Burlingame’s Measure I

Indeed rebuilding the recreation center is apparently high on the council’s list, yet the $2 million of anticipated additional annual tax revenue would only cover debt service on a $35 million bond issue, less than the projected $37 million to $47 million cost to rebuild, leaving nothing for other needs.

Is this what Burlingame residents want? I asked the city for all survey results on which it based the “priorities identified” it references in the ordinance itself. It provided the “Community of Priorities Survey,” administered by Godbe Research, as well as results — in four different formats — of the city’s “Join the Conversation” worksheet. Godbe identified three top concerns among respondents: potholes, police and congestion. The worksheet listed eight priorities. Tellingly, neither highlighted rebuilding the recreation center. Per my count of comments from 345 worksheets, which were solicited from 25 groups the city approached, potholes, congestion and police ranked high, but fewer than 5 percent of the total respondents mentioned rebuilding the recreation center.

Meanwhile, in that same sample, despite not directly inviting Burlingame’s active renters’ group to participate, nearly 25 percent of the total wrote in affordable housing (which was not on the list) and/or checked diverse housing options, which was listed last. I urge the council to heed their constituents’ — not their own — priorities, and, if the measure passes, to focus on potholes, congestion, police and, yes, affordable housing.

Elana Lieberman

Burlingame