Editor,
Sue Lempert’s closing line in her Aug. 7 column, we’ll “soon find out if citizens agree” is an alarmingly scary statement given it puts the onus on homeowners to plead for public safety and stormwater infrastructure as a “YES” ballot initiative in the fall to preclude the disasters of multiple deaths and over 50 streets flooded last New Year’s Eve.
Seriously?
Must we reexperience citywide trauma instead of educating an unaware public that the Marina Lagoon is the only holding tank stormwater basin for runoff of creeks/culverts high and low citywide? Or that it’s already a “filled to the brim” bathtub due to decades of silt buildup and lack of dredging/maintenance?
If emergency services can’t get to you for a stroke or a fall in the darkness caused by power outages due to citywide flooding are we supposed to just say “oops” and “pass me a sandbag?”
There is an inaudible lack of accountability and lukewarm prioritization of the dire climate crisis and El Niño storm systems upon us this winter, and an imperative need to allocate funds for the pump station and flood basin infrastructure to be line itemed for sustainability.
As developers overbuild and strain our already impacted resources, we need to hold city leaders accountable and remind voters that for the cost of a date night dinner, public safety is on the ballot for us all.
Amy Jussel Bedard
San Mateo
The letter writer lives in Mariner’s Island, District 4.
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.
(2) comments
Ms. Bedard - Well said important information.
And now for the rest of the story.
(1) This proposed Stormwater Fee would go on for at least 30 Years, added to our already high property tax bills. With increases calculated using the Consumer Price Index. 30 years, folks! A lot can happen in that time.
(2) Consider that many homeowners are already tapped out financially and cannot afford the increase. Consider that there are states (like So. Dakota) that give seniors over the age of 65 a break, absolving them from certain taxes, etc. Perhaps we can learn from them and care for those who are less fortunate (or not those making the high salaries) or older. Many are on fixed incomes, with no hope of generating more income.
(3) This is a possible trojan horse for the future of other tag-a-long legislation after they have their foot in the door.
(4) People in the community tried for over 20 years to get the Lagoon dredged and infrastructure fixed. Were our city administrators/leaders just sitting on their huge salaries not thinking the chickens would ever come home to roost? and they would be held accountable for work not performed?
(5) Why hasn't more work been done already this year to prevent a reoccurrence of last winter's storm? It's already 8 months, fall is in the air and possible another El Nino?
(6) Has City Council considered other ways to generate the monies needed, rather than settling first on us, the taxpayers, the low hanging fruit, as their first target for money?
(7) Is this not more important than monies allocated to such things as libraries, BLM murals, etc. Why not reallocate some of the money in the General Fund? This is an emergency! Many people have already suffered huge losses from last years' storms.
We. the people, hold you the city accountable!
Interesting point-of-view, Ms. Bedard, and to add to Lou’s comment (great summary Lou), where is the accountability for all of the funds that have already been given to the city? Perhaps if they allow an independent audit of their finances, voters can decide whether the cost of a date night dinner is money well spent or whether public safety was ever on the ballot for the city. Did the city use the money as an ATM to pay for pensions and benefits? Or to be siphoned off for an underwater basket weaving department or other departments?
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.