Voting for or against the stormwater ballot measure is a Catch-22. If the voters do not pass it, San Mateo cannot qualify for state or federal matching grants. If it does not pass, the city cannot even apply for a bank loan to cover the escalating costs of improving and maintaining the aging and neglected stormwater infrastructure system. It will worsen at a much faster rate as culverts, creeks and the lagoon are continuously impaired by sedimentation. Miles of drains and pipes will continue to be inadequate, not because of “runaway development,” but because they are more than 50 years old. And, if it passes, funds could only go to overdue infrastructure projects and, it would indeed allow the council to raise the fee annually by 3% (as per Enterprise Fund bylaws.) But, is that its intent?
The current City Council is supporting this measure after much input from the public, not for “sneaky” Machiavellian reasons, but because they understand, as most residents do — that this dedicated funding is urgently needed to keep homes and businesses safe from flooding as more severe storms become the new normal. Please understand the cost in time and escalating expenses if this fails to pass now. “Cutting off your nose to spite your face” comes to mind. Ask your councilmembers what their stance is on increasing the stormwater fee annually. It is a fair question. Do not assume the answer.
Leave the past behind and move forward. Stop blaming. Stay attuned. Vote yes.
Actually, Mareva, what you say is a Catch-22 is nothing of the sort. San Mateo can easily transfer money it has squandered in the past for stormwater projects and maintenance to both qualify for matching grants or a bank loan. “Dedicated” funding was allotted in past city budgets but not used for their purpose, so what’s to stop the city from transferring this “dedicated” funding to some other pet or woke project? We see plenty of those in favor of the fee using the term “dedicated” but dedicated funding is nothing but a Hail Mary to fool others into thinking “dedicated” actually means something when it doesn’t (see past results).
Let’s not give the city a pass for squandering our previously dedicated funds. Let’s move forward by having the city account for their spending (if any) to pay for infrastructure. Just vote No.
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.
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!
(1) comment
Actually, Mareva, what you say is a Catch-22 is nothing of the sort. San Mateo can easily transfer money it has squandered in the past for stormwater projects and maintenance to both qualify for matching grants or a bank loan. “Dedicated” funding was allotted in past city budgets but not used for their purpose, so what’s to stop the city from transferring this “dedicated” funding to some other pet or woke project? We see plenty of those in favor of the fee using the term “dedicated” but dedicated funding is nothing but a Hail Mary to fool others into thinking “dedicated” actually means something when it doesn’t (see past results).
Let’s not give the city a pass for squandering our previously dedicated funds. Let’s move forward by having the city account for their spending (if any) to pay for infrastructure. Just vote No.
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.