Editor,
Former San Mateo Mayor and state Sen. Jerry Hill’s insight toward adding another fee to San Mateo property owners property tax could not have been better said (Nov. 27 Daily Journal). The city has $70 million in “rainy day” funds on top of a “healthy general fund” to pay for storm infrastructure and repairs. Exactly what is the city waiting for in using these funds, a rainy day? In case our dysfunctional City Council were sleeping, that rainy day happened earlier this year.
What also seems to be conveniently missing in the City Council’s slick mailer was the fact that this fee is “in perpetuity” at 3% each year at the council’s discretion. Talk about a loaded gun. Future District 4 Councilmember Danielle Cwirko-Godycki (you heard it here first) of course is going to lobby for its passage as the amount of damage to a small number of homes was in her neighborhood/district. I’m not apologizing for saying 90% of San Mateo’s homeowners shouldn’t have to be burdened with more taxes to fix what the city should have been doing for decades. The city “leaders” now cry about needed sewer upgrades only after a once in 60 years series of storms does its damage, that, in my opinion, is typical “govern by the seat of your pants” thinking.
Use the funds at the city’s disposal now and stay out of our pockets to pay for decades of former and current city employees ignoring what they should have foreseen had they been doing their jobs. The deterioration of the stormwater infrastructure didn’t appear overnight.
Bob Wackerman
San Mateo
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.
(1) comment
Well written, Mr. Wackerman. If there’s $70 million in the rainy day fund there’s no need to use homeowners as an ATM. Besides, have you seen the city budget and the projects money is debatably being wasted on? I, and many others, can easily carve out $millions for storm infrastructure and repairs.
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.