I haven't heard much about the lawsuit concerning the construction and reopening of Hoover School since our last post back in November, but this photo from today indicates construction has progressed quite a bit.
Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community
87 responses to “Hoover School’s New Wing”
-
It is a sad event when a small town can not rise to the most basic call for help,for good reason.
That area around Hoover School is really very far away from Burlingame. It might as well be Hillsborough.
I can see why there is very little support for the 3-5 homes that will be impacted by the traffic.
Oh well..
Tough Luck. -
Just for the record, the Hoover site is at the junction of Easton Dr., Canyon Rd., and Summit Dr. That makes it right at the junction of Hillsborough, two different sections of Burlingame proper and unincorporated Burlingame (Hills). It essentially has four neighborhoods touching it. That is hardly “very far away from Burlingame”. Just for the record.
-
From the most recent Burlingame Elementary School District Measure D bond oversight committee meeting notes:
Plaintiffs to the lawsuit have filed a request to stop all construction and “return the site to its original
condition.
o The District has filed an objection to this request and the cost that would be related to this action.
o The Judge has not issued a decision on this request, and therefore construction continues. -
Thanks, Lorne. I was there yesterday (Sunday) but it had the look of an active construction site. Any idea of the Judge’s timing?
-
No idea re: the judge’s timing. My only source of info is via this link on court’s website (for case type, select “civil”; the court case number is 519075): http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/CIVIL/default.asp
-
If Bruce Dickenson, would let Bruce Dickenson get invovled in this mess, there would be an Avenue created to finding a solution.
However, as most people do, they sit on their hands until the last minute, and wonder why me?
The City of Burlingame Elders have had very little cares about this project since it was proposed.
Like Global Warming, a missing passenger jet, Iraq/Afganistan,California Drought,HIV/AIDS,Occupy,Snowden…
It is over.
Next…. -
FYI:
——————
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
Hoover School Community Meeting
The City of Burlingame, the Town of Hillsborough, and Supervisor Dave Pine invite you to a community conversation regarding Hoover School:
WHEN: Saturday, May 10, 2014
TIME: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
WHERE: Hillsborough Town Hall
1600 Floribunda Avenue
Hillsborough, Ca
Questions may be directed to:
Lisa Goldman, Burlingame City Manager or Randy Schwartz, Hills
(650) 558 7204 650) 375-7400 -
And just as a timely follow up to my earlier post above, here is the judge’s final decision subsequently issued today (see highlighted item #6 on page 3):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/222975086/Hoover-Final-Decision -
Fellas, all I gotta say is WOW, what an unmitigated DISASTER. Bruce Dickinson has discussed, numerous times, how governmental agencies create these “inevitable conditions” or steamrolling processes that follow the philosophy if you just keep going, people are bound to accept it (such as HSR, high density apartments, Cal-train electrification, Cal-trans tree removal/ECR widening, ABAG “requirements”, parking structure/Post office project, etc the list goes on and on).
Proof positive of such a sad state of affairs with Hoover, where anyone in their right mind would have stopped construction until an EIR was completed after the scathing prelim ruling, but no, they had to continue in the blind hope that somehow everyone would just accept it because the building was, after all, “half finished”. Just more money spent for no good reason and now everyone has to suffer including Burlingame students. Why didn’t they get all the community involved in the first place, complete an EIR as others have pointed out, and then see what happens before spending any more money and breaking ground. Would have been much cheaper and the school would have probably been given the green light, ultimately. Now all what has been created is bad blood and hostility, causing anger to fester and the community to lash back. Bruce Dickinson is no psychologist, but yes I’ve worked with enough egos in the music industry to get a good read on human nature, and I gotta tell ya, that approach doesn’t work for people, guys.
Fellas, I gotta tell ya, Rick Terrones should think long and hard and re-assess his position on the Planning Commission. Bruce Dickinson sees that his firm managed to charge over $6 million dollars “managing” this debacle, though in a way he was doing his job for the client, BSD, and he and BSD probably got bad legal advice (as I said before, seeing some of these local lawyers operate is like watching a bad open mic night at a coffee house: lots to say, but terrible content and delivery). I also put partial blame on the courts for not placing an injunction on construction during the “preliminary” ruling. Seemed pretty cut and dry to me, just applying common sense, but again, I have no formal legal training.
Time to reduce the incestuous government, which is only costing Burlingame, in terms of money and community impact. This is too much, plain and simple,…really, too much. -
The Judge has issued an injunction prohibiting all further construction on the property until BSD complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and prepares a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which is a substantial and lengthy process. This means construction of both the new building and rehab of the existing building and anything else must immediately cease. Finally, a voice of reason. In her 45 page decision, Judge Weiner details the inadequacy of BSD’s traffic study and the clear problems this school will cause to the surrounding neighborhood. BSD’s in a big heap of trouble.
-
Never mind.
I just read the above article.
That should be a very interesting event.
Why are two City Managers attending.
Is the school in Burlingame or Hillsborough?
I thought it was Burlingame. -
CEQA and Full EIR was completely reasonable BEFORE the construction (and investment of our bond money) was to start…
-
It does not seem that there is any bond oversight in this case. Isn’t this the point made in the last Grand Jury Investigation. No lessons learned. If you do a Google search for the BSD Bond Oversight Committee the link takes to the web site of the architect who designed this whole mess. Isn’t that peculiar? This is the same firm who ramrodded this process without public notice in the community while circumnavigating the environmental law. Oh yes, the chief architect is also the chairman of the Burlingame planning commission. This is a Big Big mess and it is not the fault of the neighbors who spent their own money defending their neighborhood from this rogue school district and operatives. Folks, go to this meeting and do not be fooled by the BSD PR hoax to attempt to circumnavigate the results of this law suit. Sure they will line up the Mother’s Club,the Cub Scouts and Brownies to support the kids…But the reality is the School district got caught violating the law, and they are at fault. Ask the Superintendent — Why…
-
Agree with above comments, this could all have been avoided and significantly less costly if an EIR had been done in the first place. EIRs should be commissioned prior to construction. In addition to a violation of CEQA, the way BSD approached this project was 100% wrong and is a gross violation of public trust.
-
From the start of this BSD has given the illusion that this was a “re-opening” of the former Hoover School. The old school had parking and parents could drop off. The architect went wild and expanded the new building the huge annex that took away almost all of the parking. That set off the whole traffic problem. This was a major expansion and needed an EIR. BSD circumvented the EIR with a mitigated declaration as they knew that the EIR would have doomed their attempt to push all the traffic into the community. The Judge did an amazing job of seeing through the BSD mirage. The one-day traffic study was immediately debunked. No way that everything was A-OK. There is not enough parking for staff and the plan for the drop off is a joke. 1.5 minutes per car, after drop off the parents will single file down an intricate turn about. All will be supervised by who? The Hillsborough Police surely did not think it would work. What happens if we have a wild fire in the hills above? Absolutely no way this will work. The other thing exposed in the judges findings: BSD evaded public notice and any input from the Town of Hillsborough who had a lot of questions. They were totally blown off by BSD and also any neighborhood criticism was spun as NIMBY. This is really a tragedy. No way they can proceed with this idiotic plan. If they want to build a school on the site, they will need to tear down the new wing and restore the parking and drop off areas on campus. From the dubious start — when they grabbed this bargain basement property at the expense of the Valley School who were rejected by the Burlingame Planning Commission because of traffic concerns– BSD has behaved badly. They evaded EIR as they knew it would not pass muster. They declared war on the neighborhood and chopped down the wonderful heritage oaks in the area. They have continentally tried present the argument that a poorly designed school was ok because we have crowded schools. Lucky the judge did not see that way. If this school is built in the current state, we will have to live with the consequences for decades.
-
Bravo commonsense!
-
I went to the Saturday meeting and asked school board member Mark Intrieri what was the original Hoover budget and how much of our money has been spent thus far. He said he did not know but would get back to me. I was shocked that he did not know. This type of response reflects incompetence in my opinion. If this was his personal development I bet he would know how much money has been spent at any given moment. I think he just did not want to publicly admit what the unapproved project has cost us. Does anyone know? If not I will follow up to give you all an update.
Also why would the school board purchase the property and authorize construction without having the EIR completed?
Lastly what is Ricard Terrones relation with the city of Burlingame and the school board. Why does his firm get almost all design contracts? -
Richard Terrones is the Chair of the Burlingame Planning Commission. With that in mind, I’m sure that the school board felt that if they used his firm, that he would be able to railroad the project through the commission and permit process. He probably gets paid if it’s built or not. A bit shady I’d say and he should probably step down from the Commission.
-
I read somewhere that he is finishing his term and someone else from his firm was stepping up. Now would be a good time to toss a wrench into this process. Burlingame residents need to speak up and I know it is difficult to address as a lot of developers and Realtors in the local politics and they work like hockey enforcers when someone cross-checks one of their star players.
-
Fellas, I gotta tell ya, one of my favorite people to quote is these days is actually *the* Bruce Dickinson. Yes, I actually brought up the very questions (and answers) Apeceimer is asking a while back in this exchange (5th, 11th, and 17th posts):
http://www.burlingamevoice.com/2013/11/hoover-back-at-the-blackboard#comments
No need to repeat again, but for those new to this site, there is a long history of red flags and “call outs” from many insightful people, myself included. Yes, while I possess no crystal ball, I do know how pieces fit within a mosaic to arrive at probable conclusions. -
Listen guys, sorry had to have Julie, my secretary help me. It appears that I forgot to publish the quote from myself, Bruce Dickinson. Here it is (and thanks again Jules):
“Next time I see Rick Terrones at city hall, I’ll be sure to congratulate him on being $8 million richer for his work on Burlingame Schools. That’s more money than producing a couple of gold records in the music biz. Its also enough money to educate 25% of BSD’s kids for a year at $9000 per kid, the current funding per kid give or take a couple of bills that comes from the State.
Fellas I gotta tell you, it appears that this is a situation of incestuous government. Planning commissioners who are the gatekeepers for community project approvals and get $8 million richer in doing so. Is it because the architecture is so dynamite in nature that no other architect could come up with the ritzy new buildings at Lincoln? Is it because Frank Gehry really isn’t the shiz and the world’s best architecture is right in your backyard? Or is it because the favorite local architect du jour sits on the approval commission and can help grease the skids in getting things done and that service comes at a price!” -
Thank you for stating the obvious Mr. Dickenson.
I believe the reason that these small print plans get past the process for vetting, is the obvious fact that \From The City Manager, to the planning/engineering department, and City Attorney are seriously under qualified for their positions.
At times the City of Burlingame Council, and Dept. Heads reminds me of Mayberry RFD.
In my opinion if there is any hope for The city of Burlingame to move forward, the need to clean house-Dept. Heads, needs to be done, and let the new City of Burlingame Manager realize her “concept” to remake The City of Burlingame into a “Capitol of Silicon Valley.”
If anyone would ask for a FOIR from the City of Burlingame, regarding all the married employees, relatives of employee’s, past and present, incestuous is an understatement.
When will be able to get a Grand Jury investigation? -
Holyroller is definitely our hack. Holy for whatever
-
Per the below link to the expenditure reports distributed at the most recent May 1st bond oversight committee, the total outlay to-date for Hoover is $13,522,335. This includes $306,625 for attorney fees related to the lawsuit. Please note the document via the following link has two pages (one for each the two bond measures, 2007 Measure A and 2012 Measure D, respectively):
http://www.scribd.com/doc/224142744/Hoover-School-Burlingame-Expenditures-5-1-14 -
Lorne’s post also shows what the expected costs are for the school: $24,000,000 as projected. $24,000,000 for 1 daycare and 11 classrooms? What does Bruce Dickinson think of that?
-
Listen guys, while Bruce Dickinson has been called a “Renaissance Man” numerous times in the past, I must give credit where credit is due. I will give you both the obvious and not so obvious. I gotta tell ya, I’ve got a lot of “guys”, i.e. experts that help me deal in the art of adjudication in matters where I may not be as much of an expert as they are. For example, I’ve got my legal guy, my investment guy, my IT guy, my groundskeeper guy, my car guy, my secretary (well technically not a guy, but you know what I mean), my winemaker guy, etc.
Well one of my most important “guys” is my local dealmaker guy, whose first name is actually Guy, as it were, and whom I rely on for real estate and the major Dickinson-sized transactions, such as the steal of a property that I got in the Anderson Valley for the grapes I’m growing. I was just on the horn with Guy on Thursday, talking about Burlingame’s gushing wound, namely Hoover. He said look Bruce, I’ll tell you the facts and you adjudicate. McKinley and Lincoln expansions were done at $600,000 dollars per classroom. Hoover is being done at $2.4 million dollars per classroom. Backing out the land acquisition at around $5 million dollars, still comes out to around $2 million dollars per classroom and that is on the low side. The EIR and CEQA review costs can be doubled, delays will also cost more, and if the school is given the green light the parking/traffic improvements will cost more, and the legal fees will only balloon from here. And then consider this: what happens if the EIR is completed and the proposed school is not compliant with CEQA and is deemed to be illegal? Well if you take what has been spent to date and divide it by zero classrooms what is your answer?: UNDEFINED! (not to throw the concept of Infinitesimal Calculus at you guys, but it is what it is) Could you imagine spending $20 million dollars for nothing?!? My adjudication is that it would have been much easier/cheaper to expand at Franklin, Roosevelt, or even expansion #2 at Lincoln (and BIS will also have to be addressed at some juncture).
Well here’s another nugget from Guy: someone saw the writing on the wall and got out of Dodge quick, yes really quick. Dr. Robert Clark, BSD Assistant Superintendent for Business Services, under whose purview the whole Hoover project and CEQA compliance was tasked, quietly left BSD last year to join a district in the East Bay. Sadly, this may be a case where the consultants used to perform the environmental report and gave BSD advice were over-confident in their historical success rate and the success of our own Planning Commissioner guy, Terrones, to get things slam dunked in the past. Well guess what? There is a simple legal challenge and the whole house of cards collapses because of over-confidence, lack of past CEQA challenges, and the belief that incestuous government would somehow save the day. Those consultants, who I would not be surprised also get hired by the City of Burlingame, should be fired immediately.
Another quote comes to mind of another well-known deal guy, “Lose money for the firm, I will be understanding. Lose a shred of reputation for the firm, and I will be ruthless.” The BSD Board of Trustees as well as the Burlingame City Council (with purview over the Planning Commission) needs to look hard at all the actors in this debacle, adjudicate, and take proper action if it is needed, plain and simple. -
Bruce, I love that last quote about losing money/reputation. Who is the original source?
-
Bruce, awesome quote in the last of the many paragraphs 🙂 and I recognized it immediately. Is by businessman Warren Buffett. One of my all time favorite business quotes.
-
Bruce, you forgot to mention your local “bagman” guy
Also reminding you of one of your other favorite quotes – “Never, ever trust a bagman”
-JS -
Folks,
I was recently hired to underwrite a public school construction project and long term land lease for a consortium of several government agencies.
[Undisclosed Education Organization] has proposed a project which involves the new construction of 12 classrooms, an extensive multi-purpose building, and various site improvements at the northeast side of the existing [undisclosed San Jose area] School.
The planned total building area is approximately 27,849 sf, and once constructed is expected to serve up to 168 children and 75 staff.
Expanded parking will be constructed along the west side of the site, increasing available site parking from 90 to 125 stalls, 7 of which will be handicap accessible.
Total construction cost including hard and soft costs = $14,900,000 -
Bruce,
Please keep posting. You are spot on. I have always thought if we are going to be furthered taxed for Burlingame Schools we need responsible people who have common business sense.
I would invite you all to look at the School Board Memebers background and their decision making with Hoover School.
Would anyone seriously have those members manamge your money let alone the millions of dollars for Burlingame Schools.
Bruce will you run for School Board so we can throw out the current memebers? -
Listen, Joe Sarno, I don’t use bagmen because Bruce Dickinson doesn’t need to. Gold and Platinum records are quite legal and quite lucrative, thank you very much. It sounds like you’re the one who needs to use Clorox ultra-whitener to get the stains out of your own dirty laundry. Don’t assume that extraordinary success can be achieved with blood, sweat and tears, or in my case, with “ears”, if you will.
Never assume, hypothesize, or speculate on anything related to *the* Bruce Dickinson. There is more to the *cock of the walk* than meets the eye, or maybe ears, as it sounds like you are hearing some very tall tales. -
I loved Blood Sweat & Tears. David Clayton-Thomas is a true voice of rock and the horns could match TOP or Chicago but weren’t they on Columbia, Bruce? Not your label as I recall.
-
Shinnyo-en was essentially threatened that if they didn’t sell their private property (Temple) to the school district at a GREATLY impaired value of $4.9M (vs. the $7.6M that they had it in contract for to Valley International Academy), that The Temple would face Eminent Domain law suits. The Temple didn’t understand that the school district probably wouldn’t pursue such a controversial tactic, and so they sold at $4.9M, and The Temple got bilked out of $7.6M-$4.9M= $2.7M.
The stench of government abuse of power is overwhelming.
How would you like it if they bullied you and your neighbors out of millions in hard-earned (and donated in the case of the temple) life savings across that neighborhood? -
What hard proof do you have that this is true? I do not remember one whiff of eminent domain. I do remember Shinnyo-en being very generous to BSD which didn’t surprise anyone.
-
Guys, listen, I agree with Resident’s skepticism about the eminent domain “threat” and the Temple being bullied to sell to BSD. If I’m understanding this correctly, a Buddhist Temple getting commercial real estate and commercial quality legal advice gets bullied by the BSD and backs away from a real offer and sells at a hugely discounted price to its fair market value to BSD. This same 900 pound Gorilla bullying BSD is then confronted by a simple legal challenge under CEQA from a couple of neighbors and the whole Hoover project collapses like a house of cards?!? Sorry but that Gorilla was really a 20 pound monkey after all and this got discovered by 3 neighbors?
Also, eminent domain use requires fair compensation, and what better way to determine that than there being a real offer from another buyer. The Buddhist Temple should have let BSD seize the property via eminent domain, and have gotten compensated $2.7 million dollars more, as that is the fair market value established.
Call me a little confused but this does not pass Bruce Dickinson’s simple logic test, unless I am completely missing something. -
Actually, in eminent domain, an offer to purchase is inadmissible as evidence of fair market value. Only actual closed sales can establish market value.
-
EPC, think you have that wrong. Not what CA law says.
-
This is a great “thread.”
I am very surprised and disappointed that this unusual use of public funds, has not received any Major SF Bay Area Media Coverage.
However, my understanding that a “School District “is an Autonomous Corporation, doing business within an Autonomous Development. Not beholden to any local laws, even building codes that apply to every other property owner in the community.
So, the people who provide service’s-employees of the school district are exempt from normal law that apply to every other State of CA. business regulations.
Does anyone know if that is what a School District is? -
Lovacore
Evidence Code section 822(a)(2) precludes an offer to purchase as evidence of value. It’s basic Eminent Domain law. -
It was in contract at $7.6M pending city approval for a small boarding school that would have shuttled bused the intl students in from off site dorms.
I personally know the former head of Valley Intl, I just had coffee with him.
I personally know the real estate head of The Temple, and I just had lunch with him.
So, Bruce and all the rest can try to be funny about their platinum records and their whiffs and opinions, but I use primary resources not rumor and opinion.
“They said they were going to use eminent domain.” -
The government is required to pay the “fair market value” of the property it acquires by eminent domain. California’s Eminent Domain Law generally defines fair market value as:
“The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by the seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.”
Evidence of fair market value is generally presented to the jury by real estate appraisers retained by each of the parties. Real estate appraisal is not an exact science, and as such, appraisers often differ in their opinions of value in a particular case. In fact, in a great many cases, the government’s appraiser and the owner’s appraiser may disagree by tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions of dollars!
The evidence code thing is interesting, but does not mean that an appraisal can’t help determine FMV which includes the marketability of the property per the definition of “fair market value”
If what people are saying is true on the interference of BSD in an arms-length transaction, I personally believe 1) that’s terrible and unethical 2) the temple got bad legal advice; 3) a simple application of game theory would have saved the temple per Bruce’s logic; 4) anyone with intimate knowledge of this – prepare to be subpoenaed! -
There are many questions as to how we got were we are today. All very valid questions that should be pursued to make sure there was nothing illegal when it comes to contracting and influence peddling.
These charges are being used to justify the lawsuit that has halted construction delaying the opening. Detractors are using all kinds of issues to stop it but at the end of the day, they are not interested in safety, good fiscal policy, transparency or education. They have only one objective: stop the school from opening.
Forgetting for a moment how we got here, does anyone think is is good for the community at large to abandon the project and sell off the land for residential development at what would likely be a healthy profit for the School District?
I am not sure what options the district had to accommodate the growing student population. I don’t know if the board bullied the temple. I don’t know if it made sense to do a full EIR from the beginning. I don’t know if Mr. Terrones used his position on the Planning Commission to influence the outcome. I do know that paying legal fees and having a half=built school is costing tax payers. For what? If we assume 250 students, some of which share rides, some of which will walk, then the number of cars traveling to and from is much lower that that. The traffic studies estimated 98 but lets say its 130. So here we are at at standstill over how to move 130 cars through for drop off and pick up. Does anyone here believe this is right? I feel we are being held hostage by a small number of neighbors intent on a land grab. They want the site abandoned as their own private playground while others bear the burden of overcrowded schools and congestion on their streets. Yes, lets look at all the issues above but in the meantime, lets get the school opened! -
Here are the minutes from the April 27, 2009 Burlingame Planning Commission meeting – the only meeting, I believe, during which Valley International School was on the agenda. Discussion of Valley International begins at the bottom of page 9 of the minutes, and concludes at the top of page 13. Following page 14 (the final page) of the minutes are the referenced Staff Report and attachments for the agenda item pertaining to Valley International:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/225680651/Burlingame-Planning-Commission-Minutes-April-27-2009-Valley-International-2200-Summit-Drive -
I feel your reasoning/defense is the #1 factor as to how this ridiculous waste of taxpayer money, came about.
The entire project is obviously more about “people” connected with the building of the school, the selling and purchasing of the school, the contractor that received work, than the need for it.
This is like a “lead in” to a Soprano’s TV show.
Eventually, the truth will come out.
I do not know if Justice will prevail due to this being a School District event.
I believe the school should be stopped from being completed, and ALL the people that made money or received any “compensation” whatsoever present their case to the community.
That way we can all understand how this project got started, and what justification given, most importantly, who gave the School the Green Light.
Really JROC…
All that money for 250 students?
This is not just about traffic, tree removals, smog. It is about
cheating-loopholes, influence peddling, I scratch your back now, I will scratch yours next time, in many ways a Premeditated theft of Public funds and trust. -
JROC – before judging whether this school project was properly planned and studied, you should study the Judge’s 45-page decision, along with the administrative record supporting it. Maybe then you will have an appreciation of what was (and wasn’t) done by the District. This goes well beyond just a few neighbors’ concerns. The “interests of the children” mantra should not be used to trump common sense or private property rights, among other things. The District violated the law, plain and simple. Now it must suffer the consequences of it’s actions. The District was given fair warning from the beginning and could have chose a different path that would have minimized, if not eliminated the predicament it now faces. Blaming the neighbors for standing up to protect their rights and hold this rogue District accountable is both ignorant and unpatriotic.
-
I’m starting to worry that I may get a legal bill for all this “free” wisdom. All of you may continue, but we are not paying a dime, OK? The Voice’s mission is to educate and inform–for free.
-
Good afternoon, my fine Burlingame neighbors…
I thought that you might enjoy checking out this upcoming event in Los Gatos:
http://www.theconservativecalendar.com/events.php?getevent=274
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
9:00 AM
Your Property Rights at Risk!!
Mimi Steel, founder of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights will be our speaker.
If you like your town you can keep your town, right?
Wrong if the 25 year plan that One Bay Area and The Association of Bay Area Governments has in store for you goes unchallenged.
Targeting every community in all nine counties, the character and control of those things traditionally determined by city councils will be transferred to appointed officials ruling from a regional over-structure.
The very character of the place you chose to live is in jeopardy of being altered and urbanized by un-elected bureaucrats in the name of themes like “distributive justice”.
Plans for high density housing, re-zoning and transportation oriented development will result in higher costs of living and less freedom of lifestyle choice.
Please join us June 18TH to hear expert Mimi Steel of Bay Area Liberty and President of SF Bay Citizens Alliance for Property rights discuss this assault on liberty that threatens to effect us all.
Location: Garden Room at Los Gatos Lodge, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, Los Gatos near Highway 17.
Time: Check in 9:00 AM, Meeting begins at 9:30 AM
Cost: $15 includes continental breakfast
Visit our website for more information and to purchase tickets: http://www.SVARW.com
Cost: $15.00
Sponsored by: The Silicon Valley Association of Republican Women -
What is your Candidates view on Proposition 13?
RECENT COMMENTS
RECENT POSTS
CATEGORIES
- Bayfront Development
- Books
- Broadway
- Burlingame's Best
- City Council
- City Finances
- Climate
- Community Events
- County Issues
- Crime
- Design Review
- Dine Burlingame
- Downtown Specific Plan
- Easton Addition
- Elections
- Free Stuff (Not)
- Friends with Benefits
- Gems of Burlingame
- General
- High Speed Rail
- Historical
- Hospital Redevelopment
- Library
- Local Real Estate
- Music
- Parking
- Planning
- Police Report
- Post Office
- Power (Electricity, Gas)
- Rec Center
- Rent Control
- Restoration Jewels
- Sacramento Stupidity
- Safeway
- SamTrans-Caltrain
- San Mateo, H'borough & Millbrae
- Schools
- SFO Airport
- Shop Burlingame
- Smart Growth
- Sports
- State Ievel issues
- Streets of Burlingame
- Tech Stuff: Spam Control, etc
- Telecom & Cable Service
- Trees
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer Extraordinaire
- Water
- Wildlife
ABOUT THE VOICE
The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice are those of the poster and commenter and not necessarily the opinion of the Editorial Board. Comments are subject to the Terms of Use.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
All content subject to Copyright 2003-2026
Leave a Reply