Opposing Measure I campaigns gear up

Should Measure I receive the simple majority required to pass in the coming election, the tax applied to most retail transactions barring groceries and medicine would generate roughly $2 million for the city’s general fund.

Local business owner and measure advocate Janet Martin claimed the potential revenue would “help Burlingame stay the shining star that she is,” through revitalizing the city’s main recreational facility plus fixing sidewalks and streets overdue for repair.

Belmont resident Harland Harrison, who opposes the tax, though claimed the initiative would unfairly penalize those who patronize Burlingame businesses but do not stand to enjoy the improved amenities.

“This shouldn’t be tied to commerce,” said Harrison, who alongside his fellow Libertarians frequently oppose tax measures floated in communities along the Peninsula.

But Martin, who owns the Studio Shop framing company, said she does not believe the tax would adversely impact the city’s economy.

“I don’t think anyone would stop shopping with us because of this,” said Martin.

Her perspective was supported by Councilwoman Donna Colson, who also suggested the revenue would help preserve the community’s high quality of life.

Central to such an effort would be rebuilding the city’s Recreation Center, which is about 70 years old and suffers from a variety of structural deficiencies such as seismic instability and limited access for those with mobility issues.

The new facility is designed to replace the footprint of the current building at 850 Burlingame Ave., but tack on about an additional 1,000 square feet and be two levels.

Beyond offering modern amenities, the redesigned center would also offer additional parking which advocates claim is badly needed to address residential concerns over the existing lack of available spaces.

Councilwoman Ann Keighran suggested the existing center’s dysfunction is so severe that rebuilding it should be considered essential.

“We are not just doing this to do it. But it has become a necessity,” she said.

Meanwhile, Harrison suggested if the center’s fixes are so badly needed then officials should have done a better job establishing it as a budget priority.

He also expressed concerns that the measure follows a growing trend of local municipalities approving sales taxes which results in an constantly climbing cost of doing business locally.

Should the measure be approved, it would follow recently passed sales tax initiatives in local cities such as Belmont, San Mateo and South San Francisco.

Keighran countered that perspective by suggesting a sales tax was the most fair fashion of addressing infrastructure costs, as it distributes the burden not only to residents but the many who visit Burlingame and patronize its regional shopping destination downtown.

The tax generating revenue to the city’s general fund also an issue raised by Harrison, who harbored reservations that the money would be allocated appropriately or according to the priorities touted by advocates. Beyond infrastructure fixes and the recreation center, officials have suggested tax money could be spent to hire more police officers.

Furthermore, Harrison questioned whether a tax generating such a substantial amount of annual revenue would be adequately spent through addressing the recreation center.

Colson though noted officials have long tried unsuccessfully to find alternative funding measures for replacing the facility shared by so many in Burlingame, and suggested the tax was preferred means of addressing the aging center.

“This is a fiscally responsible solution to a very large infrastructure need,” she said.

austin@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 105