Amid the steady drumbeat of housing affordability and lack of same, one entity doesn’t seem to have any problem buying up real estate. The San Mateo County government is buying left and right regardless of whether the cities they are buying in like it or not. Today’s DJ headline is “Contentious land buy OK’d; County buys Foster City property for Human Services Agency“. Another $29 million to upgrade the second largest department’s digs. The La Quinta motel purchase in Millbrae sparked all sorts of protests and a recall election (which was successful). The “sobering center” planned for B’game’s Bayfront may be controversial with some nearby business owners and hoteliers, but it hasn’t sparked the same ire as the San Mateo proposal on El Camino did. Just another run-of-the-mill $13 million purchase. There is the “affordable housing” project in Daly City and Caltrain had no problems getting primo space in the new Millbrae complex but constantly reminds us it may literally go under soon.
One wonders when the belt-tightening will begin? Perhaps the November election will send a message about it.
I know a bit about premium priced consulting services that I learned over 30 years including some engagements with government agencies. When the Daily Journal headline screamed “High pay for Caltrain consultant”, I thought “How high?” Luckily the subhead read “Transit agency pays $1.4M for deputy leader, amount over three times top-paid executive director’s salary”. Wow. Is that for a one person, one year extension, not a contract with a firm staffing three or four or more consultants? That’s premium with a capital P. But it gets worse. That front page piece on July 6th came out the same day the purported million-dollar consultant, Sherry Bullock, was scheduled to present the state of the B’way grade separation to our city council.
Thanks to a tipster, I got the word that the presentation didn’t go so well. The video is not streaming smoothly for me, but around 1:05 on this link you can start to feel the confusion and maybe a bit of desperation from the 20-year Caltrain veteran! When asked to spell out some of the arcane acronyms (and there are many) lower-priced staff had to jump in with an assist. The $1.4 mil was looming large given the newspaper was probably still in the box outside city hall. The piece is a little convoluted, but according to a later LTTE from Jeff Gee (Caltrain board and RWC councilmember) “That was a max authority to a consulting firm. Caltrain paid a quarter of that and is closing out the contract.” So perhaps we are down to $350K–that still some “max authority” for someone who is also charging overtime.
And yet we know, because Caltrain told us, that it is on the brink of disaster. Per the DJ
After adopting a $270 million operating budget, Caltrain is reiterating short- and long-term plans to narrow its deficit with a state loan and upcoming sales tax ballot measure — or else it could shut down entirely, leaders say.
Cue the DJ two days later discussing the formation of some opposition to the “Connect Bay Area” 14-year duration sales tax increase.
The measure would be the sixth transportation-dedicated sales tax in San Mateo County. Measures A, W, RR and the San Mateo County Transit District tax are administered by the county, with a portion of the state-mandated 7.25% sales tax going to local transportation efforts as well. They’re thinking, ‘well we’re getting bailed out by the government,’” said Peninsula resident Gregg Dieguez, a member of the Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit. “They are used to spending our money, rather than reforming what they’re doing.”
This ain’t rocket science, kids. The primary Caltrain commuter rail line spans 77.2 miles between San Francisco and Gilroy. The core corridor between San Francisco and San Jose Diridon Station is approximately 48 miles long. We not running Amtrack or the TGV here. And this is going to be a very tough election for new taxes, bond measures, and whatever else got thrown against the wall by anyone other than the Howard Jarvis people. Couple that with the fact that the B’way grade separation (remember that?) is still not close to being fully funded. The question is “are we getting what we are paying for?”
I’m not sure the best way to sell a new bond measure to the B’game taxpayers is highlighting the Big Number, but that was the approach taken in official comments for the DJ article. Back in April, the decision to jump from $89M to $100M was seen as not having any red or yellow flags as we noted here. Phrasing it as $16 per $100K of assessed property value makes it seem small, but these days of “affordability” concerns and whatever else lands on the November ballot create uncertainty. Recent buyers in particular can do the math since assessed value equals purchase price, e.g. a recent $2.5M purchase would come with a $400/year school tax–small compared to the $25K property tax but it all adds up. The DJ notes
The Burlingame School District Board of Trustees unanimously approved placing a $100 million bond measure on Nov. 3 ballots at its board meeting June 9. Some of the school sites in the district are over 100 years old, Superintendent Marla Silversmith said, and one trustee coined a pitch for the bond as the “$100 million bond for the 100-year-old schools,” Silversmith said.
Improvements included on a project list further detail the modernization that would take place, the replacement of antiquated portable classrooms with permanent facilities, the installment of energy efficient systems and infrastructure, improving school site parking and traffic circulation, and more.
This as-yet-unnamed General Obligation bond for CapEx is separate from Measure GG passed in November 2024. That is an 8-year parcel tax that provides approximately $3.6 million annually exclusively for academic programs, smaller class sizes, and teacher retention.
You probably already got the mail piece and should expect at least a couple more in the next five and a half months. The primary we just had did not bode well for new taxes and it’s hard to see how that will change in a couple of months.
It’s one thing when a complete neophyte doesn’t know or follow the rules. It’s quite another when someone who has been in the game for years doesn’t follow the rules. And it is even worse when the candidate is running for Chief Elections Officer (and Assessor/Clerk Recorder). County Supe David Canepa has been in the game for a long time and I’m sure he knows the rules against posting campaign signs on public right of way. So why not get his workers to follow the rules? He was at an event on the Avenew two days ago and may have even seen this illegally placed sign. Not cool. And we still have two weeks of frantic sign placement to go.
The news that council member Michael Brownrigg will not seek re-election in the Fall was made official this week. Voice readers were not surprised as we wrote that more than a month ago, when Michael told me he would make the announcement at the April 6th city council meeting as noted here on the Town Square post. Apparently, that didn’t happen until now as the Daily Journal picked it up yesterday and is highlighting two candidates who will seek the D3 seat. At least we will have one race. We shall see if anyone files to compete with Andrea Pappajohn (D1) or Peter Stevenson (D5) who are both up for re-election on Nov. 3rd.
The two D3 candidates, Jen Faber and Howard Wettan, are starting earlier than usual driven by the open seat. I know both candidates having met with both one-on-one for more than an hour to talk over local issues as they explored running. Jen Faber and her work with BCE was profiled here and I didn’t write up Howard after we met. Here are a few early thoughts on an early-starting race:
The move to Five Little Districts we discussed in 2021 here continue to do city governance no favors. In a small city of a shade over 30,000 people, it makes no sense to carve it up in little pieces. First, it takes away 4 of the 5 votes residents used to have. As we are seeing this time around, it also diminishes good candidates’ opportunities to win a seat. Jen and Howard are both strong candidates and, in my opinion, would be uber competitive in a city-wide race against the incumbents up for re-election. But they are corralled into competing just against each other.
In the meantime, it is quite possible we will have no competitive election in one or both of D1 and D5. Is there really that much difference in issues between little districts? Does anyone feel better represented? I know locals who kind of pay attention and still don’t know who “their” councilmember is. Having to vote every four years instead of every two doesn’t help voter engagement. Nor does it do much for candidate engagement–nobody is knocking on doors outside of their little district.
Both D3 candidates are strong. Both are committed to B’game. Both have assembled solid endorsements. Both will be sufficiently funded (about the only benefit of little districts is the savings on postage). We shall see how the candidate forums play out and whether people see a clear issues-based choice or vote on person knowledge. At least we will have one race.
P.S. Michael was appointed to the Planning Commission in 2001–more like 25 years of service, not 16.
We occasionally need some comic relief here at the Voice. If it comes with a dose of common sense, so much the better. This week we were treated to an SF Comicle letter to the editor from one of those people who write (and get published) often. She is apparently with a group called the Richmond Progressive Alliance and wants to weigh in on the possible “billionaire tax” that we may have to vote on in November. That figures. It’s hilarious.
Because even after paying the one-time 5% tax, someone with $1 billion in assets would still have $995 million — sufficient to continue living in opulent luxury — while contributing to state revenues for needed services and enhancing the economy.
The billionaires who oppose this tax show their true colors of mean-spiritedness and greed. The only argument they can offer against it is threatening to leave the state in droves.
Well, so be it. May they leave our beautiful state to those who value a more equitable use of resources that benefit all. The billionaire tax is a no-brainer. Don’t fall for the mean-spirited fear-mongering about it.
Marilyn Langlois, Richmond
OK, dear readers. Why is it hilarious? C’mon folks. 5% of $1 billion is $50 million, not $5 million. So the imaginary billionaire would be left with $950 million. Marilyn is only off by $45 million but expects us to take advice from her about taxes. Do you think the Comicle editors also failed 6th grade math? Or did they just publish it to see if anyone noticed? Matt Mahan is the only gubernatorial candidate with a D behind their name that has come out against the billionaire tax. He gets a gold star on his math quiz. Langlois gets an F. Same goes for her Econ 101 quiz.
Even with Gov. “Kneepads” Newsom termed out of Sacramento and travelling the world to lay the groundwork for a presidential run, the race for governor has been a total yawn so far. Katie “Get out of my f*^%king shot” Porter is toast. As Randy Wong said today on the John Phillips Show (12-3pm 810am KSFO), “people either don’t know who Tom Steyer is or really don’t like him” regardless of how many expensive commercials he runs during Warriors games. The rest are pretty much ho-hum at best. The saddest is Tony Thurmond, state superindendent of public instruction, which would be the biggest example of the Peter Principle in history.
But the news this morning that San Jose major Matt Mahan’s wife gave him to go ahead to jump into the race, as he relayed in an interview with Ashley Zavala of KCRA Sacramento, has invigorated the race to the June 2nd primary. Per the SF Standard:
But Mahan does have some aces to play: He has won the ardor of some of California’s technology crowd, including Y Combinator leader Garry Tan and entrepreneur Jesse Tinsley. That cohort alone could provide the millions needed to propel him to Sacramento. He has also carved out a moderate, party-bucking lane on homelessness and criminal justice (e.g. a big Prop 36 supporter) that a large swath of voters might find appealing, as Democrats continue their soul-searching after the 2024 election. And in a political environment where bucking the status quo is in vogue, Mahan has been quick to criticize the state’s leadership, which could excite both disaffected voters and well-heeled donors.
As mayor, Mahan has pushed for stricter rules on unsheltered homelessness, is an advocate for interim shelter sites, and often rails against state regulations he says stymie housing production. He is considered an ally to business interests, and, like San Francisco’s mayor, has largely stayed out of national political conversations. He has instead argued that his energy should be spent on combating local issues. His term in San Jose runs until 2028, after he handily won reelection in 2024.
A reasonable person could ask, “why would you want the job?” when the next governor will inherit budget deficits as far as the eye can see–or passed it, if (when) the stock market hits its next speed bump. The emerging story is the public service unions and the health care unions with their “billionaire tax” vs. the “center-lane” candidate who can line up enough millions to level the advertising playing field. And if Mahan loses, he still has a job for two more years. Popcorn anyone?
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while and so it was this week with the SF Comicle Open Forum column. Under the title State needs to expand Legislature, some SF attorney made the case that we need smaller Assembly and State Senate districts leading to more elected members. I seldom think we need more politicians, but he makes an interesting point.
California has fewer legislators per capita than any other state. The Assembly has 80 seats and the Senate 40, figures established in the 1879 Constitution and left unchanged even as the population grew from under 1 million to nearly 40 million.
Today, a single state senator represents more people than live in South Dakota. Districts of this scale make competitive elections the exception rather than the rule. Reaching such a vast number of residents requires money, name recognition and organizational infrastructure that challengers rarely have. The mechanics of campaigning tilt toward incumbents and the dominant party. A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in 2022 found that a majority of respondents believed the state was headed in the wrong direction. That same year, almost every legislator seeking reelection kept their seat.
Geography adds a separate problem. When a district stretches across counties and communities, minority-party voters in suburban and exurban areas are often lost in electorates so large that their preferences barely register. We saw the consequences of this dynamic in 2024 when Republicans won nearly 41% of the Assembly vote but secured only 25% of the seats.
The true irony of all this is that the Legislature foisted five tiny little city council districts on us at the local level. Back in 2021, with a push by a SoCal lawyer, we lost citywide council elections thus we each lost four of our fivevotes. Some people lost all five of their votes when no candidate stepped up to run. Similar micro-districting happened to school boards, water districts, et al. But not in Sacramento. Maybe it’s time, but the self-preservation force is strong for the status quo.
The whole sheriff removal soap opera might have to take a back seat to this week’s installment of political theater. The Guv signed the bill that puts Proposition 50 on the ballot November 4th. The Gavymandering bill to redistrict congressional seats across the state was signed Thursday and yesterday (Saturday) the first of many mail pieces about Prop 50 was in my mailbox! The opposition is quick and apparently well-funded.
ProtectFairElections.org says it is paid for by Right Path California. I’ve never heard of them, but I hear the father of the independent districting commission, Charles Munger, and Ahhnold Schwarzenegger are jumping in big time. We are in for an interesting two months. But it will be expensive entertainment costing taxpayers $250 million. With apologies to Paul Simon, 50 ways to leave your voter got stuck in my head.
“The problem is all inside your head,” she said to me
The answer is easy if you take it logically”
I’d like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be 50 ways to leave your voter
She said, “It’s really not my habit to intrude
Furthermore, I hope my meaning won’t be lost or misconstrued”
But I’ll repeat myself at the risk of being crude
There must be 50 ways to leave your voter
50 ways to leave your voter
You just slip out the back, Jack
Make a new plan, Stan
You don’t need to be coy, Roy
Just get yourself free
Hop on the bus, Gus
You don’t need to discuss much
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
The July 3rd edition of the Daily Post was all Corpus all the time with not one, two, or three, but four different articles plumbing the records that finally moved into public view. And there was no editorial in that issue. We covered the origins of the soap opera here back in November and the badges aspect here. Why the sheriff's lawyers filed documents without their standard secrecy veil is a mystery to me after all this time, but details abound. The first bit of news that I have not seen anywhere to date explains how Corpus is paying for all this legal work. The answer is we are paying. Per the Post:
The County pays for Corpus' attorneys. State law requires that if requested, an elected official such as the sheriff, can request to be represented by attorneys other than the county counsel.
Talk about Friends with Benefits. Even if she loses the whole case, will the County see a dime of what has to be a huge bill separate from what is rung up on their (meaning our) side? That sounds like a state law in need of a rewrite. A separate article titled "Records reveal more details about alleged affair" has an Undersheriff describing a professional conference he went to with Corpus and Aenlle where they were absent and missed appointments during the day. It also lists some damning text messages and quotes another officer whose parents live across the street from Corpus in San Bruno who saw Aenlle there and said he tried to duck him.
But the fourth killer article is about the sheriff's alleged slurs about Jews, lesbians, and her predecessor Carlos Bolanos. She is alleged to have called Half Moon Bay Capt. Rebecca Albin a "jew b****". I'm not sure why the Post feels the need for asterisks there when they quote her alleged description of Bolanos as a "coconut" according to Detective Morgan– "brown on the outside, white on the inside." Who knew there was a Latino version of Oreo, but she is also accused of calling him the N-word back in November? Make up your mind. But the absolute kicker is the allegation that she referred
to a Millbrae council woman as a "fuzz bumper" on three occasions, text messages show.
That's a new slur for a lesbian that I've never heard before. I checked Urban Dictionary and it's there. Recall that before running for county sheriff, Corpus' assignment was to oversee the small Millbrae-based force that Millbrae had outsourced to the County. It's hard to imagine the level of hubris to keep all this going at massive taxpayer expense.
Yesterday I picked up a copy of the little free paper Peninsula News that is offered in Woodside, RWC, etc by the Merc. Their editorial titled "Corpus review lacks fairness, transparency" in the July 4th edition probably went to print before they saw the "secret records" get filed and found. The Merc got way too far out over their skis and they now look foolish. We'll see if we see a mea culpa from the Merc.
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.
