Category: Elections

  • Housing Maneuvers – Part 1 Pausing the land grab

    We noted that the real action County-wide and State-wide in the Fall election is in the propositions and initiatives since the candidate voting is pretty much a given.  B'game will have a real race or two, but outside our little town there is a lot of fait accompli.  But one controversial move that will not be on the ballot is the County land grab for "affordable housing".  The DJ is noting that the Supes, in their wisdom, have decided to "pause" their land grab.

    Despite a poll suggesting majority voter support, San Mateo County will not be placing a measure on November ballots allowing the development of low-income housing units without voter approval, in pursuant of Article 34 of the state Constitution.  The measure, initially presented at a special meeting of the board July 22, would have provided authorization for the county and other public agencies to construct or acquire affordable rental housing for low-income residents — up to 1% of total existing housing units — without voter consideration. 

    Although Chief Executive Officer Mike Callagy maintained Article 34 “has no place in this county,” he did not ask the Board of Supervisors to consider approving such a measure placement this election cycle.

    One has to wonder what other bits and pieces of the state Constitution have no place in San Mateo County?  Perhaps we could get a list?  The usual blather about "racism in homeownership" and "constituent confusion" and wanting to be "collaborative" with local cities and not "usurp their authority" ensued. The reality is the November ballot is already stuffed with pork.  So much so that voters are likely to Just Say No to the whole lot.  Half Moon Bay and Millbrae led the public charge against this land grab.  Here's hoping B'game electeds did so quietly but firmly.

  • Millbrae recall election: Sign of things to come?

    The La Quinta dogfight in Millbrae described a year ago here that pits the city against the county over tax revenue and homeless housing has given us an unintended view of the future.  The move to district elections at the city level was clearly voter suppression–taking away 80% of any individual's votes for city council and creating tiny little districts supposedly to improve "equity".  Couple the two issues together and we now see that recalling elected officials gets easier.  One hot-button issue can spin up enough people in one (or in this case two) tiny districts easily enough to qualify for a recall election.

    I will skip the personalities involved, but the Daily Journal piece also shows the cost of these efforts at municipal self-determination and running special elections:

    Millbrae is also embroiled in ongoing litigation against the county for choosing to move forward with the project — which the county intends to fund through still in-flux Project Homekey money, as it has done at several other locations throughout the county.   The lawsuit, which has cost the city $230,000 as of May, City Manager Tom Williams said previously, alleges that Millbrae residents have a right to vote on whether they want the housing project in their community under Article 34 of the state Constitution. 

    (Councilmember) Cahalan said she’d wait to see the results of the lawsuit — which the presiding judge said would be returned by June 26 — before commenting further on the project.

    And on the cost front:

    The special election will cost the city approximately $143,000. The councilmember will be recalled if more than 50% of the votes are in favor. Once they are removed, the positions will be vacant until it is filled by appointment or an election to the unexpired terms.

    While that sounds like a lot of money, remember Millbrae would stand to lose $750,000 every year in perpetuity from the lost hotel tax.  One wonders if the Malibu attorney behind the move to tiny little districts had this in mind? 

    Millbrae recall

  • Prop. 47 Shenanigans around the ballot

    You know things are getting bad in Sacramento when even the SF Comicle starts calling out the legislature as "shady".  An initiative to reverse Prop. 47, which was approved by our clueless electorate a decade ago to reduce the penalties on drug offenses and theft, is headed for the November ballot.  As we noted, the action on the ballot this Fall is in the initiatives.  The shady bits to stymie the initiative are slowing coming out as even Emily Hoeven at the Comicle has caught on:

    Earlier this year, lawmakers unveiled a bipartisan package of bills that would, among other things, create a new crime for serial retail thieves, allow prosecutors to combine certain low-level thefts when charging offenders, permit courts to issue retail theft restraining orders and institute sentencing enhancements for those who steal, resell and destroy especially large amounts of property.  Thus far, the package has been smoothly chugging through the Legislature. 

    But Democrats have now cooked up a scheme to kill most of their own bills if voters approve a ballot measure to reform Proposition 47 — the controversial 2014 initiative that reduced penalties for some drug and theft offenses — which formally qualified Tuesday for the November election.

    Last week, news leaked that Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire planned to amend the Democratic public safety package to make it effective immediately upon Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature, rather than the customary first day of the new year, and then repeal it if voters approved the Prop 47 reform measure. 

    It was a crafty, if cynical, strategy that effectively left ballot measure supporters with a choice: Either they could support the package of bills, which were all but guaranteed to become law in a matter of weeks, or they could take their chances with the ballot measure, which voters might or might not approve and which would require millions of dollars in campaign funding.

    Click through to the Comicle piece for all the dirty little moves, the virtue signaling about "mass incarceration", demonizing district attorneys and whatever else our betters in Sac who have the super majority can throw against the wall.  It really is appalling.

  • Election 2024: The action is in the initiatives

    Dan Walters at Calmatters.org has distilled the upcoming election for us noting that the candidate-based voting is a forgone conclusion, but the numerous initiatives is where the action will take place.  I grew up in "Taxachusetts" but my home state has nothing on California.  Squeezing more blood from the middle-class stone is on-going and the question is will this be the election where the backlash arrives?  As Walters writes

    The scale of the conflicts is most evident in an initiative, sponsored by the Business Roundtable and anti-tax groups, that would make state and local tax increases markedly more difficult to enact.  It hits Democrats and their allied public employee unions where they live and they have mounted a two-pronged effort to block passage: a lawsuit, now pending in the state Supreme Court, to strike the measure from the ballot, and a competing proposition that would impose a higher and potentially prohibitive vote threshold on the tax measure.

    On crime, he notes the ballot will include an "initiative that would modify Proposition 47, a 2014 ballot measure that reduced penalties for many crimes."  I think of it as the "Walgreen's initiative" after hearing multiple instances of people walking out of the store on B'way with a garbage bag full of stuff.  You want shampoo?  Call a clerk to unlock it.  Today's Comicle has a piece about some Safeway taking out the self-check kiosks and it ain't because they want to hire more checkers.  Walters expects the backlash initiative to qualify.  Further down the ballot:

    Other high-profile measures either qualified or likely to qualify include a business-sponsored initiative that would repeal the Private Attorneys General Act, a two-decade-old union-sponsored law that makes class action lawsuits against employers relatively easy to file. Others include a third effort to make it easier for local governments to enact rent control, a boost in income taxes on high-income Californians to finance pandemic prevention, and an increase in the state’s minimum wage.

    Talk about dumb and dumber.  Let's mess up the rental market, the entry-level job market and kill the Golden Goose all in one fell swoop.  There are five months to go.  We shall see if the voters have had enough or if we get more of the same.  Stay tuned.

  • SFO: The neighbor who will never move away…..

    A regular Voice reader and correspondent, Peter Garrison, has been on the case this week about Korean Air KAL 214 spewing 88-91 decibels over B'game and Hillsborough at 2:55 am.  It must be pretty important Korean freight for their 747 to wake up 100's (1000's?) of people.  One can only imagine.

    I'm hoping whichever candidate takes over Dave Pine's County Supervisor seat in November will Do Something Serious about the runway backblast and late night overflight noise.  Jackie Speier put some effort into the problem with Congressional legislation that needed more of a push as noted here.  I've seen Ann Schneider address the noise issue at the Airport Roundtable Ground Noise subcommittee a couple times.  She's a bit of a scatter shot but understands the problem and with some good technical and legislative guidance might make progress.  Either one of them would be more focused than the Supe who thinks either the Gazan Palestinians or the Israelis give a rat's ass about what she or San Mateo County, CA thinks.  Looking at you Noelia Corzo–dullest knife in the drawer. 

    Here's the latest bit of aggravating noise (decibel) data on KAL 214.  If you played your car speakers at the level on ECR at 2:55 am you would be arrested.

    Korean Air flight path

     

  • City Council: Ricardo Ortiz steps down. Now what?

    B'game does not see a lot of mid-term resignations by city council members.  Mike Coffey and Jerry Deal did it, but those are the only ones I can recall.  Back then things were simpler.  We didn't have 80% voter suppression driven by the threat of a lawsuit from some lawyer from Malibu who we bent over for and went to district elections.  But before we get to that, here is Ricardo's statement as posted to his Facebook account:

    Yesterday,I gave Mayor Colson my resignation letter. After 10 years as a member of our City Council, I have decided that with changes at work, it has become too difficult to fully serve the citizens of District 1 and the City at large.
     
    It has been an honor serving all these years and I thank the citizens of Burlingame for trusting me. In these ten years, I have served as Mayor twice and had many regional leadership positions including Chair of the SFO Community Roundtable, Chair of the Central County Fire Board, Vice Chair of C/CAG. I have served on multiple sub-committees of which the Community Center and Broadway Grade Separation stand out.
     
    This has been a very important part of my life and I am going to miss it. Mostly, I’m going to miss all the wonderful people I have worked with in Burlingame and beyond. I am proud to have served with an exceptional group of Council Members many of whom I consider my friends. Our City staff has been a big highlight. They are true gems and we are very fortunate to have their smarts and dedication. I can’t say enough about our department heads and their cordial working relationship. This is due to our strong leadership in our extraordinary City Manager. Lisa Goldman is not only brilliant, she has a keen sense of the politics involved in her job.
     
    I have formed strong relationships with many of my counterparts throughout the County. I have many friends from Daly City to East Palo Alto and I will cherish the time we’ve spent together.  I will always look back at these ten years with pride in what we accomplished and nostalgia for the many relationships I’ve built. Thank you all for a great ride. Now it’s someone else’s turn.
     
    Being a council member is a big responsibility so when someone realizes they can't do what they know it takes to be a full contributor; due to whatever else they have on their plate, it's the responsible thing to step down.  I thank Ricardo for his service and his honesty.  The Big Question stems from his last sentence:  Now it’s someone else’s turn.
     
    Back in the day, pre-Shenkman, when we all elected every council member; the pool of appointees was the Whole City.  What to do now?  Special elections are crazy expensive and take a lot of time to queue up and execute.  Appointing a fill-out-the-term person, like John Root back in the day, is more expedient.  But should that person have reside in District 1?  Maybe we should ask Shenkman since he seems to call the shots all over California.  Just kidding.  Should the council put out a draft notice to District 1?  Hey buddy, wanna be on the city council?  What if no one volunteers?  Or worse, maybe the sole volunteer is…….ugh!    Maybe the seat would be less warm if the appointee was not from District 1 so they could not run in the next regular election?  Would Shenkman be OK with that?  All of this would have been easier if our Big Electeds (looking at Mullin, Becker, Papan, the County Supes, et al) had done something about the stupid law when he first started mailing threats to cities, school districts, fire districts and the dog catchers' electorates.
     
    But here we are.  Uncharted waters.  Are they deep or too shallow for safe sailing?

  • City Council: Brownrigg floats term limits

    I'm not sure how widely Mayor Brownrigg sent out the e-mail below.  It's probably fairly widespread, but I spoke to a couple people who are "active" and they have not seen it, so I will go ahead and share it with Voice readers as Michael suggests at the bottom.  My comments below.

    Dear friends of Burlingame civic life:

    I am writing a heads up note to you about an item I put on the agenda for next Monday, December 4, which happens to be my last substantive meeting as mayor.

    And before I explain more, I want to preemptively say that I FULLY understand the irony of my study item!

    So my study item is whether Burlingame City Council and/or its commissions ought to have term limits going forward. Here is why I think it merits a conversation now.

    When I got on Council I asked about the idea of term limits and I was told that, because the elections are at-large, all the voters get to pick who they think are the best 5 people to lead the city, and often that might be someone with a lot of experience and solid track record. After seeing how hard it was to run for re-election, I completely agreed with this point of view. It is hard to run and each election (until the most recent one), I felt I really had to earn my seat against worthy opponents.

    My views changed during the last election, which was our first set of district elections (which I resisted but knew we would have to accept due to state law). In 2022 there were three Burlingame council races without a single competitor; I cannot recall any Burlingame election ever when there was not at least one credible competitor and very often several or even many competitors, creating active debates, giving the voters real choices, and making candidates earn their spot on Council.

    I conclude that district elections — which effectively cut Burlingame down from a city of 30,000 to one of 6,000 for each candidate — significantly diminish voter choice. In the pre-District days, it usually took at least 2,500 votes to win a seat (depending on the number of candidates) and often 3,000 or more; with districts the top vote getter got 2,000 and the others around 1500 each. Had there been competitors, that number would have been much smaller, perhaps in the hundreds.

    So I raise these questions now — yes, yes, after 4 terms — do we collectively worry about a candidate sort of "owning" a district such that opponents do not want to take the field? Are we concerned that there might not always being two people in each district who even want to run, let alone two capable people to choose between? 

    I do not come into this conversation with a point of view — I simply wanted to raise the question while I could. And while I was at it, I decided to also put on the table the question of term limits for commissioners because I can see how very hard it is for Council to vote off incumbents and yet I also see how many more applications we get when there is an actual open seat on a commission. The commissions create our city's bench strength, I think, and therefore also worthy of a conversation about term limits.

    If you want to weigh in, PLEASE DO. You can send a comment to the City Clerk, you can write to the whole Council, or you can show up; sadly, you cannot call in "live" any more because of the zoom-jerks. And feel free to share with anyone else who cares about how we elect our leaders going forward. Again, I am looking forward to the conversation, I am not advocating an outcome.

    If there is sufficient consensus to do something, then staff would be sent away to develop options. If the status quo emerges as the preferred alternative, well, at least I asked!

    Very best,

    Michael

    —————————

    It strikes me that term limits would confuse cause and effect.  The cause of the scarcity of candidates is the lousy election law Michael refers to and we covered here, here and here creating five tiny districts.  It's voter suppression pure and simple and should have caused a consortium of other small cities (<100,000) throughout the state to beg, plead, cajole or sue for exemptions.  Have Diane Papan and Josh Becker scour the halls of Sacramento for support.  It's actually not too late since we are starting to have early data on the deleterious impact.

    Having said that, I go back to my suggestion when this all started.  Instead of five little districts, we could have created two (East side, West side anyone?)  And left 3 seats "at large".  Or cut the city in thirds and leave two "at large".  It's also not too late.  If the SoCal lawyer behind all of this wants to sue, let him.  We wouldn't know how it would play out unless we try.  If someone was put off by a strong district incumbent, they could run at large.  It would be more time consuming and expensive but perhaps easier to actually win.

    The main problem with term limits is the loss of institutional knowledge on council.  Even ten years gone from office now, my wife still has insights from her three terms on council that I believe would take a newly elected council member years to acquire.  The de facto term limit we have now is the often-thankless nature of the job.  My sense is the number of people willing to step up to 12, 16 or 20 year stints is diminishing.  Just a guess.  Thoughts, dear readers?

  • BSD: Caught between two parcel taxes

    As the B'game School District trustees look at options for more funding, the same fatigue I wrote about here three-and-a-half years ago is still lingering.  The story gets more complicated by a competing proposal as reported in the DJ.  The first proposal extends the old 2014 Measure L (not the recent SMUSHD L) that you see on the property tax bills that arrived this week.  You see all of four current school-related line items on the bill.  The other proposal is different.

    During a meeting Tuesday, Oct. 10, trustees discussed their options for possibly extending and increasing Measure L, a $256 per year per parcel tax passed in 2014. The measure is set to expire by 2030 but the board can decide to ask voters for a renewal ahead of time.

    Also up for consideration was whether the board had an interest in endorsing a parent-led movement to pass a citizens’ initiative and whether doing so would be legal. That effort is being led by John Wood and Bryant McLaughlin, parents of Roosevelt Elementary School students, and if passed would charge property owners about 8 cents per square foot per parcel or $80 per vacant parcel, generating about $2 million annually. Someone with a 5,000-square-foot parcel would pay $400 a year.

    Per some consultant

    While a citizens’ initiative needs a simple majority to pass, the district would have no control over how that citizen measure was crafted. Meanwhile, a district measure would need a two-thirds vote for approval but it would get to use its resources to poll the community before developing ballot language, he said.

    The city and district would likely need to develop a memorandum of understanding regarding the citizens’ initiative including a possible reimbursement plan for the city fronting the money for the ballot measure (Ed: $330K-448K) were the citizens’ initiative to be put before voters and other oversight grounds if it were approved.

    The moving parts are what sort of tax format to use (rates, sunset clauses, etc) and who manages and oversees the monies (the City or the District).  Back in 2020, the bond Measure O passed with 60.17%, well above the 55% needed, so there is already $25 per $100,000 of assessed (not market) value per year in place.  And then there is the issue of getting it passed

    Trustee Florence Wong also suggested the study look into whether the public would support the district’s measure with or without changes if another tax measure was on the ballot. Reflecting on previous failed attempts by the district to pass a tax measure, Wong said incremental or smaller changes appear to be more appealing to voters.

    “People still remembered when the parcel taxes they tried to pass didn’t, so that’s a stinger when it doesn’t pass. There’s a lot of thought and anxiety about trying to add more taxes,” Wong said. “I feel very confident people would be supportive of continuing what we have.”

    She's right.  When the four flavors of tax already total to two grand per year, there is uncertainty about adding more.

    School parcel tax

  • Supervisor Jackie…Again?

    I know well the exact sentiment of working a job I love but having to deal with the need to be on the East Coast 10, 15 times a year.  2500 miles out, 2500 miles back, rinse and repeat.  SFO-JFK..gag me with a plastic United Airlines spoon.  U.S. Reps must do that 30+ times a year– or more.  So the Mark Simon bombshell column in today's DJ struck me differently than most people.  Here's the nub from the column:

    Sources close to former U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier confirm she is on the brink of entering the race for San Mateo County Supervisor in District 1.

    That would be our district where the Papan-Beach catfight has barely started.

    Close associates of Speier, who agreed to speak about her plans if they remained unidentified, said she has decided she will enter the race. This comes less than three scant years after she announced she was leaving Congress, opting out of certain reelection to an eighth term representing the bulk of San Mateo County in Congress.

    Speier has been urged to run by longtime friends and allies, who have become alarmed by the seemingly leftward direction of the Board of Supervisors and a loss of civility and decorum among the supervisors, particularly Supervisor David Canepa, according to sources.

    How left is too left has to be the question of the year?  If you were paying attention at the time, this bit from Simon's column was not news, but it bears repeating

    In the same ICE debate (that is linked above), Canepa also sharply criticized ABC-7 investigative reporter Stephanie Sierra, who had conducted interviews with Canepa in which he seemed under-informed on the issue. Sierra is Speier’s daughter.

    The drive down to Redwood City takes about as long as clearing TSA at SFO.  Let's see wait one minute to see if Mark Simon's sources are pseudo-authorized, but the political theater demands a ticket.

    Update: Sept. 21   Rather than start a new post or just put this in the comments, I'll add it here.  It's important.  Speier has joined the race and effectively ended the race since Papan and Beach have dropped out.  Mark Simon at the DJ has a column today noting this about Supe collegiality:

    Speier clearly was referencing a board debate in April over county cooperation with ICE and an outburst by Supervisor David Canepa in which he attacked Supervisor Ray Mueller as racist. She declined to single out a board member. “We don’t move forward if we start pointing fingers. I worry that’s diminishing,” Speier said.

    Speier also said if Mueller were to reintroduce his amendment to the ICE ordinance, which prompted the Canepa comments and which was defeated 4-1, she would support it, and seek to add additional amendments allowing the county to cooperate further with ICE.

    And, asked if she thought the board was shifting too far to the left, Speier said, “If I’m basing it on that one decision, I’d say yes. When you’re more left than San Francisco, you’re too left. I think we’ve just got to use a little more common sense.”

    Bingo.  I wish I had heard that from either Beach or Papan.  I did not.  If I missed it let me know.  I would rather not wait a year for movement on this, but at least there is hope. 

  • Papan vs. Beach: Pining for a Supe Seat

    News reporters like to report on campaign donations and prominent donors.  It’s pretty easy to do given the required filings and it’s a lot easier than digging into the issues a couple of layers and comparing candidate responses.  That is especially true when we are early in the race.  Emily Mibach at the Daily Post did just that with the race to replace Dave Pine’s seat as a SM County Supervisor representing the district from San Bruno south to B’game.  It’s funny in a way since you can only find the Post in about five places in B’game and nowhere north of here.  But I applaud her doing her homework.

    The headline is that for the first six months of the year, Emily Beach outraised Gina Papan by about $50,000.  Reporters often overlook what happened prior to the current reporting period (ask me how I know) and where other monies might come from like supportive PAC money.  Often times the donors are more important than the donation amounts.  As the Post piece points out, Papan is drawing from SF and San Mateo County while Beach has a wider small donor network and draws from further south.

    A point-in-time difference of $50K isn’t really meaningful.  Both candidates will be able to raise what they need to run a visible campaign.  What voters will be looking for is clear positions about undoing some of the harm the last Board did–overtly and by omission.  Telling the Sheriff’s Department it cannot cooperate with ICE to deport convicted rapists and child molesters would be a good start.  Where do they stand on things like the La Quinta Inn purchase in Millbrae or, more generally, respecting neighborhood rights?  What ideas do they have to keep the SB9 vultures at bay?  Aside from raising tolls and fees, what is their plan to fix the infrastructure in the County?  Who understands County finances and can suggest how to do more with less?  And which one will leave our gas appliances alone?  That’s what I’ll be looking for.

    Beach Papan donors

The Burlingame Voice

Dedicated to Empowering and Informing the Burlingame Community

RECENT COMMENTS

RECENT POSTS

CATEGORIES

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