have more questions:

   Is the Foundation a 501(c)3 tax exempt non-profit? How does donating to a city tree fall within their mission perameters listed on their website? Can the community currently donate money to directly support the Easton tree replacement (not just the one at the Library, any Easton tree)?

8. Anonymous

   January 9, 2007

   The Burlingame Library Foundation is a 501(c)3 tax exempt foundation. The mission of the foundation is to:

   • Enhance the collection
   • Provide community access to state of the art information technology
   • Support creative programs that contribute to an enriched community life
   • Preserve and maintain the historic buildings and their interiors.

   Supporting the Burlingame Library Foundation is a great way to support our library and help make it an even more meaningful community asset.

9. Anonymous

   January 9, 2007

   In regards to the last Rich Grogan piece:
   The city council is only as good as the City of Burlingame employees information is.
   ie Randy Schartz.
   The city council depends on the consolidation of information to make decisions for the rest of us about “everything”.
   We have to hold employees of our city as much as our council responsible for poor decisions.
   That is an issue that needs to be given a lot of attention.

10. Anonymous

    January 9, 2007

    If you were to take at face value the reasons for the tree to be removed it would be gone, but that is not the case! The FACTS/DATA have shown that the arguments being made are out of whole cloth and there is a personal agenda to remove more than the Easton Library Tree.

    Another example of what I am talking about is the issue of service calls requiring the City (DPW) to respond to address some problem the roots of the Eucalyptus tree are causing. Well, this area hasn’t been a hot bed of activity! There are 2 service tags generated by the City addressing problems in the area of the Easton Library Eucalyptus tree. One was in 9-06 dealing with asphalting the “root hump? and prior to that there was a service order generated to repair the sidewalk next to the Library at 1804 Easton Drive and this service order was issued in MARCH OF 1995. Doesn’t sound, to me, there was a big problem with the roots causing damage to the surrounding area!

    According to a 2001 email, there was a discussion about removing more than the Easton Branch Library Eucalyptus tree on Easton Drive. The location is on the south side of Easton Drive west of Cabrillo Avenue. I wonder if the residents on Easton Drive are aware that more than one healthy tree is to be removed? This supports the idea/agenda that has been circulating for some time that there is a move afoot to remove more trees on Easton Drive than is being publicly reported.

    Remember, this is just the nose of the camel. If you do not want him sitting down and eating a meal with you, tell the Council Members to rescind their vote to remove the Eucalyptus tree in front of the Easton Library and preserve what livin history we have.

11. Anonymous

    January 9, 2007

    I think there needs to be am audit of the City of Burlingame upper managment.I am talking about an open, public, vetting of the employees that are hired to determine, make decisions that will effect the “City of Burlingame”.
    I am sure Randy Schartz is really good at schedluing soccer, BB, and senior citizen events. Where are the tree care issues?
    What are the long term effects of a person at that position has in regards to tree care/reforestation for the City of Burlingame?

    Randy Schartz- 151,000+ year
    Tim Richmond-121,000+ year
    + = 10-11 thousand in medical/etc benifits

12. Jack

    January 9, 2007

    Rich,

    Man, you got the attitude to be either a commissioner or even a council member. With your mentality, dedication…etc. about one tree in this little town, imaging if you used all that energy on Safeway, we might have 2 Safeway already!

13. Anonymous

    January 9, 2007

    Who was the fellow on Dragnet, who asked for “the FACTS M’am, just the FACTS?” Remember him?

    Too bad Rich wasn’t a Burlingame Public Works employee about three or four years ago when this started to take a life of its own….

14. Anonymous

    January 9, 2007

    In the DID YOU KNOW DEPARTMENT; did you know according to the arborist, who inspected the trees in October 04 he suggested CABLING certain trees. According to the arborist he suggested CABLING could extend the life of a tree by as much as 20 years. Did you know the arborist recommended checking existing cables on certain and CABLING the remainder?

    As I looked over the trees recommended to be CABLED I did not see any CABLES. If the City is truly concerned about the trees, why weren’t the recommendation of the City’s independent arborist followed?

    Are you wondering why all of these FACTS/DATA haven’t been brought forward by the City Council or City Staff, because I certainly am curious?

    Tucsonaz, please attend the January 16th Council Meeting and bring along some friends, who want to preserve a Historic Eucalyptus Tree on a Historical Drive.

15. neighbor

    January 9, 2007

    Maybe the city Board should look at tree campaign finance reform so that no one can donate more than 3 15 inch box trees or 1 36 inch box tree in one year. Favoritism towards one tree over another appears to be a real problem.

16. Anonymous

    January 9, 2007

    Jack, thank you for your kind words. Regarding Safeway, I would settle for a reasonable plan where Safeway includes the downtown area rather excluding the downtown area.

    I was just as passionatE about Safeway as I am the Library tree; mainly I do not appreciate people being dishonest about the facts. This Library thing has been reminding me of the previous council, which thank goodness the majority did not get reseated. Maybe this has to happen AGAIN so the message will be heard loud and clear BY those residents wishing to run for office, WE DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING GIVEN DISTORTED FACTS OR HALF TRUTHS!!!!!!!

    Somewhere our polititions have forgotten they are elected to REPRESENT the people NOT DICTATE to the people.

    I have had dealing with local politics, state politics for 15 years (+ or -) and once at the Federal level.

    My POP always told me, if you want beautiful roses start when they are young, prune properly, and always cut away all of the bad wood. Seems this might be a pretty good idea in local politics.

17. Anonymous

    January 9, 2007

    Rich, where is the link I asked you for re the June 05 meeting and the BC changing their vote?

    There is ONE donation from the Library Board of Trustees for a larger tree. Others would donate if needed.

    Why haven’t the trees been cabled? That would be a good question to ask but I don’t think anyone on the Voice would know the answer. Why not email Tim Richmond or Randy? Having just visited the Santa Barbara Mission they have successfully braced up their old trees (and also have a Spanish mission style fountain in front of their perfect building) but surely cabling does not apply to THE Tree because that is not the safety issue?

    Rich, could you post the 2001 email please. What was the reason for the other tree removal?

    How many service calls do we need to make an issue serious?

    Rich, dishonest about the facts – that is quite a statement? Seems to me that the Beautification TOOK a vote (in February) and the Library Board HAVE donated money for a bigger tree – at least two facts in your laundry list that are now corrected.

    All this energy, passion and throwing stones (or is it bad wood) should be channelled into getting the City of Burlingame to come up with a program where it is not just good people like the Library Board but ordinary people who want to be part of the solution of reforesting Easton and the City of Burlingame. This should be a wake up call.

    Or should we now argue ad infinitum (more committees, more study groups?) that Easton does not need reforesting and the rest of the City does not need more trees?

    The Parks Department should give us an idea what, where and when trees are needed and how new trees are going to be funded PLUS I hope our new Mayor will consider a Reforestation Giving Program in the list of goals for 2007/2008 so replanting can be a priority.

    This would be beautiful rosy progress amongst all this dead wood.

    Heck, two Safeways could be two perfect roses amongst the thorns and dead wood.

18. Anonymous

    January 9, 2007

    ONE donation? OK, now you have me confused. I’m pretty sure I attempted to clarify the difference between the Board and the Foundation, and their respective donations. I’m pretty sure it was noted here that the Foundation and the Board both donated.

    Still, we have nothing to substantiate a donation and/or an amount. Do not let this donation get lost amongst the vast rhetoric noted above. Something isn’t right here.

19. Anonymous

    January 10, 2007

    Fiona, quite a laundry list, but I will do what I can to respond to your questions. There isn’t a link; it is contained on a hardcopy, which I purchased.

    The cabling issue demonstrates the lack of concern. The city hired an arborist to inspect and render a decision about the trees. The arborist suggested cabling certain trees, which could extend the tree’s life span up to 20 years and the city has elected to ignore the suggestion. Now there is a liability issue, the city was advised to do something and they didn’t, ouch!

    The 2001 email is, also, on a hardcopy, which I purchased.

    I will bite, how many service calls does it take to make an issue serious, how many?

    Dishonesty, where was the the discussion about the BC’s June 05 vote to table the issue pending input from TSPC. TSPC, also, tabled the issue and did not get back to the BC. The Council indicated it would not move on removing the tree until there was a reforestation plan, which there isn’t a complete reforestation plan, as of yet, but the vote went forward, anyway!

    All this energy, passion and throwing stones you are correct, but the citizens did not initiate this issue, it was how the 3-2 vote came about and the hollow reasons used to support their position. I am not going to beat to death the safety argument, but they are completely unfounded. I am not going to beat to death the commission minutes or the votes, they are public record, which can be purchased.

    Jean has been dealing with the Library Board and Foundation issue/donation and it doesn’t seem to be settled. I, personally, spoke with Alfred, who indicated the Board DID NOT make any sort of donation for a replacement tree. I cannot send you anything that does not exist, sorry, but if you are able to enlighten me, I will be more than willing to apologize to either the Board or Foundation.

    So far, I have not received an apology from any of the Council Members for making statements that were not substantiated by facts.

    You and Terry have connections with the Library Board and the Library Foundation, so why is it so difficult to present the evidence of the generous donation?

    I do not understand what is going on, but I remember a time and the previous council where we stood shoulder to shoulder and challenged unsubstantiated statements made by the previous council, the destruction of perfectly healthy trees along the RR tracks, and speaking out about a historical building. Our challenges ranged from stop signs causing accidents, Ferrel House, Franchard Grove, to Safeway.

20. Anonymous

    January 10, 2007

    Moving right along, I have just taken a tour through the sewer system on Easton Drive from Drake Avenue to east of Cabrillo Avenue. Very interesting journey, which was filmed on January 13, 1999 and is the most recent evidence as to the condition of the interior of the sewer pipe. It was clear to me, this old clay system had seen better days and needed to be replaced, but for an eighty plus year old system it was still in pretty decent shape. It was very clear to see how the system could be overcome by ground water during the rainy season and in turn taxing the sewer treatment plant.

    My observations of the old system have been eliminated with the installation of the new plastic joint less sewer pipe sections between manholes. I have been told the new plastic system may encounter a different type of problem, because of its flexibility. We will just have to wait and see on this.

    The old system is circular and made out of clay. Almost all of the joints showed differing degrees of cracking, etc. Some of the sections showed lateral cracks and the sewer pipe showed sign of deterioration with small pockmark type holes as well as larger holes showing the dirt. It must be noted I did not see nor was it mentioned that roots were visible or caused the holes. The portion between Drake Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue had more root intrusion than the portion east of Cabrillo Avenue. When I mention roots I am not describing a root that is rigid like a stick or broom handle, I am referring to thin feathery type of roots. The camera vehicle did not have any problem passing these roots or negotiating the sewer pipe. In fact most of the roots swayed within the sewer pipe.

    This video counters the argument that the Easton Branch Library has been causing problems with the sewer system and the absence of service tags for city crews responding to this area to snaking out the sewer line to reestablish flow.