The Caltrain fight is really nothing new

It is the San Francisco Bay Area after all, and San Mateo County has always been seen as the Peninsula that holds up the shining city to the north. But this particular Caltrain fight is confusing because no one really knows what it is about (believe me, we’ve asked) though there are some theories.

Seems the three counties that oversee Caltrain — San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara — which worked so harmoniously for so many years now can’t seem to agree on how the rail service should be managed. Aside from the fact that the San Mateo County Transit District, or SamTrans, can pick the executive director of Caltrain, as it shares top staff, there is little known about the shared governance arrangement that so irks the other counties. Is it real estate development? We’ve heard there could be more use made of Caltrain land near train stations, though there seems to be plenty of proposals and even new developments such as the one in San Carlos. Is it service levels? Are Caltrain riders in San Jose or San Francisco tired of stopping along the Peninsula? The baby bullet express service was to ameliorate some of that and actually did a pretty good job. Is it just the fact that San Mateo County picks the person who runs the train service? Since Jim Hartnett retired in April, SamTrans and Caltrain have separate top leaders and what will become of that arrangement in the future is unknown.

The Caltrain board was to have met this past week to discuss it, but a letter from SamTrans asking for a large debt to be repaid threw the discussion into a tailspin. SamTrans said the debt is due to an initial $82 million investment in 1991, when San Mateo, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties formed the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority and purchased the railroad right-of-way for Caltrain, using state funds and money advanced by SamTrans.

It was a bold move, but the message is that if the other counties want more control, they need to pay up. While San Mateo County has been seen as the less influential player among its big-time neighbors, this move puts everyone on a level playing field, meaning this county now has some leverage in the discussion.

And this type of move is the only thing that has been effective in the past. When San Francisco placed one of its jails in San Bruno in the 1930s, the idea was to have a pastoral place where those with substance abuse problems could clean up and get some fresh air and sunshine. Turns out though that the design of the jail meant it was real easy to escape and complaints mounted. The poor conditions exacerbated by neglect also led San Francisco to finally demolish the jail and construct a new one completed in 2006, but it took some arm-bending by Peninsula officials.

It took three pieces of legislation, two by former assemblymember Lou Papan and one by former state Sen. Jackie Speier, now District 14’s representative in Congress, to give the Peninsula a voice on water rates. Papan’s legislation, Assembly Bill 2058, was what formed the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, which provided a newly formal group to negotiate wholesale water rates from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. For years, the commission would raise rates for its Peninsula customers higher than it would for its city’s users.

When it came to the San Francisco International Airport, its proposed expansion in the early 2000s caused severe consternation by residents who opposed any more dirt filling the Bay and its deleterious effect of silting in Coyote Point and diminishing wind surf areas.

And an idea to create a toll to enter San Francisco from a highway in 2008 was quashed by local legislative opposition.

These exemplify an ongoing trend in which the city of San Francisco at times acts as if it has the right to do what it wants when it comes to policy that affects this county. And standing up to that is part of our legacy.

So here we are.

Jon Mays is the editor in chief of the Daily Journal. Follow Jon on Twitter @jonmays.