Rain early...then remaining cloudy with showers in the afternoon. Thunder possible. High 58F. Winds S at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 90%..
A few showers this evening with mostly cloudy conditions overnight. Low 48F. Winds SE at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 30%.
Updated: February 11, 2026 @ 7:35 am
Editor,
The San Mateo City Council’s idea to waive impact fees to encourage more affordable housing (and more 9% real estate tax credits for the wealthy!) is going to starve essential schools, public works and other services of critical funds for their already-failing infrastructure (“San Mateo considers impact fee waivers for affordable housing” in the Sept. 13 edition).
To avoid being parasitic, new joiners should be paying their fair share of the infrastructure they’re joining, so that those agencies have the reserves required to expand or replenish assets to cope with the population expansion. Nationwide, and here, it’s clear that schools, services and public works are severely underfunded. By waiving those impact fees, the council is passing those costs onto rate and taxpayers who must make up an even larger deficit in the future, likely by borrowing and paying for both the capital required as well as borrowing costs. This council decision is another example of an inter-generational wealth transfer like the climate crisis or unfunded pension liabilities, kicking the costs onto future generations.
One can debate whether San Mateo should continue to advance toward a Manhattan lifestyle or remain a family suburb. One can ask why taxpayers are subsidizing affordable housing for workers when investors and businesses profit from the projects and the workers who will live there. One can wonder why businesses don’t pay enough for their workers to afford housing, or even provide that housing. But clearly this council decision is a tax increase on current voters for the benefit of others. Why is there no vetted fiscal sustainability analysis demonstrating the long-term costs and benefits of this decision? Aren’t tax increases supposed to be on the ballot? Is this even legal?
Gregg A. Dieguez
Montara
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(3) comments
Waiving a fee is not a tax increase and it is within the purview of a city council to take that action. They are accountable at the ballot box, though, so if enough voters dislike the waiver (or any other decisions for that matter) they'll be replaced.
Majority rule does not mean every single public decision can only be made through a plebiscite. We live in a representative democracy, folks, not a direct democracy...and I, for one, am glad I do. Because I'd rather "hire" people to spend the time thinking about public issues and making decisions on my behalf. So long as I get to try to vote them out if I don't like what they do on balance.
BTW, certain council actions can be challenged through a referendum that goes before voters. The petition to do so must collect a minimum number of signatures and it must be filed within a certain window of time after the decision being challenged was made. Check with an attorney (or google :)) for details.
Not all council actions are "referendable", however. State law specifies which ones can be. Again, check with an attorney (or google) for details.
Hello, Mark
I don't want to put words in Gregg's mouth, but it does not appear he was speaking to the referendum process and challenging the actions of a city council. While I could be mistaken, it appears he disagrees with the San Mateo City Council's waiver of impact fees because that action will reduce San Mateo's revenue stream, and it looks like Gregg is concerned that San Mateo might make up such a financial shortfall with more taxes paid by the public. Does that sum up his point?
While you are correct when you say, "Waiving a fee is not a tax increase... " Can it also be said that waiving a fee can result in a tax increase to make up for revenue lost as a result of the fee waiver?
I know it's old school thinking, but perhaps city councils should pause before making decisions that impact budgets and think about what Milt Friedman said about spending other people's money. It might be a good lesson to review.
One more thought about city council's spending... “Government money, of which one hears so much nowadays, does not exist; there is no such thing.” Albert Jay Nock
It's the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Diequez – thanks for your letter and your poignant questions. Let’s not forget about the 50% discount that Caltrain is offering this month (so far). Sounds like yet another subsidy paid for by millions of taxpayers who do not ride Caltrain. And of course, all the other wasteful spending by local and state governments that discriminate against one particular group or another. The bigger question is how many tax increases we will be seeing in the near and far futures to cover this profligacy.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.